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

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very well put.

It's all a load of bull, of course. But this particular bull, this analogy with slavery, thank you for taking the trouble to so thoroughly discuss how it falls short. (Heh, truly, it's trivially easy to talk bull, but requires a great deal more thought and effort to coherently and fully address that kind of nonsense.)
 
You seem to think that depictions of genitalia didn't exist until the internet apparently "super-saturated" society with porn. You would be wrong, in that case. Or is it female genitalia that bothers you? Because yes, phalluses in varying degrees of arousal have been extremely common in decidedly public places throughout history. I would even go so far as to say that our societies have been super-saturated with them. But female genitalia have also been depicted, in public places, through the ages. Humans depict genitalia. Other humans look at the pictures.

I believe in education. Our views on sex, consent, and rape, have improved, even in the era of internet porn. The lack of as readily available porn did not mean that sexual mores were better, quite the opposite, and while I am certanly not saying that lack of internet porn caused that, I am saying that education and open discussion of the issues do.
 
Last edited:
Yepp, ban that other, older --- ancient --- kind of porn as well, that in the eyes of the depraved masquerade as "art". [/s]

It's not a new idea, that kind of intolerance is age-old, as well.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

i think there’s a compelling public interest to ensure pornography remains on pornography sites. which involves stricter moderation on the rest of the internet imo, particularly social media.
 
Chanakya said:
Very well put.
Click to expand...
Thank you!

Chanakya said:
It's all a load of bull, of course. But this particular bull, this analogy with slavery, thank you for taking the trouble to so thoroughly discuss how it falls short. (Heh, truly, it's trivially easy to talk bull, but requires a great deal more thought and effort to coherently and fully address that kind of nonsense.)
Click to expand...
To be clear: I don't think it's all a load of bull. I think there are valid concerns about the pernicious effects of porn, especially on minors. I think it makes sense to censor/restrict/regulate porn to some degree. Where I part ways with Poem is the strength of their argument for a total ban.
 
Yeah, I agree as well that there's room for debate. Personally I come down on the more permissive side, but I'll gladly listen to sensible arguments.
 
Poem said:
wall to wall porn
Click to expand...
Poem said:
porn super-saturated our world
Click to expand...

This is hyperbole. If I walk outside, I do not see porn. If I go to the shopping centre, I do not see porn. I do not see porn on billboards or on the sides of buses. Everywhere I look, there is no porn - unless I choose to look in the places where the porn is.

I don't call that "wall-to-wall" or "super-saturation".
 
theprestige said:
Thank you!


To be clear: I don't think it's all a load of bull. I think there are valid concerns about the pernicious effects of porn, especially on minors. I think it makes sense to censor/restrict/regulate porn to some degree. Where I part ways with Poem is the strength of their argument for a total ban.
Click to expand...

Sure, no one's saying, absolutely no one at all, that there's no ill effects to porn, particularly on minors, and zero scope for regulation and control of porn. That's just incidental straw of the kind OP lies to lay on, to cover his tracks.

What's "bull" would be all of those specifics in OP's position that have been repeatedly pointed out throughout the thread. Including some specifics I've myself discussed earlier in the thread (and including the portions of it that I've disagreed completely with you about earlier in the thread).

This slavery analogy that was brought up, others have commented on how it doesn't quite map. I've myself half thought of commenting, but as it happens did not. I enjoyed your brief but substantive discussion of it --- discussed much better than I might have done myself, incidentally, had I commented.

One would imagine it would be OP that would be the most appreciative of the gaps in their thinking being pointed out clearly like this, and offering them a chance to course-correct, as far as this specific: but then again, maybe not.
 
There are some very saucy petroglyphs in Sweden. Not sure what we should/could do about those, if there was a ban.

I am quite, quite certain that there are examples of internet porn that I would find abhorrent, and I know that there is (non-sexual) violence of all kinds that I would be equally disgusted by, but banning such nebulous concepts as the ott examples of stuff that is mostly inoffensive is never going to work. And it would also be an opening for the kind of censorship that I sincerely hope that people on this forum are not in favour of.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Poem wants to ban the depiction of anything that is sexually arousing.
Some people find images of feet sexually arousing. Therefore.....
Click to expand...
Not quite, it is if it was intended to be sexually arousing. So Fetish Feet Fortnightly would be banned but the feature about caring for your feet with photographs and videos of feet being massaged with essential oils would be fine.
 
