- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,277
I didn't actually state that it is mine - but what is generally used.
Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?
- Thread starter Poem
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
My bad. So do you have any objection to just applying the one generally used, to your proposed porn ban?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
That's why you need to define it..
You seem to be getting some help from theprestige. Take advantage of it.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
No more sensuous commercials .
Don't be so naive as to ask for examples.
Don't be so naive as to ask for examples.
"The definition of porn is generally that it's intent is to sexually arouse."
THAT's a definition you want to write into law? A definition you want government functionaries to use to take away people's property and freedom?
That's not banning porn, it's banning sexual arousal!
No more club wear, Marvin Gaye songs, dancing, vibrators, lingerie, not to mention actual sex... really not looking forward to living in your dystopia.
Either you hate the human species and want to trick us into self-extinction (and also think we're extremely stupid to fall for it), or your "definition" is missing a few key elements.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
"When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz. There's a dirty old man!"
Signed
Some mathematician
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz. There's a dirty old man!"
Signed
Some mathematician
Come on Prestige, we live in a world where they officially ruled that "I want a lawyer, dog" was not legally a request for a lawyer. Forgive me if I don't trust a broad colloquialism to do what anyone expects it to, legally.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
"Criminal Justice " just sounds weird.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Just say you don't think mens rea is adjudicable at all, and that any justice system that requires it is fundamentally unable to properly distinguish crime from accident.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,277
Whatever detailed definition one comes up with, there will always be grey areas.
We can put on the other end of the scale from your list:
Virtual child porn, barely legal (actors looking underage), children exposed to porn content, extreme and violent porn, consumers acting out what they see (particularly children), an increase in child on child abuse (it's now over half of all cases in the UK), deepfakes and algorithms that will anticipate desensitisation that will lead towards ever more risky material.
Do you want me to go on?
Really not liking living in your dystopia. Frankly, it's beyond disgusting and tends to demean human dignity. If you don't think that is the case - if you think porn is all just fine - then presumably you would have no reservations in taking part yourself?
Last edited:
That’s already illegal and totally banned.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,277
What I think is that it has next to no actual utility for legally defining porn, and I'm super not interested in the inevitable prosecution by the letter of the law of the un-age-gated display of foot photos by foot fetishists or bread by bread fetishists or any of the other dumb ◊◊◊◊ such a definition entails. Also it's funny because then you can have virtually identical peices of sexually graphic material where one is porn and one is not, depending on whether it was intended to arouse. This doesn't seem to me to be analogous to two identically killed bodies where one was murdered and the other an accident victim, because, aren't we talking about how to regulate the THING, and not the way we got there?
So? Legislation still requires as clear a definition as possible.
You know all those stories where someone makes a magic wish and the genie makes it come true in the worst possible way? That's how laws work. That's why legislators and lawyers use elaborate and careful language, yet still have to debate what it means in court. You're in this thread making wishes but think it's too much work to even clearly explain what you're wishing for.
Virtual child what? Children exposed to what content? Extreme and violent what? I'm not going to discuss things you're not willing to define.
No, I want you to clearly define what you want to ban. Does it include Valentine's Day cards with racy love poems or not? Does it include vibrators or not? Does it include detailed illustrated instructions for using menstruation products for twelve year old girls or not? Is your definition worded in a way that makes such questions as straightforward as possible to address, or not?
"My dystopia," as in... the real world? You're not liking living in reality? I'm truly sorry to hear that but I don't think I or anyone here can help you with that.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Why not? It seems to me that the problem of proving criminal intent is largely the same for any given crime.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,277
You have defined the items on your list?
If you can't see the utter degradation of where we have go to then I'd hazard it's because you are desensitised. I could be wrong.
You didn't answer my final question. Nor have you responded to those posts I reminded you of.
Eehhh.. if the post you were replying to (#2393) didn't describe my problem sufficiently I don't think we're gonna see eye to eye.
I'm not the one proposing major new legislation that (justifiably or not) reduces citizens' rights and is Constitutionally questionable (likely unconstitutional) in my country. If you think this is some kind of gotcha, "You didn't define every word you used either," that's why it's not.
Nonetheless, if any term I used in any of the items I listed is unclear, you can ask me and I'll try to help. For instance by "racy" in the context of Valentine card text I mean "likely to be interpreted by a reasonable adult recipient as a proposition to participate in penetrative sex with the sender." By "vibrator" I mean "any device that generates oscillatory motion in the approximate frequency range of 0.2-50 Hertz at an amplitude range of approximately 0.01mm to 5mm, said motion induced in some portion of the outer surface of the device so as to be usable for tactile stimulation of some part of the human body potentially causing sexual arousal or climax."
"Where we have to go?" Where do I have to go, and why? I haven't engaged your services as a tour guide.
As I've explained, there's no point in answering your questions without a clear and well thought out definition of what you want to ban.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
For a start, it isn't. There is just as much milf porn as there is teen porn. Second, as has been pointed out, barely legal still means legal.
Why should it be more problematic for a 25-year old woman to play an 18-year old woman in porn than it is in your average romcom?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,277
I think it might help the debate of you tell me if you think we were right to make slavery illegal? I'll wager that the same issues you have highlighted with regards to a porn ban plague the enforcement of slavery laws in the modern world. Here's an article on trafficking by The Guardian - Are modern slavery laws catching the wrong people? (April 2024):
“The distinction between victims and perpetrators – between slaves and their masters – has proven impossible to act upon with any consistency,” said Prof Insa Koch, of the University of St Gallen in Switzerland. Koch has written and researched extensively on the intersection between the new modern slavery legislation and county lines in the UK since 2018. “In some instances,” she said, “you have one government body finding that a young person has been trafficked, while another insists that they are a perpetrator who should face the full force of the law.”
The fact that Wabelua had organised the 16-year-old runner’s train travel from London to Portsmouth, for the purpose of selling drugs, was enough to serve as the basis for the trafficking charge.
To bring about a ban on porn would require a huge cultural shift and overturning Ashcroft v. FSC would be but one step in that direction. There would, without doubt, be issues regarding legal definitions; some innocent people / products / educational literature etc would be caught up in the grey areas.
Last edited: