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

[junkshop]

The Guardian:


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

Still doesn't make it true. Did you read my post? Did you look at the links?

Richard Green was wrong when he (according to your source):

...reminded readers that for three centuries, until the Victorian era, the age of consent in England had been 10...

Because that isn't true.

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

I didn't say you were.

 

[Poem]

Still doesn't make it true. Did you read my post? Did you look at the links?

I did look.

However:
rictornorton.co.uk

The legal history, though very complicated, can be summarized: the age of consent for girls was 12 in the 13th century, but was lowered to 10 in 1576, and remained there until it was raised to 12 in 1861, then to 13 in 1875, and then to 16 in 1885. One could enter into a Common Law marriage at the age of 12.

 

[junkshop]

I did look.

However:
rictornorton.co.uk

The legal history, though very complicated, can be summarized: the age of consent for girls was 12 in the 13th century, but was lowered to 10 in 1576, and remained there until it was raised to 12 in 1861, then to 13 in 1875, and then to 16 in 1885. One could enter into a Common Law marriage at the age of 12.

That's not a link, please learn how to post links.

I have no idea if your quoted text is accurate, and I'm not about to waste my time trying to chase it down. If you can copy/paste from it, then you can link directly to it.

It contradicts my links, certainly, but it doesn't cite to any actual acts of parliament, unlike the links I gave you.

More importantly: this is clearly not the source you relied on for your original statement that:

The age of consent in the UK was 10 in the 16th century...

If it was, then you would have brought it up earlier. You are just desperately and reactively googling for anything that might maybe support your claim, if you squint a bit.

I can't help but notice that you've provided nothing to support this aspect of your claim:

...It's possible that we are seeing the beginnings of a move towards that.

Clearly, that's what some want.

Despite being asked for it.

 

[Poem]

That's not a link, please learn how to post links.

I have no idea if your quoted text is accurate, and I'm not about to waste my time trying to chase it down. If you can copy/paste from it, then you can link directly to it.

http://rictornorton.co.uk/though16.htm#:~:text=The legal history, though very,at the age of 12.
(If you copy, paste and google the quote you will find it)

Another Guardian article:

Historically, the age of consent in Britain was 10 or 12 until the end of the 19th century, but the concept of consent was so different – women having no sexual agency, marriage being taken as a blanket consent – that it’s not comparable.

It contradicts my links, certainly, but it doesn't cite to any actual acts of parliament, unlike the links I gave you.

Whether it's 10 or 12 isn't that important with respect to the point I was trying to make

More importantly: this is clearly not the source you relied on for your original statement that:

If it was, then you would have brought it up earlier. You are just desperately and reactively googling for anything that might maybe support your claim, if you squint a bit.

Having seen it written in a Guardian article then it would be a fair assumption that it was true. There is nothing 'desperate' going on.

I can't help but notice that you've provided nothing to support this aspect of your claim:
Despite being asked for it.

I have posted a lot here on the increasing numbers of (mostly) men being caught with CSAM and how young people are being influenced by porn. Child experts speak of a crisis - so my assertion (and that is all it was) is not necessarily wrong.

 

[Poem]

Perhaps I should assume that a number of posts haven't been responded to because there is no good answer.

 

[dirtywick]

it's an 11 page thread and there's arguments made on both sides of the issue. besides a few shameful instances of personalizing the debate it was mostly on the topic. seems like a success to me.

 

[Poem]

I have posted this Guardian article (April 2022) several times. Nobody has dealt with it:

"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."

The article is two years old. What do we value more: access to porn or the safety of young people? Clearly, the answer is porn.

That's an uncomfortable truth we don't want to deal with is it not? The non-response on this forum reflects the silence in wider society.

 

[dirtywick]

ok i can address it i guess.

i think children exposed to pornography is bad. i also think you need to respect people’s right to privacy and i agree with pornhubs statement earlier in the thread that age verification at the device is a better approach. i also don’t know anything about the online child safety bill or what about it they have a problem with, and rushing through legislation on moral grounds is pretty open for abuses. i also don’t know that any of that constitutes a rape culture or if that’s even the topic of the thread anymore

edit for clarity:

i see whether or not there’s harmful content on porn sites for adults and access to porn sites for children as two seperate issues.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

i also don’t know that any of that constitutes a rape culture or if that’s even the topic of the thread anymore

The OP's premise was that people watching 'actual rape videos' on Pornhub represents a 'rape culture'.

OP presents historical evidence from 2019 and 2020 purporting to show that 'clearly nothing has changed.'

However the OP is oddly silent on the clearly visible rape culture outside of Pornhub.

OTOH the implication that porn itself is bad is strong, such that even if Pornhub hosted no rape videos simulated or otherwise it would not be acceptable.

Conclusion - the OP is actually complaining about porn, not 'rape culture'. IOW, it never was about rape culture.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Load of crap - and let's be honest "romance novels" are porn...

A female character watching the "alpha" man slowly abuse and then rape a "beta" man ain't thinking it's about what is going on in their minds.

I once read exactly one 'romance' novel from my stepmother's collection, on the basis that I shouldn't ignore the genre (and I had nothing else to do). I wish I hadn't. It included a chapter on the highlighted subject that was described in far too much detail for my sensitive mind.

But until now I didn't understand the implications. I can't imagine having a bookcase full of books peppered with rape porn, yet my step-mother did - on open display for everyone to see. What's worse is other women knew what was in those books!

And to the highlighted part - I doubt that the fantasy rape in porn is ".... generally the same kind of rape that happens in real life".

The difference between fantasy and reality is... sometimes less than you think. I used to think those stories about evil stepmothers were fantasy too...

 

[dann]

Depending on the definition of rape and rape culture, what about porn stories with women being coerced or tricked into having sex with people they wouldn't otherwise have considered having sex with?
Because she hasn't got the money to pay the rent, she was caught shoplifting, her husband lost a bet, she was fooled into thinking her stepson was her husband, she was caught speeding and couldn't pay the fine, she cheated and her brother-in-law threatened to tell him ...
These fantasies constitute rape culture, but some ISF members seem to disagree.

 

[Darat]

Oh I am sure some rape fiction is like actual rape, just as some murder fiction is like actual murder. But I would be surprised to find that is the majority of rape fiction, but I have been wrong about things in the past.

 

[dann]

This is a bit of an aside, but what is depicted in romance novels isn't quite the same. It's not about wanting to be raped, it's about wanting a male to desire you so much that they surrender their control over themselves. And it's very rarely a situation where the man in question is focused solely on the female's body, they're entranced by the entirety of the female's being, including their mind and character.

That doesn't imply that it can't be problematic - it certainly can. But it's not generally the same kind of rape that happens in real life.

In our current rape culture, it is shameful for women, in particular, to desire to have sex. Cf. walk of shame! ('See what she did!')
In the realm of fantasy, a woman overcomes this obstacle by making herself innocent of 'succumbing' to the act that she desires but is embarrassed by having to admit to herself and others that she desires: by 'surrendering her control over herself'.

Similarly, the man can fantasize about overcoming the embarrassment of being turned down by the woman by ignoring her unwillingness to have have sex with him. Cf. previous post about the coercion fantasies in rape-culture porn.

ETA: In SM, the sex roles can be reversed: master vs. dominatrix.
ETA: This is no longer primarily a question of religious oppression. It is no longer question of sin. Rape culture has been secularized. I suspect that atheists are as likely as Christians to indulge in fantasies of coercion. For some reason, Republicans appear to be more likely to enjoy cuck fantasies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In our current rape culture, it is shameful for women, in particular, to desire to have sex. Cf. walk of shame! ('See what she did!')
In the realm of fantasy, a woman overcomes this obstacle by making herself innocent of 'succumbing' to the act that she desires but is embarrassed by having to admit to herself and others that she desires: by 'surrendering her control over herself'.

Re-read my post, please. It's not about the female surrendering control of their female self. It's about the female exerting power over the male, to a point where the male surrenders control of their male self.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For some reason, Republicans appear to be more likely to enjoy cuck fantasies.

That's because republicans lack empathy.

No joke.

Ideological values are parametrically associated with empathy neural response to vicarious suffering

Several studies in political psychology reported higher levels of empathy among political leftists (i.e. liberals) as compared to political rightists (i.e. conservatives)...

Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering. The findings revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal–parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the whole "people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" is just a mental trick to abdicate any responsibility for the plight of the poor.

 

[Stout]

That's because republicans lack empathy.

No joke.

Ideological values are parametrically associated with empathy neural response to vicarious suffering

Did anybody actually read that article/ I swear, this is the only place on the entire Internet where someone can post a paywalled article in the hopes that nobody will read past the headline or bother to search for an archived version.

The article was all about risk taking and violating taboos. The concept of empathy never comes into it.

This move to ban porn is a conservative initiative. They've just learned to use the language of the left eg. rape culture.

 

[Poem]

The OP's premise was that people watching 'actual rape videos' on Pornhub represents a 'rape culture'.

...but goes further with evidence that watching porn leads to acting out what has been seen (especially regarding young people).

The Guardian (Jan 2024): Children now ‘biggest perpetrators of sexual abuse against children’

"Boys are watching violent porn on their smartphones then going on to attack girls, police have said, as new data showed children are now the biggest perpetrators of sexual abuse against other children. Police data shows there has been a quadrupling of sexual offences against children, in what officers say is the most authoritative analysis of offending against youngsters."

OP presents historical evidence from 2019 and 2020 purporting to show that 'clearly nothing has changed.'

However the OP is oddly silent on the clearly visible rape culture outside of Pornhub.

I think porn is a major driver and I have spoken about more than just Pornhub. Or did you mean outside of porn rather than outside of Pornhub?

OTOH the implication that porn itself is bad is strong, such that even if Pornhub hosted no rape videos simulated or otherwise it would not be acceptable.

Conclusion - the OP is actually complaining about porn, not 'rape culture'. IOW, it never was about rape culture.

I believe porn is bad, yes. The evidence that watching porn leads to an escalation of interest in more risqué material is clear.

 

[Poem]

ok i can address it i guess.

i think children exposed to pornography is bad. i also think you need to respect people’s right to privacy and i agree with pornhubs statement earlier in the thread that age verification at the device is a better approach. i also don’t know anything about the online child safety bill or what about it they have a problem with, and rushing through legislation on moral grounds is pretty open for abuses. i also don’t know that any of that constitutes a rape culture or if that’s even the topic of the thread anymore

edit for clarity:

i see whether or not there’s harmful content on porn sites for adults and access to porn sites for children as two seperate issues.

We know that children are watching violent porn and acting it out and that most child abuse is now perpetrated by children (in the UK at least). It is clear that society puts easy access to porn above the indisputable fact that porn is influencing and severely harming children.

Why are we hesitating to act?

 

[Darat]

We know that children are watching violent porn and acting it out and that most child abuse is now perpetrated by children (in the UK at least). It is clear that society puts easy access to porn above the indisputable fact that porn is influencing and severely harming children.

Why are we hesitating to act?

We do? Since when?