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

Poem said:
No they haven't always been able to create child porn videos in the way described. That you don't think we we should regulate is off the scale wrong.

Where did the money go? Did it go into GenAI to create these kind of videos - or did it go into making sure they were never created?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
The article you linked to was talking about AI images not AI videos.
 
Poem said:
No they haven't always been able to create child porn videos in the way described. That you don't think we we should regulate is off the scale wrong.

Where did the money go? Did it go into GenAI to create these kind of videos - or did it go into making sure they were never created?

I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
The article you linked to was talking about AI images not AI videos.
 
Poem said:
GenAI will now create CSAM
Click to expand...
Just to quibble, no it won't. It will create simulated CSAM. The whole entire reason for the term CSAM is that real people are abused to make it. You could argue they are inherently linked whenever the generator is actually trained on CSAM.

CSAM is neither legal nor normalized.

I would have no problem at all with banning AI simulated CSAM that is broadly indistinguishable from the real thing.

I would have a problem with banning the Barely Legal genre because of things like 25 year olds doing their best to pass for young teens.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Pornhub watchers will have seen some.
Click to expand...
Some pornhub watchers, possibly. Definitely not all pornhub watchers. It really does not just put stuff on the screen that is unrelated to what you search for. Or didn't; I currently can't access it.
 
Poem said:
Yes I have.
#2,446
Click to expand...
Nope...
That extra large word salad has nothing to do with a reply to #2,426.

You posted:

For the purpose of this review, ‘pornography’ is defined as ‘any media (including: internet, books, videos, magazines etc.) intended to sexually arouse consumers through the depiction of nudity or explicit sexual behaviour.’

I asked for you to clarify if this was your definition of pornography for the purpose of enacting a ban.

If not, why are you using it to support your position?
 
Poem said:
No they haven't always been able to create child porn videos in the way described.
Click to expand...
They've always been able to create images, one way or another. The particular technology doesn't change the principle.

Poem said:
That you don't think we we should regulate is off the scale wrong.
Click to expand...
Why is it wrong?

Poem said:
Where did the money go? Did it go into GenAI to create these kind of videos - or did it go into making sure they were never created?
Click to expand...
What money are you talking about?

Poem said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
You have no idea that you want to ban all porn?
 
Poem said:
For the purpose of this review, ‘pornography’ is defined as ‘any media (including: internet, books, videos, magazines etc.) intended to sexually arouse consumers through the depiction of nudity or explicit sexual behaviour.’
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering and for providing a coherent definition.

Now that we have a definition to consider, I and others can evaluate it and decide whether to support or oppose a law banning pornography based on it.

I want adults to be able to make and sell media works intended to sexually arouse consumers through the depiction of adult nudity or explicit adult sexual behavior. Not all conceivable such works, but some of them. So, I'm opposed.

I like attractive nude pictures and statues. I like emotionally relevant sex scenes in novels and movies. I'm demisexual so I actually don't like most conventional porn, but for instance a nude-in-bed no-genitals-visible first kiss between a slow-burn romantic couple five years into the run of a webcomic can make me squeal like a weebu, and you want to ban that. No thanks. Go live in a monastery if you want to, and leave the rest of us alone.

You're going to want to say something like, "that means you want pedophiles blah blah children blah blah" but neither your ban language nor my reason for opposing it mentions children. If you want to make laws about children, make them specifically about children, not "consumers."

There are a few other issues with your definition, though they may be moot at this point. I looked up several legal definitions of "consumer" associated with various existing laws, and all of them define consumer in terms of paid transactions of goods and services. Porn that's on public display or otherwise offered for free might, it could be challenged in court, involves no "consumers."

And yes, there have long been laws based on intent, but the practice in most cases is to judge intent by a reasonable-person standard based on the acts in question. For instance, "intent to distribute" controlled substances is usually straightforwardly charged based on the verifiable fact of the amount possessed, not on reading the suspect's mind or looking for "distribute the controlled substances today" notations in their day planners. If a passage in a novel describes in detail a character's attractiveness to another character (a part of life that is also therefore often a part of fiction), and that description happens to also arouse the reader, was that the author's intent or was the intent to account for why the character was aroused, for the sake of the story? How do you decide that, in a courtroom?
 
Poem said:
...offline, with no opportunity for detection.
Click to expand...
#1: Then how were they detected? #2: What a person does in the privacy of their own home should be nobody's business but their own, when nobody is being harmed by it.

Lithrael said:
Some pornhub watchers, possibly. Definitely not all pornhub watchers. It really does not just put stuff on the screen that is unrelated to what you search for. Or didn't; I currently can't access it.
Click to expand...
PornHub, like other porn aggregators, has an Algorithm now, just like YouTube does. It will feed you more of what you search for. It's not just randomly pulling clips out of a big bag.
 
Myriad said:
Thank you for answering and for providing a coherent definition.

Now that we have a definition to consider, I and others can evaluate it and decide whether to support or oppose a law banning pornography based on it.
Click to expand...
I answered you but you have not reciprocated. You make no reference to my point about the MSA which suffers from interpretational issues that determine innocence or guilt in a way that parallels your arguments about interpreting a porn law. Are you opposed to the MSA for the same reasons?
Myriad said:
I want adults to be able to make and sell media works intended to sexually arouse consumers through the depiction of adult nudity or explicit adult sexual behavior. Not all conceivable such works, but some of them. So, I'm opposed.
Click to expand...
I presume you are for banning extreme porn? Defining which 'media works' you might be opposed to the point of proscription would entail the same issues regarding definitions as you keep bringing up.
Myriad said:
I like attractive nude pictures and statues. I like emotionally relevant sex scenes in novels and movies. I'm demisexual so I actually don't like most conventional porn, but for instance a nude-in-bed no-genitals-visible first kiss between a slow-burn romantic couple five years into the run of a webcomic can make me squeal like a weebu, and you want to ban that. No thanks. Go live in a monastery if you want to, and leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...
A nude in bed but no genitals?

Are you suggesting that a Thomas Hardy novel suffers because it isn't explicit? Hardy was actually considered quite scandalous in his day, but I don't see that a (at least) partial return to some degree of modesty would be as terrible as you make it out to be. I mean, would it not actually encourage more real sex?

The alternative is what we have got now - what can only be described as an arms race to the bottom.
Myriad said:
You're going to want to say something like, "that means you want pedophiles blah blah children blah blah" but neither your ban language nor my reason for opposing it mentions children. If you want to make laws about children, make them specifically about children, not "consumers."
Click to expand...
We have laws about not showing a child porn. The kind of wall to wall porn we have today is, in my view, a breach of that law.
Myriad said:
There are a few other issues with your definition, though they may be moot at this point. I looked up several legal definitions of "consumer" associated with various existing laws, and all of them define consumer in terms of paid transactions of goods and services. Porn that's on public display or otherwise offered for free might, it could be challenged in court, involves no "consumers."
Click to expand...
I assumed it meant someone who accesses content whether paid for or not.
Myriad said:
And yes, there have long been laws based on intent, but the practice in most cases is to judge intent by a reasonable-person standard based on the acts in question. For instance, "intent to distribute" controlled substances is usually straightforwardly charged based on the verifiable fact of the amount possessed, not on reading the suspect's mind or looking for "distribute the controlled substances today" notations in their day planners. If a passage in a novel describes in detail a character's attractiveness to another character (a part of life that is also therefore often a part of fiction), and that description happens to also arouse the reader, was that the author's intent or was the intent to account for why the character was aroused, for the sake of the story? How do you decide that, in a courtroom?
Click to expand...
I accept there is and always will be a grey area. Essentially your decision to reject a porn ban is because you don't accept my assessment (based on expert opinion) of the harm that it's causing.

We don't need porn because it did not historically exist (to the degree we have it today at least).

If I am handwaving, then so are you.
 
Last edited:
Joe Random said:
Curious if this question has been asked yet -

"This thing only exists to stimulate sexual arousal". Well, ... so what? How is that inherently a bad thing, absent any other factors like non-consent, etc. ?
Click to expand...


Because sex is bad...
 
Poem said:
That's a false analogy - before porn (i.e. as it is now), people were still having and enjoying sex.
Click to expand...

So? Before electricity, people were still pumping water. Before antibiotics, people still got better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom