• 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?

And? What's wrong with that pov?

I've pointed out the reason before. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

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.

Yes.
Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more?

I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm.

Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?
 
Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more?

I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm.

Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?
Your post isn't actually responsive to anything I said.
 
I don't, no.

Correct.

No, I am not clear about being 'regressive'. You'd have to define regressive.

You didn't avtually answer my question.

Yes, but they would know that that would end the relationship.

Hmmm - wouldn't be to my liking.

Sure.

That would need some context.

Yes.

Probably not too short.

Lol.

Hmmm. I'll leave off answering that.

◊◊◊◊'s sake. Distinct incel vibes. Very distinct regressive vibes. Distinct Andrew Tate devotee vibes. Distinct went-overboard-on-the-porn-now-going-overboard-in-the-opposite-direction vibes.

If you want to change the world, correct the world: then start with the guy in the mirror.


eta: Define regressive? Really? This business of "letting" your partner ---- in your case, probably your hypothetical partner ---- do this, that and the other thing.


etaa: You've sportingly answered every question ---- not that I'd meant them literally, but still --- and, in turn, I'll answer yours. Not that it's any of your business, but even so.

If my partner, my forever-gf-expect-we'll-get-married-but-no-rush, were to suddenly declare she's doing porn, would I let her? Well, not as her keeper, but as her intimate friend and well-wisher, I'd make sure that's what she really really wants, given how completely out of character that would be for her. If assured that is truly what she wants, then there's no question of not letting her do it! Would I be uncomfortable? I guess. But when it comes to her life, then while my comfort is certainly an important factor, but her comfort takes precedence, given it's her life. Our life, too, but not ours at the cost of hers.

You did not understand my earlier comment, or pretended not to ----- and evinced no interest in doing that either, even though it was a clear response and clarification to your earlier questions to me. I expect you'll do the same again. I guess this comment, and the thinking here, it's outside of your own range of understanding. That's what I meant by regressive.

By all means don't "let" your partner act intimate scenes in movies and plays, or let her wear short skirts. As long as she's hypothetical, she won't mind.
 
Last edited:
◊◊◊◊'s sake. Distinct incel vibes. Very distinct regressive vibes. Distinct Andrew Tate devotee vibes. Distinct went-overboard-on-the-porn-now-going-overboard-in-the-opposite-direction vibes.
Lol.
If you want to change the world, correct the world: then start with the guy in the mirror.


eta: Define regressive? Really? This business of "letting" your partner ---- in your case, probably your hypothetical partner ---- do this, that and the other thing.
?
etaa: You've sportingly answered every question ---- not that I'd meant them literally, but still --- and, in turn, I'll answer yours. Not that it's any of your business, but even so.

If my partner, my forever-gf-expect-we'll-get-married-but-no-rush, were to suddenly declare she's doing porn, would I let her? Well, not as her keeper,
....because the porn sex is real - right?
but as her intimate friend and well-wisher, I'd make sure that's what she really really wants, given how completely out of character that would be for her.
You mean you were attracted to someone who wasn't into that kind of thing?
If assured that is truly what she wants, then there's no question of not letting her do it! Would I be uncomfortable? I guess. But when it comes to her life, then while my comfort is certainly an important factor, but her comfort takes precedence, given it's her life. Our life, too, but not ours at the cost of hers.
Ok.
You did not understand my earlier comment, or pretended not to
Which? I re-read your post (mentioning 'meta') and still don't understand it.
----- and evinced no interest in doing that either, even though it was a clear response and clarification to your earlier questions to me. I expect you'll do the same again. I guess this comment, and the thinking here, it's outside of your own range of understanding. That's what I meant by regressive.
I'm not sure we are that different TBH.
By all means don't "let" your partner act intimate scenes in movies and plays, or let her wear short skirts. As long as she's hypothetical, she won't mind.
Ok.
 
The former remains illegal in the UK but Pornhub is rife with such material...but do they care about that?

That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse- so, the exact opposite of your claim. Again.

Based on what I've already posted on the flaccidity of the Online Safety Act, then nothing will happen.
That's not actually what happened. You accepted Darat's take on this act, without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions. Not what you'd call 'sceptical'.
Plus, the Online Safety Act has only just been passed into law. It is far too early to tell whether or not it will have the desired effect. If it doesn't, what leads you to believe that no further leglisative attempts will be made to address the problem?
 
That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse

I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it, just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.
 
I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it, just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.
Very interesting to hear you say this....though you have mentioned it before. You believe it is an imported immigrant problem IIRC?
 
That it is illegal in the UK points to Britan not having a 'rape culture' or not caring about child abuse- so, the exact opposite of your claim. Again.


That's not actually what happened. You accepted Darat's take on this act, without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions. Not what you'd call 'sceptical'.
Plus, the Online Safety Act has only just been passed into law. It is far too early to tell whether or not it will have the desired effect. If it doesn't, what leads you to believe that no further leglisative attempts will be made to address the problem?
To resume we'd have to both avoid making it personal....do you agree?
 
I think the UK does have a rape culture, or at least a rape sub-culture, and doesn't care about child abuse, or at least some abused children. But it's got little to do with porn. If you want to see it,
just look at the rape gang scandal and the efforts to cover it up. So there is a very, very real problem with actual rape culture involving actual rape, but porn isn't the source, and even a complete ban on porn (good luck with that) would do nothing to fix it.
Which cover-up?
 
Would suggest alleged cover up be discussed in appropriate thread under 'Current Events'.
 
Would suggest alleged cover up be discussed in appropriate thread under 'Current Events'.

Why? Doesn't covering up rape count as part of rape culture? Or would that not fall under your Oxford definition?
 
Why? Doesn't covering up rape count as part of rape culture? Or would that not fall under your Oxford definition?
Maybe a moderator can advise?

I just posted a challenge to the idea of a cover up on the other thread...so things might get duplicated....
 
Lol.

?

....because the porn sex is real - right?

You mean you were attracted to someone who wasn't into that kind of thing?

Ok.

Which? I re-read your post (mentioning 'meta') and still don't understand it.

I'm not sure we are that different TBH.

Ok.


facepalm

No, the discomfort with my gf hypothetically electing to do porn ---- while emphasizing that there's no question of not "letting" her do anything she really wants, this not excluded ---- would be because: first, and like I already explained, it would be so completely utterly out of character for her (so that I'd need make sure, for her safety and well-being, that she's not being somehow coerced, or that she isn't somehow unwell); second, because it isn't quite the done sort of thing in circles we frequent (which is a shallow reason, but a reason nevertheless, even if not an overriding one); and third, because real sex with others would be involved if it is hard porn. As far as the last, you again insist on conflating this real sex with the fictive nature of the sex depicted as a narrative that porn presents.

Don't know why I'm bothering saying any of this! If you could so completely disingenuously handwave away my earlier explanation by simply pretending to be dense, then clearly I'm wasting my breath. ...And yes, if you're actually so dense that you actually did not understand what I'd said, then the correct attitude would be to ask, and to learn, given how important this subject seems to be for you: and not to use your ignorance and, yes, your laziness (given Google, if you honestly don't know what "meta" means, in this context), to justify your ignorant views. Porn is fiction. Period.

----------

And certainly we're similar in many, most aspects, why wouldn't we be. But basis what you say here, on this one focused point, which after all is what we're talking about here, I don't see any similarity. I don't think in terms of "letting" my partner, or for that matter anyone else (well, unless they were a child, obviously) do this that and the other thing; and you clearly do.
 
Last edited:
facepalm

No, the discomfort with my gf hypothetically electing to do porn ---- while emphasizing that there's no question of not "letting" her do anything she really wants, this not excluded ---- would be because: first, and like I already explained, it would be so completely utterly out of character for her (so that I'd need make sure, for her safety and well-being, that she's not being somehow coerced, or that she isn't somehow unwell); second, because it isn't quite the done sort of thing in circles we frequent (which is a shallow reason, but a reason nevertheless, even if not an overriding one);
You have misunderstood 'letting'. It doesn't mean she remains with me and toes the line. It means she can do what she wants, but the relationship ends. Your 'Well, not as her keeper,' is actually rather similar.

Your response begs the question - would you have chosen to have a relationship with your 'gf' if it had been made clear to you from the start that her participation in porn was something you would have to accept?
and third, because real sex with others would be involved if it is hard porn. As far as the last, you again insist on conflating this real sex with the fictive nature of the sex depicted as a narrative that porn presents.
It is real sex if it is 'hard porn'...yet there is a 'fictive nature' in the depiction?

I suggest your admission that you would be uncomfortable is evidence that your focus would be on the reality that someone else's whatever would be entering her whatever...which is exactly where most people's focus (including mine) would be. Who gives a fig about the fictive elements?
Don't know why I'm bothering saying any of this! If you could so completely disingenuously handwave away my earlier explanation by simply pretending to be dense, then clearly I'm wasting my breath. ...And yes, if you're actually so dense that you actually did not understand what I'd said, then the correct attitude would be to ask, and to learn, given how important this subject seems to be for you: and not to use your ignorance and, yes, your laziness (given Google, if you honestly don't know what "meta" means, in this context), to justify your ignorant views. Porn is fiction. Period.
I didn't say I didn't understand 'meta' and I am asking what your post meant. What else does 'I don't understand your post' mean?

Porn is fiction, you say - but the sex is real if it is hard porn and you'd be uncomfortable (you 'guess' you would)?
And certainly we're similar in many, most aspects, why wouldn't we be. But basis what you say here, on this one focused point, which after all is what we're talking about here, I don't see any similarity. I don't think in terms of "letting" my partner, or for that matter anyone else (well, unless they were a child, obviously) do this that and the other thing; and you clearly do.
Already addressed above.
 
And? What's wrong with that pov?
That it ignores sexual assault that does not culminate in actual rape, obviously.
I've pointed out the reason before. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.
That porn companies and big tech are showing (exhibiting without taking any proper measures) harmful material to children remains a fact...not a potential.

For those of us who live in the real world that is.
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.
It is not stupid to recognise the criminality of non-rape sexual assault. As posted before:

Is it the end goal of most sex criminals (or potential sex criminals) to grope a breast or shove their hands up a woman's skirt - or are they, in general, after something more? I'd hazard the latter - and to the point of orgasm. Are you aware that sexual assault (but not rape) can result in a 10 years sentence in the UK?

I think what is crystal clear is that your definition of rape culture (or such a definition from others) has not gained any traction - and you are fuming. The Oxford Languages definition reflects the fact that a consensus has formed on why it should include sexual assault.
This Guardian article (which I have posted before) does not use the phrase 'rape culture' - rather it talks about a 'toxic online culture':

“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography,” he added, has “become normalised now in the behaviour of young people. Ultimately, we have tech companies who are making billions of pounds, who are influencing the behaviour of young people – who are putting profit before the impact that this is having on society.” (Ian Critchley, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for child protection)

I put it to you that you are whining about terminology when you should instead just acknowledge the severe harm that has already been done.
 
Last edited:
Question:
Depictions in porn that are suggestive of minors is illegal in the UK - that points to Britain not having a 'rape culture' doesn't it?

Answer: If so - what does that say about America where such depictions are legal? Saturating the net with freely available porn has created a sexual assault and rape culture - with particularly influence on young men and boys.

Question:
Did you accepted Darat's take on this (OSA) act ("the final bill is a crap piece of legislation") without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions?

Answer: No - #1,559.
 
Last edited:
But Poem lacks the methodical patience to be one of those step-by-step censors who start with the worst and never stop. His intent is to immediately ban everything from wedding photographs of the bride and groom kissing to anatomical diagrams of the human reproductive system in medical textbooks to Rodin's most famous sculpture. Then, presumably, once everyone has been reduced to levels of ignorance of human sexuality that would make the pathological prudery of middle class Victorian society look like Caligula's court, a few artists, teachers, and doctors might be permitted to grovel for permission to draw a hand touching a human female breast as long as the need is sufficiently dire and guarantees can be made that it will in no way increase anyone's enjoyment of life.

This is essentially how The Free Speech Coalition persuaded the Supreme Court in the USA (in 2002) to overturn the 1996 CPPA and legalize porn that is suggestive of minors.

Equally Myriad, you lack when it comes drawing a line that should not be crossed and being blind to the clear consequences of legalising porn in the first place. Such attitudes have created a toxic culture that is extremely harmful - especially to the young.
 
That porn companies and big tech are showing (exhibiting without taking any proper measures) harmful material to children remains a fact...not a potential.
Sure. But that's not rape, or even sexual assault. You keep conflating different things. You excuse the conflation of sexual assault and rape on the basis that they are similar enough, and I can actually accept that, but you don't stop there. Porn isn't rape. It isn't sexual assault either. Not even when children get exposed. Not even when it's bad for them.
I think what is crystal clear is that your definition of rape culture (or such a definition from others) has not gained any traction - and you are fuming. The Oxford Languages definition reflects the fact that a consensus has formed on why it should include sexual assault.
A consensus of idiots is still the opinion of idiots. And it's kind of ironic for you to be accusing others of fuming. Argument from authority didn't work, so now you're trying argument ad populum. That won't work any better.

And again, the problem with how YOU have used the term is that you have used in in contexts where there isn't even any sexual assault. Because you keep conflating things (like porn) that aren't even sexual assault.
I put it to you that you are whining about terminology
Look in the mirror, pal.
when you should instead just acknowledge the severe harm that has already been done.
Last time I asked you to back up your claims of harm, you came up empty. You thought you had this great authoritative source in that French report, but it crumbled upon examination. And I've never denied that there's harm, I just don't believe your claims of the causes and extent.
 
You have misunderstood 'letting'. It doesn't mean she remains with me and toes the line. It means she can do what she wants, but the relationship ends. Your 'Well, not as her keeper,' is actually rather similar.

Your response begs the question - would you have chosen to have a relationship with your 'gf' if it had been made clear to you from the start that her participation in porn was something you would have to accept?

If I have misunderstood, then that is because you have miscommunicated. "Letting" someone do something means exactly how I parsed it as. If you meant something else, and used this form to convey that nevertheless, then that's on you.

But that hairsplitting aside: your ultimatum/assumption that people, including you, would simply cut off their partner if they did this that and the other thing, that's again part of "regressive", if a less in-your-face part.

And no, my response does clearly address the matter straight-on. You don't date a middle manager in corporate rungs (which my gf is, as am I), and you don't date a wearer of short skirts, and you don't date a porn star. You date a person. People are multifaceted, unique persons. They are who they are. You fall in love with them, you fall in love with all of them. ...Might that change? Sure, everything is subject to changing, or at least to potentially changing. But it's strictly a case-by-case thing. This, "I don't approve of her wearing short skirts, or of acting in porn, and I'll break off with her if she ever does that" is again regressive, and Incel-ish, thinking --- which usually lands one only with hypothetical partners, or, if one is lucky (and one's partner unlucky) then with doormats bereft of independent spirit.


It is real sex if it is 'hard porn'...yet there is a 'fictive nature' in the depiction?

Yes. As has been explained to you multiple times. And as has been very clearly explained, graphically explained, in that post of mine that you handwaved away claiming densensess, and that you are free to revisit again.


I suggest your admission that you would be uncomfortable is evidence that your focus would be on the reality that someone else's whatever would be entering her whatever...which is exactly where most people's focus (including mine) would be. Who gives a fig about the fictive elements?

You are conflating --- likely deliberately --- two different aspects of the discussion here. What the actor is doing is real, be it simply mouthing romantic dialogue, or simulating romance, or kissing and fondling, or having sex. What the viewer sees is fictive. When your concern is with the actor, then what is real matters. When your concern is with the viewer, then the fictive nature of the depiction matters.


I didn't say I didn't understand 'meta' and I am asking what your post meant. What else does 'I don't understand your post' mean?

You've been dissembling away here in order to stay with your asinine views about porn. And now you're "meta"-dissembling away about our discussion over it!

My post upthread very clearly and very graphically explains why it is porn is fictive. You initially chose to handwave it all away by simply saying "Semantics Chanakya", I remember your words. When I indicated my exasperation, you then kept mum for days, even as you participated in this thread, and indeed with me. Then, after days, weeks maybe, you went back to that post of mine, and responded with imbecilities of like, and I quote from memory, "Meta? You must be a philosopher in your spare time" ; and "Baffled" ; and "I've no clue what this means" ; etc. And, at the end of that, you went back to your bot-like repetition of the inane conflation, again and again, of the real elements of porn, the actor's perspective, with the fictive elements of it, which would be the viewer's perspective. That suggests a dishonest attempt to dismiss my substantive post basis nothing more than your pretend-denseness: not a sincere desire to understand. The right approach to that is to leave you to your disingenuous pretend-denseness, and not to go through the motions endlessly of reasoned, rational discourse.

The point I've made there is clear enough. It's been made multiple times, including here in this post itself. And it's been very clearly made in that post of mine. If your denseness is real not feigned, and if you sincerely wish to penetrate your denseness and shed your asinine views about porn and arrive at the correct understanding of what the issue here is, then go back to my post, try sincerely to read it, with a view to understanding it, not dismissing it at any cost. Then if you still have any doubts, ask me, clearly, and specifically about the parts you did not understand, while acknowledging the parts you did understand. Put in that work, show me you're being sincere, and I'll be happy to help you understand if you still are unable to.


Porn is fiction, you say - but the sex is real if it is hard porn and you'd be uncomfortable (you 'guess' you would)?

Already addressed above.

Stop this asinine mindless bot-like repetition. You're starting to sound like the weirdos that keep repeating mindlessly, no matter what is said to them how many times, that spirits, or is it Jesus, bit them in their penis when they were peeing, and the pain went away when they prayed to its/his daddy.
 
Last edited:
Question:
Depictions in porn that are suggestive of minors is illegal in the UK - that points to Britain not having a 'rape culture' doesn't it?

Answer: If so - what does that say about America where such depictions are legal? Saturating the net with freely available porn has created a sexual assault and rape culture - with particularly influence on young men and boys.

Question:
Did you accepted Darat's take on this (OSA) act ("the final bill is a crap piece of legislation") without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions?

Answer: No - #1,559.
Stop being a dick, and quote me directly. This is just childish and rude.
 
That porn companies and big tech are showing (exhibiting without taking any proper measures) harmful material to children remains a fact...not a potential.
No, that's not a fact: that's you doubling down on your ridiculous hyperbole, and attempting to singlehandedly redefine words in a vain attempt to bolster this overblown guff.
 
Question:
Depictions in porn that are suggestive of minors is illegal in the UK - that points to Britain not having a 'rape culture' doesn't it?

Answer: If so - what does that say about America where such depictions are legal? Saturating the net with freely available porn has created a sexual assault and rape culture - with particularly influence on young men and boys.
Don't move the goalposts, there's a good chap. Focus on the UK, and kindly answer my point.
Question:
Did you accepted Darat's take on this (OSA) act ("the final bill is a crap piece of legislation") without questioning it, because it fits your prior conclusions?

Answer: No - #1,559.
I guess you didn't read to the end of the article you linked to:
Ofcom’s Code and the Online Safety Act are a good start, but more needs to be done. There’s no time to waste. I am eager to work closely with the government to strengthen and build on this foundation and I welcome the commitment from the Prime Minister to look at better protecting children from harmful content.
 
If I have misunderstood, then that is because you have miscommunicated. "Letting" someone do something means exactly how I parsed it as. If you meant something else, and used this form to convey that nevertheless, then that's on you.

But that hairsplitting aside: your ultimatum/assumption that people, including you, would simply cut off their partner if they did this that and the other thing, that's again part of "regressive", if a less in-your-face part.

And no, my response does clearly address the matter straight-on. You don't date a middle manager in corporate rungs (which my gf is, as am I), and you don't date a wearer of short skirts, and you don't date a porn star. You date a person. People are multifaceted, unique persons. They are who they are. You fall in love with them, you fall in love with all of them. ...Might that change? Sure, everything is subject to changing, or at least to potentially changing. But it's strictly a case-by-case thing. This, "I don't approve of her wearing short skirts, or of acting in porn, and I'll break off with her if she ever does that" is again regressive, and Incel-ish, thinking --- which usually lands one only with hypothetical partners, or, if one is lucky (and one's partner unlucky) then with doormats bereft of independent spirit.




Yes. As has been explained to you multiple times. And as has been very clearly explained, graphically explained, in that post of mine that you handwaved away claiming densensess, and that you are free to revisit again.




You are conflating --- likely deliberately --- two different aspects of the discussion here. What the actor is doing is real, be it simply mouthing romantic dialogue, or simulating romance, or kissing and fondling, or having sex. What the viewer sees is fictive. When your concern is with the actor, then what is real matters. When your concern is with the viewer, then the fictive nature of the depiction matters.




You've been dissembling away here in order to stay with your asinine views about porn. And now you're "meta"-dissembling away about our discussion over it!

My post upthread very clearly and very graphically explains why it is porn is fictive. You initially chose to handwave it all away by simply saying "Semantics Chanakya", I remember your words. When I indicated my exasperation, you then kept mum for days, even as you participated in this thread, and indeed with me. Then, after days, weeks maybe, you went back to that post of mine, and responded with imbecilities of like, and I quote from memory, "Meta? You must be a philosopher in your spare time" ; and "Baffled" ; and "I've no clue what this means" ; etc. And, at the end of that, you went back to your bot-like repetition of the inane conflation, again and again, of the real elements of porn, the actor's perspective, with the fictive elements of it, which would be the viewer's perspective. That suggests a dishonest attempt to dismiss my substantive post basis nothing more than your pretend-denseness: not a sincere desire to understand. The right approach to that is to leave you to your disingenuous pretend-denseness, and not to go through the motions endlessly of reasoned, rational discourse.

The point I've made there is clear enough. It's been made multiple times, including here in this post itself. And it's been very clearly made in that post of mine. If your denseness is real not feigned, and if you sincerely wish to penetrate your denseness and shed your asinine views about porn and arrive at the correct understanding of what the issue here is, then go back to my post, try sincerely to read it, with a view to understanding it, not dismissing it at any cost. Then if you still have any doubts, ask me, clearly, and specifically about the parts you did not understand, while acknowledging the parts you did understand. Put in that work, show me you're being sincere, and I'll be happy to help you understand if you still are unable to.




Stop this asinine mindless bot-like repetition. You're starting to sound like the weirdos that keep repeating mindlessly, no matter what is said to them how many times, that spirits, or is it Jesus, bit them in their penis when they were peeing, and the pain went away when they prayed to its/his daddy.
Hey Chanakya - I won't be replying to this.
 
Sure. But that's not rape, or even sexual assault. You keep conflating different things. You excuse the conflation of sexual assault and rape on the basis that they are similar enough, and I can actually accept that, but you don't stop there. Porn isn't rape. It isn't sexual assault either. Not even when children get exposed. Not even when it's bad for them.
That's right - it's not rape, but it is sexual abuse...child sexual abuse. People are and have been convicted for such offenses.

I am not conflating anything. You seem to have forgotten the definition:
a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse

Now you appear to accept that rape comes under the umbrella of sexual assault but reject 'sexual abuse'. Sexual abuse refers to crimes against children and under UK law it includes the following:
- not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
- showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams


In addition - on the stopitnow website it says:
- even having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them has been viewed by authorities as sexual abuse in some circumstances

Your 'sure' (in your post above) was agreeing with:
That porn companies and big tech are showing (exhibiting without taking any proper measures) harmful material to children remains a fact...not a potential.


is agreeing with the FACT that these companies are effectively guilty of sexual abuse.
 
That's right - it's not rape, but it is sexual abuse.
If a kid looks up porn on their own, that's not sexual abuse, not under any rational definition. It may be bad for the kid, but this is EXACTLY the sort of conflation that I'm talking about that you claim you're not doing but you absolutely are. All the time.
I am not conflating anything. You seem to have forgotten the definition:
a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse
The way you use the term, there would be rape culture even if there was no actual rape or sexual assault, and the only "sexual abuse" happening doesn't qualify as sexual abuse under any rational concept of the term.
Now you appear to accept that rape comes under the umbrella of sexual assault but reject 'sexual abuse'.
Yes, because your definition for "sexual abuse" is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ retarded. And I don't really care what the law says, the law is an ass. Putting a 17 year old on a sexual predator watch list for life because they sent a nude selfie to another 17 year old isn't rational, it isn't just, it isn't moral, and yet that's what the law does. You've got some sort of authority kink so I get why you just go along with whatever the law says without thinking, but I don't get why you expect everyone else to as well.
 
If a kid looks up porn on their own, that's not sexual abuse, not under any rational definition. It may be bad for the kid, but this is EXACTLY the sort of conflation that I'm talking about that you claim you're not doing but you absolutely are. All the time.
And you have clearly ignored the emphasis in the law on those that produce and make available such content - those who do not take proper measures.

Children aren't always looking for porn - they often stumble on it. On what? Freely available severely harmful material that society is complicit in making available to them.

You clearly are a porn industry / free speech first advocate and have absolutely no desire to reverse the toxicity you continue to excuse.
The way you use the term, there would be rape culture even if there was no actual rape or sexual assault, and the only "sexual abuse" happening doesn't qualify as sexual abuse under any rational concept of the term.
Words from a porn apologist.
Yes, because your definition for "sexual abuse" is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ retarded. And I don't really care what the law says, the law is an ass. Putting a 17 year old on a sexual predator watch list for life because they sent a nude selfie to another 17 year old isn't rational, it isn't just, it isn't moral, and yet that's what the law does. You've got some sort of authority kink so I get why you just go along with whatever the law says without thinking, but I don't get why you expect everyone else to as well.
Saturate society with enough porn and watch as it becomes so normalized that people like yourself end up saying this................................................................
 
And you have clearly ignored the emphasis in the law on those that produce and make available such content - those who do not take proper measures.
That doesn't make it sexual abuse.
Children aren't always looking for porn - they often stumble on it.
That doesn't make it sexual abuse.
You clearly are a porn industry / free speech first advocate and have absolutely no desire to reverse the toxicity you continue to excuse.
Oh, ◊◊◊◊ off with your constant insults of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm a free speech advocate, yes. I'm not opposed to doing something to reduce child exposure to porn, but I don't trust YOU within a thousand miles of the issue, because public policy shouldn't be determined by puritanical prudery with no sense of proportion and no ability to separate facts and feelings.
 
I'm not opposed to doing something to reduce child exposure to porn,
Put up or shut up.
but I don't trust YOU within a thousand miles of the issue, because public policy shouldn't be determined by puritanical prudery with no sense of proportion and no ability to separate facts and feelings.
You clearly conflate prudery with taking an anti-porn stance. Zero logic.
 
This is essentially how The Free Speech Coalition persuaded the Supreme Court in the USA (in 2002) to overturn the 1996 CPPA and legalize porn that is suggestive of minors.

No, it's not. As you've offered no evidence for this claim of yours, I need not address it beyond calling it a lie. However, I'll further explain that I'm familiar with the arguments brought to bear by both sides in that issue. The basis of my disagreement with you is not "essentially" or even remotely the same as any of them, because the issue in 2002 was not remotely similar to banning all depictions of any sexual nature entirely as you are advocating now.

Equally Myriad, you lack when it comes drawing a line that should not be crossed and being blind to the clear consequences of legalising porn in the first place. Such attitudes have created a toxic culture that is extremely harmful - especially to the young.

You're the one incapable of drawing a line, other than a complete ban of all sexual images in all media and circumstances. The consequences I described for that are completely plausible and reliably predictable based on the wording you've chosen for the measures you're advocating. You've also admitted the same, via your response of "I'd rather have that problem than where we are now..."

Where I would draw the line has not been discussed, and is irrelevant to the point that where you want to draw the line is batcrap crazy.
 
It's kind of surprising that confronted with the problem of children accessing images of a sexual nature, Poem has advocated banning all such images, without ever mentioning the equally straightforward alternative solution of banning all children.

Sure, the human species would be doomed, but I'd rather have that problem than risk an eleven year old seeing a picture of an ancient Greek statue of some demigod with his pee-pee showing.
 
No, it's not. As you've offered no evidence for this claim of yours, I need not address it beyond calling it a lie. However, I'll further explain that I'm familiar with the arguments brought to bear by both sides in that issue. The basis of my disagreement with you is not "essentially" or even remotely the same as any of them, because the issue in 2002 was not remotely similar to banning all depictions of any sexual nature entirely as you are advocating now.

You're the one incapable of drawing a line, other than a complete ban of all sexual images in all media and circumstances. The consequences I described for that are completely plausible and reliably predictable based on the wording you've chosen for the measures you're advocating. You've also admitted the same, via your response of "I'd rather have that problem than where we are now..."
You posted this to the wrong person Myriad.
Where I would draw the line has not been discussed, and is irrelevant to the point that where you want to draw the line is batcrap crazy.
Where the line is drawn remains a problem for you.

The Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition is relevant to the arguments you have been making.
 
Yes, because your definition for "sexual abuse" is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ retarded. And I don't really care what the law says, the law is an ass. Putting a 17 year old on a sexual predator watch list for life because they sent a nude selfie to another 17 year old isn't rational, it isn't just, it isn't moral, and yet that's what the law does. You've got some sort of authority kink so I get why you just go along with whatever the law says without thinking, but I don't get why you expect everyone else to as well.

That doesn't make it sexual abuse.

That doesn't make it sexual abuse.
Just to be absolutely clear, do you recognise the following as sexual abuse?

1. not taking proper measures to prevent a child being exposed to sexual activities by others
2. showing a child images of sexual activity, including photographs, videos or via webcams
3.. having adult porn or sexual toys in the home where a child could come across them
 
Back
Top Bottom