• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

Poem said:
That the UK de facto deems nearly every internet porn consumer as a sex offender should be sobering. That this has not been enforced just proves the OP.

And before anyone accuses me of pointing the finger, Darat got their first.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO. :dl: :dl:
One, they don't. And two, nobody cares that you think that.

Employing such hyperbole doesn't make us look bad. It makes you look insane.
 
The elephant in the room:

(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
 
Last edited:
Again, from their own actual uses of these rules to vet material they have granted legal ratings to, it is clear that what they mean by this is not what you think it means.

The bar for 'conveying the impression of a child' is much higher than you think it is.

IE for a classroom fantasy, the bar appears to be anybody saying or too directly implying they are under 18. The sixth form classroom fantasy itself does not reach the bar.
 
It makes him someone who has watched content that would still be fully legal if it was put under BBFC purview.

Is the rest of this thread just going to be you going 'it's illegal to give the impression of / imply they are a child' and us going 'the stuff we're talking about doesn't give the impression of / imply they are a child'

And also us reminding you repeatedly that that's not even what 'barely legal' means in the first place?

I've already posted the proverbial manual buoy schematics, even.

We could probably have more fun mixing up ' and " here than in the MS Estonia thread, though. It does look like the BBFC would demand a cut to achieve rating if anybody was using 10' instead of 10" for example.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
It makes him someone who has watched content that would still be fully legal if it was put under BBFC purview.
Click to expand...
Australia not UK.
Lithrael said:
And also us reminding you repeatedly that that's not even what 'barely legal' means in the first place?
Click to expand...
It's use seems to vary depending on if you watch it or not.
Lithrael said:
I've already posted the proverbial manual buoy schematics, even.
Click to expand...
?
Lithrael said:
We could probably have more fun mixing up ' and " here than in the MS Estonia thread, though.
Click to expand...
?
Lithrael said:
Although it does look like the BBFC would demand a cut to achieve rating if anybody was using 10' instead of 10"
Click to expand...
?
 
Poem said:
Australia not UK.

It's use seems to vary depending on if you watch it or not.
Click to expand...
I know it's Australia not UK, the point's the same, as the BBFC rules seem to be more strict than the AU ones. Which is to say, no legal risk whatsoever in either country for enjoyers of the 'barely legal' genre.

And its use only varies depending on whether you're talking out your backside or not. I don't watch it; I know what the genre is and what's meant by the phrase.

The rest of my post is local in-jokes and also a little mention of one of the things the BBFC will actually demand being cut to get rated: people using unwisely long implements.
 
Lithrael said:
I know it's Australia not UK, the point's the same, as the BBFC rules seem to be more strict than the AU ones. Which is to say, no legal risk whatsoever in either country for enjoyers of the 'barely legal' genre.
Click to expand...
The key phrase is: appears to be or is implied to be. That is, as far as I can see, pretty broad and inclusive.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
The key phrase is: appears to be or is implied to be. That is, as far as I can see, pretty broad and inclusive.
Click to expand...
It is broad. And that is its problem. The broader a law is written, the greater its subjectivity. And the less reasonable it becomes. It quickly becomes un-enforceable and arbitrary.
 
Poem said:
The key phrase is: appears to be or is implied to be. That is, as far as I can see, pretty broad and inclusive.
Click to expand...
Lithrael said:
it is clear that what they mean by this is not what you think it means.

The bar for 'conveying the impression of a child' 'appears to be or is implied to be, a child' is much higher than you think it is.
Click to expand...
As AC points out, the relatively broad wording is what is enabling your confusion. I understand it to be phrased this way to avoid quibbling when they go to prosecute unequivocally CSAM adjacent material, and not to suggest normal 'barely legal' content counts as such an implication. But it does end up providing ammo (if only blanks) to 'my god, the depravity, right under our noses,' crowd, and potentially creates confusion about enforcement.
 
acbytesla said:
It is broad. And that is its problem. The broader a law is written, the greater its subjectivity. And the less reasonable it becomes. It quickly becomes un-enforceable and arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Alternative reality: we really do want to protect kids from material that encourages a sexual interest in them, so let's make the law broad and send a clear message that nobody should ever be touching anything like this content.

The US, of course (ever since Ashcroft v. FSC), has gone in the other direction.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
As AC points out, the relatively broad wording is what is enabling your confusion. I understand it to be phrased this way to avoid quibbling when they go to prosecute unequivocally CSAM adjacent material, and not to suggest normal 'barely legal' content counts as such an implication. But it does end up providing ammo (if only blanks) to 'my god, the depravity, right under our noses,' crowd, and potentially creates confusion about enforcement.
Click to expand...
Citation.
 
Poem said:
Citation.
Click to expand...
Points, again, at the content of legally rated and published DVDs in whatever jurisdiction you want to talk about at the moment.

Unless it is your contention that various countries are allowing CSAM to go through the film ratings process and be legally published and sold.
 
Poem said:
Alternative reality: we really do want to protect kids from material that encourages a sexual interest in them, so let's make the law broad and send a clear message that nobody should ever be touching anything like this content.

The US, of course (ever since Ashcroft v. FSC), has gone in the other direction.
Click to expand...
It has little to do with protecting children. Children are not performers and any children viewing it is incidental and is not particularly harmful.
This is more about satisfying prudes and religious zealots.
 
Lithrael said:
Points, again, at the content of legally rated and published DVDs in whatever jurisdiction you want to talk about at the moment.

Unless it is your contention that various countries are allowing CSAM to go through the film ratings process and be legally published and sold.
Click to expand...
Still seeking clarification from BBFC.
 
Poem said:
It has lots to do with it.
Click to expand...
Uh uh.
Poem said:
Citation.
Click to expand...
Self evident. Open your eyes.
Poem said:
Why did you forget the adults watching?
Click to expand...
Because it's legal and the conversation is about children.
Poem said:
You have still failed to substantiate such an allegation regarding Michael Sheath, let alone everyone.
Click to expand...
I don't care. What I know is that porn is available throughout thr US and the UK. NO ONE is going to jail over what can easily be found everywhere.

So get on your high horse and ride off in the sunset.
 
Lithrael said:
Points, again, at the content of legally rated and published DVDs in whatever jurisdiction you want to talk about at the moment.

Unless it is your contention that various countries are allowing CSAM to go through the film ratings process and be legally published and sold.
Click to expand...
Would require an explicit comparison.

Have already posted The Guardian (June 2025) - so we know that there is lots of material online that, if viewed, would constitute a criminal offence:

Officials at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) guided her through short clips of extreme material to help her understand the nature of easily available harmful content. She remains disturbed by the material she saw – content designed to appear to be child sexual abuse, set in children’s bedrooms – roles played by young girls, who may be over 18 but are acting as children. “The titles are very problematic, things like: ‘Daddy’s going to come home and give his daughter a good seeing to’ or ‘Oops I’ve gone too far and now she’s dead’ or ‘Kidnap and kill a hooker.’” This content would be prohibited by the BBFC in the offline world, but is unregulated online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom