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

[arthwollipot]

You know as well as I do that the MO of the likes of Pornhub has been to merely ask that the user is over 18. That is anything but age restrictions that work.

Can't argue with that. It's another reason why education is so important.

 

[Poem]

ratified by the country

I.e., made into a national law. The CRC itself is not a law, international or otherwise. The Dutch constitution does not, in any way, shape or form, impose international treaties as law. All it says is that if the Netherlands ratifies the treaty as a national law, it is indeed a national law.

Except, of course, that every country in the world (bar one) has ratified the CRC. Countries like the Netherlands (generally, those with monist legal systems) are legally bound by it as soon as it is ratified. Countries with dualistic legal systems are obliged to incorporate the CRC into domestic law.

Your:
"International law" as you envision it here, does not exist. It has no authority, and creates no legal or moral obligation for any government.

is simply wrong. When the Netherlands ratified the CRC it was automatically incorporated into domestic law.

 

[acbytesla]

You know as well as I do that the MO of the likes of Pornhub has been to merely ask that the user is over 18. That is anything but age restrictions that work.

Oh, the terror. The kid saw a dick. They saw sex. Oh my! Where are my pearls! They will never live through it. They are scarred for life. Yawn.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does anyone think the following model of a human is wrong?

Inputs + Memory + Noise -> Processing -> Outputs -> Inputs...

For example, perhaps you want to insert free will in somewhere, or a pure incorruptible self/soul.

No one seems to be concerned about sampling bias.

 

[Poem]

Does anyone think the following model of a human is wrong?

Inputs + Memory + Noise -> Processing -> Outputs -> Inputs...

For example, perhaps you want to insert free will in somewhere, or a pure incorruptible self/soul.

No one seems to be concerned about sampling bias.

Can you put that in terms that even I can understand?

 

[Poem]

Oh, the terror. The kid saw a dick. They saw sex. Oh my! Where are my pearls! They will never live through it. They are scarred for life. Yawn.

Do you shown porn to kids? If not, why not? After all, you think them seeing it is a yawn, right? Absolutely no problem that Pornhub et al leaves their content lying around for kids to watch?

I'd suggest your views are commensurate with someone who has been desensitised by porn...but I could be wrong..................

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Can you put that in terms that even I can understand?

Inputs are from our senses.

Memory is the information encoded in our brains from past experiences.

Noise is to account for the inherent randomness in every process.

Processing is what the brain does with the inputs. It includes feed-forward and feedback. We're born with some, but much can be altered.

Outputs include physical movement, new memories and modifications to the processing.

Sampling bias is explained here.

In statistics, sampling bias is a bias in which a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population have a lower or higher sampling probability than others. It results in a biased sample[1] of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected.[2] If this is not accounted for, results can be erroneously attributed to the phenomenon under study rather than to the method of sampling.

In the context of this thread people, particularly young inexperienced people, watching porn are getting far more examples of non-representative sex than representative. As many are not very concerned about this I asked if they believe there is something missing from the model, such as free will, or a pure incorruptible self/soul, that is resistant to being misled by unrepresentative inputs.

 

[Poem]

Inputs are from our senses.

Memory is the information encoded in our brains from past experiences.

Noise is to account for the inherent randomness in every process.

Processing is what the brain does with the inputs. It includes feed-forward and feedback. We're born with some, but much can be altered.

Outputs include physical movement, new memories and modifications to the processing.

Sampling bias is explained here.



In the context of this thread people, particularly young inexperienced people, watching porn are getting far more examples of non-representative sex than representative. As many are not very concerned about this I asked if they believe there is something missing from the model, such as free will, or a pure incorruptible self/soul, that is resistant to being misled by unrepresentative inputs.

Ok, that is pretty clear. Thanks.

Nobody here appears to want to face the truth of how we have let children down. No child should have to be tempted in such a way - a necessary side effect of the business model that porn relies on (free breadcrumbs leading to monetisation through conversion and data harvesting).

Ian Critchley (now former NPCC lead for child protection in the UK) from The Guardian (Feb, 2024):
"Ultimately, we have tech companies who are making billions of pounds, who are influencing the behaviour of young people – who are putting profit before the impact that this is having on society.”

 

[dirtywick]

tech companies, not pornographers

 

[theprestige]

You know as well as I do that the MO of the likes of Pornhub has been to merely ask that the user is over 18. That is anything but age restrictions that work.

Nothing works completely, not even a ban. You said so yourself, remember?

And Pornhub isn't the only source of porn. Try sending a kid into an adult toy store, see how far they get, before the age restrictions kick in.

 

[Poem]

tech companies, not pornographers

u didnt read the article did u?

 

[dirtywick]

u didnt read the article did u?

i read the quote. did he mean to say something else and misspoke?

your problem is, setting aside that you’ve come up with an impractical solution to it, is that you’ve misidentified the problem. that quote pretty plainly highlights it.

 

[Poem]

Nothing works completely, not even a ban. You said so yourself, remember?

And Pornhub isn't the only source of porn. Try sending a kid into an adult toy store, see how far they get, before the age restrictions kick in.

Just to be clear, your 'Yes' to:
You are asserting that most western cultures have age restrictions (read: age restrictions that work) on access to porn?

was wrong was it not? Like, totally 100% wrong. Why did you even bother posting it?

 

[Poem]

i read the quote. did he mean to say something else and misspoke?

your problem is, setting aside that you’ve come up with an impractical solution to it, is that you’ve misidentified the problem. that quote pretty plainly highlights it.

And you are carping. Read the article.

 

[theprestige]

Except, of course, that every country in the world (bar one) has ratified the CRC.

Ratifying a treaty as a domestic law cannot bind other coutries to that domestic law. The Netherlands' ratification of the treaty doesn't make it a law for any country besides the Netherlands.

Countries like the Netherlands (generally, those with monist legal systems) are legally bound by it as soon as it is ratified.

Yes, because that's what it means, for a country to ratify something. All you're doing is restating the definition of a domestic law.

Countries with dualistic legal systems are obliged to incorporate the CRC into domestic law.

Name one country that is obliged to incorporate arbitrary UN treaties in to domestic law simply because the treaty exists.

Your:
"International law" as you envision it here, does not exist. It has no authority, and creates no legal or moral obligation for any government.

is simply wrong. When the Netherlands ratified the CRC it was automatically incorporated into domestic law.

Yes, and it's the Netherlands' own domestic law that binds them, not CRC itself. Becasue the CRC itself, as written and published by the UN, is not a law, and binds no one. What binds the Netherlands are its own laws. The CRC only binds the Netherlands because the Netherlands chose to incorporate it into their domestic law. It wasn't international law before the Netherlands made it part of their domestic law. It didn't become international law after the Netherlands did it.

That's why the US isn't bound by the UNCRC: Because the US isn't bound by Dutch domestic law, and there's no such thing as interntational law.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, that is pretty clear. Thanks.

Nobody here appears to want to face the truth of how we have let children down. No child should have to be tempted in such a way - a necessary side effect of the business model that porn relies on (free breadcrumbs leading to monetisation through conversion and data harvesting).

Ian Critchley (now former NPCC lead for child protection in the UK) from The Guardian (Feb, 2024):
"Ultimately, we have tech companies who are making billions of pounds, who are influencing the behaviour of young people – who are putting profit before the impact that this is having on society.”

tech companies, not pornographers

I was saying this over a month ago. There's plenty of child grooming and predation happening on the Internet. Porn is probably the least of our concerns when it comes to child safety online. Poem dismissed the idea then, but seems to take it very seriously now.

 

[dirtywick]

And you are carping. Read the article.

i read it. it mentions smart phones and social media and sexting. unless they’re using chat and messaging services on porn sites and uploading them to porn sites, i stand by my comment that you’ve misidentified the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you shown porn to kids? If not, why not? After all, you think them seeing it is a yawn, right? Absolutely no problem that Pornhub et al leaves their content lying around for kids to watch?

I'd suggest your views are commensurate with someone who has been desensitised by porn...but I could be wrong..................

Yep, totally desensitized by porn. And I have been since I found my Dad's Playboys in the 1970s. I don't show them to my kids. But i could care less. Don't make sex a big deal and it's not. Answer every question they might have. Teach them about birth control, STDs, respect for partners and differences. Nothing unhealthy about sex or porn. Nothing hateful about it either. OTOH, religion is dangerous. It infects the mind and poisons everything. (Stole that from Hitchens) I'd rather my kid watch Caligula than the average Sunday service.

 

[Poem]

Yep, totally desensitized by porn. And I have been since I found my Dad's Playboys in the 1970s. I don't show them to my kids. But i could care less. Don't make sex a big deal and it's not. Answer every question they might have. Teach them about birth control, STDs, respect for partners and differences. Nothing unhealthy about sex or porn. Nothing hateful about it either.

Why won't / don't you show porn to kids? Kids seeing porn just evinces a yawn from you, right? Why not show a / your kid bukkake porn just so they know what to expect?

OTOH, religion is dangerous. It infects the mind and poisons everything. (Stole that from Hitchens) I'd rather my kid watch Caligula than the average Sunday service.

Your obsessional hatred of Christianity is well understood. What it is doing on this thread is beyond comprehension.

 

[Poem]

Yep, totally desensitized by porn. And I have been since I found my Dad's Playboys in the 1970s. I don't show them to my kids. But I could care less. Don't make sex a big deal and it's not. Answer every question they might have. Teach them about birth control, STDs, respect for partners and differences. Nothing unhealthy about sex or porn. Nothing hateful about it either. OTOH, religion is dangerous. It infects the mind and poisons everything. (Stole that from Hitchens) I'd rather my kid watch Caligula than the average Sunday service.

The reality of modern-day societal mores? This poster, at least, has zero concern that young kids are seeing it.

Who agrees with such indifference?