Times article on Pornhub - and the response to it

I'm not pro-porn at all but I do think this is a stretch.

In real life, even the most porn-addicted men aren't going to think that. A minute minority of disturbed fringe intel types, maybe... but even then... I really doubt that fake taxi will cause any real world harassment.

The idea of a taxi driver and passenger having sex is a fairly tame fantasy. Nothing especially unusual about things like this. And having seen fake taxi, it's not remotely realistic.

It's if the giant tits and heels type porn which everyone knows is very fake and porn-y.

Even if the taxi videos don’t involve rape, they still send out a deeply unpleasant and disturbing message that women are theoretically willing to have sex with a random taxi driver. It promulgates this idea that women welcome flirtation from drivers, that he might well have a shot. When in reality women just want to get from a to b in peace. It’s a very vulnerable place, to be in a car with a stranger , and it would be excruciating if he came onto me. I know people are trying to minimise the porn and say it’s not showing anything illegal or nasty, but the way I see it it’s false propaganda about women that has the potential to put them in uncomfortable situations.

@AdamRyan 100%. We are all harmed by this proliferation of porn.

We live in a society where people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others

Women are harmed during filming of porn. I suggest you watch the film "hot girls wanted". A porn actress in Japan died from choking on semen in a bukkake film.

Women are harmed in relationships with men who want to act out what they've seen in port. Anal injuries in teenagers are on the rise.

And men are harmed as 'legal' porn is a gateway into illegal images. It's estimated there are lots of men prosecuted for watching/distributing CSA who wouldn't have been interested without the porn slippery slope.

I don't know how porn addled men discount all this. But you do you

I figured it out a long time ago

you will never figure it out - you are incapable - but that’s okay, the conversation will move on without you and men like you.

Many of the women in the sex industry are literally being pimped out. Many others are traumatised and vulnerable people who are being harmed for money.

Your definition of coercion is way off or you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think prostitution doesn't involve coercion in the majority of cases, even if you do believe that buying consent isn't coercion in and of itself.

You think you can tell that a woman in a video hasn't been sex trafficked? How? Are you Mystic Meg? You don't think they would say that on camera, do you? Have you never heard about all the women who've found out that videos of them being sexually abused as children are all over porn sites? If you regularly watch porn, you have definitely watched a filmed rape, no matter how slack your definition of rape is.

I figured it out a long time ago. Seople are disgusted by pornography. We live in a society where people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others. So people who want a ban have to try and make a case that pornography harms others, no matter how vague or misleading their argument is.

They will preach to the converted but will be unable to persuade anyone else. The people who they will least be able to persuade will be teenage boys, who look at pornography and see that most of what they watch doesn't involve coercion of women. They know that Fake Taxi Driver has nothing to do with court cases involving taxi drivers. Consensual sex is not the same thing as coercion, no matter how much some people want to jumble them up together.

Instead of stating that the Fake Taxi Driver series will result in more women being raped by taxi drivers, fake or otherwise

Don’t be ridiculous. She’s not trying to imply that.

Disturbing in what way?

You can figure it out yourself. Or maybe you can’t. It might involve catching up on some missed developmental stages.

She is trying to soften the British public up for a ban. Good, I hope she succeeds.

Barry Norman will have reviewed hundreds of violent films in his career. Helen Rumbelow isn't interested in that though. Instead she wants to tell us that the Fake Taxi Driver series is violent, and that this is a problem, even though the series does not involve coercion.

She is a master of the art of plausible deniability. She will imply something, but then say 'that's not what I wrote'. Instead of stating that the Fake Taxi Driver series will result in more women being raped by taxi drivers, fake or otherwise, she writes 'In the light of high-profile court cases in the UK involving taxi drivers ... these were both disturbing'.

Disturbing in what way? I think people like her will always find pornography disturbing. It's not about violence. She's trying to soften the British public up for a ban.

I can't access the article but surely this sort of thing is made to appeal to (mainly) men as its a women in a vulnerable position of whom they can take advantage of easily. Sure they're set up, but when you really think about the popular searches and genres in porn its pretty grim as to why it is made and why it appeals to men. Schoolgirl and teacher (ew), stepdad and stepdaughter or some variation of, teen girls, degrading and absuive scenarios etc.

The other issue of course is young people viewing it and both girls and boys thinking this is 'normal' sex when it's not.

There are plenty of ways to evade any blockers (sadly). Heck even YouTube, twitter and reddit have an abundance of porn which aren't filtered by any sort of block, let alone the numerous websites.

Yes, but presumably there has to be something questionable about the fantasy in the first place, before you can worry that it's being validated by porn.

That it's less common, doesn't mean it's not an issue.

Porn is a product, its nobody's fantasy. Sick of dishonest rubbish from men, trying to equate restrictions on porn as 'controlling their thoughts' ie oppression

Fantasy, within the persons own head, is not validatedby being available on a screen. Images on a screen are provided by other people, which confirms that others think about whatever those images are. If these images are violent, include rape etc, then they confirm for the viewer that these are "normal" actions, thus validating the belief that rape is usual and acceptable. This is especially so if the viewers are young and impressionable, with little knowledge off adult sexual relationships.

Thanks for that insightful commentary, Barry Norman.

I remember the Fake Taxi Driver series. If it's the one I looked at it is an actor pretending to be a taxi driver flirting with an actress pretending to be a passenger sitting in the back seat. She agrees to have sex with him and he parks up.

I don't know where Helen Rumbelow gets the the idea about 'remote country lanes'. It is nothing to do with rape. The taxi driver is not raping the woman or forcing her to have sex because she doesn't have any money.

A lot of fathers won't confront the issue of porn because they themselves are compulsive users and part of the problem. They don't want to reflect too closely on their own behaviour, and they don't want to install filters because that would be cutting off their own supply.

AdamRyan · Today 18:47

ScrollingLeaves · Today 18:16

I remember a poster once mentioned their sons listened to Jordan Peterson talking about it and that this influenced them nit to be taken in by the pull.

Jordan Peterson has some very anti-woman views. He thinks "enforced monogamy" is the answer to preventing incel terrorism for example. He is a hero for the alt right, antifeminist man. I strongly suggest you don'tintroduce your son to his thinking

The talk was about men and porn.
Sons addicted to porn could be the greater evil than hearing Peterson explain why porn is a bad idea in a convincing way.

I have heard him in some talks about gender identity ideology where I thought he said very true things.

So I suppose it is a case of not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

This is a counsel of despair. Block porn on the router and monitor his data usage to see which apps he's on. It'll soon run out anyway if he's trying to stream HD videos. Although he'll inevitably be shown stuff by friends, he's not going to develop a full-blown addiction if there's no access at home.

The issue about fantasy and reality is one that is about harm. The difference between actual or intended harm.

Fantasy per se is not harmful. But what you do fantasize about can be harmful. Child abuse, drawn or rendered which does not involve an actual child is unlawful because it is abusive. Child sex dolls are obscene objects, you can commit a criminal offence if you own one.

I hope no one is upset by what I have to say, but years ago I had to check and build a case for a child sex doll being illegal. The law was not clear at that time. As part of this work, I had to research and look at cases of obscenities and pornography. Part of that exercise involved looking at the treatment of those under 16 and women in pornography, and how the courts treated these issues in the past.

I built a successful case in the end. But I also saw that post 2000, there was a huge change in terms of how the law applied to women and obscenity and pornography. What would have been classified as obscene, unlawful or abuse simply disappeared. That distinction simply seemed to be that consent was possible. Not actual. And so there was no more harm, neither actual or intended, and what effect there was beyond the viewer.

It is really important to remember that even 25 years ago, what was obscene or unlawful protected women nominally better than now. And that men agreed that was something that mattered.

Jordan Peterson has some very anti-woman views. He thinks "enforced monogamy" is the answer to preventing incel terrorism for example. He is a hero for the alt right, antifeminist man. I strongly suggest you don't introduce your son to his thinking

It’s difficult to block if his friends and him have phones. They bypass the blockers by using data. And you have to be sure all their friends parents are as strict. Parents just don’t have the connection they do with other parents at secondary school unlike primary school.

I remember a poster once mentioned their sons listened to Jordan Peterson talking about it and that this influenced them nit to be taken in by the pull.