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

[Darat]

The OSA prevents circumvention by using Garry's Mod?

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[Poem]

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

You didn't answer the question. VPNs and Garry's Mod circumvention look pretty embarrassing for the OSA from where I'm looking.

 

[arthwollipot]

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

The OSA isn't good. Nothing is good. Education is the only solution.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's quite an admission. Most here vehemently disagree with that assertion.

Who do you think should tell children that porn exists? Their parents, or the other kids in the schoolyard?

But you have not remotely shown that the CCO is out of touch.

I don't think I need to.

The mass sexualisation of a whole generation of young people is one of the greatest scandals of the modern world.

You do get that I'm talking about 13-17 year olds, right? Not 8-year olds? I really should be talking about teenagers, rather than about children. I'll do that in the future.

 

[Poem]

Who do you think should tell children that porn exists? Their parents, or the other kids in the schoolyard?

Parents should talk to their children about it, but kids in the schoolyard will be as well.

I don't think I need to.

It was your assertion. Demonstrate that Rachel De Souza is a out of touch.

You do get that I'm talking about 13-17 year olds, right? Not 8-year olds? I really should be talking about teenagers, rather than about children. I'll do that in the future.

I'm not following your point. Are you suggesting it's okay to show a 13 year old porn?

 

[Poem]

The OSA isn't good. Nothing is good. Education is the only solution.

You mean bow to the pornographers?

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."

A society that facilitates children's exposure to porn isn't civil.

 

[Darat]

The OSA isn't good. Nothing is good. Education is the only solution.

So what do we do for the kids that the parents fail to do this "education" (that will solve all the problems with having unrestricted access to porn)? What do we do for the kids growing up today before we start on this new project of social engineering?

 

[Myriad]

Incorrect. The Miller Test only needs a little tweaking and the whole US porn edifice could crumble. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Your faith in the Supreme Court is extraordinary.

It's been a while, but any time you're ready to specify those little tweaks in a manner suitable for basing legislation on, I'm still eager to assess them. Your previous proposed "tweaks" would outlaw (among other things) anatomy textbooks, sex education materials, the exhibited collections of most art museums, and photographs of people kissing. Can you do better or can't you?

 

[Stout]

So what do we do for the kids that the parents fail to do this "education" (that will solve all the problems with having unrestricted access to porn)? What do we do for the kids growing up today before we start on this new project of social engineering?

Full-on Great Firewall is the only thing that'll do the trick. That's what these anti-porn church ladies are practically begging for. By their reasoning we've got an entire generation that's been totally destroyed by porn and the only way to stop or reverse the damage is to get some serious Project 2025 style bans going on. If a social media site doesn't take great pains to ban porn, or anything that might serve as porn in an "emergency" then that site gets blocked, like Indonesia blocks Reddit. Maybe a redirect to some religious site for those that try to access the forbidden content.

 

[Poem]

It's been a while, but any time you're ready to specify those little tweaks in a manner suitable for basing legislation on, I'm still eager to assess them. Your previous proposed "tweaks" would outlaw (among other things) anatomy textbooks, sex education materials, the exhibited collections of most art museums, and photographs of people kissing. Can you do better or can't you?

The UK's OSA has made tweaks to protect children but it clearly isn't enough. Of course, that isn't related to the Miller test which is used in the states. Did you prove that anatomy and sex education text books would be outlawed in the US? Frankly, it's time we stopped worshipping near absolute freedom to publish any type of porn society so desires and start protecting the young...at the very least.

 

[Myriad]

The UK's OSA has made tweaks to protect children but it clearly isn't enough. Of course, that isn't related to the Miller test which is used in the states. Did you prove that anatomy and sex education text books would be outlawed in the US? Frankly, it's time we stopped worshipping near absolute freedom to publish any type of porn society so desires and start protecting the young...at the very least.

What I proved is that the language you proposed for further restricting porn beyond the existing Miller test would in fact outlaw, among many other things, sex education materials. For instance, a pictorial guide for how to insert a tampon (which to be useful must be "explicit" in depicting female genitalia and the insertion of objects therein) would be illegal to make available ("show") to anyone under eighteen ("children"). Most girls begin menstruating about age twelve but you'd be fine with them waiting six years to be taught what to do about it. To "protect" them.

Real laws in the real world can be written with exceptions, which can range from specific ("excepting pictorial or video demonstrations of health procedures including but not limited to breast self-exams, genital hygiene, use of menstrual pads and tampons, and use of birth control measures") to general ("excepting for educational purposes"). But you've shown no interest in enumerating appropriate exceptions, only in advocating measures that are as broadly restrictive as they can be. Which is why they'd be unconstitutional in the US.

 

[Darat]

Full-on Great Firewall is the only thing that'll do the trick. That's what these anti-porn church ladies are practically begging for. By their reasoning we've got an entire generation that's been totally destroyed by porn and the only way to stop or reverse the damage is to get some serious Project 2025 style bans going on. If a social media site doesn't take great pains to ban porn, or anything that might serve as porn in an "emergency" then that site gets blocked, like Indonesia blocks Reddit. Maybe a redirect to some religious site for those that try to access the forbidden content.

Disagree - adults should be able to access porn, and all the other weirdness of the internet, what we have to do is restrict children's access to the internet. It should be illegal for them to have devices that connect to an unfiltered internet, such restriction need to be hardware based.

ETA: they should be able to access such educational sites as Myriad mentions but that should be on a network that is separate to the internet. We should charge the large social media companies with the cost of maintaining a useful network for kids.

 

[theprestige]

The OSA prevents circumvention by using Garry's Mod?

That's a technical challenge in implementation, not a problem with the law or a failure of the lawmakers.

I think reasonable people expected the implementation to be buggy at first, and improve over time.

With maybe a couple thousand people working on the implementation, and millions looking for ways around it, implementation will always be playing catch-up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It has been my experience that kids are often more mature than we expect them to be. I've known 14-year olds who had more emotional stability than some 24-year olds. This is an issue that should be between the kids and their parents/guardians, not an issue for the government. Talking to children about sex and sexual content on the internet should be done as soon as they are able to understand it, which will vary depending on the child.

Yes, I am aware that this would require some emotional maturity on the part of the parents/guardians, which is not always guaranteed. I'm okay with the government regulating extreme predatory behaviour, whether it's directed at children or otherwise.

This is absurd. You're handing online companies and content creators a gift on a silver platter that exonerates them from any responsibility for their poor actions... and pairing it with the age-old "kids should control their own sexuality" argument. I very strongly disagree.

When a kid is online, they're not upstairs in their bedroom, safe at home. They're in an unknown location hanging out with unknown people of unknown ages. Yes, parents need to take a more active role in their children's internet usage. But that isn't sufficient by itself.

What you're advocating is essentially that BDSM sex clubs should be allowed to let in 13 year olds because "some 14yos are more mature than some 24yos that you know". ◊◊◊◊ that entirely, it's horrible advice and it serves nobody's interests except groomers and pedophiles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you aware it hasn't been in force (in regard to age verification) for a month yet? It's new - there would be no data available.

I have checked the website I used to do the research that showed your opinion on the fictional scenarios most popular was incorrect, that was Pornhub and that now requires age verification. I could no longer do the research I did unless I submitted to its request to verify my age. So that's at least one example that shows it is working.

Out of curiosity, how does the age verification work? Here in the US, it's literally just on the honor system. There's a disclaimer that says it's only for people aged 18 or older, then you click one of two boxes: Yes I'm 18 or older, No I'm under 18. There's currently no real verification in place.

I'm very interested to see how the new rules work out, how their enforced, etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I said nothing that wasn't in my words. Specifically, none of my words were "grooming" or "groomed" or any conjugation of that verb whatsoever, and none of them referred to children being online. I suggest you read them again.

Maybe you should read your own post again?

It has been my experience that kids are often more mature than we expect them to be. I've known 14-year olds who had more emotional stability than some 24-year olds. This is an issue that should be between the kids and their parents/guardians, not an issue for the government. Talking to children about sex and sexual content on the internet should be done as soon as they are able to understand it, which will vary depending on the child.

And bear in mind that this is in the context of a discussion around internet access to pornography and sexual content. There's no reason that anyone with a brain in their skull would assume that you're totally not at all talking about the thing that the rest of us are talking about, and that when you mention the internet, you're not talking about the internet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

AFAIK, the OSA is not preventing kids from using a VPN to access porn.

Sure... but laws that disallow minors in bars aren't preventing kids from making or obtaining fake IDs either.

Having a general law in place that clearly makes the behavior illegal and places responsibility on the company can't stop every single smart and determined child from finding a way around it - but it's a start. And it sure as hell provides some incentive for those companies to plug as many loopholes as they can.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it hasn't. "Accidentally running across porn" isn't even something that routinely happens. Have you ever accidentally encountered porn in your routine internet activity? I haven't - not since the 90s which is where old white parliamentarians still think the internet is. Nobody "surfs the web" any more. Kids look for porn because they're kids and they're curious, and they're even more curious about the things that are forbidden, and you know that. This is why the parents/guardians have to have a serious conversation with them about sex and sexuality as soon as it is practical to do so.

I've inadvertently come across sexually explicit material many times. Sometimes it's because google is stupid, and if you search for things related to reproductive disorders you're likely to get links to video or image or written porn without ever trying. Additionally, I've had inappropriate stuff show up in my feed on Twitter and TikTok both - without ever having liked or searched for any of it.

All this is doing is putting extra steps in the way. This will be enough to deter some, sure, but children can be extremely resourceful and if they really want to get at the porn, they will. A better analogy is that you lock the front door of your house, but if a burglar really wants to get into your house in particular, they will break a window. The lock on your front door only deters casual, opportunistic burglars.

If the existence of porn, what it is and what it is not, and the existence of predators and how to recognise them - if these things are in the open, known, and understood, then kids won't have to go behind their parents' backs. Ignorance and secrecy are dangerous. Knowledge is power.

Meanwhile, the OSA is also providing an unnecessary and unwanted barrier to adults, for whom porn is completely legal.

Oh tnoes! Adults have to show their ID to get into the bar, or to buy nicotine or alcohol, or to get into the local strip club! It's the end of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ world that adults are required to take an additional unwanted step in order to protect children!

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are a bunch of people who would laugh uproariously at that suggestion.

Yes, a bunch of pedos and groomers and selfish adults who think they shouldn't have an obligation to help protect kids.

It's more reckless to go around making porn out to be something secret, and hidden, and therefore interesting, and desirable.

Would you argue that we should not have age barriers on strip clubs, because that makes them hidden and desirable? Instead, parents should just educate their kids about what happens at strip clubs, and then just trust that their kids aren't going to want to go watch some naked boobs jiggled in their direction?

Should we get rid of ID checks for bars, and instead parents should just talk to their kids about what happens at bars and what alcohol is like? And just trust that those kids will no longer want to try it themselves?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah I don't believe that for a moment. That report was written by old white men who don't understand the internet, and don't understand children.

What does skin color have to do with this? Are you a racists?