• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Poem said:
Showing porn to a child is sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but what do you think would happen to children who watch two adults having vanilla sex? Presumably you think it would have some negative effects. Could you give some examples of the type and severity of the negative effects children who have watched two adults having vanilla sex would experience?
 
Poem said:
Demonstrate that a porn ban would have that effect. What are you suggesting - that parents kissing would be proscribed?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the only definition of porn you've offered in this thread is: "sexual activities by others." (If you've been more specific anywhere and I missed it, please let me know the post number or re-post the text. Thanks.)

Kissing is a sexual activity. For instance, it's well established in US law that kissing someone without their consent is sexual assault.

If parents kiss, then it's highly likely that their kids or someone else's kids will see. Even if they think they're alone in a room, children might be watching through a doorway or peeking in through a window or watching through a camera. Any such behavior might therefore fail to meet your taking sufficient measures to prevent children being exposed to sexual activity by others legal requirement. And if they actually knowingly allow their own children to openly watch them kiss, there's no doubt at all. Lock them up!

If you don't mean to proscribe kissing, then it's up to you to show the legal language (the words in which the actual provisions of a law are written down) that has the effects you want without proscribing kissing. You can't just wave your hands and declare future prosecutors and judges will surmise you didn't really mean kissing when you wrote down "sexual activity" in the text of a law and there's ample standing legal precedent that kissing is sexual activity.
 
Myriad said:
If parents kiss, then it's highly likely that their kids or someone else's kids will see. Even if they think they're alone in a room, children might be watching through a doorway or peeking in through a window or watching through a camera. Any such behavior might therefore fail to meet your taking sufficient measures to prevent children being exposed to sexual activity by others legal requirement. And if they actually knowingly allow their own children to openly watch them kiss, there's no doubt at all. Lock them up!
Click to expand...
Remember Poem isn't really concerned about controlling porn kids can see, even if we could come up with 100% perfect controls so no kid ever can see porn it wouldn't be enough because it's the porn they want to get rid of.
 
Darat said:
This is a long thread so folk may not know but Poem's "consider the children" is a wedge strategy - Poem thinks all porn should be banned and would do even if you could have perfect controls that stopped any child from ever being able to access porn.
Click to expand...
Haha, yes, that's exactly what they're doing. Or at least, if they're not actually succeeding in doing that, then it's not for lack of trying.

Poem said:
If nations decided that porn was just simple bad for all of society (especially children), then presumably laws would reflect that.

A pencil drawing is no comparison to what children are access online. You know that.

Do you think it is a good thing that we are teaching children that anything-goes-sex is just fine? That we are doing that is a fact.
Click to expand...
Heh, pleasure to see how your mind works, or at any rate how your argumentation works. Segue effortlessly between two extremes (teaching-children-anything-goes-sex-is-fine on one hand, and porn-is-just-simple-bad-for-all-of-society on the other). Try to show that children being exposed to extreme violent porn is bad, and basis that try to conclude that all kinds of porn not just extreme violent porn is bad for all kinds of folks not just kids, and further that therefore porn should be banned.

Not a bad try actually. It's just because you're trying this here of all places that the only reaction you're getting to all of this is amusement. Elsewhere tricks like those might actually have worked, with some at any rate.

----------

Incidental comment about "vanilla" sex thing that came up in these last few pages: That's conflating one's own preferences with what is general, and further extrapolating that to what's normal and good. That's just nonsense. Any kind of consenting sex is good, no matter how "kinky", if there's 100% consent --- and indeed, calling it a "kink" is kind of a misnomer right there, in as much as it treats some sex acts as "normal" and some not, which is nonsense --- and any kind of sex no matter how vanilla is abhorrent, if there isn't 100% consent. The one and only thing to look at is the consent part, not the nature of the sex act.
 
Darat said:
Remember Poem isn't really concerned about controlling porn kids can see, even if we could come up with 100% perfect controls so no kid ever can see porn it wouldn't be enough because it's the porn they want to get rid of.
Click to expand...

I'm aware. But the only suggested law Poem has put into words is the one about requiring people to take sufficient measures to prevent children from being exposed to sexual activity. Regarding porn in general, he's suggested that in US law the Miller test is overly permissive and should be changed, but has failed (despite being asked repeatedly) to state what language should replace it. At this point I'm completely justified in assuming the porn ban he's advocating would encompass all exhibition or depiction of genitalia or sexual activity that could be viewable by anyone else. Actually, I doubt he can come up with legal language that wouldn't also outlaw all actual sex.
 
Darat said:
Remember Poem isn't really concerned about controlling porn kids can see, even if we could come up with 100% perfect controls so no kid ever can see porn it wouldn't be enough because it's the porn they want to get rid of.
Click to expand...
Not how I would frame it. If you allow porn you will create a toxic society and that toxicity will impact on children.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Yes. For example, my wife and I don't upload videos of us having sex because we wish to keep that part of our lives private.

On a practical level, the name and address could be encrypted with public key cryptography. A paywall would only need to be a nominal fee as it's purpose would be to use existing infrastructure to perform age verification.

If you want people to be responsible then you have to make sure they know that they are not anonymous and can be held accountable. Similarly the platforms have to be motivated to take responsibility. I realise this is not perfect and bad actors would migrate to the dark web, but I think if all social media operated this way then it would be a better place for everyone.
Click to expand...

You think people who have facilitated children's access to porn should be held accountable?
 
You need to work on your "search-foo".. I searched the thread for "wikipedia" and this was near the top.

Poem

Post in thread 'Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?'

wikipediocracy.com

What should we do about Wikipedia’s porn problem?

By Larry Sanger (see Wikipedia’s forgotten creator) I want to start a conversation. I. Problem? What problem? So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem? Let me say what I d…
wikipediocracy.com wikipediocracy.com

I missed it before, and I do find it surprising.
 
Chanakya said:
Haha, yes, that's exactly what they're doing. Or at least, if they're not actually succeeding in doing that, then it's not for lack of trying.


Heh, pleasure to see how your mind works, or at any rate how your argumentation works. Segue effortlessly between two extremes (teaching-children-anything-goes-sex-is-fine on one hand, and porn-is-just-simple-bad-for-all-of-society on the other). Try to show that children being exposed to extreme violent porn is bad, and basis that try to conclude that all kinds of porn not just extreme violent porn is bad for all kinds of folks not just kids, and further that therefore porn should be banned.

Not a bad try actually. It's just because you're trying this here of all places that the only reaction you're getting to all of this is amusement. Elsewhere tricks like those might actually have worked, with some at any rate.

----------

Incidental comment about "vanilla" sex thing that came up in these last few pages: That's conflating one's own preferences with what is general, and further extrapolating that to what's normal and good. That's just nonsense. Any kind of consenting sex is good, no matter how "kinky", if there's 100% consent --- and indeed, calling it a "kink" is kind of a misnomer right there, in as much as it treats some sex acts as "normal" and some not, which is nonsense --- and any kind of sex no matter how vanilla is abhorrent, if there isn't 100% consent. The one and only thing to look at is the consent part, not the nature of the sex act.
Click to expand...
Even sex when you end up dead?
 
3point14 said:
You think people who have facilitated children's access to porn should be held accountable?
Click to expand...
No. I think publishers of content should not be anonymous and platforms should hold the name and address of people publishing content on their sites, or be classed as the publisher themselves as far as law enforcement is concerned.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
No one said murder, even accidental, is good. You are wandering into Poem territory.
Click to expand...
It probably wasn't murder. It was most likely an accident.

They explained Miss Brooke, who lived in Ossett near Wakefield at the time of her death, had a sexual interest in choking.

This was verified by text messages seen by police in the aftermath of her death.

<snip>

In his conclusion, Mr Fleming said that while there was no evidence Mr Cannon had intended to kill his girlfriend during the incident at his Bradford home, he had used "excessive" force.

Miss Brooke "could not have consented to the fatal consequences" of his actions, he said.

Adding that Miss Brooke's death should send a "strong message" to people tempted to engage in choking during sex, he said: "This type of sex act is dangerous and reckless and it all too often ends in fatal consequences."
Click to expand...
 
Skeptical Greg said:
No one said murder, even accidental, is good. You are wandering into Poem territory.
Click to expand...
If it's accidental, it's not murder, by definition.

Anyway, I have no problem with people who take up risky hobbies occasionally finding themselves on the wrong side of the risks they enjoy so much.

There's plenty of stories of cave diving tragedies that start with, these were experienced cave divers, and then they go on to make the most basic mistakes. And die for their fun. Screw them. They got what they deserved.

Same with erotic asphyxiation. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or, get off by the sword, kick off by the sword.
 
Ah ok, so it seems the problem with wikipedia is mainly that people can upload graphic images to the commons as long as they're accurately labeled and nominally illustrative. So they're generally not in articles or anything, except where appropriate, but they will show up in image searches. Which I wasn't aware of as I've never image searched on there. Some of it does look like fetish material or exhibitionism, but really. Sure, I'd prefer if it wasn't there. But there's some reason that it is. Anyway it's dry as hell and would probably be dead last on my list of concerns. It's difficult to imagine this stuff as a corrupting influence on anyone.
 
theprestige said:
If it's accidental, it's not murder, by definition.

Anyway, I have no problem with people who take up risky hobbies occasionally finding themselves on the wrong side of the risks they enjoy so much.

There's plenty of stories of cave diving tragedies that start with, these were experienced cave divers, and then they go on to make the most basic mistakes. And die for their fun. Screw them. They got what they deserved.

Same with erotic asphyxiation. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or, get off by the sword, kick off by the sword.
Click to expand...
But that entirely misses the problem with porn featuring kinks such as erotic asphyxiation. Algorithms end up skewing viewer's estimates of how common or popular a particular practice is. It even feeds back the other way, with producers thinking it was the choking that got the clicks, so producing more content featuring choking, which in turn makes viewers think it's more common...then some 17 year old tries it out of the blue with his girlfriend because based on his model of the world everyone does it.
 
Agreed with Ivor on this last point. Clickbait porn ads are often like this, with weird ◊◊◊◊ nobody much wants to see, just to get the eyeballs. Not even extreme ◊◊◊◊ just '...why?'

The gets-clicks-so-it-must-be-popular to got-clicks-so-we-must-have-it-to-be-popular to there's-nothing-else-to-click-so-it-must-be-popular pipeline
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom