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

[Myriad]

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.

I partly agree with this, but the pattern was a little more complex than that, hence the careful distinction I made specifying middle class. Roughly speaking, the Victorian ruling and upper classes laid down behavioral strictures that they themselves felt free to disregard at will; the ones who had to actually abide by those strictures (or at least, greatly fear being caught breaking them) were middle class clerks and professionals and the household staff who directly served the upper classes. Lowly "unskilled" workers in farms and factories carried on as always.

(It's not an unusual pattern. It exists today in our own society, with hate substituted for lust as the cardinal emotional sin. The upper classes hate whom they choose and express that hatred freely through their actions, while treating any suspected expression of hate among their subordinates and servants as unforgivable. Who most fears consequences for accusations of hate speech or microaggressions? Academics, government clerks, influencers, and busy worker bees in corporate middle management. Not the oligarchs, and not the construction workers. And, as in Victorian times, most of us people of letters enthusiastically support this morally uplifting agenda.)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

You are demonstrating here that you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hom is not a personal attack: it is a logical fallacy, a faulty argument. Saying that you have an unhealthy obsession with porn is a comment on your character. Saying that you are wrong because of this unhealthy obsession, is an ad hominem. Clear now?

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

Do you consider yourself to be a sinner? That's quite a telling comment there, Poem.
I am quite happy to discuss my own morality, especially as you have repeatedly accused me of low moral standards yourself.

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

No, he hasn't, thus proving once again that you don't understand what an ad hominem is. And, once again, if you are going to base your argument on morality- which you absolutely are- it is perfectly acceptable to discuss that morality. That you don't like this, or didn't consider this before starting this thread, is immaterial.

It would be if I'd said so.

OK, here is you saying so:

.

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.”

Are you going to double down on your previous lie, or accept that this post is actually your post?

None demonstrated or cited.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la!' won't change anything. Amply demonstrated, and again, I will urge you to stop lying.

What you don't like CY is being accused of complicity in effectively making porn easily accessible to children.

You actuallly accused me of working for the porn industry. That's what I don't like.
In fact, I dislike any unjust and unfounded accusation made against me. Maybe that's just me- I'm funny like that.

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"

Already have. You ignored that post, and I really can't be bothered reposting it: you'll either ignore it or lie, as per usual.

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.

It is a comment on your posts, and your posting style. It doesn't have to prove anything. We are allowed to say these things, you know- you don't get to dictate what people think and say. Indeed, your entire argument is premissed on your assumption that you, and you alone, get to dictate what people should be allowed to think and do. Another manifestation of your prudish obsession is your outrage when anyone here questions that assumed right.

And it isn't true anyway.

Really? I haven't seen you anywhere else on this forum.

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

This is just childish, and not for the first time. You have a habit of copying epithets from others' posts, and throwing them back at them, much like a playground argument. "You're smelly!" "I know you are, but what about me?" Is this really the level of debate you wish to emulate? Can you really not do any better than this?

Wrong and not demonstrated.

You think seeing pictures of naked people is immoral. You think pubescent teenagers becoming interested in sex is "utterly disgusting". You think watching porn is wrong. You talk of masturbation in terms used by those who disapprove of this habit. You disapprove of any expression of sexuality outside of a closed and darkened bedroom. Your distaste for sex shines from your every post.
Which is fine- just don't expect that you can browbeat everyone else into sharing this prudishness.

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

You know what, Poem? I don't believe you. I think you do disapprove of masturbation. Otherwise, why call it 'onanism'?

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

Wait- are you now saying you don't post on other subjects?
Get your story straight, old chap, because the cracks are starting to show.

 

[Poem]

You are demonstrating here that you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hom is not a personal attack:

Not a personal attack?
Google definition:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Ad hominem: To the man

it is a logical fallacy, a faulty argument. Saying that you have an unhealthy obsession with porn is a comment on your character. Saying that you are wrong because of this unhealthy obsession, is an ad hominem. Clear now?

Here's GF's ad hominem:
But then again your monomaniacal obsession over this topic prevents you from having an honest discussion about it.

Here's me responding: #1,465

And here is you agreeing with GF: #1,477

Do you consider yourself to be a sinner? That's quite a telling comment there, Poem.
I am quite happy to discuss my own morality, especially as you have repeatedly accused me of low moral standards yourself.

....though you didn't explain what is telling.

No, he hasn't, thus proving once again that you don't understand what an ad hominem is.

See above.

And, once again, if you are going to base your argument on morality- which you absolutely are- it is perfectly acceptable to discuss that morality. That you don't like this, or didn't consider this before starting this thread, is immaterial.

I have no issue with discussing such morality so I have no idea why you have posted this.

OK, here is you saying so:

Are you going to double down on your previous lie, or accept that this post is actually your post?

It's my post - but it does not say I think you are unintelligent. What is unclear about the words 'according to the Foundation for Economic Education'?

I do not think you are of low intelligence CY.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la!' won't change anything. Amply demonstrated, and again, I will urge you to stop lying.

Nothing cited.

You actually accused me of working for the porn industry.
That's what I don't like.
In fact, I dislike any unjust and unfounded accusation made against me. Maybe that's just me- I'm funny like that.

False. It's polite to cite a post when making such an accusation...but you will not find me saying what you accuse me of.

Already have. You ignored that post, and I really can't be bothered reposting it: you'll either ignore it or lie, as per usual.

It's true that I am behind in dealing with all the posts in this thread. It might be partly due to having to deal with your ad hominem.

If you can't be bothered then what are you doing here?

It is a comment on your posts, and your posting style. It doesn't have to prove anything. We are allowed to say these things, you know- you don't get to dictate what people think and say. Indeed, your entire argument is premissed on your assumption that you, and you alone, get to dictate what people should be allowed to think and do.

I dislike your posting style CY.....now, shall we move on?

Another manifestation of your prudish obsession is your outrage when anyone here questions that assumed right.

?

Really? I haven't seen you anywhere else on this forum.

You didn't do your homework.

This is just childish, and not for the first time. You have a habit of copying epithets from others' posts, and throwing them back at them, much like a playground argument. "You're smelly!" "I know you are, but what about me?" Is this really the level of debate you wish to emulate? Can you really not do any better than this?

An admission that you have been behaving thus.

You think seeing pictures of naked people is immoral.

To the extent where we are with porn, yes.

You think pubescent teenagers becoming interested in sex is "utterly disgusting".

Citation? (You won't find one)

You think watching porn is wrong.

It's damaging society - yes, absolutely,

You talk of masturbation in terms used by those who disapprove of this habit.

I can't imagine Bojo's disapproval was for masturbation per se.

You disapprove of any expression of sexuality outside of a closed and darkened bedroom.

I said responsible adults would take proper measures...etc.

Your distaste for sex shines from your every post.

Not substantiated...nothing wrong with sex.

Which is fine- just don't expect that you can browbeat everyone else into sharing this prudishness.

No accusation of prudishness substantiated.

You know what, Poem? I don't believe you. I think you do disapprove of masturbation. Otherwise, why call it 'onanism'?

Now you think i am lying...Without some degree of respect then debate is impossible.

Give me a good reason not to continue using the word onanism CY.

Wait- are you now saying you don't post on other subjects?
Get your story straight, old chap, because the cracks are starting to show.

I've been completely transparent CY (and if you had been following closely you would know that). I am currently only posting on this thread.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Not a personal attack?
Google definition:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Ad hominem: To the man

You really, really, need to actually look up what an ad hominem is.
Here:

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

....though you didn't explain what is telling.

Really? Do you really need everything explained in tedious and minute detail, or is this just yet another ruse to avoid actually dealing with the topic at hand.
Very well: I strongly suspect you are a Christian, and a fairly fundamentalist one at that. If not, then some other equally fundamentalist faith. Admitting you are immoral sounds very much like a Christian saying "I am a sinner", which adds weight to my suspicion.

I have no issue with discussing such morality so I have no idea why you have posted this.

Dishonest evasion noted. Please don't feign ignorance- it's not a good look, and whatever stern deity you believe in will frown upon you.
Once again: morality is personal. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if you want to base an argument on morality- which you are- then this discussion will inevitably become more personal.
But you knew that.

It's my post - but it does not say I think you are unintelligent. What is unclear about the words 'according to the Foundation for Economic Education'?

Oh, come off it. You accuse me of employing an ad hominem, immediately followed by a quote saying people who do this are unintelligent. What other conclusion is there, beyond that you are including me in that set of people?
If that wasn't what you meant, why did you post that quote? What other purpose did it serve?

I do not think you are of low intelligence CY.

Your opinion of me is of little interest to me.

Nothing cited.

Your ridiculous insistence that, because the relevant post wasn't quoted in the exact post you are replying to, therefore it was never posted at all, is...ridiculous. And dishonest. I assume you are capitalisiing on the current lack of a search function on this forum, so as to raise unnecessary and underhand obstacles in the debate.
You can deny it as many times as you like, though- the quotes are there.

False. It's polite to cite a post when making such an accusation...but you will not find me saying what you accuse me of.

Oh, yes I will:

Are you an advocate of porn?
Are you involved in the industry?

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: stop lying. Lying is wrong.

I dislike your posting style CY.....now, shall we move on?

I will merely repeat that your personal opinion of me matters not one whit.

?

Just stop this. How many times have you accused me of being in favour of showing porn to children? That is an exact example of what I was saying- as well you know.

You didn't do your homework.

Once again capitalising on the broken search function. Nice.

An admission that you have been behaving thus.

Giving a childish response to an accusation of being childish won't have the effect you want it to.

To the extent where we are with porn, yes.

An example of prudishness, from your own mouth. Now stop pretending you don't say things like this, and that there have been no examples given of your prudishness.

Citation? (You won't find one)

*Sigh* This is, frankly, embarrassingly easy.
Here you go:

Regarding the effects of pornography on children, all I can contribute are my own recollections.

In my childhood, porn was scarce, and valuable to the point of being treasured. Prepubescents as much as randy teens, and girls as avidly as boys, hoped just for glimpses and consumed them excitedly.

Back in those days, remember, porn was about all the sex education we got. (The very few printed "guides to growing up" we encountered were porn in themselves, and circulated just as furtively.) "Durty pitchers" can provide only very basic instruction -- but b'god it was useful, maybe sufficient for our simple country needs, and, importantly, it was encouraging. Here were grownups validating our primordial horniness! Grownups from towns and cities! Damn right it did us good!

These kids nowadays have to scroll and fast forward through all that tiresome adultoid fantasy to get to the essential jollies. Poor tykes. I'd help them if I could.

It's damaging society - yes, absolutely,

So you want it banned, thus proving my claim about your goals.

I can't imagine Bojo's disapproval was for masturbation per se.

I wasn't talking about Bojo- I was talking about you. If you don't know the connotations of a word, then don't use it.

I said responsible adults would take proper measures...etc.

No, you've said way more than that.

No accusation of prudishness substantiated.

See above.

Now you think i am lying...Without some degree of respect then debate is impossible.

No, I know you are lying. If you want an honest debate, then being honest is a significant step in the right direction.

Give me a good reason not to continue using the word onanism CY.

I never said you couldn't use it, just that you should make sure you are aware of its context and connotations before you do. Either you just used it because you thought it would make you look erudite, without actually knowing its etymology, or you used it in full knowledge of where that word came from, and its significance in Christianity. Neither choice reflects well on you, I'm afraid.

I've been completely transparent CY (and if you had been following closely you would know that). I am currently only posting on this thread.

So, finally, after all this huffing and blowing, you finally admit that you are, in fact, only posting on this thread. You could have just said that in the first place- would have saved a great deal of time and effort.

 

[Poem]

So, finally, after all this huffing and blowing, you finally admit that you are, in fact, only posting on this thread. You could have just said that in the first place- would have saved a great deal of time and effort.

Monday #1,490:
Did it attack the fact that I'm only currently active on this thread (ie an irrelevant aspect of my person)?

Your response on Tuesday quoting the above #1,499.

The truth is is that if you were to actually do the homework then we wouldn't be wasting time with this total non-subject.

 

[Poem]

You really, really, need to actually look up what an ad hominem is.
Here:

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

This defines it in exactly the same way, yes....so I remain unclear why you needed to post it.

You didn't deal with this bit:

Here's GF's ad hominem:
But then again your monomaniacal obsession over this topic prevents you from having an honest discussion about it.

Here's me responding: #1,465

And here is you agreeing with GF: #1,477

 

[Poem]

? Do you really need everything explained in tedious and minute detail, or is this just yet another ruse to avoid actually dealing with the topic at hand.
Very well: I strongly suspect you are a Christian, and a fairly fundamentalist one at that. If not, then some other equally fundamentalist faith. Admitting you are immoral sounds very much like a Christian saying "I am a sinner", which adds weight to my suspicion.

If I were a Christian then I would say so and if you were following closely then you would have noted what I have said already.

I'm not going to keep doing the work for you CY.

 

[Poem]

Dishonest evasion noted. Please don't feign ignorance- it's not a good look, and whatever stern deity you believe in will frown upon you.
Once again: morality is personal. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if you want to base an argument on morality- which you are- then this discussion will inevitably become more personal.
But you knew that.

I have no idea why you have posted this. Just ask what you want to ask.

Oh, come off it. You accuse me of employing an ad hominem, immediately followed by a quote saying people who do this are unintelligent. What other conclusion is there, beyond that you are including me in that set of people?
If that wasn't what you meant, why did you post that quote? What other purpose did it serve?

It's clearly a view held by those in the quotation. There is nothing wrong with citing such remarks when someone does resort to an ad hominem as you did.

Your opinion of me is of little interest to me.

Right.

Your ridiculous insistence that, because the relevant post wasn't quoted in the exact post you are replying to, therefore it was never posted at all, is...ridiculous. And dishonest. I assume you are capitalisiing on the current lack of a search function on this forum, so as to raise unnecessary and underhand obstacles in the debate.
You can deny it as many times as you like, though- the quotes are there.

If the search function is lacking (I wasn't even aware that that was the case) then work a bit harder CY...hasn't stopped me.

Still nothing cited.

Oh, yes I will:

CY: You actually accused me of working for the porn industry.
P: Are you involved in the porn industry?

Since when does the latter equal the former. I did not accuse you; I asked a simple question.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: stop lying. Lying is wrong.

You need to prove I lied first.

I will merely repeat that your personal opinion of me matters not one whit.

Excellent answer...that's fine with me. I was just stating a fact.

Just stop this. How many times have you accused me of being in favour of showing porn to children? That is an exact example of what I was saying- as well you know.

Anyone uploading porn to user-generated sites that don't take 'proper measures', or anyone fuelling such material by consuming it is effectively doing so because we know with absolute certainty that millions of children round the world are watching it.

Once again capitalising on the broken search function. Nice.

No search button required to find this

Giving a childish response to an accusation of being childish won't have the effect you want it to.

I think you are too easily offended CY.

An example of prudishness, from your own mouth. Now stop pretending you don't say things like this, and that there have been no examples given of your prudishness.

..based on what you think is prudish.

I haven't pretended anything of the sort.

*Sigh* This is, frankly, embarrassingly easy.
Here you go:

No idea why you linked to that.

Your assertion was that:
You think pubescent teenagers becoming interested in sex is "utterly disgusting".

remains unproven and false. I'll ask again: where exactly did I say so?

So you want it banned, thus proving my claim about your goals.

You didn't need to prove that CY - I have stated so probably numerous times. Again, you are not putting the work in.

I wasn't talking about Bojo- I was talking about you. If you don't know the connotations of a word, then don't use it.

I know the etymology....and I will carry on using it free if I want to.

No, you've said way more than that.

And?

See above.

None found except your bench mark on what is prudish.

No, I know you are lying. If you want an honest debate, then being honest is a significant step in the right direction.

No, you don't know because you haven't and won't prove it.

I never said you couldn't use it, just that you should make sure you are aware of its context and connotations before you do.

I did.

Either you just used it because you thought it would make you look erudite,

Probably did.

without actually knowing its etymology,

I do. Again you mist the post where I discussed my interest in the Bible.

or you used it in full knowledge of where that word came from, and its significance in Christianity. Neither choice reflects well on you, I'm afraid.

Empty of anything meaningful.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This defines it in exactly the same way, yes....so I remain unclear why you needed to post it.

You didn't deal with this bit:

Here's GF's ad hominem:
But then again your monomaniacal obsession over this topic prevents you from having an honest discussion about it.

Here's me responding: #1,465

And here is you agreeing with GF: #1,477

You didn't actually read the full definition, did you?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If I were a Christian then I would say so and if you were following closely then you would have noted what I have said already.

I'm not going to keep doing the work for you CY.

Yup, I know, and I've already said that I don't believe you, giving reasons for that too.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Monday #1,490:
Did it attack the fact that I'm only currently active on this thread (ie an irrelevant aspect of my person)?

Your response on Tuesday quoting the above #1,499.

The truth is is that if you were to actually do the homework then we wouldn't be wasting time with this total non-subject.

So GF and I were correct. Nice of you to admit it.

 

[Poem]

You didn't actually read the full definition, did you?

I did.

Yup, I know, and I've already said that I don't believe you, giving reasons for that too.

Reasons that did not prove that I lied. How often have you seen a Christian post a challenge to the veracity of scripture?

 

[Poem]

So GF and I were correct. Nice of you to admit it.

When you make a mistake CY then you should acknowledge it. The fact that you and GF were 'correct' is a total non-subject. Make the case that anyone posting on a single thread is somehow bad and you'd have point. ..but that's never going to happen.

This is what you accused me of and you were wrong. You do not do the necessary work before you post.

You could have just said that in the first place- would have saved a great deal of time and effort.

I think you have an issue with being able to apolgise.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I have no idea why you have posted this. Just ask what you want to ask.

Really? No idea at all? No clue? Not a single earthly inkling?
Rubbish. Don't believe you. A moment's consideration of my post would supply the answer.

It's clearly a view held by those in the quotation. There is nothing wrong with citing such remarks when someone does resort to an ad hominem as you did.

So you did accuse me of being unintelligent. Noted.

CY: You actually accused me of working for the porn industry.
P: Are you involved in the porn industry?

Since when does the latter equal the former. I did not accuse you; I asked a simple question.

Rubbish. It was an accusation.

You need to prove I lied first.

Done that already. Don't need to do it again

Anyone uploading porn to user-generated sites that don't take 'proper measures', or anyone fuelling such material by consuming it is effectively doing so because we know with absolute certainty that millions of children round the world are watching it.

Repeating your insane claim doesn't make it any less insane

..based on what you think is prudish.

No, based on the actual definition of prudish.

having or revealing a tendency to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity; excessively concerned with sexual propriety.

I haven't pretended anything of the sort.

You have, and continue to do so, even when I gave you an example from your recent post.

No idea why you linked to that.

Again, utterly devoid of clues? Not a scintilla of understanding? Nope, nonsense again. Sorry, but this tactic of yours is just going to provoke people. I suggest you try another way to make your points.

Your assertion was that:
You think pubescent teenagers becoming interested in sex is "utterly disgusting".

remains unproven and false. I'll ask again: where exactly did I say so?

Did you, or did you not, describe that post as 'utterly disgusting'? Yes or no.

I know the etymology....and I will carry on using it free if I want to.

Right, so you knew that it carries a connotation of disapproval, Christian disapproval to be specific. So you do, in fact, disapprove of masturbation.

I do. Again you mist the post where I discussed my interest in the Bible.

No, I didn't: I just didn't believe it.

Empty of anything meaningful.

You seem to be struggling with reading comprehension. Would you like me to use shorter words?

 

[Poem]

Really? No idea at all? No clue? Not a single earthly inkling?
Rubbish. Don't believe you. A moment's consideration of my post would supply the answer.

So you did accuse me of being unintelligent. Noted.

Rubbish. It was an accusation.

Done that already. Don't need to do it again

Repeating your insane claim doesn't make it any less insane

No, based on the actual definition of prudish.


You have, and continue to do so, even when I gave you an example from your recent post.

Again, utterly devoid of clues? Not a scintilla of understanding? Nope, nonsense again. Sorry, but this tactic of yours is just going to provoke people. I suggest you try another way to make your points.

Right, so you knew that it carries a connotation of disapproval, Christian disapproval to be specific. So you do, in fact, disapprove of masturbation.

No, I didn't: I just didn't believe it.

You seem to be struggling with reading comprehension. Would you like me to use shorter words?

No substance found.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Acceding to Poem's request, I did my homework.
Poem joined on November 28th, 2021. On December 1st, he started this thread:

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...son-or-daughter-acting-in-pornography.355662/

It is essentially the same topic as this one, using the same sources (De Souza, for example), making the same arguments, and employing the same debating tactics we see here. I skimmed the first few pages: It turned into the same kind of train wreck as this one is doing.
Strange, then, for someone so insistent that this is not an obsession, that you appear to have joined this forum primarily so you could ride your little hobbyhorse in public. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Poem]

Acceding to Poem's request, I did my homework.
Poem joined on November 28th, 2021. On December 1st, he started this thread:

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...son-or-daughter-acting-in-pornography.355662/

It is essentially the same topic as this one, using the same sources (De Souza, for example), making the same arguments, and employing the same debating tactics we see here. I skimmed the first few pages: It turned into the same kind of train wreck as this one is doing.
Strange, then, for someone so insistent that this is not an obsession, that you appear to have joined this forum primarily so you could ride your little hobbyhorse in public. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Indeed that was posted by me. If you want to actually make a point why this is in any way significant please do so.

 

[Poem]

Really? No idea at all? No clue? Not a single earthly inkling?
Rubbish. Don't believe you. A moment's consideration of my post would supply the answer.

So you did accuse me of being unintelligent. Noted.

Rubbish. It was an accusation.

Done that already. Don't need to do it again

Repeating your insane claim doesn't make it any less insane

No, based on the actual definition of prudish.


You have, and continue to do so, even when I gave you an example from your recent post.

Again, utterly devoid of clues? Not a scintilla of understanding? Nope, nonsense again. Sorry, but this tactic of yours is just going to provoke people. I suggest you try another way to make your points.

Did you, or did you not, describe that post as 'utterly disgusting'? Yes or no.

Right, so you knew that it carries a connotation of disapproval, Christian disapproval to be specific. So you do, in fact, disapprove of masturbation.

No, I didn't: I just didn't believe it.

You seem to be struggling with reading comprehension. Would you like me to use shorter words?

You missed this out for some reason:

No search button required to find this.

 

[Poem]

Did you, or did you not, describe that post as 'utterly disgusting'? Yes or no.

I did and made clear what I thought was disgusting: #1,454.

You are not following closely to the details of what I am posting.

 

[Poem]

Rubbish. It was an accusation.

Your response to:

CY: You actually accused me of working for the porn industry.
P: Are you involved in the porn industry?

Since when does the latter equal the former. I did not accuse you; I asked a simple question.

is pretty outrageous. You make ZERO attempt to explain how the latter becomes the former. Go down this route and expect the same in return when you post a simple question such as I did. Your cynicism is off the scale. You clearly don't respect anything I say and are attempting a character assassination.

I think we are done.