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

[Poem]

No, that's not the same. That is a ludicrous comparison.
Are children invited to view exhibitions of porn by Pornhub? Can you link to one of these invitations? No, you can't. You're just flailing around now.

Already dealt with. What are you suggesting - that Pornhub are innocently unaware that children are extremely curious about sex and will google 'sex' and find their content? We live in an age of information overload, so the usual way to find what content is 'available' (or 'exhibited') is through a search engine. Word of mouth is one of the best ways content creators garner attention.

No. Had you paid any attention at all to the world outside your own head, you would know this. I've mentioned my profession repeatedly through the years I've been a member of this forum.

Your irritation that I have dared to suggest that porn advocates and consumers are acting irresponsibly and immorally is on full display in this irrelevant post.

The fact that others in prominent positions have questioned the morality of those that don't take proper measures to ensure children aren't exposed appears to be unrecognised by you.

 

[Darat]

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and theorise that hookup culture is on the rise because it's something fun to do that doesn't cost very much up front, not because porn is giving the youth ideas about hookup culture.

And of course much, much easier to arrange than it used to be.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But, as usual, you don't specify what you claim.

Again, not demonstrated. Perhaps you need to think a little more before posting GF.

I don't need to demonstrate anything that is clear in the above posts. You do not want ti discuss this matter, you just want to declaim from on high like a good little authoritarian and expect the rest of us to surrender to your nonsensical prejudices. However this forum does not work that way.

If you don't like this fact being noted, that's a you problem not a me problem.

 

[Poem]

I don't need to demonstrate anything that is clear in the above posts. You do not want ti discuss this matter, you just want to declaim from on high like a good little authoritarian and expect the rest of us to surrender to your nonsensical prejudices. However this forum does not work that way.

If you don't like this fact being noted, that's a you problem not a me problem.

This is what you posted:

Yes I do find the (many) posts where you lie about what other forum members are saying pretty disgusting.

Zero links to my alleged lies and zero argument.

But then again your monomaniacal obsession over this topic prevents you from having an honest discussion about it.

Ad hominem fallacy - posting, currently, on one subject on ISF is just fine....but actually irrelevant and not addressing the actual subject of the thread.

 

[Poem]

I would, but I can find nothing remotely disgusting in that post.
What specifically do you find disgusting there?

Responding with a 'crying with laughter' emoji is an appropriate response to where is your moral compass in wanting to show porn to kids (#1,411)?

It isn't disgusting because...........?

 

[Lithrael]

It isn't disgusting because...........?

The whole post you're calling disgusting is a nostalgaic recollection of the fun and novelty of finding something tantalizingly sex positive as a curious and pubescent kid, and lamenting that kids these days have a different experience than the one he fondly recalls.

The laughter at your response is because you read this post and apparantly took it to mean he'd love to sit a bunch of little kids down and show them a hardcore porno movie like it was Cocomelon.

 

[Poem]

The whole post you're calling disgusting is a nostalgaic recollection of the fun and novelty of finding something tantalizingly sex positive as a curious and pubescent kid, and lamenting that kids these days have a different experience than the one he fondly recalls.

The laughter at your response is because you read this post and apparantly took it to mean he'd love to sit a bunch of little kids down and show them a hardcore porno movie like it was Cocomelon.

You're being generous.

Pornographers have already normalized showing porn to children and I referenced De Souza's criticism of Meta for doing just that. Pornographers exist because that is what people want.

 

[Poem]

And I will call today's comstockers, and anybody else who threatens my freedom of speech, a bunch of evil bastards.

Evil bastards? Really? how far do you want to go with these freedoms sackett? Is where we are not far enough for you?

 

[Lithrael]

For every censor that would be satisfied stopping well within common sense boundaries there are ten who will not stop, ever.

Not that the above is limited to censoriousness. It's a very common human thing. You see the worst and take care of it, and then you want to take care of the next worst - and some percentage of us will just never sit back and go, 'great! let's stop now.'

Which is why pushback is always important. We do need competing forces so we don't do things that are nuts in either extreme.

 

[Myriad]

For every censor that would be satisfied stopping well within common sense boundaries there are ten who will not stop, ever.

Not that the above is limited to censoriousness. It's a very common human thing. You see the worst and take care of it, and then you want to take care of the next worst - and some percentage of us will just never sit back and go, 'great! let's stop now.'

Which is why pushback is always important. We do need competing forces so we don't do things that are nuts in either extreme.

But Poem lacks the methodical patience to be one of those step-by-step censors who start with the worst and never stop. His intent is to immediately ban everything from wedding photographs of the bride and groom kissing to anatomical diagrams of the human reproductive system in medical textbooks to Rodin's most famous sculpture. Then, presumably, once everyone has been reduced to levels of ignorance of human sexuality that would make the pathological prudery of middle class Victorian society look like Caligula's court, a few artists, teachers, and doctors might be permitted to grovel for permission to draw a hand touching a human female breast as long as the need is sufficiently dire and guarantees can be made that it will in no way increase anyone's enjoyment of life.

 

[Lithrael]

My god, young lady! Your ankles are showing!

 

[Ziggurat]

Playboy was first published in 1953 (and included a nude photo of Marilyn Munroe). According to Britannica:

You say that like they were the first pornography. They were not. And their circulation didn't really take off until the 1960's. They rode a change in the culture, they didn't drive it.

 

[Poem]

You say that like they were the first pornography. They were not. And their circulation didn't really take off until the 1960's. They rode a change in the culture, they didn't drive it.

Are Britannica wrong?

it (Playboy) contributed to the so-called sexual revolution in the United States in the 1960s, marked by greatly more permissive attitudes toward sexual interest and activity than had been prevalent in earlier generations.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are Britannica wrong?

No. But note that they don't say anything about the size of Playboy's contribution. Because it wasn't actually that large. Not zero, but not nearly as important as other factors I've already mentioned.

 

[Poem]

No. But note that they don't say anything about the size of Playboy's contribution. Because it wasn't actually that large. Not zero, but not nearly as important as other factors I've already mentioned.

The size of Playboy's contribution...

Okay, I'll have a look.

 

[Darat]

But Poem lacks the methodical patience to be one of those step-by-step censors who start with the worst and never stop. His intent is to immediately ban everything from wedding photographs of the bride and groom kissing to anatomical diagrams of the human reproductive system in medical textbooks to Rodin's most famous sculpture. Then, presumably, once everyone has been reduced to levels of ignorance of human sexuality that would make the pathological prudery of middle class Victorian society look like Caligula's court, a few artists, teachers, and doctors might be permitted to grovel for permission to draw a hand touching a human female breast as long as the need is sufficiently dire and guarantees can be made that it will in no way increase anyone's enjoyment of life.

Just a pet niggle from me aboutthe "...that would make the pathological prudery of middle class Victorian society look like Caligula's court,.." always have to make it clear that you are talking about the "pathological public performance of prudery of middle-class Victorian society". Behind the scenes they were as depraved as any other society - probably more than most given the population explosion.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Responding with a 'crying with laughter' emoji is an appropriate response to where is your moral compass in wanting to show porn to kids (#1,411)?

It isn't disgusting because...........?

What Lithrael said, plus, the post you linked to that you said was disgusting was not the laughing emoji. Do try to keep up.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Already dealt with.

Nope. That does not deal with the issue in any useful or meaningful way.

What are you suggesting - that Pornhub are innocently unaware that children are extremely curious about sex and will google 'sex' and find their content?

You see, there's the whole problem in a nutshell.
1. You don't think pubescent children should be curious about sex.
2. You don't think that this curiosity should be satisfied.
3. You are blaming Pornhub for this curiosity, when it is, in fact, an integral and essential part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with being curious about sex.
4. You are blaming Pornhub for a problem you say yourself is actually a problem of google.
5. Only you seem to think this is a problem, but you want everyone else to subscribe to your censorious puritanism.

We live in an age of information overload, so the usual way to find what content is 'available' (or 'exhibited') is through a search engine. Word of mouth is one of the best ways content creators garner attention.

That still, for the umpteenth time, does not mean that Pornhub is "showing" porn to youngsters. No matter how many times you try to employ bizarre definitions of words, it remains an untrue assertion.

Your irritation that I have dared to suggest that porn advocates and consumers are acting irresponsibly and immorally is on full display in this irrelevant post.

Now this is yet another example of you not arguing in good faith.
1. This post is not irrelevant: it is a direct response to your accusations against me and my professional reputation.
2. You are lying about what you said. That was not what I was answering, as well you know.

The fact that others in prominent positions have questioned the morality of those that don't take proper measures to ensure children aren't exposed appears to be unrecognised by you.

Only if you ignore my multiple posts on that subject.
You want to classify disagreement as being ignored. Not gonna happen, matey. I have addressed this point, with sources: that you don't like my answer is irrelevant, and not in any way my problem.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Ad hominem:
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

Did your post address my argument? No it didn't. Did it attack the fact that I'm only currently active on this thread (ie an irrelevant aspect of my person)? Yes it did.

That is not an ad hominem. You need to learn what that fallacy actually is, before bandying the term around.
GF said you had a monomanaical obsession with this subject. That is based on both the tone and location of your posts- so not an attack on some irrelevant aspect of your personality at all.
My post agreed with GF- so not an irrelevant attack on your personality at all.
Furthermore, your entire argument here is based on morality, which is, by its very nature, a deeply personal thing. If you want to argue morality, then you must expect others to discuss your morality. To disagree with, or disapprove of, your expressed beliefs with regard to pornography, is not an ad hominem- it is a necessary part of the debate you clearly want to have on this forum.

According to the Foundation for Economic Education:
"...ad hominem attacks are generally viewed as a sign of low intelligence. Even Urban Dictionary—hardly a forum for high brows—recognizes that ad hominem arguments are generally used “by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”

Saying your opponent is wrong because they are of low intelligence, OTOH, is absolutely an ad hominem.

But none demonstrated.

Yes, they were. Pretending it never happened doesn't make it any less true.

Ad hominem again.

Nope- addressing your posts, and disagreeing with the tone and intent therein, is absolutely not an ad hominem. I'll say it again: please look it up, so you don't make this mistake again. Don't worry- a lot of people get this wrong. You are by no means the only one.

All you have shown is that I continue to post on this thread and not on other threads; that is hardly relevant or interesting.

No, it goes to the heart of what GF and I were saying, and proves it. You post about this subject, only this subject, and nothing but this subject. This is both relevant and interesting, because it gives some clues about your reasons for initiating this debate. You are here, it would seem, to preach. You dress up your distaste for matters sexual by talking about the supposed harms caused by porn, but, at the end of the day, it's not porn you don't like: it's sex. You disapprove of masturbation, and of images of naked people. To understand your motives gives insight into the kind of argument you want, and how to counter it (which is what I wish to do). You don't get to handwave away inconvenient questions or comments like that: everyone here is free to decide what they think is relevant (whilst remaining on-topic, of course) and what is interesting. You are not the arbiter of this, so you'd better get used to this.

 

[Poem]

That is not an ad hominem. You need to learn what that fallacy actually is, before bandying the term around.
GF said you had a monomanaical obsession with this subject. That is based on both the tone and location of your posts- so not an attack on some irrelevant aspect of your personality at all.

Which bit of 'argument or position' isn't clear to you in the definition? There is nothing in a vague accusation of monomaniacal obsession that remotely addresses rape culture or porn or any other aspect that has emerged in this thread - but It is clearly an attack on an aspect of such a person. What you haven't established is that someone with a monomaniacal obsession can't post cogently about their subject on a forum and neither have you established that such a description accurately describes me. If you don't like the tone of a member's posts then report them or leave the thread.

My post agreed with GF- so not an irrelevant attack on your personality at all.
Furthermore, your entire argument here is based on morality, which is, by its very nature, a deeply personal thing. If you want to argue morality, then you must expect others to discuss your morality.

Please feel free to discuss my immorality (yes, I am immoral) but do expect such questions in return.

To disagree with, or disapprove of, your expressed beliefs with regard to pornography, is not an ad hominem- it is a necessary part of the debate you clearly want to have on this forum.

GF has not actually pushed back against my arguments....so already addressed.

Saying your opponent is wrong because they are of low intelligence, OTOH, is absolutely an ad hominem.

It would be if I'd said so.

Yes, they were. Pretending it never happened doesn't make it any less true.

None demonstrated or cited.

Nope- addressing your posts, and disagreeing with the tone and intent therein, is absolutely not an ad hominem. I'll say it again: please look it up, so you don't make this mistake again. Don't worry- a lot of people get this wrong. You are by no means the only one.

What you don't like CY is being accused of complicity in effectively making porn easily accessible to children. That children are accessing this stuff is undeniable. Why don't you actually deal with Rachel De Souza's words to tech firms about having a moral compass? What about her:
"It should not be the case that young children are stumbling across violent and misogynistic pornography on social-media sites"

is in any way ambiguous?

No, it goes to the heart of what GF and I were saying, and proves it. You post about this subject, only this subject, and nothing but this subject.

Even if true, as already dealt with, it would prove nothing. Anyone posting on one subject on a forum is not guilty of anything. Now prove me wrong CY....do go ahead.

And it isn't true anyway.

This is both relevant and interesting, because it gives some clues about your reasons for initiating this debate. You are here, it would seem, to preach.

And you preach from the pulpit of the Church of Porn.

You dress up your distaste for matters sexual by talking about the supposed harms caused by porn, but, at the end of the day, it's not porn you don't like: it's sex..

Wrong and not demonstrated.

You disapprove of masturbation,

You should have seen this (remember your post about me being remiss for not knowing your profession?) #1,308. You accuse yourself CY.

and of images of naked people. To understand your motives gives insight into the kind of argument you want, and how to counter it (which is what I wish to do). You don't get to handwave away inconvenient questions or comments like that: everyone here is free to decide what they think is relevant (whilst remaining on-topic, of course) and what is interesting. You are not the arbiter of this, so you'd better get used to this.

I've have been responding but I am behind. I'd be even further behind if I posted on other subjects which interest me.