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

[dann]

Some people even enjoy being tied up or restrained, which is slightly deeper in the kink pool (though still somewhat at the shallow end), but here's the thing about kink: as long as it is done safely and with full informed consent, it too is perfectly harmless.

Sexual choking is more properly called breath play, and it can be incredibly dangerous.

Yeah, those perfectly harmless incredibly dangerous kinks done safely with informed consent.
Because 'vanilla' sex where two people are simply in love and pleasure each other without any pretense or roleplaying is too bland, I assume.

 

[Darat]

That is fairly obvious. What I'd like to know is what consenting but not fully consenting is supposed to mean.
To be explicit about what I'm getting at: Consent can be coerced.
This is what Google says about "coerced consent":


Porn is full of coerced consent!
Caught shoplifters, threats to reveal secrets, being in debt or similar circumstances, in need a place to stay, in need of a ride, and also non-consent, e.g. having sex with somebody other than the person you think you're having sex with.

Nope you didn't understand what I said.

You are getting hung up over a common way English speakers add emphasis - there is no difference between "consenting" and the phrase Foster Zygote used "fully consenting" in that post. The "fully" is not being used as an adverb to change the meaning of "consenting".

So in that post "fully consenting" and "consenting" mean exactly the same thing i.e. "consenting".


ETA: the term "coerced consent" is literally an oxymoron (and I am using the word "literally" in its original meaning not to add emphasis).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nope you didn't understand what I said.

You are getting hung up over a common way English speakers add emphasis - there is no difference between "consenting" and the phrase Foster Zygote used "fully consenting" in that post. The "fully" is not being used as an adverb to change the meaning of "consenting".

So in that post "fully consenting" and "consenting" mean exactly the same thing i.e. "consenting".


ETA: the term "coerced consent" is literally an oxymoron (and I am using the word "literally" in its original meaning not to add emphasis).

Yes, thank you.

I wasn't writing a legal definition. Any sort of extortion or coercion doesn't qualify as consent. If a young man in college approaches a young woman at the same school, whom he knew in high school, and says, "give me oral sex or I'll tell your overtly racist parents that your boyfriend is black", then he's not looking for consent, or even "partial consent".

I should also clarify, based on previous experience with this argument, that consent includes people who may only be witnessing the sex. I had someone respond to my two rules by claiming that it would allow people to just start banging in public. But even if someone is just seeing it, they're being involved. And they can't be involved against their will without violating the first rule, and if they're not of legal age, it's a violation of the second rule. So people can't just start having sex in the middle of a public park on a Saturday afternoon. They must, at the very least, do it in the bushes like respectable weirdos.

 

[Poem]

Yes, thank you.

I wasn't writing a legal definition. Any sort of extortion or coercion doesn't qualify as consent. If a young man in college approaches a young woman at the same school, whom he knew in high school, and says, "give me oral sex or I'll tell your overtly racist parents that your boyfriend is black", then he's not looking for consent, or even "partial consent".

I should also clarify, based on previous experience with this argument, that consent includes people who may only be witnessing the sex. I had someone respond to my two rules by claiming that it would allow people to just start banging in public. But even if someone is just seeing it, they're being involved. And they can't be involved against their will without violating the first rule, and if they're not of legal age, it's a violation of the second rule. So people can't just start having sex in the middle of a public park on a Saturday afternoon. They must, at the very least, do it in the bushes like respectable weirdos.

People are effectively banging in public; it's called easy-access internet porn. Huge irony here.

(I am not ignoring your previous posts.)

 

[Lithrael]

Fair, in that case I didn't at all express what I meant to in that post. What was in my mind was 'he's calling refusing to be abused, kink shaming? wtf'

And leaving the abuser doesn't stop him from abusing, unfortunately. He's already on his way to his next victim. Telling those victims not to stay with the abusers doesn't put a stop to the current 'rape culture', which is the theme of this thread.

What on earth else can I say? No, leaving him doesn't stop him finding someone else to lean on. I'm not aware of anything we can do to an entitled guy to get him to knock it off, besides having most people put their foot down, until he realises that kind of behaviour doesn't fly.

(...) instead of criticizing the kind of porn that abusers refer to as justification of their abuse, people in the thread are busy defending that kind of porn against criticism because it aligns with their 'kinks,'

I defend it because I'm against censorship, not because they're 'my kinks.' And I do criticise it. I personally wish there wasn't porn like that.

As to your other point, I don't think you can stop abusers from justifying their abuse by removing whatever you see them using to justify it. Unfortunately some guys are like that, and a guy like that will use anything to excuse bad behaviour. That kind of entitlement doesn't come from porn.

It only works for them to use porn as justification if someone doesn't immediately go 'Jimmy. porn is made up. You don't watch Batman and tell me I need to support your new side gig as a street vigilante.'

 

[Lithrael]

Porn is full of coerced consent!
Caught shoplifters, threats to reveal secrets, being in debt or similar circumstances, in need a place to stay, in need of a ride, and also non-consent, e.g. having sex with somebody other than the person you think you're having sex with.

Yes. They're stories. Not documentaries. They're neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. These things happen in tv dramas all day long but those aren't harmful because there's no weiners in them?

 

[dann]

Nope you didn't understand what I said.
You are getting hung up over a common way English speakers add emphasis - there is no difference between "consenting" and the phrase Foster Zygote used "fully consenting" in that post. The "fully" is not being used as an adverb to change the meaning of "consenting".
So in that post "fully consenting" and "consenting" mean exactly the same thing i.e. "consenting".

ETA: the term "coerced consent" is literally an oxymoron (and I am using the word "literally" in its original meaning not to add emphasis).

Danish and English are similar in this respect.
And yes, coerced consent is an oxymoron. And yet the phenomena described in the Google quotation are real.

 

[dann]

Fair, in that case I didn't at all express what I meant to in that post. What was in my mind was 'he's calling refusing to be abused, kink shaming? wtf'

What on earth else can I say? No, leaving him doesn't stop him finding someone else to lean on. I'm not aware of anything we can do to an entitled guy to get him to knock it off, besides having most people put their foot down, until he realises that kind of behaviour doesn't fly.

We can stop providing him with some of the ways he justifies his abuse, in this case choke porn. We can argue and protest against rape culture instead of defending it when it shows up in 'vanilla' porn as people are doing in this thread.

I defend it because I'm against censorship, not because they're 'my kinks.' And I do criticise it. I personally wish there wasn't porn like that.

Other kinds of porn have been removed. And strangulation is as illegal as sex with children. See previous links. But as I've already mentioned, even 'vanilla' porn finds a way around the latter by using models pretending to be minors.

As to your other point, I don't think you can stop abusers from justifying their abuse by removing whatever you see them using to justify it. Unfortunately some guys are like that, and a guy like that will use anything to excuse bad behaviour. That kind of entitlement doesn't come from porn.

You cannot stop abusers from justifying their abuse, but if the political interests is there you can remove the material they use. In this case, it should be done not only for that reason but also because it not only serves as justification of abuse, it also misleads young people into believing that it is a normal part of sex and not abuse.

It only works for them to use porn as justification if someone doesn't immediately go 'Jimmy. porn is made up. You don't watch Batman and tell me I need to support your new side gig as a street vigilante.'

We have had the porn-is-just-made-up argument before, but the thing about porn is that some of it is just made up, like in the movies. It's fairly obvious that it isn't an actual pool guy, pizza delivery guy, a policeman or a firefighter. However, some of it is very real, e.g. the sexual intercourse and oral sex is real – very much unlike the movies (with few exceptions like some of the Trier films). and that's when the choking occurs. It's not while the pizza is being delivered or consumed.
Your Batman example is childish. I think you're aware of the difference but pretend that you aren't.

 

[dann]

Yes. They're stories. Not documentaries. They're neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. These things happen in tv dramas all day long but those aren't harmful because there's no weiners in them?

No, they're not documentaries, and yet the sexual part of them does show people having actual sex – unlike the sex movie stars pretend to have in 99.99 percent of movies where sex occurs. It's the major difference between movie stars and porn stars.
You know the difference, and yet you pretend that you don't.

 

[Lithrael]

We did already pretty thoroughly argue this out earlier. UFC fights are real assault and nobody confuses them for real life. And no I don't actually think it's a childish argument.

And I know full stop that taking away an abuser's favorite low-hanging justifications isn't even a speedbump for them. Trying to pad the room is not the way to even reduce much less stop abusive behaviour.

Abusive behaviour in real life being taken seriously is what is needed. Education is what is needed. Taking away 'it's in porn so it's okay' doesn't help when an abuser can see story after story in the news like the one where a young college guy gets suspended for a semester for raping their unconcious girlfriend and when the story gets out and some people say 'Hm. I don't want to associate with this guy at all anymore' a bunch more people fall all over themselves to say 'oh, well, that was bad, but that was years ago, and he did get punished already, why can't we let bygones be bygones?'

 

[theprestige]

That is fairly obvious. What I'd like to know is what consenting but not fully consenting is supposed to mean.
To be explicit about what I'm getting at: Consent can be coerced.
This is what Google says about "coerced consent":


Porn is full of coerced consent!
Caught shoplifters, threats to reveal secrets, being in debt or similar circumstances, in need a place to stay, in need of a ride, and also non-consent, e.g. having sex with somebody other than the person you think you're having sex with.

Is extortion-sex really non-consensual, though?

You chose to shoplift. That part is consensual.

You got caught. Your consent to getting caught is implicit in your consent to commit the crime in the first place.

You offer, or accept an offer, to buy your way out of consequences, using sex as your currency. That part is also consensual.

 

[Poem]

Is extortion-sex really non-consensual, though?

You chose to shoplift. That part is consensual.

You got caught. Your consent to getting caught is implicit in your consent to commit the crime in the first place.

You offer, or accept an offer, to buy your way out of consequences, using sex as your currency. That part is also consensual.

What is your answer?

 

[theprestige]

What is your answer?

I should have said blackmail, not extortion.

 

[arthwollipot]

With your euphemism breath play, you have already shown that you don't want kink to be portrayed well.

It's not a euphemism, it's the technically correct term for the activity. Using the right terms is portraying it well. Not using the right terms, or misusing them, is the opposite of that. It shows a lack of understanding, and therefore no basis for argument.

I don't consider the BDSM and kink communities to be the authority on anything.

You don't consider the BDSM and kink communities to be the authority on BDSM and kink? Okay.

Your denial is grotesque: "a man puts his hand on or near (!!!) the woman's neck."
I don't think anybody buys your attempts to whitewash choking in otherwise 'vanilla' porn.

Well once again you are arguing from a position of ignorance. You have no understanding of kink and obviously consider it deviant and gross. I can't help you with that unless you're willing to learn a thing or two.

Porn is full of coerced consent!

Is it? How do you know this?

Caught shoplifters, threats to reveal secrets, being in debt or similar circumstances, in need a place to stay, in need of a ride, and also non-consent, e.g. having sex with somebody other than the person you think you're having sex with.

Hold up - you do realise that these scenarios are fictional, right? They are scripted, and they are performed by actors, recorded by cinematographers, and directed by directors. The actors in the scene perform it as part of a paid contract. You don't think that people in the John Wick movies are really getting shot, so why do you think the people in porn are really being coerced?

Yeah, those perfectly harmless incredibly dangerous kinks done safely with informed consent.

Indeed, breath play is dangerous. But that's not the full extent of kink - far from it. Sensible kink practitioners don't do it, and if they do, they do it very carefully, with full informed consent, clearly defined parameters, safe words and escape methods preprepared, because that's the only possible way to do it safely.

Because 'vanilla' sex where two people are simply in love and pleasure each other without any pretense or roleplaying is too bland, I assume.

Once again showing a lack of understanding. Assuming things makes an ass out of just you.

Would you like to learn more?

 

[arthwollipot]

However, some of it is very real, e.g. the sexual intercourse and oral sex is real – very much unlike the movies (with few exceptions like some of the Trier films). and that's when the choking occurs

No it isn't. Nobody is being choked. You can clearly see and hear the subject breathing. That's not choking, that's just someone with their hand on or near another person's neck.

 

[dann]

Is extortion-sex really non-consensual, though?

Yes, it is. Extortion and/or blackmail sex is non-consensual or not really consenting or grudgingly or reluctantly consenting. Coerced consenting.

You chose to shoplift. That part is consensual.

No, not even that part is consensual. That's why it's shoplifting, i.e. stealing. If it had been consensual, the owner of the shop would have allowed the shoplifter to shoplift, and then it wouldn't have been shoplifting.

You got caught. Your consent to getting caught is implicit in your consent to commit the crime in the first place.

You don't consent to getting caught. You just get caught. I already pointed out that there is no consent in shoplifting. The shoplifter takes something from the shop owner.

You offer, or accept an offer, to buy your way out of consequences, using sex as your currency. That part is also consensual.

No currency is involved in any of this. That's the difference between shopping and shoplifting. The shoplifter is then threatened with punishment, but given the choice between being being handed over to the police or raped, i.e. coerced consent!*
Is your claim that Sophie's Choice is a film about a mother consenting to her daughter being killed?
Your logic is non-sensical. It's a disengenuous playing around with and misinterpreting the meaning of words. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bore.

I remember a somewhat similar discussion 20 years ago about the definition of pornography where the claim, and I think it was yours, was that anything that somebody might use to wank off to was pornorgraphy, even when everybody can tell the difference between a Sears catalog and pornography.
Like I said: a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bore!


* Note to Darat:
Sometimes oxymorons correspond to reality.
Sometimes parting is actually such sweet sorrow.
And sometimes there's a difference between consenting and fully consenting.
Sometimes it takes more than one word to describe a real phenomenon.
I don't think a court of law would accept coerced consent as actual consent, but I don't know.
I think a court of law would consider the shoplifter scenario as a version of rape.

 

[dann]

No it isn't. Nobody is being choked. You can clearly see and hear the subject breathing. That's not choking, that's just someone with their hand on or near another person's neck.

Choking, pretending to choke, whatever.
It's definitely not just somebody with "their hand on or near another person's neck" and you can't "clearly see and hear the subject (!) breathing." (I can't rely on my own hearing to determine this, so I had to ask somebody else to confirm my impression.)
Once again, I refer you and other choke-porn apologists to the quotations and links in post 6,459 that you all continue to ignore. Links to choke-porn examples (or any other porn) aren't allowed on the forum.

 

[arthwollipot]

Choking, pretending to choke whatever.
It's definitely not somebody with just "their hand on or near another person's neck."

They don't even look like they're being choked. They're often speaking when his hand's there. If you're being choked you can't breathe, and that's definitely not happening in any porn I've seen.

Once again, I refer you and other choke porn apologists to the quotations and links in post 6,459 that you all continue to ignore.

I ignore it because either I do not consider the sources reliable, or being news media they take rare situations and sensationalise them up so that they seem bigger than they are. And they cite sources that I don't consider reliable, because those kinds of sources are good for the kind of statistics that make for a good story.

Like I said, actual breath play is dangerous, and if someone engages in it without proper preparation, of course accidents are going to happen. This, again, is why proper education is so important. Kids of a sufficient age should be taught that there are unsafe sexual practices, and the sources you cite demonstrate why this is so important.

 

[Poem]

They don't even look like they're being choked. They're often speaking when his hand's there. If you're being choked you can't breathe, and that's definitely not happening in any porn I've seen.

How much material?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, it is. Extortion and/or blackmail sex is non-consensual or not really consenting or grudgingly or reluctantly consenting. Coerced consenting.

No, not even that part is consensual. That's why it's shoplifting, i.e. stealing. If it had been consensual, the owner of the shop would have allowed the shoplifter to shoplift, and then it wouldn't have been shoplifting.

You don't consent to getting caught. You just get caught. I already pointed out that there is no consent in shoplifting. The shoplifter takes something from the shop owner.

No currency is involved in any of this. That's the difference between shopping and shoplifting. The shoplifter is then threatened with punishment, but given the choice between being being handed over to the police or raped, i.e. coerced consent!*
Is your claim that Sophie's Choice is a film about a mother consenting to her daughter being killed?
Your logic is non-sensical. It's a disengenuous playing around with and misinterpreting the meaning of words. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bore.

I remember a somewhat similar discussion 20 years ago about the definition of pornography where the claim, and I think it was yours, was that anything that somebody might use to wank off to was pornorgraphy, even when everybody can tell the difference between a Sears catalog and pornography.
Like I said: a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bore!


* Note to Darat:
Sometimes oxymorons correspond to reality.
Sometimes parting is actually such sweet sorrow.
And sometimes there's a difference between consenting and fully consenting.
Sometimes it takes more than one word to describe a real phenomenon.
I don't think a court of law would accept coerced consent as actual consent, but I don't know.
I think a court of law would consider the shoplifter scenario as a version of rape.

Cool.