• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Every country in the world except the USA is legally bound to the UNCRC. In other words, those countries are legally bound by the following:

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

What is notable is that America threw out provisions in the CPPA (Ashcroft v. TFSC in 2002) thus allowing porn that features what appears to be minors engaging in sex with adults.

States Parties continue to fail children's rights.

Nelson Mandela: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The test of the morality of a society is what is does for it's children."
 
Last edited:
Poem, the way you have organised #2540 suggests that I was responding to a different post to the one I was actually responding to. This is dishonest.
 
arthwollipot said:
Poem, the way you have organised #2540 suggests that I was responding to a different post to the one I was actually responding to. This is dishonest.
Click to expand...
Are you going to back up your assertion that Pornhub is reputable and law-abiding?
 
I could direct you to the site's terms and conditions - which is linked on the very first page you encounter, and on which you are required to assert that you are over 18 years of age (this may vary according to your jurisdiction) - but I'm pretty certain that on this forum I will absolutely not be permitted to link to it. I'm reasonably sure that I can screenshot this completely safe for work excerpt from that page, though (and I have reported this post just in case it's not allowed).

1756895562889.png

But I doubt this would convince you of anything. As an aggregator, PornHub relies on uploads, and not all uploads are immediately vetted - just like moderators here cannot read every thread. So it is possible that someone might upload CSAM or NCC content in flagrant violation of these terms and conditions, but I would not expect that it would last for very long.

Incidentally, the "fraudulent content" clause can and has been used to ban AI-produced porn and deepfakes. But that's beside the point.
 
Last edited:
When talking about harm to kids as far as I know porn sites haven't contributed to the likes of children murdering other children or children self-harming and suicide etc. I don't see the likes of Pornhub as particularly disreputable especially when compared to the likes of Meta, XAI, and ByteDance. We've seen the evidence in this thread that Meta was OK with 13-year-olds being groomed, hard to see how that could happen on Pornhub.
 
Poem said:
Every country in the world except the USA is legally bound to the UNCRC. In other words, those countries are legally bound by the following:

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

What is notable is that America threw out provisions in the CPPA (Ashcroft v. TFSC in 2002) thus allowing porn that features what appears to be minors engaging in sex with adults.

States Parties continue to fail children's rights.

Nelson Mandela: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The test of the morality of a society is what is does for it's children."
Click to expand...
Unless you're arguing that a blanket ban on porn is the only way to satisfy the mandate of the UNCRC, this is a red herring. Everyone here already agrees that the state has some responsibility to regulate access to pornography. Everyone here agrees that aged-based restrictions on access make sense. Everyone here already agrees with the principles outlined in the UNCRC.

What nobody here agrees with is your proposal to ban porn entirely. And a mandate to ban porn entirely has been found nowhere in the UNCRC. You seem to value appeals to authority and popularity, so hopefully this will resonate with you: Not one of the states parties to the UNCRC think it mandates a total ban on porn.

Instead of constantly repeating what you think the problem is, you need to get on with explaining why you think a total ban is the best solution.
 
theprestige said:
Unless you're arguing that a blanket ban on porn is the only way to satisfy the mandate of the UNCRC, this is a red herring. Everyone here already agrees that the state has some responsibility to regulate access to pornography. Everyone here agrees that aged-based restrictions on access make sense. Everyone here already agrees with the principles outlined in the UNCRC.
Click to expand...
Well here is just one poster to begin with who you must have missed:
3point14 said:
I understand the point of the UNCRC quote, but their goals are not my goals. I disagree with them. I have stated why. They have a singular goal and want to pressure governments into action, presumably in the absence of action by parents (parents who are clearly failing in their responsibilities).
Click to expand...
 
Poem said:
Well here is just one poster to begin with who you must have missed:
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

Meanwhile you've found yet another excuse to avoid arguing why your proposal of a blanket ban is the only acceptable solution to the mandate of the UNCRC. We're getting well into Zeno's Argument territory here.
 
Poem said:
No problem.

I'm a long way behind, but I intend to respond to all points made.
Click to expand...
All points made? I think that's a foolish approach. A lot of the points being made are rhetorical asides, or secondary (even tertiary!) issues. I recommend prioritizing the responses that will do the most to advance the conversation.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Then there is the matter of defining pornography before you can ban it.
Click to expand...
I'm satisfied with the definition already provided.

Besides, it's not like we've lost all capacity to order a civil society, just because we don't like someone's policy proposal. We already have a definition we use to restrict access to pornographic content. We can easily and reasonably assume the same definition is just as good for banning the same content rather than restricting it. There's no need to push Poem to get bogged down on that question, rather than addressing more important points.
 
3point14 said:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm all for age based restrictions on pornography. It's the implimentation I have issue with.
Click to expand...
Really?
3point14 said:
These 'parents and carers' have absolutely all the tools they need to prevent access to the internet by the children they're so concerned about.

"Oh please, I gave my child a phone, a computer and unrestricted and unsupervised access to the internet and they went ahead and used it. Please help me by legislating to limit their access to the very thing I facilitated access to in the first place."
Click to expand...
3point14 said:
Using a computer or phone given to them by their parents though an internet provider paid for and provided by their parents, while living in their parents house.

It's a mystery how any of this could have been prevented. Just a complete enigma...
Click to expand...
3point14 said:
If you don't want your child to have access to the internet, don't give your child access to the internet. It's not difficult. If your child needs access to the internet, supervise them, like you would if they were crossing the street or learning how to ride a bike or doing anything else with the potential for harm.

The great wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who have caused the problem and want someone else to solve it is hypocrisy of the highest order.

If you choose to be a parent, then be a parent.

If you can't be a parent, by dint of lack of time, money, property or any other reason, don't be a parent.
Click to expand...
3point14 said:
The same way it's always been done. By parents not, metaphorically speaking, leaving a big, unlocked box of porn in their childrens' room.

Children are accessing porn solely through devices and services they can only obtain through their parents. A child's parents are the gatekeepers for every harmful thing they are ever likely to want to access.

How do we stop children eating too much ice cream? - don't give them ice cream.

How do we stop children not obtaining power tools? Don't give them unsupervised access to power tools.

How do we stop children accessing porn? By not providing them the means to do so.

I really don't see what's so difficult about that. As a parent, it's one's bloody job to ensure your child does not obtain or access, unsupervised, that which may cause harm.
Click to expand...
On the other hand:
3point14 said:
I'm happy for parents that fail to protect their children from unsuitable adult material to be prosecuted in exactly the same way as society now prosecutes parents who abuse or neglect their children in other ways. We're now way past the point that ignorance of the internet can be used as an excuse as may have been the case in the past.
Click to expand...
We prosecute parents when and if they fail to prevent their children from accessing porn?
 
3point14 said:
I'm really not sure what your point is. Do you think that it is not the duty of a parent to protect their children from that which they view as harmful? That seems pretty dangerous to me.
Click to expand...
Parents should do all they can - but the evidence (and I have posted it many times) is that it won't be enough.
3point14 said:
You also must realise that it is possible to disagree with an 'expert'. I understand the point of the UNCRC quote, but their goals are not my goals. I disagree with them. I have stated why. They have a singular goal and want to pressure governments into action, presumably in the absence of action by parents (parents who are clearly failing in their responsibilities).
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted - but the fact is that every country (with the exception of the US) has signed and is legally bound to make sure children can access all that the internet has for then and in a safe way. Government must make sure they are protected from porn.

That is not happening.
3point14 said:
Just because someone with an impressive title says something, it does not make it true.
Click to expand...
The most ratified human rights treaty in history.


If your opinion had any significance, then we would expect a little more resistance than just the USA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom