"Well, I do have to correct you here, since we can already see that merely the statement of pornography means male-female sex. There is also male-male pornography. "

come on, we are being general here, we both know that 90% of the porn industry is based on the exploitation of women

"I said pornography isn't in and of itself sexist, because one, women don't even have to be involved, and 2, it can be done with the complete consent of the woman"

you can consent to being exploited and having sexism used against you, consent given has nothing to do with whether something is sexist or not

and as i said above the porn industry is 90% about exploiting women, gay - gay male porn is an extreme outlier in the porn industry

"I also say stopping people from watching porn isn't going to solve the problem"

this is a strawman, i said destroying the channels that distribute pornography, which would be very very easy, china for example has their infrastructure set up in such a way that many popular sites like twitter are blocked

"because much like drugs, there will be a black market of it, and then women themselves will end up getting punished for participating in it, like they do for prostitution, so it will not help them."

i didn't say anything about punishing women for having their bodies recorded, i said destroying the channels that widely distribute porn, it wouldn't completely be eradicated of course but at least the exploitation would massively be reduced

I said that the porn industry is sexist, so I don't see where the argument is there? You can create porn independent of the porn industry, much in the same way that people make homebrew games. And interesting that you referred to China, considering all of the VPNs that exist that allow you to access blocked sites in China. Exploitation wouldn't be radically reduced because it would still not address the issue of why women are exploited like that in the first place, namely due to their lower economic and societal standing.

"You can create porn independent of the porn industry"

the point i'm making is that websites can be destroyed or prevented from being put up... as i keep repeating porn relies on an easily accessible medium - destroy that and it'll take a big hit

" And interesting that you referred to China"

it was a poor example yes

"Exploitation wouldn't be radically reduced because it would still not address the issue of why women are exploited like that in the first place, namely due to their lower economic and societal standing."

women in developed countries as i said previously make more in their 20s than men in the same age range which is also the most common age range for porn actresses, i'd appreciate it if you didn't keep repeating claims that have been debunked

Well, depending on the meaning of the word, I'd say that pedophilia can be defendable.

1. Do you think taking the restrictions too far is necessary to fight harassment? If so, why? I don't see there being any need to take the restrictions too far (and, in fact, I would be opposed to such restrictions if they were necessary).

2. Uh, your point? Do you think the situation is too complex to be solved? What's the problem in solving this particular problem?

3. What makes you think we can't?

4. Your point is blatantly incorrect. If we didn't even try to fight crime, there would be so much more of it. We can and should take actions to reduce unwanted behaviour, because such actions are often effective enough to make lives better.

5. Good to hear, but you might want to consider learning how to express yourself better. Your presentation so far as been extremely one-sided, and you must realize how it makes you seem. I've often seen people have opinions that are opposing to mine, but they're usually pretty quick to acknowledge even the opposing view even if they don't agree.

6. OK, so let's assume we restrict this discussion to developed countries like I intended to (and though I specified that but I guess not). Do you still think they're equally common, and does that change your answer?

7. It seems a lot of people don't even realize what harassment is. Education is sure to help with that, if nothing else. Raising awareness is also important because it makes people see these things more easily, leaving less room for harassers to operate within. If more people are likely to intervene, it's going to make harassment harder and riskier.

8. Sure, I'm OK with that. However, I don't think that should be the main course of action. By assuming such a stance, you essentially blame the victim for not being able to defend themself, lifting the blame from the actual offender. I think this is a point of view that's too often completely silenced, but it does sounds like you're shifting the majority of responsibility to victims.

9. Like I said, this is an area where discussion has been extremely one-sided and of extremely low quality, but it seems there's a good reason for it. As soon as I even hinted at what you said, you jumped onto the bandwagon very eagerly and pretty much twisted my message into yours. My tone was somewhat different, although I don't really disagree with your suggestion either. Your tone sounds almost exactly like victim shaming, and this is probably why the discussion is so one-sided at the moment. Can you see it? Can you see what your tone seems like to others?

Yeah... talk about Cologne in Germany, right?

Wait, what?

" Do you think taking the restrictions too far is necessary to fight harassment?"

i did not say that, i said that it can happen, how do you think dictators get into power? its generally through promising people security and using that as a means of stripping freedom away from people

the people of our era really need to become acquainted with a proper understanding of the past and human nature, because these things should be obvious, its why books like 1984 exist 

"Do you think the situation is too complex to be solved?"

to some degree yes, because the problem at the heart of this is human individuality - the different base drives and tendency to lean towards selfishness  across people

at one level of analysis we've already covered that fact that at different times under different situations people are willing to disregard the rules society places upon them.... does that not add a significant layer of complexity to the problem? then beyond that there are several other factors that i would think again should be obvious to people

"What makes you think we can't?"

at this point this conversation is veering off into some bizarre territory - you truly think we can train people to not be selfish and not defy rules?... good luck with that idea

""There are many occasions where people would like to be selfish and act for their own benefit, but we've managed to largely eliminate the related problems."

if that was the case crime and oppression would not exist"

" Your point is blatantly incorrect. If we didn't even try to fight crime"

wtf???? where in my post did i claim we don't or shouldn't try to fight crime?...  what i said is that your idea that we've largely managed to eliminate selfish impulses people have that cause harm to others is absurd... the continued existence of crime bears that out

"Good to hear, but you might want to consider learning how to express yourself better."

this coming from the guy constantly straw manning me is hilarious

"Your presentation so far as been extremely one-sided, and you must realize how it makes you seem. I've often seen people have opinions that are opposing to mine"

well all i can say here is that if you think that all discourse on a particular issue, must come at that issue from the same perspective then you both have a very narrow perspective on issues and you probably aren't likely to be the time type of person to solve complex issues anyway since your pov is going to be contrained

i know that you haven't explicitly stated the above, but its kind of clear that its how you're operating since, for example, you claimed that i must support sexual harassment in some way even though i did not say so - its the sign of someone with a constrained perspective unable to look at things from different angles

"but they're usually pretty quick to acknowledge even the opposing view even if they don't agree."

i've stated since the start that harassment is a problem and we should try to reduce it... wtf are you talking about?

"Do you still think they're equally common, and does that change your answer?"

well i think comparing the loss of life to something that in some cases is as innocuous as a rude comment is kind of silly... but regardless i have the same attitude about all crime... it must be combated in a rational way with care that we don't end up going too far over to the control end of the spectrum... i gave an example of this when i stated that we could eliminate murder if we kept everyone under surveillance 24/7... but who would want to live like that?

"It seems a lot of people don't even realize what harassment is."

i really don't have much to say on this... i think the education argument is to be frank a dumb argument

"By assuming such a stance, you essentially blame the victim for not being able to defend themself"

i've said this before in this thread and i'll say it again... ascribing blame over problems that arise over seeking viable solutions is the domain of an idiot

what the focus of dealing with these issues should be is solutions, solutions, solutions

i think if more women walked around with mace, a lot of the problems with physical violence perpetuated against women would decrease

do you understand why women in the middle east often have to be escorted by men? its because that society regards women as children unable to be independent and protect themselves... i thought the idea now is to acknowledge the autonomy of women? i mean even further down you state this :

"If more people are likely to intervene, it's going to make harassment harder and riskier."

by "people" here you pretty much mean men

anyway regardless i think that a focus on women taking more responsibility for their safety would result in better results than teaching people something that the vast majority of people who aren't mentally ill understood since they were very young

" but it does sounds like you're shifting the majority of responsibility to victims."

for taking care of themselves? absolutely... again, this is not the middle east and therefore we value personal autonomy

" our tone sounds almost exactly like victim shaming"

by stating that the primary person responsible for someone's safety and well being is themselves?.... well if that's victim shaming or blaming or whatever silly buzzword is being used at present then i guess the term fits me

"Can you see what your tone seems like to others?"

yeah i understand your perspective, and its important that you come to realise that its unrealistic... again, you cannot educate the drive for acting in selfish or self serving ways out of people and your whole solution to this problem is predicated on that idea

Sincere question here, is it so hard to keep it in your pants and not harras woman. I am pretty much asexual so I wouldn't know. Seems like some males (and some females) need to be taught they can only touch another with the out spoken consent of the other party. If not keep your grabby paws to yourself. Is it so fucking hard to do just that. Sure it kills spontaneous reactions, but it also prevents unwanted sexual harassment. I think the latter is more important than the first one.

No, it's not hard, it's pretty easy to not sexually harass women.