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

[Poem]

Christianity, that's why. Organised religion in general. Make people feel guilty about perfectly normal things, create a monopoly on the way to expiate this "sin", and you can control them.

Christianity draws a line in a different place than you do - but you still draw a line. Others will draw a line even further along than you and will deem you restrictive.

Porn is clearly at odds with and inimical to the stability of a healthy relationships and marriage. If you want porn go and make sure it stays in your world and in the world of those who have similar attitudes.

 

[Poem]

Because it's already illegal (you claim; I'm no lawyer so I make no claim either way) to show porn to kids.

If kids are seeing porn because people are breaking the law, how does passing another law help?

We seem to talking at cross purposes.

The law is weak and society isn't bothered enough to protect young people.

 

[Poem]

I say we focus on the first thing, which in fact is, like I'd spelled out, three measures, in no particular order: one, focus on the safety of the actors; two, educate people in general, and children in particular, that porn is fiction, the same as movie stars fighting five men and coming out unscathed, or jumping from buildings and standing up unhurt, and that fiction is different than reality; and three, take steps to ensure, as best we can, that porn stays out of the reach of children.

There's some regulation in the porn industry that affords some protection but a lot of content is user-generated. Where is your detail about how this will work?

Porn is real.

Take steps to make sure porn is out of children's reach? How?

 

[Poem]

Not "attend a porn set". That's meta, that's "real".

Porn's a show, like any other (in this sense). Of course it's fiction.

Are you talking only about consensual porn?

You are saying it's real on the set but becomes fiction when viewed through a window or TV screen or monitor?

 

[Poem]

Your entire argument is an irrelevancy.

These are not synonyms. Juggling is a performance, but it is not a fiction.

And yes, The Crow is fiction. Because you can't actually get resurrected by a crow spirit to get revenge on evil-doers, as portrayed in the movie.

Except, again, IT IS REAL. They are actually having sex. You can frame it as fiction all you want, but Poem is correct on this and you are wrong, it's actual sex.

And god damn it, I'll never forgive you for making me agree with Poem, but that's how bad your argument is. You keep trying to hang your hat on other words liker "performance", and yes, it's a performance. That doesn't make it not real in the ways that matter.

It's not trivial, and you're the one who's completely wrong on it, not Poem. Poem has gotten so many things wrong in this discussion, but not this point. And the fact that she's wrong on other points isn't going to make me go along with you on this when you're the one who is wrong.

We both think porn is harmful.

 

[sackett]

He.

Pix or it ain't so.

 

[Poem]

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

 

[Ziggurat]

We both think porn is harmful.

So is alcohol. Banning alcohol didn't work and created more harm than good.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that we should actually ban porn.

 

[Poem]

So is alcohol. Banning alcohol didn't work and created more harm than good.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that we should actually ban

So is slavery. How vocal were those that favoured keeping slavery in the 19th century?

Something should be done about excessive alcohol consumption. If we want to make this world a better place we should stop shrugging our shoulders.

Are millions of children watching porn right now?

 

[Chanakya]

Your entire argument is an irrelevancy.

Haha, I called your arguments an irrelevancy, and here you go, using that same word back to me in return. How charmingly child-like that is.

These are not synonyms. Juggling is a performance, but it is not a fiction.

You’re arguing with voices in your head. No one suggested that they are synonyms. They are three different things. And porn is all three. …You know, like, take a man that is orange-hued, and vile, and half-witted. To say that is not to suggest that those three descriptors are synonyms.

Porn is, generally speaking, usually, a scripted show, a performance, and the depiction of what you're seeing is fictive. In that sense, porn is a performance, it is fiction, it is a show.

And yes, The Crow is fiction. Because you can't actually get resurrected by a crow spirit to get revenge on evil-doers, as portrayed in the movie.

Once again you stumble blindly into irrelevancies. The genre of the movie is irrelevant. Even if the movie were a true-to-life documentary, nevertheless the depiction of it by actors on screen, that depiction is fictive.

Read the above carefully. Loudly, if need be. Repeat as many times as necessary, till some understanding penetrates through, finally.

Except, again, IT IS REAL. They are actually having sex. You can frame it as fiction all you want, but Poem is correct on this and you are wrong, it's actual sex.

Read what I said to you about theprestige’s Brandon Lee analogy one more time. Loudly, slowly. Then one more time again.

Then, if understanding still eludes you, then read the following:

If a martial artist --- Brandon Lee, for instance --- throws around perfectly “real” martial arts moves with other martial artists in a martial arts flick, then that performance is still fictive. Why? Because they’re doing what the director’s telling them to do. That depiction ---- say that word aloud, clearly, one more time so understanding finally seeps through --- that DEPICTION is what is fictive.

And god damn it, I'll never forgive you for making me agree with Poem,

Don’t worry about it. The agreement per se or the disagreement per se of someone that is lacking in intellectual integrity, is a matter of little worth. Your opportunistic agreement with him now, for reasons that are entirely transparent, makes no difference at all.

but that's how bad your argument is. You keep trying to hang your hat on other words liker "performance", and yes, it's a performance. That doesn't make it not real in the ways that matter.

It is has been explained to you already, very clearly, that the only reason why I was talking to Poem about the fictive nature of the depiction of porn, is because when you realize a thing is fictive and not real, then you don’t try to emulate that in everyday life. Like jumping from towers, like fighting singlehanded and unarmed with five armed men, like the industrial scale sex often depicted in porn. So yes, that makes porn not real in the only sense that really matters, in context of what I’d said to Poem in my post that you chose to first start your asinine and fundamentally disingenuous commenting on.

It's not trivial, and you're the one who's completely wrong on it, not Poem. Poem has gotten so many things wrong in this discussion, but not this point. And the fact that she's wrong on other points isn't going to make me go along with you on this when you're the one who is wrong.

Certainly this disagreement is completely trivial, when compared with our disagreement over your endless attempts, elsewhere, to defend actual evil. I thought this relatively trivial disagreement might actually have been a opportunity for you to actually try to try on the intellectual integrity thing a bit, just for a change. Which I see you resolutely refuse to.

That’s fine, I don’t mind, it’s kind of fun engaging with your endless contortions and your indefatigable twisting and turning, on something relatively trivial like this. At least so far it is, although I suppose after a point it might start to get seriously boring.

 

[Chanakya]

Because he's intent on creating a fiction of his own, which is that porn has no effect on anyone at all because it's just fiction.

*applauds*

*takes back the Oscar handed out already, and makes it a joint award instead*

so that this remarkable performance, culminating in this absolute gem, does not go unacknowledged


All hail Ziggurat, shaman and wannabe mind-reader!

 

[Lithrael]

Here's a straightforward question (and I acknowledge it's inappropriateness outside this thread): Would you have sex knowing that a child could see and hear you?

I mean, I wouldn't because it's not appropriate in my culture, but it was super the norm for a hell of a lot longer than it hasn't been the norm, being impossible to avoid in bad weather until we had buildings with enough rooms in them to get a room. So I tend to assume there are more factors involved to create harm than 'a kid is in the same room as sex' including cultural factors that make it a big deal ie cultural taboos, weird family dynamics, etc.

Like, even where that is pretty taboo, many people who wouldn't do it around, say, a toddler, wouldn't think much about doing it in front of a baby.

 

[Chanakya]

Are you talking only about consensual porn?

You are saying it's real on the set but becomes fiction when viewed through a window or TV screen or monitor?

Okay. Unlike Ziggurat’s simulated halfwittery, your confusion seems genuine. So I’ll take your question at face value, and, even though this so completely obvious, but I’ll still explain this clearly. But I’ll expect clear acknowledgement from you once you do understand. Fair?

So. Think of any movie or any TV show you’ve seen. Let’s just name any one random thing that comes to mind, say Game of Thrones. When you’re seeing the show, then what you’re seeing is a story, a narrative, a rendering. And that rendering is fictive. …However, if you had happened to visit the set where that show was being shot, and actually observed what the actors are doing there, and the director and the cameraman and the rest of the staff, well then, what you’re seeing there, that meta thing, is real.

The medium per se is not important. The depiction is fictive if it is seen on a large wide screen in a movie theater. The depiction is fictive if it is seen on TV, or on your computer or for that matter your phone. The depiction is fictive if it is actual actors performing on stage, in an actual old-school theater. Hell, the depiction is fictive even when you’re sitting there reading out a bedtime story to your child. …But when you go meta, and then it becomes real. When you’re seeing the person reading the story, as opposed to attending to the story per se, then that is real. When you’re looking at the play not as a narrative but as a bunch of people doing stuff on a stage with a bunch of people sitting there in chairs looking at them, then that is real. …And when you visit a movie set (including a porn-movie set), and actually see the actors and director and the rest of the team there do their stuff, then that is real too --- unless of course that meta-depiction is itself the meta-narrative being depicted fictively.

And nor is the genre of the show important. It could be fantasy like GoT. It could be slice-of-life fiction. It could even be a completely non-fictive perfectly true documentary show. But unless the documentary takes the form of replays of real-life shots, and if it depicts actors acting out roles, then that DEPICTION is fictive.

…I think you can now see why your looking in through someone’s window --- generic “you”, no snide personalizations and insults intended! --- and watching whatever is going on in there, be it people just sitting around and talking, or eating, or watching TV, or having sex, or whatever else, is not fictive but real. Unless of course a man looking through a window is what is being fictively depicted in a show or something, and you’re seeing a scripted performance, in which case obviously it is fictive.

 

[Lithrael]

My post, that you chose to comment on, was part of an ongoing discussion with Poem, going back days, about people --- including children --- recognizing that porn is a performance, fiction, not real, SO THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLATE WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE IN PORN WITH WHAT EVERYDAY REAL LIFE SEX IS.

That is the whole point why Poem and I are even discussing whether porn is a performance, and fiction; as opposed to porn being real. So, whether people should do what they see depicted, becomes central to the discussion.

Oops, looks like I was a few pages out of date. But yeah, I'm with Chanakya here. YOU may not be talking about whether young viewers mistake the narrative for how things really work in real life, but Poem definitely was. Half the point of Poem saying 'so much porn is violent!' was about young people making the same kind of error as thinking that, say, a show about a bunch of antisocial characters, represents how it's acceptable to act, and the young audience going on to try to emulate those antisocial behaviours on their peers.

It was not about how the piece of fiction got made, and how much trickery was or was not involved in producing it.

A punch or a sex act done after someone yells 'action' is a real act done in service of a fiction, and the fiction may contain real acts, but the context matters, and the context is that it is something made by actors specifically to create what you are watching.

That is to say, it may be, but is in no way guaranteed to be and often isn't, as a whole, at all realistic. Or a good idea to emulate or to use as a basis for forming real-world impressions, without first finding out how realistic the narrative was.

 

[Poem]

Okay. Unlike Ziggurat’s simulated halfwittery, your confusion seems genuine. So I’ll take your question at face value, and, even though this so completely obvious, but I’ll still explain this clearly. But I’ll expect clear acknowledgement from you once you do understand. Fair?

So. Think of any movie or any TV show you’ve seen. Let’s just name any one random thing that comes to mind, say Game of Thrones. When you’re seeing the show, then what you’re seeing is a story, a narrative, a rendering. And that rendering is fictive. …However, if you had happened to visit the set where that show was being shot, and actually observed what the actors are doing there, and the director and the cameraman and the rest of the staff, well then, what you’re seeing there, that meta thing, is real.

The medium per se is not important. The depiction is fictive if it is seen on a large wide screen in a movie theater. The depiction is fictive if it is seen on TV, or on your computer or for that matter your phone. The depiction is fictive if it is actual actors performing on stage, in an actual old-school theater. Hell, the depiction is fictive even when you’re sitting there reading out a bedtime story to your child. …But when you go meta, and then it becomes real. When you’re seeing the person reading the story, as opposed to attending to the story per se, then that is real. When you’re looking at the play not as a narrative but as a bunch of people doing stuff on a stage with a bunch of people sitting there in chairs looking at them, then that is real. …And when you visit a movie set (including a porn-movie set), and actually see the actors and director and the rest of the team there do their stuff, then that is real too --- unless of course that meta-depiction is itself the meta-narrative being depicted fictively.

And nor is the genre of the show important. It could be fantasy like GoT. It could be slice-of-life fiction. It could even be a completely non-fictive perfectly true documentary show. But unless the documentary takes the form of replays of real-life shots, and if it depicts actors acting out roles, then that DEPICTION is fictive.

…I think you can now see why your looking in through someone’s window --- generic “you”, no snide personalizations and insults intended! --- and watching whatever is going on in there, be it people just sitting around and talking, or eating, or watching TV, or having sex, or whatever else, is not fictive but real. Unless of course a man looking through a window is what is being fictively depicted in a show or something, and you’re seeing a scripted performance, in which case obviously it is fictive.

Semantics Chanakya.

Are you implying that the 'porn set' of a forced rape is real but fiction when it's seen on Pornhub?

 

[Lithrael]

Semantics Chanakya.

Are you implying that the 'porn set' of a forced rape is real but fiction when it's seen on Pornhub?

If they're actually filming someone who isn't consenting, then it's a real rape both as filmed and when shown to an audience. And also illegal to do, to film, and to show to an audience. I suppose it could be misrepresented as mere fiction, but that would be like the way they used to really kill animals while filming movies: as soon as people found out they were watching genuine suffering when they wanted to be watching fictional suffering, there was fierce backlash and the industry had to change.

If they're filming consenting actors acting, then it's a real sex act which is part of a fiction when shown to an audience.

 

[Poem]

If they're actually filming someone who isn't consenting, then it's a real rape both as filmed and when shown to an audience. And also illegal to do, to film, and to show to an audience. I suppose it could be misrepresented as mere fiction, but that would be like the way they used to really kill animals while filming movies: as soon as people found out they were watching genuine suffering when they wanted to be watching fictional suffering, there was fierce backlash and the industry had to change.

If they're filming consenting actors acting, then it's a real sex act which is part of a fiction when shown to an audience.

Why and how does it become fiction only when actors consent?

 

[Poem]

I mean, I wouldn't because it's not appropriate in my culture,

Therefore the status quo of porn saturation which kids have easy access to isn't either.

but it was super the norm for a hell of a lot longer than it hasn't been the norm, being impossible to avoid in bad weather until we had buildings with enough rooms in them to get a room.

Was it the norm to put the child in the bed so that they could see super close up penetration?

 

[Ziggurat]

You’re arguing with voices in your head. No one suggested that they are synonyms.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to form a coherent argument.

If they aren't synonyms, then there is no relevance in whether or not something is a performance, and so calling it a performance serves no purpose in your argument. I assumed that you wouldn't introduce irrelevancies. I can see now that this was a mistake. I will endeavor to not repeat this mistake.

Once again you stumble blindly into irrelevancies. The genre of the movie is irrelevant. Even if the movie were a true-to-life documentary, nevertheless the depiction of it by actors on screen, that depiction is fictive.

If actors are re-enacting events that actually happened, then yes, that's fiction, because what is filmed isn't the real-life actions that are being portrayed. The actor playing Lincoln isn't actually Lincoln, it's a fiction that he is.

But in a documentary like Free Solo, the people aren't actors, they aren't depicting events, they're doing the actual thing on camera. It's a true-to-life documentary with no fiction in it.

When porn actors have sex, there is a fictive element (the housewife got horny and jumped the plumber - she's not a house wife and he's not a plumber), but there are also real elements (his penis actually entered her vagina). The fictive elements don't make the real elements not real. That's not how it works. Only an idiot would think it does. Only an idiot can't separate out these aspects.

 

[Poem]

Someone secretly films a sex party and posts it on Pornhub. Real of fiction? Revenge porn?