Let me amplify on my last post.
the ryan , you made a blanket generalization re the porn industry. I disagree. I am just asking you to explain why you believe that “All pornography involves fantasies of control and domination.”
I might agree or disagree with your explanation. Being the Pit, a bit of invective is allowed. Yes, I think you are wrong, but that does not necessarily mean I will “only ridicule you even more” if you explain your point.
However, it could happen.
That’s because you are totally garbling what I said beyond all recognition. Somebody (I believe it was evilbeth) said if watching a John Woo film made me a murderous Asian gangster. I said the situations are not comparable, because a movie is clearly just that, a movie. If I saw a web site advertising “real pics of someone being murdered!” I would have the same reaction I’m having to rape porn.
(And by the way, this one example hardly fits your assertion that I “keep saying simulated situations of murder don’t qualify.” Don’t walk into class halfway through unless you’ve done all your homework.)
**
sigh Okay, I’ll say it one more time: Private fantasies ARE NOT what this thread is about, people!
Really? Then what, in your opinion, is it justified by? We’re not talking about instructions for building bottle rockets here. We’re talking about people marketing sexual assault. What things are so bad, in your opinon, that they can be censored? Seriously. I want to know.
**
No, I’m not going on that. I have never said that. I said it would provide cover for sickos who already indulge in it, and allow them to operate in the open, with no one the wiser. I also said that some things are just sick and wrong, and should be banned on principle. But now that you mention it, I think it’s logical that real rape might very well be taken less seriously if “rape porn” is on the rack next to Playboy. Can I cite “scientific studies” to “prove” that it would? No. Can YOU cite scientific studies to prove that it WOULDN’T? No. Whose side do I want to be on if they are someday proven right? Mine, no question. It would be interesting to see you try to justify, after the fact, your idea that watching “fiction” of women being sexually assaulted wouldn’t be any big deal. Of course, if I am wrong, I would nothing whatever to excuse myself for. I believe this is the same rationale used in Pascal’s Wager; be right and gain everything, be wrong and lose everything. If there’s a middle ground on this issue, I don’t know what it would be.
**
hey, this stuff by definition is the fringes of the bell curve. I’m not “playing around,” I’m camped out. Let’s hope it stays there.
You need to get out more, all over the place.
Notice that most movies do not have a big
THIS IS FAKE stamped on front of them.
Of course not, people KNOW it is fake, and front that point on it is the job of the movie to suspend disbelief and make you feel disgusted when, say, Hannible eats some guys brains. Yah you KNOW on some level it is fake, but you are STILL disgusted by it.
Rape fantasy, people KNOW it is fantasy (hell people, by law all porn studios keep VERY complete records of ALL of their actresses and actors. They are a ton more legit then a lot of other businesses are. . . . ), but they still get off on it anyways.
::shrugs::
Shit I have seen far worse on the net, browse the alt.tasteless archives sometime.
(hey, where is the evil smilie??? I need an evil smilie like right now!)
Bolding mine. I’d like to point out one inherent flaw in your logic there, Lizard. You seem to have no problems assuming that any of the BD/SM porn you see on the net, or elsewhere, is done with the consent of the subject. Yet you cannot see the possiblity of the same being true of ‘rape’ porn. In either case, I would see the likelihood being just as high that the person is NOTparticipating willingly. (From a realistic viewpoint, I see the likelihood being very, very low, for reasons that other posters have already pointed out…) To be honest, I’m not at all a fan of rape fantasy. I don’t get off on pain during sex. It’s not something I’m into.
If anybody else is, hey,
If I don’t like it, then it’s my right ** not to look at it **. That is the only kind of censorship that is, or should be, allowed. Yes, I do see the vague possibility that what you’re proposing could happen. To take the argument a step further, let’s say that woman x is raped, and her attackers take the time and trouble to capture it on film, specifically for the purpose of putting it in the public view. Unless they also kill woman ‘x’, then they have just hand-delivered, to the public domain, evidence against them. If they have not somehow prevented woman ‘x’ from filing charges against them, then the evidence would be fairly easily found by a prosecuting attorney. I realize that this attempt at convincing you probably will not go any further than any of the others, but I’m trying to make you see how ridiculous the situation you propose is. Technically, no. You can’t necessarily tell the difference. But you can’t tell the difference between a murder scene that’s real or fake anymore, either. The same goes for any and every other action that can be filmed, acted out, treated with special effects, etc. But if the crime happened, then we have to trust that it will be prosecuted. If it isn’t, then banning a variety of fiction is hardly going to make any difference to that end. To put it bluntly, banning the existence of ‘rape’ porn is not going to prevent rape. Just because they can’t film it for money any more wouldn’t make it stop, even if that was the only motivation for the crime in the first place, which, well, it isn’t. It’s rather like saying that banning murder mysteries will stop people from killing each other.
-Stiletto
Lizard,
You’ve lost the arguement. You lost it at the precise moment you posted this:
The quotes around really show that you know it’s not real, all of your bombastic protests to the contrary.
Let me make a wild guess. Someone close to you was raped at some point. I am sure that it made a huge impact on your life and outlook. I have a friend who was pulled over by a fake cop, raped, left for dead, and when she dragged herself, naked and bleeding, to the nearest house for help, they refused to answer the door. The way she has put her life back together leaves me in awe, I don’t think I could do it.
It’s all about the difference between fantasy and reality. The reality is too horrible for words. The fantasy is safe. Many people have tried to get that across to you. Please don’t let your rightful horror at the reality obscure your judgement about the fantasy.
How many of us have not stood at the edge of a high building, for instance( Not saying we went there for the purpose, just that we found ourselves there, a tourist at the Empire State Building, for example), and pondered what it would really be like to jump? Most of us don’t. That dosen’t make the thoughts less real, and it dosen’t make them suicidal either.
Hey, Lizard, one you can tell it’s fake is that no one seems to notice the lighting and cameras and sound equipment!!!
Even a loud-mouthed cretin can figure that out.
BTW, you are a jerk.
Wow, this took off like the space shuttle on a clear blue day! Too bad I can’t get in here at decent hours of the day cuz I hate waiting.
Anyhow…
Rape is a bad thing, it’s probably the most horrific thing a women could go through, ever. There are many psychological and physical things that a woman has to go through. Not to mention a lifetime of issues due to that.
However, I will repeat. Most adult webmasters (not the dumb asses) will take every precaution to ensure that the material they have on their sites are legal in every way. Many of the large sites (where we get content from) require you send a contract and they state their product is legal in every way, it covers your ass and it covers their ass.
The depiction of rape is apparently disturbing to many and fantasy to many. So that leaves us all no where in this matter.
I also think that if a man is a rapist, he will rape no matter what he might see. He will rape no matter if there was an internet or not. Who knows, it might just temper the would be rapist into looking at simulated rape scenes, I haven’t seen any studies on it. But I do think that a criminal will do in real life regardless if he sees it portrayed anywhere or not. Same goes with pediphiles. I don’t think there is any correlation between the actual images in the media. If there were, a fucked up dickhead with fantasies of raping and the end result of killing a woman would be easily satisfied by watching the local news or even reading through various news sites. As sick as it is, there is no stopping the true rapist. The rest are fantacising about what it might be like in a controlled manner.
As for porn in general, ummmmm, it’s not all about domination – men on women. There are plenty of porn sites, movies and erotica that the woman starts the fuck session. I hate generalizations in this manner as it’s wrong. I have pics on my server where the woman started the fuck session. I have a couple of movies (borrowed from a friend) that the woman was the starter of the fuck session. < insert big roll eye emoticon here >
< not checked for spelling and typos and right now I don’t care! >
Lizard you have to be an idiot to believe someone would commit a rape and then post the proof for the world to see. You might want to ask you local and friendly polide department if the way they solve rapes is by surfing the Net for the evidence.
Christ, am I invisible?
I guess I’ll post again…
So if the rape-oriented porn was advertised as “simulated rape,” you would no longer have a problem with it, as it is accurately informing the public about a lawful activity (that is, the depiction, rather than the actuality of rape)?
I’m really interested in the answer to this question, since Lizard is still harping on the “But some people might think it’s real!” angle…
**
Treason: revealing troop locations or items of legit national security (atomic bomb plans)
Libel (or slander…I can never keep which one’s which straight): printing deliberate lies about someone that affect their reputation or status.
Incitement to riot (the famous “Yelling fire in a crowded theater”)
Um… that’s about it. And the first two are unlikely to come up in fiction and the third one pert-near impossible. I can imagine fiction I wouldn’t buy. I can imagine fiction I would urge people not to buy. I can even imagine fiction that I’d join in an active boycott against. But censoring fiction? Nah. (boycott != censoring. Censoring requires the government to be involved)
Someone wants to write a “sexual” story about how they murdered then raped the still-warm carcass of a 4 year old girl and illustrated it with life-like 3D renderings courtesy of Poser or other 3D software, < shrug > I wouldn’t want to read the story, I wouldn’t want to associate with the person who wrote it…hell…if it was told in a “true confessions” style, I’d even support the police investigating it to see if it matched any known crimes. But it’s legal and I’d defend the perv’s right to write it.
If you’re not an American, I take back the following comment: There’s this thing called the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, even if we think the person using it is using it for yukky purposes.
Grotesque logical fallacy. One can’t prove a negative. Try proving Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Sorry pal. Since you’re the one who’s trying to have the government make a major exception to the constitution, the burden of proof is on thee, not me.
A few points:
I understand these individual words but not this paragraph. If you were proven right you’d want to be on your own side and then you’d want me to justify what after what fact?
After trying to parse that again, lemme take a stab at what yI think you’re getting at: If I was in front of a women who’d been raped and had the pictures of her rape put on the internet, how ould I justify that? I wouldn’t. I’ll agree that raping women and putting the pictures of the crime on the internet for profit should be against the law and I’d be happy to tell her so. If I was standing in front of a porn-“actress” who got five hundred for making scared-faces at the camera while wearing about 20 pounds of pancake makup, I could justify that too. So?
You’re still stuck on the “If it saves only one life, wouldn’t it be worth it.” routine. (I think. I can’t tell if you’re arguing that raping women and putting pictures of the crime on the internet should be against the law, in which case I’d agree with you OR if you’re arguing that since you have a hunch that dirty pictures cause violence so anything you find yukky should be a crime, in which case I’ll stand by my answer “No”.) If one woman somewhere is raped because some psycho saw feelthy peectures on the internet and was “inspired”, my heart would break for the woman, but I wouldn’t censor the internet simply because one psycho went nuts. I also wouldn’t censor oatmeal if a psycho stared into a bowl and saw encrypted messages telling him to go out and rape. The consequences of having a free society are that there’s an increased likelyhood of people doing bad things.
You still haven’t answered my question on page one where I ask if you realize that this is exactly the same argument used by extemeists to boycott any kind of pornography and that Don Wildmon and his ilk use to try to ban cartoons. Do you think that Bugs Bunny cartoons should be banned because SOME children might try to imitate Bugs?
Um…you do know that Pascal’s Wager is another logical fallacy: it assumes facts not in evidence. And there are drawbacks to Pascal’s Wager (the time and money invested).
So too is it a fallacy here. You’d have a major something to excuse yourself for: the loss of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not justified by the fact that you think yukky pictures of badly made-up women and yukky words about them make you feel yukky. The minisucle chance that some psycho will be “inspired” by these pictures does not justify the kind of gross clamp-down on free-speech you’re talking about any more than one incident of “cartoon related violence” (a kid putting a stick of dynamite in another kid’s mouth, for example) necessitates banning all cartoons.
Fenris
I guess the same kind that says it’s okay to make money on murders, fake or otherwise. Spiderman, anyone?–I saw it last night and it rocked, murders and all.
Umm, dear, we live in the middle ground. Rapeporn’s out there and you aren’t forced to look at it. We are allowed to get off on it if we so choose and then treat ourselves to the opportunity of you telling us we’re morally repugnant for doing so. Fuck you.
And for the record, yeah–I’ve been raped. Do I think a bunch of small-minded twits flitting around dictating that porn be “safe” would have prevented my rape? No fucking way.
bella
ok, so that should read
“…opportunity of listening to you telling…”
bah, sorry
I’ve only read the first page of this, and while I don’t agree with the OP, the debate so far has been a little … fuzzy…
The OP stated that he dislikes rapestyle porn. The counterarguments say that “this is my fantasy, this is how we engage in consensual sex.” I have yet to see someone defending and admitting to ogling the stuff on the 'Net and whacking off.
OTOH, the OP is quick to say
in effect saying that freedom of the press is OK, as long as it doesn’t offend the poster.
Hey guess what? Freedom of the press is about agreeing that people will publish things you don’t like, thus guaranteing that what you aprove of, and someone else hates, is not banned.
As to the voyeuristic aspect. We’ve all been taught, that there is a specific way of telling a story in movieform. That is with us, the viewer, as a omniscient, invisible observer in the room or location where things are actually happening. A take on this, and being pushed down our throats in, a not so subtle way, is the moviehouse scene in Gremlens, where Joe Dante pokes at us, the audience.
The conclusion is that the whole point of movies, tv, theatre, is a voyeurism, an invasion of privacy if you will, of the fictional characters life and action. In porn, this is taken to the extreme. And in extreme porn, the watcher/voyeur is taken to the deepest places of his/her own imagination, being able to tap into some things, that some people think is really sicko stuff.
The amazing thing is not what the porn industry produces, but that some of it gets produced, because there is obviously a market for it. A tagline in a spam, for, IIRC, gayfarm-dot-com, was “Men with Monkeys!!!”
A minor quibble with one point: at least in the U.S. Freedom of the Press is about the government not preventing people from publishing things you don’t like, it doesn’t guarantee you a platform.
The only reason I bring this up is that there’s a certain subset who thinks that if a private company doesn’t publish something it’s “censorship”.
Fenris
Space Vampire, just curious as to why my life is so sad. Because I was raped? I’m over it. Completely. Because I like rape porn? what’s it to ya? Because I’m happily married with a great job and a fun group of friends and an exciting sex life and a great dog and a wonderful family?
Where’s your evidence that I’m so sad?
J
jar- evidence of sadness has to be the fact that Urlacher got the restraining order, methinks.
I was framed
Geez, Dave, aren’t you satisfied with knowing that I am a sick fuck??
Nah, you gotta know what kind. Everyone wants the juicy details. 
Lizard - let’s say a woman gets raped, the perpetrators film it (complete with studio lighting - let’s say they’ve forced her to their conveniently isolated porn studio at gunpoint), and put it up on a pay site on the Web. Eventually the video comes to her attention, or that of the police/prosecutors. The filmmakers say in defense, “oh yeah, she gave her consent.”
You think their files will contain her SSN, her tax withholding info, the signed consent forms with her signature, a photostat of her birth certificate or driver’s license proving she’s over 18, and all that? The absence of these would knock a slight hole in their defense.
Just a hunch.
Hamadryad - cut him some slack. It has been a busy thread since you posted your query.
Oh, come on jarbabe, he doesn’t need evidence. He’s right, you’re wrong. Therefore, if you claim not to have an awful life, you must be lying. (You’re a liar, too. How sad.)
The ol Space Vamp cannot (will not) understand you, therefore your views must be wrong and irrelevant. Thus, you are deserving of his pity.
See, it all makes perfect sense now. Go curl up with your little meaningless existence now. The vampire has spoken.