Duly noted, but laws don't work that way. There's a reason for "legalese". They go out of their way to define what applies and what doesn't. Like, at least per Texas law) if you beat up your GF, they can issue a protected citizen order for her, but if you beat up the lady next door, they can't. But if you stalk her, at least as of this year, they can. Go figure.
That happens when legislation is carefully drafted and/or there's been plenty of time for case precedents to be set. Poem's proposed "
not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others" is unacceptable as language for anyone to be prosecuting or defending anyone's property or freedom in court.
How, for instance, would that not apply to ordinary visual aids being used in a sex education course? In this day and age even basic math concepts are taught with the aid of illustrations, video, and interactive graphics. Requiring sex education to be taught by text alone would be a hair's breadth from banning sex education course materials altogether. Perhaps that's also a result Poem desires, but that should be explicitly stated rather than snuck in under the cover of some excessively broad law.
The same can and already DOES apply for your example of kissing vs other sexual activities. We ALREADY make that kind of distinctions. Like, you don't get prosecuted if you kiss your GF in a park, but if you flip her skirt, pull her panties to the side, and... mmm.... err... wait, what was I talking about?... oh, right... you may well end up on a list.
Or, depending on the time period and place, if you and your GF are unmarried. Or if it's on a Sunday. Or if you're of different races. Or if you're of a lower class and her father disapproves. Or if you're also female. Or...
Yeah, we make such distinctions, and historically we suck at it, which wins some people a power trip while others get their lives destroyed.
We already KNOW how to make legal distinctions about that, without having to google random sites.
The distinction I coped from a "random" site is typical of thousands of such sites, because it arises in the context of consent and the message that consent is required for "all sexual activity." Kissing
without consent IS and should be considered sexual activity; specifically, sexual assault. (At least until some moody eleven year old presses charges against her family for "go on, don't be a sour puss, give your grandma a kiss" after a family visit. Such delineations are never perfect.) Being "sexual activity" in the context of consent issues doesn't make it "sexual activity" in other contexts, as you point out. But Poem's wording doesn't specify a context, and his word games over the phrase "rape culture" strongly suggests that he's willing to elide such contexts freely for his own rhetorical purposes. So, the "legal distinctions" you speak of would end up decided by some prosecutor and some judge in some as yet unknown venue. Is that how you want the question of whether you should be imprisoned for letting a child see a wedding photo album to be decided?
We also never had problems with making something illegal, just because there's a supply of it. E.g. there's a massive supply of fentanyl, but it's still illegal
A Fentanyl pill can only be consumed once. Ending all production of Fentanyl would reduce the supply of, and eventually end all consumption of, Fentanyl, probably in fairly short order. None of that is true for porn. Ending all production of porn would not affect the supply of porn at al, so it does nothing to achieve the supposed goal of protecting children from being exposed to porn that's already supposedly "laying around" everywhere. That's a strong indication Poem is being disingenuous about his desired goal, which (also based on other things he's said) is actually the de facto banning of all porn for everyone, by making it extremely risky to possess or transmit, should some minor somewhere under any circumstances whatsoever manage to see it.
www.bbc.com
