Republicans, I hope you like rape.

[Jarhyn]

Republican Platform, Project 2025 Co-Author Admits Pornography Ban Will Be Done 'From the Back Door'

Former Donald Trump staffer and Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought told undercover reporters last month that the Heritage Foundation-led initiative has entered its second, more secretive phase with different tactics, including banning pornography “from the back door” through age verification...

www.xbiz.com

They're planning to ban porn. Legalizing porn cut the rape rate by about 85%. If it was actually removed there's no reason to think that wouldn't be reversed.

I think this is a case of causation vs correlation.

Why? The same general thing has been found across many countries. Availability of sexual media correlates with a big drop in rapes.

We have three possible cases:

1) Porn lower rape.
2) Rape declines for unrelated reasons, causing availability of porn. Huh, this one makes no sense.
3) Something else causes both increased access to porn and lower rates of rape. What?!

It would help your hypothesis if you could specify the mechanism that connects rape and porn.

People frustrated about the unavailable nature of what gets them off; the taboo nature of being unable to discuss something and how you constructively pursue ejaculations and orgasms despite that fact lead to less constructive ways of addressing those needs, and lead some towards an enjoyment of such destructive things.

When porn is unavailable, people are in a lot worse of a position trying to work out how to handle being as they are. Some feelings it really helps to ground certain thoughts out on occasion in a stable way, and porn helps with that.

When people explore porn they can know "I like these things" and in an environment of positive and constructive education, they will hear "Porn is not real, it is fiction. Everything seen in porn is fictional. Everything from the fluids to the faces, to the positions, to the situations. All of it is a lie except sometimes the actors really exist, but they don't actually look like that. Even the personality of those actors are nothing like the characters they portray. It is a fantasy meant to titillate, to look at and make experiences something more exciting, taboo, or otherwise interesting. Sometimes the things are really happening as you watch, but even then there's something else going on, some deep lie. Nothing of porn is real except the way it makes you feel. Don't do something just because it was in porn or someone lied about it and said it was fun. It's probably not actually fun, even if it's fun to think about sometimes. People often use porn to imagine things they cannot have, socially and sometimes even physically. Anyone trying to convince you about something using porn is full of shit and proving how much you probably can't trust them."

A world with porn is a world where someone who feels something is missing in their life without a leveraging of power being observed during sex is going to see someone figuring out how to leverage power during sex, too often without considering that it isn't ethical, when seeing it on a screen could be as far as they would ever actually want to go, if not for that lack.

That is the mechanism to which the expectation of the inverse relationship of porn to rape is expected to arise: people sighing a sigh of relief saying "I can be me without hurting anyone" and then they do that because fundamentally they want to be good-enough people for the sake of themselves and others.

Other people don't get that memo and decide to be as shitty as they want damn the consequences. They're going to explore their fantasies regardless. Finding ways to see people able to enjoy themselves as mature adults is good. I define "as mature adults" to be specifically about keeping consequences confined to the consenting, in fact.

 

[Bronzeage]

Republican Platform, Project 2025 Co-Author Admits Pornography Ban Will Be Done 'From the Back Door'

Former Donald Trump staffer and Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought told undercover reporters last month that the Heritage Foundation-led initiative has entered its second, more secretive phase with different tactics, including banning pornography “from the back door” through age verification...

www.xbiz.com

They're planning to ban porn. Legalizing porn cut the rape rate by about 85%. If it was actually removed there's no reason to think that wouldn't be reversed.

I think this is a case of causation vs correlation.

Why? The same general thing has been found across many countries. Availability of sexual media correlates with a big drop in rapes.

We have three possible cases:

1) Porn lower rape.
2) Rape declines for unrelated reasons, causing availability of porn. Huh, this one makes no sense.
3) Something else causes both increased access to porn and lower rates of rape. What?!

It would help your hypothesis if you could specify the mechanism that connects rape and porn.

People frustrated about the unavailable nature of what gets them off; the taboo nature of being unable to discuss something and how you constructively pursue ejaculations and orgasms despite that fact lead to less constructive ways of addressing those needs, and lead some towards an enjoyment of such destructive things.

When porn is unavailable, people are in a lot worse of a position trying to work out how to handle being as they are. Some feelings it really helps to ground certain thoughts out on occasion in a stable way, and porn helps with that.

When people explore porn they can know "I like these things" and in an environment of positive and constructive education, they will hear "Porn is not real, it is fiction. Everything seen in porn is fictional. Everything from the fluids to the faces, to the positions, to the situations. All of it is a lie except sometimes the actors really exist, but they don't actually look like that. Even the personality of those actors are nothing like the characters they portray. It is a fantasy meant to titillate, to look at and make experiences something more exciting, taboo, or otherwise interesting. Sometimes the things are really happening as you watch, but even then there's something else going on, some deep lie. Nothing of porn is real except the way it makes you feel. Don't do something just because it was in porn or someone lied about it and said it was fun. It's probably not actually fun, even if it's fun to think about sometimes. People often use porn to imagine things they cannot have, socially and sometimes even physically. Anyone trying to convince you about something using porn is full of shit and proving how much you probably can't trust them."

A world with porn is a world where someone who feels something is missing in their life without a leveraging of power being observed during sex is going to see someone figuring out how to leverage power during sex, too often without considering that it isn't ethical, when seeing it on a screen could be as far as they would ever actually want to go, if not for that lack.

That is the mechanism to which the expectation of the inverse relationship of porn to rape is expected to arise: people sighing a sigh of relief saying "I can be me without hurting anyone" and then they do that because fundamentally they want to be good-enough people for the sake of themselves and others.

Other people don't get that memo and decide to be as shitty as they want damn the consequences. They're going to explore their fantasies regardless. Finding ways to see people able to enjoy themselves as mature adults is good. I define "as mature adults" to be specifically about keeping consequences confined to the consenting, in fact.

There has to be something more concrete to the supposition that access to porn makes a man less prone to rape someone, if there is any validity to the idea.

 

[Terrell]

Good thing VPNs and external hard drives exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

Republican Platform, Project 2025 Co-Author Admits Pornography Ban Will Be Done 'From the Back Door'

Former Donald Trump staffer and Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought told undercover reporters last month that the Heritage Foundation-led initiative has entered its second, more secretive phase with different tactics, including banning pornography “from the back door” through age verification...

www.xbiz.com

They're planning to ban porn. Legalizing porn cut the rape rate by about 85%. If it was actually removed there's no reason to think that wouldn't be reversed.

I think this is a case of causation vs correlation.

Why? The same general thing has been found across many countries. Availability of sexual media correlates with a big drop in rapes.

We have three possible cases:

1) Porn lower rape.
2) Rape declines for unrelated reasons, causing availability of porn. Huh, this one makes no sense.
3) Something else causes both increased access to porn and lower rates of rape. What?!

It would help your hypothesis if you could specify the mechanism that connects rape and porn.

People frustrated about the unavailable nature of what gets them off; the taboo nature of being unable to discuss something and how you constructively pursue ejaculations and orgasms despite that fact lead to less constructive ways of addressing those needs, and lead some towards an enjoyment of such destructive things.

When porn is unavailable, people are in a lot worse of a position trying to work out how to handle being as they are. Some feelings it really helps to ground certain thoughts out on occasion in a stable way, and porn helps with that.

When people explore porn they can know "I like these things" and in an environment of positive and constructive education, they will hear "Porn is not real, it is fiction. Everything seen in porn is fictional. Everything from the fluids to the faces, to the positions, to the situations. All of it is a lie except sometimes the actors really exist, but they don't actually look like that. Even the personality of those actors are nothing like the characters they portray. It is a fantasy meant to titillate, to look at and make experiences something more exciting, taboo, or otherwise interesting. Sometimes the things are really happening as you watch, but even then there's something else going on, some deep lie. Nothing of porn is real except the way it makes you feel. Don't do something just because it was in porn or someone lied about it and said it was fun. It's probably not actually fun, even if it's fun to think about sometimes. People often use porn to imagine things they cannot have, socially and sometimes even physically. Anyone trying to convince you about something using porn is full of shit and proving how much you probably can't trust them."

A world with porn is a world where someone who feels something is missing in their life without a leveraging of power being observed during sex is going to see someone figuring out how to leverage power during sex, too often without considering that it isn't ethical, when seeing it on a screen could be as far as they would ever actually want to go, if not for that lack.

That is the mechanism to which the expectation of the inverse relationship of porn to rape is expected to arise: people sighing a sigh of relief saying "I can be me without hurting anyone" and then they do that because fundamentally they want to be good-enough people for the sake of themselves and others.

Other people don't get that memo and decide to be as shitty as they want damn the consequences. They're going to explore their fantasies regardless. Finding ways to see people able to enjoy themselves as mature adults is good. I define "as mature adults" to be specifically about keeping consequences confined to the consenting, in fact.

There has to be something more concrete to the supposition that access to porn makes a man less prone to rape someone, if there is any validity to the idea.

Not really. "Porn gives them what they want so they don't go out making bad decisions full of the horny" does a pretty good job of explaining the phenomena.

 

[Bronzeage]

Republican Platform, Project 2025 Co-Author Admits Pornography Ban Will Be Done 'From the Back Door'

Former Donald Trump staffer and Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought told undercover reporters last month that the Heritage Foundation-led initiative has entered its second, more secretive phase with different tactics, including banning pornography “from the back door” through age verification...

www.xbiz.com

They're planning to ban porn. Legalizing porn cut the rape rate by about 85%. If it was actually removed there's no reason to think that wouldn't be reversed.

I think this is a case of causation vs correlation.

Why? The same general thing has been found across many countries. Availability of sexual media correlates with a big drop in rapes.

We have three possible cases:

1) Porn lower rape.
2) Rape declines for unrelated reasons, causing availability of porn. Huh, this one makes no sense.
3) Something else causes both increased access to porn and lower rates of rape. What?!

It would help your hypothesis if you could specify the mechanism that connects rape and porn.

People frustrated about the unavailable nature of what gets them off; the taboo nature of being unable to discuss something and how you constructively pursue ejaculations and orgasms despite that fact lead to less constructive ways of addressing those needs, and lead some towards an enjoyment of such destructive things.

When porn is unavailable, people are in a lot worse of a position trying to work out how to handle being as they are. Some feelings it really helps to ground certain thoughts out on occasion in a stable way, and porn helps with that.

When people explore porn they can know "I like these things" and in an environment of positive and constructive education, they will hear "Porn is not real, it is fiction. Everything seen in porn is fictional. Everything from the fluids to the faces, to the positions, to the situations. All of it is a lie except sometimes the actors really exist, but they don't actually look like that. Even the personality of those actors are nothing like the characters they portray. It is a fantasy meant to titillate, to look at and make experiences something more exciting, taboo, or otherwise interesting. Sometimes the things are really happening as you watch, but even then there's something else going on, some deep lie. Nothing of porn is real except the way it makes you feel. Don't do something just because it was in porn or someone lied about it and said it was fun. It's probably not actually fun, even if it's fun to think about sometimes. People often use porn to imagine things they cannot have, socially and sometimes even physically. Anyone trying to convince you about something using porn is full of shit and proving how much you probably can't trust them."

A world with porn is a world where someone who feels something is missing in their life without a leveraging of power being observed during sex is going to see someone figuring out how to leverage power during sex, too often without considering that it isn't ethical, when seeing it on a screen could be as far as they would ever actually want to go, if not for that lack.

That is the mechanism to which the expectation of the inverse relationship of porn to rape is expected to arise: people sighing a sigh of relief saying "I can be me without hurting anyone" and then they do that because fundamentally they want to be good-enough people for the sake of themselves and others.

Other people don't get that memo and decide to be as shitty as they want damn the consequences. They're going to explore their fantasies regardless. Finding ways to see people able to enjoy themselves as mature adults is good. I define "as mature adults" to be specifically about keeping consequences confined to the consenting, in fact.

There has to be something more concrete to the supposition that access to porn makes a man less prone to rape someone, if there is any validity to the idea.

Not really. "Porn gives them what they want so they don't go out making bad decisions full of the horny" does a pretty good job of explaining the phenomena.

That is a hypothesis. I don't believe it will stand up to either an examination of rape, or porn, as it depends upon confirming the primary motivation for rape is a lack of sexual release. At the same time, fantasy and masturbation aided by pornography can provide the needed release, while masturbation without porn, will not.

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

... it depends upon confirming the primary motivation for rape is a lack of sexual release.

We are talking specifically about an activity people want to engage in, to feel a feeling they wish to feel. That is unequivocally the motivation behind 100% of rapes. There is NOTHING controversial about that statement.

Some people will not care about the externalities involved to getting them to feel that way.

Some people will care, and will take all measures to feel that way without externalities.

Porn is a way to feel that way without negative externalities. It is in fact the first, most easily leveraged, and least socially ostracized method to eliminating those externalities. Any other option has a chance of externalities.

IF people care about negative externalities, porn will prevent negative externalities. Cultures that acknowledge porn (and externalities) will not exist if porn is made illegal, or will be driven underground into "automatic externalities" territory (the automatic externality being the risk of being dragged in over porn).

The overwhelming motivator for ALL criminal acts is inability (or lack of understanding how) to get what you want without creating externalities. Any methodology presented to get what you want without those externalities is a step forward.

 

[robnisch]

Um, I recall hearing years ago that rape was more about dominating and controlling than about sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um, I recall hearing years ago that rape was more about dominating and controlling than about sex.

It is, but this doesn't change the fact that there are various ways to feel that way, the most accessible of which being "vicariously through fiction".

If "vicariously through fiction" is thought of as "already sinning", there's less of a reason to explore "vicariously through fiction".

It's not about sex, but "vicariously through fiction" is an alternative to "direct personal action".

By making porn available (and acceptable), "vicariously through fiction" would predictably divert many away from "direct personal action".

 

[Tigers!]

Um, I recall hearing years ago that rape was more about dominating and controlling than about sex.

It is, but this doesn't change the fact that there are various ways to feel that way, the most accessible of which being "vicariously through fiction".

If "vicariously through fiction" is thought of as "already sinning", there's less of a reason to explore "vicariously through fiction".

It's not about sex, but "vicariously through fiction" is an alternative to "direct personal action".

By making porn available (and acceptable), "vicariously through fiction" would predictably divert many away from "direct personal action".

That is a large risk you are asking others to undertake. If you could guarantee that consumers of porn would not not go from experiencing it vicariously to "I wonder how that would feel if I physically did it" that would work but you, nor anyone else, will ever be able to guarantee that.

 

[Tigers!]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

 

[Rhea]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

 

[Bronzeage]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

That's the most delicate way I could put it. Back in the 90s, a serial killer/rapist was running loose in my city. He raped and killed at least 8 women. Most of his victims were street prostitutes(crack whores was the description). Two of his victims were over 70. Whatever scale of attractiveness one can apply to women, it's a very small factor in how or why a rapist chooses his victim.

 

[Tigers!]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Everything else you mention is sadly true.

 

[Jarhyn]

Um, I recall hearing years ago that rape was more about dominating and controlling than about sex.

It is, but this doesn't change the fact that there are various ways to feel that way, the most accessible of which being "vicariously through fiction".

If "vicariously through fiction" is thought of as "already sinning", there's less of a reason to explore "vicariously through fiction".

It's not about sex, but "vicariously through fiction" is an alternative to "direct personal action".

By making porn available (and acceptable), "vicariously through fiction" would predictably divert many away from "direct personal action".

That is a large risk you are asking others to undertake. If you could guarantee that consumers of porn would not not go from experiencing it vicariously to "I wonder how that would feel if I physically did it" that would work but you, nor anyone else, will ever be able to guarantee that.

You act as if those with the intent just suddenly develop that desire. They don't. The reality is that people who are going to kill people and do torture puppies don't get the idea to kill people from torturing puppies.

They were always going to kill people. That was already in them.

Of course there's no guarantee that 'vicariously through fiction' is where they stop. There never will be such a guarantee, and anyone who thinks there must be such a guarantee is a fool.

The porn is not an on-ramp to darker things still, the porn is a diversion, an option for those who are not so broken as that they were always so broken.

The theory here is that there are two groups: those who would porn of they could porn because they don't want to more-than-porn but who will do something if they can't do that, and those who porn because they can't more-than-porn at the moment.

The gateway hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by decades of research.

The "two groups" hypothesis is much stronger, pointing to the idea that there are two groups: those who care about externalities and those who do not. Those who care about externalities will do their best to live as fully as possible while eliminating externalities. Those who don't care about externalities will take any "viable" opportunity regardless of the externality because they don't see any real reason to disengage beyond "consequences specifically for them".

We can confirm this by just observing that we can see people who will limit behavior "because it is right" (the vast majority), and that there are some who will only limit behavior "because I could get caught if I do it this way" (a minority that manage to engage in the majority of victim generating crimes). We can see that phenomena in action, test for it, and get confirmation that "yes, some people care about externalities, and other folks don't." You can study these longitudinally and watch as the people who don't care about externalities go on to commit the majority of crimes regardless of whether they play violent video games or look at porn to your heart's content.

I've known plenty of people who like looking at Loli porn.

I've known exactly ONE that went on to molest a child.

The person that molested a child was, predictably, someone who already was prone to lying and manipulating people because externalities just didn't register with them, and they just didn't think about experiences from the other person's point of view.

Admittedly, some people are much better at hiding or limiting externalities that come back to bite them. They are adept at preventing or avoiding consequences, and I'm sure I've met some folks like that who I just didn't detect or identify!

Worse, I expect people can be made into "externality disregarders" specifically by forcing them into a situation where they themselves must ignore an externality. This becomes more likely if non-externality options do not exist. The only way to continue existing in a "normal" setting after that is to learn to disregard externalities.

Rape happens because the rapist doesn't care about the externalities... Or worse, because they want those externalities to exist. The easiest way to communicate that externalities are important is to offer ways specifically targeted to prevent externalities from existing, to get people into behavioral patterns that take externalities into account, and to build a culture of preventing such externalities, because it is exactly the externalities that we wish to avoid as upstanding people.

 

[Bronzeage]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Everything else you mention is sadly true.

We are discussing rape and the motivation of a rapist, and what is more, for lack of a better word, "rape apologists." There really isn't anyway to have a frank discussion of this topic without harshness.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Kind of why the context matters. Bronzeage's statement wasn't a personal reflection of a rape victim, but a reflection of how a rapist perceives their victim. Bronzeage's statement specifically was calling out that rape is very often not about attraction and looks, but as a primal act of violation.

 

[Jarhyn]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Kind of why the context matters. Bronzeage's statement wasn't a personal reflection of a rape victim, but a reflection of how a rapist perceives their victim. Bronzeage's statement specifically was calling out that rape is very often not about attraction and looks, but as a primal act of violation.

Yeah, it's about people who need to feel "powerful" during sex, and do not care about (or who actively need, so as to feel powerful) the negative externalities.

These people will rape, porn or no, because it's about something they can only really get from raping anyway... And more often people will be made to become that by the resort to non-fictive measures to satisfy their needs, which include "the need to feel powerful".

Personally, I don't [redacted] because it's wrong. I do a lot of things around [redacted] because those things aren't wrong or right, they're purely fiction. I like it because I know it's fiction; instances of [redacted] that aren't fiction just make me feel sad and icky when I think about the fictions I like, and then I can't enjoy my fiction!

I don't know what I would be or who I would be if I didn't have fictions about [redacted] available legally, if I couldn't access that material, or if the communities around fictional [redacted] didn't exist to offer me those fictions. I do know that the communities I participate in exist specifically for allowing that community to have a healthy relationship with society, specifically for the sake of eliminating externalities.

In BDSM culture in general, consent is the most important thing. An entire culture, and family of other fetish cultures, all sprung up around this specific concern of consent. BDSM is about fiction: the lack of consent is a lie, for a suspension of disbelief.

From the outside looking in, the least of BDSM would come across as abuse, and it IS about power. Often enough people enjoy BDSM because they decide not to be rapists, and decide to get their rocks off in a healthy way. It's not a hard decision for most people. In fact, it's often the people who see BDSM as "sick" that become rapists.

I strongly expect that the people who would ban images would ban such activities as perversion.

If you want to find the rapist, I would say look for the person who would rather be a rapist than a 'pervert'. Though often a rapist will be both.

All these things exist specifically to catch people who would otherwise have problematic interests with a group of friendly, socially adjusted individuals who say "hold up, let's not do that icky evil thing and do this other thing that's LIKE that but fun and consensual". Sometimes people don't get the message and do evil and icky things anyway. That's on the people who look at the options and decide "no, I want to do the evil and icky thing."

 

[Toni]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Everything else you mention is sadly true.

I did not see it as misogynistic at all. He's right. IMO, rapists rape because of their own rage and because of the sense of power it gives them. Also, a strong sense of entitlement. The last applies most strongly to the casual date rapist, the person who thinks that they get what they want as long as they bought dinner or movie tickets or their victim let them kiss them or they've had sex with the victim before or they 'know' the victim is not a virgin, etc. Some assume that consenting to dinner or a movie is consent to whatever the person who paid for dinner wants.

Victims are raped regardless of their age, their race, their level of physical attractiveness, what they are or are not wearing. All that is required is opportunity and access.

 

[Jarhyn]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Everything else you mention is sadly true.

I did not see it as misogynistic at all. He's right. IMO, rapists rape because of their own rage and because of the sense of power it gives them. Also, a strong sense of entitlement. The last applies most strongly to the casual date rapist, the person who thinks that they get what they want as long as they bought dinner or movie tickets or their victim let them kiss them or they've had sex with the victim before or they 'know' the victim is not a virgin, etc. Some assume that consenting to dinner or a movie is consent to whatever the person who paid for dinner wants.

Victims are raped regardless of their age, their race, their level of physical attractiveness, what they are or are not wearing. All that is required is opportunity and access.

I've had people think that flirting over text meant an entitlement to nudes.

But instead of teaching consent culture in sex ed, they teach abstinence, as if ignorance ever solves anything.

 

[Toni]

The "Give them porn or they'll rape you" hypothesis would probably fail in the same way the "Attractive young women in short skirts cause rape" hypothesis collapses when actual rape victims are considered. It's found the majority were not young, wearing a short skirt, not attractive in a conventional sense.

The last phrase is a bit harsh

Harsh in what way?
Women are told, “if you try to look attractive, and men harm you, then it’s your own fault because you were asking for it.” We know that; we are told this all the time. Don’t dress up to go out clubbing, because it’s an invitation. Don’t dress up for one man, because all men think it’s a signal for all of them. But the data shows that women who are not dressed up, not in makeup and not conventionally pretty are also raped.

So it’s a lie to blame women who are raped, which itself emboldens rapists even more. But the data shows that the blame is a lie. Women get raped because they are women, which makes them prey of men. (Some men are also prey, and sometimes by men who are not homosexual, thereby further proving that it is NOT about sexual pleasure)

If I, as a male, called any woman "not attractive in a conventional sense" I would immediately be classed as misogynistic, uncaring, hateful etc. etc. So I was surprised to see Bronzeage use the phrase. It is a harsh phrase.

Everything else you mention is sadly true.

I did not see it as misogynistic at all. He's right. IMO, rapists rape because of their own rage and because of the sense of power it gives them. Also, a strong sense of entitlement. The last applies most strongly to the casual date rapist, the person who thinks that they get what they want as long as they bought dinner or movie tickets or their victim let them kiss them or they've had sex with the victim before or they 'know' the victim is not a virgin, etc. Some assume that consenting to dinner or a movie is consent to whatever the person who paid for dinner wants.

Victims are raped regardless of their age, their race, their level of physical attractiveness, what they are or are not wearing. All that is required is opportunity and access.

I've had people think that flirting over text meant an entitlement to nudes.

But instead of teaching consent culture in sex ed, they teach abstinence, as if ignorance ever solves anything.

The idea of consent culture is relatively new. Generally speaking, school systems are very slow to adopt changes. Of course there are exceptions. But what seems to be universally true is that changes to curriculum that involves sex are the most difficult to change. A lot of people get nervous about the idea of kids being taught that they have choices to make about their own bodies, because those choices might not be what the parent wants.

As a parent, it can be truly scary to think that your child might make seriously bad, life changing decisions that they are too young to be able to deal with. Worse, that someone else will make those decisions for them.

Some parents believe that keeping some information, usually about sex but also about money, will help keep their kids safe. Some kids are also extremely adverse to their parents talking with them about sex, abd birth control. That includes families that are generally very open about talking about health and bodies and touch. I am convinced that some of this has to do with heritable personality traits. This does not mean that these difficult discussions do not need to happen. They do.

And of course, the idea of consent can be pretty threatening to those who do it believe that women and children or whoever is the object of their desire has real control over their own body.