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

arthwollipot said:
What do you mean by "extreme porn"? If you're looking at legal restrictions, this is another term that you will have to define meticulously, precisely, and unambiguously in legalese.
Click to expand...
The UK bans extreme porn. I have said many times that a lot of porn available on the net is not legal on DVD / Blu-ray in the UK. Much of this sort of material is soon going to be made illegal on the net too (though I doubt that any such laws will be efficacious).

You also need to define the porn you find unacceptable or refer to government legislation.
 
Poem said:
What are you suggesting - that the sex of yesterday has nothing on porn 'sex'?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm suggesting that your stated reason for banning porn, in the post I replied to, was not a very good one.

I suspect you will, willfully or otherwise, misinterpret my argument here.
 
3point14 said:
No.

I'm suggesting that your stated reason for banning porn, in the post I replied to, was not a very good one.

I suspect you will, willfully or otherwise, misinterpret my argument here.
Click to expand...
I am genuinely concerned at the direction we humans are taking on this. I'm just stating that we survived and had sex before porn super-saturated our world. We didn't and we don't need it. In light of all the ills that it has brought us, that should be a good reason.
 
You could literally replace 'porn' with 'sugar' in that statement, one to one. I wouldn't want to ban either of those. I don't think banning a thing that people enjoy is something we should do in reaction to problems caused by its high prevalence (ie if porn/sugar wasn't on/in everything and was used as a nice treat or an appropriate part in a whole product then there would be no serious problems.)

Commercial bans are for items that have no neutral or positive use. And 'in moderation, it's enjoyable to a typical person' is a positive use.
 
Last edited:
When people say we need a detailed, monkey's paw/genie outsmarting definition, they're not saying it's impossible to do that. They're saying it's important to do that. And that it's step one of figuring out how to ban what you want without some overzealous prosecutor banning what you don't want.

Because there is always an overzealous prosecutor.

Definition, logical test, iteration.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
I am genuinely concerned at the direction we humans are taking on this. I'm just stating that we survived and had sex before porn super-saturated our world. We didn't and we don't need it. In light of all the ills that it has brought us, that should be a good reason.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of modern stuff we can do without. If you want to live simply, alone or in a community of like-minded individuals, I can respect that.
 
theprestige said:
There's a lot of modern stuff we can do without. If you want to live simply, alone or in a community of like-minded individuals, I can respect that.
Click to expand...
No - we want to keep our slaves...go live alone or in a community of like-minded individuals.
 
Lithrael said:
When people say we need a detailed, monkey's paw/genie outsmarting definition, they're not saying it's impossible to do that. They're saying it's important to do that. And that it's step one of figuring out how to ban what you want without some overzealous prosecutor banning what you don't want.

Because there is always an overzealous prosecutor.

Definition, logical test, iteration.
Click to expand...
The Modern Slavery Act in the UK has problems that relate to that.
 
Poem said:
The Modern Slavery Act in the UK has problems that relate to that.
Click to expand...
And?

Once again... The problem isn't that it can't be done, the problem is that it's not useful to charge ahead with a stance like "We should ban slavery. Slavery is 'unrenumerated work unless as part of a contract not made under duress, and room and board doesn't count as renumeration, unless it does'" ie now you have to prove contracts were signed under duress (and if you take out that language you can't have unpaid internships or unpaid workstudy); you can just pay a slave wage; you can pay them but they spend it all on your room and board that you have a local monopoly on, etc etc
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
And?

Once again... The problem isn't that it can't be done, the problem is that it's not useful to charge ahead with a stance like "We should ban slavery. Slavery is 'unrenumerated work unless as part of a contract not made under duress, and room and board doesn't count as remumeration, unless it does'"
Click to expand...
? Nonetheless we banned slavery.
 
Poem said:
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?
Click to expand...

All laws have interpretational issues; that's why courts and lawyers exist! But that's no excuse for skipping the work of crafting laws to be as fit for their intended purpose as possible, or for misrepresenting the intent of a law while writing it to suit a different covert intent.

Slavery is not the topic of this thread. But, as I said, I would be opposed to a law banning slavery if it also banned volunteer work, community service sentences, all unpaid internships, all apprenticeships, all household work within a family, etc. That is, a law that bans things I don't think are necessarily bad along with the bad things it's claimed to be targeted at. Like your proposed porn ban.

Poem said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not for banning "extreme porn" if the meaning of that phrase is left open to anyone's interpretation and opinion. Please define "extreme porn" in a way suitable for being used as the basis for legal penalties.

Poem said:
A nude in bed but no genitals?
Click to expand...

Depiction of circumstances that are clearly intended to convey the characters are nude, but due to posture, camera angle, obstructions, a bed sheet, whatever, no genitals are visible. Every soap opera and PG-13 movie does this.

So in your proposed ban, does "represented as nude" but no genitals visible count as nude, or not? Remember that your ban includes books, i.e. "depictions" that are text only, so we have to assume so based on your definition. Also you've opined that performers of legal age represented as underage is unacceptable, so I have to also assume that performers represented as nude even when genitals are hidden would also be unacceptable.

Poem said:
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?
Click to expand...

Some degree of modesty, like burquas? Again you're using vague subjective terms in a discussion of lawmaking, which is either reckless or deceitful.

Poem said:
The alternative is what we have got now - what can only be described as an arms race to the bottom.
Click to expand...

No. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea just because some other idea is worse. The alternative is a better crafted law, such as the laws we already have in place or, if necessary, careful limited modifications of those.

Poem said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do your law enforcement authorities agree?

Poem said:
I assumed it meant someone who accesses content whether paid for or not.
Click to expand...

Why is the definition you said was good enough to be written into laws that could decide when people are sent to prison or have their property taken away loaded with your assumptions?

Poem said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gray areas are supposed to be rare exceptional or unforeseen cases. I'm foreseeing them for you so they don't have to be gray areas.

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

We don't need laws because they did not historically exist to the degree we have them today.

Poem said:
If I am handwaving, then so are you.
Click to expand...

The difference is, I'm not the one trying to imprison people based on my assumptions and opinions.
 
Poem said:
? Nonetheless we banned slavery.
Click to expand...
....wh... look. Okay, I literally JUST said it. Once again... The problem isn't that it can't be done, the problem is that it's not useful to charge ahead with a muddy definition.

We did NOT successfully ban slavery by just saying "Ban Slavery." Even GOOD ideas need more steps. Advocates need to be interested in thinking about the steps that will help accomplish their goals. Without creating unforseen problems!
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
No - we want to keep our slaves...go live alone or in a community of like-minded individuals.
Click to expand...
Pornography is not analogous to slavery.

I think pornography has pernicious effects, and is unnecessary to a healthy and fulfilling life. But unlike slavery, it does not necessitate harm to others without consent. It's also expression, which is a human right.

So the question of whether we can make an effective ban is much more important, because we're talking about infringing on a human right.

There's a concept in American jurisprudence called "strict scrutiny". The basic idea is that when contemplating the infringement of a human right ("constitutional right"), three criteria must be considered:

1. Whether the government has a compelling interest in infringing this right.

2. Whether the proposed infringement effectively serves that interest.

3. Whether this is the least intrusive way to serve that interest.

The way I see it, you've invested very heavily in trying justify the first criterion, while avoiding or failing to justify the other two.

There is no human right to enslave others. So we don't need to worry if our ban isn't wholly effective. And because it involves nonconsensual harm, the government's interest is easy to justify. Finally, since we're not talking about a human right, we don't have to worry about the intrusiveness of a ban on slavery.

I think you can make a case for a compelling government interest, due to nonconsensual harm, when it comes to widely-disseminated pornography. I think that's exactly the case you have been making. I actually agree with that case. I generally support the infringements we impose on the right to free expression, when it comes to pornographic expression.

But I think your proposed ban goes too far, without satisfying the other two criteria of strict scrutiny.

And I think your argument by analogy to slavery will continue to be a dead letter, since the two things are not analogous in a way that supports your proposal to ban pornography. Argue the thing in its own terms. If you can't do that, then you certainly can't argue it in terms of something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom