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

[Poem]

Some short quotes from 'Let’s Talk About It':

"A great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the internet!"

"Sometimes I worry I watch too much porn."
"I know that worry. But there is nothing wrong with watching some porn. It's a fun sugary treat!"

"But, depending on your age and where you found it, porn can also be unethical or illegal to watch. So do your research! Look up interviews with your favourite porn performers, go to the sites they recommend and pay for your porn."

The inscription at the beginning of the book reads: “To whoever needs it, whatever your age.”

Folk here are okay with this - the legacy of a right to easy access porn 21st century civilized society?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Some short quotes from 'Let’s Talk About It':



The inscription at the beginning of the book reads: “To whoever needs it, whatever your age.”

Folk here are okay with this - the legacy of a right to easy access porn 21st century civilized society?

Pornography has existed since the dawn of civilisation. The Ancient Greeks and Romans depicted all sorts of kinks on their artwork, and on the walls of their houses. The Hindus built temples celebrating sexual activity. The Japanese were producing pornographic books centuries ago. These were all visible to people of any age. This is a normal part of human behaviour, and I don't get your insistence that a) people shouldn't look at depictions of sex, and b) that this is somehow a new thing.

 

[Poem]

My neutrality doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Porn advocates will have greater resistance to the evidence - since consumers are essentially funding these harms then they have a vested interest in highlighting sketicism - and excessively so.

You:

"Stakeholders": activists who have a financial interest in making a problem seem as bad as possible.

My response:

That doesn't actually establish what you claim - though it might be the case for some. What evidence do you have?

You ignored this. Why?

What matters is the evidence. And correlation doesn't demonstrate causation. You keep claiming causation but can at best only demonstrate correlation. Case in point:

What does this paper consist of? It takes an observed correlation, and tries to come up with a theoretical model which could explain a causal link. Does it demonstrate this causal link? No, it does not.

And the link you found from within that only demonstrates a correlation, not causation.

The study in question unequivocally affirms: Controlling for personality characteristics did not cancel this association.

You clearly are prepared to risk being wrong - whereas Rachel de Souza, Children's charities, Child experts, the Police and others are not.

 

[Poem]

Pornography has existed since the dawn of civilisation. The Ancient Greeks and Romans depicted all sorts of kinks on their artwork, and on the walls of their houses. The Hindus built temples celebrating sexual activity. The Japanese were producing pornographic books centuries ago. These were all visible to people of any age. This is a normal part of human behaviour, and I don't get your insistence that a) people shouldn't look at depictions of sex, and b) that this is somehow a new thing.

Nobody is suggesting it's a new thing.

You advocate child sexual abuse? Showing minors obscene material remains an offence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it does. Porn advocates will have greater resistance to the evidence

I haven't advocated for porn. Where are you getting this from? You have some strange ideas about what's under discussion.

You ignored this. Why?

Because I wasn't interested in responding, because it's not even central to the dispute. The central problem is that you haven't shown causation, only correlation.

But honestly, I don't know why it isn't obvious. If your job is to talk about a problem, then making that problem seem bad is job security.

You clearly are prepared to risk being wrong - whereas Rachel de Souza, Children's charities, Child experts, the Police and others are not.

First, everyone risks being wrong. What I presume you mean is that you think the risk is asymmetric, so being wrong in one direction would do less harm than being wrong in a different direction. But that too is an assumption, it's not demonstrated.

 

[Poem]

I haven't advocated for porn. Where are you getting this from? You have some strange ideas about what's under discussion.

No. I'm saying that the content I have seen is clearly not rape. 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'm not going to provide blow-by-blow details of the porn I've watched, but it's professionally produced, the participants are regulars, and it's clearly consensual. It's really not ambiguous.

You're not an advocate but you know this much?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Nobody is suggesting it's a new thing.

So your comment about the 21st century was not about the 21st century, then? OK.

You advocate child sexual abuse? Showing minors obscene material remains an offence.

No, of course I don't. What a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not an advocate but you know this much?

What do you think an advocate is? Are you confused about the meaning of the word? Because it seriously seems like it.

I've tried to cut you a fair amount of slack regarding your intentions, but now you're trying to make this personal. This thread isn't about me. Continue to try to make it personal, and I will start to take it personally.

 

[Poem]

So your comment about the 21st century was not about the 21st century, then? OK.

Porn has been around for a long time; encouraging children to watch it is new - certainly in civilized societies...I expect there might be some exceptions.

No, of course I don't. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Your post was in response to my post which was specifically about children.

 

[Stout]

It seems as if there is a major reframing of what sex is - certainly since the normalization of porn. How else could an educational book get away with pushing this on children?

If porn is being normalized, it must be a generational thing because the people I hang with never bring up the topic. I don't know if you caught post 778 before it was edited but in that was a written description of a panel that may be considered porn, or used as porn (in a Sears catalogue kind of way) and most definitely contained an element of sexual coercion.

I only ever see conservatives flipping out about this sort of material being made available in schools, never calls for an outright ban of the material as hosting it in bookstores and public libraries seems to be just fine.

 

[Poem]

What do you think an advocate is? Are you confused about the meaning of the word? Because it seriously seems like it.

Your position is perhaps a little more nuanced, but your responses below appear to be inline with that description:

The predominant argument against Poem's position seems to be that they want easy access to porn, and don't want anything put in place that might make it harder for them to get access to porn.

I don't really think that's what anyone here is arguing. As lobosrul5 pointed out, though, it's very hard to make porn categorically inaccessible without severely compromising free speech rights. Also, it's a mistake to lump all porn together, as if there's no distinction between actual child porn and rape videos versus consensual adult content.

My perspective is that for most of the posters, this is an extremely male view, and it's based on the underlying assumption that males have a right to expect sexual satisfaction, and that it is somehow wrong for any hurdles to be put in place for males gaining sexual satisfaction.

Everyone has a right to sexual satisfaction. Wouldn't you find it weird if someone wanted to prohibit the sale of dildos or vibrators? What people don't have the right to is compelling anyone else to participate in that sexual satisfaction. This distinction is important. And yes, that is perhaps a very male view, but likewise it's a very female view to ignore it.

I've tried to cut you a fair amount of slack regarding your intentions, but now you're trying to make this personal. This thread isn't about me. Continue to try to make it personal, and I will start to take it personally.

I've been citing a number of third parties and you have cast doubt on their neutrality. I was merely doing the same - but you haven't really appealed to third parties.

 

[Poem]

If porn is being normalized, it must be a generational thing because the people I hang with never bring up the topic.

According to the UK's Children's Commissioner:
In 2020, the four largest online pornography sites – PornHub, XVideos, xnxx and XHamster – received a combined 11 billion visits a month. This is greater than the number of monthly visits to Amazon, LinkedIn, Netflix, Zoom and eBay combined.

I don't know if you caught post 778 before it was edited

I didn't.

but in that was a written description of a panel that may be considered porn, or used as porn (in a Sears catalogue kind of way) and most definitely contained an element of sexual coercion.

I'm not following this. 'Panel'?

I only ever see conservatives flipping out about this sort of material being made available in schools, never calls for an outright ban of the material as hosting it in bookstores and public libraries seems to be just fine.

Ok, but I am not clear what your point is.

 

[Poem]

Because I wasn't interested in responding, because it's not even central to the dispute. The central problem is that you haven't shown causation, only correlation.

But honestly, I don't know why it isn't obvious. If your job is to talk about a problem, then making that problem seem bad is job security.

Your original statement:

"Stakeholders": activists who have a financial interest in making a problem seem as bad as possible.

has not been substantiated - but, no doubt, there will be some.

First, everyone risks being wrong. What I presume you mean is that you think the risk is asymmetric, so being wrong in one direction would do less harm than being wrong in a different direction. But that too is an assumption, it's not demonstrated.

You have said: "Suppose we have a child inclined to violently sexually abuse other children......."

The study in question unequivocally affirms: Controlling for personality characteristics did not cancel this association.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Except you didn't spell out what is extreme in my post. Before you assert something is nonsense, why don't you explain in detail why that's the case?

Here's the post that you never responded to #212. It's four months old.

I'll wait till you do.

Anybody with any ability to click on links and read the English language would recognise all the extremeist nonsense you're posting.

 

[Poem]

Anybody with any ability to click on links and read the English language would recognise all the extremeist nonsense you're posting.

Ok, you didn't substantiate your point...again. You also didn't tackle that old post.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

It's an opinion that content suggestive of sexual activity with children is rife on mainstream porn sites? Barnardo's opinion?

The open letter sent a year ago to the prime minister of the UK includes:

Pornography has a far-reaching, cross-societal impact. As well as causing harm to children, some pornography promotes violence against women and girls and can result in children being trafficked into the pornography industry. There is also evidence that legal content can act as a ‘gateway’ to extreme and hardcore material, including illegal child sexual abuse material. Some users go on to view content that is more and more extreme, until the next click is illegal child sexual abuse material. In some cases, this leads to them contacting and abusing children online and offline. This content therefore poses an immediate risk to children.

List of signatories:



You think this situation is acceptable?

No I don't think you presenting a letter with lots of signatures but no evidence of your conclusions to be acceptable.

But that's the difference between us, I accept other peoples' word when they give me sufficient reason to do so (usually in the form of sufficient supporting evidence). You agree with people when they come to the same conclusion you do.

 

[Poem]

No I don't think you presenting a letter with lots of signatures but no evidence of your conclusions to be acceptable.

But that's the difference between us, I accept other peoples' word when they give me sufficient reason to do so (usually in the form of sufficient supporting evidence). You agree with people when they come to the same conclusion you do.

As I said:

Here's the post that you never responded to #212. It's four months old.

I'll wait till you do.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

As I said:

Here's the post that you never responded to #212. It's four months old.

I'll wait till you do.

You not being able to present any evidence is a you problem not a me problem.

And the worst thing about this whole issue is that I would agree with you that rapes and sexual assaults are not taken seriously enough in the general culture, but your useof extremist talinkg points, your disregard for others and flat out hostile and libellous attitude towards them and your total refusal to back your posts with any relevant evidence have me convinced that you're not actually that bothered by the many issues surrounding rape and sexual assault but that these topics are simply a vehicle to advance your right wing worldview of banning everything you personally don't like.

Take it or leave it, but that is the problem you, and you alone, have caused for yourself.

 

[Poem]

I concede that 'rape culture' may accurately describe the US public education institution.

This is probably in line with the WHO's assertion that 1 in 3 women experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner.

 

[theprestige]

This is probably in line with the WHO's assertion that 1 in 3 women experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner.

Probably not. The fact that worldwide, about 1 in 3 women live in horrifically misogynistic societies, probably has little or nothing to do with child sexual abuse by authority figures in the US public school system.