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

Poem said:
You read it but you didn't understand it - that much is obvious.

My statement that 1/3 (give or take) of biologists do not find Neo-Darwinism adequately explains life is a true statement. I made it in the interest of keeping it real in response to Lithrael's correct (in my view) critique of religion.
Click to expand...
No it is not true - it is a lie. One often paraded by creationists, it's sad you've been taken in by their lies.
 
Poem said:
Anyone: Do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. Not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others.
2. Showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams.
3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them.
Click to expand...
It depends. There's certainly things I would consider sexual abuse, that could be described in the terms offered above. And there's certainly other things I would not consider sexual abuse, that could be described the exact same way.

For example:

  1. Leaving your child unattended in the next room while you shoot a porn video with the door open? Probably abuse. Letting your child use Google with SafeSearch on, even though it's not a foolproof solution? Not even remotely abuse.
  2. Intentionally and directly showing pornography to a child? Abuse. Intentionally and directly showing a child age-appropriate depictions of human biological functions and healthy sex acts in an educational context, with the informed consent of the child's guardians and reasonable oversight of the curriculum? Not abuse.
  3. Having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them? Probably not abuse. Depends on whether it's just lying around, or stored away somewhere out of sight when not in use, probably.
Note: I'm conflating abuse and harassment in this context. If I brought sex toys and porno discs to work and left them on my desk, I'd be done for sexual harassment. If I left them out of sight in my bag, and some co-worker went fishing in there and found them, that's on them (though my employer would probably reprimand me anyway, out of an abundance of caution). A rule of thumb might be, if it's not sexual harassment in the workplace, it's probably not sexual abuse at home.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
[Citation needed]. It's a commonly accepted fact* that over 99% of qualified biologists accept the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the biological process of evolution and that it will laregly remain unchanged, except around the edges.

*Through multiple surveys and polls of qualified biologists returning 99%+ acceptance of ToE.
Click to expand...
@Poem, any response to this <SNIP>?

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gulliver Foyle said:
@Poem, any response to this <SNIP>?

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 12.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Poem said:
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
Click to expand...
Describing evolution as "Neo-Darwinism" is a trait of Christian fundamentalists, who reject science in favour of creationism and a 6,000-year-old earth.
Curious, for someone who so vehemently denies being a Christian, that you are- again- using terminology generally only used by Christians. :xrolleyes
 
Ziggurat said:
I do not trust your characterization of UK law, you've been wrong too many times about factual details. Can you link to the actual statutes?
Click to expand...
I, too, would like to see a link from Poem, especially as his claimed definitions do not appear in the relevant government legislation, namely the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Some excerpts:
Causing a child to watch a sexual act
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,...

Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally engages in an activity,

(b)the activity is sexual,

(c)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he engages in it—

(i)when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed, and

(ii)knowing or believing that B is aware, or intending that B should be aware, that he is engaging in it, and

(d)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.
Click to expand...

This is the actual law, and is a long, long way from what Poem claims it is. I can find no reference to 'sex toys', for example. Note too how the definition of 'showing' is quite precise ("intentionally causing"), and so does not allow for Poem's blasts against porn sites.
Poem: care to comment?
 
Man! I'm gonna have to get a gun safe for my ....something..... before I have any more minor kid visitors in the house

Although. I'm sure the kid from the Wobbly Sausage video lived in fear of anyone recognizing his mum and figuring out he was that particular toddler.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
As far as I am aware, all of the one third of biologists I mentioned as having issues with Neo-Darwinism remain thoroughly Darwinian. Neo-Darwinism (or Modern Synthesis) is the mechanism used to explain the process and they are saying it needs overhauling and updating....that it is insufficient as it stands.
Click to expand...
So you've no response to my request, just baseless and unevidenced assertion (and no, your link to a creationist writing on an obscure far right blog isn't evidence for your claim).

If you're so obviously and egregiously wrong on something so settled and well evidenced as evolution, why should you be believed on anything else? It's clear that you just uncritically take in anything that supports your view and dismiss, with quite a lot of prejudice, vitriol and lies, anything that does not.
 
Take the evolution discussion to a different thread, it doesn't belong here.
 
Poem said:
Why do you think more than 50 Frenchmen did what they did to Gisele Pelicot?
Click to expand...


The majority of those losers have tried to come up with excuses for their criminal behaviour. I bet they would love to have you on their side, the porn made them do it.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Describing evolution as "Neo-Darwinism" is a trait of Christian fundamentalists, who reject science in favour of creationism and a 6,000-year-old earth.
Curious, for someone who so vehemently denies being a Christian, that you are- again- using terminology generally only used by Christians. :xrolleyes
Click to expand...
Source.
 
Poem said:
Source.
Click to expand...
Just google 'Neo-Darwinism, and see what results come up. Virtually every one of them is from a fundamentalist Christian source.
I notice this attempt at distraction from the bigger issues here, by the way. Have you got a source for your claim about the wording of the legal definition of sexual abuse in the UK?
 
Just to add: downplayingand/or rejecting any attempts to control access to porn by children just plays into Poem's "you're all child abuse enablers and rapists!" spiel. How about some positive reactions, for a change? Try it- you might just like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom