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

[Poem]

Yeah, because the UK Office of Communciations does not in fact have extraterritorial enforcement powers.

They have powers to block 4Chan from the internet in the UK...though of course we know that VPNs remain a workaround.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Have they blocked 4Chan?

 

[Darat]

Is Gabby Bertin talking nonsense?

The Guardian (June 2025):
When the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin arrived for a meeting with the the science and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, earlier this year she startled him by laying out an array of pornographic images across his desk. “They were screengrabs showing little girls, their hair in bunches, and massive, grown men grabbing little girls’ throats,” she says. She had selected images which appeared to depict child abuse, and yet were easily and legally available on a popular website.

Your claims and assertions - your burden.

 

[theprestige]

Is Gabby Bertin talking nonsense?

The Guardian (June 2025):
When the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin arrived for a meeting with the the science and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, earlier this year she startled him by laying out an array of pornographic images across his desk. “They were screengrabs showing little girls, their hair in bunches, and massive, grown men grabbing little girls’ throats,” she says. She had selected images which appeared to depict child abuse, and yet were easily and legally available on a popular website.

My working theory is that she is talking nonsense:

• She's a politician, so for me, "trust, but verify" is very much in play.
• The encounter described above in that Guardian report is not verifiable.
• Her strategy here is obviously to try to trigger knee-jerk emotional responses through shock value, rather than invite any kind of rational examination of the issue.
• She's almost certainly lying about finding footage of little girls on whatever porn site she was looking at.
• She even equivocates between scenes with actual little girls and scenes that "appeared to depict" little girls.

Based on the rhetoric pattern we've seen from you, and from politicians and regulators on this issue in the past, my bet is that the scenes in question depict of-age, legal actors, performing legal sex scenes that are aimed at an ephebophilic demographic - i.e., 90% of the sexually healthy straight male population. And then trying to gaslight us that it's actually pedophilia or something else that it obviously is not.

So yeah, I think she's lying. And I think the Guardian's reporting in a way that makes them complicit in her lie.

Also, tossing sexually explicit material on someone's desk for shock value during a business meeting is such a selfish, abusive, move that I can't respect her as any kind of reliable authority on this issue. Your favorite supports for your arguments often seem to be long on sensational claims, and short on actual supporting data, responsibly gathered and transparently archived.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Also, tossing sexually explicit material on someone's desk for shock value during a business meeting ...

I wasn't going to push it any further, but since you mention it, the pictures described in the article didn't appear to fall under the definition of pornography, legal or otherwise.

If she had actually been tossing " sexually explicit " material around, she would probably be violating one or more laws.

 

[theprestige]

The whole thing sounds like she knows people have an unrealistic idea of melodramatic "gotcha" moments from TV shows, so she set about manufacturing exactly such a narrative. Then pimped it to the Guardian, who ran with it sight unseen, no questions asked. Then Poem fell for it. Poem's entire argumentation strategy seems to rely heavily on "but I got you with a TV show mic drop moment, why haven't you conceded yet?"

 

[Poem]

My working theory is that she is talking nonsense:

• She's a politician, so for me, "trust, but verify" is very much in play.
• The encounter described above in that Guardian report is not verifiable.
• Her strategy here is obviously to try to trigger knee-jerk emotional responses through shock value, rather than invite any kind of rational examination of the issue.
• She's almost certainly lying about finding footage of little girls on whatever porn site she was looking at.
• She even equivocates between scenes with actual little girls and scenes that "appeared to depict" little girls.

Based on the rhetoric pattern we've seen from you, and from politicians and regulators on this issue in the past, my bet is that the scenes in question depict of-age, legal actors, performing legal sex scenes that are aimed at an ephebophilic demographic - i.e., 90% of the sexually healthy straight male population. And then trying to gaslight us that it's actually pedophilia or something else that it obviously is not.

So yeah, I think she's lying. And I think the Guardian's reporting in a way that makes them complicit in her lie.

Also, tossing sexually explicit material on someone's desk for shock value during a business meeting is such a selfish, abusive, move that I can't respect her as any kind of reliable authority on this issue. Your favorite supports for your arguments often seem to be long on sensational claims, and short on actual supporting data, responsibly gathered and transparently archived.

To clarify, Britannica has this definition of ephebophilia:
The sexual preference of an adult for mid- to late adolescents, specifically those who have reached or are near physical maturity but are below the legal age of adulthood. Often, the adolescents are aged 15 or 16 but in some cases may be slightly older.

Is that how you are using the term?

 

[theprestige]

To clarify, Britannica has this definition of ephebophilia:
The sexual preference of an adult for mid- to late adolescents, specifically those who have reached or are near physical maturity but are below the legal age of adulthood. Often, the adolescents are aged 15 or 16 but in some cases may be slightly older.

Is that how you are using the term?

No it is not. I am using the term to denote sexual attraction for sexually mature women who are still in their first bloom of youth, and who in the context of legal pornography are necessarily legal as well as sexual adults. I'm also using the term to denote something very much distinct from pedophilia.

Ephebophilia I consider to be a natural urge in human males. The combination of sexual maturity and youthful health and energy seems to me to be a compelling combination in a potential partner, from an evolutionary standpoint. We've made acting on such urges a taboo, out of concern for letting the young woman's mental and emotional develop continue unmolested. So if you're hot for a nubile sixteen year old, you should probably turn your thoughts to other things, and focus on women who are more fully developed (and entirely legal). Contrast with actual pedophilia, where you should probably seek psychiatric help.

 

[Poem]

No it is not.

Well obviously I'm not going to reply to your post until I know what you are talking about.

 

[theprestige]

Well obviously I'm not going to reply to your post until I know what you are talking about.

I am talking about how I think Gabby Bertin is probably lying, including some of the factors I considered, and the gist of my reasoning. Hopefully this refreshes your memory.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well obviously I'm not going to reply to your post until I know what you are talking about.

He just spent another entire paragraph explaining to you what he is talking about.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well obviously I'm not going to reply to your post until I know what you are talking about.

How about replying to #5,082

 

[Poem]

No response achytesla?

Use birth control. Doh!

The question was: Who is responsible when the unplanned baby does happen? Should we just carry on and expunge the said unwanted item?

 

[Poem]

And your answer is what?

Or indulge in one of the many mutual stimulation options that can't result in pregnancy.

(I suspect that both your and my solution will not be acceptable to our interlocutor for reasons.)

The question was:

Who is responsible when the unplanned baby does happen? Should we just carry on and expunge the said unwanted item?

 

[Poem]

"Cheating" (as it is commonly known) is a breach of trust. If I am in a relationship in which I trust that my partner will only have sex with me (which is quite common though not at all universal), and they go off and have sex with someone else, then they have breached my trust, and that can be fatal to a relationship. But if I am an ethical vegan, who eschews animal products for moral reasons, and I expect my partner to to the same, and discover that they are sneaking off and scarfing down hamburgers, that too is a breach of trust. It's all cheating.

What about sex (in the context of what have written above) merits such a reaction to straying?

Yes. In fact, they could. Inasmuch as the internet in their pocket wasn't a thing, it was not difficult for children throughout history to see sex. Horses, pigs, and sheep were doing it shamelessly in their pens, and their parents and older brothers and sisters were doing it in common areas of their homes. Sex was everywhere, and it was not being covered up, because it was not shameful.

The notion that this is the equivalent of the current availability of internet porn is just silly. A young kid these days, if they are determined, can watch thousands of women (or men) have sex in just about any which way they care to imagine - and they can do it for as long as they can keep awake....

You know who made sex shameful? The church.

The church will defer to their Bible, where it is claimed God created everything (including sex) and told mankind to be fruitful (Genesis 1:28). That means, for Christians at least, that they are to go and have sex - right?

Just above you described cheating in negative terms did you not? That would make such sex shameful would it not?

 

[Poem]

Yes. You said that it was the experience of people who didn't have the Internet in their pocket, throughout history.

It certainly wasn't my experience, in the late 1900s.

I doubt it was a very common experience at all, for most children in the West, in the past couple hundred years.

You speak truth.

 

[Poem]

I think you know exactly what I was talking about and are being disingenuously pedantic for the sake of an argument. Sorry, I'm not going to be playing that game with you this time.

Just admit you got it wrong or else provide some evidence that it equates to the modern porn tsunami.

 

[Darat]

I wasn't going to push it any further, but since you mention it, the pictures described in the article didn't appear to fall under the definition of pornography, legal or otherwise.

If she had actually been tossing " sexually explicit " material around, she would probably be violating one or more laws.

If they actually depicted what she is trying to get us to think the images are she would have been breaking quite a few laws and they are strict liability laws. I suspect that she produced pornographic images that depicted what would be considered lawful pornography in the UK regardless of the mechanism of distribution.

No response achytesla?

Abortion should be pushed much more strongly than we currently do as a form of birth control for early stage pregnancies. Unprepared parenthood is responsible for a lot of problems that a quick early stage abortion would fix. I know my views on this are considered "extreme" in my society - I blame it on coming from a traditional matriarchal working class family.

 

[Darat]

....snip....

The church will defer to their Bible, where it is claimed God created everything (including sex) an
d told mankind to be fruitful (Genesis 1:28). That means, for Christians at least, that they are to go and have sex - right?
Just above you described cheating in negative terms did you not? That would make such sex shameful would it not?

Not in christianity - it was an apocalyptic cult when it formed, and according to its founder, Paul, people should refrain from even marrying, never mind producing more kids.

 

[Poem]

Not in christianity - it was an apocalyptic cult when it formed, and according to its founder, Paul, people should refrain from even marrying, never mind producing more kids.

Christ refers back to Genesis, so his followers can't exactly easily say no to those scriptures. Paul - the founder of Christianity? Really? Paul 's claim is that he was following Christ as per his Damascus experience. In any case, Paul was talking about ministers was he not? - and even then, it wasn't a proscription.

No, the Bible claims God created sex and told humans to go and have it. Lots of it.