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

[Poem]

And? What's wrong with that pov?

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

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.

Yes.

Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more?

I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm.

Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more?

I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm.

Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?

Your post isn't actually responsive to anything I said.

 

[Poem]

Your post isn't actually responsive to anything I said.

I'll have another look tomorrow. Ta.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't, no.

Correct.

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

You didn't avtually answer my question.

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

Hmmm - wouldn't be to my liking.

Sure.

That would need some context.

Yes.

Probably not too short.

Lol.

Hmmm. I'll leave off answering that.

◊◊◊◊'s sake. Distinct incel vibes. Very distinct regressive vibes. Distinct Andrew Tate devotee vibes. Distinct went-overboard-on-the-porn-now-going-overboard-in-the-opposite-direction vibes.

If you want to change the world, correct the world: then start with the guy in the mirror.


eta: Define regressive? Really? This business of "letting" your partner ---- in your case, probably your hypothetical partner ---- do this, that and the other thing.


etaa: You've sportingly answered every question ---- not that I'd meant them literally, but still --- and, in turn, I'll answer yours. Not that it's any of your business, but even so.

If my partner, my forever-gf-expect-we'll-get-married-but-no-rush, were to suddenly declare she's doing porn, would I let her? Well, not as her keeper, but as her intimate friend and well-wisher, I'd make sure that's what she really really wants, given how completely out of character that would be for her. If assured that is truly what she wants, then there's no question of not letting her do it! Would I be uncomfortable? I guess. But when it comes to her life, then while my comfort is certainly an important factor, but her comfort takes precedence, given it's her life. Our life, too, but not ours at the cost of hers.

You did not understand my earlier comment, or pretended not to ----- and evinced no interest in doing that either, even though it was a clear response and clarification to your earlier questions to me. I expect you'll do the same again. I guess this comment, and the thinking here, it's outside of your own range of understanding. That's what I meant by regressive.

By all means don't "let" your partner act intimate scenes in movies and plays, or let her wear short skirts. As long as she's hypothetical, she won't mind.

 

[Poem]

◊◊◊◊'s sake. Distinct incel vibes. Very distinct regressive vibes. Distinct Andrew Tate devotee vibes. Distinct went-overboard-on-the-porn-now-going-overboard-in-the-opposite-direction vibes.

Lol.

If you want to change the world, correct the world: then start with the guy in the mirror.


eta: Define regressive? Really? This business of "letting" your partner ---- in your case, probably your hypothetical partner ---- do this, that and the other thing.

?

etaa: You've sportingly answered every question ---- not that I'd meant them literally, but still --- and, in turn, I'll answer yours. Not that it's any of your business, but even so.

If my partner, my forever-gf-expect-we'll-get-married-but-no-rush, were to suddenly declare she's doing porn, would I let her? Well, not as her keeper,

....because the porn sex is real - right?

but as her intimate friend and well-wisher, I'd make sure that's what she really really wants, given how completely out of character that would be for her.

You mean you were attracted to someone who wasn't into that kind of thing?

If assured that is truly what she wants, then there's no question of not letting her do it! Would I be uncomfortable? I guess. But when it comes to her life, then while my comfort is certainly an important factor, but her comfort takes precedence, given it's her life. Our life, too, but not ours at the cost of hers.

Ok.

You did not understand my earlier comment, or pretended not to

Which? I re-read your post (mentioning 'meta') and still don't understand it.

----- and evinced no interest in doing that either, even though it was a clear response and clarification to your earlier questions to me. I expect you'll do the same again. I guess this comment, and the thinking here, it's outside of your own range of understanding. That's what I meant by regressive.

I'm not sure we are that different TBH.

By all means don't "let" your partner act intimate scenes in movies and plays, or let her wear short skirts. As long as she's hypothetical, she won't mind.

Ok.

 

[Poem]

You also have a strange hangup about authority.

Have your views been influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The former remains illegal in the UK but Pornhub is rife with such material...but do they care about that?

That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse- so, the exact opposite of your claim. Again.

Based on what I've already posted on the flaccidity of the Online Safety Act, then nothing will happen.

That's not actually what happened. You accepted Darat's take on this act, without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions. Not what you'd call 'sceptical'.
Plus, the Online Safety Act has only just been passed into law. It is far too early to tell whether or not it will have the desired effect. If it doesn't, what leads you to believe that no further leglisative attempts will be made to address the problem?

 

[Ziggurat]

That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse

I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it, just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.

 

[Poem]

I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it, just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.

Very interesting to hear you say this....though you have mentioned it before. You believe it is an imported immigrant problem IIRC?

 

[Poem]

That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse- so, the exact opposite of your claim. Again.


That's not actually what happened. You accepted Darat's take on this act, without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions. Not what you'd call 'sceptical'.
Plus, the Online Safety Act has only just been passed into law. It is far too early to tell whether or not it will have the desired effect. If it doesn't, what leads you to believe that no further leglisative attempts will be made to address the problem?

To resume we'd have to both avoid making it personal....do you agree?

 

[Darat]

I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it,
just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.

Which cover-up?

 

[Poem]

Would suggest alleged cover up be discussed in appropriate thread under 'Current Events'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Would suggest alleged cover up be discussed in appropriate thread under 'Current Events'.

Why? Doesn't covering up rape count as part of rape culture? Or would that not fall under your Oxford definition?

 

[Poem]

Why? Doesn't covering up rape count as part of rape culture? Or would that not fall under your Oxford definition?

Maybe a moderator can advise?

I just posted a challenge to the idea of a cover up on the other thread...so things might get duplicated....

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe a moderator can advise?

They might get the final say, but are you not capable of forming your own opinion? Or is this another weird authority thing you've got going on?

 

[Poem]

They might get the final say, but are you not capable of forming your own opinion? Or is this another weird authority thing you've got going on?

Ok - please go ahead here.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

To resume we'd have to both avoid making it personal....do you agree?

If you think I'm making personal attacks against you, feel free to report me to the mods. Meanwhile, I will continue to post as I see fit. Whether you respond or not is entirely up to you.

 

[Chanakya]

Lol.

?

....because the porn sex is real - right?

You mean you were attracted to someone who wasn't into that kind of thing?

Ok.

Which? I re-read your post (mentioning 'meta') and still don't understand it.

I'm not sure we are that different TBH.

Ok.

facepalm

No, the discomfort with my gf hypothetically electing to do porn ---- while emphasizing that there's no question of not "letting" her do anything she really wants, this not excluded ---- would be because: first, and like I already explained, it would be so completely utterly out of character for her (so that I'd need make sure, for her safety and well-being, that she's not being somehow coerced, or that she isn't somehow unwell); second, because it isn't quite the done sort of thing in circles we frequent (which is a shallow reason, but a reason nevertheless, even if not an overriding one); and third, because real sex with others would be involved if it is hard porn. As far as the last, you again insist on conflating this real sex with the fictive nature of the sex depicted as a narrative that porn presents.

Don't know why I'm bothering saying any of this! If you could so completely disingenuously handwave away my earlier explanation by simply pretending to be dense, then clearly I'm wasting my breath. ...And yes, if you're actually so dense that you actually did not understand what I'd said, then the correct attitude would be to ask, and to learn, given how important this subject seems to be for you: and not to use your ignorance and, yes, your laziness (given Google, if you honestly don't know what "meta" means, in this context), to justify your ignorant views. Porn is fiction. Period.

----------

And certainly we're similar in many, most aspects, why wouldn't we be. But basis what you say here, on this one focused point, which after all is what we're talking about here, I don't see any similarity. I don't think in terms of "letting" my partner, or for that matter anyone else (well, unless they were a child, obviously) do this that and the other thing; and you clearly do.

 

[Poem]

facepalm

No, the discomfort with my gf hypothetically electing to do porn ---- while emphasizing that there's no question of not "letting" her do anything she really wants, this not excluded ---- would be because: first, and like I already explained, it would be so completely utterly out of character for her (so that I'd need make sure, for her safety and well-being, that she's not being somehow coerced, or that she isn't somehow unwell); second, because it isn't quite the done sort of thing in circles we frequent (which is a shallow reason, but a reason nevertheless, even if not an overriding one);

You have misunderstood 'letting'. It doesn't mean she remains with me and toes the line. It means she can do what she wants, but the relationship ends. Your 'Well, not as her keeper,' is actually rather similar.

Your response begs the question - would you have chosen to have a relationship with your 'gf' if it had been made clear to you from the start that her participation in porn was something you would have to accept?

and third, because real sex with others would be involved if it is hard porn. As far as the last, you again insist on conflating this real sex with the fictive nature of the sex depicted as a narrative that porn presents.

It is real sex if it is 'hard porn'...yet there is a 'fictive nature' in the depiction?

I suggest your admission that you would be uncomfortable is evidence that your focus would be on the reality that someone else's whatever would be entering her whatever...which is exactly where most people's focus (including mine) would be. Who gives a fig about the fictive elements?

Don't know why I'm bothering saying any of this! If you could so completely disingenuously handwave away my earlier explanation by simply pretending to be dense, then clearly I'm wasting my breath. ...And yes, if you're actually so dense that you actually did not understand what I'd said, then the correct attitude would be to ask, and to learn, given how important this subject seems to be for you: and not to use your ignorance and, yes, your laziness (given Google, if you honestly don't know what "meta" means, in this context), to justify your ignorant views. Porn is fiction. Period.

I didn't say I didn't understand 'meta' and I am asking what your post meant. What else does 'I don't understand your post' mean?

Porn is fiction, you say - but the sex is real if it is hard porn and you'd be uncomfortable (you 'guess' you would)?

And certainly we're similar in many, most aspects, why wouldn't we be. But basis what you say here, on this one focused point, which after all is what we're talking about here, I don't see any similarity. I don't think in terms of "letting" my partner, or for that matter anyone else (well, unless they were a child, obviously) do this that and the other thing; and you clearly do.

Already addressed above.

 

[Poem]

And? What's wrong with that pov?

That it ignores sexual assault that does not culminate in actual rape, obviously.

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

That porn companies and big tech are showing (exhibiting without taking any proper measures) harmful material to children remains a fact...not a potential.

For those of us who live in the real world that is.

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.

It is not stupid to recognise the criminality of non-rape sexual assault. As posted before:

Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more? I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm. Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?

I think what is crystal clear is that your definition of rape culture (or such a definition from others) has not gained any traction - and you are fuming. The Oxford Languages definition reflects the fact that a consensus has formed on why it should include sexual assault.

Yes.

This Guardian article (which I have posted before) does not use the phrase 'rape culture' - rather it talks about a 'toxic online culture':

“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography,” he added, has “become normalised now in the behaviour of young people. Ultimately, we have tech companies who are making billions of pounds, who are influencing the behaviour of young people – who are putting profit before the impact that this is having on society.” (Ian Critchley, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for child protection)

I put it to you that you are whining about terminology when you should instead just acknowledge the severe harm that has already been done.