It’s not just that it makes things hard on those who choose the profession, it’s that prohibition creates the black market. In New Zealand a couple of years ago a woman working at a brothel successfully sued the owner for sexual harassment. Imagine that happening in North America.
If we really wanted to stop this kind of exploitation, we need to completely legalize sex work of all kinds. If we lived in a society that actually didn’t judge people for their sexual choices we’d not only have legal sex work, but also schools that prepared people for sex work and possibly a self-regulating professional body.
Slightly, when talking to some people, Yep.
And when you meet someone that will say that a distributor of adult videos is a literal rapist, it’s no leap for them to repeat the old claim that the porn consumer is a literal rapist also. Especially when “all porn is rape”.
I actually agree with that flow of argument about the supply chain!
…Apart from the false insistence on literalism - which is what I can’t tolerate.
To put aside the contentious word/translation problems here,
If we can agree that X is unequivocally bad, Then
we can agree someone who seeks out and purchases X is part of the problem
and we can agree that a retailer who supplies X should be prosecuted
and that a worker peripherally and knowingly involved in the production of X should face consequences
and that an individual who committed a crime to produce X should be arrested.
and that the ringleader should be stopped somehow.
(Substitute drugs, bombs, snuff films, human organs, country music - whatever)
But we do have sufficient words available to us to describe the respective crimes differently. “murder”, “Accessory to murder”, vs “Supplier of prohibited material” get different punishments because - no matter what your emotional abhorrence to the crime is - they are not actually the same act. Words matter. Using them wrong can make your argument wrong.
What is it about rape and sexual assault that brings out the word-lawyers? I understand there are boundary cases, but this ain’t one. Don’t do rapey stuff if you don’t want people accusing you of doing rapey things. 'Nuff said.
he explained this already - he used the Austrian legal definition as basis for comparison. maybe not correct, but imo a totally legitimate approach for someone from Austria.
Did you know that only a tiny fraction of sexual assaults in the U.S. involve a lethal weapon? Does that mean we can claim there’s almost no rape in our country?
No, that’s not true. Sexual abuse, sexual battery… there are a number of legal distinctions related to criminal sexual ACTS (not sexuality). They’re not even all considered felonies.
So I looked it up, the Japanese standard actually includes “threat,”
According to Japanese law (see Appendix 1a), the fundamental characteristics to establish the crime of rape against a person over the age of thirteen are: the use of violence or threat; the victim being female; and that fornication takes place, meaning that the attacker must be male. As Burns (2002: 21) shows, the law requires that there be penetration of the vagina by the penis, without the consent of the victim, achieved by the use of violence or threat, and mens rea (criminal intent) i.e. the rapist intended to have sex with the victim against her will.
This is either a discussion on semantics and cultural differences, or an assumption that rape only occurs if there is an immediate threat to life.
It’s interesting to learn about different cultural viewpoints, but it’s hard to believe the source if they’re starting from a stereotypical MRA stance (as well as a different country, legal system, language, etc., so what authority are they speaking from, really?).
In Canada there is no law against rape. There is a law against sexual assault.aggravated sexual assault, and sexual assault with a weapon. Rape is just an English word we use to describe crimes where people are forced to have sex against their will. So I am claiming it is rape.
Am I to understand that you agree with me that I am right to say it is rape, and that you expect that I should agree with you that you are right to say it is not rape? That’s what we are talking about here? International semantics?
I think the thing that really grates here is that it’s a relatively straightforward event: Porn company threatens to use violence (the violence of the state through contracts and enforced debt is still violence) to extract sexual acts from a person who doesn’t want to go along with this. It’s not the setup to a kooky romantic comedy. If people want to call it rape, and people do, we’re not fucking orbiting Saturn’s rings with some outlandish conclusion.
