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

[theprestige]

Actually, you stand very corrected:

Anything other than actually arguing for a blanket ban on porn, as the least intrusive, effective way to infringe on the right to free expression.

Zeno's Argument in full effect.

The most ratified human rights treaty in history.

Making it the most ignored, most useless treaty in history. Your appeal to popularity cuts both ways.

Don't feel bad, though. Most UN treaties are pretty useless. You should probably stop using them as a basis for your arguments.

https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=How%20was%20it%20decided%20what,specific%20needs%20of%20developing%20countries.

If your opinion had any significance, then we would expect a little more resistance than just the USA.

We see a lot more resistance than just the USA. Why other countries aren't similarly disinclined to sign treaties they're just going to ignore is a topic for another thread.

So your argument from the UNCRC is a dead end. Your argument by analogy to slavery is a dead end. What else do you have?

 

[dirtywick]

Kids. Libraries. Books. Bad books? OH NOES! --> Ban certain books.

That wasn't acceptable before the internet, it's not acceptable with the internet.

The solution is to actually mind the children, not sanitize the cosmos.

eta: an even better example: TV. TVs have been in households for multiple generations now. Do parents want kids watching every program on TV? Of course not. The solution? It wasn't banning programming types, it was watch your damn kids. If you didn't want little Timmy watching "Dream On" it was on you to not let little Timmy have unrestricted access to a TV at 11pm.

tvs are those things you used to watch porn on before the internet right?

 

[Poem]

I suggested prosecution for social media companies bypassing theoretical controls on social media to prevent minors from seeing the unsuitable.

I don't know what this means.

I am still with TM here. There may be underlying reason for the 'Oh, won't somebody think of the children'

There also may be perfectly obvious reasons why society, in general, resists ensuring children's rights are upheld - rights their governments are legally bound to. Like, for instance, making sure children aren't stumbling on porn or able to access it.

Most people are watching porn - and enjoying that easy access...to the point of orgasm.
That isn't a stretch.

CMIIW.

 

[3point14]

Most people are watching porn - and enjoying that easy access...to the point of orgasm.

What's wrong with orgasm?!?!???

 

[dirtywick]

maybe poem is into edging. not that there’s anything wrong with that

 

[Poem]

What's wrong with orgasm?!?!???

You tell me. I didn't say orgasms were problematic per se and if you has been following then you would have know that.

 

[3point14]

You tell me. I didn't saying orgasms were problematic per se and if you has been following then you would have know that.

Sorry, I was confused by this:

Most people are watching porn - and enjoying that easy access...to the point of orgasm.
That isn't a stretch.

CMIIW.

I don't understand why you mention this.

 

[Poem]

Sorry, I was confused by this:



I don't understand why you mention this.

You have been questioning the integrity of those that authored the UNCRC and I am drawing attention to the fact that those that consume porn are not necessarily impartial when it comes to the reasons why restrictions might be necessary.

 

[3point14]

You have been questioning the integrity of those that authored the UNCRC

No I haven't.

and I am drawing attention to the fact that those that consume porn are not necessarily impartial when it comes to the reasons why restrictions might be necessary.

Oh, I see. Not sure I understand, but that's par for this conversation.

One last statement:

I do not believe porn should be banned.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls_2x.png

 

[theprestige]

You have been questioning the integrity of those that authored the UNCRC and I am drawing attention to the fact that those that consume porn are not necessarily impartial when it comes to the reasons why restrictions might be necessary.

There's no reason to believe that the people that authored the UNCRC don't consume porn themselves. And that the UNCRC therefore was never intended to mandate a blanket ban, nor even anything more robust than what most western cultures currently have in place.

Anyway, the UNCRC argument is a dead end, since pretty much all its signatories fall short of your expectation for the treaty. Instead of telling us about a law that everyone ignores, why don't you tell us why you think a ban is the best solution?

 

[Poem]

No I haven't.

You have, however, rejected 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,

Your solution - that responsibility is with the parents isn't working. Right now - it isn't working. According the UK's Children's Commissioner (who has spoken to a million children), kids are watching hardcore, extreme porn, and acting it out. Right now.

 

[Chanakya]

What's wrong with orgasm?!?!???

Jesus never had one?


eta: Had deleted this out, but given the quick likes, scratch the deletion!

 

[theprestige]

You have, however, rejected 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,

Your solution - that responsibility is with the parents isn't working. Right now - it isn't working. According the UK's Children's Commissioner (who has spoken to a million children), kids are watching hardcore, extreme porn, and acting it out. Right now.

Somehow I doubt the UK Children's Commissioner has spoken to a million children on this topic. Assuming a five-minute conversation with each child (and ignoring downtime between conversations), that's almost 8400 hours. If the Commissioner did nothing else, 8 hours per day, every day, including weekends and holidays, it would take them almost three years to complete this million-child survey.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your solution - that responsibility is with the parents isn't working. Right now - it isn't working.

Why, do you think?

 

[Poem]

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.

Since you concede that all laws 'have interpretational issues', then your objection to a porn ban for the same reasons isn't tenable. I am not a legal expert - so asking me to draft what would take a panel of such experts a lengthy period of time and consultation isn't reasonable. If we can bring a law in to deal with modern slavery issues (as the UK did with MSA), then we can do the same with porn.

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.

In the UK we have:

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

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.

Not nude then.

So in your proposed ban, does "represented as nude" but no genitals visible count as nude, or not?

I assume that if it isn't nude then it's not nude.

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.

Lacks clarity.

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

As already made clear, there will never be a definition that isn't nebulous to some degree. Existing laws have the same or similar problems - and I cited the MSA to make that point.

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.

Mere assertion. You are trivialising the serious nature of the porn problem.

Do your law enforcement authorities agree?

All countries (except the USA) are legally bound to make the internet a safe place for children (a result of signing and ratifying the UNCRC):

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,

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?

If we are talking about banning porn, then obviously it would include paid or free content.

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.

Those grey areas are a reality for the MSA but we still passed the law.

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

Are you seriously suggesting that modern society needs porn?

The difference is, I'm not the one trying to imprison people based on my assumptions and opinions.

You think you don't support any laws that imprison the innocent or those that fall between the cracks?

 

[Darat]

Why, do you think?

Because we pretty much allow anyone to have a child, for the vast number of children there is no vetting of their parents prior to the conception, there is no mandated training prior to having a child on how to parent, there is no education on the rights a child has, there is little monitoring and checking on parenting skills throughout a child's life (especially so if the family is not poor), there is no ongoing training program to keep a parent up to date with the latest technology that can affect a child so we therefore have a lot of ill-equipped parents to deal with the threats to a child's welfare.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you seriously suggesting that modern society needs porn?

Since society has always had porn, I'd say yes - it fills a niche in society and culture that has always been there.

Because...

Thanks, but with respect, I wasn't asking you.

 

[theprestige]

Since society has always had porn, I'd say yes - it fills a niche in society and culture that has always been there.

BRB, going to add porn to my list of things that, if we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

 

[dirtywick]

and all you need to get started is at least one person and a camera an no previous knowledge or experience

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Venus of Willendorf is thirty thousand years old. Humans have been making porn for a long time.