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

[Poem]

Any hurdles? Absolutely no one here thinks it's wrong to put up any hurdles. Everyone here is fine with prohibiting rape. Everyone here is fine with prohibiting child pornography. But beyond that, the details of the prohibition matter. Not all prohibitions are worth doing, even if they have some beneficial effects. The downsides can be worse.

If everyone were fine with prohibiting rape and child porn then something would be done about it - but such material continues to proliferate. Rather than sort the problem society allows it because access to porn is the greater priority.

 

[Darat]

Is the video of a 12 year old having sex, shared as porn, child abuse or not?

Of course it is, no one in this thread has argued anything that could even with the most ungenerous reading that under any circumstances it wouldn't be. You are fighting your own windmills.

 

[Darat]

If everyone were fine with prohibiting rape and child porn then something would be done about it - but such material continues to proliferate. Rather than sort the problem society allows it because access to porn is the greater priority.

Something has been done about it, in all our countries child abuse is illegal, the owning of child abuse on video is illegal, distributing such material is illegal, even material that definitely didn't harm any child or infant in its creation e.g. illustrations of child and infant abuse is illegal. In my country the sentences are not much different for possession than some actual sexual assaults. The same is the case for videos of actual rape or other sexual assaults of adults, revenge posting of videos of consensual sex is illegal in many countries.

To say nothing is done about it is a complete denial of reality.

 

[Poem]

Perhaps or perhaps not. But my comment was in response to "Pornhub clearly wants children to access their material; why else are they suing?" Pornhub doesn't want (and certainly not "clearly want") children to access their material; Pornhub wants to make money. (Which children do not even have, usually.) Which is their motivation for suing.

You seriously believe that Pornhub doesn't want children watching their content and adding to their profits? If they have failed to moderate underage content (and they have) then why would they be concerned about them watching?

Senior script writer Dillon Rice talking about the 'educational' value of 12 year olds watching porn (cued): https://youtu.be/a5jJmpZcy4s?t=13

https://soundinvestigations.com/moderation-failures/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O528O4cKp8k

 

[Poem]

I call bull **** on this statistic. I don't think it's remotely possible to get an accurate measurement of something like this globally. First, how the hell are you going to get accurate data in places like Afghanistan, or even China? I don't think you can. Hell, getting accurate data about this even in the USA or other liberal western democracies is hard.

Second, given the vast disparities in cultures and their attitudes towards rape, consent, and women's rights, we shouldn't expect places where we can get data to be close to places where we cannot. So we can't extrapolate from what we can measure to what we cannot measure. I don't think anyone has any accurate measurement of a global average.

And lastly, why is a global average even relevant?

Here's a 2010 article form The Independent:
"In fact, the UK convicts, proportionately, as many rapists as most comparable European countries. The European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics shows that in 2007 (the most recent year covered) the median conviction rate in Europe for rape was 1.8 per 100,000. In England and Wales that year, the rate was 1.6 per 100,000 – higher than Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, lower than Sweden or France."

According to World Population Review:
"Whatever the reason for a victim's silence, the effect is that rape goes grossly underreported in many countries. It is estimated that approximately 35% of women worldwide have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. However, in most countries with data available on rape (including the U.S.), fewer than 40% of those women seek help—and fewer than 10% seek assistance from law enforcement. As a result, most rapists escape punishment. In the U.S., for instance, it is estimated that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, and only 3% spend time in prison. 97% of rapists walk free."

Europe, the UK and the USA are considered by many to uphold the rule of law; if they can't or won't convict rapists then which countries can?

 

[Poem]

No. My argument is essentially two pronged:

1) I have seen no evidence that easy access to porn leads to a culture of rape. In fact states that seem to have easy access to porn, ie Sweden, have lower incidences of rape than other countries where it is highly restricted. And, rape was acceptable in many societies in many circumstances long before porn existed. If anything, its generally less accepted now than at any time in human history at least in Western society.
2) Making porn inaccessible on the internet is a far more challenging task and will require far more "big brother" intrusiveness into their internet traffic than many people realize, or would accept, I think. Do you want a government agent looking at everything you view, and if you were to use encryption or a VPN would you be OK with being arrested cause well, you could've used it to get around restrictions?

#173, #214 and #238.

 

[Poem]

Something has been done about it, in all our countries child abuse is illegal, the owning of child abuse on video is illegal, distributing such material is illegal, even material that definitely didn't harm any child or infant in its creation e.g. illustrations of child and infant abuse is illegal. In my country the sentences are not much different for possession than some actual sexual assaults. The same is the case for videos of actual rape or other sexual assaults of adults, revenge posting of videos of consensual sex is illegal in many countries.

To say nothing is done about it is a complete denial of reality.

Not nearly enough is done. Pornhub is just one example. Society continues to put free access to porn above concerns for illegal material.

 

[Poem]

Something has been done about it, in all our countries child abuse is illegal, the owning of child abuse on video is illegal, distributing such material is illegal, even material that definitely didn't harm any child or infant in its creation e.g. illustrations of child and infant abuse is illegal. In my country the sentences are not much different for possession than some actual sexual assaults. The same is the case for videos of actual rape or other sexual assaults of adults, revenge posting of videos of consensual sex is illegal in many countries.

To say nothing is done about it is a complete denial of reality.

#138

 

[Poem]

No. I'm saying that the content I have seen is clearly not rape.

Because?

Some not-rape content may look like some rape content, because the line can be a bit blurry when you're just watching a video. But there's a lot of content which is nowhere near that line, and obviously so. Do you get the distinction?

I don't.

 

[Poem]

Society has taken the experts seriously? I'll repost this Guardian article from April 2022. Nothing has been done.

An “immediate and urgent” introduction of age verification is needed to stop children accessing extreme content on pornography websites, children’s charities have warned.

In a strongly worded open letter to the largest pornography sites in the UK, a coalition of charities and child safety experts led by Barnardo’s said the harm being done to children was so severe that the issue could not wait to be addressed as part of the online safety bill, which has yet to come into effect.

And we all know that the online safety bill wont be enough.

 

[Poem]

Barnardo’s:

“Many commercial pornography websites feature depictions of practices that meet the definition of criminal standards of sexual violence, including rape, incest and so called ‘revenge porn’, which would be illegal to buy in the UK.”

 

[Poem]

EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY VANESSA MORSE, CEO, TO THE APPG ON COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION INQUIRY INTO PORNOGRAPHY (from 2022)

It’s indefensible that depicting illegal sexual activity in pornography has the effect of normalising it in the real world, which experts report is taking place at scale.

Type in the words “daddy daughter” to the popular porn site XNXX and it brings up 27,000 results with titles like “mummy licks adopted daughter to prepare her for father” or “I filmed what my new husband was doing with my daughter.”

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course it is, no one in this thread has argued anything that could even with the most ungenerous reading that under any circumstances it wouldn't be. You are fighting your own windmills.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to recognize that your blithe "everyone can recognize a 5 year old" doesn't actually address the problem. Let me point you back to what I initially said:

Of course most people would recognize a 5 year old. But what about a 14 year old or a 16 year old? Hell, how many people out there are wildly in support of Belle Delphine - who goes to great lengths to make sure that they look like a 12 year old child? If so many people are all in for Delphine's sex while intentionally looking like a child, how certain are you that they'll be able to recognize an actual child and won't just assume that it's an adult dressed like a kid?
And when it's user-uploaded content, how do you know that it's a consensual depiction of faked brutality with good acting, as opposed to actual brutality of a non-consenting victim?

I've brought up the tween issue, and even legal minors issue, a few times. And your responses keep jumping down to 5 year olds. You keep focusing on obviously very young children, but that is NOT the problem on most porn hosting sites. It's not the obviously young kids - it's the tweens and young teens who many people might try to argue "Oh, they look like adults to me" and play dumb. And it's the people who get off on Belle Delphine pretending to be a child, because it gives them a pretense of cover

Edited by sarge: 

edited for rule 9

and it also gives them a plausible excuse of "Oh, well they look like Delphine, and Delphine is an adult, so I assumed that person was too" all while knowing full well that they're turned on by 12 year olds.

 

[Poem]

The age of consent in the UK was 10 in the 16th century. It's possible that we are seeing the beginnings of a move towards that.

Clearly, that's what some want.

 

[junkshop]

The age of consent in the UK was 10 in the 16th century. It's possible that we are seeing the beginnings of a move towards that.

Clearly, that's what some want.

No, it wasn't. Your statement is untrue. Maybe it's an error, maybe it's a lie, I don't know. But isn't true.

Firstly, there was no UK in the 16th century.

Source

That bit of pedantry aside, there were no laws enacted in England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland in the 16th century regarding the age of consent. The age of consent in England was set at 12 in 1275, raised to 13 (in Great Britain and Ireland) in 1875, raised again in 1885 to 16.

In 1950 it was raised to 17 in Northern Ireland, then returned to 16 in 2008. The homosexual age of consent was set at 21 in 1967, in England Wales, and 1980 in Scotland. This was lowered to 18 in 1994, and then to 16 in 2000.

Source


It has never been 10 in any part of what is now the UK, and has generally trended upwards over time. I see no evidence of any movement towards lowering it from 16. If you do, then please share it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Something has been done about it, in all our countries child abuse is illegal, the owning of child abuse on video is illegal, distributing such material is illegal, even material that definitely didn't harm any child or infant in its creation e.g. illustrations of child and infant abuse is illegal. In my country the sentences are not much different for possession than some actual sexual assaults. The same is the case for videos of actual rape or other sexual assaults of adults, revenge posting of videos of consensual sex is illegal in many countries.

To say nothing is done about it is a complete denial of reality.

https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/what-happens-for-a-first-offence-of-child-pornography/

Category A – images involving penetrative sexual activity or sadistic sexual depictions.
Category B – images featuring non-penetrative activities such as sexual assault or masturbation.
Category C – any image that doesn’t fall under Categories A or B.
...
Possession of Category A images usually means you will face a custodial sentence ranging from 1 to 3 years for possession and 2 to 6 years for production of such images.
Possession of Category B images carries a minimum custodial sentence of 26 weeks, while distribution and/or production of these images could lead to imprisonment for 1 to 4 years.
Possession of Category C images typically results in a substantial amount of community service, but involvement in their production or distribution could result in a custodial sentence of 1 to 3 years.

So if there's no clear intent to distribute, the sentence ranges from community service for the least objectionable material... up to 3 years for the most extreme. I'm unclear on whether a custodial sentence is one spent in a prison/jail, or if it also includes house arrest and the like.

 

[Poem]

No, it wasn't. There was no UK in the 16th century.

Source

The age of conent in England was set at 12 in 1275, raised to 13 (in Great Britain and Ireland) in 1875, raised again in 1885 to 16.

In 1950 it was raised to 17 in Northern Ireland, then returned to 16 in 2008. The homosexual age of consent was set at 21 in 1967, in England Wales, and 1980 in Scotland. This was lowered to 18 in 1994, and then to 16 in 2000.

It has never been 10, and has generally trended upwards over time. I see no evidence of any movement towards lowering it.

Source

Sure, my bad...England - but it was 10.

Perhaps you thought I was implying politicians?

 

[junkshop]

Double post

 

[junkshop]

Sure, my bad...England - but it was 10...

No. No it wasn't. What you are saying is not true.

...Perhaps you thought I was implying politicians?

What? This makes no sense.

 

[Poem]

No. No it wasn't. What you are saying is not true.

The Guardian:

In the paper, Green included an exotic cross-continent tour of places where child-adult sex had historically been the norm (Hawaii, Tahiti, New Guinea), and reminded readers that for three centuries, until the Victorian era, the age of consent in England had been 10.

I have seen it in written in another Guardian article as well.

What? This makes no sense.

I wasn't implying that politicians are pushing for a lower age of consent.