Liberals and violent porn and rape simulation

[Tumbulu]

So, I am proud to be a liberal and have been one my life. I have lived in Bible Belting small rural towns and large cities.

In the recent long thread in DU about rape porn I was disillusioned to conclude that a whole lot of DU members somehow think it is the liberal position to safeguard the rights of people for whom watching women being tortured is a turn on.

I personally associate such hatred of women to be a republican problem. But now I am unsure entirely.

Why would it be a liberal position to defend torture of women for sexual gratification?

I have no idea what people mean when they say it is only simulated, so it does not count. Or it is between consenting adults....who consents to being tortured?

Seriously, how can anyone call themselves a liberal, but be for torturing anyone?

We care about animals being tortured- at least I do. What in the world is this hatred about?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. "who consents to being tortured?"

Lots of people. There are subcultures that exist entirely around this fetish. And it's not always male on female sometimes it's female on male or male on male, etc. It's not my thing, but it exists, and I don't judge others for what they do with fellow CONSENTING adults. It's none of my business.

[Egnever]

2. /end thread

you said it all.

[BainsBane]

4. said it all

as long as one doesn't consider women as human beings with rights, or that violence against them matters.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

10. It's not just about women.

What if I'm a gay man and I want to participate with other gay men? What if I want to watch other gay men?


I shouldn't be able to because it upsets your sensibilities? Mind your own business.

[BainsBane]

17. Rape is my business

Believe it or not, women are human beings with rights too.
Yes, there is gay porn--directed at male audiences. The vast majority of the porn is heterosexual. Pretending there is anything close to gender parity is a willful distortion.
That you think it is only about your business suggests women who are the objects of porn have no rights, that the women who are then raped as a result of the prevalence of that porn--as countless studies have shown--have no rights. Our rights to be free from violence matters to us, even if you do not care who is enslaved, beaten or killed to satisfy the rape fantasists desires.

[Kurska]

21. Actually, if the rape isn't real and it is between consenting adults it is not your business.

If I pretend murdered my friend every night, wouldn't be your business. If I pretend did drugs, it wouldn't be your business (hell if wouldn't be your business if you saw me doing actual drugs.)

There are going to be people doing things to each other that would make your stomach turn, but if they are both into it guess what.

It ain't
your
business

[moxybug]

140. Pretend murder and drug taking is a really weak ass argument.

No one is pretend choking and spitting on men and women in rape porn. The damage done too a man or womens throat when a giant penis is rammed repeatedly into it with the intent to induce gagging and vomiting is not the same as pretend taking of a drug.

By the way is it our business to enforce seat belt laws? How about forcing people to buy health Insurance? Prevent smoking in public places?

I await your definitive answer to what is and isnt the business of the American public to regulate, so that all us freedom haters can get on board.

[Orrex]

198. Can *you* provide a definitive answer?

I await your definitive answer to what is and isnt the business of the American public to regulate, so that all us freedom haters can get on board.

I await your answer as well. It would be most helpful to have a clear and unambiguous boundary on acceptable behavior. Please enlighten us.

[moxybug]

288. Sure.

You are required to wear a seat belt.

You MUST have car insurance.

You CANNOT smoke in a public place.

If the public accepts limits on rape porn then its their business.

Right?

[Orrex]

312. Well, sort of

If the public accepts limits on rape porn then its their business.

In other words, opted to punt on the fundamental question of the thread.

You also cite three legal requirements and one... well, societal preference. There are issues of expression at stake, and these are different in the UK than in the US, where we have the 1st Amendment to complicate things.

You've made a sort of general "whatever people want, they want" statement that doesn't actually answer the question asked.

[loli phabay]

239. what you want to outlaw oral sex.

[moxybug]

293. Certainly not

But I would have no complaint with legislation banning rape porn, of which forcible oral sex is a variant.

[AgingAmerican]

472. Is it forcible oral sex....

...if the recipient is willing?

[Kurska]

269. Wait a second here, you seem to arguing that extreme forms of sexuality should be banned

Because of the potential for physical harm to the willing participant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be your argument.

[moxybug]

289. No

I'm arguing that your example of pretend drug use as an equivalent of the making of violent rape porn (of which forcible oral sex is a variant) is beyond ridiculous.

[Stargazer99]

243. you are wrong there!

why does any human have a need to emotionally live out rape? I'd say something is sick in the culture. what you entertain in the mind constantly becomes who you are. Yes, it is my business because I walk among you.

[Kurska]

270. What you think in your head is my business and I'll throw you in jail if I don't like it.

Yeah, no.

Not going to fly buddy.

[Tumbulu]

482. Yes, I agree, that is part of the point

and it effects us all.

[smirkymonkey]

532. Exactly. What on earth is wrong with someone that needs to watch that stuff to get off.

The point of the OP was that what it is with so-called liberals, who claim to care so much about the rights of animals and human beings of all types, actually enjoying simulations of women getting raped, tortured, brutalized and even murdered (even if she was a willing participant). What the fuck is actually wrong with people who want to watch that shit and actually get off on it? They obviously hate women. How can they call themselves compassionate liberals while advocating for the proliferation of such material?

[Kurska]

14. If this is all about the harm to women, I'm a gay man with a consenting gay partner

No women involved, you may now kindly remove your nose from my sexuality.

Thanks.

[BainsBane]

22. It isn't about sexuality or sex

It's about commerce in violence. Women and boys die because of that stuff. Women are raped in real life because of that stuff, as are men and children. That is very much my business. That you are unwilling to consider the humanity of the workers in that porn or those who are raped as a result of watching it is frankly repulsive.

I could care less what you or anyone else does in your own sex life. Porn isn't your sex life. The incredible entitlement is astounding. It's not just about what gets you off. Real human beings are impacted by this stuff. They are raped and beaten because of it.

These are all things I said in the post which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read about. As long as men continue to think porn is all about them, women will continue to be raped and killed in a society built around violence against them. That you are gay makes no difference to this discussion because you are justifying a genre that primarily uses women, that enslaves them--as well as girls, boys, and very young men--and tortures them to create a genre you think is just about your personal sexual desires.

My life and the lives of other rape victims are my business. We are human beings who count.

[Kurska]

49. If the ban was only on COMMERCIAL production of rape porn.

If consenting adults doing it for no financial incentive was the only thing out there, would you still think that should be illegal?

If you do, then guess what you aren't actually concerned about the commercialization. You are actually offended that people are doing and watching things that you find objectionable.

[Bonobo]

56. Looking forward to a response. BB? nt

[BainsBane]

59. If by things I find objectionable you mean slavery and rape, yes

If you mean what consenting adults do in their bedroom, I could care less. Don't tell me what I care about. You don't get to invent false arguments just because you don't want to think about what I'm really saying. That's cheap and intellectually lazy.

What precisely in the British law regulates behavior between consenting adults in their private sex lives?

[Bonobo]

64. That's called ducking a question.

And the answer to the question would really reveal a lot -much of which I think is revealed every time you speak of men "wanking", "jerking off", "getting their rocks off", etc. it's really pretty obvious the disgust you have for it. Hard to miss.

Now answer the question if you're not afraid of it.

[Katashi_itto]

127. +1000

[ancianita]

166. Nope. I get it. It's about consent, and the identity that comes from entitlement

to be a dominator. It can grow from the bedroom to the public sphere. Slavery and rape can very well begin in the bedroom and be commodified and codified as some pseudo culture. I get that the bottom line is the consent part.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

201. she did answer the question.

[Kurska]

66. So you admit you want to ban some fiction based on the content of that fiction

Or am I not getting what you are saying.

"What precisely in the British law regulates behavior between consenting adults in their private sex lives?"

The aspect of a person's private sex life that British law regulates is
WATCHING
PORN

[BainsBane]

72. False

You obviously haven't read any of the law. It's posted in the other thread. Look it up.

[Kurska]

74. You have to be kidding me.

The law is very clear that all sexual depictions of rape are banned, whether they are simulated or not. What world are you living on where it is any other way.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/17/rape-porn-possession-to-be-punished-by-three-years-in-jail-david-cameron-to-announce-4189512/

"Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not."

[BainsBane]

85. the law makes illegal possession of already illegal porn

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/ExtremePornograhicMateria

[Kurska]

87. And... that porn that was already illegal includes consensual depiction of simulated criminality.

Fiction.

They are outlawing certain kinds of fiction.

And if you support the British law, guess what you also support doing?

[BainsBane]

91. Well you clearly consider yourself a British legal scholar

Yet somehow use none of the language actually spelled out in the law.

[Tumbulu]

484. And I am asking you

what about your position is liberal vs libertarian?

[lumberjack_jeff]

492. I don't think that telling women *and only women* what they should do "for their own good"

is a liberal position.

[Tumbulu]

498. I don't think that protecting people from harm

is anything but a liberal position.

There is nothing here about "for their own good" this is about violence filmed for the benefit of those who pay for it at the expense of those filmed being hurt.

This is the issue, please do not distort it.

[Kurska]

495. I want a government that keeps out of my bed room

And regulates wall street.

Don't think that is too much to ask for.

I believe in drug legalization and I want the end of the militarization of our policy force.

I also want national health care and a higher minimum wage.

Essentially, I want the government to be involved in the stuff it should be, but to keep it's nose where it belongs, out of my private life.

[Tumbulu]

497. Can you tell me why you think that your private life should be protected

in a way that leaves an entire group of people unprotected from harm?

[Kurska]

505. My private sexual life causes no harm or lack of protection for women.

In fact, my private sexual life involves women in no capacity. I am a gay man. For hundreds of years whenever the government tried to step into the private consensual sexual life of people like me, it ends in nothing but anguish in pain. Regardless of sexual orientation, everyone has a right to not be thrown in jail for their private consensual sexual behavior. To say anything else is to ignore the repeated and painful lessons of history.

