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

[junkshop]

Scepticism eats itself. Is their any point to any of this thread? Is this an argument for an argument's sake? Useless.

No doubt someone will tell me I don't have to read it. Whatever...

Debate, of itself, is useless. It might be handy if one is deciding what to do. (Higher taxes, or not; ban abortion, or not; kids, shall we go to the cinema or to the zoo?)

Useless.

I disagree. It passes the time between now and oblivion, and is mostly less irritating than reality TV.

 

[Poem]

We banned slavery.
We did not ban the things slaves did or the products they produced.

Forcing people to do farmwork is slavery, and illegal.
Hiring people to do farmwork is not slavery and is legal.

Forcing people to do household chores is slavery, and illegal.
Hiring people to do household chores is not slavery and is legal.

Forcing people to perform in sex videos is slavery, and illegal.
Hiring people to perform in sex videos ....

With the French public prosecutor describing 90% of porn as 'criminally reprehensible' don't you think that something should be done right now?

I'll repost this from the report about the business model of mainstream porn:

...videos compete for the most violent, most degrading practices possible in an infernal “race for clicks”...

...the reality is that the women are real. The violence is real. It's not cinema. Their suffering is often perfectly visible and at the same time eroticized. The comments from men are enthusiastic and testify of the excitement caused by the suffering. In an endless bidding war, producers follow consumer demands...

 

[Poem]

Because it's the only thing they cite to back up that percentage. If they had more, they would cite more.

I asked you to for a citation to back up your claim. You haven't provided one. Your post described my research as 'shoddy' based on a incorrect assumption that the study was the only source and that that study 'came up short' (I'll deal with that anon).

It substantiates their claim with some major caveats which seriously undermine the strength of your argument, including the fact that "aggression" as they have defined it is not synonymous with "violence" as it is commonly understood, and the fact that none of the porn they examined was internet porn.

In post #897 I linked to the Le Monde article on the HCE report where they say:

For over a year, the HCE's violence against women commission has been examining videos available to watch online. It organized a large number of hearings, reviewed existing literature and, in March, carried out a study of four pornography platforms (PornHub, Xhamster, Xvideos and Xnxx). More than 230 pages documented those investigations, accompanied by a warning from the HCE, which intends to "draw attention to the serious violations of human dignity and the serious consequences of the unlimited and illegal distribution of this sexual content." The videos display physical violence, verbal aggression and, in many cases, acts of torture and barbarism. The vast majority of the content on offer is packed with images that are not only shocking and degrading for women but are also liable to criminal sanctions under French law, explained the HCE.

On its own, no, it does not. Kids see stuff all the time without assuming that it's normal or even real. We don't have an epidemic of children hurling themselves off of buildings because of superhero movies. Why did this kid think that what he saw was normal? There's a missing piece here, and you seem determined to not only ignore it yourself, but insist that the rest of us ignore it as well.

Kids obviously know about the fiction of superhero movies which is very different from seeing a man chocking a woman who's 'apparently' enjoying it. What the kid sees is a man with his hands round a women's neck - and she doesn't die.

 

[Poem]

First off, your translation of the French report used the term "violence". But their source doesn't. Their source uses the term "aggression". There's a difference, especially with regard to the verbal. Verbal aggression can be real, but verbal violence is just bull ****. And verbal aggression in this context is mostly name calling. Oh my god, adults talk dirty during sex.

Since we know that the report uses more than just this source then this difference in language isn't relevant.

What you fail to recognise is that the aggression (verbal and physical) is overwhelming directed towards women (94.4%). Of course there will be a continuum of degrees of aggression, from mild to severe, so your detailing of the extent of the milder stuff is of no surprise. It's notable that nearly half of all scenes contain name calling / insults.

The report states:

At the heart of many of the controversies about porn is the topic of aggression and degradation. The social significance of these issues is undeniable, as much of the porn effects research has shown porn is more likely to have negative influences on the thoughts, attitudes, or behaviour of audience members if it features aggression (e.g. Donnerstein, Linz and Penrod, 1987). Experimental evidence suggests that degrading porn increases dominating and harassing behaviour towards women (Hall, Hirschman and Oliver, 1994); Mulac, Jansma and Linz, 2002), harsher evaluations of real-life partners (Jansma, Linz, Mulac and Imrich, 1997), and loss of compassion for female rape victims (Zillmann, 1989, Zillmann and Bryant, 1982).​

OK, what about physical aggression? Even just in the abstract, we see that spanking tops the list. Is spanking violence? Well, I suppose it could be, but it's also a kink that a lot of people enjoy, and a spank doesn't have to be hard or really even painful. And there's a GIANT gap between playful spanking during sex and sexual assault or rape.

Whilst that is true, hair pulling, open-hand slapping, gagging and chocking are an unhealthy 37%, 41%, 54%, 28% of all scenes.

And if you dig into the data (Table 1), you see that the mild end of the spectrum of "aggression" dominates. For verbal aggression, they had 614 scenes with insults, but only 10 scenes with threats and 7 scenes with "coercive language". There were 980 scenes with slapping, but only 3 scenes with kicking and zero scenes with a closed fist punch.

As already noted, a continuum of degrees would be expected.

 

[Poem]

Scepticism eats itself. Is their any point to any of this thread? Is this an argument for an argument's sake? Useless.

No doubt someone will tell me I don't have to read it. Whatever...

Debate, of itself, is useless. It might be handy if one is deciding what to do. (Higher taxes, or not; ban abortion, or not; kids, shall we go to the cinema or to the zoo?)

Useless.

Men are funding violence against women - that is the the import of the HCE report...it's 'an infernal race for clicks'.

But please do go ahead and prove to the thread they are wrong.

 

[Poem]

...................................

#791 & #793

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Scepticism eats itself. Is their any point to any of this thread? Is this an argument for an argument's sake? Useless.

No doubt someone will tell me I don't have to read it. Whatever...

Debate, of itself, is useless. It might be handy if one is deciding what to do. (Higher taxes, or not; ban abortion, or not; kids, shall we go to the cinema or to the zoo?)

Useless.

I would say the opposite is at work here. It is Poem's lack of scepticism regarding certain purported drivers of sexual crimes and the resulting solutions proposed which is driving this thread.

If they weren't so monomaniacally obsessed on "all porn is evil" this thread would have died long ago.

 

[Chanakya]

Why is porn any more evil than violence shown on screen or (virtually) partaken of in games? Or for that matter read about in old-fashioned books?

Fiction is fiction. And can be enjoyed as such. Different people have different tastes. That you like war stories, or enjoy action flicks, or dig horror, doesn't mean you're a psycho that's into voodoo and that wants to beat up people with nanchucks and wound them with those star things you throw, and who is unfit to hold a political position because he'd be looking for an excuse to start a war.

Sure, kids take things a bit more literally than adults. Adults generally remove themselves from the story after they shut the book, with greater facility than kids I guess. ...But still, if someone, whether adult or teenager, takes to strangling their girlfriends as their go-to seduction technique (as opposed to something tried out, occasionally, and consensually, as part of a wide repertoire of bedroom games) because that's what they've seen in porn: well then, what needs looking into is not so much the porn as the inside of the head of that person.

Obviously porn can do with some regulation but I'm firmly of the belief that by and large it's a good thing. Sure, exploitation's an issue --- but the issue is the exploitation not the porn.

 

[Poem]

I would say the opposite is at work here. It is Poem's lack of scepticism regarding certain purported drivers of sexual crimes and the resulting solutions proposed which is driving this thread.

If they weren't so monomaniacally obsessed on "all porn is evil" this thread would have died long ago.

Here's where you last ignored me GF- #753

It includes another link to another post you also ignored. Either put up or shut up....

 

[Poem]

Why is porn any more evil than violence shown on screen or (virtually) partaken of in games? Or for that matter read about in old-fashioned books?

Fiction is fiction. And can be enjoyed as such. Different people have different tastes. That you like war stories, or enjoy action flicks, or dig horror, doesn't mean you're a psycho that's into voodoo and that wants to beat up people with nanchucks and wound them with those star things you throw, and who is unfit to hold a political position because he'd be looking for an excuse to start a war.

Sure, kids take things a bit more literally than adults. Adults generally remove themselves from the story after they shut the book, with greater facility than kids I guess. ...But still, if someone, whether adult or teenager, takes to strangling their girlfriends as their go-to seduction technique (as opposed to something tried out, occasionally, and consensually, as part of a wide repertoire of bedroom games) because that's what they've seen in porn: well then, what needs looking into is not so much the porn as the inside of the head of that person.

Obviously porn can do with some regulation but I'm firmly of the belief that by and large it's a good thing. Sure, exploitation's an issue --- but the issue is the exploitation not the porn.

Are movies being described by s public prosecutor as 90% 'criminally reprehensible'? Would the following (HCE report) accurately describe the screen's business model:

...videos compete for the most violent, most degrading practices possible in an infernal “race for clicks”...

...the reality is that the women are real. The violence is real. It's not cinema. Their suffering is often perfectly visible and at the same time eroticized. The comments from men are enthusiastic and testify of the excitement caused by the suffering. In an endless bidding war, producers follow consumer demands...

Does this describe TV?

Depictions of degradation, sexual coercion, aggression and exploitation are commonplace, and disproportionately targeted against teenage girls.

(The UK's Children's Commission's report of January 2023: "A lot of it is actually just abuse")

 

[theprestige]

Are movies being described by s public prosecutor as 90% 'criminally reprehensible'? Would the following (HCE report) accurately describe the screen's business model:



Does this describe TV?

(The UK's Children's Commission's report of January 2023: "A lot of it is actually just abuse")

The question is why public prosecutors aren't describing violence in entertainment as criminally reprehensible. According to every argument you've laid out here, they should be. Gang violence, armed robbery, terrorism... People are literally dying. But somehow violent entertainment is not implicated.

Why the special pleading about porn? What makes sexual entertainment a vector for antisocial values, but not violent entertainment? Do any of your vaunted authority figures answer this question? Or even acknowledge it?

 

[Chanakya]

Like I said, if there's exploitation, if there's abuse --- and I get it, there is --- then that's your issue, that's what needs to be remedied. If that's what you're asking for then I'm with you --- and I imagine most everyone would be. But if it's porn itself you're targeting, then that's a baby bathwater thing. (You personally may not like babies, metaphorically speaking, but that's a personal thing.)

...Incidentally, that's an interesting question. If a woman consents to sex on camera in exchange for money, and actually gets ****** not just acting, then is that exploitation? Likewise other more violent acts? Never thought about it, but I think I'd say no, not if there's consent. If you think that consent itself has been extorted, coerced, then surely the onus of proof's on you, case to case? I mean, an equivalent in movies might be an actor consenting to "bold" scenes, or simply risky action scenes, under some kind of duress. Possible, sure. But the onus of evidence is clear there.

(If there's specific acts that, by law, people can't consent to, well then sure, happy to defer to that. But in that case it would be illegal anyway, and I'm sure no one here will advocate breaking the law to make porn, so surely you are assured of general agreement on that specific already.)

----------

Haven't read the report, but as for some "prosecutor" in France calling something reprehensible, that seems simply a matter of their opinion.

(If they can actually show --- if they have actually shown --- that exposure to porn drives adolescents to dysfunctional sex patterns [which is quite possible], then sure, that would be an argument for restricting that kind of porn for that kind of demographic, sure. But that's an if argument; and in any case not an argument against porn per se. Plus I'd say we'd need more than just one study somewhere in France to actually start passing new laws, even on that limited basis. And that's provided that study does show causality. Merely some prosecutor finding something reprehensible is ...not very persuasive.)


eta: Was responding to #950.

 

[Poem]

The question is why public prosecutors aren't describing violence in entertainment as criminally reprehensible. According to every argument you've laid out here, they should be. Gang violence, armed robbery, terrorism... People are literally dying. But somehow violent entertainment is not implicated.

Why the special pleading about porn? What makes sexual entertainment a vector for antisocial values, but not violent entertainment? Do any of your vaunted authority figures answer this question? Or even acknowledge it?

I can respond - but your non-responses are backing up - #926...so please deal with these first.

 

[dirtywick]

imo you’re not far from ai solving this problem for you

 

[Poem]

imo you’re not far from ai solving this problem for you

Could you elaborate?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Here's where you last ignored me GF- #753

It includes another link to another post you also ignored. Either put up or shut up....

There is no point engaging with you, you're not willing to engage in reasoned debate.

Every single one of your posts can be boiled down to "I'm right, you're wrong. Here's some cherry picked statements (note they are not even evidence) that shows if you squint hard enough, some other non-experts agree with my unevidenced assertions."

And I'm not willing to play your games.

 

[dirtywick]

Could you elaborate?

it’ll mostly be ai porn

 

[Ziggurat]

I asked you to for a citation to back up your claim. You haven't provided one.

You don't seem to understand what burden of proof means, or what exactly I'm actually arguing. You are making the positive claim, not me. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Your post described my research as 'shoddy' based on a incorrect assumption that the study was the only source and that that study 'came up short' (I'll deal with that anon).

The claim that 90% of porn was violent rested on one study. That's only part of your claim, but it's an important part. You say that you will deal with it, but your follow up post doesn't actually deal with it. You know how you could prove me wrong? Provide another source which gives that 90% figure. But you haven't done so, because you cannot, because there is no other source for that 90% figure.

The more you double down on the things that you're wrong about, the more I question whether you're right about any of this.

 

[Poem]

Like I said, if there's exploitation, if there's abuse --- and I get it, there is --- then that's your issue, that's what needs to be remedied. If that's what you're asking for then I'm with you --- and I imagine most everyone would be.

The French study, finding that 90% of porn is illegal, was delivered to the the French minister for gender equality nearly a year ago. Why would anyone think that 'most everyone would be'?

This from Le Monde:

For over a year, the HCE's violence against women commission has been examining videos available to watch online. It organized a large number of hearings, reviewed existing literature and, in March, carried out a study of four pornography platforms (PornHub, Xhamster, Xvideos and Xnxx). More than 230 pages documented those investigations, accompanied by a warning from the HCE, which intends to "draw attention to the serious violations of human dignity and the serious consequences of the unlimited and illegal distribution of this sexual content." The videos display physical violence, verbal aggression and, in many cases, acts of torture and barbarism. The vast majority of the content on offer is packed with images that are not only shocking and degrading for women but are also liable to criminal sanctions under French law, explained the HCE.​

...Incidentally, that's an interesting question. If a woman consents to sex on camera in exchange for money, and actually gets ****** not just acting, then is that exploitation? Likewise other more violent acts? Never thought about it, but I think I'd say no, not if there's consent. If you think that consent itself has been extorted, coerced, then surely the onus of proof's on you, case to case? I mean, an equivalent in movies might be an actor consenting to "bold" scenes, or simply risky action scenes, under some kind of duress. Possible, sure. But the onus of evidence is clear there.

(If there's specific acts that, by law, people can't consent to, well then sure, happy to defer to that. But in that case it would be illegal anyway, and I'm sure no one here will advocate breaking the law to make porn, so surely you are assured of general agreement on that specific already.)

This from that Guardian article I cited:

A significant amount of content amounted to torture. The report warned that any kind of so-called contract was void in legal terms, because a person could not consent to torture and sexual exploitation and trafficking. The report said that filmed acts of violence were illegal and should be punished.​

Haven't read the report, but as for some "prosecutor" in France calling something reprehensible, that seems simply a matter of their opinion.

For the French public prosecutor to call 90% of porn 'criminally reprehensible' is hugely significant. To be clear, she (Laura Beccuau) is saying most porn is illegal.

(If they can actually show --- if they have actually shown --- that exposure to porn drives adolescents to dysfunctional sex patterns [which is quite possible], then sure, that would be an argument for restricting that kind of porn for that kind of demographic, sure. But that's an if argument; and in any case not an argument against porn per se. Plus I'd say we'd need more than just one study somewhere in France to actually start passing new laws, even on that limited basis. And that's provided that study does show causality. Merely some prosecutor finding something reprehensible is ...not very persuasive.)

There are studies that show such a link #774.

There is nothing 'mere' about this study and the public prosecutors assessment. Without actually attempting to rebut it's findings then I'd say you are merely expressing opinion. Why is the report wrong? Why does the UK's Children's Commissioner say:

Depictions of degradation, sexual coercion, aggression and exploitation are commonplace, and disproportionately targeted against teenage girls.​

Why is Reem Alsalem, the UN appointed special rapporteur on violence against women and girls calling for the abolition of prostitution and porn.

Sound Investigations went undercover last year targeting Pornhub and discovered a loophole in their moderating practice. You might remember that Pornhub had to remove 80% (ie from 13.5 million down to 3 million) of it's content back in 2020 because of the Nicholas Kristof 'Children of Pornhub' article.

 

[Poem]

it’ll mostly be ai porn

Another Pandora's Box.