• 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:
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:
Click to expand...
Seventeen consecutive eyerolls

It *is* like you don't even read my posts.

"Oops I Murdered an Underage Hooker" nope, no good, banned

"Uniformed Barely Legal College Hotties In Trouble for Cheating" totally fine
 
Lithrael said:
Seventeen consecutive eyerolls

It *is* like you don't even read my posts.

"Oops I Murdered an Underage Hooker" nope, no good, banned

"Uniformed Barely Legal College Hotties In Trouble for Cheating" totally fine
Click to expand...
He continually misrepresents "barely legal" as kiddie or child pornography.

That if a 25 year old woman dresses in a school uniform, the viewing public will think it means they'll be watching 14 year olds. Never mind that it is well known that lots of people are serving lengthy prison sentences for having that kind of pornography in their homes or on their computers.

If Poem wants to present reasonable methods that would limit access to pornography to those underage that wouldn't fringe on adults rights I could appreciate that. If he presented better and reasonable safeguards that would eliminate underage performers without infringing on the rights of adults to perform I could appreciate that. But my impression from his posts, he has no ideas for either. And what he really wants is to limit everyone's rights.

He cloaks everything in the blanket of protecting children. But he neither presents evidence that children are being harmed by seeing porn or of a huge number of underage performers found online or on DVDs.

I have no problem prosecuting rapists. Or of adults that take advantage of children. But what Poem is complaining about is neither. He just deliberately misrepresents it that way.
 
If pornographers wanted to appeal to pedophiles using some supposed gray area adjacent to "barely" legal content, they would find actresses of legal age with mature-looking faces but underdeveloped bodies. Small breasts, skinny thighs, underweight, childlike. Pretty much the complete opposite of actual buxom "barely legal" porn actresses.

Meanwhile, plenty of pretty young girls with underdeveloped-looking bodies do find work... as fashion models. You want to stop adults from being encouraged to sexualize underage-looking bodies, don't bother with the low-rent Adult Gifts shop out in the suburbs, go downtown to the luxury shopping district and check out Prada, Armani, Versace, Balenciaga...
 
Myriad said:
If pornographers wanted to appeal to pedophiles using some supposed gray area adjacent to "barely" legal content, they would find actresses of legal age with mature-looking faces but underdeveloped bodies. Small breasts, skinny thighs, underweight, childlike. Pretty much the complete opposite of actual buxom "barely legal" porn actresses.
Click to expand...
Remember that time a few years ago when everybody was saying that Australia had banned porn depicting women with small breasts? It was completely untrue, but the kernel of truth behind the lie was that Australia was considering using breast size as a metric for judging whether a particular performer was or looked underage.

Of course, since it was and remains completely ridiculous, it never made it into the law, which I believe today is much like America's - age documentation to be held by the producers.
 
There's that suspicious number again.

theconversation.com

Search engines will soon start filtering adult content under new eSafety rules

The new year will bring new controls over what you see online – such as blurring pornographic or violent search results if you’re not logged in.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

In 2022, Australia’s online safety body, eSafety, surveyed more than 1,000 Australians aged 16 to 18 years.

The research found that one in three were under age 13 when they were first exposed to pornography. This exposure was “frequent, accidental, unavoidable and unwelcome,” with content described by young people as “disturbing” and “in your face”.

The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has said “a high proportion” of accidental exposure is through search engines, which are “the primary gateway to harmful content”.
Click to expand...

Are Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo morally bankrupt, and should they be crippled financially?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom