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

[Cosmic Yak]

Your response to:

is pretty outrageous. You make ZERO attempt to explain how the latter becomes the former.

Ever heard of JAQing off? (Oo-er! Sounds a bit like onanism!) You probably haven't- look it up. That's one reason.
Loaded questions- that's another.
Poisoning the well- that's a third.

Why ask that question? What was your reason for asking me? You have also said I'm 'preaching from the pulpit of porn'. Hard to parse the meaning, but again, it fuels the idea that you think I'm a shill for the porn industry.

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.

OK, I'll try that:
That's an outrageous thing to say. Are you a child abuser?
Remember, I'm just asking a simple question.

I think we are done.

Are you going to flounce out of your own thread? Because I'm not going anywhere. I will continue to call out your lies, deflate your hyperbole, post evidence to refute your claims, and challenge your repressive and puritanical demands. In other words, do what this forum was set up to do: to question claims, debate evidence, and challenge falsehoods.

 

[Lithrael]

The difference between a genuine, acceptable question and a disingenuous, offensive question (in this case essentially an accusation) is a matter of context, tone, and timing.

After pages of making it VERY clear that you think porn is The Worst (tm), "Are you an advocate of porn? Are you involved in the industry?" is an accusation, and not a guileless, innocent question. It's tonally the same as saying "Are you an advocate of destroying the innocent morality of children?" and the point of asking it is to attempt to poison the well (since you're fond of naming fallacies), suggesting (by wondering if, out loud) Yak's position is due to a vested interest (that you find disgusting).

Ah, ninja'd by Cosmic Yak!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Oh, I'm following very closely. If you care to look back over the thread, you will see that it was you who misconstrued the meaning of sackett's post. You double down on this here, with that link to your other post. Congratulations- you proved me right yet again. You think horny teenagers looking at porn is utterly disgusting, and anyone saying that is a monster. Have you not noticed how not one single person on this forum agreed with you on this? Does that not lead you to wonder if maybe, just maybe, everyone else could be right, and it's just you, with your puritanical zeal, that is out of step?
No, it probably doesn't. "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject." (Thanks to whoever's sig that is- can't remember offhand, but it's a great quote.)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You missed this out for some reason:

No search button required to find this.

An utterly irrelevant reply. Try again- or not. No skin off my nose.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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

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.

I have highlighted the parts of my post that indicate why I think this is significant. Perhaps you missed them.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No substance found.

You did this in your other 'porn is horrid and you're all rapists and child abusers' thread. When faced with a tricky question, or evidence you can't refute, you feign incomprehension, or handwave away the post with a throwaway remark like this one.
This approach was met with scorn in your first porn thread. It will continue to be met with scorn. You really didn't learn anything in the threee intervening years between threads, did you?
On a sceptics' forum, you need to debate in good faith; consider the evidence presented to you; be aware of your own cognitive biases, and be prepared to change your mind in the light of new information. Thus far, you have not demonstrated any inclination to do any of this. This is why your threads turn into the kind of mess we are seeing here.
Just saying.

 

[Poem]

The difference between a genuine, acceptable question and a disingenuous, offensive question (in this case essentially an accusation) is a matter of context, tone, and timing.

After pages of making it VERY clear that you think porn is The Worst (tm), "Are you an advocate of porn? Are you involved in the industry?" is an accusation, and not a guileless, innocent question. It's tonally the same as saying "Are you an advocate of destroying the innocent morality of children?" and the point of asking it is to attempt to poison the well (since you're fond of naming fallacies), suggesting (by wondering if, out loud) Yak's position is due to a vested interest (that you find disgusting).

Ah, ninja'd by Cosmic Yak!

A porn advocate who demanded that we ensure children's safety first wouldn't feel accused on that particular score.

Asking someone if they are involved in the industry becomes an accusation (per my stance on this thread) if they are indeed involved...for sure (I guess it is theoretically possible that some in the industry do ensure children aren't exposed....though I'm not sure if that could ever be 100% watertight).

Anyone who has confidence in their pro-porn position would respond without hesitation. The converse question of 'are you religious?' (and, presumably, brainwashed into prudery (whatever that means)) might also be seen as poisoning the well (ie someone who supresses free speech and thus societal freedoms). I had no issues answering...multiple times.

This thread is and will continue to inflame both sides. To restrict such a question as I posed would be counterproductive.

 

[Poem]

Question from International Skeptics member: Are you a child abuser?

Poem: No.

 

[Lithrael]

You personally may be immune to having typical human social reactions, but it really is all context and very little blanket knee-jerk.

For instance, I can imagine two different people in two different scenarios each ask me, "are you a fan of Nabokov's work?" and one would offend the ◊◊◊◊ out of me, and the other would get me more engaged in the conversation.

It takes context to know which one is part of an interesting literary discussion and which one is accusing me of being a pedo.

For example, in this thread, asking you if you're an abuser isn't an accusation of being an abuser at all, but it's also not a genuine question; instead it's an attempt to demonstrate to you that if a person asks you if you are/do something that you know the person thinks is very bad, then the question will sound like an accusation. You can choose to sorta see this even if you disagree, or it can be a total mystery unfair treatment by a bunch of people who for some reason react to your completely guileless question as though it was asked in bad faith. Probably because they like porn so much.

 

[Poem]

You personally may be immune to having typical human social reactions, but it really is all context and very little blanket knee-jerk.

For instance, I can imagine two different people in two different scenarios each ask me, "are you a fan of Nabokov's work?" and one would offend the ◊◊◊◊ out of me, and the other would get me more engaged in the conversation.

It takes context to know which one is part of an interesting literary discussion and which one is accusing me of being a pedo.

Understood.

 

[Poem]

For example, in this thread, asking you if you're an abuser isn't an accusation of being an abuser at all; instead it's an attempt to demonstrate to you that if a person is asking you if you are/do something that person thinks is very bad, then the question will sound like an accusation. You can choose to sorta see this even if you disagree, or it can be a total mystery unfair treatment by a bunch of people who for some reason react to your completely guileless question as though it was asked in bad faith. Probably because they like porn so much.

You added this after I replied.

I've read it a few times but am rather lost.

 

[Lithrael]

Ah, apologies, I tend to add on to posts rather than start another when I'm still on the same cup of coffee.

The addition to my post is a description of another thing a question can 'really' be (specifically what the 'question' you answered really was) and then a snarky breakdown of ways you could react to reading all this stuff about the various ways people can use questions.

 

[Poem]

Ah, apologies, I tend to add on to posts rather than start another when I'm still on the same cup of coffee.

The addition to my post is a description of another thing a question can 'really' be (specifically what the 'question' you answered really was) and then a snarky breakdown of ways you could react to reading all this stuff about the various ways people can use questions.

I'm still not totally clear...and this could be a bit of a rabbit hole.

One can ask the question 'are you in the porn industry' in an attempt to understand where someone is coming from so that questions can be framed in light of such.

You do accept that accusations are going both ways?

 

[Lithrael]

One can ask the question 'are you in the porn industry' in an attempt to understand where someone is coming from so that questions can be framed in light of such.

Try unpacking that for yourself. What sorts of things would a 'yes' mean to you? How would it change your framing? How about a 'no?' We've already seen that you take an 'I'm not answering that, it's obnoxious' as a sign of disputatory weakness. While that can be a genuinely evasive/guilty response, it isn't always.

 

[Poem]

Try unpacking that for yourself. What sorts of things would a 'yes' mean to you? How would it change your framing? How about a 'no?' We've already seen that you take an 'I'm not answering that, it's obnoxious' as a sign of disputatory weakness. While that can be a genuinely evasive/guilty response, it isn't always.

Much debate on this thread is about questioning me the OP about my assertions (and rightly so), but posters are a little reluctant to actually state their own stance / involvement / consumption etc (which is understandable). Knowing and having a defined position of someone with whom I am debating with would help.

 

[Poem]

I'm sure they're raking in hundreds of dollars from childhood curiosity clicks.

Why only hundreds?

You could make the argument that it ought to be the standard for porn sites, to have more than a 'yes I am over 18' clickthrough gate, and I wouldn't object to a kid-captcha to weed out anyone who can't google 90s politics trivia or something. But I'm a hard no on KOSA style ID verification. Scope too big. No thanks.

In what way is the scope too big?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why only hundreds?

Because most kids don't have credit cards with which to pay for access to the non-free porn.

Who do you think advertises on the free porn sites? Not Coca Cola, not Tyson's Chicken, not Toyota. Pay porn sites are who advertise on the free porn sites. The money comes from conversions.

 

[Poem]

Because most kids don't have credit cards with which to pay for access to the non-free porn.

Who do you think advertises on the free porn sites? Not Coca Cola, not Tyson's Chicken, not Toyota. Pay porn sites are who advertise on the free porn sites. The money comes from conversions.

I understand and accept that this is the case.

Advertisers will only pay for an ad if traffic is high. Young people will be contributing to that volume of traffic.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand and accept that this is the case.

Advertisers will only pay for an ad if traffic is high. Young people will be contributing to that volume of traffic.

That's not really how it works. Advertisers pay for traffic, but they pay at a rate that depends on conversions. If conversions are low (and unlike with many consumer goods, an online provider can measure this VERY directly), then they will only be willing to pay a low rate. If conversions are high, they will be willing to pay a higher rate. Spiking traffic with views that don't convert can increase ad revenues in the short term, but only in the short term, because that drops conversion rates and will drop the per view rate advertisers will pay. Long term it does nothing, because ad revenue isn't some magical font of money. It has to come from people making money on those advertisements. Which minors viewing porn doesn't do. In fact, it's worse than doing nothing, because those minors still contribute to their bandwidth/capacity costs.

Porn providers don't target children because children aren't profitable. The problem is simply that they don't want to erect barriers that would stop any potentially paying adult customers turned away by inconvenience, and that makes it easy for children to access porn. Which is a problem, sure, but it's not quite the problem you're portraying, and I don't see you proposing solutions which don't create problems of their own.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Question from International Skeptics member: Are you a child abuser?

Poem: No.

If I continue to address you as if you were a child abuser, dropping that insinuation into my every post to you, how would you feel about that?
Are you a child abuser? Be honest now.
(Just an innocent question, remember. Just trying to understand your stance/involvement in this issue.)