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

[Lithrael]

Yeah, I was about to say. As opposed to what? Supernatural? Artificial? I ended up just linking to Appeal to Nature as it has a section on the problem of the mushiness of trying to nail down a meaning with any utility for 'natural,' where humans are involved.

Even the granola junkies are moving towards 'less processed' instead of 'natural' for food ingredients because it's a lot closer to meaning something. Like, you can say 'all we did was pick this and wash it' vs 'we crushed and cooked it' vs 'we blended it, put it in a vat and stirred it up with chemical x and cooked it until its properties changed and then we washed the y out of it and extruded it' because like.

Even growing a berry in a plot, picking it and putting it in a basket isn't exactly natural. '100% Natural' would be a bear finding it in the woods and going nom nom nom.

Rabies is also as natural as you get. People often describe rabid behaviour as unnatural when what they mean is 'wow it is obvious something is really, really wrong with that lil dude'

TLDR: If you're calling any human thing natural you are calling all human things natural.

People who describe something that they find shocking and/or repulsive as 'unnatural' are using language colorfully, not factually.

 

[Poem]

100% - there is nothing else they could be.

I guess it all depends on how you define 'natural'.

You made a judgement here about the 'natural' habit of some:

The current situation is that the porn that was described in your quotation * is illegal, it is prosecuted when cases can be made, people go to prison. I can't think how clearer as a society we can be that we find such porn not only wrong but abhorrent.

(* material that Barnardo's described as rife on mainstream porn sites - often described as barely legal)

 

[Ziggurat]

You have also said the following:

You still aren't making any case that legal prohibition of porn will help. My opinion cannot substitute for that.

 

[Lithrael]

Barely legal means legal, Poem.

If a video features someone who is not legally allowed to be in it, then the video is not legal to distribute, even when someone has labeled that video as 'barely legal;' the labeler has simply lied.

See: a huge number of the earlier posts on this thread

 

[Poem]

You still aren't making any case that legal prohibition of porn will help.

You see porn as a threat to the family; anyone with a wish to better society would want to do something about that.

You have also said you watch porn.

My opinion cannot substitute for that.

Sometimes it's enough to extrapolate. We do that quite a lot...humans.

I asked:
You have spoken in favour of sexual restraint and monogamy regarding families - how are you defining monogamy? - I mean, are you including porn? Your statement above implies as much.

 

[Poem]

Barely legal means legal, Poem.

If a video features someone who is not legally allowed to be in it, then the video is not legal to distribute, even when someone has labeled that video as 'barely legal;' the labeler has simply lied.

See: a huge number of the earlier posts on this thread

There is a lot of material on the net that falls foul of the law in the UK...and Australia apparently....

...so for some reason (rape culture), content and consumers aren't being prosecuted.

 

[Lithrael]

There are a lot of clear and obvious scams, lies and fraud on the internet as well. You will get no argument from me on the idea that nobody is doing a perfect job of protecting the vulnerable from many forms of harm.

We saw for example that at one point in the past a hosting site was not being proactive about stopping banned users from creating new accounts to re-upload illegal conent, instead waiting to ban them again after the material was back up and found/reported. They were then legally prosecuted and punished for this behaviour.

I have been here for most of the thread though, and I do recall that a lot of the 'rife with' amounted to 'we found these keywords that would be bad if they were literally true (and we will imply but not show that they are).'

 

[Poem]

There are a lot of clear and obvious scams, lies and fraud on the internet as well. You will get no argument from me on the idea that nobody is doing a perfect job of protecting the vulnerable from many forms of harm.

I have been here for most of the thread though, and I do recall that a lot of the 'rife with' amounted to 'we found these keywords that would be bad if they were literally true (and we will imply but not show that they are).'

The issue is with material that, though the actors are legal, it nevertheless attempts to imply underage with props, clothes, etc. That is illegal in the UK and Australia (and elsewhere I assume).

 

[Lithrael]

Yes and we have tried really really hard to explain that the illegal 'we say or strongly imply the actors are underage' videos (which are illegal) ARE NOT the same thing as the genre 'barely legal' aka 'we say or strongly imply the actors just recently came of age' (which are fully legal).

See: most of the rest of the thread. Including UK legally rated and released DVD videos featuring characters portrayed as sixth form students, proving that 'school uniform costume, school setting' is not enough to suggest a character is underage strongly enough to be illegal.

 

[Poem]

The current situation is that the porn that was described in your quotation is illegal, it is prosecuted when cases can be made, people go to prison. I can't think how clearer as a society we can be that
we find such porn not only wrong but abhorrent.

AFAIK, I'm the only one to agree with you (highlighted) on this thread. Emily's Cat would probably too.

 

[acbytesla]

P0

But you are saying that monogamy is unnatural, which implies that anyone who asks their partner to remain faithful is being unnatural. Is that correct?

Edit:
But you are saying that monogamy is unnatural, which implies that anyone who asks their partner to remain faithful is abnormal. Is that correct?

Another non-sequitor. It does no such thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

You see porn as a threat to the family; anyone with a wish to better society would want to do something about that.

We must do something.
This is something.
We must do this.

Do you see the logic error?

 

[Lithrael]

Paraphrasing Darat:

Porn that is illegal, that is prosecuted when possible, where people go to prison, shows that as a society we find such porn not only wrong but abhorrent.

AFAIK, I'm the only one to agree with you (highlighted) on this thread.

Poem, wtf. Nice.

NO, you will not have problems finding people in this thread who think that the kind of explicit videos that can land you in prison are abhorrent.

Only one person I can think of in this thread has come close to condoning ONE type of explicit video that is actually illegal (IIRC someone who didn't have a problem with obvious adults doing kid role play. Which, honestly, fair, but I see why it's not legal). Those generally DON'T land you in prison though, you just can't legally distribute them. AFAIK just having one on your computer is not actionable by itself.

And one or two have wondered about edge cases like animations of more extreme content.

 

[acbytesla]

All human behaviours are natural. Two humans agreeing to be monogamous or not is natural behaviour for humans.

I would agree with this. When I said that it is not natural, I probably should have said, the human species is generally not monogamous. In the sense they rarely limit themselves to a single sexual partner for life.

 

[Poem]

We must do something.
This is something.
We must do this.

Do you see the logic error?

You have agreed that porn is a threat to the family - and that society needs family monogamy and sexual restraint - right?

I asked:
How are you defining monogamy? - I mean, are you including porn?

 

[Ziggurat]

This isn't about me. I'm not putting forward a proposal of radical change, you are. You can't shift the burden of proof to me.

 

[Poem]

This isn't about me. I'm not putting forward a proposal of radical change, you are. You can't shift the burden of proof to me.

You have said the following:

Do we have an advocate for sexual restraint and monogamy?

In the context of having and raising kids? Absolutely.

Are you saying that this is foundational to a stable, successful society? That many of the modern social ills stem from this breakdown (for breakdown it has)?

I have been saying that for years.

What is your evidence please?

 

[Ziggurat]

What is your evidence please?

Assume I don't have any. Proceed with making your own case.

 

[Poem]

Assume I don't have any. Proceed with making your own case.

I'm interested - that is all. You said yourself, 'I have been saying it for years'. If you have been saying it for that long, then you should have evidence, surely?

Have you debated on it here on ISF?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm interested - that is all. You said yourself, 'I have been saying it for years'. If you have been saying it for that long, then you should have evidence, surely?

Have you debated on it here on ISF?

There are lots of sociology studies out there, it's not hard to find stuff. But I'm not interested in looking it up for you.