• 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?

arthwollipot said:
If you haven't noticed, I have very deliberately not answered your dumb and irrelevant question. That's not going to change depending on the number of times you ask it.
Click to expand...
Zero explanation as to why it is dumb. Self-ID is a big thing now is it not - where the supremacy of the individual challenges objective metrics? You either think age self-ID should be a right or you don't. The former would legalise paedophilia. I assume your #3,850 would be a defence of such a right?

Barely-legal porn (which deliberately employs underage props etc) can be seen as a normalisation of what age self-ID would lead to.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Zero explanation as to why it is dumb. Self-ID is a big thing now is it not - where the supremacy of the individual challenges objective metrics?
Click to expand...
No, that is completely wrong. 100% wrong. As wrong as the wrongest thing.

Poem said:
You either think age self-ID should be a right or you don't. The former would legalise paedophilia. I assume your #3,850 would be a defence of such a right?
Click to expand...
No. No, and once again, no.

You do not have a "right" to identify as a different age. You also do not have a "right" to identify as an attack helicopter. These arguments are blatantly and maliciously disingenuous attempts to demonise and stigmatise transgenderism.

There. I said it.

Poem said:
Barely-legal porn (which deliberately employs underage props etc) can be seen as a normalisation of what age self-ID would lead to.
Click to expand...
No, this is 100% completely and utterly wrong in every possible way.

Look. People who are into age-play and infantilism don't identify as the age they portray, any more than an actor identifies as the role they are playing in a film, method acting notwithstanding. They don't believe they are babies. They adopt babyhood as a fetish. It's not the same as the analogy you are desperately trying to avoid making but which everybody can see through because it's so incredibly transparent, transgenderism. And as such it belongs in the Thread That Must Not Be Named. ◊◊◊◊ off there if you want to continue making stupid, malicious, and toxic arguments. You'll be in good company.

Legal adults who portray "barely legal" characters (aka completely legal adult characters) in porn films do not identify as underage. They do not believe that they are underage. Nobody believes they are underage, least of all their audience.

I will not respond to any more arguments about your so-called "age identification". They do not belong in this thread, or for that matter in polite discourse among civilised adults. And for the record, the final published version of this post is a whole lot more polite than the first draft was. This one only has one F-bomb. Yes, I know, it's downright un-Australian.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, that is completely wrong. 100% wrong. As wrong as the wrongest thing.
Click to expand...
Though still no explanation
arthwollipot said:
No. No, and once again, no.

You do not have a "right" to identify as a different age. You also do not have a "right" to identify as an attack helicopter. These arguments are blatantly and maliciously disingenuous attempts to demonise and stigmatise transgenderism.

There. I said it.
Click to expand...
I asked if you thought such rights should be granted. You still haven't answered.
arthwollipot said:
No, this is 100% completely and utterly wrong in every possible way.

Look. People who are into age-play and infantilism don't identify as the age they portray, any more than an actor identifies as the role they are playing in a film, method acting notwithstanding. They don't believe they are babies. They adopt babyhood as a fetish. It's not the same as the analogy you are desperately trying to avoid making but which everybody can see through because it's so incredibly transparent, transgenderism. And as such it belongs in the Thread That Must Not Be Named. ◊◊◊◊ off there if you want to continue making stupid, malicious, and toxic arguments. You'll be in good company.

Legal adults who portray "barely legal" characters (aka completely legal adult characters) in porn films do not identify as underage. They do not believe that they are underage. Nobody believes they are underage, least of all their audience.

I will not respond to any more arguments about your so-called "age identification". They do not belong in this thread, or for that matter in polite discourse among civilised adults. And for the record, the final published version of this post is a whole lot more polite than the first draft was. This one only has one F-bomb. Yes, I know, it's downright un-Australian.
Click to expand...
I never said they did identify as underage. What we know is that adults are getting off on what looks like a child in porn...and you aren't the authority on what a consumer believes about what they are watching.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Though still no explanation
Click to expand...
You can't self-identify when what you are identifying as is an objective measurement. Age is an objective measurement. The number of days since you were born is not an identity.

Poem said:
I asked if you thought such rights should be granted. You still haven't answered.
Click to expand...
I have. Several times now. Here it is again: No.

Can you see it this time?

ETA: Also, I am not under any obligation to answer any of your questions, no matter how many times you ask them.

Poem said:
I never said they did identify as underage. What we know is that adults are getting off on what looks like a child in porn...and you aren't the authority on what a consumer believes about what they are watching.
Click to expand...
I use the Reasonable Person Standard.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, that is completely wrong. 100% wrong. As wrong as the wrongest thing.


No. No, and once again, no.

You do not have a "right" to identify as a different age. You also do not have a "right" to identify as an attack helicopter. These arguments are blatantly and maliciously disingenuous attempts to demonise and stigmatise transgenderism.

There. I said it.


No, this is 100% completely and utterly wrong in every possible way.

Look. People who are into age-play and infantilism don't identify as the age they portray, any more than an actor identifies as the role they are playing in a film, method acting notwithstanding. They don't believe they are babies. They adopt babyhood as a fetish. It's not the same as the analogy you are desperately trying to avoid making but which everybody can see through because it's so incredibly transparent, transgenderism. And as such it belongs in the Thread That Must Not Be Named. ◊◊◊◊ off there if you want to continue making stupid, malicious, and toxic arguments. You'll be in good company.

Legal adults who portray "barely legal" characters (aka completely legal adult characters) in porn films do not identify as underage. They do not believe that they are underage. Nobody believes they are underage, least of all their audience.

I will not respond to any more arguments about your so-called "age identification". They do not belong in this thread, or for that matter in polite discourse among civilised adults. And for the record, the final published version of this post is a whole lot more polite than the first draft was. This one only has one F-bomb. Yes, I know, it's downright un-Australian.
Click to expand...
Not sure that he gets what sex is about. That people do it for fun and to bond with others. It's almost never about procreation. It is adult play.

Life is short. We're supposed to play. Role playing can add spice to life. It may not be right for everyone. But people of all walks of life do it. Billion dollar industries are centered on role playing. On-line multi-player role playing games are huge. So is Halloween, Comic-Con, costume parties, medieval fairs, civil war reenactments and yes with a friend in bed. But there is a difference between playing a role and deciding you are the role.
Adult women that dress up as a school girl for their partner don't wear that outfit the next day at work.
 
arthwollipot said:
Interesting article about what's happening in the porn industry. Probably NSFW, but it's the Guardian so how NSFW can it be?

www.theguardian.com

‘We’re sick of the OnlyFans model’: Stella Barey’s porn site lets gen Z sex workers have a life

The 28-year-old’s platform, Hidden, offers a Tumblr-like sensibility in an industry roiled by slop and lets adult content creators earn without burning out
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Though you would and have disputed such assertions as:
By age 13, most US teens have already encountered pornography, often by accident. Gen Z is the first cohort to grow up with porn not just available but ambient, algorithmically unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he'd disagree. The mood in that part of the article is that young people are tired of the tiktoks etc shoving jiggly things in their faces whether they want it or not. Almost everyone in this thread has not only agreed but lamented that algorithmically shoveling things at people in the hope of farming engagement, is obnoxious at best and dangerous to people's health at worst.

I read 'they'd like it to be harder to access' to mean 'please get it off my feed' and not 'please get it off the internet.'
 
Lithrael said:
I don't think he'd disagree. The mood in that part of the article is that young people are tired of the tiktoks etc shoving jiggly things in their faces whether they want it or not. Almost everyone in this thread has not only agreed but lamented that algorithmically shoveling things at people in the hope of farming engagement, is obnoxious at best and dangerous to people's health at worst.

I read 'they'd like it to be harder to access' to mean 'please get it off my feed' and not 'please get it off the internet.'
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Have you? Have you ever accidentally stumbled on porn on any platform? I haven't. I have to go looking for it. I have to know what I want, and I have to search for it, even on Twitter and Reddit.
Click to expand...
Darat said:
Even when using the likes of Google and Duckduckgo searches for research in this very thread, so was using terms like age of consent, what age can you make porn, affects of pornography I never once was offered up a porn site, at least on the first page of search results. I've asked before for evidence that kids (or anyone else) can "accidentally" stumble across pornography.
Click to expand...
And, for what it is worth, Darat's post was liked by The Common Potato, dirtywick and Helen.

Another:
acbytesla said:
It use to. happen. Twenty years ago.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Though you would and have disputed such assertions as:
By age 13, most US teens have already encountered pornography, often by accident. Gen Z is the first cohort to grow up with porn not just available but ambient, algorithmically unavoidable.
Click to expand...
Nothing new there. I encountered pornographic magazines, and pornographic playing cards before the age of 10. And that was in the 1960s.

But you still haven't addressed why anyone should care? You have failed miserably to demonstrate the harm of anyone viewing porn at any age.
 
Not me guv. Not me guv. Not me guv. Not me guv..........................
 
Poem said:
Though you would and have disputed such assertions as:
By age 13, most US teens have already encountered pornography, often by accident. Gen Z is the first cohort to grow up with porn not just available but ambient, algorithmically unavoidable.
Click to expand...
In fact I found that particular statement so oddly specific that I am absolutely convinced that the article's author used the exact same source that you did, about which I have already expressed my reservations.
 
arthwollipot said:
In fact I found that particular statement so oddly specific that I am absolutely convinced that the article's author used the exact same source that you did, about which I have already expressed my reservations.
Click to expand...
That Guardian article statement is based on commonsensemedia.org research, which is essentially saying the same thing as the childrenscommissioner.gov.uk research already cited. The conclusion that porn is ambient & algorithmically unavoidable is well supported.

Your research appears to be your experience on the internet.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Yes. I've told you my problems with the childrenscommissioner.gov.uk report. Parroting it does not make any source more credible to me.
Click to expand...
Credible research that these two reports are way off is what? Your research isn't credible - you're not a child.
 
Poem said:
Credible research that these two reports are way off is what? Your research isn't credible - you're not a child.
Click to expand...
Neither are you. However, I have had children, and I know that children will lie if they are motivated by shame and guilt, and that is the huge flaw in the study.

Have you seen pornography on the internet?
Yes, miss.
How did you find it?
By accident, miss, definitely by accident. I absolutely didn't go looking for it myself, miss! It just popped up there. I was so surprised.
 
arthwollipot said:
Neither are you. However, I have had children, and I know that children will lie if they are motivated by shame and guilt, and that is the huge flaw in the study.

Have you seen pornography on the internet?
Yes, miss.
How did you find it?
By accident, miss, definitely by accident. I absolutely didn't go looking for it myself, miss! It just popped up there. I was so surprised.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Hell, even some adults will.

I pretty much guarantee by the age of 13 and probably younger 75% plus have searched for pornography on the internet. Year after year it has been the most searched word on the internet. There was a time when pornography links would mysteriously pop up on your computer. But today it really must be deliberate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom