• 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?

theprestige said:
I never alleged anti-porn bias.
Click to expand...
Here's the origin of what you said (me then you):
Poem said:
Anyone else want to deny that Pornhub (Aylo) is 'morally bankrupt', 'evil', 'profited handsomely from abuse and exploitation' and should face 'crippling financial liabilities'.

Federal Trade Commission: Statement of Commissioner Mark R. Meador
Click to expand...
theprestige said:
FTC commissioner is a political appointee. I don't accept political rhetoric as a source of truth on any topic.
Click to expand...
If you aren't alleging anti-porn bias, then what are you alleging?
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Here's the origin of what you said (me then you):


If aren't alleging anti-porn bias, then what are you alleging?
Click to expand...
That politicians are unreliable narrators as a general rule, especially on the topic of problems their office can supposedly solve.

So no, I don't just blindly accept, without evidence, that his claims about Aylo are true, just because he's a politician pandering to an anti-porn audience.
 
theprestige said:
That politicians are unreliable narrators as a general rule, especially on the topic of problems their office can supposedly solve.

So no, I don't just blindly accept, without evidence, that his claims about Aylo are true, just because he's a politician pandering to an anti-porn audience.
Click to expand...
You say that:
I never alleged anti-porn bias
and yet:
he's a politician pandering to an anti-porn audience

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?
 
Poem said:
You say that:
I never alleged anti-porn bias
and yet:
he's a politician pandering to an anti-porn audience

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?
Click to expand...
I am not alleging that he has an anti-porn bias. I'm alleging that he has an unprincipled political bias towards pandering to whatever audience best suits his current political ambitions.

More to the point, I'm alleging that he has presented no evidence to support his present claims about Aylo. You're fixated on the red herring of potential bias. I'm more concerned about the real issue of his lack of evidence, and yours.
 
Okay, @Poem for the sake of the discussion I'm going to grant you everything you argue regarding porn and children. Let's assume (for now) that everything you have said on the subject of porn and children has been 100% demonstrated to be true.

What is your argument for banning porn for adults? Why should adults be prevented from accessing legal porn?
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, @Poem for the sake of the discussion I'm going to grant you everything you argue regarding porn and children. Let's assume (for now) that everything you have said on the subject of porn and children has been 100% demonstrated to be true.

What is your argument for banning porn for adults? Why should adults be prevented from accessing legal porn?
Click to expand...
If I understand Poem's line of argument correctly, the fact that you're questioning the propriety of such a ban indicates a problematic pro-porn bias that disqualifies you from rational debate on the topic.

I fully expect Poem to raise concerns about your bias, rather than actually argue for a ban.
 
"The Porniest Porn in Porntown" by Stephen Graham Jones (©2025 by Stephen Graham Jones) read by Stefan Rudnicki

podcasts.apple.com

"The Porniest Porn in Porntown" + "Dirge and Gleam"

Podcast Episode · LIGHTSPEED MAGAZINE - Science Fiction and Fantasy Story Podcast (Sci-Fi | Audiobook | Short Stories) · 10/16/2025 · 1h 20m
podcasts.apple.com podcasts.apple.com

A short story on the Lightspeed Magazine Podcast.
(And no, it's not pornographic by the standards of this forum)

I could listen to Rudnicki read a telephone book.
 
theprestige said:
I am not alleging that he has an anti-porn bias. I'm alleging that he has an unprincipled political bias towards pandering to whatever audience best suits his current political ambitions.

More to the point, I'm alleging that he has presented no evidence to support his present claims about Aylo. You're fixated on the red herring of potential bias. I'm more concerned about the real issue of his lack of evidence, and yours.
Click to expand...
As we agreed on previously, Aylo has settled charges it deceived users over CSAM and NCM. It will now have to implement a programme to prevent such content from being published on it's websites and pay a $5 million fine (to Utah).

Here's a flavour of what they need to put right (from the FTC press release (3rd Sept 2025)):
Aylo only decided to conduct audits of CSAM and NCM on its sites in 2020 when credit card processors threatened to impose fines or cut off access to their services and media started reporting on the issue. These audits revealed tens of thousands of CSAM and NCM videos. Even then, Aylo routinely ignored or overruled efforts by its compliance team to remove such content. For example, when a credit card processor threatened to fine Aylo for a content partner’s channel titled “PunishTeens” that included “Rape/Brutality,” the company removed the channel from Pornhub and Pornhub Premium but allowed the same content to remain on their other websites.

Aylo also failed to block individuals who uploaded CSAM despite promising to ban such users. Even when it began taking action against uploaders of CSAM in October 2022, it only prohibited the user from making a new account under the same username or email address but did not prevent them from creating a new account using an alternate email address and username.

Given this, would you describe Aylo as reputable and law-abiding? Also (given the above) I'd say it is not a stretch to describe Aylo as commissioner Meador did - 'morally bankrupt' and 'evil'.
 
theprestige said:
If I understand Poem's line of argument correctly, the fact that you're questioning the propriety of such a ban indicates a problematic pro-porn bias that disqualifies you from rational debate on the topic.

I fully expect Poem to raise concerns about your bias, rather than actually argue for a ban.
Click to expand...
You brought up the issue of bias and I have merely responded in kind. Regular porn users, especially those that visit free sites (including those run by Aylo), will have a degree of resistance to such pronouncements as we have seen from the FTC. There may be a tendency to resist, for instance, this from the Utah Division of Consumer Protection (regarding Aylo)

Consumers viewed, downloaded, and further distributed this illegal content (CSAM and NCM) millions of times, often without knowing it was CSAM or NCM.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, @Poem for the sake of the discussion I'm going to grant you everything you argue regarding porn and children. Let's assume (for now) that everything you have said on the subject of porn and children has been 100% demonstrated to be true.

What is your argument for banning porn for adults? Why should adults be prevented from accessing legal porn?
Click to expand...
If you accept that teenagers (no, not all) are acting out what they see, then you will have to accept that some adults are doing so too. Also, how are you going to keep kids from seeing such content?

www.theguardian.com

How extreme porn has become a gateway drug into child abuse

Mainstream pornography sites are ‘changing what is normal’, warns child abuse expert Michael Sheath
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Poem said:
If you accept that teenagers (no, not all) are acting out what they see
Click to expand...
I don't.

Poem said:
then you will have to accept that some adults are doing so too.
Click to expand...
Adults are more mature than teenagers and are even less likely to act out what they see on their screens.

Poem said:
Also, how are you going to keep kids from seeing such content?
Click to expand...
Nonono. You don't get to weasel out of the question. I'm not talking about teenagers or kids. I've granted you your premise on that. I'm talking about the specific harms that adults suffer from watching legal porn.

Can you, for example, point to a specific person who was harmed by watching porn? Can you demonstrate that the harm to this person was caused by the porn watching? If you can't, then all you are doing is moralising. I don't accept your religiously based moral standard, so your arguments mean nothing to me.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't.
Click to expand...
You are for the purposes of argument.
arthwollipot said:
Adults are more mature than teenagers and are even less likely to act out what they see on their screens.
Click to expand...
Less likely, sure - but the overlap around 18 and beyond would be nebulous.
arthwollipot said:
Nonono. You don't get to weasel out of the question. I'm not talking about teenagers or kids. I've granted you your premise on that. I'm talking about the specific harms that adults suffer from watching legal porn.
Click to expand...
I cited The Guardian but you didn't respond.
arthwollipot said:
Can you, for example, point to a specific person who was harmed by watching porn? Can you demonstrate that the harm to this person was caused by the porn watching? If you can't, then all you are doing is moralising.
Click to expand...
See above. According to Michael Sheath, it's happening a lot. What do you think happens when an adult who isn't sexually attracted to kids masturbates to barely legal porn (sounds a little paradoxical does it not)?

You talked previously about trust - so I'll ask you (without reference to anyone you know - so purely hypothetical): would you be happy leaving children in the care of someone you knew had a taste for barely legal (adult actors looking like children) porn?
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
See above. According to Michael Sheath, it's happening a lot. What do you think happens when an adult who isn't sexually attracted to kids masturbates to barely legal porn (sounds a little paradoxical does it not)?

You talked previously about trust - so I'll ask you (without reference to anyone you know - so purely hypothetical): would you be happy leaving children in the care of someone you knew had a taste for barely legal (adult actors looking like children) porn?
Click to expand...
And yet people have been having sex with children since time began. You act as if a pedophile isn't a pedophile without porn. And the term "barely legal" means anyone who has reached the age of 18. They could be 30. And just because someone looks at such porn doesn't mean they will rape your kid.
 
Are we sure this is true? The most knockout popular videos on these sites don't have viewing figures like that, as far as I can tell.
 
Lithrael said:
Are we sure this is true? The most knockout popular videos on these sites don't have viewing figures like that, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
The charge against Aylo by the FTC is of 'tens of thousands of videos'. Aylo has agreed to comply with the FTC's settlement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom