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

[Lithrael]

The Pornhub-logo-snowplow thing was once, in Boston, and somewhat relevant to the thread, blew up with internet attention and hype despite apparantly not actually happening very much or possibly at all. A Boston newspaper tried to check up on it and after reaching out to basically everyone, they got a grand total of one guy who would anonymously go on record to say he called Pornhub's free plowing service, and to his surprise and amusement, got plowed.

I've worked with guys who do hype based adverts before and it's plausible that all they really had was access to a couple of nice plows (or a couple photos) they could put or photoshop a sticker on, one guy with an actual snowplow, a vanity number people could call, and a hype guy who called every outlet they knew on a slow news day.

The media showed it to everyone. Because it was funny, and tittilating. It's an easy bet to say no Chicago kids were drawn to search up Pornhub after seeing its logo on a snowplow after that 2017 storm.

 

[Poem]

The Pornhub-logo-snowplow thing was once, in Boston, and somewhat relevant to the thread, blew up with internet attention and hype despite apparantly not actually happening very much or possibly at all. A Boston newspaper tried to check up on it and after reaching out to basically everyone, they got a grand total of one guy who would anonymously go on record to say he called Pornhub's free plowing service, and to his surprise and amusement, got plowed.

I've worked with guys who do hype based adverts before and it's plausible that all they really had was one nice plow (or a couple photos of one) they could put or photoshop a sticker on, one guy with an actual snowplow, a vanity number people could call, and a hype guy who called every outlet they knew on a slow news day.

The media showed it to everyone. Because it was funny, and tittilating. It's an easy bet to say no Chicago kids were drawn to search up Pornhub after seeing its logo on a snowplow after that 2017 storm.

Interesting.

There was the infamous ad in Times Square of course.

PornHub can't keep it up: huge New York billboard ad taken down

The world’s biggest adult website launches an offline advert in Times Square, but the billboard ad mysteriously disappeared hours later. By Hannah Jane Parkinson

www.theguardian.com

I don't think it will be long before the industry successfully pushes the envelope...in all areas - including ads.

 

[Lithrael]

There was the infamous ad in Times Square of course.

I don't think it will be long before the industry successfully pushes the envelope...in all areas - including ads.

Well, the infamous ad in Times Square lasted a few hours, and happened ten years ago.

On what scale are you figuring 'not long?'

On the other hand, even over on mostly-dead Tumblr they are still constatly taking down porn bots, which does mean people still get porn bot followers and usually have to see at least some tits when you go to report and block them. But the userbase prefers that to automatic porn detection that freezes your account because it thinks sand dunes are pornographic.

But I genuinely miss pre-2014 Tumblr when it was chockablock with porn gifs. That was a lot of fun.

 

[Poem]

Well, the infamous ad in Times Square lasted a few hours, and happened ten years ago.

On what scale are you figuring 'not long?'

Well - I was guessing...porn normalization has got this far and it feels like it's just the beginning. You mentioned AI porn.

On the other hand, even over on mostly-dead Tumblr they are still constatly taking down porn bots, which does mean people still get porn bot followers and usually have to see at least some tits when you go to report and block them. But the userbase prefers that to automatic porn detection that freezes your account because it thinks sand dunes are pornographic.

Interesting. Didn't know that.

But I genuinely miss pre-2014 Tumblr when it was chockablock with porn gifs. That was a lot of fun.

You like being provocative Lithrael.

 

[Lithrael]

The thing about that variety of porn gifs was that they were all just generically goin at it. Kind of the polar opposite of the impression-damaging, violence-inspiring, kinks-for-life extreme stuff that anyone would want to keep off of the lowest shelf.

 

[Poem]

The thing about that variety of porn gifs was that they were all just generically goin at it. Kind of the polar opposite of the impression-damaging, violence-inspiring, kinks-for-life extreme stuff that anyone would want to keep off of the lowest shelf.

Ok.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrangling with someone who rejects the Oxford dictionary's definition of rape culture over which which was worse will be fruitless.

As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the userbase prefers that to automatic porn detection that freezes your account because it thinks sand dunes are pornographic.

Or the reverse.

Don't worry, it's a clip from Arrested Development, it's PG.

 

[Poem]

As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.

Providing an authoritative definition that challenges the Oxford dictionary's would be interesting. Why haven't you?

Recognising sexual assault rather than just rape is not counter-intuitive.

 

[Poem]

As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.

On a scale of 1 to 10 - how bored are you to have deigned to return to this dog's dinner of a thread?

 

[Lithrael]

(...) porn normalization has got this far and it feels like it's just the beginning. You mentioned AI porn.

Since we're getting back into the 'words mean things' weeds here, no I did not mention AI porn. I mentioned AI child sexual material, CSM, which you, here, are once again talking about in the same breath as the law-abiding (even if they do need oversight to encourage that) porn industry.

Not calling child exploitation 'child porn' isn't just doublespeak, it's actually helpful from both a law enforcement and a societal approach. It's like not calling ethylene glycol a sweetener. If you always refer to it as a poison instead, it doesn't let anyone with fuzzy thinking figure that maybe it's okay to add just a little bit of it to food or medicine.

 

[Poem]

Since we're getting back into the 'words mean things' weeds here, no I did not mention AI porn. I mentioned AI child sexual material, CSM, which you, here, are once again talking about in the same breath as the law-abiding (even if they do need oversight to encourage that) porn industry.

Not calling child exploitation 'child porn' isn't just doublespeak, it's actually helpful from both a law enforcement and a societal approach. It's like not calling ethylene glycol a sweetener. If you always refer to it as a poison instead, it doesn't let anyone with fuzzy thinking figure that maybe it's okay to add just a little bit of it to food or medicine.

You are being overly sensitive. There nothing wrong with the terms I used. AI CSM porn is AI porn.

Actually, I think the correct term is CSAM.

Now I am being pedantic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Providing an authoritative definition that challenges the Oxford dictionary's would be interesting. Why haven't you?

Because I'm not interested in that. Semantic debates are the most boring debates in the world. You also have a strange hangup about authority.

 

[Chanakya]

...Would you let your partner act in a porn film (ie with other porn actors / actresses?...

I just now re-read those two posts I'd linked up there in my last post, mine, and your nonsensical and patently disingenuous response to me, both of those posts: and this sentence, from the latter, kind of jumped out at me:

@Poem , do you see what's wrong with even asking that question? No?

You've claimed not to be a Jesus worshiper. Even if that were true, even if you aren't quite that far gone, but even so, are you able to recognize how regressive is your thinking, now that it is pointed out to you?

What about you, then? Let's have answers from you, instead of questions:

1. Would you let your partner act in porn?

2. Would you let your partner act out steamy scenes in non-porn regular movies?

3. Would you let your partner act in movies generally?

4. Would you let your partner go out partying in a group that includes male friends and where you're not present?

5. Would you let your partner work?

6. Are you okay with your partner wearing short skirts in public?

7. When was the last time your partner kicked you in the balls?

8. Do you actually have a partner at all?

 

[Poem]

I just now re-read those two posts I'd linked up there in my last post, mine, and your nonsensical and patently disingenuous response to me, both of those posts: and this sentence, from the latter, kind of jumped out at me:

@Poem , do you see what's wrong with even asking that question? No?

I don't, no.

You've claimed not to be a Jesus worshiper.

Correct.

Even if that were true, even if you aren't quite that far gone, but even so, are you able to recognize how regressive is your thinking, now that it is pointed out to you?

No, I am not clear about being 'regressive'. You'd have to define regressive.

What about you, then? Let's have answers from you, instead of questions:

You didn't avtually answer my question.

1. Would you let your partner act in porn?

Yes, but they would know that that would end the relationship.

2. Would you let your partner act out steamy scenes in non-porn regular movies?

Hmmm - wouldn't be to my liking.

3. Would you let your partner act in movies generally?

Sure.

4. Would you let your partner go out partying in a group that includes male friends and where you're not present?

That would need some context.

5. Would you let your partner work?

Yes.

6. Are you okay with your partner wearing short skirts in public?

Probably not too short.

7. When was the last time your partner kicked you in the balls?

Lol.

8. Do you actually have a partner at all?

Hmmm. I'll leave off answering that.

 

[Poem]

Because I'm not interested in that. Semantic debates are the most boring debates in the world.

Probably no point in continuing then.

You also have a strange hangup about authority.

I believe you have said as much before. I asked for a definition (that isn't just someone's pov) but you didn't provide one.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English. This dictionary is regularly updated with evidence from one of the world’s largest lexical research programmes, and features over 350,000 words and phrases.

 

[Lithrael]

Actually, I think the correct term is CSAM.

Ah yes my mistake. You're correct, thanks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I believe you have said as much before. I asked for a definition (that isn't just someone's pov) but you didn't provide one.

Because I'm flexible, so long as the definition actually requires rape. Yours doesn't require rape or even sexual assault.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.

The OED is descriptive not prescriptive. And given that the term is mostly used by radical feminists making bull ◊◊◊◊ arguments, descriptions of the bull ◊◊◊◊ definitions they come up with may be 100% accurate, but they aren't binding on me.

 

[Poem]

Because I'm flexible, so long as the definition actually requires rape.

A definition based on your pov.

Yours doesn't require rape or even sexual assault.

Which you don't demonstrate.

The OED is descriptive not prescriptive.

They define the phrase. You haven't given a good reason why they are wrong.

And given that the term is mostly used by radical feminists making bull ◊◊◊◊ arguments, descriptions of the bull ◊◊◊◊ definitions they come up with may be 100% accurate, but they aren't binding on me.

This is sound reasoning?

 

[Ziggurat]

A definition based on your pov.

And? What's wrong with that pov?

Which you don't demonstrate.

I've pointed out the reason before. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

They define the phrase. You haven't given a good reason why they are wrong.

As I said, they describe how people use words. I'm not claiming the OED wrong about how people use words, I'm saying that it's a stupid use of those words by those people and I'm not going to join in on that stupidity. You've never explained why you decided to join in on the stupidity.

This is sound reasoning?

Yes.