Helen said:
You seem to think that depictions of genitalia didn't exist until the internet apparently "super-saturated" society with porn. You would be wrong, in that case. Or is it female genitalia that bothers you? Because yes, phalluses in varying degrees of arousal have been extremely common in decidedly public places throughout history. I would even go so far as to say that our societies have been super-saturated with them. But female genitalia have also been depicted, in public places, through the ages. Humans depict genitalia. Other humans look at the pictures.

I believe in education. Our views on sex, consent, and rape, have improved, even in the era of internet porn. The lack of as readily available porn did not mean that sexual mores were better, quite the opposite, and while I am certanly not saying that lack of internet porn caused that, I am saying that education and open discussion of the issues do.
Click to expand...
It also appears that Poem thinks not having porn would increase the occurrence of real sex. Now I was a slut when I was younger as were most of my friends, OK let me be honest, as were* all of my friends, so I'm not one to say people shouldn't have as much sex as they want but "real" sex comes (I'm British if I can't shove in a few double ended innuendos every couple of sentences I'll be deported) with a lot of serious risks, encouraging more real sex may not be the best idea.

*Ok let's be totally honest, we still are sluts but when you now make a noise when both sitting down and standing up a nice cup of tea often has greater appeal.
 
arthwollipot said:
This is hyperbole. If I walk outside, I do not see porn. If I go to the shopping centre, I do not see porn. I do not see porn on billboards or on the sides of buses. Everywhere I look, there is no porn - unless I choose to look in the places where the porn is.

I don't call that "wall-to-wall" or "super-saturation".
Click to expand...
Given Poem's definition we are presented with wall-to-wall pornography: even today when advertisers are much more careful about how they present it the adage "sex sells" is still true. So lots of what is now mainstream advertising will be banned, most of the likes of the Kardashians' social media postings would be banned and so on.
 
Amongst Tumblr's 'pictures you can't post' rules there was 'female presenting nipples' which led to a whole lot of entertainingly malicious compliance.

Reminds me of that breast cancer self exam video where they start with a censored lady, then have a large fella step in front of her and she does the exam on him. (to keep the E in JREF, the current medical rec is only to do BSEs if you don't/can't get regular mammograms)
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is an awful lot here to unpack here (which is fine).

Could you clarify: But unlike slavery, it does not necessitate harm to others without consent?

Stating that porn is expression and therefore a human right isn't really saying much other than acknowledging that governments have decided to use the Miller Test (or other such criteria) to determine that porn (i.e. the kind of legal stuff you find on Pornhub etc) is legal.

If we want to talk about human rights then we shouldn't leave out referencing the UNCRC, which states:
Children should be able to access information they can understand on TV, radio, in books and newspapers and on the internet. Governments should make sure children are protected from things that could harm them.

Children and young people should be protected from media that would be harmful to them. This includes:
- pornography,

According to AI:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been ratified by 196 countries, making it the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, with only the United States having signed but not ratified it. All UN member states have signed and, in most cases, ratified the treaty, demonstrating universal commitment to children's rights.

UNICEF:
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is an important, legally binding agreement signed by 196 countries (as of 12 July 2022) which outlines the fundamental rights of every child, regardless of their race, religion or abilities.

Wikipedia:
The United States has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); however, it remains the only United Nations member state to have not ratified it after Somalia ratified it in 2015.

The US aside, governments have a legal duty to protect children in the way described. They have not done so.

I note you agree that porn is having pernicious effects and isn't necessary.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
There is an awful lot here to unpack here (which is fine).

Could you clarify: But unlike slavery, it does not necessitate harm to others without consent?
Click to expand...

I think he means that it is possible to have porn with consenting adults being watched by consenting adults- i.e. Porn without anyone having to do anything they don't want to do.

This is not possible with slavery. It is impossible to have slavery without someone being coerced. This is not the case with porn.

Poem said:
The US aside, governments have a legal duty to protect children in the way described. They have not done so.
Click to expand...

Parents. It's parents who have a legal duty to protect children. Why do you think parents fail at this. Alarmingly consistently, according to your literature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom