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

[TragicMonkey]

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.

It's almost as if the fundamental solution to people behaving stupidly would be to teach them critical thinking.

Nah, that can't be it. Let's ban things by law instead! That'll be effective.

 

[theprestige]

The more I think about it, the more I think that porn shouldn't really be the main concern. The authorities Poem keeps citing are all talking about the risk of kids accidentally stumbling across porn online, or somehow bootlegging it through primitive and non-scalable means.

Meanwhile, millions of children are subscribing to brainrot tiktok channels and sociopathic youtubers, picking all kinds of anti-social values when they're not just being groomed outright. Poem's talking about rape culture, but I think that at the present time "prank culture" is arguably doing more harm to society overall.

But nobody talks about that. Mr Beast is nowhere on the radar of these "ban porn" types. Colleen Ballinger came and went without anyone in authority noticing what was going on. Jake and Logan Paul, committed anti-social grifters, carry on with their child-exploiting nonsense and nobody in government bats an eye. Fetish content aimed at children proliferates across all social media platforms, but if it doesn't show up on the 'Hub, the "experts" in child protection don't bat an eye.

The easy access to millions of impressionable young minds has revolutionized social grifting on an industrial scale, with a ruthless cohort of cynical scumbags making millions off of antisocial content, and forming a whole generation in their image. Meanwhile the powers that be are still stuck in the 80s, fighting against pornography like it's still shopkeepers turning a blind eye to minors buying skin mags. Ironically, compared to the other social ills brought on by unregulated social media, porn is largely a solved problem. There's bigger fish to fry.

To bring it back around to the OP, rape culture: I think if there is a burgeoning rape culture in the west, mediated by online activity, I'd say it isn't about rape as such. It's about "pranks". It's about normalizing harassment and assault for online "clout". Your next generation of rapists aren't going to be kids who accidentally saw a choking video online and got the wrong idea. They're going to be the kids who spent their formative years consuming content about being an abusive scumbag in public, with impunity, for laughs. You want to get drugged and gangbanged at a party? Don't look for the guy who faps to fetish ◊◊◊◊ he found "by accident". Look for the guy who likes to film himself abusing people while yelling "it's just a prank, bro!" for his millions of underage followers.

Where classical rape culture was based on millennia of traditionally treating women as chattel, modern "rape" culture will be based on very new, very online ideas of people in general being subhuman props for your psychopathic displays.

 

[Chanakya]

Even sex when you end up dead?

If an act or practice is dangerous, then that needs to be dealt with certainly, but on its own merits, if "merits" is the right word here. ...I think we're conflating more than one strand of discussion here. I don't know how to put this clearer than my more concise stating of it that you quoted, but I'll give it a try.

I might prefer reading as a hobby to ...bungee jumping, say, but to therefore suggest and imply thereby that it is therefore more "normal" and somehow more natural, I don't know that I agree, at all, with that line of thinking. Certainly no one should be pressured into extreme adventure endeavors and sports. But nor should anyone be pressured into reading-for-fun either. It's an individual thing, and up to each individual's own predilections and preferences. ...And if some endeavors, some hobbies, can lead to danger even death --- like bungee jumping, or even simply working out or running, or like an overly sedentary lifestyle --- then that speaks to arguing for both general awareness about the risks as well as the requirements and dangers accompanying these pursuits, and what precautions one might reasonably take, as well as specific awareness about one's own health and tolerances etc. But none of this translates to branding some hobbies as somehow, for all purposes, good and right and kosher, and some less so.

Likewise with all kinds of sex acts, be it "vanilla" missionary, or as you say strangulation, is where I was coming from. What your story, your link, points to is, one, that people be aware this is a risk and factor that into their (instinctual or sit-down-and-think-about-it) calculations, and consider what precautions are desirable (even necessary), and all of that: but none of this suggests, to me at any rate, that some sexual practices are therefore better or worse than others, as long as there is full informed uncoerced consent. Focus on the consent part, is what I'm saying, focus on whether there is coercion of any kind --- but focusing on the nature of the act itself, is going down the wrong what-have-you completely, as I see this.

You do well, in general, to point out the risk from including strangulation into one's repertoire of sex acts, sure; but it's a whole separate if tangentially related discussion really. It doesn't make the argument you're trying to make, at all.



eta:
See, this right here is a line of thinking that I simply don't grok:

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.

How does it matter, what percentage of humanity does a thing? Regardless of whether 99% of everyone does it, and regardless of whether just 1% of everyone does it, it makes no sense at all to do a thing --- be it getting off on playing at choking your partner, or be it just simple sex, or even hell just kissing your partner while fully dressed --- unless you are fully into it, and also, importantly, your partner is fully into it. What matters the nature of the act? (And no, don't again bring up specific risks attached to the act, because while generally relevant certainly but like I said that's a separate different discussion that's irrelevant to this specific focused discussion.) What matters what proportion of people at large do it? The only thing that matters is consent, full complete uncoerced consent, and not just consent but enthusiastic consent. That's what's healthy --- and natural! --- to do ourselves, and that's what's healthy to teach youngsters to be doing. The focusing on the consent, one's own and one's partner's: and not on specific sexual acts.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's almost as if the fundamental solution to people behaving stupidly would be to teach them critical thinking.

Nah, that can't be it. Let's ban things by law instead! That'll be effective.

All the critical thinking in the world will not help if your and everyone else's samples are skewed by algorithms you have no details about.

 

[Chanakya]

It's almost as if the fundamental solution to people behaving stupidly would be to teach them critical thinking.

Nah, that can't be it. Let's ban things by law instead! That'll be effective.

This. This expresses far more briefly --- if therefore a bit more sketchily --- what I was going for in my much longer post above.

All the critical thinking in the world will not help if your and everyone else's samples are skewed by algorithms you have no details about.

You may not have fully appreciated what @TragicMonkey was pointing towards (or at least, what I think he was pointing towards).

Let's say you have a sample skewed by messed up algos that wrongly tells you 95% of folks everywhere are majorly into BDSM. You seem to imagine that that will lead you also to go in for BDSM with your partner. Except, why should it? That's where critical thinking comes in, and self-awareness comes in. You'll do BDSM if you want to, and if your partner wants to --- and regardless of how many others are doing it. That's what is reasonable. And that's what's reasonable to teach youngesters --- to be receptive to their own inner drives, and be fully mindful of the consent and the wishes of one's partner. All of the rest is just confounding an essentially simple issue.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If an act or practice is dangerous, then that needs to be dealt with certainly, but on its own merits, if "merits" is the right word here. ...I think we're conflating more than one strand of discussion here. I don't know how to put this clearer than my more concise stating of it that you quoted, but I'll give it a try.

I might prefer reading as a hobby to ...bungee jumping, say, but to therefore suggest and imply thereby that it is therefore more "normal" and somehow more natural, I don't know that I agree, at all, with that line of thinking. Certainly no one should be pressured into extreme adventure endeavors and sports. But nor should anyone be pressured into reading-for-fun either. It's an individual thing, and up to each individual's own predilections and preferences. ...And if some endeavors, some hobbies, can lead to danger even death --- like bungee jumping, or even simply working out or running, or like an overly sedentary lifestyle --- then that speaks to arguing for both general awareness about the risks as well as the requirements and dangers accompanying these pursuits, and what precautions one might reasonably take, as well as specific awareness about one's own health and tolerances etc. But none of this translates to branding some hobbies as somehow, for all purposes, good and right and kosher, and some less so.

Likewise with all kinds of sex acts, be it "vanilla" missionary, or as you say strangulation, is where I was coming from. What your story, your link, points to is, one, that people be aware this is a risk and factor that into their (instinctual or sit-down-and-think-about-it) calculations, and consider what precautions are desirable (even necessary), and all of that: but none of this suggests, to me at any rate, that some sexual practices are therefore better or worse than others, as long as there is full informed uncoerced consent. Focus on the consent part, is what I'm saying, focus on whether there is coercion of any kind --- but focusing on the nature of the act itself, is going down the wrong what-have-you completely, as I see this.

You do well, in general, to point out the risk from including strangulation into one's repertoire of sex acts, sure; but it's a whole separate if tangentially related discussion really. It doesn't make the argument you're trying to make, at all.



eta:
See, this right here is a line of thinking that I simply don't grok:


How does it matter, what percentage of humanity does a thing? Regardless of whether 99% of everyone does it, and regardless of whether just 1% of everyone does it, it makes no sense at all to do a thing --- be it getting off on playing at choking your partner, or be it just simple sex, or even hell just kissing your partner while fully dressed --- unless you are fully into it, and also, importantly, your partner is fully into it. What matters the nature of the act? (And no, don't again bring up specific risks attached to the act, because while generally relevant certainly but like I said that's a separate different discussion that's irrelevant to this specific focused discussion.) What matters what proportion of people at large do it? The only thing that matters is consent, full complete uncoerced consent, and not just consent but enthusiastic consent. That's what's healthy --- and natural! --- to do ourselves, and that's what's healthy to teach youngsters to be doing. The focusing on the consent, one's own and one's partner's: and not on specific sexual acts.

No, I think first people should not be algorithmically fed depictions of extreme sex acts. For example, once they have a better understanding of how tiny a minority of people like choking someone and how few people like being choked, they will be far less open to consenting to try it.

The decisions brains make change based on the inputs they've been fed. Let's focus on making sure everyone has reasonably representative inputs to make decisions on.

 

[Chanakya]

No, I think first people should not be algorithmically fed depictions of extreme sex acts. For example, once they have a better understanding of how tiny a minority of people like choking someone and how few people like being choked, they will be far less open to consenting to try it.

The decisions brains make change based on the inputs they've been fed. Let's focus on making sure everyone has reasonably representative inputs to make decisions on.

Again, I simply don't see the connection.

In general terms I agree that people should not have a distorted view of what most people are doing. That's a reasonable enough statement.

But I don't see how you move from a to b. You brought up stangulation-foreplay into the discussion, so let's go with that. What does it matter if, to your mind, 5% of the population does it, or whether 95% does? The only thing that should matter is, whether you find it agrees with you, and whether you're sure your partner is also enthusiastic about it.

See, you're raising issues that are generally reasonable. Sure, it's good to be aware of the risks attached to asphyxiation-foreplay. Sure, it's good not to harbor a distorted view of what the general sex landscape looks like. ...But? But I don't see how that translates into the argument you're making here. Why should that distorted view of what people are doing end up affecting your own behavior? That's where critical thinking comes in.

-----Sorry, I realize I'm just repeating myself at this point. I'll stop now.

 

[Lithrael]

I'm honestly not sure where I come down on this, but Prestige's post does hilight a lot of things that make me nervous about what's going on in general. And when I agree with Prestige that makes me sit up and pay attention.

When it comes to
"(...) very new, very online ideas of people in general being subhuman props for your psychopathic displays," I'd say the 'new' part is that it's been mainstreamed. It used to be that you had to get a perfect storm of unhinged besties encouraging each other to do things like this; like the kids who killed Cassie Stoddart.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Again, I simply don't see the connection.

In general terms I agree that people should not have a distorted view of what most people are doing. That's a reasonable enough statement.

But I don't see how you move from a to b. You brought up stangulation-foreplay into the discussion, so let's go with that. What does it matter if, to your mind, 5% of the population does it, or whether 95% does? The only thing that should matter is, whether you find it agrees with you, and whether you're sure your partner is also enthusiastic about it.

See, you're raising issues that are generally reasonable. Sure, it's good to be aware of the risks attached to asphyxiation-foreplay. Sure, it's good not to harbor a distorted view of what the general sex landscape looks like. ...But? But I don't see how that translates into the argument you're making here. Why should that distorted view of what people are doing end up affecting your own behavior? That's where critical thinking comes in.

-----Sorry, I realize I'm just repeating myself at this point. I'll stop now.

Do I need to give examples of people acting in ways they otherwise wouldn't because they had a distorted view of what other people are doing?

In the UK people are currently protesting outside hotels housing immigrants because they have been fed a distorted view of what other people are doing. Last summer the protests became violent and some people were trying to burn immigrants (aka human beings) alive. Nationalism is on the rise around the world because people have been fed a distorted view of reality.

Our brains change based on the inputs to them. There is no unchangeable 'you' in your brain. As the brain changes with inputs, the 'you' changes.

 

[Chanakya]

Do I need to give examples of people acting in ways they otherwise wouldn't because they had a distorted view of what other people are doing?

In the UK people are currently protesting outside hotels housing immigrants because they have been fed a distorted view of what other people are doing. Last summer the protests became violent and some people were trying to burn immigrants (aka human beings) alive. Nationalism is on the rise around the world because people have been fed a distorted view of reality.

Our brains change based on the inputs to them. There is no unchangeable 'you' in your brain. As the brain changes with inputs, the 'you' changes.

Look, not to beat this to death. But my point was simple enough, and you seem not to be getting it. In fact, it seems to me you're trying very hard not to get it, by throwing in complete irrelevancies.

Sure, there's no abiding, immutable self. Sure, our brains react to inputs. Sure, people being fed disinformation about immigrants might well result in people reacting by protesting against those immigrants and against what they (the people) imagine those immigrants are doing and causing. But none of that speaks to the specific argument you brought in.

You brought in asphyxiation foreplay. Let's pick a random figure, and let's say that, in actuality, just 10% of people go in for that specific. Let's further assume that your --- generic "you", feel free to substitute "I" instead, no personalization intended! --- viewing of porn leads you to believe, wrongly, that 90% of people are into it. ...So, what now? Should that lead you to therefore try out choking yourself? Why on earth would you, unless you wanted to? And why shouldn't you, with a willing partner, if you did want to and if that were an informed educated choice --- regardless of what is the proportion of people out there doing this thing? (Good to be mindful of the dangers involved, while doing that, and going with the precautions necessary, sure. Just like with bungee jumping)

Again, if you're self-aware enough to know what you want; and if you're fully alert to what your partner wants and is comfortable with: then that statistic, the proportion of folks going in for strangulation-foreplay, is a complete irrelevancy.

And I keep saying you (and me), but this applies to youngsters as well. That's what we should be teaching them, the importance of consent and comfort, one's own and one's partner's as well. (<eta> Rather than focusing on specific sex acts.</eta>)

----------

No sense repeating myself again and again like this. Won't again. Feel free to engage with my actual argument, after all I've only just thought it up in the course of speaking with you, and I may well be wrong, and happy to correct myself if so. But if you're just going to be sidestepping what I'm saying with non sequiturs, then I don't see the point of continuing this exchange.

Any case, not a big deal. Trivial enough matter, as far as you and I personally. No reason why we can't just leave this be, and do that amicably, right? Cheers

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, I realize I'm just repeating myself at this point. I'll stop now.

It's a risk.

Our brains change based on the inputs to them. There is no unchangeable 'you' in your brain. As the brain changes with inputs, the 'you' changes.

Which is why education is the key. You can change the child's brain if you can control the inputs. Teach the child about consent, and risk, and consent, and safety, and oh did I mention consent?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's a risk.


Which is why education is the key. You can change the child's brain if you can control the inputs. Teach the child about consent, and risk, and consent, and safety, and oh did I mention consent?

That sex education curriculum is just getting crammed with ever more topics.

"Today we're going to learn about how to safely strangle someone or yourself. Tomorrow we'll be covering CPR."

You cannot give informed consent when you have been misled.

Porn + Algorithms => People forming incorrect estimates about popularity of sex acts, the risks and the probability of those risks.

We know more people will consent to X if they feel like the odd one out and they believe their peers are doing X.
We know more people will consent to X if they believe the risks of X are less severe than they actually are.
We know more people will consent to X if they believe severe consequences of doing X are less likely than they actually are.

Perhaps you were asleep from 2020 to 2022, but I distinctly remember the great toilet paper shortage of 2020 because people believed all the paper was going to be used for face masks. And to buy a little bit more than usual leading to supermarkets looking like a plague of locusts had passed through. And people believing COVID didn't exist, hospitals weren't overloaded, no one was dying of COVID, healthcare workers were heroes and then villains, etc.

The humans beings you want do not exist and never will.

 

[arthwollipot]

That sex education curriculum is just getting crammed with ever more topics.

"Today we're going to learn about how to safely strangle someone or yourself. Tomorrow we'll be covering CPR."

Fearmongering and moralistic bull ◊◊◊◊. You can teach kids about sex and consent without diving headfirst into highly specific topics. A general overview of paraphilias will be sufficient.

You cannot give informed consent when you have been misled.

Exactly. Exactly. You teach facts. Real, true facts that will genuinely inform and educate. Porn does not do that, only parents and teachers can do that.

Porn + Algorithms => People forming incorrect estimates about popularity of sex acts, the risks and the probability of those risks.

Education is the answer.

We know more people will consent to X if they feel like the odd one out and they believe their peers are doing X.
We know more people will consent to X if they believe the risks of X are less severe than they actually are.
We know more people will consent to X if they believe severe consequences of doing X are less likely than they actually are.

Education is the answer.

Perhaps you were asleep from 2020 to 2022, but I distinctly remember the great toilet paper shortage of 2020 because people believed all the paper was going to be used for face masks. And to buy a little bit more than usual leading to supermarkets looking like a plague of locusts had passed through. And people believing COVID didn't exist, hospitals weren't overloaded, no one was dying of COVID, healthcare workers were heroes and then villains, etc.

That's not what I remember. I remember people buying up all the toilet paper because they believed they were going to have to isolate for an extended period. I have literally never heard the claim you are making here. Also, it's irrelevant.

The humans beings you want do not exist and never will.

Hello? You're looking at one of them. Did you forget how I and my fellow parents brought up two well-adjusted sexually active adult children? We exist. And there could be more of us if only the children could be educated.

 

[Darat]

As I asked before: What do we do whilst this revolution takes place? Just let another generation or two of kids to be harmed?

 

[Poem]

Fearmongering and moralistic bull ◊◊◊◊. You can teach kids about sex and consent without diving headfirst into highly specific topics. A general overview of paraphilias will be sufficient.


Exactly. Exactly. You teach facts. Real, true facts that will genuinely inform and educate. Porn does not do that, only parents and teachers can do that.


Education is the answer.


Education is the answer.


That's not what I remember. I remember people buying up all the toilet paper because they believed they were going to have to isolate for an extended period. I have literally never heard the claim you are making here. Also, it's irrelevant.


Hello? You're looking at one of them. Did you forget how I and my fellow parents brought up two well-adjusted sexually active adult children? We exist. And there could be more of us if only the children could be educated.

If it's all about education why is this true?
A British study of child sexual images produced by artificial intelligence reported that 99.6 percent were of girls, most commonly between 7 and 13 years old. (Nicholas Kritsof writing in The New York Times - March 2024).

Seems to me a lot of this is about men and young boys getting off on sexualising and humiliating girls and women.

 

[Poem]

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.

This needs some thought. I will come back. BTW - that is not my definition of porn.

 

[Poem]

As I asked before: What do we do whilst this revolution takes place? Just let another generation or two of kids to be harmed?

What specifically are you referring to?

 

[dirtywick]

they don’t have auto erotic asphyxiation on porn sites.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Education cannot compete with what social media + algorithms exploit about human psychology.

Were the people acting as prison guards and prisoners in Zimbardo's prison experiment not educated?
Were the people giving electric shocks in Milgram's learning experiment not educated?
Were the people saying two lines were the same length because everyone else around them was in Asch's famous experiment not educated?
Were the people sending Jews to death camps not educated?
Are the IDF soldiers using Palestinian civilians as target practice not educated?

Where are you going to get all the accurate data people need to make rational decisions from, when most of the time accurate data doesn't even exist? How are you going to make sure the accurate data that does exist is available to people when they need it? How are non-experts supposed to decide between the accurate data and far more numerous inaccurate data?

If you want nicer, happier humans education alone is not sufficient. You also need to make sure the environment is not setting them up to behave poorly or not in their best interests.

 

[Poem]

What is being suggested here - that the boys (who are educated alongside the girls) just don't get it - and so, therefore, we get the 99.6% figure?