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

Myriad said:
What the heck does "immoral" mean, or matter? There are billions of people on the planet who think it's immoral for my wife to walk around outdoors with her head uncovered. Should I care?

Meanwhile, many things are (as I see them) immoral but are perfectly legal and in many cases approved and applauded.

Why are you asking about what is or isn't moral when the measures you're proposing are legal?
Click to expand...
Could you clarify?
 
Poem said:
Could you clarify?
Click to expand...

Clarifying concepts is something of a hobby of mine, but this one's a challenge. It could hardly be clearer. But let me try.

You want to ban some things. That requires a law that ties into our system of legal action and legal consequences for breaking such laws. That system doesn't care about morality, it operates based on what the law actually says.

It's important to understand that laws are not magic wishes. Unfortunately our press has a long history of reporting on legislation, usually following the press release agenda of the laws' proponents, in ways that make it sound otherwise. "The No More Cavities Act will improve our children's dental hygiene." As if the words in the Congressional Record are going to jump off the page and scrub the plaque off kids' teeth. While the law itself more likely enacts something like higher taxes on candy and soft drinks, or mandatory reporting by dentists of children who appear to have poor dental hygiene to child welfare authorities. It's part of an old game in politics; of course it's easier to get support for "better dental hygiene" than for "higher taxes" or "more children put into foster care" even though one of the latter is the predictable actual direct effect of the actual law.

You want people's opinions on a question of morality because you think you can misrepresent support for what you misrepresent as a legal measure's moral intention ("ending that pervasive uploading of rape porn directly into the eyes of young children") as support for the actual legal measure you're advocating (banning all depictions of all sex for everyone everywhere).

Now you're whinging that it's not working ("no one is answering my loaded doublespeak question!")

Is that clear enough?
 
Poem said:
The issue you bring up is also equally an issue at the other extreme...so what is your point? Canada bans the depiction of children in porn (ie when actors are of legal age but are depicted as minors) but the USA does not (care of the Free Speech Coalition in 2002).

Do you support such depiction or not Myriad?
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up edge cases when what you are proposing is banning all porn for everyone?

"I think all use of cameras should be banned!"

"I don't support that, it goes too far."

"Well, in some places it's legal to record video in public areas outside hospitals where you can see people going in and out of the hospital. Do you support that?"

"You know, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I support that or not, when we're addressing your proposition that all use of cameras should be banned."
 
Myriad said:
Why are you bringing up edge cases when what you are proposing is banning all porn for everyone?
Click to expand...
I was clearly demonstrating that the issue of defining something which you have brought up in defence of porn is problematic for you too.
Myriad said:
"I think all use of cameras should be banned!"

"I don't support that, it goes too far."

"Well, in some places it's legal to record video in public areas outside hospitals where you can see people going in and out of the hospital. Do you support that?"

"You know, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I support that or not, when we're addressing your proposition that all use of cameras should be banned."
Click to expand...
The question stands irrespective of my general stance on porn - this is clearly prevarication...you are not comfortable answering this are you?
 
Myriad said:
What the heck does "immoral" mean, or matter? There are billions of people on the planet who think it's immoral for my wife to walk around outdoors with her head uncovered. Should I care?
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to compare hardcore porn with uncovered hair.
Myriad said:
Meanwhile, many things are (as I see them) immoral but are perfectly legal and in many cases approved and applauded.
Click to expand...
Such as?
 
Myriad said:
Okay, I'll answer.

"Let's assume that slavery were still legal - would you use the same (or similar) argument against calls for it's abolition?"

If there were a call for abolition I would pay attention to it. I would support it if it were reasonable.

How could it not be reasonable? Well, suppose the call for abolition defined "slavery" as "any work activity not financially compensated at at least legal minimum wage."

I would then point out that this proposed abolition would either outlaw, or require payment (taxable of course) for:
- Family members performing housework
- Students' schoolwork
- Volunteer work
- Apprenticeships and internships

Now, if the abolitionist replied something like, "OMG that's not what I meant, let me find a better way to define what I want to abolish," I might remain supportive provided they followed through on doing so. On the other hand, if they doubled down with "I'd rather have those problems, stop putting up hurdles" I'd oppose that extreme measure and look elsewhere for a more rational solution.
Click to expand...
Slavery is generally defined as being owned. You know that don't you?

The point is is that we banned slavery (unsuccessfully of course) without waiting to address every other issue (such as the equivalent of road traffic deaths) that also needs addressing.

Your position is that porn is legitimate free speech - is that correct?
 
Myriad said:
Clarifying concepts is something of a hobby of mine, but this one's a challenge. It could hardly be clearer. But let me try.

You want to ban some things. That requires a law that ties into our system of legal action and legal consequences for breaking such laws. That system doesn't care about morality, it operates based on what the law actually says.

It's important to understand that laws are not magic wishes. Unfortunately our press has a long history of reporting on legislation, usually following the press release agenda of the laws' proponents, in ways that make it sound otherwise. "The No More Cavities Act will improve our children's dental hygiene." As if the words in the Congressional Record are going to jump off the page and scrub the plaque off kids' teeth. While the law itself more likely enacts something like higher taxes on candy and soft drinks, or mandatory reporting by dentists of children who appear to have poor dental hygiene to child welfare authorities. It's part of an old game in politics; of course it's easier to get support for "better dental hygiene" than for "higher taxes" or "more children put into foster care" even though one of the latter is the predictable actual direct effect of the actual law.

You want people's opinions on a question of morality because you think you can misrepresent support for what you misrepresent as a legal measure's moral intention ("ending that pervasive uploading of rape porn directly into the eyes of young children") as support for the actual legal measure you're advocating (banning all depictions of all sex for everyone everywhere).

Now you're whinging that it's not working ("no one is answering my loaded doublespeak question!")

Is that clear enough?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't clear - though I appreciate your interesting post.

I'm remain unclear as to what 'when the measures you're proposing are legal' means. Are you referring to the legality of porn and my proposed banning of it? (I think there is some cross-wires on this issue).

Myriad said:
You want people's opinions on a question of morality because you think you can misrepresent support for what you misrepresent as a legal measure's moral intention ("ending that pervasive uploading of rape porn directly into the eyes of young children") as support for the actual legal measure you're advocating (banning all depictions of all sex for everyone everywhere).
Click to expand...
And yet you have raised the issue of failing to ban cars as a double standard in the pursuit of banning porn (I will say I find your initial words here confusing).
 
Poem said:
I'm remain unclear as to what 'when the measures you're proposing are legal' means. Are you referring to the legality of porn and my proposed banning of it?
Click to expand...
Legal, as in using law to address the issue; as opposed to moral, as in judging the morality of the issue. They were saying that questions about morality are usually not relevant when discussing law (existing or proposed).

You seem to be using immoral and harmful interchangably, which is not good practice in a solid argument, because immoral is a much more nebulous term than harmful.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Legal, as in using law to address the issue; as opposed to moral, as in judging the morality of the issue. They were saying that questions about morality are usually not relevant when discussing law (existing or proposed).

You seem to be using immoral and harmful interchangably, which is not good practice in a solid argument, because immoral is a much more nebulous term than harmful.
Click to expand...
Myriad's 'measures you're (ie me) proposing are legal' is in reference to me talking about Pornhub who upload content without making sure children don't see it - and knowing with certainty they do see it...in droves. As you know, in the UK at least, not taking proper measures to protect children from seeing porn is illegal.

I am confused by Myriad's wording.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
No, it isn't clear - though I appreciate your interesting post.

I'm remain unclear as to what 'when the measures you're proposing are legal' means. Are you referring to the legality of porn and my proposed banning of it? (I think there is some cross-wires on this issue).
Click to expand...

I'll go out of order and answer this right away. "Legal" as in, "of or relating to laws." As in "legal aid," "legal action," "legal system," "legal definition," "legal remedy," "Legally Blonde," etc. Your proposed remedy for social issues relating to porn is to enact (or "legislate," note the common word root) additional laws. Enacting, repealing, modifying, and enforcing laws are all legal measures.
 
I've posted on the Miller test for obscenity (used by the US supreme court) before and noted a case regarding a Utah video store where material was not deemed obscene because:

...guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.

The Miller test deems something obscene if it passes all three parts, so clearly, because there were large numbers consuming the porn at the hotel then it is/was inferred that they (the consumers) did not find the material offensive.

Make available sexual content that will facilitate onanism and see if it's popular?
 
Poem said:
I've posted on the Miller test for obscenity (used by the US supreme court) before and noted a case regarding a Utah video store where material was not deemed obscene because:

...guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.

The Miller test deems something obscene if it passes all three parts, so clearly, because there were large numbers consuming the porn at the hotel then it is/was inferred that they (the consumers) did not find the material offensive.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Most people do not find the material offensive. You do, though, and your response is not to accept that, but rather to insist that only your own personal distaste is paramount, and so all porn should be banned, because you're right and everyone else is wrong. Can you really not see why this is wrong?
Poem said:
Make available sexual content that will facilitate onanism and see if it's popular?
Click to expand...
Are you now saying that masturbation should be banned too?
 
I’ve often found that the word onanism indicates a Christian faith holder and one that is against contraception - which is what onanism means.
 
Darat said:
I’ve often found that the word onanism indicates a Christian faith holder and one that is against contraception - which is what onanism means.
Click to expand...
I have an interest in most things including Jesus Christ and I have been asking Christians (in person and online) about what appears to be a failed prophecy in Matthew 24:34 (cf. Mark 13:30 & Luke 21:32) where Jesus says:

I tell you the truth, this generation shall not pass until all these things take place.

'These things' includes the parousia - ie the second coming of Christ (that is the plain meaning of the text anyway). Most Christians accept that the parousia did not occur in 70AD (when the temple was destroyed which is also included in the 'these things' that Jesus predicted would occur).

This remains an extremely awkward issue for Christianity.

Thus far, I have had no response (that I find satisfactory anyway) and it is true to say that the Church is split over this issue which is, which ever way you look at it it, grist for the sceptics mill.

So no, I am not a Christian.

Did you miss this #1,404?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I’ve often found that the word onanism indicates a Christian faith holder and one that is against contraception - which is what onanism means.
Click to expand...
Total derail, sorry, but to me Onan is such a great example of people reading completely around the point. The guy's OBLIGATION was to keep her family going, and he wouldn't do it, but he still wanted to do the part HE liked, at her expense. The sin of Onan very clearly is being a huge dick who signs up but doesn't deliver, not masturbation and not family planning. Reading that story and getting "don't masturbate" out of it is such a weird straw-grasping take.

(It would be a condemnation of family planning if he achieved 'no kids' by NOT DOIN IT, and THEN got sentenced to death, and it would be a condemnation of coitus interruptus if he got her in the family way and ALSO spilled it doin' it more.)
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Total derail, sorry, but to me Onan is such a great example of people reading completely around the point. The guy's OBLIGATION was to keep her family going, and he wouldn't do it, but he still wanted to do the part HE liked, at her expense. The sin of Onan very clearly is being a huge dick who signs up but doesn't deliver, not masturbation and not family planning. Reading that story and getting "don't masturbate" out of it is such a weird straw-grasping take.

(It would be a condemnation of family planning if he achieved 'no kids' by NOT DOIN IT, and THEN got sentenced to death, and it would be a condemnation of coitus interruptus if he got her in the family way and ALSO spilled it doin' it more.)
Click to expand...
Do you write from the perspective of an interested observer or man of faith if you don't mind me asking?
 
Poem said:
Do you write from the perspective of an interested observer or man of faith if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...
Just an interested observer. I do find it interesting that the biblical scholarly takes are usually pretty sensible (or at least grounded) but the popular interpretations are much more 'broad justification for judging people,' influenced by things like, as in this example, figures who were mad about all the sex going on between people who were supposed to be religiously celibate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom