• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

Ever heard of JAQing off? (Oo-er! Sounds a bit like onanism!) You probably haven't- look it up. That's one reason.
Loaded questions- that's another.
Poisoning the well- that's a third.

Why ask that question? What was your reason for asking me? You have also said I'm 'preaching from the pulpit of porn'. Hard to parse the meaning, but again, it fuels the idea that you think I'm a shill for the porn industry.


OK, I'll try that:
That's an outrageous thing to say. Are you a child abuser?
Remember, I'm just asking a simple question.

Are you going to flounce out of your own thread? Because I'm not going anywhere. I will continue to call out your lies, deflate your hyperbole, post evidence to refute your claims, and challenge your repressive and puritanical demands. In other words, do what this forum was set up to do: to question claims, debate evidence, and challenge falsehoods.

Nah, he's too smart. He's caught on to us. He may pretend not to understand what is a straightforward enough post, but underneath that he's razor sharp. He's realized we're all porn stars.

How, though? Not all who have freakishly big ...ah, members, are porn stars. Also, ours don't actually show, after all, in this all-text-no-vid format. ...So, how on earth did he catch on to us?

It's you! I squarely blame you! I mean, Cosmic Yak? That's a complete giveaway. You should've been more circumspect, and not lazily used as handle here your screen name. Look at me, how circumspect I've been, in choosing a handle that's emphatically not a porn star name.


Okay.

Why do you think more than 50 Frenchmen did what they did to Gisele Pelicot?

Because they're perverts, and have not all been castrated.

I reject your wishy washy half-measures about porn. I suggest, instead, the more sure-shot method of establishing a bureaucracy that will rigorously screen every man every five years, from age 15 onwards: and anyone showing the slightest tendency towards anything not perfectly kosher, sex-wise, is to be summarily castrated. That's two birds with one stone: no more Gisele Pelicot, hopefully; as well as help a bit with the population thing as well.

Let this be the take-away from this thread.
 
"https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/15/business/pornhub-videos-removed/index.html

So, a very different picture from the complacent tolerance of violent and/or child porn that you want us to believe. Annoying, isn't it, when the facts get in the way of your self-righteous ranting?"

If the poster had been following the thread then they would know about Sound Investigation's 2023 exposé of Pornhub. They would also know that Pornhub is facing multiple lawsuits and class actions and that the same VPs and executives that were there before the Kristof article are still there now (according to Laila Mickelwait of Traffickinghub).
Stop being such a child.If you are going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote it directly, so other members can see who posted it, and what the context was.
And you are just proving me right yet again. Most kind of you.
(To preempt the phoney "oh, I'm so simple, I don't understand" bull:
Society is clearly not tolerating violent porn, because of the multiple lawsuits and class actions you mention in this post. You have refuted yourself, and upheld my argument.
 
The world is wondering why M. Pelicot and over 50 men abused his wife as they did; Ziggurat's suggestion does not seem likely.

I posted this before:
Céline Piques, a spokesperson of the feminist group Osez le Féminisme!, or Dare Feminism!, said...hundreds of videos of men having sex with seemingly passed out women can be found online...

Viewing such normalization would facilitate the next step for some men. We have normalized to the extent of rule 34 and it seems we are picking up the pieces.
Still peddling lies I see.
 
I clicked over to that article assuming it was going to discuss the difficulties of implementing ID checks vs privacy vs surveillance, but it's just a guy asserting a bunch of stuff about the social history of porn consumption and making a few leaps off of the point that people prefer to keep their pornography consumption private and anonymous.
And given the type of articles he's linked to in his muckrack profile, I suspect that if Arlidge were asked to show you his elbow, he'd moon you.

He is the very definition of a writer who will either write to the script he's given or, if given none, nonsense.
 
In what way is the scope too big? Hasn't stopped verification for UK gambling sites.
Nope.
 
Your argument remains, as posted previously, with the Oxford dictionary:

a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.

(Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages).

Since 'rape' comes under the umbrella term 'sexual assault':

NHS.UK:
A sexual assault is any sexual act that a person did not consent to or is forced into against their will. It's a form of sexual violence and includes rape...

...then your refusal to accept their definition is...well, garbage.
Since 'rape' comes under the umbrella term 'sexual assault', and both of these things are not only illegal, but considered to be apalling crimes by the majority of people, your refusal to accept that there is no 'rape culture' in the UK or the US is....well, garbage.
 
This is true, but also not true. Home video recorders were pioneered by Sony with their Betamax system, released in Japan on May 10, 1975. JVC released their incompatible VHS system over a year later, on September 9, 1976. So Sony was the pioneer and JVC was just a copycat.

But what has this got to do with porn? The porn industry was quick to take advantage of this new technology, just like it had with photography and cinema film many years before. VHS had significantly worse image quality than Beta, but it had several advantages. Firstly the mechanism had fewer parts making it cheaper to manufacture. Secondly JVC carefully avoided Sony's patents and freely licensed the design to other manufacturers. Thirdly the larger cassette gave it a longer recording time. All these things made VHS more attractive to porn producers. Cheaper recoders meant more potential customers, and they could squeeze more onto a tape (porn consumers weren't so concerned about image quality).

Now the perverse part. Video hire shops rented out regular movies as well as porn, but porn was inially a large part of their business. Porn producers 'standardized' on VHS, which helped to make this format more popular. Video stores also stocked Beta movies for 'normal' customers who had Beta recorders. Initially the split was fairly even, but porn pushed the needle towards the poorer quality VHS. Eventually video stores stopped offering Beta because there weren't enough customers to justify stocking both formats. By this time porn was only a minor player in the video hire industry, but it contributed to the worse technology taking over the market.

Another interesting titbit is that Video CD, a format that failed in the West, was a popular format for porn in Asia. This was tied in with general piracy, particularly in countries which had strong anti-porn laws.

These are just examples of how the porn industry uses whatever technologies are useful for it. Computer porn started even before they had graphics, but the develpment of powerful PCs with photographic quality displays made it commercially viable. The internet then provided a more convenient distribution method. The final key was online payment via credit card. Therefore I expect you will now be riling against Visa and Mastercard for their part in it.
The thing is, porn didn't kill Betamax, home recording did, for all the reasons you supply and the fact that VHS tapes were twice as long. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2003/jan/25/comment.comment
 
Innocent young kids who stumble upon porn or search it up as a shock activity are not gonna be interested enough to hang around and become commercial conversions. That 'market' would be older kids who actually do want to view porn on purpose for the normal reasons and have or are about to have their own credit cards.
This would need some links to back it up - but you use vague terms which aren't helpful. As previously cited, half of UK 13 year olds have seen porn. According to ResearchGate:
Most boys (90%) ejaculate for the first time between the ages of 11 and 15.
Porn is just not that titillating to an actual innocent little kid. It's not really relevant to a porn site's financial interests to care whether it's out where a kid can see it or not. That it is, is purely a side effect of the site's commercial interest in visibility to potentially paying customers, full stop.
To very young children, sure.
Again I am not against a bit more of a barrier to access than we have now but requiring personal ID is, imo, a huge invasion of privacy and so I'm ag'in' it. Any time you create this sort of data there's an opportunity to misuse it.
Certainly it is the case the porn access trumps any concerns that children are being exposed to it.
Not to mention that whatever barriers we end up enforcing, they will only apply to legitimate sites. The ◊◊◊◊◊◊, fly by night ones that already care the least about appropriately targeting ads (and have the nastiest content) will still operate, exactly the same way that all the spam email screaming v1@gra c1@llis does. Half the reason legit sites resist barriers is that they are competing with sites that will never have any.
As above.
And I too would prefer if nasty, mean porn wasn't out there, but censorship is a nasty, mean beast itself, and I don't like to unleash one on the other.
Showing porn to children is a nasty, mean beast. Humanity is currently spiralling out of control in a porn orgy like we have never seen before....and we are only just starting.
 

Thousands of UK young people caught watching online child abuse images​

(The Guardian, Dec 2023)

While some of the child cases involved sexting between teens, others have been found watching “the most abhorrent material”, said detective chief inspector Tony Garner, who leads an online child sexual exploitation team based in Worcester. “I’ve been in policing 20 years and have been scratching my head the past couple of years about the harm we are seeing,” Garner said. “It’s scary. As a country, as a society, it feels completely out of control.”
 
