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

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.

If the real problem is the demand, reduce the demand. If you can figure out how to do that in a way that doesn't create worse problems.

For instance, a while back I pointed out that depopulating the Earth would definitely reduce the demand. If reducing the demand were your only priority, you would embrace that as a solution. But I gather, or at least I hope, that you don't.

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

Freedom is what someone else does that you don't like but you're not allowed to stop them.

Once you declare your own dislike should override the social systems by which freedoms are allocated and balanced, you've come out against not only that particular freedom, but all freedom everywhere. Your employer doesn't like that they have to pay you. The cops don't like that they can't search your home for evidence of illegal activity any time they feel like it. Your neighbors don't like having a person of your race or religion living there. The school board doesn't like that kids aren't forbidden by law to stay up late on school nights. Your doctor doesn't like that you're allowed to smoke or eat so much salty junk food. All of them can list enormous social harms resulting from those freedoms. Think of all the illegal drugs and missing children the police could find if they could just search whatever they wanted! Think of all the lives cut short that could have been saved if unhealthy diets were banned! Think of how much more goods and services would be affordable for everyone (except the slaves) if slavery were allowed! Think of all the immortal souls that could be saved from eternal damnation if practicing the right religion were mandatory!

If you want to avoid all the very, very bad outcomes of freedom, move to a Taliban country or North Korea. Though ironically, I don't think you'll find any less sexual exploitation of teenagers in those places.
 
What purpose do you imagine that is?
I have no doubt that the intentions of the amendment were good - the freedom to speak freely and practise religion etc. Presumably the porn harms you have touched on would include the free speech outcome of Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition?
 
And does it not serve that purpose?
You have rejected such arguments:
Yet again more appeals to authority, more declarations without data. Why do you think that's going to change anyone's mind?
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.
When a country such as the USA has a legal system that interprets free speech such that it descends into the kind of depravity that barely legal represents, then it's time to call it out. However, this isn't a rant against the US per se - if it wasn't them it would be someone else. With pretty much the entirety of the rest of the world avidly consuming such content (despite notional proscriptive laws), then we should call that out too.

Why are you ignoring a number of my posts?
 
Last edited:
If the real problem is the demand, reduce the demand. If you can figure out how to do that in a way that doesn't create worse problems.

For instance, a while back I pointed out that depopulating the Earth would definitely reduce the demand. If reducing the demand were your only priority, you would embrace that as a solution. But I gather, or at least I hope, that you don't.
Desensitization fuels the demand.
Freedom is what someone else does that you don't like but you're not allowed to stop them.

Once you declare your own dislike should override the social systems by which freedoms are allocated and balanced, you've come out against not only that particular freedom, but all freedom everywhere. Your employer doesn't like that they have to pay you. The cops don't like that they can't search your home for evidence of illegal activity any time they feel like it. Your neighbors don't like having a person of your race or religion living there. The school board doesn't like that kids aren't forbidden by law to stay up late on school nights. Your doctor doesn't like that you're allowed to smoke or eat so much salty junk food. All of them can list enormous social harms resulting from those freedoms. Think of all the illegal drugs and missing children the police could find if they could just search whatever they wanted! Think of all the lives cut short that could have been saved if unhealthy diets were banned! Think of how much more goods and services would be affordable for everyone (except the slaves) if slavery were allowed! Think of all the immortal souls that could be saved from eternal damnation if practicing the right religion were mandatory!

If you want to avoid all the very, very bad outcomes of freedom, move to a Taliban country or North Korea. Though ironically, I don't think you'll find any less sexual exploitation of teenagers in those places.
Can you just clarify - are you an advocate for barely legal porn as described in the documentary I linked to?

There is certainly a serious issue with unhealthy diets with 1 in 11 people world-wide diabetic - so something needs to change there for sure. The laissez-faire attitude to junk food needs to change. Ultimately there is only so much money available for health-care.

You other examples just seem silly.
 
Desensitization fuels the demand.

Can you just clarify - are you an advocate for
barely legal porn as described in the documentary I linked to?

There is certainly a serious issue with unhealthy diets with 1 in 11 people world-wide diabetic - so something needs to change there for sure. The laissez-faire attitude to junk food needs to change. Ultimately there is only so much money available for health-care.

You other examples just seem silly.
"barely legal" is an unnecessary way to say "legal".
 
You have rejected such arguments:
Uh, no. I'm not. You told me a purpose for the 1st amendment, one which did not include limiting access to pornography. I ask you, not some authority, if it doesn't serve that purpose. No authority is involved, only a recognition of what its purpose is.
Why are you ignoring a number of my posts?
Because they are eminently ignorable. I have a life outside this forum, you know.
 
Uh, no. I'm not. You told me a purpose for the 1st amendment, one which did not include limiting access to pornography. I ask you, not some authority, if it doesn't serve that purpose. No authority is involved, only a recognition of what its purpose is.

Because they are eminently ignorable. I have a life outside this forum, you know.
What is eminently obvious is that you and others here are very reluctant to properly engage with some very uncomfortable truths about the porn industry.
 
What is eminently obvious is that you and others here are very reluctant to properly engage with some very uncomfortable truths about the porn industry.
Last time I bothered to fact check your "truths" they crumbled upon examination.
 
Desensitization fuels the demand.

Does it? How do you know this?

Can you just clarify - are you an advocate for barely legal porn as described in the documentary I linked to?

What I'm clarifying is that I'm opposed to tampering with or overriding the established processes that weigh civil interests against our Constitutional rights, regardless of the specific issue in question.

Now that you've acknowledge such intent, "this issue that's really really personally important to me is something we should throw the Bill of Rights into the dumpster for," whatever that issue is, whether it's drugs or health or blasphemy or porn or boys not getting haircuts, becomes irrelevant. If you can't abide by Supreme Court rulings on that topic, you're welcome to file your own case to try to get a new ruling, if of course you can prove locus standi. But, judging from the quality of the arguments and evidence you've offered in this thread, you cannot.
 
Does it? How do you know this?

What I'm clarifying is that I'm opposed to tampering with or overriding the established processes that weigh civil interests against our Constitutional rights, regardless of the specific issue in question.

Now that you've acknowledge such intent, "this issue that's really really personally important to me is something we should throw the Bill of Rights into the dumpster for," whatever that issue is, whether it's drugs or health or blasphemy or porn or boys not getting haircuts, becomes irrelevant. If you can't abide by Supreme Court rulings on that topic, you're welcome to file your own case to try to get a new ruling, if of course you can prove locus standi. But, judging from the quality of the arguments and evidence you've offered in this thread, you cannot.
You didn't answer my question.
 
You didn't answer my question.

The question I didn't answer is a clumsy attempt to personalize the argument, which is against the rules of this forum.

Do you acknowledge that your proposed law banning all pornography is unconstitutional in the U.S.?
 
I think you missed my point so I am not following yours.
You used the phrase 'barely legal' as if it had some relevance, without explanation. "Barely legal" porn is legal porn; the 'barely' is there for titillation. On what grounds do you want to treat it differently from any other legal porn?
 
You used the phrase 'barely legal' as if it had some relevance, without explanation. "Barely legal" porn is legal porn; the 'barely' is there for titillation. On what grounds do you want to treat it differently from any other legal porn?
The porn I referred to is illegal in many countries. The UK (on DVD and Blu-ray at least) and Canada would be examples.

I'm still not sure we are on the same wavelength.
 
Last edited:
The porn I referred to is illegal in many countries. The UK (on DVD and Blu-ray at least) and Canada would be examples.

I'm still not sure we are on the same wavelength.
Different countries draw the line between legal and illegal in different places. That's not news.
 
Obviously false and it's pointless continuing.

No, it's obviously true and everyone reading this thread can see that. You ask if I'm "an advocate for" some particular thing that's legal but distasteful for many people. Your ingenious never-tried-before plan works like this:

If I answer yes, depict that answer as my actively approving the distasteful thing in question. Proceed to then personally impugn my morals on that basis, which also allows you to dismiss my position as motivated by self-interest.

If I answer no, depict that answer as my agreement that the thing should be illegal. Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.

When explained that what I advocate is the legal principle that preserving civil rights sometimes requires some distasteful things to remain legally permissible, pretend not to understand and then repeat the question.
 
No, it's obviously true and everyone reading this thread can see that. You ask if I'm "an advocate for" some particular thing that's legal but distasteful for many people. Your ingenious never-tried-before plan works like this:

If I answer yes, depict that answer as my actively approving the distasteful thing in question. Proceed to then personally impugn my morals on that basis, which also allows you to dismiss my position as motivated by self-interest.

If I answer no, depict that answer as my agreement that the thing should be illegal. Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.

When explained that what I advocate is the legal principle that preserving civil rights sometimes requires some distasteful things to remain legally permissible, pretend not to understand and then repeat the question.
Framing this as if it is somehow wrong of me to ask for a reaction is just wrong. Those comfortable with the porn status quo should be comfortable with defending where it's at.

Maybe this thread isn't for you.
 
Framing this as if it is somehow wrong of me to ask for a reaction is just wrong. Those comfortable with the porn status quo should be comfortable with defending where it's at.

Maybe this thread isn't for you.

Advocating laws that are blatantly unconstitutional is just wrong, regardless of comfort. As long as you keep doing so in this thread I'll keep objecting in this thread.
 
Advocating laws that are blatantly unconstitutional is just wrong, regardless of comfort.
Incorrect. The Miller Test only needs a little tweaking and the whole US porn edifice could crumble. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Your faith in the Supreme Court is extraordinary.
Proceed to then infer my support for your entire extremist position of banning all sexual depictions including sex education materials, kissing in movies and photographs, most classical sculpture, and anatomy textbooks.
Strawman.
.
 
Poem - do you think Michelangelo’s David should once again wear his fig leaf?
Do you think it right that a poster should respond to posts they have ignored before they expect the poster of such posts to respond to them?
 
Last edited:
In the complete absence of any contest or explanation, I'm going to assume that this solitary link is meant as a response to my post. That particular part of our discussion is dangerously close to bickering and, as such, I will not be continuing to press the point. Your repeated attempts to bait me into a probable transgression of the MA are not going to work.
Now, can we see this law you keep going on about?
 
Poem, it looks like you made a mistake, as that post does not contain information about any UK law but rather is part of a slap fight about whether a particular term is a favorite of religious evolution deniers.
 
Poem, it looks like you made a mistake, as that post does not contain information about any UK law but rather is part of a slap fight about whether a particular term is a favorite of religious evolution deniers.
It wasn't a mistake. The poster knows what it's about.

Would you agree that, rather than worrying about whether we should allow Michelangelo's David or not (I'd allow it), what actually desperately needs addressing is the fact that Pornhub et al are exposing their content to children and the issue of #1,783.

Regarding the UK law - I cited CEOP which is part of the NCA. I have repeatedly spoke of the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

Barnardo's January 2020:
Since the decision not to enact Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act in October 2019, Barnardo’s have found that it is likely that children will have accessed pornographic content 54 million times at a minimum.

Since Barnardo's is a UK children's charity then that figure refers purely to the UK.
 
To the best of a quick search, there are something like 13 million people under the age of 16 living in the UK. Someone is doing a lot of work to get 54 million accesses in four months. If the kids like it THAT much they're definitely gonna be setting up VPNs if the banhammer comes down.
 

Back
Top Bottom