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

[Poem]

Since the only age mentioned in the article is 7 year olds I'll stick to my take away from the article. You can of course continue to think the other two men were looking at CSAM that featured teenagers who had passed through puberty.

No, you have not justified your take away. The ages mentioned are 7 (purely in relation to former BBC present Huw Edwards) and under 18s.

As the article states: even Edwards has not faced jail. The CPS:
On September 16, 2024, at Westminster Magistrates' Court, he was sentenced to a six-month prison sentence, which was suspended for two years after pleading guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What is the evidence that that paper and the IWF are wrong?

That's not how the burden of proof works. What is your evidence that it is RIGHT? (Other than saying so yourself, which doesn't count. Believing really really hard is not evidence.) Nobody has to prove to you that flying pigs exist.

 

[theprestige]

What evidence do you have that they : don't convert to scat fetish because cishet missionary porn got old.

Why are you asking for evidence? Do you not know what a hypothesis is? I'm making a falsifiable claim. Falsifying it is the job of someone who has something to prove. That would be you, I think.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
As the article states: even Edwards has not faced jail. The CPS:
On September 16, 2024, at Westminster Magistrates' Court, he was sentenced to a six-month prison sentence, which was suspended for two years after pleading guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children.

As my post also commented on.

...snip...

From that article: This highlighted the fact that most people – around eight out of 10 – caught with images of children being sexually abused are not jailed.

That is inexcusable, either the legislation is at fault or the courts are. I can see no reason at all why people who are dangerous to children are not punished by a custodial sentence, and then lifelong monitoring and treatment.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why are you asking for evidence? Do you not know what a hypothesis is? I'm making a falsifiable claim. Falsifying it is the job of someone who has something to prove. That would be you, I think.

It kinda does work that way if you're doing the positive claim. Just, in this case he is. He's the one claiming the correlation (or rather even higher: causation.)

For the negative claim you only have to point out at his having shown no evidence. You don't have to show that every single pig on earth never flew.

 

[Poem]

As my post also commented on.

I was agreeing with you (though I admit I wasn't clear) and emphasising that even with content of that age one can avoid prison. It also throws into doubt your 10 years assertion regarding18+ material simulating underage porn which you cited as evidence the UK does not have a culture of rape.

This is what you have stated regarding the Guardian article:

Excuses, that's all I read in his self serving crap. Remember these are not people who are mistaking a 16 year old for an 18 year old or even a younger teenager child who is post or undergoing puberty, we are talking about clearly prepubescent children, toddlers and babies. These people are not having this pornography served to them by mainstream pornography sites, they are seeking it out, they do not simply come across this type of criminal material when browsing the WWW.

False: the article is talking about under 18 content.

....Both of the criminals in the article went onto the dark web and purposefully searched for images of child abuse and even shared such images. They did not somehow go from legal pornography by slow incremental steps into images and videos of sexual abuse of 7 year olds.

Again excuses - legal teen porn features adults who have gone through puberty, they did not go from that to images of prepubescent children being sexually abused without knowing 100% what they were looking for and what they found.

False: The San Jose paper and the IWF affirm that the surface web is used extensively for such material and the article states that the police found no evidence that Mark had searched for child images.

Just admit that you made unjustifiable assumptions - assumptions about age, seeking content out and the dark web. You have used your assumptions to infer your conclusions.

 

[Poem]

For my hypothesis? Okay, sure:

I have a hypothesis that people who are diving into the Dark Web to satisfy their paraphilia didn't get there through innocent porn consumption, they got there because they were never wired to be satisfied by innocent porn consumption. Most gooners find their niche and go all in on that niche. They don't convert to scat fetish because cishet missionary porn got old.​

​

Prestige, T. (2026, August 11) Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies? Post #5,401. International Skeptics Forum. https://internationalskeptics.com/f...-describe-many-societies.370195/post-14900971.​

Given this:

....I think it's also important to understand that our tastes change. What did it for you before is boring today. And things you couldn't imagine being interested in when you're younger now are delicious.

then you must accept it in principle.

 

[arthwollipot]

Possibly. But then hanged people also piss and crap themselves, and nobody claimed that hypoxia is a diuretic or laxative. It's just what happens when you go unconscious and lose control of the sphincters.

Which if you think about it pretty much precludes ejaculation.

What evidence do you have that they : don't convert to scat fetish because cishet missionary porn got old.

You do realise that you're asking for evidence for something's nonexistence, right?

That's not how the burden of proof works. What is your evidence that it is RIGHT? (Other than saying so yourself, which doesn't count. Believing really really hard is not evidence.) Nobody has to prove to you that flying pigs exist.

Furthermore, nobody has to prove to you that flying pigs don't exist. Proving the nonexistence of something is logically impossible, since flying pigs could be just over the next ridge, and you haven't been there yet. There can be no evidence that something doesn't exist - that's a logical contradiction.

then you must accept it in principle.

Which is not at all the same thing as accepting it in all proposed cases.

 

[Poem]

Why does Darat find content that features legal actors simulating underage porn 'abhorrent' for any other reason than that it facilitates the kind of dark rabbit holes The Guardian article I posted outlines?

@Darat - on the one hand you won't accept the concept of escalation - yet the simulation is abhorrent? I have asked you to explain this multiple times now.

 

[theprestige]

I was agreeing with you (though I admit I wasn't clear) and emphasising that even with content of that age one can avoid prison. It also throws into doubt your 10 years assertion regarding18+ material simulating underage porn which you cited as evidence the UK does not have a culture of rape.

This is what you have stated regarding the Guardian article:

False: the article is talking about under 18 content.

False: The San Jose paper and the IWF affirm that the surface web is used extensively for such material and the article states that the police found no evidence that Mark had searched for child images.

Just admit that you made unjustifiable assumptions - assumptions about age, seeking content out and the dark web. You have used your assumptions to infer your conclusions.

There is no "San Jose paper". The author of the paper is known. He does not speak or write for the university.

 

[theprestige]

Given this:

then you must accept it in principle.

No, I don't accept it in principle. That's exactly the claim my hypothesis seeks to test.

 

[Poem]

There is no "San Jose paper". The author of the paper is known. He does not speak or write for the university.

Is this statement:
Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2258A), U.S.-based online platforms are required to report to the CyberTipline when they become aware of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online enticement of children, and child sex trafficking on their systems. (Global Platform for Child Exploitation Policy)

false?

 

[theprestige]

Is this statement:
Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2258A), U.S.-based online platforms are required to report to the CyberTipline when they become aware of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online enticement of children, and child sex trafficking on their systems. (Global Platform for Child Exploitation Policy)

false?

I don't know; I haven't read the law.

Do you have an argument to make along those lines? I'm happy to stipulate to the truth of statement, if it helps you reach that goal.

 

[Poem]

I don't know; I haven't read the law.

Do you have an argument to make along those lines? I'm happy to stipulate to the truth of statement, if it helps you reach that goal.

We know that a lot of the CSAM is available on the dark web - but, as I have been evidencing - it is also found on the surface web. Darat made the incorrect assumption that that Guardian article was about abuse on the dark web and not the surface web. It will be both.

 

[theprestige]

We know that a lot of the CSAM is available on the dark web - but, as I have been evidencing - it is also found on the surface web. Darat made the incorrect assumption that that Guardian article was about abuse on the dark web and not the surface web. It will be both.

The evidence you have presented to me does not support the claim you've been making to me.

The Guardian article is very thin stuff, consisting entirely of third-hand reports of what someone said about something that the Guardian clearly has not bothered to independently investigate.

You also clearly missed that the focus of the article was child predators, not purveyors of CSAM.

 

[Poem]

The evidence you have presented to me does not support the claim you've been making to me.

The Guardian article is very thin stuff, consisting entirely of third-hand reports of what someone said about something that the Guardian clearly has not bothered to independently investigate.

You also clearly missed that the focus of the article was child predators, not purveyors of CSAM.

Your evidence that CSAM is restricted to the dark web is what?

Your criticism of the Guardian article is thin stuff.

Your last sentence is irrelevant.

 

[Darat]

Why does Darat find content that features legal actors simulating underage porn 'abhorrent' for any other reason than that it facilitates the kind of dark rabbit holes The Guardian article I posted outlines?

@Darat - on the one hand you won't accept the concept of escalation - yet the simulation is abhorrent? I have asked you to explain this multiple times now.

If you have to have it explained to you why CSAM is abhorrent then the gulf between us is too deep to ever be breached by words.

 

[Darat]

We know that a lot of the CSAM is available on the dark web - but, as I have been evidencing - it is also found on the surface web.
Darat made the incorrect assumption that that Guardian article was about abuse on the dark web and not the surface web. It will be both.

Nope you haven't evidenced that the content that got the three people convicted was not found on the dark web.

 

[theprestige]

Your evidence that CSAM is restricted to the dark web is what?

I never claimed it was restricted to the dark web.

Your criticism of the Guardian article is thin stuff.

I'm okay with that. It's a publisher of third-hand accounts. A thin criticism is sufficient.

Your last sentence is irrelevant.

I'll be the judge of that.

 

[Joe Random]

<...>. Like, what, someone is so horrified by it... that they'd spend at least 30 minutes watching a porn video to find something to complain about? And doing it a dozen times a day? I don't think even most porn addicts would spend half a dozen hours a day on a specific genre, even if they liked it, much less on one they find abhorrent. Someone must have a MAJOR hard-on about it, to put in all that time.
<...>

Sidetrack, but this reminded me of something from my past. Many years ago I worked for a LaserDisc distributor who had customers (retailers) all over the USofA, and a few in Canada. One day we received a 40-count box back that had been sent to a Canadian customer, but stopped at the border and sent back to us. Inside were a few dozen porn discs, all of them opened on one side, and a long letter on official customs/border control letterhead. The letter listed each title in the box, along with time-stamps with comments like "32:10.5 scene appear to show sex with coercion. It's importation into Canada is therefore prohibited.", and others along that line. Not "participant appears under-aged", or "sex with animals". Just "wait, that's non-cis het missionary content detected!".

Mind you, these weren't underground amateur 8mm reels. These were put out by a major LD manufacturer ( Image Entertainment ) who also did loads of non-porn films.

This led all of us working there at the time to the realization that some customs officer(s) had to sit down and watch every single one of the 50 or so discs in the original shipment, potentially all the way through, to see if there was any objectionable content at any point in any of them. While taking detailed notes.

I have absolutely zero evidence for this part, but I'd like to think it was someone who espoused some of the same anti-porn rhetoric as has been seen in this thread, and that he tried really really hard to convince himself that he only watched the discs for his job, and The Greater Good(tm).