From the link:

“Our young people tend to come via police referrals. But this isn’t sexting they have been involved with. They are viewing indecent images of children that they don’t know,” said Haynes. “We hear a lot about bulk file downloads. Young people may be looking for sexual images of teens their own age, but with that will come images of much younger children being raped.”

This ◊◊◊◊ is not on Pornhub and has nothing to do with commercial porn sites. It is already, rightly, super illegal.

Honestly I have no idea whatsoever where anyone would be getting this stuff.
 
From the link:

“Our young people tend to come via police referrals. But this isn’t sexting they have been involved with. They are viewing indecent images of children that they don’t know,” said Haynes. “We hear a lot about bulk file downloads. Young people may be looking for sexual images of teens their own age, but with that will come images of much younger children being raped.”

This ◊◊◊◊ is not on Pornhub and has nothing to do with commercial porn sites. It is already, rightly, super illegal.

Honestly I have no idea whatsoever where anyone would be getting this stuff.
Pornhub's history of being infested with illegal material remains a problem even now. Their hosting of porn suggestive of underage children is, as already noted, illegal in the UK and Canada.

Whatever the case - the research shows that there is a tendency to escalate down the porn rabbit hole.

The finger remains firmly pointed at adult society for allowing this to occur. and Rachel De Souza could have been braver when she spoke of 'moral compass'.
 
Hmm, no, I don't buy it. A youngster does not go to Pornhub and then, because it got them interested but did not serve their needs, go figure out where and how to batch-download child sex abuse material. That is not the pipeline here. Real evidence could change my mind. Assertions and loose associations are not convincing.

And please stop talking as though "porn suggestive of underage children" that is adults, acting, and "images of much younger children being raped" are the same thing. They're not even in the same ballpark.

What steps are not being taken if porn with actors playing underage is illegal in the UK but still available on Pornhub? Get some teeth put into those laws.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, no, I don't buy it. A youngster does not go to Pornhub and then, because it got them interested but did not serve their needs, go figure out where and how to batch-download child sex abuse material. That is not the pipeline here. Real evidence could change my mind. Assertions and loose associations are not convincing.
From the article cited:
Garner said children were becoming “desensitised” by early exposure to pornography, with an “increasing interest in shocking material after being exposed to violent pornography”. Without intervention, children are becoming addicted to very harmful material, he said.
And please stop talking as though "porn suggestive of underage children" that is adults, acting, and "images of much younger children being raped" are the same thing. They're not even in the same ballpark.
Where did I do that?

The former remains illegal in the UK but Pornhub is rife with such material...but do they care about that?

Profits before protection.
What steps are not being taken if porn with actors playing underage is illegal in the UK but still available on Pornhub? Get some teeth put into those laws.
Based on what I've already posted on the flaccidity of the Online Safety Act, then nothing will happen.
 
And please stop talking as though "porn suggestive of underage children" that is adults, acting, and "images of much younger children being raped" are the same thing. They're not even in the same ballpark.
Where did I do that?
In the post that that was a reply to. When I said such CSA material is absolutely not on Pornhub and your response was to say that porn 'suggestive of' underage subjects was on Pornhub.

And you just handwave when asked about enforcing the law where such 'suggestive' material is illegal. Where is that buck actually failing to stop? What is the law? Who does one report illegal material to, who evaluates it, who responds, what happens next, what penalties are there? "nobody cares" is not an answer. If it's illegal, there's legal code about it that outlines these things, and we can point to where the balls are being dropped.
 
In the post that that was a reply to. When I said such CSA material is absolutely not on Pornhub and your response was to say that porn 'suggestive of' underage subjects was on Pornhub.
I doubt very much that anyone can be sure that CSA material isn't still on Pornhub. Same VPs and executives in place from when Nicholas Kristof slammed them for being infested with child rape material. 90% was unverifiable and removed....that is they were forced to after Visa and Mastercard pulled the plug.

CSA is illegal and so is material suggestive of minors...in countries that haven't quite lost all sense of decency....yet.
And you just handwave when asked about enforcing the law where such 'suggestive' material is illegal. Where is that buck actually failing to stop? What is the law?
Handwave? Typo?

In the UK the BBFC deems such material illegal and prosecutions follow when it is distributed on DVD or Blu Ray.
Who does one report illegal material to, who evaluates it, who responds, what happens next, what penalties are there? "nobody cares" is not an answer. If it's illegal, there's legal code about it that outlines these things, and we can point to where the balls are being dropped.
I don't know the details but Pornhub et al are getting away with it.

A civilized society would shut such companies down immediately.
 

"Pornographic content which suggests sexual activity with children is extremely harmful but is rife on mainstream pornography sites. This content normalises children as objects of sexual desire and drives the demand for ‘real’ child sexual abuse material. Such content is banned from DVD, Blu Ray, and Video on Demand, but is rife across mainstream pornography sites"
 
Last edited:
Are you sure Pornhub hosting videos of adults acting to imply they are playing their role as underage, is actually illegal in the UK? The org you named is responsible for ratings on commercially published material, such as DVDs and VOD services, and they work with mobile carriers to restrict under-18 access to adult material.

ETA: Oh. Okay. You're NOT sure it's illegal.

I found this interesting story https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/ via https://www.iwf.org.uk/ which is a CSA material reporting org in the uk. Which also didn't speak to implied underage porn.

It did point out that there is a new huge problem with AI generated CSA material, which I hadn't even thought of, and, holy yikes, yeah. Now pretty much literally anyone who has unrestricted access to these tools can make approximations of the stuff all day long.
 
Humanity is currently spiralling out of control in a porn orgy like we have never seen before....and we are only just starting.
I think you're a little clueless about the history of human depravity, and how bad it's been at times. We're not in some golden era by any means, and some social problems related to sexuality are getting worse in developed western countries. But really, do you have any idea the horrors humanity has committed in the past? The legacy of Genghis Khan's rapes is still imprinted on the DNA of literally millions of men.
 
I think you're a little clueless about the history of human depravity, and how bad it's been at times. We're not in some golden era by any means, and some social problems related to sexuality are getting worse in developed western countries. But really, do you have any idea the horrors humanity has committed in the past? The legacy of Genghis Khan's rapes is still imprinted on the DNA of literally millions of men.
Wrangling with someone who rejects the Oxford dictionary's definition of rape culture over which which was worse will be fruitless.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure Pornhub hosting videos of adults acting to imply they are playing their role as underage, is actually illegal in the UK? The org you named is responsible for ratings on commercially published material, such as DVDs and VOD services, and they work with mobile carriers to restrict under-18 access to adult material.

ETA: Oh. Okay. You're NOT sure it's illegal.
Paying attention to child experts and charities that affirm the harm that such material can lead to is appropriate isn't it? That it is illegal on DVD, Blu Ray and VOD should be enough. I have tried previously to find out the exact legal position but have not been successful. Perhaps someone can throw some light on it....
I found this interesting story https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/ via https://www.iwf.org.uk/ which is a CSA material reporting org in the uk. Which also didn't speak to implied underage porn.
I was aware, yes. They have also planted tress (ie giving wood.......) and provided snow ploughs (ie get ploughed) in bad weather....with their logo on the side (who says they don't advertise and 'show' to all and sundry?).
It did point out that there is a new huge problem with AI generated CSA material, which I hadn't even thought of, and, holy yikes, yeah. Now pretty much literally anyone who has unrestricted access to these tools can make approximations of the stuff all day long.
Didn't see that - but have heard as much.
 
The Pornhub-logo-snowplow thing was once, in Boston, and somewhat relevant to the thread, blew up with internet attention and hype despite apparantly not actually happening very much or possibly at all. A Boston newspaper tried to check up on it and after reaching out to basically everyone, they got a grand total of one guy who would anonymously go on record to say he called Pornhub's free plowing service, and to his surprise and amusement, got plowed.

I've worked with guys who do hype based adverts before and it's plausible that all they really had was access to a couple of nice plows (or a couple photos) they could put or photoshop a sticker on, one guy with an actual snowplow, a vanity number people could call, and a hype guy who called every outlet they knew on a slow news day.

The media showed it to everyone. Because it was funny, and tittilating. It's an easy bet to say no Chicago kids were drawn to search up Pornhub after seeing its logo on a snowplow after that 2017 storm.
 
Last edited:
The Pornhub-logo-snowplow thing was once, in Boston, and somewhat relevant to the thread, blew up with internet attention and hype despite apparantly not actually happening very much or possibly at all. A Boston newspaper tried to check up on it and after reaching out to basically everyone, they got a grand total of one guy who would anonymously go on record to say he called Pornhub's free plowing service, and to his surprise and amusement, got plowed.

I've worked with guys who do hype based adverts before and it's plausible that all they really had was one nice plow (or a couple photos of one) they could put or photoshop a sticker on, one guy with an actual snowplow, a vanity number people could call, and a hype guy who called every outlet they knew on a slow news day.

The media showed it to everyone. Because it was funny, and tittilating. It's an easy bet to say no Chicago kids were drawn to search up Pornhub after seeing its logo on a snowplow after that 2017 storm.
Interesting.

There was the infamous ad in Times Square of course.


I don't think it will be long before the industry successfully pushes the envelope...in all areas - including ads.
 
There was the infamous ad in Times Square of course.

I don't think it will be long before the industry successfully pushes the envelope...in all areas - including ads.
Well, the infamous ad in Times Square lasted a few hours, and happened ten years ago.

On what scale are you figuring 'not long?'

On the other hand, even over on mostly-dead Tumblr they are still constatly taking down porn bots, which does mean people still get porn bot followers and usually have to see at least some tits when you go to report and block them. But the userbase prefers that to automatic porn detection that freezes your account because it thinks sand dunes are pornographic.

But I genuinely miss pre-2014 Tumblr when it was chockablock with porn gifs. That was a lot of fun.
 
Last edited:
Well, the infamous ad in Times Square lasted a few hours, and happened ten years ago.

On what scale are you figuring 'not long?'
Well - I was guessing...porn normalization has got this far and it feels like it's just the beginning. You mentioned AI porn.
On the other hand, even over on mostly-dead Tumblr they are still constatly taking down porn bots, which does mean people still get porn bot followers and usually have to see at least some tits when you go to report and block them. But the userbase prefers that to automatic porn detection that freezes your account because it thinks sand dunes are pornographic.
Interesting. Didn't know that.
But I genuinely miss pre-2014 Tumblr when it was chockablock with porn gifs. That was a lot of fun.
You like being provocative Lithrael.
 
The thing about that variety of porn gifs was that they were all just generically goin at it. Kind of the polar opposite of the impression-damaging, violence-inspiring, kinks-for-life extreme stuff that anyone would want to keep off of the lowest shelf.
 
The thing about that variety of porn gifs was that they were all just generically goin at it. Kind of the polar opposite of the impression-damaging, violence-inspiring, kinks-for-life extreme stuff that anyone would want to keep off of the lowest shelf.
Ok.
 
Wrangling with someone who rejects the Oxford dictionary's definition of rape culture over which which was worse will be fruitless.
As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.
 
As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.
Providing an authoritative definition that challenges the Oxford dictionary's would be interesting. Why haven't you?

Recognising sexual assault rather than just rape is not counter-intuitive.
 
As is trying to argue with someone who can't justify their definition without appealing to some authority whose definition they aren't even using.
On a scale of 1 to 10 - how bored are you to have deigned to return to this dog's dinner of a thread?
 
(...) porn normalization has got this far and it feels like it's just the beginning. You mentioned AI porn.
Since we're getting back into the 'words mean things' weeds here, no I did not mention AI porn. I mentioned AI child sexual material, CSM, which you, here, are once again talking about in the same breath as the law-abiding (even if they do need oversight to encourage that) porn industry.

Not calling child exploitation 'child porn' isn't just doublespeak, it's actually helpful from both a law enforcement and a societal approach. It's like not calling ethylene glycol a sweetener. If you always refer to it as a poison instead, it doesn't let anyone with fuzzy thinking figure that maybe it's okay to add just a little bit of it to food or medicine.
 
Since we're getting back into the 'words mean things' weeds here, no I did not mention AI porn. I mentioned AI child sexual material, CSM, which you, here, are once again talking about in the same breath as the law-abiding (even if they do need oversight to encourage that) porn industry.

Not calling child exploitation 'child porn' isn't just doublespeak, it's actually helpful from both a law enforcement and a societal approach. It's like not calling ethylene glycol a sweetener. If you always refer to it as a poison instead, it doesn't let anyone with fuzzy thinking figure that maybe it's okay to add just a little bit of it to food or medicine.
You are being overly sensitive. There nothing wrong with the terms I used. AI CSM porn is AI porn.

