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

[Lithrael]

(...) you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses for a porn industry that's spamming undifferentiated kinks to children without restraint.

Oh. I am? Gosh. Okay.

 

[Poem]

The irony is that if Poem were to argue against the way porn is increasingly accessible to young people, and the way rough sex is being normalized, in tandem with that accessibility to young people?

I'd probably be 100% in agreement.

Have done that ad nauseam.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not always.

Always.

When it isn't, it's called "nonconsensual sexual exploitation" aka rape.

 

[arthwollipot]

i don't think there is a whole lot of aggressive or violent looking pornography on most popular porn sites. so any strangulation seen in that context is in the context of a porn video featuring consensual sex. i don't think the case has been made that since strangulation is commonly thought to be a violent act, that when you see it in a consensual sexual video that it turns the video into a violent rape culture video. and it seems to me a lot of the arguments being made in the porn is contributing to a rape culture side are taking that premise as a given

We've established previously that in one source Poem has cited, using the word "stepsister" in the title of a video is defined as a violent act.

Nobody is taking responsibility for teaching healthy sexual relationships to children.

Surely we would agree that this is the parents' job?

Doesn't that make it even dumber then? It's like someone raging about how all SF involves lightsabers, because... they've watched exactly none.

Yes.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why didn't you state here that you meant participants as being prepubescent?

Why didn't YOU clarify it in your question? Expecting us to just know you meant something entirely different when you said CSAM, while also arguing about actual CSAM cases at the same time in the same thread, is silly. None of us won Randi's million. We're not psychics. We have no idea what's in your head.

 

[theprestige]

Surely we would agree that this is the parents' job?

We all have a vested interest in getting this right.

 

[arthwollipot]

We all have a vested interest in getting this right.

So, a case for collective action over individual rights?

Sorry. Off-topic. Carry on.

 

[theprestige]

So, a case for collective action over individual rights?

Sorry. Off-topic. Carry on.

A case for noticing there's a problem in how we currently handle the distribution of pornography in society, and how we currently handle sex education as a society.

 

[Poem]

editttttttttttttttttt

 

[Poem]

Why didn't YOU clarify it in your question? Expecting us to just know you meant something entirely different when you said CSAM, while also arguing about actual CSAM cases at the same time in the same thread, is silly. None of us won Randi's million. We're not psychics. We have no idea what's in your head.

Which post?

 

[Poem]

Instead you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses for a porn industry that's spamming undifferentiated kinks to children without restraint.

As has been noted innumerable times before.
Curious about your choice of words: 'spamming'...sending unsolicited...it equates to child sexual abuse (as also noted before).

 

[Helen]

As has been noted innumerable times before.
Curious about your choice of words: 'spamming'...sending unsolicited...it equates to child sexual abuse (as also noted before).

If people in this thread were only allowed to post things that have not been noted before, the thread would have been over and done with after the first few posts.

 

[Poem]

New laws to crackdown on harmful pornography (UK Government, 10th April 2026)
Possessing or publishing pornography depicting incest or adults pretending to be children to be criminalised and tech execs could be held liable.

Which is what I affirmed earlier in the thread - the law needs updating. No one is actually being prosecuted.

 

[Poem]

Kids can watch what looks like other versions of themselves having sex with adults.

Delivered with the support of many brave campaigners and advocates for change, both amendments recognise that this revolting online content risks normalising child sexual abuse. Each new offence comes with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for publication. (Same Link)

 

[Poem]

If people in this thread were only allowed to post things that have not been noted before, the thread would have been over and done with after the first few posts.

No criticism was implied; rather, someone is actually willing to speak truth.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As has been noted innumerable times before.
Curious about your choice of words: 'spamming'...sending unsolicited...it equates to child sexual abuse (as also noted before).

Pretty sure it ain't actually happening much, or not in the USA, since sending unsolicited profanity material across state lines is a federal offence even if you send it to adults. And people have gone to prison over that. The child abuse angle would add extra charges, but that's about it.

And you can't even show ads to porn sites without someone clicking to say that they're 18+.

If a kid finds porn, they have to actively search for it AND make the conscious decision to declare themselves as 18+. And most of them would have to figure out a way to bypass parental controls. That's an imperfect system, I'll grant you that, but if someone actually made a few conscious decisions and carried them out to get to that content, it's not "unwanted" by any sane definition of the word.

 

[Poem]

Pretty sure it ain't actually happening much, or not in the USA, since sending unsolicited profanity material across state lines is a federal offence even if you send it to adults. And people have gone to prison over that. The child abuse angle would add extra charges, but that's about it.

And you can't even show ads to porn sites without someone clicking to say that they're 18+.

If a kid finds porn, they have to actively search for it AND make the conscious decision to declare themselves as 18+. And most of them would have to figure out a way to bypass parental controls. That's an imperfect system, I'll grant you that, but if someone actually made a few conscious decisions and carried them out to get to that content, it's not "unwanted" by any sane definition of the word.

Like others here, "you're falling all over yourself, trying to make excuses". The Internet is awash with easy-access porn. Everyone knows it. You know it.

Why don't you tell the thread why a child described X as XXX?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, not really. I'm just pointing out that availability doesn't actually mean pushing unwanted content upon others. Just like seafood being freely available in town doesn't mean anyone is PUSHING it onto people who DON'T WANT IT. Like, no, the flower shop at the corner was NOT pushing it onto my niece allergic to pollen against her will. It might be hard to comprehend for you, but most of us are perfectly capable of making that distinction

Seems to me like you're the one doing the dumbest mental gymnastics I've ever seen to mis-interpret availability for someone pushing unwanted contend onto anyone, and that anyone acknowledging the former is actively supporting the latter. But then when your whole argument is THAT ridiculously stupid (and that's saying something on a board which also has a "Religion" sub-board,) I guess you do what you can. Wouldn't want you to strain yourself by making an argument that is sound, or even as baseline as sticking to an argument instead of flip-flopping like a fish out of water between fundamentally separate ones with fundamentally different premises and fundamentally different conclusions

Quoth Bill Engvall: Here's your sign

And no, I'm also not going to feel any obligation to get baited into defending a position I never espoused. Keep your idiotic strawmen to your church congregation or whatever. I feel no need to humour you.

 

[Poem]

No, not really. I'm just pointing out that availability doesn't actually mean pushing unwanted content upon others. Just like seafood being freely available in town doesn't mean anyone is PUSHING it onto people who DON'T WANT IT. Like, no, the flower shop at the corner was NOT pushing it onto my niece allergic to pollen against her will. It might be hard to comprehend for you, but most of us are perfectly capable of making that distinction

Seems to me like you're the one doing the dumbest mental gymnastics I've ever seen to mis-interpret availability for someone pushing unwanted contend onto anyone, and that anyone acknowledging the former is actively supporting the latter. But then when your whole argument is THAT ridiculously stupid (and that's saying something on a board which also has a "Religion" sub-board,) I guess you do what you can. Wouldn't want you to strain yourself by making an argument that is sound, or even as baseline as sticking to an argument instead of flip-flopping like a fish out of water between fundamentally separate ones with fundamentally different premises and fundamentally different conclusions

Quoth Bill Engvall: Here's your sign

And no, I'm also not going to feel any obligation to get baited into defending a position I never espoused. Keep your idiotic strawmen to your church congregation or whatever. I feel no need to humour you.

I have already dealt with these kind of arguments ad nauseam earlier in the thread. Your argument is with theprestige - the source of 'spamming'.

The handwashing continues.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I have already dealt with these kind of arguments ad nauseam earlier in the thread. Your argument is with theprestige - the source of 'spamming'.

And I was answering to that, plus your reaction and spin to that "spamming" word. Not to availability. It was YOU who decided to try to equivocate between two things that not only don't have the same meaning, but aren't even the same word nor homophones or anything, and thought it somehow supports your dumbass browbeating

Heere's your sign

The handwashing continues.

Yep, you keep doing that