• 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?

Poem said:
I have been quoting many that do not think it is ridiculous. Peter Kyle doesn't think it is.
You clearly think the UK's Online Safety Act is wrong in trying to protect children from seeing porn.

How far are you going to go with this?
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness! Some politician I don't know in a foreign country has an opinion that disagrees with my opinion! Whatever shall I do about this? How far do you think I should go?

Since you enjoy probing questions, let's clarify your opinion. Do you think a celibate seventeen year old who wants to masturbate to some porn should be allowed to access it?
 
Myriad said:
Oh my goodness! Some politician I don't know in a foreign country has an opinion that disagrees with my opinion! Whatever shall I do about this? How far do you think I should go?
Click to expand...
Just clarifying that, obviously, I'm not alone - that was all.
Myriad said:
Since you enjoy probing questions, let's clarify your opinion. Do you think a celibate seventeen year old who wants to masturbate to some porn should be allowed to access it?
Click to expand...
I'm with Kyle - under 18s shouldn't have access to porn. I also think that porn is damaging society as a whole and have posted much on that already.
 
dirtywick said:
so we agree this issue is a much broader scope than porn?
Click to expand...
Yes.
dirtywick said:
what portion of that is children
Click to expand...
We don't know. We do know how many children are accessing porn though and I have cited the UK's Children's Commissioner on that. The average age of first exposure is 13.
dirtywick said:
edit

for comparison, mr beast does 2.6b views a month


so that's kind of peanut numbers in a year
Click to expand...
What video of Mr. Beast would you cite as being harmful to kids?
 
Poem said:
I'm with Kyle - under 18s shouldn't have access to porn. I also think that porn is damaging society as a whole and have posted much on that already.
Click to expand...
You've posted the claim of porn damaging society a lot, but you've never explained what exactly this damage is.

For example, you think a 17 year-old shouldn't have access to porn. Why not? What damage is it doing them, that we should prohibit them from seeing it?
 
Poem said:
Which means your:

was not true even for yourself.
Click to expand...

i’d take issue with your use of the world children and the lack of flexibility you’re taking with the word “everyone” on a guy that doesn’t even use capital letters, but will instead point out your lack of accuracy for not noticing that i don’t have a problem with it at all, just not a very big one
 
Poem said:
Yes.

We don't know. We do know how many children are accessing porn though and I have cited the UK's Children's Commissioner on that. The average age of first exposure is 13.
Click to expand...

oh well better get some data i guess

What video of Mr. Beast would you cite as being harmful to kids?
Click to expand...

he’s a walking brand representing the extreme refinement of an algorithm to explicitly target children to advertise products to. the answer is all of them.[/quote]
 
And yet he continues to dodge. I can find thousand of pompous prudish politicians talking about the dangers of porn. In the 1960s they were pontificating about the dangers of rock and roll. I dont give a crap about Kyle or Trump or Biden's or your claims without evidence. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i don't think any of you know. You just find it offensive and shocking.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
he’s a walking brand representing the extreme refinement of an algorithm to explicitly target children to advertise products to. the answer is all of them.
Click to expand...
Don't forget his glassy dead eyes. Look at them. Look at them! Not a spark of animation or awareness in them. Mr Beast's eyes are as soullessly dead as Paula Deen's smile.
 
@Poem: Back when you still forced yourself to look at porn (of course you did,
gotta do your research, you're not one of those Andy Casses who argues without substance), how were you damaged? A personal anecdote isn't data, to be sure, but it can be persuasive, moving, touching, appalling,
interesting. What was the sequel of your own private ordeal? Addiction? PTSD? Sex change? Did you find that
different varieties of porn inflicted specific injuries?

Do you think that you developed an immunity to the filthy stuff? If so,
bravely done! You at least, unlike some people who may go unnamed,
have stood at Armageddon and battled for the Lord.
 
Poem said:
I'm with Kyle - under 18s shouldn't have access to porn. I also think that porn is damaging society as a whole and have posted much on that already.
Click to expand...

Do you think the 17 year olds you don't want to have access to porn should have access to mirrors?
 
sackett said:
Do you think that you developed an immunity to the filthy stuff? If so,
bravely done! You at least, unlike some people who may go unnamed,
have stood at Armageddon and battled for the Lord.
Click to expand...
Why don't you explain to the thread what any of this has to do with 'the Lord'?
 
Myriad said:
Do you think the 17 year olds you don't want to have access to porn should have access to mirrors?
Click to expand...
Apparently online porn is equivalent to looking at one's naked self in the mirror?
 
Poem said:
Apparently online porn is equivalent to looking at one's naked self in the mirror?
Click to expand...

A mirror is a way for a seventeen year old to access high-resolution three dimensional full-motion realtime images of a sexually mature but legally underage naked person. So what's your answer? Should that outrage be allowed or not?
 
Myriad said:
A mirror is a way for a seventeen year old to access high-resolution three dimensional full-motion realtime images of a sexually mature but legally underage naked person. So what's your answer? Should that outrage be allowed or not?
Click to expand...
Your question is ridiculous - but you know that.

Do you have any reservations about a 13 year old seeing bukkake porn? How about barely legal? Incest?
 
Poem said:
Your question is ridiculous - but you know that.

Do you have any reservations about a 13 year old seeing bukkake porn? How about barely legal? Incest?
Click to expand...

I have to conclude that you are in favor of seventeen year olds having convenient access to high-resolution images of sexually mature but legally underage children.

So, how about sixteen year olds?
 
Myriad said:
I have to conclude that you are in favor of seventeen year olds having convenient access to high-resolution images of sexually mature but legally underage children.

So, how about sixteen year olds?
Click to expand...
You have lost the plot big time....and you ignored my question (though we already know the answer because you have said that it is puritanical to withhold porn from 13-18s).

Pretty radical.
 
Last edited:
I keep waiting for evidence supporting the claim that porn is bad. But all I hear is crickets. It's addicting? So what? That just means that people like it. Like chocolate maybe? Do people suffer withdrawal? Seriously, what is the problem? Does it cause cancer or other deadly diseases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom