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

[Poem]

No.

No qualification - just 'no'? Is that because it implicates (by the spirit rather than the letter) Pornhub et al?

BTW - I first referred to these laws here: #1,297.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) is a national law enforcement agency in the United Kingdom. It is the UK's lead agency against organised crime; human, weapon and drug trafficking; cybercrime; and economic crime...

Possibly, but definitely not automatically. More information would be needed, such as the age of the child, the nature of the shown material, the context in which it's shown, etc.

Here's a hypothetical example where it's not sexual abuse. A 17 year old boy sees two adults having consensual sex in a secluded area of a public park (they think they're alone), and films it from a distance on his cell phone. He then shows his video footage to another 17 year old boy, and they laugh about it. Did the first boy sexually abuse the second boy? No. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid. What kind of retard would think that's sexual abuse? You can't honestly tell me that even you think that's sexual abuse.

A 17 year old growing up in a society that has normalized anything goes porn is not the same as one growing up in one that hasn't. You don't seem to be cognizant of the implications of this. That we are forced to treat children differently now because of this is evident from Ian Critchley's (National Police Chiefs' Council lead for child protection) statement (The Guardian Feb 2024) that he had no intention to “criminalise a whole generation of young people."

He goes on:
“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography, 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.”

No.

Extraordinary. Perhaps you could explain why you think so before I start fulminating?
_________

A previous exchange:

Here's a straightforward question (and I acknowledge it's inappropriateness outside this thread): Would you have sex knowing that a child could see and hear you?

#1,136
YOUR RESPONSE: I'm not willing to have sex with any third party, child or adult, observing.

You are not willing to do this, but you are willing to watch others do so in porn:

#310
YOU: I'm not going to provide blow-by-blow details of the porn I've watched, but it's professionally produced, the participants are regulars, and it's clearly consensual. It's really not ambiguous.

Are you saying that you think there is a clear distinction between seeing real (in the flesh) sex and seeing porn sex? You have, of course, already agreed with me that porn sex is real. Or, if not, isn't this hypocrisy - you won't have sex knowing that you might be observed - but are fine with others uploading easily accessible content that will be?

 

[Poem]

There are real problems with sexual abuse of children:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878449933671420223

But for some reason, these aren't the problems Poem is interested in.

Are you saying that when I posted about VAWG (Violence against women and girls) that sexual assault, abuse and rape weren't included? Obviously I am concerned about such issues (including crimes against men and boys).

If you want to debate this then go ahead.

Where is your substantiation of #1,648?

 

[Ziggurat]

No qualification - just 'no'?

Just no. Because as stated, it's not. Add some qualifications of your own, and maybe. But you didn't provide any, and so without any, yes, it's a simple no.

Is that because it implicates (by the spirit rather than the letter) Pornhub et al?

No, it's got nothing to do with online porn specifically. It's a no because it leads to absurdities. For example, suppose two parents start having sex in the middle of the night, and they forget to lock their bedroom door. The six year old child wakes up in the middle of the night from a nightmare, and wanders into their bedroom, and sees them having sex for a moment before they realize the child entered and stop.

Have they sexually abused their own child? No, they have not. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid. It fits your definition, but that's because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid definition of sexual abuse.

A 17 year old growing up in a society that has normalized anything goes porn is not the same as one growing up in one that hasn't.

Special pleading. No. They may be different, but you have neither specified how nor why that difference is relevant to my hypothetical. Are you seriously claiming that in the scenario I gave, the first teen sexually abused the second teen?

That we are forced to treat children differently now because of this is evident from Ian Critchley's (National Police Chiefs' Council lead for child protection) statement (The Guardian Feb 2024) that he had no intention to “criminalise a whole generation of young people."

Then perhaps they shouldn't have made laws which turn a whole generation of young people into criminals. It's not a good defense of a law to say it won't be strictly enforced.

He goes on:
“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography, 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.”

Yet again more appeals to authority, more declarations without data. Why do you think that's going to change anyone's mind?

Extraordinary. Perhaps you could explain why you think so before I start fulminating?

Because anywhere in the home is a place that a child could come across it. This is basically saying that any parent who has porn or adult toys in their house is committing sexual assault just by having it. And note that this applies even if the child never comes across them.

Oh, and also keep in mind that there's no distinction between a muscle massager and a sex toy, because they're the same thing. Fulminate away, but your definition of sexual assault is stupid. And that last bit about sex toys doesn't even derive from your CEOP source.

You are not willing to do this, but you are willing to watch others do so in porn:

What's your point? Are you trying to accuse me of hypocrisy? It won't work. I'm not willing to do proximity wingsuit flying either, but I'm willing to watch other people do it.

Are you saying that you think there is a clear distinction between seeing real (in the flesh) sex and seeing porn sex?

No. I'm saying there's a clear distinction between community dinner theater and Broadway.

God damn, but you're getting dishonest in your arguments.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that when I posted about VAWG (Violence against women and girls) that sexual assault, abuse and rape weren't included?

No. That's a stupid and baseless conclusion.

Obviously I am concerned about such issues (including crimes against men and boys).

It's not obvious at all. All I see is a monomania about porn. I'm not denying your concerns go beyond that, but I sure as hell don't see that concern.

Where is your substantiation of #1,648?

It's all around you. Have you not been paying any attention to current events?

 

[Poem]

It's all around you. Have you not been paying any attention to current events?

I am merely asking you to substantiate your claim. You were challenged by Darat and said that you'd like to post such here.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am merely asking you to substantiate your claim.

Oh, I very much doubt that. Nevertheless, we can start here:

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The thing is, it doesn't end there. Rotherham is far from the only place this happened. Nor has it actually stopped happening. There has been wide-spread sexual abuse of children in the UK that has frequently been brushed under the rug by authorities. And this stuff matters a hell of a lot more than whether or not porn websites have "age verification" systems.

 

[Myriad]

A 17 year old growing up in a society that has normalized anything goes porn is not the same as one growing up in one that hasn't. You don't seem to be cognizant of the implications of this. That we are forced to treat children differently now because of this is evident from Ian Critchley's (National Police Chiefs' Council lead for child protection) statement (The Guardian Feb 2024) that he had no intention to “criminalise a whole generation of young people."

He goes on:
“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography, 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.”

Extraordinary. Perhaps you could explain why you think so before I start fulminating?

This reply, in its context, clearly implies that you think seventeen year olds should, in an ideal society, be so ignorant of human sexuality that one seventeen year old boy showing another a video of consenting adults having sex would be regarded as sexual assault!

"Now I know/he knows what a penis is for! My/his absurd but blissful innocence is gone forever! A terrible crime has been committed!"

Here are just a few of the reasons that's ridiculous.

1. It ignores the biological reality of innate hormone-drive sexual urges that occur with or without education or porn.

2. No society in history has ever been that repressive. No doubt a few individuals raised in extraordinary circumstances have reached the age of seventeen without being interested in or aware of sex, but most, historically, would have been married by that age. Or, for men, in military service—and no military barracks or camp since before recorded history has ever resembled a monastery when it comes to the prevalence of sexual banter, and/or availability of prostitutes, and/or gay sex consensual or otherwise. There has been no golden age when most seventeen year olds were as "innocent" (that is, ignorant) as you seem to think they should be.

3. Even if it were possible to order a society that way, why should we? Who benefits? And who are you to decide that's how things should be?

 

[Ziggurat]

This reply, in its context, clearly implies that you think seventeen year olds should, in an ideal society, be so ignorant of human sexuality that one seventeen year old boy showing another a video of consenting adults having sex would be regarded as sexual assault!

What's more, two seventeen year olds can have actual sex with each other and that's perfectly legal. How is showing a picture of a naked adult to a person somehow more sexual than actually having sex with them? It makes no sense.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, just less of the cherry-picking fallacy.

Site:www.pnas.org Neo-Darwinism
Site:www.science.org Neo-Darwinism
Site:www.cell.com Neo-Darwinism

Your links here still support my claim: there are far more instances of evangelists using the term than there are actual scientists.
However, I'm really not that invested in this argument. Fine: chalk it up as my opinion, based on what I've seen. Is it objectively true? Well, there doesn't seem to be any way to know. I still think Poem is a closet evangelist, and this is one of the reasons why.

 

[Poem]

Again, you assert this without specifying which arguments or in what way they are relevant.

I'd think you'd want to emphasize differences rather than similarities, because the arguments you claim are similar to mine won the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. If you insist on ceding my arguments that win, then so be it. The solution you're proposing regarding banning porn is clearly unconstitutional. So that's that. Find another remedy or find something else to obsess about.

If we just focus on this issue of whether or not to allow, as the US does, depictions suggestive of minors (ignoring my total ban stance), then it is worth pointing out that Canada has banned such depictions - Child Porn Laws In Canada:

"...under the statute, any visual depiction, written material or material of any kind that depicts a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and engaged in or depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years, is unlawful."

Relevant to what we have discussed before - I googled 'performances of romeo and juliet play in canada' and AI says:

Romeo and Juliet has been performed in Canada at the Stratford Festival, the Bard on the Beach Shakespeare Festival, and the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts.

Stratford Festival
In 2024, the Stratford Festival in Stratford, Ontario performed a fast-paced production of Romeo and Juliet directed by Sam White. The production ran until October 26, 2024

If Canada can do it then so can the USA - that is, if they care about the children and the obvious harm caused by such depictions.

It is also worth noting (and rather confusingly so) that Pornhub, a Canadian company, is not banned in Canada despite it having depictions that would be considered illegal there.

Maybe you...or someone...can throw some light on this?
.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

This reply, in its context, clearly implies that you think seventeen year olds should, in an ideal society, be so ignorant of human sexuality that one seventeen year old boy showing another a video of consenting adults having sex would be regarded as sexual assault!

"Now I know/he knows what a penis is for! My/his absurd but blissful innocence is gone forever! A terrible crime has been committed!"

Here are just a few of the reasons that's ridiculous.

1. It ignores the biological reality of innate hormone-drive sexual urges that occur with or without education or porn.

2. No society in history has ever been that repressive. No doubt a few individuals raised in extraordinary circumstances have reached the age of seventeen without being interested in or aware of sex, but most, historically, would have been married by that age. Or, for men, in military service—and no military barracks or camp since before recorded history has ever resembled a monastery when it comes to the prevalence of sexual banter, and/or availability of prostitutes, and/or gay sex consensual or otherwise. There has been no golden age when most seventeen year olds were as "innocent" (that is, ignorant) as you seem to think they should be.

3. Even if it were possible to order a society that way, why should we? Who benefits? And who are you to decide that's how things should be?

All Poem's ideology will do is create teens and young adults unprepared for the consequences of sexual intercourse when it happens.

You just have to look at the utter failure of purity culture to see their plan put into action.

 

[Poem]

All Poem's ideology will do is create teens and young adults unprepared for the consequences of sexual intercourse when it happens.

Not substantiated.

You just have to look at the utter failure of purity culture to see their plan put into action.

Vague.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not substantiated.

True. But you don’t see the irony, do you? None of your core claims are substantiated either.

 

[Myriad]

What's more, two seventeen year olds can have actual sex with each other and that's perfectly legal. How is showing a picture of a naked adult to a person somehow more sexual than actually having sex with them? It makes no sense.

The sense it makes is the usual sense of all efforts by people in power (or who want to be in power) to prevent people from being aware of and protecting themselves from exploitation, in the guise of "it's our responsibility to protect you." Who are then in ideal position to exploit whom they will.

A population of sexually capable and sexually attractive teenagers who are themselves entirely ignorant of sex would be (and have been) ideal targets for sexual abuse by elders.

Religious communities that overtly promote enforced purity and innocence of their member youth are a prime example of this. When you read the headline "Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal" nowadays the first question you have to ask is, which country and which church?

Youth pastors everywhere: "Porn is sinful! It incites the kiddies to have sex with each other before we can snatch 'em ourselves! And sex education is more sinful still! It warns the younger ones we're after them, before they're even ripe!"

 

[Darat]

The sense it makes is the usual sense of all efforts by people in power (or who want to be in power) to prevent people from being aware of and protecting themselves from exploitation, in the guise of "it's our responsibility to protect you." Who are then in ideal position to exploit whom they will.

A population of sexually capable and sexually attractive teenagers who are themselves entirely ignorant of sex would be (and have been) ideal targets for sexual abuse by elders.

Religious communities that overtly promote enforced purity and innocence of their member youth are a prime example of this. When you read the headline "Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal" nowadays the first question you have to ask is, which country and which church?

Youth pastors everywhere: "Porn is sinful! It incites the kiddies to have sex with each other before we can snatch 'em ourselves! And sex education is more sinful still! It warns the younger ones we're after them, before they're even ripe!"

Very true. It is one of the main reasons why age-appropriate sex education is so important.

 

[Lithrael]

Pair that up with everyone making the effort to take kids seriously and to treat them with real respect; kids that feel unseen by adults in general are the favored targets of actual abusers.

Tell them, age appropriately, about personal boundaries and then respect those. And treat them like real people.

 

[Ziggurat]

All Poem's ideology will do is create teens and young adults unprepared for the consequences of sexual intercourse when it happens.

In fairness, I don't think Poem has expressed any opinion here about sex education. We should not make assumptions about his views on that topic. It pisses me off when he makes unjustified inferences about what I believe, but that's not a good reason to do the same to him.

 

[Myriad]

In fairness, I don't think Poem has expressed any opinion here about sex education. We should not make assumptions about his views on that topic. It pisses me off when he makes unjustified inferences about what I believe, but that's not a good reason to do the same to him.

Poem has advocated laws that would criminalize all sex education materials containing any illustrations (and probably even text descriptions) of sex or sex organs, taught to anyone under eighteen, as that would constitute "showing" "porn" to "children" under his definitions of those three things. When I pointed this out to him, he stated he would "rather have that problem" than continue the status quo.

When the best argument against the point that a proposed law is overly broad and infringes on basic rights is "well maybe it won't be enforced consistently," one should go back to the drawing board and try again (as even the Supreme Court decision Poem himself cited confirms), but Poem has not been willing to do that thus far.

 

[Ziggurat]

When the best argument against the point that a proposed law is overly broad and infringes on basic rights is "well maybe it won't be enforced consistently," one should go back to the drawing board and try again

That's definitely true. I don't think he exactly desires that outcome, but yeah, depending on lax enforcement is stupid.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Not substantiated.

Vague.

Yes, we know you have no answer to our refutations of your position.

You are advocating for a return to the kind os sexual morality that lead to rampant child sex abuse and the demonisation of the victims of said abuse. Just because you are unwilling to accept reality, it doesn't then follow that we have to accept or pander to your delusions.