Actually, I think the correct term is CSAM.

Now I am being pedantic.
 
Providing an authoritative definition that challenges the Oxford dictionary's would be interesting. Why haven't you?
Because I'm not interested in that. Semantic debates are the most boring debates in the world. You also have a strange hangup about authority.
 
...Would you let your partner act in a porn film (ie with other porn actors / actresses?...

I just now re-read those two posts I'd linked up there in my last post, mine, and your nonsensical and patently disingenuous response to me, both of those posts: and this sentence, from the latter, kind of jumped out at me:

@Poem , do you see what's wrong with even asking that question? No?

You've claimed not to be a Jesus worshiper. Even if that were true, even if you aren't quite that far gone, but even so, are you able to recognize how regressive is your thinking, now that it is pointed out to you?

What about you, then? Let's have answers from you, instead of questions:

1. Would you let your partner act in porn?

2. Would you let your partner act out steamy scenes in non-porn regular movies?

3. Would you let your partner act in movies generally?

4. Would you let your partner go out partying in a group that includes male friends and where you're not present?

5. Would you let your partner work?

6. Are you okay with your partner wearing short skirts in public?

7. When was the last time your partner kicked you in the balls?

8. Do you actually have a partner at all?
 
I just now re-read those two posts I'd linked up there in my last post, mine, and your nonsensical and patently disingenuous response to me, both of those posts: and this sentence, from the latter, kind of jumped out at me:

@Poem , do you see what's wrong with even asking that question? No?
I don't, no.
You've claimed not to be a Jesus worshiper.
Correct.
Even if that were true, even if you aren't quite that far gone, but even so, are you able to recognize how regressive is your thinking, now that it is pointed out to you?
No, I am not clear about being 'regressive'. You'd have to define regressive.
What about you, then? Let's have answers from you, instead of questions:
You didn't avtually answer my question.
1. Would you let your partner act in porn?
Yes, but they would know that that would end the relationship.
2. Would you let your partner act out steamy scenes in non-porn regular movies?
Hmmm - wouldn't be to my liking.
3. Would you let your partner act in movies generally?
Sure.
4. Would you let your partner go out partying in a group that includes male friends and where you're not present?
That would need some context.
5. Would you let your partner work?
Yes.
6. Are you okay with your partner wearing short skirts in public?
Probably not too short.
7. When was the last time your partner kicked you in the balls?
Lol.
8. Do you actually have a partner at all?
Hmmm. I'll leave off answering that.
 
Because I'm not interested in that. Semantic debates are the most boring debates in the world.
Probably no point in continuing then.
You also have a strange hangup about authority.
I believe you have said as much before. I asked for a definition (that isn't just someone's pov) but you didn't provide one.

Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English. This dictionary is regularly updated with evidence from one of the world’s largest lexical research programmes, and features over 350,000 words and phrases.
 
I believe you have said as much before. I asked for a definition (that isn't just someone's pov) but you didn't provide one.
Because I'm flexible, so long as the definition actually requires rape. Yours doesn't require rape or even sexual assault.
Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.
The OED is descriptive not prescriptive. And given that the term is mostly used by radical feminists making bull ◊◊◊◊ arguments, descriptions of the bull ◊◊◊◊ definitions they come up with may be 100% accurate, but they aren't binding on me.
 
Because I'm flexible, so long as the definition actually requires rape.
A definition based on your pov.
Yours doesn't require rape or even sexual assault.
Which you don't demonstrate.
The OED is descriptive not prescriptive.
They define the phrase. You haven't given a good reason why they are wrong.
And given that the term is mostly used by radical feminists making bull ◊◊◊◊ arguments, descriptions of the bull ◊◊◊◊ definitions they come up with may be 100% accurate, but they aren't binding on me.
This is sound reasoning?
 
A definition based on your pov.
And? What's wrong with that pov?
Which you don't demonstrate.
I've pointed out the reason before. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.
They define the phrase. You haven't given a good reason why they are wrong.
As I said, they describe how people use words. I'm not claiming the OED wrong about how people use words, I'm saying that it's a stupid use of those words by those people and I'm not going to join in on that stupidity. You've never explained why you decided to join in on the stupidity.
This is sound reasoning?
Yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom