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

[Poem]

What's your point? Are you trying to accuse me of hypocrisy? It won't work. I'm not willing to do proximity wingsuit flying either, but I'm willing to watch other people do it.

Your analogy is a false one - that you will only have unobserved sex does not correlate with wingsuiting which you will not do either way. I was asking (and yes it's come up before) - what is it about having sex that you don't want observed? You were pretty adamant that such is not for you.

No. I'm saying there's a clear distinction between community dinner theater and Broadway.

I'm not following you.

God damn, but you're getting dishonest in your arguments.

Because?

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.

What though? You don't even accept what is described as child sexual abuse under law. All I am seeing is someone who puts freedom above responsibility...period.

It's staring you and everyone else here in the face - we won't prevent children from accessing this stuff unless we pull back on adult freedoms. It's not rocket science.

 

[Poem]

Yes, we know you have no answer to our refutations of your position.

You are advocating for a return to the kind os sexual morality that lead to rampant child sex abuse and the demonisation of the victims of said abuse. Just because you are unwilling to accept reality, it doesn't then follow that we have to accept or pander to your delusions.

Vague and unsubstantiated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your analogy is a false one

Not at all. And it's not really an analogy, it's a comparison. The principle translates perfectly: being willing to watch something is entirely different than being willing to do that thing. They need not correlate.

I'm not following you.

No ◊◊◊◊.

What though? You don't even accept what is described as child sexual abuse under law.

Because it's not child abuse. I've already given you scenarios, and so have others, where it would clearly be absurd to criminalize what happens even though it fits your legal definition. Your excuse is that the law won't be enforced in those cases, but you can't have it both ways. If the law shouldn't be enforced in those cases, then the law isn't a good definition of what constitutes sexual abuse, unless you're now saying that some sexual abuse is OK. So which is it? Should sex education material be criminalized? Should parents who forget to lock their door before they have sex be thrown in jail? Or is the law, as you have described, not actually an adequate definition of child sexual abuse?

All I am seeing is someone who puts freedom above responsibility...period.

Uh, no. You want to talk responsibility? Then why have you said nothing about parents? You want to pawn off the parent's responsibility onto the state. I want responsibility placed on the parents. Where it belongs.

 

[Poem]

Not at all. And it's not really an analogy, it's a comparison. The principle translates perfectly: being willing to watch something is entirely different than being willing to do that thing. They need not correlate.

No ◊◊◊◊.

Because it's not child abuse. I've already given you scenarios, and so have others, where it would clearly be absurd to criminalize what happens even though it fits your legal definition. Your excuse is that the law won't be enforced in those cases, but you can't have it both ways. If the law shouldn't be enforced in those cases, then the law isn't a good definition of what constitutes sexual abuse, unless you're now saying that some sexual abuse is OK. So which is it? Should sex education material be criminalized? Should parents who forget to lock their door before they have sex be thrown in jail? Or is the law, as you have described, not actually an adequate definition of child sexual abuse?

Uh, no. You want to talk responsibility? Then why have you said nothing about parents? You want to pawn off the parent's responsibility onto the state. I want responsibility placed on the parents. Where it belongs.

Whilst I digest this - I'll ask again: what is it about having sex that you don't want observed?

 

[Ziggurat]

Whilst I digest this - I'll ask again: what is it about having sex that you don't want observed?

Same thing I don't like about dancing in public: I'm self-conscious.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What though? You don't even accept what is described as child sexual abuse under law.

You have yet to show that this is, in fact, the law. I posted the relevant UK legislation, and it is nothing like what you claim it to be. Despite my repeated requests, you have dodged away from substantiating your own claim.
Now, how what was your charming phrase again? Oh, yes- "put up or shut up".

 

[Poem]

Not at all. And it's not really an analogy, it's a comparison. The principle translates perfectly: being willing to watch something is entirely different than being willing to do that thing. They need not correlate.

Since I am asking you about something that you would only actually do in private then it is relevant and does make your comparison / analogy false.

No ◊◊◊◊.

Perhaps you don't know yourself.

Because it's not child abuse. I've already given you scenarios, and so have others, where it would clearly be absurd to criminalize what happens even though it fits your legal definition. Your excuse is that the law won't be enforced in those cases, but you can't have it both ways. If the law shouldn't be enforced in those cases, then the law isn't a good definition of what constitutes sexual abuse, unless you're now saying that some sexual abuse is OK. So which is it? Should sex education material be criminalized? Should parents who forget to lock their door before they have sex be thrown in jail? Or is the law, as you have described, not actually an adequate definition of child sexual abuse?

I accept that there are issues with the law as you highlight. No we should not criminalize sex education - but nor should we be forced to teach youngsters what society has recklessly normalized. What are we saying here - that porn is a great example of societal progress?

I suspect that many politicians are mindful of the fact that to focus on such arguments from the perspective that you have would inevitably lead to a lowering of the age of consent / porn access. I have said it before but I believe that is coming. Ashcroft v The Free Speech Coalition will probably be the thin end of the wedge.

No - such parents shouldn't be thrown in jail.

Uh, no. You want to talk responsibility? Then why have you said nothing about parents? You want to pawn off the parent's responsibility onto the state. I want responsibility placed on the parents. Where it belongs.

Show me evidence that parents can ensure their children can be kept safe.

The Oxford Internet Institute (research and teaching department of the University of Oxford): Parental controls ineffective at preventing teens from seeing pornography, new research finds

I've quoted Rachel De Souza, Daniel Kebede and others who say that we need to legislate - that 'parents cannot stop the tide of this stuff'.

Same thing I don't like about dancing in public: I'm self-conscious.

But you'd be tempted if the price was right? Which is what is happening is it not?

I think you won't admit that you think there is a moral issue with porn. You have said it is harmful and you have talked about family breakdown....maybe you could explain your position a little more so that I don't misunderstand you?

 

[Poem]

Stronger age checks to come into force for online pornography sites in UK​

(The Guardian, 16 January 2025)

 

[Ziggurat]

Since I am asking you about something that you would only actually do in private then it is relevant and does make your comparison / analogy false.

You're not making any sense. And don't bother trying to explain yourself, this isn't sufficiently important.

I accept that there are issues with the law as you highlight.

You don't get it. You used the law as your definition. But if there's a problem with the law, then there's a problem with your definition.

What are we saying here - that porn is a great example of societal progress?

Can you go even one post without straw manning people? Nobody said anything of the sort.

I suspect that many politicians are mindful of the fact that to focus on such arguments from the perspective that you have would inevitably lead to a lowering of the age of consent / porn access.

There's nothing inevitable about it. One of the possible responses to this dichotomy is to raise the age of consent.

Show me evidence that parents can ensure their children can be kept safe.

Show me evidence that the state can ensure that people's children can be kept safe.

The Oxford Internet Institute (research and teaching department of the University of Oxford): Parental controls ineffective at preventing teens from seeing pornography, new research finds

Oh, look at that: filters don't work. Haven't I been saying that for a while? And for the same reason, government crackdown won't work either.

I will also note that this study doesn't indicate how children are accessing this material, what this material is really like (the characterization is really vague, and respondents might have very different ideas about what was being asked), what kept the kids who weren't seeing porn from seeing porn. Nor does it provide any indication that the children were suffering any harm from their exposure.

I've quoted Rachel De Souza, Daniel Kebede and others who say that we need to legislate - that 'parents cannot stop the tide of this stuff'.

Argument from authority again. Why are you trying this when you know it won't work? I don't care what these people say. Their opinions mean nothing to me.

But you'd be tempted if the price was right? Which is what is happening is it not?

Oh, ◊◊◊◊ off with this already.

I think you won't admit that you think there is a moral issue with porn.

Uh, no. Seriously, stop with the straw men. Of course there are moral issues with porn. I've said explicitly that I think porn can do harm. That doesn't mean that government solutions are therefore automatically appropriate. Not all moral questions need a legislative answer.

You have said it is harmful and you have talked about family breakdown....

So why the ◊◊◊◊ would you think I wouldn't admit that there are moral issues with porn if I think it does harm? Do you even listen to yourself? Can you ever hold an argument without trying to demonize someone for disagreeing with you? Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ is this getting old.

maybe you could explain your position a little more so that I don't misunderstand you?

Maybe you could listen for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ change and not just jump to conclusions that the people who disagree with you are degenerate perverts.

 

[Poem]

You don't get it. You used the law as your definition. But if there's a problem with the law, then there's a problem with your definition.

You have suggested what the law should be?

Can you go even one post without straw manning people? Nobody said anything of the sort.

My:
What are we saying here - that porn is a great example of societal progress?
did not suggest you think so...but your stance regarding porn remains unclear.

Society values porn to the tune of about $100 billion dollars a year - and does so whilst knowing that it's children are watching.

There's nothing inevitable about it. One of the possible responses to this dichotomy is to raise the age of consent.

Great - but that's swimming against the stream.

Show me evidence that the state can ensure that people's children can be kept safe.

I spoke about parental controls as one such way a parent could be 'responsible'. You are the one saying, " I want responsibility placed on the parents. Where it belongs," but you have provided nothing that would credibly work.

I'll ask again: Show me evidence that parents can ensure their children can be kept safe.

Oh, look at that: filters don't work. Haven't I been saying that for a while? And for the same reason, government crackdown won't work either.

Right. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

I will also note that this study doesn't indicate how children are accessing this material, what this material is really like (the characterization is really vague, and respondents might have very different ideas about what was being asked), what kept the kids who weren't seeing porn from seeing porn. Nor does it provide any indication that the children were suffering any harm from their exposure.

You keep suggesting there is no evidence of harm whilst those that work in the field are categorically saying otherwise. Provide evidence that it isn't or don't be surprised that your stance looks very awkward.

Argument from authority again. Why are you trying this when you know it won't work? I don't care what these people say. Their opinions mean nothing to me.

Their opinion helps the UK government in attempting to sort this problem out. Come up with solid evidence that they are way off and you'll be taken seriously.

Oh, ◊◊◊◊ off with this already.

No - I'm going to do that. I was obviously making a point about the reality of porn.

Uh, no. Seriously, stop with the straw men. Of course there are moral issues with porn. I've said explicitly that I think porn can do harm. That doesn't mean that government solutions are therefore automatically appropriate. Not all moral questions need a legislative answer.

The context was not about government legislation but about why you would not have sex whilst being observed. I was suggesting that it was more than just because you were self-conscious.

So why the ◊◊◊◊

You seriously need to stop this.

would you think I wouldn't admit that there are moral issues with porn if I think it does harm? Do you even listen to yourself? Can you ever hold an argument without trying to demonize someone for disagreeing with you? Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ is this getting old.

See above....no mention that morality might play a part in your unwillingness to be observed having sex.

Maybe you could listen for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ change and not just jump to conclusions that the people who disagree with you are degenerate perverts.

You remain unwilling to explain your position.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have suggested what the law should be?

Do I have an obligation to?

No, I do not.

My:
What are we saying here - that porn is a great example of societal progress?
did not suggest you think so

Yes it does. That's exactly what your statement suggests.

You keep suggesting that other people are terrible, and then acting offended if people don't like you suggesting that they're terrible. Cut the crap already.

I spoke about parental controls as one such way a parent could be 'responsible'. You are the one saying, " I want responsibility placed on the parents. Where it belongs," but you have provided nothing that would credibly work.

Hey, you know what's really effective at preventing kids from watching porn on their phones?

Not giving them phones.

I'll ask again: Show me evidence that parents can ensure their children can be kept safe.

And I'll ask again: show me evidence that the state can ensure children are kept safe.

You keep suggesting there is no evidence of harm

No. I keep pointing out that YOU have provided no evidence of harm. This distinction may appear subtle to you, but it's actually important.

whilst those that work in the field are categorically saying otherwise.

People with a vested interest in claiming harm keep claiming harm. Color me surprised.

Provide evidence that it isn't or don't be surprised that your stance looks very awkward.

Provide evidence that it is or don't be surprised that your stance looks very awkward.

The thing is, you're making the positive claim, not me. The burden of proof is on you, not me. And you're a hypocrite.

Their opinion helps the UK government in attempting to sort this problem out.

That's not persuasive.

Come up with solid evidence that they are way off and you'll be taken seriously.

Come up with solid evidence that they aren't and you'll be taken seriously. Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me, because you're making the positive claim, not me.

You seriously need to stop this.

What, swearing? Nope. I have no reason not to.

And I'm not going to explain my full position on porn, because my full position isn't actually relevant to public policy, I'm not trying to persuade you to agree with it, and you're a fundamentally dishonest debater so you would just misrepresent it anyways, as you have already done multiple times. No worthwhile purpose would be served.

 

[Poem]

Do I have an obligation to?

No, I do not.

Yes it does. That's exactly what your statement suggests.

You keep suggesting that other people are terrible, and then acting offended if people don't like you suggesting that they're terrible. Cut the crap already.

Hey, you know what's really effective at preventing kids from watching porn on their phones?

Not giving them phones.

And I'll ask again: show me evidence that the state can ensure children are kept safe.

No. I keep pointing out that YOU have provided no evidence of harm. This distinction may appear subtle to you, but it's actually important.

People with a vested interest in claiming harm keep claiming harm. Color me surprised.

Provide evidence that it is or don't be surprised that your stance looks very awkward.

The thing is, you're making the positive claim, not me. The burden of proof is on you, not me. And you're a hypocrite.

That's not persuasive.

Come up with solid evidence that they aren't and you'll be taken seriously. Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me, because you're making the positive claim, not me.

What, swearing? Nope. I have no reason not to.

And I'm not going to explain my full position on porn, because my full position isn't actually relevant to public policy, I'm not trying to persuade you to agree with it, and you're a fundamentally dishonest debater so you would just misrepresent it anyways, as you have already done multiple times. No worthwhile purpose would be served.

Should parents shield their children from the content of Pornhub et al? If so, why?

 

[theprestige]

Should parents shield their children from the content of Pornhub et al? If so, why?

Jesus Christ. Just make your case already. How hard can it be? I can already do most of the work for you:

1. Parents should shield their children from the content of Pornhub because [POEM'S REASONS].
2. Parents are unable to do so because of government and commercial interests in unfettered access to porn ^{[citation needed]}.
3. Therefore, porn should be banned and Pornhub shut down.

See? There's only a few small things for you to fill in. You could do this right now, in your very next post.

 

[Poem]

People with a vested interest in claiming harm keep claiming harm. Color me surprised.

People with vested interests in keeping porn easily available...unsurprisingly, keep prioritising that easy availability.

 

[Ziggurat]

People with vested interests in keeping porn easily available...unsurprisingly, keep prioritising that easy availability.

Absolutely. But I'm not quoting them. I'm not appealing to their authority or expertise.

 

[Poem]

Absolutely. But I'm not quoting them. I'm not appealing to their authority or expertise.

With the level of scepticism you have displayed, I am still wondering how you come to the conclusion that porn is harmful...but you won't talk about it.

Should parents shield their children from the content of Pornhub et al? If so, why?

 

[Ziggurat]

With the level of scepticism you have displayed, I am still wondering how you come to the conclusion that porn is harmful...but you won't talk about it.

I have talked about it. But there's not really more to say. The harm that I think porn does, you also think it does, and so why debate that? It serves no legitimate purpose.

But I don't think you're asking for some legitimate purpose. I think you're asking because you want to play gotcha games, and find more ways to personally insult me. No thanks, I'll pass.

 

[Poem]

I have talked about it. But there's not really more to say. The harm that I think porn does, you also think it does, and so why debate that? It serves no legitimate purpose.

The harm that you think porn does, I also think it does? Really? You have made vague references to harm and family breakdown.

But I don't think you're asking for some legitimate purpose. I think you're asking because you want to play gotcha games, and find more ways to personally insult me. No thanks, I'll pass.

You have decided that without substantiating it.

Looks like we are done then. You're not going to answer that other question (should parents shield their children from the content of Pornhub et al? If so, why?)?

 

[Poem]

Jesus Christ. Just make your case already. How hard can it be? I can already do most of the work for you:

1. Parents should shield their children from the content of Pornhub because [POEM'S REASONS].
2. Parents are unable to do so because of government and commercial interests in unfettered access to porn ^{[citation needed]}.
3. Therefore, porn should be banned and Pornhub shut down.

See? There's only a few small things for you to fill in. You could do this right now, in your very next post.

See previous posts.

Do you want me to repost references to your non-replies?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And STILL Poem has not posted a link to the UK legal definition of child abuse that he keeps relying on.
I wonder why that might be?

 

[Poem]

#1,734

 

[theprestige]

See previous posts.

Do you want me to repost references to your non-replies?

Again you misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you; you're trying to convince me.

 

[Poem]

CONTENT WARNING: This film features content that viewers may find disturbing, including images and themes of simulated sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault. Nudity has been blurred. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.​

Beyond Fantasy - Ep 1: "Barely Legal" | PORN INDUSTRY DOCUMENTARY​

The film is made by Magic Lantern Pictures with interviews by Benjamin Nolot who is an American filmmaker and the CEO and founder of Exodus Cry, a Christian social activist group focused on the issue of human trafficking, which has expressed opposition to the "entire global sex industry, including prostitution, pornography, and stripping".

 

[theprestige]

A Christian activist takes it upon himself to collect and edit images of (simulated) sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault.

How much you want to bet he's kept un-blurred copies for his personal archives?

 

[Lithrael]

Come for the stopping sex trafficking, stay for the abolishing sex work and pornography

 

[porch]

delete

 

[TragicMonkey]

delete

The whole thread? Probably the wisest course.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

CONTENT WARNING: This film features content that viewers may find disturbing, including images and themes of simulated sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault. Nudity has been blurred. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.​

Beyond Fantasy - Ep 1: "Barely Legal" | PORN INDUSTRY DOCUMENTARY​

The film is made by Magic Lantern Pictures with interviews by Benjamin Nolot who is an American filmmaker and the CEO and founder of Exodus Cry, a Christian social activist group focused on the issue of human trafficking, which has expressed opposition to the "entire global sex industry, including prostitution, pornography, and stripping".

"I'm not a Christian, but here's a film from a Christian group that I fully endorse, and want you all to watch!"
Poem: what was the point of linking to this film? Are you advocating porn?

 

[Poem]

It's noteworthy that nobody is engaging with the substance of the film.

 

[Poem]

Assuming the rise in rapes in the UK is real and not an artifact of reporting changes, do you have evidence that porn is a significant contributor? Because I can think of other possible factors. For example, with the whole grooming gangs scandal, I don't recall hearing anything about porn being a factor. But I do recall another politically inconvenient factor at play: immigrants from Muslim countries.

In other words, the UK seems to have imported actual rape culture from countries where rape culture means actual rape.

Remains undemonstrated.

 

[Poem]

The film states:
The fictional depiction of minors in pornography is illegal in most countries

And yet, as noted a number of times previously, such depictions are rife on mainstream porn sites (Barnardos). It's clear that society is normalizing and trivializing what is illegal in most countries. That's rape culture.

The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is not fit for purpose.

Leaving aside the issue of a rather expansive definition of sexualizing children (putting a stuffed animal in the hands of a clearly adult porn actress doesn't actually make them look like a child), this conclusion is not in any way demonstrated. It looks to me much akin to the whole "video games cause violence" claims that ambulance-chasing lawyers pushed for a quick buck but which fell apart upon scrutiny.

You got this wrong.

 

[Poem]

Perhaps approved porn for kids aged 13-16?

You are standing by this?

just curious:
where are teenagers supposed to get their visual masturbation aid from if not the Internet?

Maybe schools should hand out USB sticks with racy (but not depraved) Erotica?

You are standing by this?

 

[Poem]

I'm not a Christian, but here's a film from a Christian group that I fully endorse, and want you all to watch!"
Poem: what was the point of linking to this film? Are you advocating porn?

This poster continues to struggle to make a substantive and relevant point.
#1,734

 

[Poem]

A Christian activist takes it upon himself to collect and edit images of (simulated) sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault.

How much you want to bet he's kept un-blurred copies for his personal archives?

An ad hominem.

 

[Poem]

How many are complicit in propagating this? Nina Hartley admits she “needed the work that week”

 

[Myriad]

The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is not fit for purpose.

Then the solution is simple. Conquer the U.S., declare yourself Führer, and abolish the First Amendment. Then you can enact whatever tyrannical censorship laws your authoritarian heart desires.

For my part, I sincerely hope anyone attempting such would be promptly and efficiently killed by our national defense forces.

 

[Poem]

Then the solution is simple. Conquer the U.S., declare yourself Führer, and abolish the First Amendment. Then you can enact whatever tyrannical censorship laws your authoritarian heart desires.

For my part, I sincerely hope anyone attempting such would be promptly and efficiently killed by our national defense forces.

The only conquering and tyranny that is actually going on is porn and the type of material featured in the Nolot film - available in countries that ban it.

If you want to make a serious point about the documentary then go ahead.

 

[Myriad]

The only conquering and tyranny that is actually going on is porn and the type of material featured in the Nolot film - available in countries that ban it.

If you want to make a serious point about the documentary then go ahead.

Why talk about a documentary? I'm talking about your expressed desire to overrule or replace or disregard the First Amendment. That's tyranny, and it's a point that you yourself have chosen to raise, and that's much more important to me as a U.S. citizen than my opinion about some documentary or your opinion about law enforcement effectiveness in other countries.

 

[Poem]

Why talk about a documentary? I'm talking about your expressed desire to overrule or replace or disregard the First Amendment. That's tyranny, and it's a point that you yourself have chosen to raise, and that's much more important to me as a U.S. citizen than my opinion about some documentary or your opinion about law enforcement effectiveness in other countries.

It was the Supreme Court that upheld a lower court's decision that the CPPA violated free speech - leading to the sort of porn featured in the documentary. But, of course, the real problem is world-wide societal demand.

You appear to be drunk on protecting such free speech; even when it leads to very, very bad outcomes.

 

[Chanakya]

whoops, deleted