• 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?

That same article:
The impunity reflects a blasé attitude toward the humiliation of victims. One survey found that 74 percent of deepfake pornography users reported not feeling guilty about watching the videos.
 
Normalise porn and don't be surprised at the collective shrug to deepfake.
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
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?
Click to expand...
None of those are examples of social media + algorithms overriding education.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
A solved problem (see boldened), but no evidence provided?

Sounds like what you highlight is a big problem - not sure it fits into this thread.
 
Last edited:
an example of a Colleen Ballinger vid to raise my hackles? I started to watch

BACK TO SCHOOL SHOPPING & THE FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL!​


but gave up..........
 
theprestige said:
None of those are examples of social media + algorithms overriding education.
Click to expand...
Correct.

They are experiments and documented examples of how the environment a person is in can significantly alter their judgement and behaviour.

Social media + algorithms are the environment we (particularly children and young adults) are in. The sites are designed for one purpose: monetising users through data mining, profiling, engagement and clicks. The wellbeing of users and wider society is always put below maximising profit.
 
Quotation of Noelle Martin from:

The greatest obstacles to regulating deepfakes, I’ve come to believe, aren’t technical or legal — although those are real — but simply our collective complacency.

It astonishes me that society apparently believes that women and girls must accept being tormented by demeaning imagery. Instead, we should stand with victims and crack down on deepfakes that allow companies to profit from sexual degradation, humiliation and misogyny.

Anyone disagree?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

amp.cnn.com

Louisiana sues Roblox alleging the popular gaming site fails to protect children | CNN

Louisiana sued the online gaming platform Roblox on Thursday, alleging the wildly popular site has perpetuated an environment where sexual predators “thrive, unite, hunt and victimize kids.”
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com

just to reinforce this point which i mostly agree with (although i think it’s too narrow) take a look at roblox, a kids game site guilty of all you’re saying here and more. it’s clickbaity games targeting kids trying to part them from their robux, the platforms fake money you can buy with real money. oh and there’s a bunch of sex predators on it too. links to discord servers. do we even want to get into discord?

and it’s certainly not the first, or last. club penguin? how many minecraft creator sex abuse scandals do you have time for?

of course, this is presented to parents as a safe kids site, where there’s simply no moderation or accountability at all. and that’s a much more fixable problem than ban porn lol

if you want it to be worse, ban porn sites. leave them with no other options but to force them onto these sites instead.

edit

btw mr beast has his own scandal with his trans buddy kris tyson if we want to look at the big youtubers as well. which we could easily. streamers are certainly their own cesspit of degenerates that these trillion dollar platforms absolutely refuse to moderate
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
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.
Click to expand...

They don't need porn to teach them that, they have always known how to do it. Besides, the Western world is less accepting of rape and nonconsensual sex these days. Much less, in fact.
 
Helen said:
They don't need porn to teach them that, they have always known how to do it. Besides, the Western world is less accepting of rape and nonconsensual sex these days. Much less, in fact.
Click to expand...
? I'm not following you. Teach them what?

You say we are less accepting, but VAWG in the UK is described by the police as a 'national emergency'.
 
To get off on humiliating and sexualising women and girls, as you said; some men and boys have always done that, long before internet porn.

Have a look at recent legislation. Why, these days people can not even rape their own partners! Rape is defined in a way that includes date rape, and no longer requires that the victim fought back, or shows signs of physical trauma. And how the victim was dressed, or their previous sexual history, is not supposed to be taken into account any longer.
 
Helen said:
To get off on humiliating and sexualising women and girls, as you said; some men and boys have always done that, long before internet porn.
Click to expand...
And allowing porn that normalises such behaviour is obviously the wrong way to go. Why would anyone even hesitate to agree?
Helen said:
Have a look at recent legislation. Why, these days people can not even rape their own partners! Rape is defined in a way that includes date rape, and no longer requires that the victim fought back, or shows signs of physical trauma. And how the victim was dressed, or their previous sexual history, is not supposed to be taken into account any longer.
Click to expand...
That is all good - but doesn't explain the fact that VAWG in the UK has been allowed to reach the level of a national emergency.
 
Poem said:
And allowing porn that normalises such behaviour is obviously the wrong way to go. Why would anyone even hesitate to agree?
Click to expand...
I would hesitate to agree for a couple of reasons.

One is because you're begging the question. It's not clear to me that porn tends to normalize sexual activity. Someone might try a silly position because they saw it in porn and got the wrong idea. But I don't see any convincing evidence that overall attitudes towards bondage, misogyny, etc. are greatly influenced by porn. Indeed, I would argue that there's reason to expect it's the other way around: Classifying something as porn tends to de-normalize it. Tends to flag it as taboo, or uncouth. If you want to normalize a mindset or attitude, you have to express it openly, in public, where everyone can see you doing it and see you benefit from it. Kids peeping bondage videos late at night when their parents are asleep know what they're looking at is not normal.

Another is because your framing is dishonest. We already know you think all porn is bad. We already know you want to ban all porn, regardless of the behavior it models. Porn produced by women, for women, that portrays considerate and practical lovemaking between two consenting women who are obviously enjoying themselves and each other? We already know you lump that together with the "bad" stuff in your one big blob of "porn is bad and must be banned".

Another is that I'm not a fan of prohibiting free citizens from creating and publishing artistic expressions of acts some people find disgusting or immoral. Rape fantasies are fantasies. I don't have a hang-up about pornographic fantasies, so I'm reluctant to agree to the proposition that they're the wrong way to go. Certainly it's not obvious to me.

Poem said:
That is all good - but doesn't explain the fact that VAWG in the UK has been allowed to reach the level of a national emergency.
Click to expand...
Heh. "National emergency" is one of those terms that I have strict expectations about. When someone says something is a national emergency, I expect the following:
  1. A proper authority has declared an emergency, that justifies the exercise of emergency powers.
  2. An action plan to address the emergency, through the exercise of emergency powers, has been published.
  3. That plan, predicated on exercising emergency powers, has been put into action, simultaneously with the declaration of the emergency.
Some pundit or policy maker saying "this is a national emergency!" without actually enacting a state of emergency for the purpose of exercising emergency powers, is just blowing hot air.

An official that declares an emergency, but has no plan to exercise emergency powers to address the emergency, is being a jackass.

So when you say, "VAWG in the UK has been allowed to reach the level of a national emergency," I want to know, what proper government authority declared a state of emergency? What emergency plan is being put into action, to address this emergency? What emergency powers are required to enact the plan? Or is it all just empty rhetoric?
 
Darat said:
As I asked before: What do we do whilst this revolution takes place? Just let another generation or two of kids to be harmed?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? We work and do everything we can to bring about this "revolution" (as you call it) as quickly as possible. The inventor of the light bulb worked by candlelight.
 
Myriad said:
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.)
Click to expand...
As I said, this is not my definition of porn.
Myriad said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the UK, causing a child to watch a sexual act is dealt with under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act of 2003:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,

I would assume that the kissing would have to pretty full on for any culpability. Also, the law mentions 'purpose': the obtaining of sexual gratification.
-------------------

In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, Chief Justice Rehnquist (who dissented from from the courts decision):

...agreed that serious First Amendment concerns would arise if the government actually prosecuted, say, the producers of Traffic or American Beauty under CPPA. But it had not done so, and Rehnquist believed that the statute did not need to be construed to allow the government to do so. (Wikipedia)

In the same article:
Ernest Allen, then-president and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stated in response to the decision that "[its] decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America, unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years"

If you don't think that that has happened, then please show the thread some evidence.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
As I said, this is not my definition of porn.

In the UK, causing a child to watch a sexual act is dealt with under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act of 2003:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he intentionally causes another person (B) to watch a third person engaging in an activity, or to look at an image of any person engaging in an activity,

I would assume that the kissing would have to pretty full on for any culpability. Also, the law mentions 'purpose': the obtaining of sexual gratification.
-------------------

In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, Rehnquist (who dissented from from the courts decision):

...agreed that serious First Amendment concerns would arise if the government actually prosecuted, say, the producers of Traffic or American Beauty under CPPA. But it had not done so, and Rehnquist believed that the statute did not need to be construed to allow the government to do so. (Wikipedia)

In the same article:
Ernest Allen, then-president and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stated in response to the decision that "[its] decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America, unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years"

If you don't think that that has happened, then please show the thread some evidence.
Click to expand...

Can you confirm that you want evidence that something hasn't happened?
 
theprestige said:
Heh. "National emergency" is one of those terms that I have strict expectations about. When someone says something is a national emergency, I expect the following:
  1. A proper authority has declared an emergency, that justifies the exercise of emergency powers.
  2. An action plan to address the emergency, through the exercise of emergency powers, has been published.
  3. That plan, predicated on exercising emergency powers, has been put into action, simultaneously with the declaration of the emergency.
Some pundit or policy maker saying "this is a national emergency!" without actually enacting a state of emergency for the purpose of exercising emergency powers, is just blowing hot air.

An official that declares an emergency, but has no plan to exercise emergency powers to address the emergency, is being a jackass.

So when you say, "VAWG in the UK has been allowed to reach the level of a national emergency," I want to know, what proper government authority declared a state of emergency? What emergency plan is being put into action, to address this emergency? What emergency powers are required to enact the plan? Or is it all just empty rhetoric?
Click to expand...
In July 2024, the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing said that violence against women and girls is a “national emergency”. According to the NPCC, VAWG makes up just under 20% of all recorded crime in England and Wales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom