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

Poem said:
Rather than deal with the harms to children you want to talk about the rights of folk to sext? I don't care about people's rights to do that. Normalizing porn has normalized sexting. If we deemed porn what it actually is (yes it is obscene and harmful), then maybe...just maybe, sexting would not be normalized.
Click to expand...
And again you show your concern isn't about the children it's that you want porn to be banned and you are using "think of the kids" to impose your morality on everyone else. You don't give a damn about kids seeing porn or rather you do but only at one step removed as you don't want anyone to view porn.
 
Poem said:
Rather than deal with the harms to children you want to talk about the rights of folk to sext? I don't care about people's rights to do that. Normalizing porn has normalized sexting. If we deemed porn what it actually is (yes it is obscene and harmful), then maybe...just maybe, sexting would not be normalized.
Click to expand...
Ban porn to get rid of sexting? Reminds me of an old joke:

Q. Why are Baptists against sex?
A. Because it might lead to dancing.
 
Poem said:
Yes and the UK has.
Click to expand...
The UK has banned guns because UKians have been culturally amenable to such regulation, going back centuries at least. The ban already made sense to them.

If there were a similar attitude towards porn, UKians would have banned it already, same as they've already banned guns.

You need to be thinking about effecting a cultural sea change, not about legislating your preferred morality on an unsympathetic populace.
 
theprestige said:
The UK has banned guns because UKians have been culturally amenable to such regulation, going back centuries at least. The ban already made sense to them.

If there were a similar attitude towards porn, UKians would have banned it already, same as they've already banned guns.

You need to be thinking about effecting a cultural sea change, not about legislating your preferred morality on an unsympathetic populace.
Click to expand...
I imagine that every gun owner in the UK will be surprised to hear that the UK has banned guns.
 
I think that there are probably some negative social consequences to the hyper-availability of hyper-stimulus pornography in the the hyper-developed world. That being said, I think I'm more concerned with snack culture, and the hyper-availability of hyper-snacks. For me, and for the children.

If I have to, I'm sure I can link to some dude on the web with some links that show that countries with strict prohibitions against porn have higher rates of sexual assault, and vice versa. I don't think that evidence is all that great, but it's at least as good as anything Poem has presented to the contrary. I'm unconvinced of the need for moral urgency.
 
theprestige said:
I imagine most of them would have the wit to recognize an apt figure of speech when they read one in context.

But I readily admit there's a lot I don't know about the dark continent and its denizens.
Click to expand...

You're better off that way. Trust me.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
That's not an answer to my question. I asked you how Pornhub was showing porn to children. I didn't ask you about Google or parents.

Now you're moving the goalposts again. 'Not taking proper measures to prevent' children accessing porn is not the same as actively 'showing porn' to children, which is what you claimed was happening.
So, let me ask again: how is Pornhub showing porn to children?
Click to expand...
I replied (#1358) but you seemed to have missed it. I'll also add this from Ofcom (UK's communications regulator):

Recommender systems – algorithms which provide personalised recommendations to users – are children’s main pathway to harm online. Left unchecked, they risk serving up large volumes of unsolicited, dangerous content to children in their personalised news feeds or ‘For You’ pages. The cumulative effect of viewing this harmful content can have devasting consequences.

As already mentioned, one need only type in (four letters beginning with 'f') and you're off down the porn rabbit hole.

Pornhub have their content on display for anyone who is curious. Their 'Are you 18' (or whatever form of words they use) fails the UK government's and NSPCC's guidance of not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.

The UK's Children's Commissioner was bold and right to say:
"frankly [tech firms] are multi-billion companies, they should be having a moral compass and doing this now".

Her concerns were about the metaverse (from a BBC report about a metaverse app that allowed children as young as 13 into virtual strip clubs where sex was being simulated and adults were able to freely interact with them) but will, of course, equally apply to Pornhub et al.

I'll ask you directly Cosmic Yak: in your opinion, are Pornhub a disgrace? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Why should it have or not have such a thing - it is a capitalist business, its aim is to make money.
Click to expand...
They are falling foul of UK law at the very least (the spirit of the law); that's disgraceful isn't it?
 
Darat said:
Why should it have or not have such a thing - it is a capitalist business, its aim is to make money.
Click to expand...
Apple stopped dealing with DRC following reports of 1000s of children working to mine cobalt for mobile phones batteries etc. Continuing would have been disgraceful wouldn't it?
 
I'm completely in favor of banning explicit popups/banners and adding one more step to 'are you 18' gates, like the 'adult quiz captcha' some sites use (captkaa?).

In practice I'm not sure we CAN get rid of explicit ads. The worst offenders are on abandoned and piracy sites. It seems to be like agreeing we should get rid of phishing scams.

I WOULD like large, normal audience sites to knock it off with saucy ads. I dug down into the 'why this ad' for the gross 'sexy secretary/boss' game ad on Youtube and it just said 'city and time of day.'

It DID stop serving it to me after I asked on all my devices, so now I just have normal stupid scam ads and a guy trying for two minutes straight to neg me into a buying a jacket. And Star Trek people with charities. And Sandy Hook petitions.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I'm completely in favor of banning explicit popups/banners and adding one more step to 'are you 18' gates, like the 'adult quiz captcha' some sites use (captkaa?).

In practice I'm not sure we CAN get rid of explicit ads. The worst offenders are on abandoned and piracy sites. It seems to be like agreeing we should get rid of phishing scams.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of such a CAPTCHA? Wouldn't it need to be time limited to avoid said child googling the answer?

Is Pornhub a disgrace?
 
Poem said:
They are falling foul of UK law at the very least (the spirit of the law); that's disgraceful isn't it?
Click to expand...
Disgraceful? Who gives two figs about that - it should be about their illegal activity. (You may find that you argue more folk into believing something needs to be done "because of the children" if you hide your opposition to the existence of porn. Sadly too late to do that here as we can all read that you want all porn to be made illegal.)
 
Lithrael said:
I'm completely in favor of banning explicit popups/banners and adding one more step to 'are you 18' gates, like the 'adult quiz captcha' some sites use (captkaa?).

In practice I'm not sure we CAN get rid of explicit ads. The worst offenders are on abandoned and piracy sites. It seems to be like agreeing we should get rid of phishing scams.
Click to expand...
The strange thing is that I never get hit with these ads, I have to go and explicitly hunt for explicit porn to find it, I never just "come across" (oh er missus) porn. I've checked this in the DuckDuckGo browser to see if it was the personalisation data Google and MS use to decide what to show me but no in DuckDuckGo I again have to hunt down porn to see anything like porn.
 
Darat said:
Disgraceful? Who gives two figs about that - it should be about their illegal activity. (You may find that you argue more folk into believing something needs to be done "because of the children" if you hide your opposition to the existence of porn. Sadly too late to do that here as we can all read that you want all porn to be made illegal.)
Click to expand...
Rachel de Souza is wrong? You think Pornhub are not falling foul of the spirit of the guidance about taking proper measures etc.....

There's nothing sad about saying that porn is harmful to adults as well as children.
 
Poem said:
Apple stopped dealing with DRC following reports of 1000s of children working to mine cobalt for mobile phones batteries etc. Continuing would have been disgraceful wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
No idea, I would have to look into the claims etc.

In principle I am against children i.e. under 16 year olds in any kind of even slightly dangerous employment so if they were using under 16 year olds I would consider that wrong - disgraceful is not the word I would use.
 
Poem said:
Rachel de Souza is wrong? You think Pornhub are not falling foul of the spirit of the guidance about taking proper measures etc.....

There's nothing sad about saying that porn is harmful to adults as well as children.
Click to expand...
You seem to be emotionally driven in this matter - "disgraceful", "sad" and so on are emotional responses not rational argumentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom