General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished by three years in jail, David Cameron to announce
Anyone caught possessing pornography which depicts rape could be jailed for three years under new government plans.
It is against the law to publish images of rape but a legal loophole means possession of the material is currently unpunishable.
The changes to the law, which will be introduced in January, will bring England and Wales in line with Scotland, where the offence carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail.
Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not.
The prime minister has previously attacked websites which show the material, saying: ‘These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them.’
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/17/rape-porn-possession-to-be-punished-by-three-years-in-jail-david-cameron-to-announce-4189512/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)some to such disrespect of others. The symptoms might be masked, but the underlying behavior remains. Given all in all, this is a good step forward by reducing behavior imitation.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Ask the LGBT community what that's like...
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You forgot the sarcasm tag.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)engaged in consensual role-play should be punished if David Cameron doesn't like it?
Are they going to haul in Hollywood producers for depicting rape? Will they arrest makers of movies that depict murders?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Instead of assuming I'm arguing something which I am not.
My statement was made relative to the conflation of rape pornography with gay sex. It had absolutely nothing to do with the potential illegality of rape pornography.
Comprende?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Your question is ridiculous and irrelevant in the first place.
Yeah, that's right - people should be free to be gay, and they should be equally free to have fetishes involving consensual role-play among adults (including filming it if they feel like it).
Free is free, there's no need to compare or prioritize one form of freedom over another. That's divide and conquer.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)and gay sex, which does nothing of the sort. To argue that both are equally ambivalent is to be absolutely foolishly shortsighted.
This is not me discussing the legality of either but instead challenging the ridiculous assertion that any sexual practice is automatically equitable to any other. Even sexual practices that depict and help justify sexual violence. That's a stupid thing to say.
Again, I say, if you want to respond with a vague diatribe on "freedom," make sure you're responding to the right argument. Otherwise it comes off as if you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
Legality or illegality is not the same as moral and immoral. Not in the slightest. There are all sorts of legal actions one can take that provides for substantive harm against one's self or someone else.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You asked a question of backscatter712 that completely mischaracterized what backscatter712 said. This absolutely was not "that any sexual practice is automatically equitable to any other" - your strawman - but that making (consensual!) sexual practices illegal fucks up people and society by driving people underground, something to which gays can also attest.
So what?
Never mind with a further response in this vein, we can keep it much simpler: Are you for or against a law such as Cameron's? If you're against, that's good, and there's no need for us to have further discussion here. (If you're for it, there's also little need to have further discussion, I suppose.)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)What 'consensual sex' involves rape porn?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)
Garion_55
(1,915 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I have a real issue with banning horror porn. Unlike child pornography, all parties are consenting adults. This smacks if censorship.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Far worse, in fact: This is a way to justify an entirely arbitrary, total police and surveillance state. Nothing more. Disgusting.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I was approaching this in a delicate manner as I didn't know how some on DU would take it. I figured it would result in a flame fest between free speech and those who don't understand that fake rape porn movies are just actors doing their thing for money. Given the 500 post shitstorm that has followed - I was correct.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and calling that pleasurable?
Sick, reading all of you creeps defending your "right" to watch woman be beat up and tortured sexually is what is sick.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)but Hannis perversion, not Nina Hartley .
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)or legitimate movie from an illegal one?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
NealK
(1,869 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong but Clockwork Orange is not a porn movie and the rape scenes were disturbing as they should be. Rape porn is trying to appeal to some viewers. Big difference.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Bill Lermer
(16 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)it too disturbing to watch.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)and rape is part of that plot, not the whole plot .
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)be real
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)There are dozens of sex fetishes" that are between consenting adults and this is purely censorship. Not much of a leap to start targeting more and more.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Cameron's pandering to his authoritarian base. This week, he's pandering to the crotch-sniffers. Next week, he'll try to censorship "terrorist plotting" from the Internet, by banning violent video games.
Shitbags like Cameron just aren't happy unless they're sticking their dick of repression in everyone's ass.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Cameron wants to wank himself off by throwing people in prison for consensual sex.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)What is the world coming to? It's just not safe for violent predators to be who they are anymore. Truly awful.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Rape by definition means the absence of consent. It's not that difficult of a concept.
Upton
(9,709 posts)which presumably would be among consenting adults..
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Because if so, consent has nothing to do with it. It depicts rape (and sometimes is actual rape) because the twisted assholes that watch it are violent predators in waiting.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)before directing me to arguments I've already addressed. The only ones conflating BDSM with rape here are the defenders of rape porn.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You have nothing to say about the subject matter and cannot counter my point.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)so why bother?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)your own disclosure along those lines in a thread almost a year ago.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)But unlike some people I worked on that and got out and about.
For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018516977
But you do have my sympathy
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)to attract women.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Keep trying! Come on keep making that attempt to plunge that metaphorical knife in and twist it!
It exemplifies those few better qualities you have.
On a side note, we had wonderful conversation about you, me and another DUer.
Was a good laugh
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I do my best, even if it pales in comparison to your particular talents.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Good Job!
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I remember very few posts from that long ago. I remember at the time feeling bad for you and wanting to say something encouraging, though not knowing what to say. Then later when I read what you had to say about women, I no longer felt bad.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Well an attempt at one
Amazing how a person can debase themselves by making such comments.
You have my pity and sympathy. It must be very bad for you.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)just a rendition of how I felt.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)You actually do have my pity
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)As in refusing to read anything that contradicts your preexisting views?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)blood from a turnip.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Your comments are quite hilarious considering that you have the inability to understand how BDSM can be consensual. I'm guessing you get all kinds of confused when you see movie stars from horror movies appear in interviews after the fact. Just how do they die on screen and then seem fine the next day? Do you also get apoplectic when you see people who insist that they can, in fact, believe it's not butter? Do you hate objective reality for no reason whatsoever or did it hurt a family member or something?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I've specifically said the opposite about BDSM and pointed out the only ones conflating rape (which is by definition non-consensual) with BDSM are the defenders of rape porn. Don't tell me what I think when you can't follow the most basic points. Why do you bring up BDSM? It seems to me that YOU are the one who can't distinguish that from rape.
Your horror movie shtick again. Jesus. What blather. I've addressed that epic fail of a point. Your continual effort to deflect from the actual issue are tedious beyond belief. The law isn't about horror movies, as you well know. You could at least figure out what the law actually covers, but then you might be in the actual position of having to address the subject rather than your invented distractions.
No one is taking your precious rape porn away. You don't live in the UK. American men are free to spend their days watching stuff that indulges their fantasies about raping and mutilating women to their hearts content. All is well in the misogynist universe.
I have no interested in your fantasies about what I have written, just as you clearly have no interest in what I actually have said. Christ this is boring. You could at least find something to say I haven't already explicitly addressed, and in fact argued the opposite of what you claim.
I'm done suffering your illinformed ramblings.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Far too much of that utterly nonsensical tripe. You believe that consensual rape-porn doesn't exist because rape, by definition, is non-consensual. I'm sorry, but you'll find the typical person finds crap like that far too stupid to respond to. You see, we're discussing a film/video PORTRAYAL of a non-consensual act that is in itself consensual. Understand? I know it's a difficult concept to understand, but things get confusing when looking at video/film on a screen. You see, those actors you see on television shooting at each other? When they start bleeding and give their final words, they're not ACTUALLY dying, they're just playing pretend. So, by you claiming that consensual rape porn cannot exist, you are telling the rest of the world that you are incapable of understanding things and as such, they can't be bothered to attempt to have a constructive conversation with you. You should be thankful to the ones who are actually taking the time to attempt to explain things to you. Most people wouldn't take the time and would simply respond with an "Awww, isn't that cute!"
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)
Or you wouldn't continually assert I am arguing things I have specifically argued against.
You are wrong on every single point. Clearly you have a heated debate going on with yourself, but don't put that on me.
Try reading the actual law. It's posted below. You won't of course, because all you care about is your hypothetical ramblings. So you go on about how I'm so uninformed because I'm not interested in some member's online sexual practices. You and he can compare notes to your hearts content. If people want to claim some sort of expertise because consume pornography of women raped and tortured, that is really their problem.
Since we're on the subject, why don't you tell everyone what you know about rape? Many, if not most, of the women in this thread and some of the men know exactly what real rape is, the stuff others here enjoy watching reenacted. You clearly haven't read any of the literature showing a casual link between watching simulated rape and actual rape, despite claiming that's you've done a close reading of my posts.
I specifically deal with the issue of consensual vs. non-consensual porn while discussing the British law. I point out that rape by definition means the absence of consent, and if consent is given it is not rape. I do not conflate rape porn with BDSM and horror movies. That is YOU. However, the whole concept of consent in porn is problematic, as some other members have dealt with more articulately than I. You clearly have made a point of ignoring those posts as well.
Your porn is protected by law. You are outraged that I express ideas you dislike. You insist rape porn should be protected while I don't have a right to express my views of it. That's some twisted notion of freedom of expression.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not care what porn you watch or about anything having to do with your sex life. Your life has nothing to do with me, and I thank heaven above it never will. Clear enough? I'm not doing anything to stop you or anyone else from getting off on any kind of porn. My crime here is having the audacity to think and write something that you don't like. Deal with it, but leave me out of it.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)"Look up rape in the dictionary
Rape by definition means the absence of consent. It's not that difficult of a concept. "
When referring to rape porn, which does NOT feature hte absence of consent? Did you not make this ridiculously stupid argument over and over again? You still don't understand that rape porn IS NOT RAPE. Also, you've failed to address any of the posts made to you asking how if the access to such pornography increases the incidences of rape, why the hell has rape dropped substantially as the access to this type of pornography has increased substantially. Your crime here is not writing things which others disagree with, it's making one ridiculously stupid assertion after another even AFTER you've been educated on the subject. Ignorance is forgivable, stupidity is much less so.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I'll spell it out very clearly for you. Rapists like rape porn. Rape pron increases rape. The UK is banning rape porn because they want to (shock and horror) cut down on rape.
Additionally, some rape porn is actually rape. There are farms in Thailand where young girls are forcibly kept and raped to produce that shit misogynists pay to watch. You pretend it's all simulated, but I don't think you actually believe it. If people didn't believe it was real, they wouldn't pay for it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Yet another thing you haven't bothered to inform yourself even minimally about.
http://sfsu.uloop.com/news/view.php/83613/sex-trafficking-within-the-porn-industry
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2011/09/07/the-connections-between-pornography-and-sex-trafficking/
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20087-trading-women-for-profit
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/Film-Exposes-Porns-Link-to-Human-Trafficking-in-US/
http://www.fdfi.org/tag/rape-porn
http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-to-curb-child-pornography/171395/
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts) BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and fault me for not reading your mind. You really have no intention of discussing in good faith. But then, that would require actually having something to say or some actual evidence.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)And I posted real evidence already. You just didnt bother to read it.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Porn, along with all other violent crimes, is in decline because of demographic factors. So? That in no way supports your contention that porn is entirely simulated and harmless. Jesus. You could at least try a search on the actual subject matter.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)How about you stick what you actually said? But that would be to hard wouldn't it?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You really have a knack of posting a lot while saying nothing. If you are asking about the link between violent porn and actually rape and violence against women, there is an extensive body of academic literature on the subject. Here is a Ted talk that summarizes the effects.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125528750
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)is remotely correct in the context of what you stated.
"Are we talking about rape porn or not?
Because if so, consent has nothing to do with it. It depicts rape (and sometimes is actual rape) because the twisted assholes that watch it are violent predators in waiting."
You simply talk in circles, thinking the moment I stop posting it's some kind of twisted victory, because I didnt feel like pursuing an issue with a non-entity that can't even line their arguments up correctly.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)showing a casual relationship between porn and rape. I'm going to assume (just a hunch) you don't have internet access to a university library, which leave us with old studies through Google Scholar.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=causal+relationship+porn+rape&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24
If you do have access to databases available through a university, I can easily do a search for you.
Yet you are so resistant to learning anything, you refuse to watch even the Ted video, so I won't hold my breath for your willingness to actually read.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hmm double posted.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Official figures just released show a plunge in the number of rapes per capita in the United States since the 1970s. Even when measured in different ways, including police reports and survey interviews, the results are in agreement: there has been an 85% reduction in sexual violence in the past 25 years. The decline, steeper than the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression, is depicted in this chart prepared by the United States Department of Justice:
As the chart shows, there were 2.7 rapes for every 1,000 people in 1980; by 2004, the same survey found the rate had decreased to 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of 85%.
Official explanations for the unexpected decline include:
less lawlessness associated with crack cocaine;
women have been taught to avoid unsafe situations;
more would-be rapists already in prison for other crimes;
sex education classes telling boys that “no means no.”
But these minor factors cannot begin to explain such a sharp decline in the incidence of rape.
There is, however, one social factor that correlates almost exactly with the rape statistics. The American public is probably not ready to believe it. My theory is that the sharp rise in access to pornography accounts for the decline in rape. The correlation is inverse: the more pornography, the less rape. It is like the inverse correlation: the more police officers on the street, the less crime.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/rape-porn-and-criminality-political.php
Really you need to go back to Fluff posts.
Either that or come down here to New Orleans and walk down Bourbon St during Mardis Gras.
You'll get a crash course in human sexual expression 101.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)in the industrialized world because of the decline of the young adult male population.
What is your point?
It's hardly a shock you're a big supporter of misogynist porn. No one could accuse you of being inconsistent.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Go back to your fluff. You lose
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Really? What was Ted Bundy to you? A champion for civil rights?
You really are not a person who should accuse others of lack of intellectual depth.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Seriously, as I've said before you should work for Fox.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)How?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You continually respond with snark without every clarifying your point. I provided evidence for post parts of my post you found so absurd 1) that some rape porn is produced non-consensually via human trafficking, aka slavery; 2) there exists an extensive body of academic literature showing a causal link between porn and actual rape, meaning watching porn can increase someone's likelihood of committing rape.
You, on the other hand, provided crime data showing reported rapes are in decline, which does not related directly to this discussion at all. I suppose you assume because rape is down it means that porn does not lead to actual rape, but that is an assumption without evidentiary basis. There are far too many factors that account for the decline, the most significant of which is demographic.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Is it really so difficult for you to articulate what it is you have an issue with?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)have a conversation with Violet_Crumble. You two seem to operate on that same wavelength
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Check mate. 
That's just sad.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I stand in awe of that fearsome..err... genius!
Now go bask in the mirror, your awesome!
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but I've outmatched you here. You gave up.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)To be in your presence is simply enough. Your mind numbing posts bespeak volumes about that mighty intellect at work behind the keyboard.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)to read any of the studies or news articles I provided links to, or watch the Ted video. You might have learned something. It's hardly my fault that you refuse to examine any evidence or engage in the subject matter.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but it's clear you have absolutely nothing to say.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Why bother bring it down to enough so you'd get it?
God knows I tried. I posted relevant stats. You didn't. You tried to address issues that were not in your original premise. psting stats that had nothing to do with the premise.
A person can only take it down so far. So why bother?
Instead I can make you at least feel happy about your "Winning"
Here for you:
EOTE
(13,409 posts)sheer frustration. YOU WON! You should know that ignorance is not something to aspire to. Typically only republicans consider ignorance an asset.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You can't even follow the discussion. Since you have no idea what I've written, I hardly take your charges of ignorance seriously. Evidently caring more about victims of rape and human trafficking than the misogynists devoted to that porn makes me ignorant. Actually it means I have a conscience.
As for your BFF, I didn't make him give up. He has nothing to say and chose to relinquish the subject matter for personal digs at women, which actually fits well with the subject at hand. Some people argue a position and some perform it.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)By you bringing up your usual vague allusions to human trafficking, you're showing that you still don't understand that we're talking about SIMULATED rape. Your conscience is no better than mine, in fact, I'd wager that by you continually needing to control the consensual activities of others, you're showing a very dirty conscience indeed. I'm so content with my own conscience that when others are not harming people, I have no desire to tell them what to do.
The only thing you've really attempted to do on this thread is to show a relationship between access to porn and incidences of rape, something you've failed miserably at showing. In fact, when called out on it, you haven't even bothered to respond to those comments. Seems to me you're just demonstrating your capacity for mindless bleeting than anything else. Hey, at least you're consistent.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)If you can't pay someone the courtesy of answering a question you get asked, don't drag them into any of yr back and forth flaming with others.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Courtesy isn't rated.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Again, you have no fucking clue what I think, as all I did was ask you if you think real porn clips should be banned, a question you flat out refused to answer...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)And really, I don't care that much what you think.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And if you don't care what I think, don't pop up elsewhere in this thread behaving as though you know what I think. That's just weird, and the whole carrying on coz I dared to respond to a post where yr going on about me comes across as just a bit on the authoritarian side...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)and Project much? "I dared to respond to a post where yr going on about me comes across as just a bit on the authoritarian side..."
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'm not fascinated enough by you to waste time wading through yr tsunami of posts in this thread, and you clearly aren't interested enough to do anything but get nasty at anyone who dares to ask you a question, so I won't hold out hope you'd just link to something where you've already answered that question.
Projecting is when someone accuses someone else of engaging in behaviour they themselves did. I didn't refuse to answer a question someone asked them. I'm not the one who got nasty and while refusing to answer that question fired off some question about some movie I've never heard of and then demand I answer it. I'm not the one who then travelled to another part of the thread, carried on about me and what I supposedly think while knowing jack shit about me, and I'm not the one who then seemed to object that I'd dare to respond to yr post where yr going on about me.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)You think your interesting enough to engage in continued conversation? I answered the question.
Not bothering to read my response is on you.
As for anything else. You are deciding to keep engaging me. Frankly from reading your posts. I don't want to know (in your own charming words) "jack shit" about you.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and you wonder why women aren't bowled over by your charms.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)You say so much about yourself in so little...
Now back to my "B" horror movie!
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)while accusing others of lacking substance.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Get rid of real rape porn. That stuff should never be around.
But simulated "rape" porn between two consenting adults should be left alone. Some men get off on it and some women get off on it. It's no business of mine, or your's.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I think it highly unlikely that women will ever be valued enough in this society for rape to be vigorously prosecuted let alone rape porn be outlawed, so the rapists in training will continue to have a steady visual diet at their disposal.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Because it seems like rape porn is way up in this internet age, yet rape is not way up.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)there is significant scholarly literature on the subject. Citing the overall incidence of rape in the population is not proof, since that doesn't account for a wide array of variables, the most significant of which is demographic.
To be more precise: watching rape porn can increase one's propensity to rape. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=causal+relationship+porn+rape&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24
If you have internet access to a university library I can do a search of databases that will provide more recent studies.
I found this Ted talk interesting as well.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... despite the prevalence of rape porn?
I mean if porn causes rape, then something else must be working astoundingly well to counteract its effects.
Correlation isn't causation, but it's pretty difficult to argue that an inverse correlation shows causation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)why would you defend such atrocities? Do you enjoy seeing women tortured? What the hell is this about?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Because if you're not using any sarcasm in that reply, I'd have to say that you've failed logic for life.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And if yr answer is yes, then how do you decide what's real and what's simulated? Would the line in the sand be anything that doesn't have happy smiling actors saying they were simulating it gets defined by you as real rape?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)as real rape? Since there are no happy smiling actors right?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'm getting the impression that you don't. And I have to wonder why...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Plus I'm not interested in anything apart from getting an answer to the very simple question I asked.
So? Do you think clips of actual rapes should be banned? And if so, how do you decide what's real and what's simulated?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)And also why is your question more important than mine?
Again: "So a movie like "Last House of the Left" where you have rape scenes and such, gets defined by you
as real rape? Since there are no happy smiling actors right?"
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)and everyone else in this thread has had no problem saying they see a distinction between real rape and simulated rape and think the former should be banned, yr refusal to answer gives me the answer.
Guess what? I'm not interested in answering any question from someone who refuses to answer the question I asked them and responded by flinging some nonsensical question at me about some movie I've never heard of and demanding I answer it. Behaviour like that's just a bit control-freaky, imo...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I agree that there is a difference and at the beginning of my posts I said as much.
You decided to back up baines Baine who can't see that there is a difference, read his posts.
I see a distinction between real rape and simulated rape and think the former should be banned.
However I don't see how you can do that without the whole thing being abused, I see it as censorship being a slippery slope. Would be nice to ban it but at the same time looking back at history its prone to being used to censor larger and larger swaths of things.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Now why couldn't you have simply said that (minus the control-freaky stuff) when I initially asked? Unless we're both on a quest to waste each others time and inflate our post counts, that would have been a much easier way to do it...
And now with the question answered, and thank you for answering it, I can go do something more constructive than post in this thread, like sit around basking in the sun and drinking coffee and smoking...
Have a great rest of yr day...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Or just us wimenz?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)...the searing subtlety!
How far this has fallen from the orginal issue...
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)in a movie such as The Accused, no real sex or rape is happening. I think that any movie that simulates rape while actors are having real intercourse should be banned.
It's a simple question to answer.
It's disturbing that you are having difficulty with it.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And if yr answer is yes, then how do you decide what's real and what's simulated? Would the line in the sand be anything that doesn't have happy smiling actors saying they were simulating it gets defined by you as real murder?
Quite obviously what needs to be done is to make any portrayal of illegal acts on film illegal. I'm afraid we're just going to have to eliminate 99% or so of all movies.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Has been for a long time.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)None of that has any bearing on the issue at hand which is the depiction of simulated rapes on film. No one is calling for video of actual rapes to be legal. But calling for depictions of simulated rape (which exist in much television and film) to be illegal seems way past ridiculous.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)There is no such clear distinction between simulated and actual rape. You assume rape porn to be simulated. Some of it is, some of it isn't. You can't always know.
Deciding what constitutes porn is always a matter of degree. Not being British, I cannot comment on the legal basis of their ruling, but in the US you are safe to watch women being beaten, mutilated, killed, etc... to your hearts content. America, the land of free MEN.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Of course there is real and simulated ANYTHING. Snuff films are illegal, right? Yet watching Saving Private Ryan is not illegal? Somehow legislators have found a way to allow people to continue watching simulated deaths in various forms of media without allowing the real thing. Just as with child pornography, often times forensics evidence is used. There have been times when people have been unjustly accused of owning child pornography due to young looking adult stars, but it's better than the alternative of automatically assuming anyone who owns porn without the proper references be accused of owning child pornography. Common sense can really be handy in terms of dealing with issues brought up in the OP.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Your examples are absurd. There is no similarity between snuff and Saving Private Ryan.
Now you're talking about proof, which is again a matter for British law. Presumably the crown would still bear the burden of proof, but again I don't claim knowledge of the British legal system.
I seriously doubt that anyone would dispute possession of rape or child porn, like any other crime under British law, should be proved rather than assumed.
Most of the discussion here has concentrated over whether banning rape porn is a good idea. I think it is, though I don't know if it would even be possible under US law. The reason I think it is a good idea is simple: rape is bad. And nobody is going to mistake a pornographic depiction of rape or snuff for Saving Private Ryan. Courts can and do make distinctions between drama, art, and porn all the time.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I can think of a particular case where a man was arrested at an airport for possession of child pornography because he had a DVD of a young looking (but still very legal) porn star. She ended up testifying at his trial and he was released. Yes, this kind of stuff does happen and it's not all that rare.
And there have been similar issues with regard to snuff films, a Japanese horror series involving torture/mutilation comes to mind, though I can't recall the title at the moment. The FBI got involved because so many people thought the movie involved unwilling participants and was actually a snuff film.
As for your assumption that because rape is bad, rape porn must be bad as well. Well, that seems rather simplistic to me. As for the artistic merits, I'm fairly sure we'd both agree that there is none (much like for pretty much all pornography). But whether or not that makes rape porn inherently bad, I'm not so sure. There's a good amount of evidence that access to all forms of pornography decrease the incidence of rape, I'd imagine that would be even more true for rape porn. I certainly can't imagine making rape porn illegal will do anything to reduce the incidence of rape or even do anything to reduce sexism. I can't see any benefit in doing something like that. I can, however, see quite a few ways something like that could be abused.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I can think of a local case where a man had pictures of his children naked on his cell phone and he was initially charged with child porn. It was broadcasted in the local media because he was a professor at a state university. The charges were eventually dropped, but what he went through was awful. I think everyone in this thread would likely agree that any criminal charge needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Your assumption that rape porn decreases actual rape is false. There are many studies that show the opposite. I imagine there is disagreement in the academic literature, but at the very least it's not as clear cut as you imagine. There is a fascinating Ted talk about one man's experience with porn.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)America land of free people to do and warch what they like without the bedroom nannies pontificating on what consenting adults can do.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Your continual insistence that rape porn is all consensual ignores evidence provided elsewhere in this thread. You are willfully misinformed on this subject.
Pretending there is as much commerce of porn in which men are the objects of violence is deluded. That some exists does not indicate parity. Sure, some women are likely twisted enough to want to see men hurt or even killed, but they pale in comparison to the numbers of men who consume that stuff.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)The OP said there was a loophole in the law...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Going after simulated anything is beyond stupid and an incredibly scary slope to start on.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)I'm sure that pretty much everyone agrees that recordings of real rapes should be banned. It takes quite the authoritarian to think that depictions of simulated rape be banned. That would eliminate a huge chunk of legitimate and critically acclaimed film and television.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'm pretty sure (and someone posted a link to Scottish rulings) that the Brits and Scots can tell the difference between something like Game of Thrones and the sort of online full-on penetration with no storyline apart from raping and killing a woman coz she dared to complain about sexual harassment that I described in my response to Muriel.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I'm sure we can trust them not to overstep their bounds in this very subjective manner. Just like our politicians who simply know pornography and/or art when they see it, I'm certain something like this would never be abused. While they're at it, they really need to get a head start on making other simulated depictions of crimes illegal as well. I think of all the trillions the world would have saved by avoiding the financial collapse if only "Wall Street" had never been made.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I don't know about the US, where there is such a high level of prudishness that maybe Clockwork Orange and Game of Thrones would end up banned, but that massive prude factor doesn't exist in other countries like the UK...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)anything. And it's often very foolish to assume that if a law wouldn't be abused under a current government that it won't be in the future. I tend to think that censorship should be used extremely sparingly. I can't see anything good coming from this.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)We don't have anything in our Constitution about freedom of speech, but it's worked for us. And one instance of where I do think things should be banned (Americans would call it censorship) is incidents where sick fucks have set up fake FB pages mourning a child who'd been abducted, raped and murdered and were posting incredibly revolting shit. The Queensland police asked FB to remove the posts, but FB refused. Another would be the page of a Melbourne woman who was raped and murdered and a FB lynch-mob formed to rage about her murderer. Only problem was that some of those posting were posting information that could have tainted the trial. In that case, I'm all for censorship...
If this law was in the US, I think you'd have a point, but it's in the UK where things are very different from what I can see...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The good that may come from this is that some people won't download scenes of (real or simulated) rape designed for sexual gratification, and therefore they won't reinforce the idea in their minds that rape gives sexual gratification, and so they won't attempt rape themselves for their sexual gratification.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)If I'm not mistaken, the only one in this thread, despite all the bemoaning about the launch of a police state in the UK.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)LeftishBrit, who replied 'exactly!' to one of my posts ...
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)for you to respond to this thread.
No worries about the world's largest prison population, the death penalty, or life sentences for theft, but instead a police state is defined by not having unfettered access to rape porn. 
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Dont you get that its consensual rape simulation, that the parties have agreed to and enjoy. Or do not realise that people enjoy all sorts safely and consensually.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Pornography has no more "consent" than prostitution--people who "work" in both are in it because of financial pressures, which means the sex being depicted isn't truly consensual.
Not only that, but others are profiting from trafficking in human beings.
I have no use for either one. Human rights violations should never be glamorized, and, in an ideal world, should NOT be legal.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...Scene.
Simulated Rape involves a lot of actions. (I won't go into all that)
It's not like a movie that shows "Simulated slap" ONE action.
For what it's worth..I agree with you.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)rape porn something that many people enjoy? What would they find enjoyable about watching it. I seriously want to know what a viewer would find titillating about it.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)I have used the example of furries a lot as its a good example for me and the exact way people in this thread feel about the rape fantasy stuff. Furries i dont get but some people do, for them watching furry porn is a turn on for me it does not, same with thousands of other types of porn. The issue is does it matter what consenting adults do, and who gets to decide.
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)is that if simulated rape porn makes it clear that it's simulated, it wouldn't appeal to some. So those who want their simulated rape porn to appear as "real" as possible (like real rape) "border" on anti-social and problematic behaviors.
If it's obvious that it's simulated (with the use of safe words and such), then I'd have much less of a problem with it. But it's the very reality of rape that it's chasing that disturbs me greatly. I think that only potential rapists would find watching violent rape porn titillating.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)The issue at the heart of it is consent, ifbthats there then its no ones business. Also there seems to be a lack of knowledge on the way porn has changed from movies produced in cheap motels or poolside on vhs to amateur porn streamed live with interactive discussion forums and webcams. It and its forms of submission and powerplay etc is very common and as others have said a very common sexual fantasy with both men and women.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to a horror film. watching women brutalized while jacking off is different than merely watching a horror film.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Now to sex and porn, first simulated rape porn has to be defined. Is it merely a female being depicted as being forced into sex by one guy, is it a group of guys. A female with another female, two guys, a guy being forced by a female. There are many connotations of what could be construed as simulated rape porn. People as you know are complex and what one person finds titillating another finds funny another finds repulsive, much the same as in porn or actual sex. I always think that if we start at what some say is normal ie one man and one women married having sex only for procreation and have a sliding scale everyones end point is different, for me the line is at the point of no consent. Anything that people do with or to each other is their business, the problem is do we really want to go back to the days when sex is not discussed and people have to hide who they are.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i dont care what gets people off. i care their is such a demand to have our women and children raped that there is a huge demand for kidnapped and blackmailed women and children USED, raped, freedom taken away (talk about the mans freedom of speech getting his shit) for the entertainment of men.
when men are jacking off to women and children being raped.
buyers beware. they have the responsibility to ensure they are not getting off on a woman being raped, but instead a role play. otherwise, they are as guilty.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Maximum penalties and rigorous enforcement are needed and should be pursued. The problem is that people seem to be confused over what simulated rape depictions are, i understand and respect your feelings towards this stuff but we all have to realise that these fantasies are very common. I think there needs to be a way to verify this stuff outside of the speciality forums etc but i got no idea how it would be implemented.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)define it as rape. there is nothing about rape in that fantasy. people going thru out this thread saying it is rape fantasy are not thinking. when a person has control over all aspect about what they fantasize about, there is not an iota of rape in that. to equate it to rape is to dismiss rape.
sex trafficking continues to escalate. the women and children are not only prostituted but put in strip bars, and online porn raped, brutalized, doing acts against their will. they have no freedom. they have no voice.
as much as the men on this thread wants me to be OUTRAGED over the possibility of their freedom of speech right taken away, i have a fuckin hell of a lot more compassion and concerned for the massive numbers of women and children that are having their fuckin lives taken away form them and repeated raped, tortured, brutalized.
different priorities.
since it is all over the net and demand continues to grow, sex traffickers continue to increase, it is the buyers responsibility that he is not getting a sex slave being raped for his entertainment to get off.
he, is the problem. and for them to validate and justify their wants over a human beings need to not be raped is sick.
we condemn the fox news watchers for being brainwashed by watching the lies on fox news. yet, those in this thread pretend getting off watching women beaten, humiliated, raped, and more does not effect their view of women.
that is simply the non thinking person.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)We have to see they are two different animals, yes its a freedom of speech issue in some ways. It is also a sexuality freedom issue, now there are sexual proclivities that are minority driven but should we force consenting adults to be what some consider normal. I for one dont feel i have the rigjt to tell anyone that they are normal or not as long as the consent thing is there. The second animal is totally different and everyone is calling for maximum penalties etc, no one is defending it at least as i can see. The reality is that males and females and everything between have fantasies including simulated rape fantasies and its not going to change.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when so much of it is actual rape and brutality toward human beings for men to jack off to, that has nothing to do with anyone fantasizing. that has to do with getting of on the brutality against others.
a fantasy of rape has nothing to do with rape.
that is where this rape porn is crossing the line. it is validating rape. and people saying fantasy of rape is the same as rape is blurring that line.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Around the different aspects of the topic in order for ease of clarification and understanding.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Wtf, they want to imprison people for engaging in consensual role play as adults, or for consuming depictions of illegal acts--absolutely no difference from violence and rape in movies. Not that any fictive performance piece should be punishable, even if it is fetish pornography! This is the police state's wet dream (except that cops are also no strangers to fetish).
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Cameron
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Of course, in effect, the determining criterion is budget and distribution reach. Small potatoes will be fucked, big budget not.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)About the most disturbing thing I have ever seen on TV or in the movies. Just horrible. But should people who watch this episode in the UK go to prison for 3 years? Of course not.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It was a shocking and powerful episode that really emphasized the true horror of rape.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this thread is totally disgusting and my stomach has already gotten upset reading these posts. outta here.
that men need their rape to get off, what the fuck ever....
Quantess
(27,630 posts)If you are talking about the posts that mentioned the films Clockwork Orange, Deliverance, and I Spit on Your Grave, well, I have seen those movies and I appreciated all of them. I Spit On Your Grave is a harsh film and a few scenes are difficult to watch, but I think even that one is a worthwile film.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)director's version of " a shocking and powerful episode that really emphasized the true horror of rape."
And, why else do you watch this series -- or any other television program -- if not to be 'entertained.'
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)In some way or another. I would much rather have someone exploring their darker nature via video games or indulging in fantasies than just going out looking for victims. Ps did you get my pm, kinda rushed it as i was working.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)really, lets ignore that
cant do this one. beyond disgusting...
outta this thread
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)But when stuff is not real then it becomes a different issue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and enticing in the rape scenes. to the point to turn on. that is feeding rape
really...
done
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)To equate the horror of real victims to people who consensually partake of whatever fetish crosses a line. And i mean consenting adults. Rape at its core is about power and dominating someone and that is a powerful human emotion that lurks in us all to a degree, but i would differentiate between the rapist and people playing out the fetish. I just respectively disagree with you,
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Next, they'll be conflating homosexuality with pedophilia...
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)In responsible BDSM circles, where sex toys include ropes and handcuffs and riding crops and such (what, you haven't heard of women who get turned on by being tied up? It's more common than you think), the couple engaged in this sort of play agree beforehand on a safeword, that way the sub (the submissive, the one who's getting off by being "raped"
can call a timeout if the situation stops being kinky and orgasmic and fun, and gets a little too real and too scary.
Commonly, the safeword is something that sounds completely silly and out of place in a bedroom dungeon full of whips and chains - "BANANA! BANANA! BANANA!"
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)No should never be the word, i think some see fetish porn and hear no being cried out and dont understand that in this case no does not mean no but banana or penguin does. I think there is a cultural difference.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)defecated on, whatever?...However "responsible" BDSM circles may be, they still operate
on the sad, neurotic inability of those engaging in it to feel intimacy outside of power dynamics,
and power dynamics are antithetical to anything resembling genuine love...Sorry. 
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)I have fun doing lots of stuff ie going to movies etc does not mean i need to love the guy sitting in the seat next to me with his wife. If you talk to a lot of people into fetishes etc they have love in their life, wifes husbands kids etc, this is just another part of them. There are neurotics etc as well but i would say there are probuably more people with problems in any church, club or blog you go to online.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and in any case, the psychological analysis is still the same...I don't agree that their
sexual "tastes" are completely separate from who they are as people.
People who get off on being mistreated have low self-esteem -- Those who get off on
mistreating others are people I definitely do NOT want to meet.
Besides the anti-social implications, they have similar issues and can usually "switch" roles fairly easily.
They're a depressing bunch, in my opinion.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)I'm cool with it. 
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Have a great one.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Bad analogy.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)This anology is similar when you have accusations saying the bdsm and consenual sex in that community are the same as rapists.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #21)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.."
-Justice Anthony Kennedy
Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, 2002
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Everything has just gone to hill since that movie.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Or is what I'm reading a passive-aggressive defense of it?
"I spit on your grave" is not porn. Not are shows that depict rape. I suggest rape porn defenders define their definitions before acting as creepy as possible.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Some words to use are domination, submission, powerplays, etc etc
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)which should be obvious because they are not banned already. For those incapable of reading the OP they are panicking about:
The distributors of every well-known film or TV series that any DUer care to mention, in an attempt to show the massive breadth of their viewing experience, have not been arrested under the existing laws. So people viewing them won't get arrested either.
This is because, unlike several DUers, most people don't regard them as porn.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)So i dont want to comment in case i confirm i am an idiot.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And be totally incapable of seeing the difference between them and something where the storyline consists of nothing but: Bloke sexually harasses woman, loses his job coz she complains, abducts her, roughs her up, rapes her and then strangles her to death. Cut to smiley face shots of both actors saying how much fun they had making it. The end.
Yeah, I can see how some Americans would get confused between something like that and Game of Thrones 
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Is there ANY thread in which you can't find some small excuse to vent your anti-American Bigotry?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Rather than follow me round DU shrieking at me that I'm an anti-American bigot, how about you do the fucking simple thing and do a search on my posts. You'll find the answer to yr nasty and rude question is a resounding yes, especially as I'm no bigot...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Don't flatter yourself, dear...I hardly "follow you around", in fact I had you on Ignore forever, precisely
BECAUSE of your many rude, bigoted posts. You've never BEEN in America, I doubt you even KNOW
an American off line and even with that, you remain the ONLY poster on this lengthy thread
to cast aspersions and assign blame based up national identity, but I'm sure that's because you're NOT bigoted.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And yr the last one to talk about being rude. Yr nasty and totally untrue post that I just responded to stands testament to that.
You know fuck all about me, and what you think you might know is wrong.
Again, I'm not an anti-American bigot and anyone who says I am is either pretty dumb or lying...
Also, you seem to be displaying some selective blindness in this thread. Didn't you notice the other response to my post? You may have missed it seeing it was civil and not a knee-jerk attack on someone...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)just a LOT of them...Trust me, I read enough of them to get the drift before I put you on ignore.
You're in full Defense Mode now...Sputtering, name calling, and dear, I know more about YOU
than you know about me...I know your first person acquaintance with America is in inverse proportion
to your off spouted "expertise" on it's supposedly negative aspects, that it is, in fact ZILCH.
Sorry, but giving America as the default "negative", e.g. "leave it to America" is NOT civil,
especially coming from someone who only knows what she sees on the TEEVEE.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And considering most of my DU posts are in the I/P forum talking about, well, the I/P conflict, I'm pretty sure yr just making things up...
Me saying that when it comes to what I think and where I've been and who I know that you don't know anything because you don't know me is 'defense mode'? Seriously? Yr going to sit there and insist that *you* know all this stuff about me? That's just weird and a little bit creepy. Because so far yr striking 100% when it comes to getting things wrong about me. It's not nasty nor name-calling for me to point that out. What's nasty is for you to appear out of nowhere and call me a bigot.
May I suggest that you get someone to read my posts at DU to you and explain them very slowly, because so far all you've said is total bullshit.
As for the phrase I used that has caused you to have a massive head explosion. 'It can only happen in America' is a common phrase. But I guess you think these folk are a bunch of bigots as well? Or do they get an exemption coz there's some particularly bigoted thinking where that phrase is only objectionable if it's uttered by people who aren't Americans?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeonlyinamerica.htm
http://www.history.com/shows/only-in-america-with-larry-the-cable-guy
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Guilty conscience maybe, lol ?
"A for the phrase I used that has caused you to have a massive head explosion. 'It can only happen in America' is a common phrase. But I guess you think these folk are a bunch of bigots as well? Or do they get an exemption coz there's some particularly bigoted thinking where that phrase is only objectionable if it's uttered by people who aren't Americans
Oh my...I do see what you're trying to do here, but it won't work...Of COURSE I know that that is a common phrase,
the rub, of course, being that the phrase is generally said in a POSITIVE sense -- Your use was ENTIRELY negative, and you know it.
I guess I did touch a nerve as you seem to be all atwitter trying to defend yourself, but I just can't be bothered with anymore tonight,
so, good night. 
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)That there is what you posted to me, and that there is called a pretty blatant implication. Not to mention the whole BS stuff about having many bigoted anti-American posts at DU as you were given the opportunity to put yr money where yr mouth is and refused to.
I'm pretty convinced you either don't bother reading or don't want to, as that phrase is just used, and not one that's got mainly a positive connotation. Neither is it particularly negative. It's just something that is, though RW types have tended to get very hot under the collar about its use...
No, you didn't touch a nerve coz you haven't said something that's true and yr outright refusal to back up that accusation with anything like the MANY posts you claim there are isn't something to get defensive or nerve-touched about. Of course, if you change yr mind and decide the wisest option is to back up accusations you make with something to prove them, then I'm all curiosity.
I'd wish you good night, but you told me several posts back you were going. Now I'm not sure if yr really going this time or not. I'd like to take a guess, but I'm not American and you'd probably accuse me of being an anti-American bigot again if I dare be so presumptuous as to guess
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And before anybody jumps on me, I'm talking about Americans in general, not DU'ers.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) whathehell
(29,067 posts)at least offline, and she's never set foot in America.
And by the way, what "evidence", lol, do you speak of?...What are your credentials
to speak of "Americans in general"?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I don't mean all Americans, or even necessarily a majority. But many seem to have this simplistic black-and-white way of thinking. Though I'm sure that's not unique to our society.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)And if they dont agree with me then they are fill in the blank. Pretty much the same the world over.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)with other countries may be lackiong.
I'm an American who has done a LOT of travel besides living in another
country, and trust me -- the black and white thinking is in no way limited to Americans.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I'm sure you're right - people are people anywhere you go, basically. I didn't really mean to suggest otherwise.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and you probably haven't been here long enough to be familiar with Violet's many anti-American posts.
I, unfortunately, have.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I've got over 30,000 posts at DU, so I'm figuring this may take you some time. It's just the last time anyone accused me of being anti-American, it was a RW American who was upset at my criticism of US foreign policy during the Bush era...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and the last time someone called you anti-American could NOT have been during the Bush era,
because I called you that AFTER the Bush era on this very board!
Perhaps my biggest mistake was taking you off ignore. In any case,
I'm done with you for the evening...Buh Bye. 
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Because it doesn't exist...
btw, I was being polite by excluding you from who flung that at me. Of course I remember at DU2 when yr post attacking me with the same untrue BS got deleted by the mods...
I hope a sleep will make you feel better and renew yr energy enough to be able to get my name right next time you descend on me for using a very common figure of speech.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Yeah, like I'm going to sift through your thousands of posts.
ONE post deleted?...Oh my, I posted WAY more than one, and, dear,
you've had posts deleted too....Sorry.
I hope something will renew YOUR "energy" enough so that you're able to spell out "your"
instead of printing "yr" all the time, LOL.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)If I have that MANY anti-American bigoted posts, you wouldn't have to sift. You'd know what was said in them and be able to bring them up quickly.
And pay attention. I didn't say you had only one post deleted. I mentioned one that was deleted for attacking me (something of course that I bet you insist you never do). It helps to read sentences in their entirety...
Nah, I say 'yr' intentionally. Apart from being cool in a Sonic Youth fangrrl sort of way, it also provides awesome ammunition for those who have run out of anything to say and decide to pick on 'yr'
So, I'll let you get off to sleep or whatever it is you do now...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)But if you're saying that, wow, I had ONE post deleted for supposedly "attacking" you,
are you claiming, by comparison, that you've never had ANY posts deleted?...Please...We all
know THAT isn't true. 
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)So why are you sitting there making up stuff about me?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)just "thinking" about visiting America...Seems you saw something by David Frye on the Telly
and thought there was actually "something to see" here....Last I'd heard you never got there,
but yes, Vi, I do have some "idea"....Maybe you post so much you've lost track.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)People can say anything on the internet, plus because yr posts are kinda on the creepy side when it comes to me, yr one of the last people I'd be keeping informed on where I've been and who with and why.
So, repeat after me: 'I whathehell have no idea who Violet is, where she's been, who she's been with, or what she thinks and promise in future that I won't descend on her in threads pretending I do.'
whathehell
(29,067 posts)you've been lying in your posts, but that seems unlikely when it comes to stuff like what you've
seen on the telly, and where you're thinking about going on vacation, doesn't it?...For the record
you didn't address the subject of visiting the States to me, personally, but I just happened to see it,
and because you asked for suggestions on what to see, I just thought I'd "jump in" and offer some ideas.
For what it's worth, you did not, as I recall, respond to my suggestions, one way or another.
Sorry that you've got your panties all in a twist over this, all I can say is if your as paranoid as you now
appear to be about people "knowing" stuff about you, maybe you shouldn't post on the internet.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I suggest you give this a rest and do what you've been saying yr doing for the past few posts after you refused to supply all these bigoted posts of mine you claimed existed, and call it a night. Because right now, yr posts are starting to get creepy and there's this word that starts with 'T' that is coming to me every time I read yr posts to or about me in this thread...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I don't HAVE to be "someone" you'd "want to know all about you"...and please calm DOWN!
I never said I knew ALL about you...Try dispensing with the Black and White Thinking -- I said I knew SOMETHING
about you, and again, if you're THIS paranoid about people "knowing" something about
you, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on the web
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Thinking that yr behaviour is just a bit on the disruptive side and that yr not someone I'd want to know all about me (note the word 'all'? It seems to have eluded you and become 'something') doesn't mean that I'm not calm. But I guess that like you think you know everything about me and my travel movements, you also know better than me what my mood is.
Thanks for the hot tip suggesting I no longer post. I'll pay that all the heed that I'd give to someone who's calling me paranoid because they think they know SOMETHING about me and because I don't think they're someone I'd want knowing anything important about me or where I actually have and haven't been. There's quite a few DUers I'm happy to share stuff about me with, but yr not one of them because to be honest yr rather abusive and someone I don't want to know...
Hey, if you can't call it a night as promised, maybe you could do yrself a favour and stick me on ignore again? That would you wouldn't be tempted to appear in threads calling me a bigot
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I presented some basically irrefutable evidence of posts you and I have exchanged, and yet,
you're unable, it seems, to acknowledge their reality or confront any of them on their merits, opting
instead for flustered, sputtering, personal attacks....In other words, a meltdown, partly as the result of
forgetting, it seems, that this is a PUBLIC board and you simply can't "pick and choose" who you
want to view your comments, and the other "part" your inability to be accountable for your own words.
Looks like you've got some problems, VC, and by the way, snce it's YOU who seems to find me so convulsively offensive, perhaps it's
YOU who should do yourself a "favor" and put me on ignore.....Just saying..
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The problem is when the fundamentalists use these laws to confuse BDSM/kink with actual sexual assault, and people engaged in consensual sex end up being punished like rapists.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)are defending rape porn.
I am really disgusted, how anyone can defend such violent torture for some so called pleasure is truly sick.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)And playacting a murder. If you cant see there is a difference then you really should not have a say. What other sexual practices between consenting adults dont fit your scope of permission.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)all these rape lovers, all on DU!
I guess it says something about people who spend so much time on computer screens.
Very sad evening, indeed.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean I guess you COULD just stuff them in a fridge, but that lacks the perverse titillation of a sexual attack.
...And yes, this is critical snark.
JI7
(89,250 posts)and something horrible.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Lots of women, as well as men, enjoy rape fantasies. Doesn't mean they enjoy real rape.
Hell, I enjoy horror movies and playing first-person shooters. Doesn't mean I really go around killing people with guns and axes.
This is censorship, pure and simple.
Cameron is pure fucking scum. The people who support censorship and jailing people for consensual sexual fantasies are pure fucking scum.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Talk about warped.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)due to your expertise on porn. Are you telling me rape porn using safe words?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)In the simulated (sim ulated, in case your filter misses it) rape porn and play everything is agreed to beforehand, no does not mean no etc, instead a different word is used to signify the big no ie banana or penguin etc some word that will be out of context. See its consensual the force part is all part of the powerplay and submission so everything is worked out.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)It can't be rape, can it? Now I haven't watched much of this stuff, but I've seen how it's billed, and they play it up as being real. I can't believe they are using safe words that the viewer hears and knows about.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)They are two different animals.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Are you assuming a safe word has been agreed to prior to the production, or does the video actually show the couple determining a safe word and using it? I think it's the former, at least for the stuff that would be outlawed.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)A lot of the actors in the tapes are known and blogs talk about it, a lot of the amateur stuff done on camera is obviously consensual as it gets advertised and there are discusions afterwards etc.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I can envision a responsible consumption of such porn where one makes a point of watching productions from certain companies they know to be legit.
GravityCollapse's point still holds, however.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Its all live amateur stuff nowadays especially for the more taboo stuff, due to being able to interact with the participants, ie you can see them they can see you etc. Porn has changed from vhs tapes from little stores to the whole world at your fingertips.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)would be far less likely.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)You enter a chatroom like du where people are talking and there are open cameras to the people as you are talking, some then open private rooms and invite guests to enter to talk and watch. You tend to get good discussions about fantasies etc, then people stream their playtime for the guests to watch, there is interaction between all and dates are set up etc for house parties etc. Its a whole new world rather than sitting in the basement watching a vhs on your own. Every taboo you can imagine is out there and people talk honestly about it. Also when you do get the real sickos the sites pass the info along to the cops. Its one way that pedo rings get infiltrated nowadays.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)once again.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)endeavors.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Truth, you could not handle the truth.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)On such matters. You seem to have forgotten prior conversations. I have no doubt there is more to the story.
It's quaint how you think talking online is evidence of some sort of sexual prowess.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)I have plenty of good scores where they are needed, yeah your rigjt i dont remember you, and no doubt will forget you again by tomorrow as i dont have time to remember inconsequential stuff.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but you do seem to like to overshare.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Its not that hard or technical.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)It does make me wonder why you haven't attracted more attention in the underworld. Seems like you'd be far more interesting than I am.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And then when someone provides you with the information you claim to be lacking, you claim oversharing. If you truly think that's TMI, you should bow out of the conversation. If you aren't informed and refused to be informed, you really have no place in the discussion. It's sad, really.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I mean, to me it seems like they're actually being killed. But I could have sworn that I saw Tom Hanks alive in an interview just a few days ago. This whole 'simulated' thing makes my head hurt. Can you try and explain this to me?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Is there some rash of slaves making millions of dollars a picture? Is debt peonage based on drug addiction suddenly a means of getting starlets to act in mainstream pictures?
Your point is absurd. If you don't know the difference between working conditions in porn productions vs. Hollywood movies, you need to educate yourself before delving further into this discussion.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)How much human trafficking is involved in the maid business? Quite a bit, I'm sure. You wanna get rid of that, too? I think it's you who is in severe need of education. You seem to have the idiotic assumption that if something is going on that's illegal somewhere, that everything connected to that something in even the most ancillary manner needs to be banned. It's beyond silly, it's outright stupid.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)And it's beyond stupid to think I'm dismissing anything. I'm speaking of how stupid it is to suggest that because something illegal occurs, all that is related to it needs to be banned. Stupid nanny state shit like that does no one any good. Maybe if people weren't trying to do stupid shit like this all the time, more resources could be put to, you know, ACTUALLY GOING AFTER ACTIVITY THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL? Nah, we can't do that. How could we whine about the patriarchy and froth at the mouth senselessly if we did that?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)If you actually bothered to read and, you know, COMPREHEND, you won't find anyone saying that here. But then again, given that capitalization is such a chore, I can only imagine how hard comprehension must be.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)You really need to discover proper sentences. You'll find they're an amazing way to convey thought. It must suck going through life making Sarah Palin a poster child for cogency.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)At Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:21 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
Only in your silly mind does it get a 'meh'.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4057767
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS:
Rude and over the top personal attack.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:37 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with the alerter - but responses to seabeyond can't be over the top and personal enough. Leave it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Member is acting like a jerk to multiple other members.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: It's personal and ad hominem. The other poster's argument may indeed be silly but his/her "mind" is not.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Haters are going to hate and wallow in it!
EOTE
(13,409 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)But it's rather silly to suggest that people are engaging in mob mentality simply because they don't think as you. I actually find it's the pearl clutchers who are far more likely to engage in mob rule.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)You should really get over yourself. Your posts in this thread are an embarrassment to DU.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I do think someone is engaging in a bit of projection. Rarely is hypocrisy seen in such an immediate and forceful manner.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)in this thread and all over DU.
You keep patting yourself on the back over those 3-3 verdicts. The mob won't always come to your rescue.
You have yourself one of those really nice days.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I'm not the one who thinks so poorly of fellow DUers as to call people I don't even know a mob. That's you, champ. And I'm not looking for anyone to rescue me, thanks. Am I to assume that none of your oh-so-classy posts calling others jerks, mob members and embarrassments have never been hidden? Do you insult people in such classy and high brow ways that people never hide them? At least your poutrage is entertaining.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Rape is non-consensual and already illegal. Cameron's law would make it illegal to consensually role-play it in a theater performance, to film such role play, possibly even to write rape scenes. All these may be wrong or unpleasant to you, but they are consensual acts.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Rape by definition is non-consensual. If consent is given, it's not rape. Rape is not about how the act appears, whether it appears rough or tender, but hinges on the absence of consent itself.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)between art and pornography is not a legitimate concern for any body of law. This is not for the UK police, Scotland Yard or some board of old-fart British judges to determine. Not only is the British law censorship, it is very nakedly an extension of police and surveillance state authority. It will allow completely arbitrary attacks on people, just like the drug war.
Your comment is completely irrelevant. Rape is non-consensual, but we are not talking about rape. We are talking about depictions of it undertaken consensually by adults. It would be like making a law against movies that depict murders, and then you defend it by saying, well murder is illegal! (Duh!!)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)That's how it works in this country. I would assume it's the case in the UK as well.
You think you are talking exclusively about consensual acts, but you are wrong. Your condensation only highlights your poor understanding of the subject matter. An enslaved person cannot consent to a pornographic production. Some rape porn is actual rape produced with victims of human trafficking. No TV dramas are produced by killing real people, but rape porn is indeed produced via actual violence. Moreover, I'm quite certain many of its consumers know that, which is exactly why they like it. It's a genre for men who hate women. Then there is the fact that academic studies show a causal link between consumption of violent porn and actual rape. Real rape. You know, the kind misogynists get off on watching and doing.
I've provided links showing evidence for the link between porn and human trafficking in many places in this thread, so you can easily read them or do a Google search yourself, unless you are satisfied in being uninformed far too much to bother.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)"An enslaved person cannot consent to a pornographic production. Some rape porn is actual rape."
This needs to be prosecuted! Good thing enslavement and actual rape are already illegal. You are supporting creating a new category based only on possession of something defined in entirely vague fashion, since of course non-enslaved people also consent to pornographic productions, and some (almost all of course) rape porn is not actual rape (though I find it disgusting anyway), but these categories would also be illegal and so the police and prosecutors would have yet another excuse for expanded surveillance and dragnets - helping absolutely no one who is enslaved or raped or endangered.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You go from one false statement to another.
It's a police state if the laws seeks to eradicate violence against women because in a free society men should be able to treat women as disposable objects of violent rage. Your definition of freedom already reigns in this country, which is why only 4% of rapists ever see jail time, and when they do terms can be as short as thirty days. The UK seeks to do something about in furtherance of a society not predicated entirely on misogyny. The horror.
Pedophiles, whether active or latent, watch child porn. I think the same principal applies to rape porn. So if rapists are denied visual depiction of their violent desires in order to combat violence in society, that's a net positive. I find a definition of freedom predicated on violence against women to be repulsive.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Obviously "rape-porn" (which is arbitrary, since rape is depicted all over the place) is a new legal category, and is not the same as the prior child porn category. You're conflating the two so as to play on pavlovian shock words (basically all you have to do to turn people bloodthirsty is to equate something with "child porn" .
To say something shouldn't be illegal, because the law itself is practically made to be abused, is not to approve of the thing. This is obvious. You however abuse language, totally mischaracterize everything anyone says against your argument ("definition of freedom predicated on violence against women"-->no one did this of course!), and are completely invincible in your views (nothing anyone says affects you), all to justify the expansion of a police state. All of which is thoroughly disgusting.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 12:47 AM - Edit history (1)
You haven't even bothered to read about the law or the post I directed you to. The law only makes illegal possession of porn that is already illegal to produce in the UK. Clearly that category exists if production of that porn is already illegal. You move from one demonstrably false point to another.
You chose to invoke the argument about freedom and a "police state" in THIS context of why you think violent porn should be protected under British law. Given your complete lack of understanding of the law itself, I am hardly going to take your concerns about how it's "made to be abused."
You want to pretend this is about something other than rape porn. It isn't. It's about a pornographic form that depicts or even enacts violence against women. Little could be more misogynistic than that. The UK is banning possession of illegal rape porn in an effort to diminish violence against women. That for you is symptomatic of a police state. I resent your invocation of women's bodies--my body, my safety--in some pronouncement of your rights. That you think violence against women is the minor issue (as indicated by your insistence that posters here aren't defending rape porn in denouncing this law) compared to your notion of "freedom" only confirms for me your willful disregard of what most concerns me--violence. You get disgusted all you want. For those 1 out of 3 women who have been the victim of rape and partner violence, this subject is far from abstract. I have every right to care more about rape victims than rapists and rape fantasists. You want to see depictions of those violent assaults as erotic entertainment or as a weapon in libertarian battles. Women's bodies as a proxy for men's rights: so what else is new? On one hand we have the right wingers trying to assert political control over our reproductive rights, and on the left the so-called left claiming pornography depicting violent violation of our bodies is part of their "freedom." Use your own body as a political proxy and leave mine the fuck alone.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)You keep using that word. I think it's a bit of projection. What is disgusting is men who love whacking off to scenes of women getting raped, simulated or not.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and shows the entire premise of your point is false.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4053877
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...that are trained to find six forms of ambiguity in a "No smoking" sign. One person's rape porn is another person's art scene. This will lead to collateral damage in the form of people who did not commit rape forced to serve prison terms.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (2)
Rape is one of the most common sexual fantasies.
I believe the research shows that and has shown it for as long as there has been sexual research. Having rape fantasies does NOT imply any connection whatsoever to actual rape.
This is inexcusable censorship and authoritarianism.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)for those raised in a patriarchal society, determined by primarily MALE researchers until as recently as the 1970s. So, unless you can post a scientifically defensible, peer reviewed article or articles that substantiate your assertion, it is of little value.
Talk to any woman about their perceptions of sexual intimacy, and they WILL NOT WANT TO BE RAPED.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That is why it is called sexual *fantasy.*
Human imagination is rich in its complexity and, yes, darkness plays a role in that. There is a rich research on this and a thriving culture of people who enjoy this sort of sexual play and are not in any way connected to actual rape, so your demands are actually quite silly.
I won't engage further on this, as I have heard all the arguments many times before, and they simply don't address the reality of the complexity of the human psyche.
I am much, much more concerned about the rise of authoritarian governments across the West than the possibility that consenting adults may film some dark sexual play and share it. Governments have NO BUSINESS trying to criminalize the consensual sexual behavior of adults.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)regarding the "dark side" of human sexuality. However, the fact remains that our patriarchal socio-cultural milieu is the crucible within which our species develops our sexuality--'fantasies' and all. It is totally unnecessary to conflate power and control with sexual intimacy. That we do so isn't necessarily a healthy outcome.
For more, read:
The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction (Michel Foucault)
The Mermaid and the Minotaur (Dorothy Dinnerstein)
Human Sexuality: A Psychosocial Perspective (Ruth K. Westheimer)
Human Sexual Response (William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson)
Against Our Will (Susan Brownmiller)
I find it grossly offensive that so many herein decry the loss of "first amendment rights" about "rape porn" based on a news story regarding Great Britain's Prime Minister's plan to punish anyone caught possessing rape pornography with three years in jail! The very same people asserting vociferously their first amendment rights (ignoring the fact that this story is about the UK!) are quite reluctant to confess that they consume rape porn. Hypocrisy at its finest...
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)too bad for you and all others who enjoy watching torture. NOT!
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)rather than the very real images of rape that have been published, and in many cases have driven the victims to commit suicide, because the pictures are out there, among their peers, and they cannot escape them. Laugh it up with Game of Thrones and "horror porn" rather than acknowledge that many rapes these days are filmed and photographed, and then published on the internet. Even if the rapist is put on trial, the victim is very often hounded by rape supporters with the very pictures that prove her rape.
The normalization of sexual violence is very disturbing, and something that should be fought. These images aren't produced in a vacuum - they're produced in societies where 1 out of every 6 women are sexually assaulted, where a disturbing number of college students are raped or attempted raped, where young men have an increasing access to porn and to more and more extreme porn, porn that has a huge impact on what they consider normal.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Rather than consenting adults simulating rape and none of them being victims. Every person on the planet has their own turn ons and fetishes and as long as its consensual then its no ones business.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And most of us have seen fictional images of rape but hardly any of us (at least, I would like to think) have seen real ones. I think people would have less of a problem with this law if it did not apply to fictional rape.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)which we know is not covered by this. This is about making it illegal to view what it already illegal to distribute. It's not illegal to distribute The Sopranos. So this it the problem: you have seen fictional images of rape, and you mistakenly think you have therefore seen rape porn. The law does not apply to The Sopranos.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Is that not correct? Because that Sopranos episode most certainly is an "image" of "simulated rape". Or are you assuming that there would be prosecutorial discretion?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)... means possession of the material is currently unpunishable.
The changes to the law, which will be introduced in January, will bring England and Wales in line with Scotland, where the offence carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail. "
I'm going to assume you understand what 'loophole' means, and that you understand that viewing that episode of The Sopranos is not currently illegal in Scotland, and that no-one was prosecuted anywhere in Britain for broadcasting it.
If you read that OP, this is clearly about making the possession illegal, when, in England and Wales, only the publishing of it is currently illegal. So we know that this is about material already illegal in the UK. Not The Sopranos, Deliverance, I Spit On Your Grave, Clockwork Orange, Game of Thrones, The Accused, or, really, anything else that any DUer is likely to name while expecting anyone to recognise it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)How is it that the mainstream movies and TV shows containing images of rape are not breaking the law against publishing "images of rape"?
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)This argument is about the BDSM and fetish communities, engaging in consensual activities.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Many on this thread are more worried about their titillation than about the fabric of our culture which teaches young men that women are objects, and sometimes 'need to be forced to enjoy it' (all women have rape fantasies - it's the only way they can enjoy sex :sarcasm) It disgusts me, especially as they deny that many refuse to acknowledge that these so-called "simulated" rape scenes are in fact, real rapes. Pressured consent=rape, even when the pressure is financial.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)This, unfortunately, is typical of most, of our "progressive" boys here when it comes to women's issues.
You nailed it again.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank you! I find it revolting that so many men find their right to whack off to violent imagery is more important than a woman's right to bodily integrity and safety.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and i could not agree more!
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I appreciate the support - the belief that porn (not sex scenes in HBO shows, but porn) doesn't affect the guys who watch it, coupled with the rape culture we live in, is baffling to me. How can they not be affected? How can it not warp their view on intimacy, on proper relationships?
Anyone who claims that this is a part of the BDSM culture, conveniently ignore that in said culture it is extremely important with proper communication and negotiation before any such scenes, and that rape porn most usually does not contain that. To claim that a bondage scene is the equivalent of rape porn is completely against what the BDSM culture claims are its main tenets - safe and consensual exploration of kink. If their scenes are the same as the rape porn mentioned in this article - sex where one cannot know whether a participant is being injured or not, dead or not, or is an animal - well, then, they really need to take a good look at what they are really doing, because then they may have more rape happening in their scenes than they are willing to admit.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)admitted they would rape a woman if they were certain they wouldn't be caught.
Upton
(9,709 posts)what would we ever do without authoritarians?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and it contributes towards violence against women.
Do you honestly think that people who watch rape porn like women? Do you think it has no effect?
And nothing like this is ever consensual.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I play violent video games all the time. I don't go out and shoot people because I saw it simulated in a game.
Weak argument.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)why is it somehow OK to show women being beaten up and tortured? It is never OK and I am very glad that something somewhere is being done and can only hope that all violent porn be censored.
And I could care less what you want. Your wants seem very mean to me.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Even ones who consent to stuff you find disagreeable.
Response to opiate69 (Reply #558)
Post removed
Response to opiate69 (Reply #558)
Tumbulu This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jacking off to violent games has the association with the chemical reactions in brain with jacking off to that violence. are you jacking off while you are playing violent video games? if you are, then you have a better argument
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)What is wrong with simulated "rape" (I.e. it's not actual rape) if it's between two consenting adults?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they are not gonna make it obvious it is simulated right? cause then what would be the fun in it if you didnt think it was real. what is wrong with it? what is wrong with jacking off to hurting other people? really?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Go rent one. Download one. There's info at the beginning of the video that lets one know.
But you know everything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in the middle of nowhere, to two men raping her while another video taped her, to 8 minutes of torture until she curls up in fetal position. not a single bit of it suggesting simulation. and all our experts her on du were sure to say... simulated. really. ya, looks like real rape. but simulated. i saw not a single bit that could suggest it was acting.
THAT is what is being addressed.
there is lots of women forced on your downloaded crap from the computer.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The ones that come with disclaimers at the beginning. You started talking about something else, which I agree, should not exist. Real rape vids are not good at all. We all agree on that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)simulation notification. does not make the women and kids any less raped and unwilling.
how do you know you are getting one where it is a willing actress or a forced sex slave?
or does it even matter? as long as you get you little whatever before the show, that is all you have to concern yourself with?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pretty sute just a bunch of role play in violence against women.
so we are suppose to not talk about ALL the rape porn that is actually rape against a human being.
bang you fuckin head all you want, but at the very least think something thru.
there is a reason so much of it is made up from human beings, women, children kidnapped, tortured, held against their will and repeatedly raped and made to do stuff they do not want to do. live a life without freedom, so you can get off. it is not because it just sits there with all the people of good conscious making sure they do not touch the stuff. and all this is only escalating.
do they count?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)because one can ALWAYS believe those disclaimers at the beginning of a porn video!
(Did you see Fargo? Did you think that their "disclaimer" was true? It was not...)
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts) chervilant
(8,267 posts)And, I am not surprised by the level of discourse regarding this topic...
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Simulated. Between. Consenting. Adults. Not. Bad.
Real. Rape. Bad.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Are you familiar with the research linking rape porn to increased likelihood of rape? Do you think the sex trafficking that provides a significant number of female "participants" in 'simulated rape porn' is insignificant?
Condescension in your response is unwarranted and unnecessary. Please answer my questions respectfully.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)when I don't respect your answers.
And it's none of your business what I view for pornographic material.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that's EXACTLY the answer I expected! Defend your right to view rape porn, but refuse to admit you watch it -- predictable. Highly predictable.
(P.S. Please don't bother to respond, as I've added you to my IL with all the other misogynists, sexists and verbal bullies.)
Response to chervilant (Reply #744)
Vashta Nerada This message was self-deleted by its author.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)like the one in the U.K., and with good reason. As I said in previous posts, I have my reservations, but I can certainly understand the premise of the law. And if the "simulated" stuff is truly consensual then those who produce it need to more clearly differentiate it from the "real thing" - but I guess for some sick fucks that would ruin the fantasy...
Democat
(11,617 posts)Does that also infect the mind?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, how does one police the line between gratuitous thrills and depictions showing just the horror of it?
How would The Accused, for example, fare under this statute?
Perhaps they've thought of this and come up with a framework--the article omits such details if they exist.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that subject matter for gratification, glorification, eroticizing I would have no trouble banning.
Civilization will not implode because men can't wank to online depictions of rape.
But, to the extent this could be used to stifle authentic and even anti-rape artistic expressions, it's problematic.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)At least in that context, its more about the dominance and humiliation. Now real rape images etc need to be hammered but once we start crossing the line against consenting adults both as participants and watchers then you wonder what is next for banning.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)this is about hurting people physically and in their imaginations.
If your whole life is about fantasizing rape, I am so sorry for you. We have a planet in crisis and you are wasting your time defending fantasies of rape?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Seems you should worry more about other things.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)God only knows what people like you would do to this country without that amendment.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to depictions of women being brutalized is the cornerstone of democracy.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Jefferson should probably have pushed for a more "focused" kind of First Amendment that was less open to this kind of abuse.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It didn't even prohibit the Alien and Sedition Acts.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Oh...but you say that artistic interpretation (like in movies) would be protected? Really...who makes that determination? The president? A guy in a black robe? A legislator? The National Organization for Women?
To some people, porn is art. Who are you to say it's not?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is exactly the reason why I would have troubles with this legislation.
P.S. Good luck selling rape porn at brick and mortar place. This stuff exists online only for the most part due to the lack of enforcement capability.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Excellent.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)I hate to break this to you, but obscenity is an area where it is literally impossible to determine "original intent". Unless you believe in the Scalia doctrine, which is that the framers intended for us to have absolutely no freedoms except for the ones that they happened to be thinking about at the time they wrote the Constitution.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Oh the first amendment allows this somewhere? Think again.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Beautifully said.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)from stuff that does, correct? In the same way that some jurisdictions have banned simulated depictions of underage victims?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)As I said, I don't have a problem with the spirit of this law, I just think it has some potentially questionable aspects.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)their pornography on the rough and transgressive side.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with your interpretation of the First Amendment opposes the First Amendment.
Since you oppose Citizens United, does that make you opposed to the First Amendment?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Disagreeing with you does not mean someone wants to 'trample' the 1A. It means they disagree with you.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)There is already a standard for the depiction of rape as porn that makes distributing it an offence - this is mentioned in the excerpt from the article. This makes viewing the same material an offence too.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)that would not include the scenes in the mainstream movies and TV shows mentioned in this thread?
Or is this a case of a bewigged judge who will "know it when he sees it"?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The point is that they already have come up with the definition, and none of the movies and TV mentioned are porn.
The Scottish legislation - section 42: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/enacted
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #22)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Is bullshit meant to detract from the main concern: someone might interfere with the ability to get off watching women raped and mutilated. The same cast of characters denounce as "misandrist" PSAs that target rapists, WHO reports on violence against women, and discussion of serial killings in Juarez. The message is clear. Violence against women is fodder for sexual gratification. Rape porn must be freely available, while women who speak out against actual violence against women must be silenced.
Looking at responses across various threads about women's rights, rape prevention, and violence against women makes clear exactly who people are.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Totally fictional depictions of sexual violence (as in feature films) would not be affected at all, so far as I know. This is dealing with either "actual rape porn" or material that is indistinguishable from same.
For the record, I don't really agree with this measure, and I think the 3-year sentence (by U.K. standards) is way too harsh. Most people caught with kiddie porn don't serve that much time.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I do worry about how this will affect movies that have rape as a theme but where rape is not eroticized, like the aforementioned The Accused.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Being kinky is like being gay. Not a choice.
Some people fantasize about rape, or being raped. Why do you think 50 Shades of Grey is popular?
Cameron is demanding censorship and criminal punishment for consensual sex play. And that's fucking despicable.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and rapists belong in prison, period.
Then your contention there is something natural about violent porn is entirely bullshit.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Yes, I've met a few women who indulge in rape fantasies. Or just look at the sales numbers for 50 Shades of Gray. Does that mean that people who have these fantasies really want to be raped? No, of course not.
I think we, and the people in positions in authority, need to make the distinction between actual sexual assault, which should land people in prison, and a fantasy, which yes, may be a disturbing fantasy to a lot of people, and certainly something that doesn't appeal everyone, but in the end is done entirely by consenting adults.
Nobody here is defending actual rape, or defending the production, sales or distribution of videos of actual sexual assault. Kink videos done consensually is an entirely different matter.
I don't want to see people in the BDSM community or people otherwise engaged in consensual sex acts caught up in a dragnet. The U.S. and the U.K. have seen these kinds of dragnets before - people doing nothing but consensual sex with other adults being prosecuted and thrown in prison. I don't think that's right.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)If it's a fantasy or consensual, it's not rape. Rape by definition excludes consent. BDSM is not rape unless one party is deprived on consent.
I find it fascinating here that people have so internalized the capitalist commodification of sexuality as somehow natural.
I see a great deal of defense of rape, not only in the outrage to the fact that Britons might not be able to enjoy watching a woman be raped, tortured, and mutilated, but that they are "harangued" by rape prevention campaigns that mention the word "men."
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)and innocent people will be prosecuted.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)That some feel upset that misogynists will be deprived of their desire to watch women violently assaulted. The reason they ban it is because there is correlation between watching that stuff and actual rape. I know that the fact a nation would take steps to minimize rape of women is an outrage to some.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)You seem to have no idea just how wide sexuality goes, in fact do a google search for it you may be surprised
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)sometimes results in such porn. They participate as victims, as the enslaved. Holy Shit.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Enjoy bondage, submission, humiliation etc and that includes being force pegged etc and simulated rape depictions. You need to go online to fetish sites such as fetlife etc and do the research.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about the marketing of violence against women through rape porn, the subject of this OP.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Stuff that all sexes have as fetishes.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Why this continual conflation of BDSM with rape?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)You know being restrained then being dominated etc etc
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Some women and men have fantasies of being raped - being on the receiving end. Like I said, it does NOT mean they want to be raped in real life.
Please stop painting with the broad brush.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and continually conflating BDSM with rape, not I. I have specifically said they are not the same.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Con sensual
Sim ulated
Dep ictions
Hopefully by putting a space you can see the words we are using.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but the UK is making an effort to change that--hence the outrage.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Have you ever read the classic book on rape by Susan Brownmiller "Against Our Will"?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)At least the facade is being dropped. "OMG porn" isn't really about protecting women at all is it? It's about punishing men for what you are pretty sure they are thinking.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)that word is "inverse" as in "inverse correlation".
The proliferation of porn is strongly correlated with a decrease in rape victimization.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and too bad if this is your thing, so what? What about child porn, you want that legal too?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Why should I explain it a 21st time to those with a block on their reading comprehension skills.
But please, continue to impugn my character. It only reflects on yours...
Seriously. Come back after you've re-read my other posts, especially the ones with the word "consensual" in them. Look up "consensual" in the dictionary. Then come back.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)with apparent personal 'authority' that "being kinky is like being gay" does not make you right. There is a plethora of research now available about human sexuality, and I encourage you to peruse some of it--if you can tear yourself away from your porn.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Most psychologists describe the fantasy as an outlet that permits women to engage in "illicit" sexual acts without guilt.
The entire assumption that rape porn is the purview of violent men is wrong. Force fantasies are extremely common sexual fetishes among BOTH genders. According to the latest research, around one third of women between the ages of 18 and 40 view porn "regularly" (meaning, at least a few times a year, deliberately and for sexual pleasure). Given the fact that force-fantasies are so popular among women, I find it hard to believe that men are the only consumers of this material.
The government needs to stay the hell out of our bedrooms.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Is that natural? Or is this lobby exclusively for violence against women?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Castration porn?
Is that really a thing?
The phrase "different strokes for different folks" comes to mind...
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I just suggested a hypothetical.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I googled, and yes, there are some who are into that...
"It's a great trick, but you can only do it once!"
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)The reason being misogyny is big business, as this thread demonstrates.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Its a big part of submission and powerplays, for both males and females.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Provide a quantitative break down of the amount of castration pron produced as opposed to rape porn. I await with baited breath the results of your expert knowledge.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Some rape porn is actually rape. There are farms in Thailand where young girls are forcibly kept and raped to produce that shit misogynists pay to watch. You pretend it's all simulated, but I don't think you actually believe it. If people didn't believe it was real, they wouldn't pay for it.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)They are different things, I myself and my partner make a consensual rape simulation video it really is none of your business.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)Many women have fantasies that involve sexual activities that may be considered "immoral" to their personal sexual codes. Those fantasies could include sex with other women, sex with strangers, large penetrations, men of other races, multiple men, etc, etc. The common theme is that they involve sexual actions of a nature that the women herself has potential moral issues with, and that the sexual fantasies may cause guilt as a result.
A very, very basic example of this would be a happily married 40 year old woman having masturbatory sexual fantasies about the 20 year old guy next door with the chiseled abs. The fantasy may be a sexual turn on, but the fact that she's sexually excited about a man other than her husband may cause issues of guilt and shame within the woman's own head. To combat this, the "fling fantasy" gets folded into a "force fantasy", so she still gets to fantasize about having sex with a guy in a scenario where the sex "isn't her fault". This allows many women to engage in all sorts of depraved sexual fantasies without the guilt of thinking that she's "mentally cheating". It just goes to show that the human mind can find ways to justify anything, if it really wants to do it.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)fantasies?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And THEN come here and express indignation?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Ya think?...
Xithras
(16,191 posts)
You don't need to be a woman to understand how fantasies work, or to study and understand the psychology behind the way both genders approach those sexual fantasies.
You also don't need to be a woman to understand that we all have our kinks, and that judging the consensual kinks of others is ALWAYS wrong.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Not so comfortable with that?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Let's hear 'em, since we'er all so open around here.
Go on. You're the one that want's to hear other people's sexual fantasies. Put up or shut up.
Or are men's fantasies bad? Why's that?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)You're missing the point, Sib...Pay attention to the thread next time and maybe you'll be a bit less off the mark.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)My fantasies include many, many things, ranging from group sex, to whips and chains, to bondage with both sexes (kinbaku is a bit of a hobby).
I have no hangups about my sexual preferences (generally..."all of the above" or fantasies, and am very open about both my sexuality and my body. Most people are simply uncomfortable hearing about it, and out of courtesy, I don't normally discuss it unless I know they're interested in talking about it. You asked.
So, FWIW, I've participated in rape-fantasy roleplaying as both the aggressor and victim and with both men and women. People have all sorts of fantasies, and so long as everyone is a consenting adult, it's no business of yours what they do or how they do it.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)supposedly "out of courtesy" to others, maybe you could stop talking about what you claim to know about
women's fantasies here, on that same basis. i.e. some women here, myself included, are "uncomfortable hearing about them"
Get my drift?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)before accusing ME of knowing NOThING ABOUT It??
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I could tell you exactly why I'm so versed in this particular subject, but we'd be straying pretty far into TMI territory for this thread. Suffice it to say that I not only have a minor in human psychology, but I have considerable personal experience with this topic as well (and if you're really curious, you can use the search feature...I've discussed some of the more "interesting" aspects of my marriage and sex life on DU before). I speak only with the authority of someone who has spent time dealing with this topic.
Some of us are kinkier than others. Nothing wrong with that at all.
As for mens fantasies...I still fail to see the issue. My approach to domination fantasies is the same regardless of gender. Whether you fantasize about dominating or being dominated, it's your choice. So long as everyone is a consenting adult, it's not your business to judge the fantasies or sexual play of others.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)being a man you WOULD "fail to see the issue"...Suffice it to say that people are generally on safer ground
speaking about THEMSELVES and their particular group. You could also say that women, like other
less powerful "minorities" get a little TIRED of being "dissected", not to mention "exhibited", if you will,
by people NOT in their social and political position.
As for what is or is not my "business", I'm afraid you're wrong...I have as much "right" to my own viewpoint,
whatever judgment" it may or may not contain, as you have.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)in regard to whether people fantasize about domination or submission, but porn is not. Porn is commerce, and rape porn is commerce built around violent assault on women. I submit that women who fantasize about what men call rape are not in fact fantasizing about rape. Yes, they fantasize about the taboo, but a fantasy involves consent on some level, because the woman wants it at least in her fantasy. If she wants it, it cannot be rape. Women fantasize about being ravaged, about rough sex, about being taken, but not about a non-consensual act of rape. Rape is not determined by the type of sex, how rough or tender, but by the absence of consent.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)everything that is done. that is NOT rape. rape, there is no control what so ever. in fantasy, it is ALL control. it is not rape that is being fantacized.
when a person controls all aspect of this fantasy, it is not rape.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)not even close.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)These films should not even be made let alone viewed.
Get a real life, pathetic all this defense of torture.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)62% of women reported having rape fantasies. Though as much as it may disgust you it is very common.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)creating what they want. the fantasize about what is done to them, only what they want. the fantasize with total control over what is happening to them.
that sounds like rape to you? they fantasize about where, when, and everything else. they are totally created exactly what they want.
rape, there is not control, at all. the woman gets no say in who is raping her, what the rapist is doing to her, where he is doing. it. that is rape.
what women are fantasizing about is not rape.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I don't care about your fantasies or anyone else's. This particular type of porn is non defensible and needs to carry stiff sentences. If only to protect the actors.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Who the hell are you to judge ME?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what he looks like, how he acts, what he does, whe he does it how he does it. in a rape fanatsy a woman has total control to create everything exactly how she wants it. that is NOT rape. the whole point of rape is NO control at all.
this stupid equation that women fantasizing about rape is comparable to these rape porn that simulates the abuse and humiliation of rape is not comparable.
fantasizing about rape is everything rape is NOT.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Can you tell me?
LOADs of women have rape fantasies. I don't know what you think about that. I think it's pretty disturbing and I'm gay and some of my fantasies about men are VERY out there.... does that mean men are allowed to have certain kinds of fantasy and women aren't?
I think proper adult understanding of sex is what's needed. At the core of all of this is a series of strange assumptions about how men and women relate to each other. I really don't know how to fix it.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I'll say it again - people don't choose their fetishes - maybe it's something with an experience a person had as a baby, that caused things to be wired in such a way that objects, or situations (like a rape scenario) cause sexual arousal.
That's why the BDSM and fetish communities exist - to let people play these things out in a safe way.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'm concerned about all this. Sooner or later some primarily consensual activity is going to get criminalised.
I really have no idea how much actual rape is caused by depiction of rape. I have no idea whether or not anyone can actually tell me, either...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It very well may be that down the line, a prosecutor arguing to throw a person in prison for three years would argue that a relatively tame video showing a woman being tied up while having sex is "rape porn".
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And that's already illegal. Why do we suddenly need another version of snuff defined? Is it so that it can be easily confused with stuff that ISN'T snuff? I can't see any other reason...
Response to sibelian (Reply #53)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)FatBuddy
(376 posts)all porn is rape
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Lancero
(3,003 posts)A little limp.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Where did I go wrong?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)women are one step above livestock in much of the world and not much better here. These sorts of films only add to the message.
It is sick to enjoy torturing people and you have spent a lot of time in this thread defending torture.
I hope that you can get some help.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Just because you have a sexual fantasy does not mean that you or your partner see or are seen as livestock.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)this is some right? Is child porn a right too? Why? Why is it OK to have film of people hurting women? Sorry, I agree with the law and want it here as well.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)trying to use it as an argument.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)being raped. you are merely having sex..... this role play you talk about is no friggin exploration of anything. there is no element at all where one partner does not have control. at that point.... then ya, no more trust, that would be abuse or rape if no consent. otherwise, it is only sex.....
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Porn is pictures and movies of people having sex. Rape is people being made to have sex when they didn't want to. That's why we have different words for "porn" and "rape".
The difficulty with trying to get one human activity to acquire the same emotional charge as another by saying "X=Y" is that people can tell that that's what you're trying to do and usually see no reason to cooperate with your category-munging. If they feel differently about the two things you are trying to pretend are one, saying that one is the same as the other isn't going to pull the wool over anyone's eyes one millimetre.
I have MADE porn in the past. Do you think that makes me a rapist? Perhaps you would like me to turn myself over to the cops? Well, I'm afraid I'm not going to.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) 
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)For all the BDSM enthusiasts who are hyperventilating - I don't see how this extends to your rape play. Have a party acting it out. Go for it. I don't care what you and your consenting partner(s) do.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And that's why I'm unsure about the U.K. law myself - seems potentially too broad and vague.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Just to make sure there is no confusion.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Or something, would be a huge business opportunity
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)And that is a very real danger that the BDSM community has faced for decades - some crotch-sniffing politician or DA decides to pander to the fundies by cracking down on people engaged in consensual sex. When the feds get involved (or the British equivalent), the penalties get draconian, and the people who produce videos of consensual sex play end up looking at years of hard time.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Decaffeinated
(556 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Your disinterest is irrelevant.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)of sexual assault, or material that is indistinguishable from same. So I think (I hope) that totally fictional depictions of sexual violence will be unaffected by this - I'm no more in favor of censoring movies or books than anyone else is.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I think The Accused has already been discussed, but next to Irreversible it's a Disney classic. I'm a pretty jaded movie viewer and it hurt me to watch it. Monica Bellucci is a known star and the only thing keeping it from being an actual rape from the perspective of the viewer is the fact that in the movie she is pounded into a coma as well as raped, so there would be actual injuries on the actor's face after production wrapped.
So how are we to prosecute a bit of fiction if it is indistinguishable from same? I don't think there's any way. The only thing I can think of is that if someone wants to use the movie as evidence of a crime, the production company would only have to produce a signed contract and a cancelled check. If they can do that, the rape depicted could easily be a bit of inspired method acting.
Even if there are injuries sustained, they may not be evidence of a crime but a job related injury. Actors get hurt all the time on the set.
I'd be willing to bet almost any rape porn produced in the first world is fiction. If we can achieve suspension of disbelief enough to convince people that some dude with Donny Osmond teeth is a super spy with amnesia or two middle class women can go on a crime spree and suicide into the Grand Canyon in a '66 Thunderbird any third rate porn production company can fake a rape. Why risk going to jail filming evidence of a crime when you can fake it?
So if we try to regulate fiction of any kind whether it is a depiction of a rape, a murder, or a pie fight we will inevitably run the risk of regulating legitimate investigations of the human condition. And the same question will always arise - "Is it art?"
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And as far as I can see this has nothing to do with feature films, even ones like "Irreversible" - which I've seen, and yes it's extremely harsh, but no I would never want to see it banned, especially seeing as it's a very well-made (if nearly unwatchable at points) film.
What I'm talking about are videos - not feature films - that either depict the actual rape and/or torture of a human being, or are presented as depicting such, to the point that you can't tell one from the other. The sort of thing where, whether it's "real" or not, the viewer pretty much takes for granted that it is. Which is nothing like a film - even an extremely violent, disturbing film - where the viewer knows that what they're seeing isn't real.
I don't know if I've made things any clearer, but I figured it was worth a shot...
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the suspension of disbelief. For you or me Irreversible was very harsh and damn near unwatchable. We found it distasteful for that reason, otherwise it would have been no big deal. For somebody into rape porn, it would be highly erotic.
Any distinctions made about whether or not one could tell one from the other depend on the perceptions of the viewer, which cannot be defined or controlled. Thus the media that solicits the responses cannot be regulated.
Distinctions regarding whether or not it's a feature film or a video depend on the same question, "Is it art?" So if the budget is large enough, does that make it art? Does it have to have a big star? Should we recreate a sort of media Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture to make these distinctions for us? Can you define the moment when really high quality rape porn becomes art? If you can you'll be the first.
It's always worth a shot
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"Suspension of disbelief" - when applied to, in this case, a film - doesn't mean that one literally believes what they're seeing is real. That's the crucial difference.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)if it's a really good film or if the viewer really wants to believe, yes they really believe. That's the whole idea. That's why we have highly developed thespian arts and special effects. They are designed to fool you into believing. Now, believing permanently is another matter, but even if you believe for only a moment - you believe.
I am unaware of any meaningful distinction that can be made between qualities or degrees of belief when it comes to movies.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"Irreversible" for instance contains a horrifying rape scene, but no one - even, most likely, if they saw it out of context of the film - would ever mistake it for a real sexual assault. Viscerally, emotionally, they might respond to it in a similar way, but intellectually they would still know it was fiction.
What the laws in the U.K. - including the current laws already on the books - are attempting to address is recordings of actual rape and torture, something less analogous to a violent movie than to child pornography, in the sense that the creation of such material depends upon, and encourages, actual crimes against human beings. If all this stuff were only "simulated" then I don't think it would even be an issue, particularly.
And yes, of course there's a big difference between fiction and reality. That's been my whole argument all along. But when it becomes all but literally impossible to tell one from the other - as in the case of "real" vs. "fake" rape porn - then obviously that's a problem.
As I said, probably the best thing people not involved in nefarious activities can do, is to more clearly differentiate their own simulated acts of violence from the real thing, using disclaimers and so forth. I'm not talking about feature films here - in that case such disclaimers would be unnecessary - but rather the sort of videos (DIY, handheld camera stuff) that might be mistaken for actual rape porn, which unfortunately is not all that uncommon a phenomenon, worldwide.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)how do we allow one and prosecute the other? Especially if the distinction is made in the emotional response of the viewer. (ETA "Good" being a dramatic portrayal and "bad" being an actual rape)
A lot of comparisons are made to violence, but they don't work. We see people get killed in the movies all the time. But it isn't real because there's no corpus delicti. In the case of rape, the victim/actor could suffer an actual rape and survive the encounter without any physical evidence. The only difference is the state of mind of the actor. So if Monica Bellucci signs a contract to portray a rape in a movie, she could easily do a bit of method acting and create the illusion of coercion in her own mind to create an effective performance and allow the viewer to suspend disbelief. She believes it, so the audience is more likely to believe it. (ETA2 If she believes it even for a moment, is she being raped) That suspension of disbelief is an emotional reaction that depends on the viewers feelings about the content. It's impossible to regulate the relationship between the viewer of the content and the media that transmits it.
If there is an actual crime the film would be documentation of such and those responsible could get busted. That's why I mentioned the simplicity of producing a signed contract and a cancelled check. That would indicate an actor consented to a dramatic portrayal and not coercion into unwanted sexual contact. Somebody upthread mentioned third world kidnapping and such, and that could and should be prosecuted. But like I said, in the first world why actually do it when you can fake it? Even if you stamp out every single instance of actual rape depicted in media, the impossibility of prosecuting the dramatic portrayals would easily fill the lost market share.
In fact, coming down hard on fictional rape porn, (since it is indistinguishable from the real thing) would probably increase actual rapes recorded for distribution. The market will always be there, so if you shut down the actors, they will just move to the third world where it is difficult or impossible to control and sell very expensive rape porn.
But maybe I'm missing something. How would you distinguish good rape porn from serious drama?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)such as rape. If it's not a real recording of a real assault, then you're basically right that there's nothing to prosecute. Which is one potential issue with this law - how do you reasonably prosecute someone for "fake" rape porn?
So in the end, even though I sympathize with the spirit of the law, I'm rather wary of its application.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)MyshkinCommaPrince
(611 posts)The new law apparently brings all of the UK into accordance with existing Scottish law. It looks like the Scottish regulations are outlined here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/ExtremePornograhicMateria
I don't know if this might help clarify anything about the article in the OP. It may help with who is or isn't affected and to what material the new law may apply.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Most really kinky stuff could be covered by that, especially if inexperienced people try it, and the depicted rape porn only becomes a crime if its distributed. It shouldnt matter if its destributed or not if its consensual. Mayby change it to can only be distributed on private forums or sites etc.
MyshkinCommaPrince
(611 posts)I think the outline at the link leaves some potentially worrisome ambiguities. The law itself may be more specific, I don't know.
I am a fan of the old 1966 Batman TV series. I know a lot of fellow fans who admit to having been turned on to (at least the B&D part of) BDSM due to all the bondage and traps on that show. The material isn't itself pornographic, but it led some people in that direction. Given the sort of "corruption of the innocent" slant of the law, I worry a bit about some possible implications.
On the other hand, I've been on the internet for 15-odd years, and one can't do that without... seeing some things. Umm. There's some pretty disturbing stuff out there. Whole sectors of Japanese pop culture might be cut off for the Brits. Umm.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
*Edit: corrected spelling error.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, uh, I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Fantasy fuel and nightmare fuel do not mix in my world.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My idea of a nasty cartoon is Ralph Bakshi's bastardization of Fritz The Cat.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) MyshkinCommaPrince
(611 posts)This relates to a 2008 UK law. I don't know if the standards outlined here are the same as would be applied by the law discussed in the OP.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)...there goes the bible. Cameron will have full prisons in no time.
Lobo27
(753 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)For some reason some feel a vested interest in maintaining rape. I wish I could say I was surprised.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)That's just deranged. There is plenty of good pron with consensual sex and that should be enough for the majority of the people. Why anyone gets off on the idea of harming women or forcing women is beyond me.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)NealK
(1,869 posts)I'm sure that this poster didn't know about this.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Guys are also the focus of the depictions to, it seems to be something some posters are missing.
NealK
(1,869 posts)I think that I get what you're trying to say. IMHO most people here are smart enough to make the distinction but I've not read the entire thread yet so I don't know who's not understanding you point. After reading some posts from the poster you replied to since I've been here I would say that it wasn't a good idea to point that out to this person. But feel free to educate the ones that don't get it.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)What i was saying that some posters are fixated on the simulated rape porn as some attack on women, my point is that in porn and the fetish community its equal opportunity, everything one can imagine being done is done to both sexes. I am just glad that the posters are not the gatekeepers of what is normal sexual behaviour and what consenting adults are allowed to do or we would only be allowed sex with a shower curtain between us.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)This has to do with material that either depicts real assaults, or is presented as depicting real assaults (i.e. is indistinguishable from the "real thing" .
Buddha_of_Wisdom
(373 posts)just wondering...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)People engaging in erotic fantasy play are in danger of being lumped together with violent psychopaths and thrown in prison.
NealK
(1,869 posts)What goes on between consenting adults in peoples' bedroom is off limit to what governments can do. And I'll oppose any move from them or any fundy nutjobs trying to impose their views about this. I've seen some of those fake rapes movies and frankly, getting aroused by a vid of a woman getting rapped is sick. Nothing to do with BDSM or anything in that vein. By definition rape is not consensual. And when real rape movies are being passed around then it's nauseating and criminal, there was a victim here. All this is JMHO of course.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I agree. Amazing how you could say that without being descended on but when I did it was a travesty against humanity.
NealK
(1,869 posts)I mean, you were attacked for expressing something similar than what I said? Doesn't make sense to me on a Democratic board. 
Posting while feminist (and female).
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)And share what they like, as long as its consensual. There is stuff out there i dont get, ie furries but you know something live and.let live.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Notice the law says Cameron is going after websites who publish, not viewers. Britain is pretty small nowadays.
So the Brits will go on watching their rape porno, but the ad money will go to Eastern Europe, Asia and the US.
NealK
(1,869 posts)Shit, both make me sick but if it's not simulated then it's an abomination! 
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)
Methinks this Toff doth protesteth a little too much...
NealK
(1,869 posts)I have to admit that I'm surprised because this is an important topic.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)It's always easy to start by banning something that is widely held to be objectionable. And then you've got your precedent, and then you can start chipping away at the rest.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Frankly, I hope Cameron turns his attention next to the growing problem of giant robot attacks on our planet's metropolitan areas.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and that's what people pay for.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Who the hell pays for porn nowadays anyway.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)It's still commerce. People make money. And some porn is directly paid for.
Your continued efforts to get me to watch rape porn is smarmy. I'm not interested in any of it, not rape of women or mutilation of men.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)No i tjink the old method of talking expertly on something you have never seen or even seem to know exists is doing okay for you. Carry on. I am done with you.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)makes you an expert on its links to human trafficking? Or you simply don't give a fuck about modern day slavery? I know the answer to that.
You're the one who interjected yourself in this subthread. No one forced you to. But if you're done with me for good, I'll be a very happy person. I'll consider it a belated Birthday gift.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts) loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)is NOT what Thomas Jefferson intended the First Amendment to protect.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In his letter to the Danbury Baptists he specifically mentioned Decepticons.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It is, quite bluntly, a form of prostitution. There is NO real consent involved when you are pressured to give up your dignity in order to survive.
It's as egregious a human rights violation as regular prostitution. The working conditions are nothing short of horrendous for those who participate in porn.
But hey, a lot of men think this is okay to abuse people in this fashion as long as they get off on it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ever, in any circumstance.
Got it.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Great.
The question is not whether rape porn is *good.* The question is whether the government can categorically criminalize images OF LEGAL ACTS based on a theory that, well... it can.
Is it legal for the actors to perform the acts?
Then how can a picture of an act be worse than the act itself?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)When there is a great deal of evidence that human trafficking (ie. slavery) is used in the porn industry and in violent porn in particular?
Rape isn't legal. How is that news to you?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And they in fact seem to be some of the most viewed videos on free pornography websites that I have seen.
There is obviously a small constituency of any body of pornography that involves unwilling parties. However, I do not think that generally reflects widely distributed pornography. Even gonzo porn.
None of this is to say that rape pornography is okay because the parties are consenting. It is however to deny that a majority of popular rape pornography involves human trafficking.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but I don't think it's as rare as you imagine. There are more people enslaved today than at any point in human history, and the sex industry uses a large portion of the enslaved.
http://sfsu.uloop.com/news/view.php/83613/sex-trafficking-within-the-porn-industry
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2011/09/07/the-connections-between-pornography-and-sex-trafficking/
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20087-trading-women-for-profit
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/Film-Exposes-Porns-Link-to-Human-Trafficking-in-US/
http://www.fdfi.org/tag/rape-porn
http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-to-curb-child-pornography/171395/
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Is how rape pornography plays into the social justification of sexual violence. In other words, how do these types of coercive fantasies and depictions present themselves in real injuries against subjugated sexual classes. The reason why this specific discussion is so important to the OP is that the argument that sex trafficking exists in pornography is an argument against sex trafficking in pornography and not necessarily an argument against depicted sexual violence. However, if one can argue that depicted sexual violence is substantively injurious against the sexually subjugated, then there is a very strong case directly against rape pornography.
My belief here is that rape fantasy and pornography is both vast in its social and personal damage as well as instrumentally part of a greater mechanism of sexual hatred and self-loathing. It is not healthy in any capacity.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I've also posted it in this thread like four times. I think it makes the case well. It's injurious not just to the sexually subjugated but to those who consume porn.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)No one and i mean no one is defending the real non consensual and real rape stuff, but there is stuff out there were two or more consenting adults play out a fantasy and video themselves and share.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Rape fantasy and rape pornography in general foster an environment of sexual violence very specifically against women. That means that there is real, substantive injury as a result of consensual rape depiction.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)The domme market is huge online, and in real time. I think some people see all porn as the same without realising that human sexuality is vast and how we express it is infinite. You say rape porn is not okay, now real rape porn is not but why should anyone tell consenting adults that they cant do what they want to each other and then share it if they want.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)As if we're all sitting in a 101 course at community college. Let's elevate the discussion a bit, please and thank you.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #302)
loli phabay This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)As Justice Kennedy stated in Ashcroft vs The Free Speech Coalition....
"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it..."
That's why violent video games can't be banned, even if there is evidence that it promotes violence (which there is none, but that's a different topic).
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I am discussing the very real consequences of rape pornography which is not to be confused with any sort of support for its illegality.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I expect you to keep your word.
You are wrong to assume you can tell the difference between consensual and coerced pron. I would be very surprised if someone who has consumed much porn hasn't at one point watched content that uses enslaved women, girls, or boys.
These articles show a link between porn and human trafficking, which means slavery. There are more people enslaved now than at any point in human history, and a good percentage of them are in used in the sex industry, including porn.
http://sfsu.uloop.com/news/view.php/83613/sex-trafficking-within-the-porn-industry
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2011/09/07/the-connections-between-pornography-and-sex-trafficking/
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20087-trading-women-for-profit
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/Film-Exposes-Porns-Link-to-Human-Trafficking-in-US/
http://www.fdfi.org/tag/rape-porn
http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-to-curb-child-pornography/171395/
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Done with you pretty much as you write a lot without saying much.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)People already get sent to prison for human trafficking.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)That something is illegal doesn't make it effectively combated. There are more people enslaved now than at any point in human history, more than at the height of the Antebellum South. Consuming that porn contributes to the economic profits of slave traders and allows it to prosper.
http://sfsu.uloop.com/news/view.php/83613/sex-trafficking-within-the-porn-industry
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2011/09/07/the-connections-between-pornography-and-sex-trafficking/
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20087-trading-women-for-profit
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/Film-Exposes-Porns-Link-to-Human-Trafficking-in-US/
http://www.fdfi.org/tag/rape-porn
http://www.mintpressnews.com/how-to-curb-child-pornography/171395/
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But we are not going to make factory work, or products made in factories, illegal.
The key is to stop the trafficking and arrest the traffickers.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)for the economic chain leading to labor exploitation of any kind? Are you okay shopping at Walmart or buying Smithfield Ham?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And no, I don't hold those folks responsible for human trafficking. It's up to the legal system to stop that stuff.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)doesn't stop when it comes to industries in which women are the principal labor force. I believe all of us as consumers are responsible for the exploitation we subsidize. To the extent we can minimize that, I believe we should.
Putting it all on law enforcement is a cop out. Often laws are poorly enforced and in the case of human trafficking, few care--as this thread demonstrates. Without public will, law enforcement doesn't act, and they often lack the funding and jurisdictional authority to do so. None of what human traffickers do would be possible without demand for the bodies they sell.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Possession of Smithfield Hams should get you five, I say!
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and 30 day sentences for those who are convicted?
Straw meet straw.
Gosh, and shopping at Walmart isn't even illegal while production of certain kind of rape porn is in the UK.
I could talk about social responsibility, but that would obviously be pointless.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)One is rape, a crime that should be punished. (As should the making of actual rape films, enslavement of people for such films, etc. etc. insofar as these actually happen.)
The other is fictional depiction - or I should say de piction? - of whatever David Cameron and an authoritarian law enforcement system decide looks like rape on film. Which is to say, all the rape in the pop culture (which of course can be titillating, and is often played to titillate) will be fine, but small-potatoes producers will be hunted. Ostensibly. Since this kind of hunt is necessarily arbitrary.
Oh, and then locking people up for 3 years if they "possess" it. The "loophole"! Of course this can happen just by being spammed by it, for all you know it's been malwared on to your hard drive right now.
Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed goals of protecting women, any more than bombing Afghanistan or Iraq is done for women's rights (oh look, same state there too).
It's about creating new criminal offenses and public hysterias -- a perfectly acceptable word, by the way most of these are managed by males -- to justify expanding law enforcement powers and budgets. In already one of the world's most advanced police states (at least as bad as the U.S. in the matter of surveillance).
It's also distraction: pretending they're doing anything about rape, by attacking possession of depictions, as if these are the cause.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)
You have a lot of nerve. You pose an outlandish strawman question and act outraged when you get one in turn.
Your assertion that it has nothing to do with rape reveals your complete ignorance of the subject matter, most notably the fact that scholars have established a causal link being violent porn and the tendency toward committing violence. If you actually were concerned about violence against women you'd bother to inform yourself minimally on the subject, including that some of that porn is actual rape, the kind you absurdly claim is entirely irrelevant to rape porn.
Cry to someone else about the poor British rapists who won't be able to see their handiwork memorialized. Their groupies will just have to find something else to look at for a change. Hell will freeze over before I shed a tear for rapists, rape fantasists, or their apologists.
I'll be telling the prisoners in Gitmo not to worry about habeus because the real travesty is that British rapists and rape fantasists can no longer view illegally produced porn.
So you pretend you have the moral high road and to a thread of rape survivors who actually care about their own safety, while you lecture us that our concerns are frivolous because what really counts is unfettered access to depictions of violence against women. So a few enslaved women are raped and beaten in the process. What counts is men's liberty to consume any vile, abusive media produced, even when it is produced illegally (which is what the law actually bans).
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Only the most problematic types and aspects of it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)issue. As I've said in other posts on this thread, I'm not entirely in favor of the U.K. law, even if there are legitimate applications for it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You hit the nail on the head with that statement.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Epic fail there.
This thread defending rape porn is a veritable who's who of DU . . .
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Everything about the war on drugs is about attacking demand. From the DARE program in schools to cops arresting college kids for smoking a joint. There are many, many people sitting in prison right now for buying and using drugs. That is called attacking demand. And it has been a massive failure that is costing this country incredible expense.
But back to topic...
You want to ban all consensual porn that you deem inappropriate because a small percentage of it might be fueling illegal activity? Should we ban the internet because people do illegal things on it? Your ban is hurting consenting adults that are doing nothing illegal.
I mean this thread is kind of shocking to me.. Usually it's the tea party I am fighting with concerning banning porn. Liberals and most feminists that I've ran across not only support pornography but even some want to legalize prostitution.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)The horror of public education programs. Compare that to the many billions spent militarizing the drug war in Latin America. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is phenomenal.
I think rape porn should be banned because I don't like rape, rapists or the wannabe rapists who watch that stuff. It's unlikely to be banned in this country, however, so some men can continue to get their rocks off thinking about raping, mutilating and killing women, just like Ted Bundy did. For the forseable future, rapists will continue to take precedence over the women and children they rape because that is exactly how too many want it.
The Tea party trope is typical bullshit. I don't know if you're a person who gives a damn about workers rights, but some on this site do. Yet amazingly when those same workers are women, and enslaved women in particular, suddenly we hear a right wing mantra about "choice." "They choose to work in those jobs," just like people choose to work for minimum wage in fast food places. They could get a job as a hedge fund manager if they tried hard enough. Only in the case of the sex industry and porn, a portion of those women don't have choice because they are enslaved. But don't let that get in the way of the pleasure of watching them raped and mutilated.
That you find the fact that feminists oppose porn as news boggles the mind. Google it. Read some feminist theory. You're only fifty years late.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You are making a lot of really wild correlations of things that have nothing to do with each other.
If two consenting adults are engaging in a some simulated rape fantasy or roleplay or whatever...I don't really give a damn, and neither should the government.
Porn of that activity does not support real rape any more than than a horror movie supports actually killing people. Mainstream pornographers and the BDSM community operate under the philosophy of being "safe, sane, and consensual." There are safewords or safe signals in place along with boundaries and limits decided on and agreed on beforehand. And if anyone wants to stop, then the scene stops immediately. In such porn, no one is being forced into anything. And everybody understands the boundaries set.
Are there underground organizations that do illegal stuff? Of course there is. But that stuff is illegal already. The problem is because a bulk of it is done outside this country, we have no means of enforcement. Does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban the entire internet? You can ban the legal porn all you want, it won't stop the illegal stuff.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Shame on you.
You: This user defending arbitrary and ever-expanding police powers based on hysteria and lies.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Police state: not concern over the death penalty, the highest prison population in the world, or the suspension of habeus corpus for enemy combatants--all in the US, but in the UK because it will soon to be illegal to possess rape porn it is illegal to produce.
If that's not defending rape porn, what is it?
And invoking the sexist trope of "hysteria" in the process. My, you are upset. Don't worry. It doesn't apply to the US.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
He turns up a lot.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)If I was .. Um... endowed like that, I'd be making appearances all over too!!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)...I think
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I swear, for the longest time, I was sure the pink area in this album cover was definitely something other than his knee and leg...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)such a huge bone?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)should be getting excited about prosecuting people for actual rape, rather than for looking at pictures of such.
Just a thought.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Then you should pay closer attention.
The little wave doesn't make the snark any prettier.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is Garbage.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)But the point should be if its consensual then who cares. I always use the furry example, i dont get it but then again its not my thing but live and let live.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I did not say I agree or disagree with the law. I just don't understand why anyone would want to watch someone simulating rape. Seems sick to me.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)To others, i am pretty sure your normal migjt seem odd to me and vice versa. I personally use the furry thing as its the most strange thing to me but my provlivities would be strange to someone who is a furry. I just dont watch furry porn. Lol gotta laugh at that sentence.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Real or depicted.
Right now you're arguing a version of the harm principle without fully understanding it. Rape pornography is not simply a matter of preference or fetish. It is a very real mechanism in the proliferation and acceptance of sexual violence.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)But there is real submission, dominance and powerplay in relationships, do you think we should go into everyones bedrooms and dictate what goes on, cause nowadays with webcams that is what you are effectively doing. Is the plan to criminalize bdsm because its about power, should all dommes and doms be thrown in jail, swat teams swoop in to rescue subs. Simple question is and should be if two or more consenting adults want to roleplay a rape, murder, battle of agincourt etc etc. Do others have the right to have criminalized for it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You are going to lose or at the very least be deeply disappointed. I am a social constructionist. I do not like to participate in petty arguments on how sexual violence just is because "it is." That is circular and silly as well as completely baseless.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)And i explicity have talked about dealing with violence in its sexual aspect.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is precisely what happens with the production and distribution of rape pornography.
Rape pornography is part of the problem. Let's try to find a solution.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Powerplay etc, its part of many peoples sexual athletics, as to production and distribution i can agree that the real stuff needs to be napalmed but you cant criminalize consenting adults from playing and sharing, well you can but where does it stop and who gets to decide.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)are you arguing rape is human nature?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)What are you afraid of?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)and compare them to any thread on women's issues.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Its the same thing with every fetish or sexual desire, we are all different and in some way we all believe we are normal but what is normal and who gets to define it. Simple rule is and should be if its consenting adults then why should anyone care.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Look as for the law I can see both sides. I believe in the first amendment but there is a real question that this might be harmful to some viewers of it.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)But the fantasy is to be dominated to have no power, its complicated and different for different people. Its complex and there are millions of reasons why someone would want to either watch or participate in it. People cant just turn of their sexuality or be forced to change it, and theybshould not as long as its consenting adults.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will never understand this.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Thanks for the polite answer.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #434)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)But that's because I'm not THEM.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)don't get turned on by watching people enact the same crime that devastated their lives? Really?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But I'm not sure that there should be a legislative remedy for this.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Only a small percentage of victims of gun violence are killed in mass shootings. Movies don't entail the actual killing of anyone, whereas rape porn sometimes depicts actual rape. Lastly and most relevantly to this subthread, the point I responded to was one of disbelief that someone could find vanilla sex-- making love--erotic, or wouldn't find depictions of rape erotic.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and I am glad people are being prosecuted for having it around.
Torture is not OK, regardless of if someone finds it erotic.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and they upload their movie to the internet, I don't think they should be arrested and sent to prison. And I don't think anyone who downloads their movie should be arrested and sent to prison, either.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)from actual depictions of rape and torture - which, sadly, exist out there in no small number.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)What about "fake" depictions of sexual violence that are basically indistinguishable from the real thing, in most cases because they're meant to be indistinguishable - because people are "getting off" on the illusion, or worse the reality, that they're actually watching someone be assaulted and tortured. That is the sort of thing that this law - however flawed it may be - is meant to address.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Consensual role playing (BDSM) and abusive behavior write the laws.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I mean, why not ban it, just to be on the safe side? Nothing wrong with the good old missionary position. With the lights out.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)are those defending rape porn.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)There's a lot of good information available out there for those who want to learn.
JI7
(89,250 posts)like sopranos, game of thrones is porn. and even after people having to explain that the fact these things are shown and published and profited off and have not been charged shows that is not what the laws are targeting.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)from the real thing. Otherwise, though, great post! 
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Ted Bundy said it was a contributing factor in his behavior, and that's enough for me .
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)but actually it's misogyny. The overwhelming majority of it is the rape of women.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Got it.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Got it .
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)for doing stuff the Government considers freaky and uploading it to the internet.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MISANTHROPIC behavior, I've been here for ten years and this is the first time I've heard RAPE being defended, which is what You're doing . Should films depicting the slaughter of a race and nothing else as far as a plot be legal ? NO because in itself it's a hate crime, same here .
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)once in prison had any motive to argue that media influences were responsible for his behavior.
Oi vey!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)is some loose usage, no ?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"possession." What people seem to be tripped up on is the fact that, too often, "simulations" of rape/torture in pornography are more or less indistinguishable from the real thing - which to a large extent (and this is the sick part) is by design. Because people (usually men) are getting off on the illusion, if not the reality, that they're actually watching someone be manhandled against their will.
Which is why I say that these consensual simulations people keep mentioning, need to be more clearly differentiated from the real thing. Firstly, so that they don't run afoul of the law, secondly so that they don't feed into the same anti-social tendencies that the "real thing" does.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)People enjoying togetherness anonymous = peta.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) 
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)If someone is in possession of a video that they know is of an actual rape (unless it was somehow publicly broadcast on the news or something), I think it's worth looking at criminal charges.
However, if we're talking about somebody getting put in jail because they have a video of two (or more) consenting adults acting out a rape fantasy or such, leave them be. What people consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is no one else's business.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I think the whole point here is that, when it comes to "rape porn" in general, the viewer can't tell the difference - and they even get off on the illusion (assuming it's not "real" that they're watching someone be tortured.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Seems like the crime should be to produce a video that depicts a real rape....not possessing a video that might depict a real rape.
I realize that gives the buyers of illegal videos an "out".....they can say they didn't know it was real. But I'd rather see some guilty folks get away, than see some innocent folks put in jail.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)In particular, the maximum 3-year sentence seems awfully harsh - most people caught with kiddie porn don't even do that much time. Add to that the fact that I've never been an admirer of Cameron - he seems like a typical "moderate conservative" dumbass - and I'm not too enthused about this whole thing.
"But I'd rather see some guilty folks get away, than see some innocent folks put in jail." No argument there, from me. Which is why I am rather concerned about how this law will be applied, and exactly whom will end up being prosecuted.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)If my only two choices were to:
a)imprison someone watching a video of a real rape AND imprisoning someone watching a simulated rape.
or
b)imprison neither of them.
I would choose to imprison neither of them every single time.
The same goes for any crime for that matter. I don't want to see guilty folks punished at the expense of the innocent.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)whatever reason, men have absolutely no fuckin qualms to their getting off taking priority over victims being brutalized and raped. no surprise.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)But I also don't want to see innocent people who aren't raping women and children go to prison.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the buyer who is needing to get off on the pain of women and children, that should be clear that what he is getting is just a whole lot of role play? does he not have any responsibility to the victims?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)things against their well for the entertainment of men to jack off, and it is well known, why would it not be the buyers responsibility that he is getting his rape porn, to get off on, that is not a woman or girl being forced to do it? why would it not be that buyers responsibility? because surely, to those men that get off on porn, it matters to them it is just an illusion, nad no woman is actually being hurt, right? cause otherwise, what does it make that man?
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Make it like child porn. Take away the "out" the buyer has by claiming ignorance.
I'm ok with sending anyone to prison that is in possession of a video of an actual rape, regardless of whether or not the person knew it was an actual rape. However, I think there should be definitive proof that the video is of an actual rape.....not consenting adults acting out a rape.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Someone who possesses a video of a woman plunking a man with a strap-on up the ass could conceivably find himself in trouble with the law.
In other words, regular BDSM content between consenting adults.
Good grief.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)according to a Brit in this thread.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It has nothing to do with banning "fiction" - e.g. feature films - or even pornography in general. Rather, it has to do with material which features either real sexual assault, or the illusion of such, to the extent that one is indistinguishable from the other.
Like I said, if people are that concerned about prosecution for "BDSM videos" or whatever, then they need to more clearly differentiate that which is consensual from that which isn't.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)What would a thread be without a village of strawmen?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)discussion boards...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You refuse to acknowledge the obvious differences between rape and simulated rape. You refuse to acknowledge that lots of people, both male and female, enjoy this kind of thing, and you won't allow that consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do. Mix that with a liberal dash of guilting anyone who would be so terrible as to defend simulated rape, and you have the recipe for a 600-post clusterfuck, complete with all the Strawman you can shake a stick at. You got precisely what you wanted from this thread.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are not getting off on a woman being forced to do against her will? you know, real rape. you are aware that much of the porn industry now has a wonderful profit margin for using children and women that have been kidnapped or blackmailed to do acts they do not want to do. so that men can get off. do they cant, or matter? do men have no responsibility at all to ensure that the women that are being abused actually signed up for the abuse that men are getting off on? or does it simply not matter, and not the responsibility of men?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)My answer:releases, disclaimers, robust prosecution of rapists.
My answer does not include: gutting the First Amendment.
PS: don't attempt to make this about me personally. As it happens, I don't get off to rape porn. If I did, I wouldn't owe anyone an explanation. Real rape should be prosecuted to the extent the law allows. Fantasy should not. This is dangerous ground--check with Ed Meese or John Ashcroft if you need documentation for that claim.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as merely simulated rape. the women and children are still raped. they are still forced to do something against their will. they are held captive. they have no voice.
buyers have NO responsibility in an industry that we all know is inundated with actual rape of women and children being held against their will?
girls being blackmailed to continue making a product for men to get off on, against their will?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Your reading comprehension needs work.
"Should be able to enjoy" what? That you should determine what British law is when you can't even be bothered to figure out what the law covers? Britons shouldn't make their own laws. Only American men can determine that. Tell it to David Cameron. I'm not interested.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Don't play games with me. If you have something to say, do so in a straightforward way. If you want to slip and slide and refuse to stake out any real position, you're wasting my time.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I have continually pointed out the distinction between consensual and nonconsensual porn, while it's defenders want to pretend no such thing as non-consensual porn exists.
My position has been clear. As you noted, I have many, many posts in this thread--far too many. If you can't get my position from them, it's because you don't want to.
Yeah, the conversation devolved into bullshit about banning Game of Thrones and the Accused as a means of detracting from the point--some members insistence that their access to any and all kinds of porn trumps the rights of women to be free from violence and human trafficking.
Your pretense that there is something gender neutral about rape porn is laughable. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you're misrepresenting the facts. If you consume rape porn, you know what it is. If you don't, Google it with the safe search filter off. There is nothing close to gender parity (your ridiculous references to "men and women" alike) in victims or consumers of that porn. If an entire industry was built around the violation of men, that shit would have never been legal.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
Aaron8418
(18 posts)Well let me tell you something prime minister, if kids see things like that then it's the parents fault now isn't it! Yes it is, now don't go around pointing fingers and throwing stones before you check yourself.I don't believe in rape but there are some men and women out there that get a jolly out of acting it out, if that's what they like to do and it's out of pure sexual thrill then let them be, the people who do it out of pure insanity, please lock them away and punish them. Don't punish the people who are loyal citizens and a part of the whole circle of life and bringing to a future place of sunshine and bright blue sky's. Don't bit the hand that feeds bro!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I believe the research shows that and has shown it for as long as there has been sexual research. Having rape fantasies does NOT imply any connection whatsoever to actual rape.
This is inexcusable censorship and authoritarianism.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do not have those fantasies.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Rape fantasies are very common, even if you don't have them.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Because if you fantasize about something, that means you want it. Rape by definition is non-consensual. Typical fantasies involved being ravished or taken, which is not the same as rape because the woman wants it.
Do you think banning child porn is inexcusable? This UK law only bans possession of porn that is illegal to produce in the UK.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)According to this article in Psychology Today, 32% of the women responded they had rape fantasies, not just "overpowered by a man." Rape fantasies are about being overpowered, whether you classify it as rape or harlequin romance "ravished or taken". Overall it's not a small minority of women that have such fantasies, 62% in this report.
Sixty-two percent said they'd had at least one such fantasy. But responses varied depending on the terminology used. When asked about being "overpowered by a man," 52 percent said they'd had that fantasy, the situation most typically depicted in women's romance fiction. But when the term was "rape," only 32 percent said they'd had the fantasy. These findings are in the same ballpark as previous reports.
Frequency of rape fantasies varied substantially. Thirty-eight percent of respondents never had them. Of those who did, 25 percent reported such fantasies less than once a year. Thirteen percent had them a few times a year, 11 percent once a month, 8 percent once a week, and 5 percent several times a week. (Twenty-one percent of the respondents said they'd been sexually assaulted in real life.)
Rape fantasies can be either erotic or aversive. In erotic fantasies, the woman thinks: "I'm being forced and I enjoy it." In aversive fantasies, she thinks: "I'm being forced and I hate it." Forty-five-percent of the women in the recent survey had fantasies that were entirely erotic. Nine percent were entirely aversive. And 46 percent were mixed.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)I guess we all have fantasies at one time or another that are taboo, it always amazes me at the complexities of us as a species.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Especially how often women fantasize about it, since its taboo and feels "wrong" to admit to it. Just look at some posters reactions to the mere suggestion that many women fantasize and participate in simulated rape scenes freely.
Like someone stated up thread, I don't understand furries but as along as it's consenting adults I don't care.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)They probuably say the same about me, good luck to them i say. I also dont think there can an adult discussion on stuff like this as people and i mean all people always bring their belief that tjere norm is normal to the table.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)which makes it... NOT rape. do you get that difference? she has control of all elements of the fantasy. ALL of it. every move made, is her control.
rape. no control.
so it is not rape she is fantasizing about.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Do you not understand the entire thinking behind rape fantasies? It's not always about a woman in control, for example a sub in a BDSM partnership. Sure, there are rules and code words, but it is about giving up control.
And since it was women that responded in the article I linked, I'd think they'd also know what rape is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)has nothing to do with rape. she is creating all of it in her mind and she is ONLY allowing what she wants to happen to her in HER fantasy.
there is NO rape. there is NO lack of control. none. it is ALL her creation. she is totally in control with even minuet element in that fantasy of hers.
period.
no rape.
as she fantasizes about being raped.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It is not true rape because it in her mind and that is also why it is not rape when it in the man's mind. That's why it is called "play" or "fantasy".
Do you think that if two people agree to engage in that type of role-playing and then record it that they should face criminal charges? Because the way that law is written, I think they would be in danger of that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in role play, it is clear to all that it is just sex in role play, a game of trust. in video created to look like rape, or is actually rape, it is jacking off and get a physical chemical reaction to the abuse of human beings. it is not meant to look like merely a fantasy play, it is to look like abuse and violence to women. and that is what men are getting off. having a physical. chemical reaction getting off while abusing women or children.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)depiction of rape. I am not sure why you would think it wouldn't.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)blackmailing girls into being forced to commit sex acts they do not want will surely be presented as simulation. are you saying that with all of us aware of the increase in forced human beings doing things against their will is not the responsibility of the buyer.....?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to do acts they do not want to do, for the entertainment factor of men to get off?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)that you're getting this from, perchance?
Is there, maybe, a name for these pernicious brain chemicals which allegedly only occur in the presence of arousal?
I'd like to see the peer-reviewed studies on this material. And the name of the Scientist behind them.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)How can someone fantasize about something they don't want, even if it's on the level of wanting it only as a fantasy?
I think equating it with a Harlequin romance softens it inappropriately. I could fantasize about something that might appear forcible, when it is in fact something I want. So if I want it as a fantasy, how can it be true rape, meaning the absence of consent?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)rape.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Film at 11.
Response to opiate69 (Reply #532)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not saying put people in jail but I do think that the industry should rethink producing this garbage.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Some women reported fantasizing about forcible unwanted/unpleasant sex. I was only equating your use of "ravishing" with harlequin novels, since outside of that genre no one would reference forced sex as that.
And obviously it's not "true rape", but the intent is there.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)But essentially you are confirming my point that rape fantasy isn't, as you say, true rape, just as BDSM or other sorts of kink aren't the same as rape as long as the parties consent.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I don't think anyone has said differently. But to fantasize about forcible sex and sex against one's will is different than just rough sex with some hair pulling.
I think it's important to note that these rape fantasies are very common for women to have.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)I know that's what people often call them, but I believe it's a mistake to conflate sex that appears forcible with true rape, the absence of consent. The problem with rape porn is two fold, in my view. One, some of it is actual rape, women trafficked and forced to have sex against their will. Two, it desensitizes viewers to violence and increases their tendency to commit an actual rape. I'm guessing those are some of the reasons that underlie the British law.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)afraid. and he can pretend to be forcing her. but it is all pretend.
it is sex, role playing. big deal....
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Because the "force" (i.e. the violent, coercive aspect of the act) doesn't really exist.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Halloween just passed.. now, lately there have been all kinds of "haunted houses" and "fright factory" kind of places popping up.. the idea being, you go walk through this elaborate sets, and they use all kinds of different techniques to scare the bejeebus out of you. I'm sure you've probably at least seen them.. In any case, even though Jenny Q. Public knows she's in no danger, because it's just a bunch of local actors, when the guy jumps out of the pitch black darkness with his hideous makeup and his chainsaw, her fear overtakes her reason. This is the same response these women who act out these rape scenes experience. For many, it can be a powerful catharsis. So I wouldn't brush it off as "simple role-playing".. as I said before, the human psyche is extraordinarily complex.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is the point.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Role-play, yes, even a role-play scene that is a pretend rape.
A real coercive sexual assault? Nobody in their right mind defends this.
What we're having is a vocabulary argument. My argument is that consenting (emphasis on consenting) adults should have the right to engage in fantasies, and role-playing, even if the role-playing is portraying an act of rape. As long as it's all pretend, and everyone participating is just pretending.
My problem is with the law, that says that "simulated sex acts" will be prosecuted the same as the real thing, which means that role-playing could land people in prison. And I'm not cool with that.
Nobody here is defending real rape.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of the rape porn is done by women and children kidnapped, blackmailed, forced to commit acts they do not want to do, raped. and "simulated" is added on. when a buyer does not know whether he is jaking off to "simulated" rape or rape of a human being, ya, he is part of the problem.
is it not a buyers responsibility to KNOW he is not getting off on a human being that has no freedom, no voice, that is raped and brutalized, and abused, demeaned, humiliated, for his enjoyment?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)your idea of rape porn that shows a person really being raped (which is already illegal, and nobody is defending) and a group of consenting adults conducting a simulation of a rape act, but where no real rape takes place.
And this law has long prison terms as a penalty, which means this is something he needs to get right, because if the law can be abused, it will be abused.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)
defend their rape porn. and tying rape fantasy that has nothing to do with rape, into rape.
i give a fuck about the escalation of women and children kidnapped and blackmailed to make this garbage, losing ALL their FREEDOMS, and RIGHTS so men have their protected right to get off on these womens abuse and rape.
i give a fuck about the victims that have no voice.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Or even depictions of that. It specifies circumstances in which someone is actually hurt or injured. The OP is false in labeling it a blanket ban on rape porn.
The law specifies that possession of certain kinds of porn already illegal to produce in the UK. These are largely non-consensual situations.
An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
As act with involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
http://inherentlyhuman.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/criminalising-extreme-pornography-five-years-on-mcglynn-and-rackley-on-the-extreme-pornography-provisions-a-misunderstood-and-misused-law/
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Here is the actual language.
You (intentionally) left out the significant part of that. I'll fix it for you.
This is defined as material that has been produced ‘solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal’, which is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene and that explicitly and realistically depicts (so that ‘a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real’):
An act which threatens a person’s life,
An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
As act with involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that?
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and it should be censored.
Kids get a hold of this stuff and it shapes their imaginations.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is in total control choosing the man, and telling him what she wants.
clue in about rape. no choice. no control. the victim doesnt get to make suggestions or have the option to say stop.
what your brother and his gf did was nothing to do with rape....
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)and any DU'ers who think this sort of imagery is not contributing to the rape culture is living in a fantasy land.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)If a video of the "erotic horror" genre, made with consenting actors and properly labeled in the front that it depicts "fantasy" using actors, is released, it's just another movie made for an audience. If an actress wants to perform in those types of films, that's her choice. It's a similar concept for ownership of the films, which are bought in a legal marketplace (in the USA). The principle of freedom of speech as enshrined in the US Constitution should make any Democrat recoil in horror at any attempt of censorship, even if it is in the UK.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)As I lay there, silent, they began to set up a video camera. My stomach started to turn and my mind started to race. Suddenly the things I loved about my manager became threatening and scary. I knew what was going to happen and didn’t have the courage to say anything. After all three men raped me, one after the other, recording it all on videotape and taking pictures simultaneously, I was told “This is just business.”
*
I had built a place in my childhood for all the abuse and trauma that I thought could hold this new trauma just the same. About two weeks later, I received a call from my manager saying he is in town and wanted to see me. I thought: Screw you, why in the name of God would I come see you? You’ve destroyed me, broken my spirit, and made me question who I am because I trusted you. He made it clear, with threats of knowing where I lived, my family, and threatening with me the rape video, that wanting to see me was not simply a request, but a demand.
When I met him, he had an envelope with photos that he told me no one would ever see if I did what he asked. He told me I was going to sleep with men at his request that would pay a lot of money for me, some over $10,000. In exchange, he wouldn’t sell the videos and photographs to rape websites. Protecting my reputation (against something that wasn’t my fault), friends, family, and just trying to continue on with a normal life cost me the next five months of my life.
*
I learned quickly that what happened to me was not just me but many other girls who voiced their stories anonymously on comment threads on articles about him. I learned simultaneously the footage of every girl was sold to rape and sexual violence websites. Suddenly four years of suppressed emotions came spewing up like I had severe food poisoning.
*
Most people do not know about sex trafficking, and if you don’t know you can’t do anything about it. Our mission is to educate and inspire people to help end the injustice of sexual slavery. Our motto is educate to eradicate and so far it’s working. The best thing is what happened to me is NOT in vain and I can use my education and experience to keep it from happening to others and help those who are victims.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)There is a great deal of hue and cry in this thread but virtually no understanding of the actual law.
The law specifies that possession of certain kinds of porn already illegal to produce in the UK.
An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
As act with involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
http://inherentlyhuman.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/criminalising-extreme-pornography-five-years-on-mcglynn-and-rackley-on-the-extreme-pornography-provisions-a-misunderstood-and-misused-law/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)This is defined as material that has been produced ‘solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal’, which is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene and that explicitly and realistically depicts (so that ‘a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real’):
An act which threatens a person’s life,
An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
As act with involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)"An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, "
What about tattoos? Scarification? (Yes, some people are into that and do that to themselves on purpose.)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And yet people are over here claiming "A Clockwork Orange" will be re-banned...
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)
Hyperbole is more fun than reality.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Say this hypothetical for example...
John and Jane want to roleplay a rape-like fantasy. And they record this act on video. Assuming both agree to the recording and that the act recorded is consensual, is that video of the act considered illegal to create and possess since it appears to be a rape?
Most people in the thread say it is legal since no illegal act is actually being committed. But several people on here have made the claim that it should be illegal because you can't determine from the video whether it is consensual sex or not. Other people are claiming it should be illegal because real rapists would "get their rocks off" with such porn and could provoke them to commit the crime in real life. And other people worry about the slippery slope that if this depiction of rape is illegal, then all depictions will eventually become illegal...including rape scenes in movies and even literature, or even their own BDSM activities would become the next target.
That is what people are worried about.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Nonsense.
People are worried someone is going to take away their porn. That's all there is to it. Boo hoo.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Here is the language and according to it, if it depicts an act that could be reasonably interpreted as depicting something illegal (even if it's not) it would be a crime.
Just read it. There's no way you can substitute your reality for actual reality this time. Read it.
This is defined as material that has been produced ‘solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal’, which is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene and that explicitly and realistically depicts (so that ‘a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real’):
An act which threatens a person’s life,
An act which results, or is likely to result in, serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
As act with involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)then what are people, and the law, supposed to do? We're not talking about feature films, even extremely violent and disturbing ones, where any reasonable viewer knows it's fiction. We're talking about situations where it's impossible to tell a "simulated" rape or torture sequence from a "real" one - and where viewers, in all likelihood, are getting off on the illusion (if not the reality) of a person actually being brutalized.
I'm not saying that all such simulated depictions should be illegal. I'm saying that those which are actually consensual need to be more clearly differentiated from those which are not, given the appallingly large volume of real rape/torture footage out there.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Turn off the safe search setting and google rape porn to see exactly what is being debated. Those who do consume it already know exactly what they are defending, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Game of Thrones and the Accused.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)That would not only cover fictional rape but all kinds of other horrible stuff. For example, I've heard there is such a thing as porn involving poop. How could anyone possibly defend that?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)And dispense with the idle speculation. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/enacted
The UK is bringing the nation's law to conform with existing Scottish law.
See section 42, Extreme pornography.
Scat would not be illegal unless used to choke someone to death.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So nobody actually has to be choked to death or raped. It just has to look realistic.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Why is that a problem? It's not good enough porn if you can't tell if the person was really Raped or killed?
I thought the defense here was all about simulation? Now it's not?
It also prohibits porn involving the killing of animals, so maybe people here will care about that. I noticed far more outrage about a dead lion than women women trafficked, raped, and killed. Obviously women's lives are beneath concern; perhaps animals are not?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But consenting adults should not go to prison for uploading fictional portrayals of sex and violence to the internet.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)It only takes one person to upload illegal porn, porn that is already illegal tp produce in the UK. The user doesn't seek the consent of the woman raped. Consensual porn is still lawful in the UK, so you're entire base of opposition is void. What is illegal is porn that looks like someone was actually raped or killed. If the point is to enjoy consensual porn, there is no reason to posses porn where it looks the vctims life may have really been in jeopardy. What you are objecting to is the denial of access to nonconsensual porn.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Provided everyone who participates in the fictional dramas is a consenting adult?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)The "provided" is the key issue the law seeks to address. You want to keep murder and rape illegal, but not make it illegal to have video footage of those crimes?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)2. I want video footage of fictional portrayals of violence and rape, produced by consenting adults, to be legal.
Hope this helps.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
See a lot of this guy, in certain parts.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:29 AM - Edit history (1)
as long as it is clear that is what they are. It appears to be directed at making it illegal to possess porn where people are actually hurt, or where the porn is so realistic it is impossible to tell if someone was hurt in its production. It would be easy enough to research the arrests in Scotland under the existing law that is the template for what will soon be the law throughout the UK. The Brits in this thread have no problem with the law and don't see it as an infringement on their rights.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Your posts alone account for 17.45% of all the replies to date, just FYI
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)"Consensual porn" is porn made with the consent of the performers, unless you are identifying the appearance of consent as a new fetish.
Your trivialization of rape throughout this thread is a terrible thing to behold.
It isn't a game to everyone, y'know.
PS I am putting you ignore, so you next zinger will win the day, being unresponded to.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)To get naked or have sex in front of a camera.
I think the gist of it is if you get paid for something you're not capable of actually consenting to it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Having sex with somebody (presumably other than a spouse?? ) is apparently "sacrificing one's dignity".... Particularly (again, I assume?) if money is involved.. And here I thought it was a natural, zesty enterprise...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
...but other than that I agree 100%
opiate69
(10,129 posts)In preparation for the inevitable denials and junior-high snark about my assertions....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Clearly I need a refresher course.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)(though, I know you don't drink.. Maybe a virgin white russian with Kaluha coffee flavoring instead of the real deal)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've got some friends in the Santa Monica area that had dinner some years back with the actual guy who that character is based upon.
They said he was thoroughly disreputable.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)This is about porn. Are you telling me you aren't able to tell the difference between what you see on a video and what is going on in your bedroom? That sounds worrying.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)after I saw your post about women reenacting rape as a catharsis. It was a whole paragraph of substance. Short lived, I see.
Clearly my post was not a non-sequitur since it was in direct response to one in which you talked about private sexual activity between couples.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Remember your recent PM to Warren? Yeah.. Good job keeping the level of discourse high there, sister.. But hey.. Back at ya, in spades.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Though you are quite right it was wrong and insulting for me to send it.
Yeah, I think I'll pass on the second part of your post. Suddenly I feel nauseous.
Since we're catching up on recent events, I can't help but observe a contradiction between your complaining about certain members carrying on about DUers on another website, while you did the exact same thing quite recently.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Well.. In your super sleuthing (stalking??), you seem to have missed a few key details, which give lie to the idea that what I may have done was contradictory to my position on your friends' little page. Firstly, the DU FB page is, well, an affiliated page of this very board. Not a secret, separate space designed for coordinating attacks and swarms against DUers who have the temerity to disagree with a few malcontents. Secondly, you may have noticed, I was not engaging in collusive behavior with serial trolls in an attempt to help them regain access to DU. Thirdly, since the players in that previous drama have suffered no consequences for their collusion and malfeasance from admin, one can hardly be considered inconsistent for finally, after all this time, deciding that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As far as your PM to Warren, it is merely another piece if evidence of your character. (or lack thereof).
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Seriously? You read the content on that page and think it's affiliated? It most certainly is not. DU's official FB page is comprised almost entirely of EarlG's images. You actually think an official DU page is going to have posts about how Skinner supposedly opposes progressivism and freedom of speech?
You were commiserating with banned trolls, who were quite open about their banning. Two have suffered consequences and been banned, in part because of what they have posted there. Their flagging for review was due to what they wrote on this site, but their using that space as a battleground to flood DU with troll sign ups and continued denunciation of the owners of this site played a role in their banning.
Sorry to burst your little bubble in thinking I was stalking you, but MIRT has had an eye on that page because of the now hundreds of troll sign ups coming from there that we have had to nuke.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)"continued denunciation of the owners of this site".....
I wholeheartedly agree, posters who regularly engage in that kind of behavior should be PPR'd swiftly, and permanently.
Edit: Oh, btw.. Check the evidence, Marvin.. I never interacted with Taverner over there at all, and at the time I did talk to Pab, he hadn't yet been PPR'd.. So, lose the "commiserating" lie, m'kay?
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)
that led to his PPR'ing. Skinner might have reinstated him if he hadn't made it so clear on FB he was determined that he would not change his blatantly misogynistic posting habits. The whole thing was rather strange since he insisted on blaming someone (the same someone you insisted should be PPR'd) who didn't send the alerts for any of his hides. He did so even after having it pointed out that others had admitted to being the alerters, one of whom is a gay man and therefore not a homophobe or misandrist.
That was also amid the call for retribution that led to the launching of all these trolls we've been banning. Then there is an earlier post on that page calling the owners of this site homophobes. I find it astounding you didn't figure out that wasn't official DU. Anyone can invent a name. I can put up a page calling myself Angelina Jolie; it doesn't make it true.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I used fairly simple English. I find it astounding you seem incapable of comprehending it. Considering Skinner, et al, most probably own copyrights to the name and logo, if they wanted that group to cease existing, it's a safe bet it would, with little more than a registered letter on their attorney's letterhead.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts) If we are to believe you here, you thought you were on a DU page. You'd have to ask Skinner why he hasn't done something about it. I'm guessing they don't consider it important enough to bother and perhaps like being able to keep an eye on certain characters who troll this site.
If you'll excuse me, I have to get back to Brad and the 14 kids.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)This post is yet another example to add to the ever-growing pile.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)And then there are those who cannot.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Provide the link. I saw an argument how consent is problematic because of the economic privation that leads people into porn.
The argument about coercion I'm familiar with is a Marxist one that has to do with workers rights and the capitalist economy. Amazingly, some deluded people think women are as important as Walmart workers. Yeah, cause Walmart workers are choosing to go hungry this Thanksgiving and have to scrounge up donations for their Thanksgiving table, just like some women choose to be raped and beaten on camera to satisfy rape fantasists. They are free-wage workers in the capitalist economy. Their choice is exploitation or starvation. The coercion that propels them to take on that work is economic, whereas some others who also appear in porn are coerced by extra-economic forces, like enslavement or debt peonage. It's basic Marxist analysis with women mixed in.
Or is your post one of those cases of someone lacking the wherewithal to engage in a discussion about the actual subject matter so has instead chosen to distort the argument in order to entertain the peanut gallery?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You don't get it back. You don't get my time. We're done.
Consider yourself fortunate. If you had pulled that with someone like, for instance, you, you would never hear the end of it.
As it is, I'm just not bothering with you anymore. See ya.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)For what it's worth, I am sorry I expressed my anger in that particular way. It clearly offended you greatly, and I am sorry I did so. If you want to continue to hold that against me, that's understandable. But I expect that means you will refrain from making snide comments about what you think I have said. Now you may not have been talking about me, but you did so in a subthread full of responses to me. So not bothering with me should mean really not bothering with me.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If you don't want people to mention the absurd straw characters you constantly create and tilt against - you know, like the perverts in this thread who are up in arms that their "right to get off on the rape porn they obviously love so much might get taken away" - quite absolutely one of the most ridiculously absurd characterizations of a discussion I've ever seen, anywhere, period - then don't create them. Try arguing against the things people have actually said, instead of making stuff up and then putting those words in the mouths of the people you're mad at.
You're obviously going to continue to misrepresent the shit I say, no matter what I do. The pattern repeats itself, and it's a waste of time. There's no point. But bothering to argue with it and ignoring it without comment are not the same thing. No one in this thread is like "oh, yeah, rape is great, we can't have anyone outlawing films of actual rape"- what people have said, to deaf ears apparently, is that when a government tries to get in the business of outlawing consenting adults depicting something fictional, they're headed into murky legal territory.
And I haven't even weighed in on the law in question at all, in this thread.
In answer to your question upthread, though, you need to do your own research. The posts I referenced are there. You didn't make them.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)
They have gone to great lengths to justify rape porn and some have shared in detail their expertise on the subject. Moreover, I don't believe I claimed anyone said rape is great. I have, however, said rape porn and its justification is part of rape culture.
Some of the same individuals defending rape porn also are those who turn up in the threads about violence against women to argue how we shouldn't talk about such things. They were aghast that the WHO dared to conduct a study on the health effects of violence against women. Some are the same individuals who argue PSA's that mention the word men are "misandrist." One even disclosed to another member than he said her objection to brutal and extreme rape porn as an effort to "punish men," because, after all, rape porn like everything else is all about men. In conjunction, these things form a picture.
You frequently misrepresent what I and others say, while taking great umbrage when feminists do the same. Your point about arguing it was impossible to consent to being in porn was one such distortion. You put the little straw man image in response to my effort to delineate what was actually banned in the law. Now, I'm no British legal scholar, but an effort to understand a particular law hardly constitutes creating a strawman. I seem to be about one of two or three in this thread who has actually bothered to look at the law.
I think what really is happening is two world views colliding without the ability to understand the other. Some men see the extreme porn as nothing more than entertainment, supposedly as a simple depiction of a fantasy. Many of the feminists here are thinking about the women who make that porn, how they get in that situation, and the effects that work has on them. We are also thinking about the connection between violent porn and violence against women more generally, something that has been established in academic literature. Those who enjoy that porn seem to make a point of not considering any of that, as the constant but odd refrain about "consenting adults" suggests. Porn is not sex. But that phrase suggests they are conflating porn with their personal sex lives. Perhaps they see it as no more than an extension of their sex lives, while many of the feminists here are concerned about the women who make that porn and its social impact. Since many of us are rape survivors, we take the propagation of rape culture very seriously. Rape porn is indeed part of rape culture. To pretend it has no impact on its viewers is like saying watching Fox has no impact on the politics of its viewers. Few here would dispute that latter point, yet they go to great lengths to pretend rape porn and actual rape are not related in any way.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Mine was my interpretation of what the British law bans. It does not ban all porn or all rape porn, but it specifies certain kinds of porn which you can read about yourself.
That I don't think it problematic to ban extreme rape porn that studies have shown increase the likelihood viewers will commit rape means I am trivializing rape? If I object to the fact that some men enjoy watching women raped and mutilated for kicks, I trivialize rape? If I talk about link between human trafficking--slavery--and porn, I am trivializing rape? Because I object to the zeal with which some in these thread seek to maintain rape culture through porn and the absolute denial of the humanity or rights of women who appear in that genre means I am trivializing rape?
Tell me, if this rape porn is all so consensual, why do it's producers bill so much of it as real? I expect most of what pornographers claim is real is not, but its viewers want to believe its real. If they didn't, its makers would not bill it as being real.
I don't know what consent is? So who exactly gets to determine consent? Are you seriously claiming that I don't know when I consent to sex or not? I don't know what you all are imagining when you talk about consent in rape porn. You have no idea if the person raped in the film gave consent or not. The viewer doesn't ask her consent. Porn is not your personal sex life. It's commerce, the commodification of human bodies, in this case the commodification of simulated rape and even real rape. Some participants in porn consent in the sense they appear in those films because economic circumstances compels them to, others are forced into it through debt peonage and some are enslaved. The British law seeks to limit the most brutal kinds of porn that may in fact be depictions of actual rape, mutilation, and murder. Yeah, it's a major buzz kill that British men will have to watch simulated rape instead of actual rape. Clearly there is no freedom if they can't get off watching the actual rape and mutilation of women. That is what you are defending in your outrage to this law, and that you have the fucking nerve to tell me I don't know what consent is as low and deplorable of a statement as I've seen made on this site. That you think you get to determine what consent is for others is repulsive. That you think you get to tell rape survivors they are trivializing rape goes beyond any conception of human decency.
There are some bizarre arguments in this thread, but yours jumps the shark. Your desperation to justify a pornographic form that promotes brutality toward women has led you to some pretty fucked up arguments. There is low and then there is telling a woman she doesn't know what consent is. There is disgusting and then there is telling a rape survivor she is trivializing rape, all in some fucked up effort to justify the most brutal and extreme porn that exists.
I just noticed you edited your thread to make your prononcement of putting me on ignore. Good. Becasue I really don't need to talk to anyone who tells a woman she doesn't know what consent is, or tells a rape survivor she is trivializing rape because she doesn't find objectionable a law that seeks to keep women from being raped and beatend for the purient interest of men, something that is apparently so important to you than you sink to unbelievable depths in justifying it. I'll await your next attack on a rape survivor so you can tell her she doesn't know what consent is and she needs to shut the fuck up and go along with whatever men tell her to.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)No matter that it's just fucking sick to get off on seeing another human being being raped, abused and tortured. Simulated or not.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)You seem to think this is about what goes on in a couple's bedroom. It is not. It is about downloading illegal porn. Now if someone actually rapes another person and puts it online (like Steubenville, for example) obviously they will be prosecuted. This law is about commerce, not private behavior in people's bedrooms.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)downloading pornography that did not involve a crime but which was deemed to be too "realistic" looking for someone. A definition that is, at best, subjective.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)what is considered "too realistic".
Personally I don't like passing sweeping laws and assuming that prosecutorial discretion will be used appropriately.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Juries do that. And, as you also know very well, the decisions on what is too realistic already have to be made by juries. This is about the possession being illegal, as well as the publishing.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I wonder what the record for longest thread ever is here on DU.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)As I recall it reached into the tens of thousands.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)you really hit a nerve with this topic. I have put five people on my IL--really cleaned up the thread. lol
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A veritable moon bomb, here.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Criminalizing thought is what should really be considered offensive.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You sick, sick man. 
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)" I haven't seen this many people since the Coolidge inauguration "
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Haven't clicked on this for about 400 replies. Time to enjoy some internet freedom debate porn.
nolabear
(41,984 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)On such a controversial subject as well.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If me and buddy smoke fake drugs on camera would they put people in jail for watching it?
Or is this only for rape, if so that seems kind of odd.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)People who want this kind of stuff are going to get it, whether it is legal or not will hardly matter.
Surface web or deep web, they are going to find it. All the government can do is punish a tiny percent of them, make people more careful to hide it. Hell, people who might legitimately need help to deal with violent sexual urges are just going to go further under ground.
This won't help anyone and it won't stop anything.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Originally, it was only the publishing of it that was the offence. And if it was found on someone's computer, there was no offence unless it could be shown they'd passed it on to someone else. Now, if it's found, they can be charged. And that will put some people off getting hold of it in the first place.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'll say this as politely as possible, you clearly don't actually understand how human sexuality or the internet works.
This will change nothing.
Except, It'll put people in jail for viewing consensual acts between adults.
It won't actually stop people viewing those acts, because again nothing like this ever actually works. Go on and tell me how porn didn't exist when it was illegal to have.
Oh and the universal right to freedom of speech gets trampled on in another country, but who gives a rat's behind about that right?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)and 'rape is sexually exciting' is one that the UK has decided crosses the line. And this is deciding that, as well as prosecuting people for producing material designed to excite those who are aroused by seeing someone raped, they will prosecute for possession as well; because, yes, we don't give a rat's arse that people 'need' a video of such things to get their rocks off. They can just think about it instead.
The law won't stop all instances; but it may stop some. It will also give a lesser charge so that those who do distribute the 'rape is good' stuff can be convicted of possession, even if the distribution can't be proved.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)We have a word for people who think otherwise. Those people are called authoritarians.
I really wish there wasn't as large of an authoritarian wing on DU, but alas some people find comfort in telling other people what they can think, feel and watch.
I do take comfort in that,again, only an absolute Luddite would think this law is going to modify the availability of this material an iota. The internet views censorship as damage and routs around it. If you think police resources are best used chasing people watching fake crimes instead of those actually committing real crimes, I genuinely question your societal priorities.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)This is one set of people encouraging others in the belief that rape is sexually exciting and acceptable. There is a public interest in stopping violent beliefs like that which are dangerous to others.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"This is one set of people encouraging others in the belief that rape is sexually exciting and acceptable." This for instance, is completely wrong. I've lived a very cosmopolitan life as a gay man with a very open mind. I've met some people who have rather interesting tastes. Yes, I've actually met people who are into "rape-play" as it is called and you know what? If asked every single one I've ever met has gone to great lengths to inform me how they believe that rape is completely unacceptable and a heinous crime. Some people have a wonderful ability to separate fantasy from reality. They realize that they may have dark sexual desires, but they also realize that such desires need to exclusively remain in the realm of fantasy. Hell, you don't seem to understand that a sizable portion of people into this kind of stuff don't fantasize about raping, they fantasize about being raped. Funnily enough, of the handful that I've met, it was about a 50/50 split on that front. Should we start rounding these people up and throwing them into prison? I don't think so, you apparently seem to.
What you don't seem to be understanding is that we're not talking about real rape here. We're talking about fantasy rape between two consenting adults. It is fiction. It isn't real. Do I support the outlaw of videos of actual rape? Yeah that is completely reasonable, no victim should have to know that there are people out there gaining sexual gratification from their suffering, but there isn't a victim here. These are consenting adults recording their consenting behaviors and making it available on the internet for people who share their interest. If you want to ban specific kinds of fiction, I can't tell you you're not allowed to hold that belief (though you seem perfectly willing to tell other people what they are allowed to believe).
But telling other people what kind of FICTION they can consume makes you an authoritarian and a censor, and in the long run those will always lose.
