Rape porn is legally and widely available, your theory doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Not that it matters, but does this include the entertainment value of scenes of simulated rape in mainstream movies like The Accused?
Incidentally, having sex with a 15 year-old, or even a 14 year-old, is perfectly legal around here.
That may be true for 17 year old members of industrialized societies, but I rather doubt it is generally true. Most people, after all, are in committed relationships where there is relatively little risk, investment of money - and probably not that much time and energy involved.
Specifically, if the OP’s point were true, then rapists of adults would be found with child porn. This is something I think would come out, but I don’t remember ever having heard of such a case. I also don’t recall anyone arrested for child abuse ever also being accused of raping an adult. The sets of these people seem totally disjoint - if the OP has any evidence, he ought to show it.
Of course, some mainstream movies feature rape scenes. Plots often include “unpleasant” elements–& did so long before the invention of film. But I hadn’t realized that people were seeking them out for the “entertainment value” of those specific scenes.
Yes, age of consent varies by country. Canada’s age of consent is 14 or 18–depending on circumstance. In the USA, it varies by state.
But “pædophilia” generally refers to sex with much younger partners.
And I still think the OP is ridiculous.
Well, if we’re gonna throw in circumstances, the age of consent is 12.
Anyway, does a person qualify as a waste of protoplasm if they watch the rape scene in The Accused more than once, instead of, say, fast forwarding over it when watching it on DVD?
I agree, of course, that the OP is completely ridiculous.
Oh, don’t ask me to choose!
Your theory though Miller, falls over by virtue of the OP.
The OP theorises that “the” assailant gratifies himself with watching un-cooperative children being raped because he actually wants to violate adults and cannot find footage.
This action being an inert need.
As you say, there is abundant SM and rape fantasy video made by mainstream Smut houses.
However what is depicted on screen is not a substitute because the viewer knows it is not real.
Kid porn is real, therefore his gratification at the sexual violence and domination is real.
There is know denying that some Porn houses go a little too far with there willful participants. That said it would not be the same thing to actual Rape.
I can only assume there would be no mental gratification in watching a faux rape.
I think this is where the OP actually misuses his words, a rape fantasist would love faux rape porn.
A whole other something else would crave Child Porn because they cannot rape adults.
Ooh-er, replace “Inert” with “Innate” and “know” with “no”.
Holy phoenetic spelling Batman!
By that logic, nobody would ever watch porn at all. Yeah, yeah, normal porn has people who are “really” fucking each other, but very few people have voyeurism as their primary sexual kink. Most people who watch porn do so because they would like, personally, to fuck one or more of the people participating in the porn shoot, but cannot. So they watch someone else fuck them, and enjoy the sex vicariously. I don’t see any particular reason why this wouldn’t apply to would-be rapists, who in the OP’s argument are already replacing one thing they desire (adult women) with an element that doesn’t appeal to them (children). It seems logical to me that watching adult women pretend to get raped would be a lot closer to what they want than watching young children actually get raped.
Further, the speculation is that rapists would watch kiddie porn because they have less of a chance of being caught doing that, then they would going out and raping someone. While this is certainly true, the chance of being caught and prosecuted for watching kiddie porn is non-zero, and the stigma (and, I believe, penalties, but I could be wrong) is much steeper. If the rapist is already constraining his actions out of fear of reprisal, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for him to go ahead and commit an even more serious crime in order to relieve his desire for the first crime.
The problem here is that, when one talks about rape in the context of child pornography and pedophilia, it’s really a very different thing than rape committed against an adult. My understanding is that most pedophiles do not want to hurt their victims, and are often quite adept at self-delusion, convincing themselves that the child loves them romantically and freely consented to the act. I expect the porn they produce and consume would reflect this, and would involve very little in the way of violence or sexual domination. Quite apart from the way the actors in the films look, the action itself would be very dissimilar between child porn and rape porn. Child porn is rape in the legal and moral sense, but it bears little outward resemblence to violent adult rape.
Which brings us to the last flaw in the OP’s premise: that a non-pedophiliac rapist would be capable of being attracted to children in the first place. A normal, healthy adult does not respond sexually to children. They just aren’t wired to do it. Now, a rapist is obviously not a “normal, healthy” person by any stretch, but just because they have one major mental dysfunction, it doesn’t automatically follow that they have every major mental dysfunction. In many ways, pedophilia is like an orientation instead of a kink. A gay man with a serious bondage kink, presented with the choice of watch a normal gay porn, or a bondage straight porn, isn’t going to choose the straight porn because it has bondage in it. He’s going to choose the gay porn, and fantasize about tying up the protagonists. A rapist presented with the choice of a normal porn video, and a child porn video, is going to take the normal porn video, and fantasize about raping the characters, because unlike the other video, he at least finds the characters in the normal porn sexually attractive, even though they aren’t doing the specific act that turns him on.
While you’re at it, you don’t need to hit Enter at the end of every sentence, either.
It would be really hard to do research into this, because we have to remember that most defendents at trial are doing their best to mitigate their sentence, and so will have “been abused as children” and “were just being curious”. No one, except those who value the truth over their lives, is going to say “I wanted to see people being raped, and had to settle for kids”.
I understand what you are saying about reliable sources, but the facts are that there can be no reliable research, simply because of the criminal nature of the thing. Conjecture may even be better than research.
Bayes’ Theorem.
<puzzled>
<checks penis. still there>
<thinks about sports. still interested>
<sips a beer. still good>
<submits to genetic testing. Y-chromosome intact>
<looks at picture of cast from current show. 14-year-old girl in front row. child’s face, body in the midst of development. pretty enough for 14. is not at all turned on>
<weeps at own femininity>
Go on. I suppose you mean that there should be a statistical correlation, that would be rather high if your hypothesis is true. I have no idea of the prevalence of rape videos in households, but I would suspect that this would be more prevalent in paedophile households. Since rape videos are not illegal, we wouldn’t know the correlation in the other direction. Still, since is your OP, you need to show us some numbers, not just some assumptions.
Around here news stories of arrested paedophiles often discuss child porn found in their homes, and there seems to be an excellent correlation that way. Like I said, I’ve never seen rape porn mentioned, which it would be.
You’ll go far with that attitude.
Those talking about rape fantasies forget that there are two sides to it. The one who fantasise about raping some and those that want to be ‘raped’.
I didn’t forget, it’s just that people who fantasize about being raped aren’t relevant to this specific debate.