People have given their blood and their lives to liberate me and others like me from government intervention in our private consensual sexual activity. I owe these people a debt and that debt is to ensure that such governmental intervention never comes back for any group. To do otherwise would be to spit on the effort of all those honorable people.

If it ain't involving anyone who doesn't want to be involved, the sexual practices of others is frankly none of your business no matter how "perverse" their interests. I won't allow the same arguments (societal good and DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN hysteria) used throughout history to suppress people like me to be used to suppress other unpopular groups. Because if I don't, I'm no better than the cowards who stood by and watched people like me suffer.

If you think this is a spacious argument, I've already seen people use material from anti-gay groups to justify their hatred of consensual pornography on this very board. So yeah, when one side does that I know that I want to be on the exact opposite side of that trash.

[Tumbulu]

506. I do not get your point at all

So, because you do not want the government involved in anyones's personal sexual lives, you condone violence against women being filmed and profited from?

How many millions of women and girls are currently enslaved for the sexual trade and you care more about the person enslaving them than the exploited?

I must be totally misunderstanding you.

[Kurska]

508. I like how you completely don't include the "consensual" bit in that question.

When I repeatedly stressed that I only supported consensual sexual activity being recorded. That is incredibly intellectual dishonest. I bet you've watched a ton of media where women are subjected to violence and even financially contributed to it. The difference being that violence isn't actually real or forced upon them. You take away that last bit of information and you make everything look way worse.

Why don't you just ask me if I still beat my wife. At least be up front with your loaded questions.

I support the right of individuals to engage in and even record whatever consensual sexual activity they want to. I find it disgusting that some people don't think women have a right to film themselves engaging in incredibly rough sex. Women are not precious flowers that need to be protected by anyone elses morality or tastes. They have every right to engage in whatever fetish videos they want to.

Obviously it would be a tremendous crime to force anyone to engage in such activities, but somehow I have a feeling you're going to ignore me saying that and claim I support that. Because that is apparently the only argument the other side of this debate has. You want to censor people's sexual activities and your only argument to do that is to conflate it with things it ain't, because nearly no one on DU thinks it is a good idea to go around banning fiction.

So as a matter of fact, I do not support women being forced into sexual activity on camera against their will. I do support the right of women to engage in any consensual sexual activity they want on film. If you seriously can't understand how those are different positions, than you've become unwilling to even attempt to understand opposing opinions.

I've seen that same kind of question and implication done over and over in this thread and no one has said yes. It has gotten to the point where it isn't even a real question, it seems like people are more interested in discrediting other people by repeatedly asking if they hold a position that no sane member of our society holds. That is barely a step above name calling as far as a debate tactic goes.

[Tumbulu]

511. So how does one tell the difference

Between what is done consentually and what is done via coercion or enslavement?

I remain aghast that your sympathy is so skewed toward the right of the observer/purchaser over the right of a worker to be treated fairly and humanely. To ignore the reality of the vast numbers of women and children enslaved for sexual profit is astounding.

To ignore how it effects women who see this barrage of violence directed against them in the name of someone's idea of gratification is stupefying. This thread is about extreme violence against women being depicted as something to become erotically aroused by. Women who still represent the underclass in most of the world, who only attained the right to vote a few generations ago in this country. Women who in much of the world are considered to be less valuable alive than the unborn, undeveloped fetus they remain obligated to carry.

If you think that because a tiny minority of women might find it erotic to film themselves being beaten and tortured that it is the liberal position to defend its legal sale and distribution, then I am sorry, I remain completely and steadfastly disgusted by the blind eye that is being turned toward the lions share of women "employed" in this industry. And the demoralizing effect of the normalization of said violence on women in a general was.

[Kurska]

514. Our society is somehow able to differniate between real and fake murders everyday.

I imagine we have some ability to distinguish real crimes from fake crimes. The police aren't constantly getting sent to the set of shows like law and order after all.

What disgusts me is that you think I need to pick between the rights of the viewers and the rights of those involved in the production. I support the right of people to view commercial pornographic material AND I believe very strongly in the laws ensuring the well being of workers involved in the production of pornography. You will not find someone with a stronger pro-workers rights stand than me, so the very fact you're saying I don't care about the workers involved in pornography is laughable.

[Tumbulu]

529. It is not possible to care about workers

and support the production of violent porn, porn that is already illegal to make.

And so I think that we must be misunderstanding each other.

[Kurska]

73. "If by things I find objectionable you mean slavery and rape," No I don't mean that

I mean, videos produced by consenting adults engaging in consenting behaviors that might happen to be fake rape or hell even fake slavery and these videos are made for zero financial gain.

Now if you would kindly answer the question.

Do you think that should be illegal?

[BainsBane]

77. Not if there really is consent

If someone rapes another person and puts it online, I have no problem prosecuting people who download it. That is currently legal in the US and part of what the British law goes after.

Since British law doesn't already prohibit couples from making their own porn, possessing that porn couldn't be illegal. It only make illegal possession of porn that is already illegal to produce.

[Kurska]

82. The law makes it a crime to possess porn that has rape in it, whether that rape is real or not.

Period end of story. If you're seriously going to contest that, then you either haven't read any of the articles about it or you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

[BainsBane]

89. How much have you read?

Because you linked to a very paltry article. The text of the law specifies extreme porn.

Summary of the new offense
The new offense, which is contained at section 42 of the Act, criminalizes the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:

an act which takes or threatens a person's life
an act which results or is likely to result in a person's severe injury
rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity
Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse
An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal)
The maximum penalty for the new offense will be three years imprisonment.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/ExtremePornograhicMateria

Whether that extends to all pornographic depictions of rape (and the law goes into detail about what exactly pornography is) or, as it says about, those that "explicitly and realistically depict," can best be understood by how it has been enforced in Scotland.

I myself have no problem banning all rape porn. If it was clear that the so-called rape was actually a simulation, however, I see that as less problematic. I would not include what people make among themselves, but then I don't see why they need to upload it online. The reason I see no problem banning rape porn is because I don't like rape and I believe we must do whatever we can to combat it, and it has been shown rape porn increases a viewers propensity to rape. I think the desire of some to watch rape porn is far less important than the lives of women, men, and children who are raped either during the making of that porn or as a result of its dissemination.

We already ban child porn. I don't see how this is worse. Sex with children is illegal and rape is illegal. However, I know very well that such a ban is highly unlikely to ever occur in this country. That doesn't stop me from being angry at the disregard so many have for the effects of rape porn on the wider society and those who make it.

[Bonobo]

92. By that logic, you would also ban BDSM because it increases propensity for sadism.

You have reached the end of the rope, argument-wise.

[Major Nikon]

111. There never was a start to the rope

It's all one big strawman.

If the discussion is about consensual sexual activity, and someone marks that out and writes in non-consensual sexual activity, they are engaging in strawman gibberish. "Rape farms", "sexual slavery", and all the other rhetoric describes non-consensual activity that no one here condones. The idea that two (or more) consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity causes anyone else to engage in non-consensual sexual activity is no less nutty than wingnuts who claim homosexuality is a communicable disease. In fact, it's the exact same argument with the exact same logical disconnects between cause and effect. It's hard to imagine that the motivation isn't also simply the attempt to impose one person's idea of morality on another, especially when all the other judgmental red herrings are thrown in for good measure. When someone is making these claims and they say "studies have shown", it's a given that complete and utter mindless bullshit follows. Nothing that anyone sees forces them to do anything.

[Bonobo]

113. Good point.

When she first starting selectively quoting the law, she cut out the part that said "depictions of rape" so she could make her argument that the law was just criminalizing porn that actually harmed people. I think that pretty much shows how honest her arguments are.

[Major Nikon]

118. Par for the course

[Katashi_itto]

177. Bravo!

[lillypaddle]

240. Thank you

Always amazes me how narrow minded some "liberals" can be. Sexuality can travel a very long continuum. When role play is involved between consenting adults for sexual gratification, it's nobody's business. It is a matter of choice. Just because one doesn't get it or approve, doesn't mean the people who do get it should be disparaged.

Nicely and factually stated, Major Nikon.

[booley]

370. +1

so wish I could recommend individual posts

you hit the nail on the head.

[Kurska]

94. "I myself have no problem banning all rape porn." FINALLY

You want to ban specific kinds of fiction.

Hooray for you, you want to control what simulated crimes people are allowed to view. You want to decide what kind of media consumption should be punished with jail time.

Congratulations.

Now I can finally stop talking to you, goodnight.

[BainsBane]

96. You clearly don't know what fiction is

: written stories about people and events that are not real : literature that tells stories which are imagined by the writer
: something that is not true

A depiction or reenactment is not fiction. Porn is not fiction. Christ, there isn't enough plot for it to even be drama or comedy.

But I get your point. You can't be bothered to consider the lives of the porn workers or rape victims that result from dissemination of that porn. It's all about what you want. If your notion of liberty results in enslavement and rape, well it's not like any of that really matters in comparison to what men want.

You say porn workers should be unionized and the industry regulated, but I recall your opposing the enforcement of EEOC laws in the United States in 2013 in the Adria Richards case.
It is interest how the defenders of rape porn have always appeared to argue against women's rights in other contexts.

[EOTE]

142. Christ you're good at making up arguments that you can argue against.

You're really terrible at having logical discussions, but you're great at tearing down arguments you make yourself.

For about the thousandth time or so, NOBODY is talking about any "rape victims" here, they're talking about consensual adults. IF you want to make the argument that increased access to porn increases the incidence of rape, you're welcome to try and make that argument (although I've seen you try to make that one as well and you failed miserably). However, all you seem to be doing is making up arguments for the sake of your own convictions. You do realize that almost no one here buys that tripe, right?

[rrneck]

173. Most people don't proslytize for others, they do so for themselves. nt

[EOTE]

178. Then someone is in desperate need of convincing.

It's one thing if you truly believe strongly in something. It's entirely another to have to incessantly make up arguments that no one is even close to making just so you can have something to tear down. I wonder if it makes her utterly exhausted.

[rrneck]

196. It's far from exhausting.

It's energizing. She's finding confirmation of what she believes regardless of what anyone says. That's hard to turn down. And there's an entire ideology industry designed to feed on that desire.

[rrneck]

172. Porn is fiction. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

199. That sentence is mathematically incorrect therefore a falsehood.

If that sentence was on a true/false quiz/test. It would be correctly false on the very face of it.

[rrneck]

207. There was no math in it.

If any act, be it sex, violence, or theft is recorded in it's actuality it is evidence of a crime and not fictional. Otherwise it's fiction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

219. Is means equal to. Porn is not equal to fiction. Unless you are pulling a Bill Clinton -

define is ....

[rrneck]

245. Of course porn is fiction. It's bad fiction, but it's fiction.

There have been any number of erotically charged Hollywood feature films that were obviously fiction. Porn production is no different from any other dramatic production. They write a script, hire talent, find a location, build a set, shoot a scene, and wrap for the day. Everybody gets paid and they go home. Brad Pitt has an agent and so does just about any porn star. It's a multi billion dollar business.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

250. rrneck, you are smarter than this -

the acts taking place in porn are NOT simulated. It is real people performing real acts on other people.. they really Are fucking while a camera is focused on them and a director is standing by directed them so the camera can get the best angle.

the in and out really IS in and out.


they really are inserting real objects into real orifices.

unless two (or more) rubber dollies or two (or more) robots.

and, oh by the way in the bestial porn those are Real animals.

[rrneck]

260. Sure they are.

And Tom Cruise's heart rate goes up every time he sprints across a movie set. Sex, like respiration, is a biological function. So are emotions, and they can be manipulated just as easily.

Have you ever done any acting? I have. There was a three hour theater requirement at my undergraduate school. I have done method acting. Of course, much like a dog walking on his hind legs it wasn't done well but it was surprising to see me do it at all.

In the dramatic arts, Method acting is a group of techniques actors use to create in themselves the thoughts and feelings of their characters, so as to develop lifelike performances.

Did you see the Blair Witch Project? There was very little script and the actors were put under environmental and emotional stress throughout the production to create more believable performances. Directors frequently do such things to the point of sadism and actors not only expect it but frequently require it. It's part of the job.

If someone in a rape porn video is actually raped but not physically injured, which is to say there is no physical evidence of a rape, the only evidence would be the emotional state of the actor in question. But what if the actor was doing method acting, which is to say he or she convinced themselves that they were being raped to deliver a convincing performance? What if the director created a scenario to facilitate those feelings? I've done something like it in an undergraduate theater course, although it wasn't a sex scene. It's not that difficult and no doubt not beyond the ability of a third rate porn production company.

Was Monica Bellucci really being raped in Irreversible if she convinced herself, via method acting, that she was to deliver such an unnervingly convincing performance?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

264. I thought the Blair Witch Project was stupid and boring. and, just how many Rates of Porn are there?

third rate is so good how big is the number before you disbelieve?

[rrneck]

276. The "rates" of any art form are as unlimited as the human imagination.

Never underestimate the human ability to think up weird shit.

Suspension of disbelief is a collaborative effort between the artist and the viewer. If they want it, it can happen. People were just as able to suspend disbelief at fifties creature features as they are today with the advent of computer generated special effects. We've been suspending disbelief for a very long time and we're very good at it. It's a large part of what makes us human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting


Actually I rather enjoyed Blair Witch, although the sequel sucked. How do you feel about Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange? Stanley Kubrick was famously manipulative of his actors. Such abuse is not uncommon in the industry from top to bottom.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

278. I think this discussion has gone beyond a subthread for the OP.

Such abuse is not uncommon in the industry from top to bottom.

Do you know how many actors are in therapy and why?

Do you know that black actors have required breaks because they had to take a break from being called ... N____________. Because the film required the use of that word to remain true to the storyline.

Are you really saying that people are not affected by their craft?

If so, from whence cometh the passion for the art ... and apply this to the porn industry. Think about it.

[rrneck]

301. I don't just think about it. I live it. ntt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

303. then you understand what I am saying. --

please further extrapolate it and you will truly understand what is being said, I think.

because, really, rrneck. I am not sure what you mean by you are living "it"

are you really so passionate about violence that you must feed your need to the point that you are OK with slaves and minors being in ANY film ... porn or not.

[rrneck]

315. It's all art in one form or another.

That's what art does. It pushes experience and imagination as close together as possible until you can't tell the difference. That facilitates shared experience with another.

I'm not passionate about violence beyond a passion for understanding it as a part of the human condition.

Acting is a hard job that makes people crazy sometimes. I've heard people refer to artmaking as "therapy". Nothing could be further from the truth. If artmaking were therapeutic artists would be the happiest most sell adjusted people in the world and that's obviously not the case. I know that from experience. But we do it anyway.

At issue is not art but quality. Monica Bellucci can make an important film about rape, but rape porn is just porn. Unfortunately there is no functional difference between the two any more than there is any difference between Picasso and Howard Finster. Or Thomas Kinkcaid.

We can't regulate quality because we can't regulate peoples feelings.

[Kurska]

210. "Porn is not fiction."

If it ain't real and it tells a story, no matter how badly it is fiction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

222. that is also an invalid statement.

Porn is not fiction is, false on the very face of it.

[Kurska]

227. Tell me, porn can have a story right?

I've seen some pretty serious porn, that still had a story, even if it is a simple one.

So if something isn't real
it has a story
and again it isn't real
and has a story

What do you call that?

[Orrex]

217. Wait. What?

A depiction or reenactment is not fiction.

It most certainly is. I don't understand how one could possibly assert otherwise.

Porn is not fiction.

What is the basis for this assertion?

Christ, there isn't enough plot for it to even be drama or comedy.

Whether that's true or not, it doesn't necessarily follow that porn isn't fiction. It is a portrayal of an event in a way that differs either in substance or in execution from an event that has actually occurred. The density of the plot is not definitive in this case, and even if it were, a great deal of porn--dating back millennia--includes a plot. One need look no further than the oft-lampooned "pizza delivery guy" scenario.


For the record, I'm not advocating for porn, but I take issue with a shaky definition of fiction that could--if accepted--easily lead to restrictions on the production of non-porn-based fiction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

232. I am pretty much in agreement with what you are saying, Orrex.

words matter.

The very first statement:

A depiction or reenactment is not fiction.

I can see on this one that could be some wiggle room for argument/discussion.

But, these blanket statements do either side no good here.

[Orrex]

233. Thank you--I confess that I initially missed your point

Perhaps a better phrasing than "porn is fiction" or "porn is not fiction" would be "porn can be a subset of fiction."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

236. exactly!

[Kurska]

287. So if rape porn does have a story (no reason it can't and I'm sure it often does)

Would you still think it should be banned?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

290. are you trying to put words in my mouth? I have never said anythihng about banning

anything. I am in this thread to learn and trying to make sure I understand the wording here and I want to make sure we are all on the same page.

If slaves (and/or minors) are being used in a film (that goes for ANY film) therefore can not give their consent.

Then, Yes, I think those should be banned.

If you really need your violent porn to make you happy ...

that says way more about you than it does me.

[BainsBane]

351. Producers bill it as being real

They don't bill it as fictional. I just googled "watch drunken girls get raped"; "Indian girl raped,"
"military girl held captive and raped." They are trying to convince viewers that the rape is real, and sometimes it is real. They bill the porn as real because that is what viewers want to believe.

These are not written stories, they are reenactments of crimes. When 20/20 reenacts a crime, is that fiction? No.

And then there is a question, have you ever seen a film billed as fiction? Is that not a category we used to describe writing, as the dictionary indicates? Films are dramas, melodramas, documentaries, comedies, etc. . .There is no fiction section on Netflix as there is at a bookstore.

The issue is really verisimilitude, depiction, or actual rape: rape porn includes all of these.

[Orrex]

377. So what if they bill it as being real? Does that make it real?

They don't bill it as fictional. I just googled "watch drunken girls get raped"; "Indian girl raped,"
"military girl held captive and raped." They are trying to convince viewers that the rape is real, and sometimes it is real. They bill the porn as real because that is what viewers want to believe.

Billing it as real does not make it real any more than billing an actual rape as fiction makes it a fictional rape. Your assertion is insupportable and misunderstands the nature and purpose of fiction since its inception millennia ago.

Your complaint throughout this thread has been that some people favor a form of fiction that you find objectionable.

These are not written stories, they are reenactments of crimes. When 20/20 reenacts a crime, is that fiction? No.

20/20 routinely flashes DRAMATIZATION or REENACTMENT on the screen when they portray an event. In doing so, they are explicitly stating that you are indeed watching a fictionalized reiteration of the event.

Even actual footage of an event isn't the event itself. If you are arguing that production, distribution, or possession of film of actual rape should be a crime, then honestly I agree with you, though U.S. v. Stevens, 08-769 suggests that the Supreme Court might be less willing to support an outright ban on the sale of films portraying criminal acts.

But you're attempting to reach even farther, to ban depictions of rape, apparently on the grounds that someone, somewhere might think that such fiction is real. Well, sorry, but we can't limit the 1st Amendment on the basis of the lowest common denominator. Freedom of expression demands a more robust protection than that.

The issue is really verisimilitude, depiction, or actual rape: rape porn includes all of these.

I reject that summation entirely. The issue is really that you seek to criminalize a genre of fictional depiction that you find objectionable, and you are incorrectly conflating the portrayal of a thing with the thing itself.

[gollygee]

454. It it is advertised as real

that means "real rape" is a selling point - it is more likely to sell if people think it's rape - people are wanting to see actual rape.

[smirkymonkey]

533. You are missing the entire point of the OP.

I doesn't matter that it's fictional. It doesn't matter that the actors are consenting. What exactly is wrong with you, as a supposed liberal person who is supposed to care about all of humanity, that you get off on watching women being raped, brutalized, tortured and even murdered. How can you find that arousing and still claim to care about the rights and lives of women?

The answer: You don't.

[cui bono]

102. That is an interesting question. So if it's not commercial and you happen across a video

on the internet, how do you know it's consensual? How do you know it's not a real rape? As I mentioned in another post, I saw a video in which it seemed pretty clear the woman was not enjoying it and did not want forced anal, and she was by no means a great actress. So to me that is quite disturbing no matter if it is commercial or not, probably more so if it is not.

How do you know it's not real? And if it seems real then how do you know it's not affecting young men? I believe it is. I think the younger generation of men/boys don't have as much respect for females and I really do think it's because of all the shit they can see on the internet. And all the stupid things people say because they are anonymous on the internet and think it's funny or cool.

That being said, if two people in a real life are doing it safely I really don't care. And really, if the porn is done in a way that doesn't look so real then fine, but if it seems real then I have to say it's gone too far for my taste and I think it's probably more of a negative than a positive for society. Let's face it, rape is an act of aggression. That's what it is. So if anyone thinks that watching whatever that extreme fighting is called is in any way negative than they should probably think this is too. Doesn't really even matter if it's consensual or not.

Legislating it... well that's another thing. Unless you can..... got interrupted with work and now I can't remember and can't reread since I have to do something

[Silent3]

356. Do you think you yourself should be sent to jail for watching that video?

By legal standards for "possession" of porn, you were in possession of a rape video. Even if you can't tell for sure it was a real rape, it would still be illegal material under my understanding of the British law in question.

I am very, very wary of any sort of "possession of" laws, both in principle and because of the great potential for egregiously selective application.

[seabeyond]

365. Do you think you have the right to get off on a real live rape being committed on a victim?

[Silent3]

380. No, but I'm dying to hear how that question isn't a wild non-sequitur to what I said. n/t

[cui bono]

462. No. And honestly I doubt it was anything near what they're talking about being illegal anyway.

Something that was on the net that I looked at out of curiosity and then decided if that's what people are looking at I don't like it. That was not a violent rape scenario but it was not an "oh no, please don't (but what I really mean is give it to me)" that would be the case in role playing type of situation between people who are in a relationship together, that would be titillating. I definitely think that woman wasn't enjoying it and I was disturbed by it. Honestly, I don't get why anyone would want to watch that type of thing. And that woman is probably doing that just because that's all she knows how to do, or she is stuck in it because it's not safe for her to get out of that profession. And that's not okay. So people who support that stuff by paying for it are contributing to abuse of women. Legislated or not, anyone who supports that shit is messed up imo.

[Silent3]

464. Supporting something and not wanting it to be illegal are two different things.

Making that distinction is what being more than a fair weather friend of free expression requires.

[cui bono]

490. I agree with that.

by the same token, defending freedom of expression is fine as long as no one is being abused and coerced into doing things they don't want to during that expression.

Would you defend KKK videos that show racist treatment? Show whipping of African-Americans? If you saw this and you could see it wasn't done with visual effects would you want to know the circumstances behind the making of it?

[Silent3]

504. I'd prosecute the crimes committed in the production of such videos...

...but not mere possession of the videos.

[Tumbulu]

483. I am concerned that violence against women is normalized

that we all campaign against putting pigs in crates (at least all normal people do- would you buy pork products from a tortured pig?) and chickens in tiny cages, yet the idea that torturing and harming women for the sexual gratification of the torturer seems to be something people daring to call themselves liberals on DU are doing .

Why? In reading all your responses I see only libertarian arguments.

Nothing new or illuminating.

[JustAnotherGen]

100. +100000

[BainsBane]

103. Thank god you're here

This shit blows my mind. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Perhaps it's not dissonance. Perhaps it really as simply as not caring about women's lives.

[JustAnotherGen]

154. It was too early this morning

I know this is a 'consenting adults' thing - but it's just sick to me. To each their own - but it's 'sick' if your own is porn of women getting raped. It's sick. <--- That's my own they have to take it and leave the rest.

[smirkymonkey]

523. Exactly, what the hell is wrong with people if they need to watch images of women being raped and

abused to get off? It doesn't matter that it's being simulated. It's the fact that it seems to turn so many men on to see such sexual violence and degradation directed toward women that is the most disturbing thing about this. I can't imagine that a man who truly cares about women could possibly find this arousing.

[Blue_Adept]

530. That's a bit narrow.

This happens in all types of porn. M/M, F/F, etc. Women get off on women in that form, men on men, women seeing it happening to men.

Do not place it all on men. And remember, the times are changing. There are a large growing number of women who embrace adult entertainment like this. Spend time on tumblr where it's dominated with young people who share all sorts of visuals of sex, themselves, others, professional, etc. It's quite illuminating because you get people from all walks of life across the world engaging in some very great ways about themselves and what works for them.

Because nothing sucks more than being shamed for being into something that feels right to you that does not hurt anyone.

[rrneck]

170. Would you have a link to any of those studies? I'd like to have a look. Thanks. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

279. now this is a legitimate question and I also would be interested in the links. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

478. +1000

Thank you!

[Decaffeinated]

139. Typical...

It's all about choice and freedom until they make a choice you don't agree with....

Then, all of a sudden, they don't know any better and are in desperate need for your wisdom to show them the righteous way.

[BainsBane]

141. what kind of choice do slaves have?

This choice argument is bullshit. How many times do you all have to be told that slave labor is common in brutal porn? Or do you simply not care? What about the choice of the women raped after some men who watch that porn decide they want to do the real thing?

What about the choice of Walmart workers to go hungry this Thanksgiving? They could choose to make a decent wage but don't? Do workers rights ever matter? Or is that a separate issue because male desire to arouse themselves to videos of women being beaten, raped, and mutilated trumps all consideration of workers rights?

What about the choice of employers to skirt minimum wage laws, keep unsafe workplaces, and sell products that result in death? Clearly they see their own choices as important while the workers can choose to take the job or starve, just like the porn actress. If she is actually does consent to the work, she chooses to be beaten regularly, fed drugs, and occur STDs. So what if she dies at 35? That's her choice.

The only choice defenders of rape porn care about is their own.

[Decaffeinated]

144. You had to burn the village to save the village right?

Typical small mindedness where you have to restrict everyone's rights to something that you find objectionable because somewhere in the world someone is forced to do it against their will.

Security and comfort traded for freedom. Where have we seen that one before?

[Tumbulu]

485. Oh how liberal of you!

Not! Your argument is not one I associate with liberalism.

[Decaffeinated]

488. That just magically makes it so? You should call Webster!

The ones I know advocate for freedom of speech and expression even if they don't agree or understand it. It's the small minded and judgmental that try and dictate who can view what, say what, watch what and film what...

[Tumbulu]

491. Freedom to hurt people for pleasure?

Sorry, that is not liberal at all.

[Decaffeinated]

494. According to you...

It brings a happy smile to many faces on both sides.

Since you don't get it, we should all just conform to your personal sexual mores and standards right? You should make a naughty list and distribute it so that everyone can be righteous like you.

[Tumbulu]

496. Oh I think this that you should think a little bit before trivializing

this subject.

it is not funny.

[Comrade Grumpy]

258. I know people who work for Kink.com. They are not slaves. They are well-paid.

They made their choices.

And I don't get it: How do you square the decrease in rape in the past couple of decades with the explosion of internet porn, of which rape porn is a subset?

[Tumbulu]

486. Because most rapes are not reported

look at any statistic on this. 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women/girls have been raped.

Not a good number, not something to brag about or consider properly dealt with as we evolve.

[lumberjack_jeff]

163. "Human beings with rights" also have the right to do what they want.

The Orwellian newspeak tones of this conversation "Women have rights!... for me to veto what they choose to do" are quite ridiculous.

[MadrasT]

167. Not when the "right to do what they want" harms others.

You don't have a right to kill somebody because you want to.

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Fair enough.

Show me the statistical evidence that proliferation of porn has increased sex crime victimization.

[Kurska]

215. Well there you go, busting out facts and stuff

That just isn't fair.

[jeff47]

220. Those rights include consenting to activities you do not like. (nt)

[Threedifferentones]

281. Your post assumes there are no men who get off on submitting themselves to torture from a woman

or men that get off on watching that.

Of course there is ALOT of violent, masochistic porn that involves men receiving the pain, so your assumption is factually incorrect.

Furthermores it's a pretty well known fact that there are women who are aroused by fantasies of rape. Yes, that is in a sense an oxymoron, since fantasies are one sided and thus always consensual. But, honestly, what sort of modern feminist is not at least familiar with My Secret Garden?

That's why in a discussion of what should be legal "consenting adults" is pretty much /thread. The idea that people who disagree with you do not see women as human is a straw man of tremendous proportions, to the point of being quite insulting.

[BainsBane]

346. strawmen and choice

Certainly there is some porn that caters to those who like to see men tortured and raped (the vast majority of it geared toward men). The overwhelming majority of rape porn, however, places women and girls in the role of victim. Any moron can do a search of rape porn right now and see exactly what comes up. They will see terrorized women and sites promising viewers they will be watching real rape.

When someone has a fantasy, it's not rape. Rape means the absence of consent. If the woman fantasizes, it means she is consenting in her fantasies at least. That is not rape. Rape is defined by the absence of consent: not the type of sex, not if its rough or tender, not BDSM, but the absence of consent.

The people who are disagreeing with me don't see women at issue period. Strawman? Far from it. That they refuse to consider the experience of those women hardly speaks in their favor. They see this as entirely about their own sex lives, and not the rights of the women who appear in that porn--some the result of enslavement, or the women who are raped in response to its proliferation. Refusing to consider the reality of what goes into making that porn is far from an argument in their favor. It shows those they see those lives are too insignificant to even consider about.

If I talk to a Wall Street type who has made money off selling mortgage debt, and he's showing me his new lear jet, and I point out people have suffered in order to buy him that jet, that is far from a strawman. He doesn't argue he doesn't think or care about those people, but when he dismisses the argument as significant or relevant, he shows his view very clearly. That is exactly what posters here are doing. The mortgage holders chose to take on the debt; they chose not to pay their mortgage. Why are you denying them freedom of choice? They chose to be homeless. Just like those women who appear in porn, except of course when they don't choose at all because they are enslaved or bound through debt peonage.

[Threedifferentones]

362. We don't really disagree actually, in fact you practically repeated me.

I said:
"Furthermores it's a pretty well known fact that there are women who are aroused by fantasies of rape. Yes, that is in a sense an oxymoron, since fantasies are one sided and thus always consensual."

which is the same point as:

"When someone has a fantasy, it's not rape. Rape means the absence of consent. If the woman fantasizes, it means she is consenting in her fantasies at least. That is not rape. Rape is defined by the absence of consent: not the type of sex, not if its rough or tender, not BDSM, but the absence of consent."

I will admit though that I assumed any video being discussed has a disclaimer that all participants are willing actors and that no one is actually being harmed.

I thus assumed that your point was the equivalent of trying to ban violent scenes because they show no sympathy for actual victims of assault or murder, while you are in fact discussing more an equivalent to "snuff films," which are understandably illegal.

Any actual rape whether video taped or not is disgusting, wrong and a trillion other negative adjectives which cannot possibly do justice to the horror of the act. Correspondingly, anyone who needs to believe the scene they are witnessing is real in order to get off is despicable to say the least.

Any moron can search rape porn, but I'm still not going to because it seems gross to me. Peace.

[seabeyond]

367. If you were going to make a homemade rape video with gf who did not want to do it,

But you coerced, bullied, threatened, or just over powered her. Wouldn't you throw on a disclaimer stating it was concentual?

[Threedifferentones]

369. If I made a homemade rape video of my GF, then presumably she would have me arrested with that proof

On the other hand if I were making a post on a site with spellcheck I would spell everything correctly. See?

Edit to add: More to the point, the two sides of this discussion are talking about different things. You keep assuming the other side is defending a man's right to rape and to post the video, while the other side assumes that is already illegal and that the only thing in question is whether people should be able to act out fantasies, even if those fantasies are of horrible things.

[seabeyond]

373. You simply show ignorance and dismissal to rape victims and spousal abuse. No surprise

There since you driving concern is not rape victims but my spelling. What a man

[Threedifferentones]

386. You keep repeating yourself and not responding to others' points.

What you are describing is already illegal. Following your logic the existence of gay rape porn and all the other masochistic fantasies proves I do not care about men...except that it does not, because your logic is faulty.

The biggest proof of your faulty logic is how you just keep saying the same things over and over, as if people here actually support rape, which nobody does. Rape is heinous, words cannot describe its horror, which is the actual reason I'm not bothering to try.

The quickness with which you pass over my points and rush to your own is evidenced by your lack of even attempting to use the language properly.

Fortunately the main woman in my life has a much quicker wit than you. I frequently find that she out thinks and out speaks me in conversation and debate. What a woman she is...you on the other hand...

[BainsBane]

3. Again we see the fallacy of "consenting adults" that those who defend porn tell themselves

It isn't about private sex lives. We aren't talking about what a couple consents to do.
Porn is not sex. Porn is a capitalist commercial enterprise that profits from depicting, enacting, or actually carrying out brutality against other human beings . A user of rape porn doesn't seek or receive the consent of the woman who is the object of the pornography.

Extreme rape porn is based on sexual abuse, whether depicted or real. Much of rape porn is marketed as being real rape. Why? Because it's viewers want to believe they are witnessing actual violence and harm done to other human beings, women in the overwhelming majority of cases. There is nothing close to gender equity.

Fact: If someone has consumed significant amounts of porn, he has seen enslaved women (girls or boys) raped, even if that porn isn't rape porn. An enslaved person cannot consent to sex because she is held in that condition against her will. She performs on screen because she will be killed if she does not. More people are enslaved today than at any point in human history, and Pornography and the sex industry more general is major user of slave labor. People don't know where there porn comes from, and conversations this week have made clear they do not care. They will assume it's all consensual without any evidence that is the case. The fate of the women making the porn or the women who are then raped in society because of the influence of rape porn means nothing to them.

This notion of liberty based on prurient interest of consumers of pornography is predicated on denying the objects of that pornography any consideration as human beings, as workers with rights, as women who may or may not have consented to participate in those productions. I find it the refusal of many to consider anything but their own sexual appetites astounding. These commerce involves real human beings who consumers of violent porn

Rape porn is part of rape culture. Watching that porn, studies show, then increases the viewer's propensity toward committing actual rape himself. To consume and justify rape porn it is to actively contribute to rape culture and thus the prevalence of rape in society. It also shows that far too many are comfortable denying the working conditions and indeed the very humanity of the women who are the objects of that porn in lieu of of their own sexual desires--something that clearly matters more to them than women's lives.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. We're not just talking about women.

What if it's male on male? Female on Female? What if the woman wants to participate? You sure seem to have an obsession with what women can do with their own bodies.


What is rape porn? Is BDSM rape porn? What if I like to be whipped, smacked and beat, what if I also like to put it on display? I shouldn't be able to do that because you don't like it?

[Kurska]

11. "I shouldn't be able to do that because you don't like it?" Thats exactly what I'm hearing here too.

I seriously don't get it.

[BainsBane]

28. No, but people are hurt and die

Get it? it's not that you can't watch it. Clearly you can. There is no prohibition against your doing so. But a socially conscious human being doesn't subsidize a commerce that results in actual violence and enslavement of other human beings. Naturally people can do virtually anything they want, but it doesn't make it right.

[Kurska]

35. It isn't even commercialized half the time, do you really know nothing about this?

I'd say the majority of stuff out there is amateurs doing it because they get a thrill from it.

You have no right to tell people what fiction they can or can't consume, no matter how disgusting you may personally find it. Society isn't your social engineering project trying to create a utopia destroying free speech.

Because you know what, it wouldn't even work.

Porn has been illegal for huge portions of human history, but is has never gone away. Thinking you're actually going to get rid of this stuff by outlawing it is naive as all hell. All you're going to be doing is sending people to jail for what they watch with their eyes and thought with their brain.

[smirkymonkey]

534. The point is not that you CAN'T watch it.

It is what the f**k is wrong with you for enjoying such sick violent rape, abuse and torture depictions of women? It doesn't matter if they are fiction. What is it about people that need to watch that shit to get off? They obviously hate women.

My main concern with this is that it is teaching young boys how to view women and sexuality and that we are going to have an increasingly sexually violent culture. Sorry, I just find it fucking sick.

[Kurska]

535. Even the most sick and disgusting speech is protected.

The first amendment does not exist to protect popular speech, popular speech doesn't need protecting.

[smirkymonkey]

536. Yes, but the point of the OP was not about making it illegal or banning it,

rather it was about how can someone call themself a liberal and actually ENJOY viewing depictions (fiction or not) of women being raped, tortured, brutalized and in some cases even murder. Why would any caring individual find that arousing?

[Kurska]

537. This might come as a surprise to you, but people don't actually pick what they find arousing.

I've known very kind and generous people who were into some very dark things sexually. At no point in your life does anyone present you with a list from which you are allowed to select your fetishes of choice.

I genuinely don't believe that a person's sexual interests are the slightest bit indicative of who they are a person. Having a dark fetish and acting on it are two very different things.

[ancianita]

203. What is deregulated freedom? The freedom to beat your kids because you love them? To

genitally mutilate girls because it's a tradition that "bigger than all of us", or "culture"? Do the kids and mutilated women know what they're consenting to? Might they "consent" to these things to survive? All of that is putatively no one's business, right?

What's fictional porn but the public reinforcement of private desires to reenact the 'art' of dominating, whether it's men on men, parents on children or grown women seeming or not seeming to show consent. So let's just keep elevating, reinforcing that domination and submission urge. Display its roots in the private realm. All of it. Don't draw any lines. Make and spend.

Crazy? Do dominator producers know the human rights issues and not care? Are they really well regulated human rights advocates of equality and freedom? Do they welcome well regulated industry that creates space for consent?

Only when the mechanism of manipulating consent is kept behind closed doors or is publicly sold as video, does this abuse of consent run rampant in both private and public spheres. Laws regulate or create a space for consent, but they don't necessarily or easily micromanage the consent sphere.

But then, who does the legal work or the regulating, right?

[Kurska]

8. Watch the wrong kind of fiction, get thrown in jail. Got it

I thought this was a board for progressives. Apparently, some people here would be way happier with authoritarianism. Told what to to think and what to watch.

[BainsBane]

24. Firstly, we aren't talking about jail in the US

But in Britain they have decided its citizens cannot get their rocks off by watching people raped, mutilated, and murdered. Awful isn't it. Imagine trying to do something to undermine rape and domestic violence as opposed to insisting that the only people who have rights are the men consuming the porn--not the workers or slaves making it or the people raped as a result of the influence of that porn.

But it's all about you. Those lives don't matter.

[Kurska]

26. I'm not throwing people in jail for consuming FICTION. Not matter how nice the jails are.

It is horrific that there are people legitimately purposing this on a progressive website.

It isn't about only men or women having rights. We all the same the right.

And that right is to not be subjected to other people's social engineering. That right is to live a free life, in a free society where the government isn't going to tuck you away in prison for watching some unapproved fiction.

That right is to freedom of speech and freedom of association. I'm going to give you a guess what two rights you're not taking away from me.

[BainsBane]

33. Have you read the British law?

You are assuming it's fiction. The makers of that porn claim it is real. How do you know that it is fiction?

[Kurska]

54. I dunno, MAYBE ASK THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT?

If they say it is real, arrest them for rape. If they say it isn't real, mind your own business.

The British law doesn't do the second part.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

216. so then, Just take them at their word...?

because, of course, they would Never Lie .... I guess you mean Ask ALL the participants that were involved in each and every film.

[Kurska]

221. Our society has had about a hundred years of differentiating between real and fake murder videos

I really fail to see how this idea that you can't tell the difference between the two is anything but a solution looking for a problem. We've been doing it for hundreds of years for other crimes. We don't ban the depiction of all crimes because, hey they might be real

Why rape?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

225. did you really ask that question?

why rape?

omg.


seek help.

[Kurska]

230. Yawn, you know excatly what I was saying.

Why should visual fictitious depictions of fake rape be treated any differently than how we treat fake murder?

If you think that is a messed up question to ask, you're the one who probably needs help, cause you got a serious case of cognitive dissonance going on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

294. yawn. that you like to watch it over and over again ... tells me you are the one with

the cognitive dissonance going on. Read exactly what you wrote and be more careful how you phrase things.

[Kurska]

296. I fail to see the problem with what I wrote.

Perhaps society hasn't had hundreds of years of differentiating between videos of real and fake murders (only about a 100 now that I think about it).

If you're going to remove all context from question, of "why rape?" then yeah it looks bad. But that is kind of the point of context isn't it?

Clearly the question I am asking is why fictitious depictions of rape should be treated differently than fictitious depictions of murder. Rape and Murder are both incredibly heinous crimes and considered just about the worst thing a person can do.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

299. agreed. went back and re-read your post. point taken.

[smirkymonkey]

524. What is it about you that finds women getting raped and brutalized such a turn on?

Seems pretty sick to me, but hey it's legal, so have at it.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

30. Rape, mutilation, and murder are illegal already.

And I agree that the abuse or torture of anyone without their consent should be illegal, so should the filming, selling and possessing footage of it.



But again we're not talking about that, we're talking about YOU deciding what other CONSENTING adults do and watch.


There is a strong argument to be made that pornography reduces rape, and some studies that seem to support that train of thought.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut



By the way, porn is banned in India.....

[Tumbulu]

513. What an excellent post

So articulate and that anyone continues to argue these points is disappointing and disheartening.

[cui bono]

83. It's one thing if it's really between two consenting adults, adults who are actually in a

relationship together. It's another when it's videos on the internet or coming from an industry that feeds off the low self esteem of women.

I saw a video on here somewhere recently where a man was talking about why he doesn't watch porn any more. It was really wonderful, I think he really got to the essence of the problem. The thread title was "why I don't watch porn any more" or something close to it. Very insightful.

There's definitely something to be said about being affected by what you watch and take in. No doubt about it. Honestly, I don't think I could be with a man who would watch something like that, and I'm no prude, but there's exploitation going on and that type of porn depicts degradation of women. I have seen one clip of something where the man forced himself on the woman and forced anal and it did not look like she was enjoying it or wanted it. It seemed very much like she did not want to do it and not because she's an Oscar caliber actress. That's the problem. There's too much reality in those.

I don't know, but it sure seems these days young men/boys have a lot less respect for females and personally I think it's because of all the hard core porn they can find and see on the internet.

[Hippo_Tron]

441. People do softcore porn because of low self esteem and economic necessity as well...

The ethics of producing porn with people who truly want to do it vs people who have been coerced is an entirely separate topic from rape simulations. Rape simulations are a fetish, just like any other fetish. Some people are genuinely turned on by this kind of thing and enjoy doing it.

And as for young men/boys having less respect for women these days, I think that any arguments suggesting one way or another are anecdotal. I could drag in an anecdote from a friend of mine in her 50's who told me that when she was a teenager, it was socially acceptable for the boys to drag girls into the woods and feel up their shirts whether they wanted them to or not. But I'm sure that wasn't the case everywhere.

And parents need to talk to their children (particularly boys) about porn and explain that what they see in porn is not what sex is actually like.

[Kurska]

5. If you're telling people what kind of FICTION, what kind of NOT REAL stuff they can watch

That is authoritarianism and censorship. That is the bottom of the line. I have zero problem with making actual videos of rape illegal, because no one should be getting off to someone's suffering. But if ain't real people have a right to watch whatever the hell they want. I'm not about to live in a society where a government gets to tell me what I have a right to watch or don't.

I'm more disgusted that there appears to be a vocal minority of people on DU who support the society wide censorship of fiction they don't like.

[Eric J in MN]

223. Exactly. NT

NT

[sibelian]

6. ... I'm a gay man. I've consented many times to being "tortured" as you call it MANY times.

Go and look up "BDSM" online and find out about it.

People's bodies belong to themselves.

[Kurska]

9. I'm gay too, that is why I'm so disgusted by people seriously advocating making consensual behavior

illegal.

Wasn't too long ago the state would throw both of us in jail for the decision we make about our body with consenting partners and the kind of porn involving consenting adults that we might like to see.

That shouldn't happen to anybody.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

13. I'm not gay.

But I am involved in the community through various efforts and have lots of friends who participate in the leather and BDSM communities. It's amazing that the "i don't like it so i want to ban it" mindset still exists. They'll try to wrap it up with other talk like "somebody think of the children!" but in reality they're just trying to force their own Puritan archaic values on others.

[Kurska]

15. Puritanism is exactly right

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

If it isn't for them, it is for nobody and nobody better enjoy themselves to much.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. It's frightening.

I consider my sexuality to be fluid and don't identify as gay or straight and 30 years ago these people would have had me thrown in jail.

[Kurska]

23. Absolutely terrifying man, watching fascism masquerading as progress and liberation scares me.

The flags, the names and the justifications all change. But all throughout history it has been the same people who just can't mind their own business.

[Katashi_itto]

129. Agree!

[BainsBane]

27. It's not BDSM

Why the conflating. NO ONE IS TALKING about private sexual activity.
This is about a commerce, some of which uses enslaved labor. A commerce that creates a genre of porn that enhances its viewers likelihood of committing actual rape. It has absolutely nothing to do with with you or anyone else does with a consenting sexual partner.

Now I've been clear what my concern is. You have systematically ignored it, which tells me you consider women's lives too trivial to even give a moments thought about the situation of those women in that porn.

How is it possible to point something out so many times and yet you and others can only think about yourselves? Do you not care about any workers in society, or is it just the women in porn who are beneath your consideration?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. "enslaved labor"

Who is enslaved? Slavery is already illegal, if people are enslaved then the perpetrators need to be arrested and charged.

[BainsBane]

39. Holy shit

Just because it's illegal doesn't make it prevalent. More people are enslaved now than at any point in human history, and the sex industry and porn is a major user of slave labor. That slavery is illegal makes enforcement incredibly difficult, yet the practice is widespread. I've said this in many posts and you have completely ignored it. The UN has spoken about this. Virtually every human rights organization in the world has as well. What drives the slavery is consumer demand for products like rape porn, where viewers enjoy watching women terrorized, tortured, and raped. To leave it up to authorities to deal with while continuing to consume or defend the products made with slave labor is not a social responsible position.

Some sources, but you can google. There are many.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/20087-trading-women-for-profit

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://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/

[ForgoTheConsequence]

43. All of that is illegal already.......

Do you think that adding another law is going to stop criminals? I agree that we need to do more to curb sex trafficking and child abuse but that is a completely different argument. Were talking about CONSENTING adults.

[Kurska]

41. Because some porn is made with enslaved people, all porn needs to be banned.

It has never made sense to me, but yes you are understanding the argument correctly. That is what is actually being said.

Trust me, I was pretty dumb founded the first time I heard it too.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

48. Some massage parlors use slave labor too.

A lot of women are also trafficked and enslaved as nannies.

Sadly both of these industries prey on women from South East Asia.











We should ban massages and nannying.

[Kurska]

51. Pretty much every human job throughout history has been performed by a slave at some point

Man, we're going to have a lot of free time man and not a lot of food.

[BainsBane]

67. As does the pork industry

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

which is why I don't buy pork that is not locally raised at a farm I know. The difference is I don't seek to justify or ignore slavery because I think my appetites are more important than the lives of the enslaved.

[Kurska]

68. You're absolutely right, you buy you pork from people who are good people.

And you get your porn from people who are also good people.

And you ban neither.

[BainsBane]

71. Do you get your porn from good people?

How do you know?

[Kurska]

79. Well for one, I know some of them n/t

[BainsBane]

81. If you limit your consumption to people and companies you know

are not horrendously exploitative, that's less problematic.

I also have concerns about how rape porn contributes to rape culture and makes it more likely for viewers to commit actual rape, but there are many, many things we need to do to combat rape culture. I'd start with police and prosecutors.

You do realize that none of this conversation was about porn generally but about the most brutal forms of violent porn banned by the British law?

[Kurska]

86. I've known good people who produced brutal violent, yet consenting porn for zero dollars.

Still don't think they should be sent to jail. David Cameron does, that is where we apparently disagree.

Or might not disagree, cause you I can't get a straight answer out of you about whether that should be legal.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. I think people should be able to associate with who they wish.

If a man wants to be beaten, whipped and have it filmed, fine. If a woman wants clamps on her nipples and a ball gag, well that's her business. If they want to film it and share it with their friends or even sell it, they should be able to.


Rape is illegal. False imprisonment is illegal, torturing someone without their consent is illegal, child porn is illegal. I agree we need strong laws to protect rape victims but I also believe that YOU don't get to decide what contracts and associations I (as a male, female or trans person) get to have.

[Hippo_Tron]

442. In their defense, I think a lot of people just don't get it

I didn't understand that totally consensual rape simulations were a thing that people did until I started listening to and reading Dan Savage's stuff. If Dan Savage came here (and brought some of the guests he has on with him) for a Q and A session, I suspect he could get 95% of DUers to understand this.

[anneboleyn]

204. Amen, Sibelian. The bias against BDSM, the refusal to understand that it is a large

community comprised of gay men and women who greatly enjoy being dominant or submissive or switches, straight women who enjoy being dommes (or switches or subs), and straight men who enjoy any/all of the above really bothers me. It is a puritanical streak; "I don't like what they do. It should be banned!"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

295. CONSENT is the operative word here. Slaves and minors, by definition, can NOT give consent.

[BainsBane]

12. The hatred is of women

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Rape porn represents an intense hatred of women that some men have. You will note that many good men, probably most men, won't go near that stuff. You'll note that most of the defenders of rape porn also oppose many aspects of women's rights: equity in health insurance, Equal Opportunity Employment laws. Some vociferously resent discussion of violence against women in society and even object to PSA's on rape, insisting rape-prevention ads that mention men are "misandrist" for suggesting that a man might rape, or insisting rape awareness campaigns amount to "haranguing men." But if we suggest that rape porn is dangerous to women, we are trying to "punish men" (as though all men need to see women raped to be men ). The idea of thinking about the fate of the women who make that porn or the women who are then raped as a result of eroticizing violence against women is something they steadfastly refuse to consider.
Rape it seems, should enter the public sphere only in terms of its arousal for men, while they insist on silencing discussion of its real world impacts.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

18. So is male on male torture ok with you?

You seem to be stuck on the same argument. Why don't you think females are intelligent and strong enough to be able to consent? If I'm a female and I have this fetish why do you think it's your duty to protect me? Don't try to sell your puritanical, sexist, patriarchy by claiming to be some feminist crusader.

[Kurska]

19. Some people seem to think women need to be protected from their own bodies and sexuality.

Just because some of these people are also women, doesn't make it any less insulting and sexist.

I think women are smart enough to make choices about their own bodies. Others seem to disagree, I'm shocked to find out that some of these people call themselves feminists.

[BainsBane]

25. You aren't reading

You haven't read one thing. Tell me what choices an enslaved woman forced to make that porn has? What consent is involved when someone who watches that porn then goes out and commits actual rape--as studies show? Does that matter to you at all?

Yes, I care about the lives of women. I think we are human beings with rights, and exist not simply as objects of male rage.

[Kurska]

29. My lord there is a million pieces of pretty brutal porn out there with perfectly consenting women.

Women who like it, women who enjoy it. I know this because I've known a few in my lifetime.

No one in this thread is saying that porn of enslaved women should be legal. We're saying you have zero authority to tell a woman who wants to make porn, especially amateur stuff where nobody is getting paid which is quickly becoming the primary material, what she can do with her body.

A woman has the right to exist as whatever the hell she wants to and even in forms you might find sickening and revolting. It isn't liberation for you to go around telling women they aren't allowed to be engaged in degrading sex. You're just another person in the long history of other people trying to dictate women's sexuality to them.

[BainsBane]

58. yes, but there is also porn that is the product of slavery

There is no way to tell the difference. There is a significant amount of human trafficking in porn. I provided links elsewhere in this thread to demonstrate that.

You've obviously not bothered to look at the British law that started this whole discussion or you wouldn't be launching into these tangents. The law only outlaws possession or porn in which someone is killed or seriously injured, or where it's impossible to tell if that has happened.

Yes, women can consent to do any work they want, including sex work. Just as Walmart workers consent to make wages so low they can't afford Thanksgiving dinner. That is indeed their choice. That's what the right wingers say. If they took some initiative, they could make more money, afford Thanksgiving dinner, find work that didn't leave them battered and bruised, addicted to drugs, and with STDS. I find Marx's analysis on coercion of free-wage workers more instructive. Free-wage workers, whether at Walmart or in the sex industry, work from economic necessity. The marketplace compels them to work. Though the sex industry, including porn, also uses non-free labor--coerced through extra-economic forces like slavery and debt peonage.

I find it interesting that concerns for workers rights are non-existent when it comes to sex work. But then women who appear in porn aren't competing with men in the workplace, and you all don't have to worry about those pesky EEOC laws you found so objectionable in Adria Richards case. Richards choice was unacceptable, as far as you were concerned. She was too uppity. Porn workers aren't so uppity. They have none of those rights and don't inconvenience men who don't feel they should have to follow EEOC laws in the workplace.

[Kurska]

61. "There is no way to tell the difference." Uhh, yeah there is

You could mandate that for a person to do porn they have to make a 1 minute video freely available on the internet where they under no visible distress state that they are doing this consensually.

Or you could have no onerous additional regulation and just get the police to do their job, which is to prevent already illegal acts like you are describing from happening by prosecuting individuals who do do it.

There is no reason on earth to ban all rape porn, because some of it might be real. You might as well ban all videos from showing a murder, because oh my god that might be real too.

[BainsBane]

69. I think there are probably some ways to carefully consume porn

but making that video isn't going to do it. I think a licensing and inspection system, with workers getting decent wages and benefits would be more appropriate. I believe California has something like that. The problem with the internet, however, is that porn is downloaded from any variety of countries and locations, not just listened companies.

Apparently I need to speak slowly for you to understand: No one is banning any rape porn in the US. But when you want to justify it as harmless or part of your personal sex life, I call bullshit because that is demonstrably false. I can see there is a great deal of fret that British men will be deprived watching people raped and tortured. Oddly, none of that concern is coming from Brits themselves. DU Brits have explained the law and why they see it as reasonable.

As consumers we can choose to subsidize rampant oppression or make more responsible choices. It's simply a question of whether or not you consider other human beings as important as your own wants.

[Major Nikon]

145. The 2nd wave of feminism ended because of exactly that

On one side you had feminists who wanted to focus on gender equality issues, and on the other side you had the anti-pornographers who sided with the likes of Ed Meese.

"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong."
-- Betty Friedan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sex_wars

[BainsBane]

31. How does a slave consent?

Tell us about that? Male or female, but that few adult males are trafficked for sex work. Many boys, girls, and young adult women are enslaved for porn, however.

Why do you continue to think this is about your sex life? It has absolutely nothing to do with your sex life. How is that so difficult for you to understand? Is it impossible for you to thinking about anything outside yourself?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

34. Child porn and slavery are already illegal.

So is sex trafficking.


Next argument please.

[BainsBane]

60. Yet porn using slave labor is widely consummed

Ignoring that fact doesn't keep users from subsidizing slavery. I see you are determined to avoid thinking about the lives of the women in that porn at all costs.

Next is the impact of violent porn on actual rape in society, as established by a wide array of academic studies.

[Kurska]

70. Prosecute slave porn more. Throw the people who produce it into jail.

End human trafficking. Devote more of our societies resources to stopping it, because everyone agree it is absolutely horrible and needs to end.

But the porn industry having a legitimate problem gives you zero right to regulate the private sexual expressions of other people and what films made by consenting adults they may like to view.

[BainsBane]

75. are you talking about what couples make between themselves?

Or commerce? The state has a right to regulate commerce, which is separate from private sexual behavior. I'm amazed at how many people are unable to distinguish porn from their private sex lives. Whenever I've watched porn, I never mistook it for having sex. And I never thought of things I did with my partner, even when taking pictures, as porn. I don't think the British law does either. I would need to see the provision that specifies that and prosecutions of private sexual behavior in Scotland, where the law is already in effect. I don't see how that's possible when the law has nothing to do with personal sexual behavior.

[Kurska]

84. No you see, a couple can produce a video between themselves and then give it away for free.

No commerce involved and the state has no right to say that is illegal.

I really don't understand why you find this such an impossible concept to wrap your head around.

You can, in fact, have porn that is widely distributed that no one ever profited from. A huge portion of the porn these days is exactly that.

[EOTE]

151. Pokemon products are produced with slave labor as well. Are you for banning Pokemon?

For some odd reason, I don't see you going around asking for Pokemon to be outlawed. My god, what's wrong with you? Don't you care about the children? Those poor slave children making Pokemon merchandise? What kind of sick person supports slave labor? Why is it that you are so steadfastly defending your right to get off on Pokemon toys? How sick has this world become?

[Kurska]

45. I'm going to go out on a limb and say literally no one in this thread agrees with slave porn.

We all think porn made by slaves should be illegal. We're all on your side about this one. Get rid of it, stamp it out and send the people who made it to jail for a long long time.

But we don't agree that porn made by consenting adults should be illegal, no matter how objectionable you find the content.

[Comrade Grumpy]

267. It seems like you are conflating two related but distinct issues.

One is rape porn.

The other is sex slavery.

I'm seeing a Venn diagram where there is rape porn in one circle and sex slavery in another circle. Where the circles overlap is rape porn produced by sex slaves.

I hope no one approves of sex slavery. It is an evil to be fought.

But then there is the sex slavery that has nothing to do with rape porn, and the rape porn that has nothing to do with sex slavery.

How do you tell consensual rape porn from sex slave rape porn? The folks I know who have worked for Kink.com tell me they do little post-production video snippets of themselves chatting and smiling afterword.

More broadly, how do you tell if any porn is consensual or not?

Meanwhile, despite (or is it because of) the explosion of internet porn, of which rape porn is a subset, real rape rates have been declining for years. Go figger.

[last1standing]

402. When was the last time you "consumed" a movie?

I agree with everything you said in your post but wanted to point out how people frame the argument. I generally watch movies, I don't "consume" them, yet when it comes to porn, those who want to ban it always use that word: Consume.

It's really no different then saying "democRat" or talking about a welfare "queen."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

399. I won't consume simulated rape porn, but I'll defend it as free expression.

I value our Constitution, you don't.

[BainsBane]

445. I value my life and those of other women

You don't.

Interesting to see you are a strict constructionist: "All MEN are created equal."

Besides, your straw doesn't hold. SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the right of the state to regulate and even ban pornography. No freedom is absolute.

[Hippo_Tron]

443. Porn of ALL KINDS presents a hatred of women...

Rape simulations ARE NOT what makes porn misogynistic. MOST porn both hardcore and softcore is misogynistic because it's intentionally geared towards men who are frustrated with women because they can't get them to sleep with them.

[BainsBane]

444. Truthfully, when it comes to softcore porn

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't see much distinction between that and images of women in magazines. The fact they have fewer clothes on strikes me as irrelevant.

[Hippo_Tron]

446. Magazine covers also depict women as objects whose sole purpose is fulfillment of male fantasy...

Again, the misogyny that dominates pornography and just about every other form of media in our society has absolutely nothing to do with rape fetishes.

[BainsBane]

447. I don't like that either

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

but perpetuating rape culture through rape porn is far greater level of exploitation and abrogation of women's rights to be free from violence.

[Hippo_Tron]

456. We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one, I get where you're coming from

I agree that misogyny in the porn industry (and other media) perpetuates rape culture, I just don't think hardcore porn and rape fetishes are really the particular culprit. I also think that making something taboo exacerbates the problem.

If I were teaching sex education to teenagers (boys in particular) I'd tell them that there's nothing wrong with their DESIRE to have rough sex or if they get turned on by the thought of someone begging them to stop. And if they want to fulfill those desires they can find a CONSENTING partner to fulfill them with, following a lengthy discussion about ground rules, safe words, etc.

I think that the combination of taboo and rape culture teaches boys that it's impossible to have these desire fulfilled in a consensual way and that the ONLY way to fulfill them is through actually taking advantage of a woman. It also teaches them that it's okay to do this, because "secretly" the woman wants it. Teaching boys to find out what a woman wants by TALKING would go a long way.

[BainsBane]

461. I don't see it as about rough sex at all

because rape isn't a matter of rough or tender, it's about consent. I agree with your point about sex education.

[Deep13]

16. Without knowing exactly what you are talking about, I can only generalize.

Yeah, media depicting the actual rape or torture of another person is a serious crime. The fictional depiction of those things with willing participants is another matter.

For most of the 20th c., the liberal position was to avoid government restrictions on free expression due usually to religious objections. Specifically, women did not need to be protected from their own sexuality by a paternalistic state that knew better than she did. Restrictions on free expression are almost always about social control and almost never about protecting people. The only exceptions are those that involve children and other non-competent people, and anything involving force.

If everyone involved made a voluntary and knowing choice to be involved, then it really should not be anyone else's business. Granted there are ways to be coercive in subtle ways. And apparently there is rape-porn out there that is so realistic that one really has to question just how voluntary it is. Recently, it has occurred to me that repeated exposure to fictional violence, including sexual violence, can normalize that violence in the minds of young people whose minds are still being formed. (I don't just mean under-aged viewers either).

[Major Nikon]

36. So it's a liberal position for women to have choice...

except when they choose to do something you don't approve of.

[Joel thakkar]

38. +1

[Niceguy1]

40. that's what it all boils down to

[Major Nikon]

80. Telling CONSENTING adults what they can and can't do is a far right position

Notice how the OP conflates non-consensual activity (torture of animals) with consensual activity (BDSM).

Other posters claim it's really about this material causing people to engage in non-consensual activity (sexual assault), when sexual assault is down 50% over the exact same time period when BDSM content has skyrocketed. So regardless of what their 'theory' is, it doesn't line up with reality.

So yes, you have a lot of people trying desperately to make this about something it's not, but it really does boil down to people telling other consenting adults what they can and can't do. There's already too many far right loons trying to dictate their morality on consenting adults. Why anyone who calls themselves a progressive or a liberal would want to jump on that bandwagon is beyond me.

[Niceguy1]

88. because some progressives

Have an authoritarian streak in them.

[BainsBane]

99. Who is consenting?

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:34 AM - Edit history (1)

You all keep acting like this is about sex. It's about commerce in pornography. There is no "between consenting adults." You aren't engaged in a sexual act with the woman or man in the video. Whether or not consent occurs is at the point of production of the porn, and the viewer isn't involved in that.

Rape is down because of the demographic changes that had led to a decline in all violent crime: there are fewer young men in the population. You aren't actually so thoughtless as to think you can prove the absence of a link between rape porn and actual rape by broader crime stats that are due to a huge array of variables? That's intellectually weak. There is an actual literature on this you can look at, and we do know how you like to cherry pick outdated academic studies. Mabye you can find some more recent ones through academic databases or Google scholar?

I have to wonder why you continue to conflate BDSM with rape. BDSM is based on consent. Rape is defined by the absence of consent. It has nothing to do with BDSM. I find it amazing that the ones who conflate the two are those defending rape porn.

As for the so-called right wing argument: bullshit. The argument is about the women who make the porn and the women raped because of the dissemination of that porn, people you are clearly unwilling to consider as having any rights. I already made the point about choice in free wage labor as compelled by the marketplace. Perhaps you're a person who doesn't give a thought to any workers rights, such as those at Walmart, or perhaps your concern stops at the sex industry and porn. But disregard for the conditions of workers is clearly right wing. Your notion of political spectrum completely ignores the humanity of the woman who make that porn and those affected by its dissemination. At least you're consistent in disregard for women's rights.

You have no problem with rape porn but are outraged at an anti-rape PSA that mentions men because in that context we are supposed to believe men have absolutely nothing to do with rape. Yet here you insist their rights depend on unfettered access to rape porn. Yes, rape PSA's are terribly offensive, while asking you to consider that real women are affected by that porn is "right-wing." Apparently your notion of left wing imagines a set of rights that belong only to men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. The actors who sign the release forms and cash the checks are consenting. n/t

[KittyWampus]

192. So are the workers at Walmart. They are "consenting" too, but the wages and conditions suck.

And liberals on DU regularly defend efforts to make Walmart amend their policies regarding their employees.

[jeff47]

234. Yes, but they aren't demanding Wal-Mart be made illegal.

They're arguing for a higher minimum wage, or other minimum benefits. They aren't demanding Wal-Mart itself be made illegal.

[BainsBane]

42. Tell us what choice enslaved women have

or the women who are raped because of the increased propensity to rape views of that porn experience?

Typical absurd argument that deliberately misses everything at issue.

[phleshdef]

527. You don't get to take away civil liberties just because psychos find inspiration from them sometimes

I have absolutely no desire to watch rape porn. That sounds pretty messed up to me. But if adults want to get in front a fucking camera and pretend one is raping the other and sell it, then that should be their god damn prerogative to do so. Its none of your business.

[BainsBane]

46. How about the choice of Walmart workers going hungry this Thanksgiving?

That's their choice. They could have some corporate job making six figures if they really wanted.
Who cares about their rights?

Or is the complete disregard for workers rights only applicable to women in porn and sex work?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

53. So we should ban Walmart?

Is that what you're arguing? How about laws making it easier to organize? I would be all for porn actresses/actors forming a union.

There's a unionized strip club in Portland Oregon, it could happen.

[BainsBane]

63. In the US we aren't banning anything

but socially responsible people who consider themselves liberals make an effort not to subsidize severely exploited labor, such as at Walmart. Somehow when it comes to porn and sex work, too many don't care.

[Kurska]

76. How on earth do I not care?

I want porn made by slaves to be stopped.

I want porn actors to be paid reasonable wages and have a safe entirely consensual working environment.

I just don't care what consenting adults do and the put on the internet for other adults to see.

And I think no one in that previous sentence should be put in jail.

[Kurska]

57. I'm all for porn workers unions and porn workers getting a living wage.

Still don't see what your point is.

[BainsBane]

62. You're all for it, yet you justify an industry which allows none of that.

How much unionization do you think there is in the Thai rape farms?

[Kurska]

78. I do, in fact, oppose thai rape farms.

And I see of no reason why the porn industry can't be regulated, the actors paid well and the work environment kept safe and consensual.

[BainsBane]

93. Well, surely you understand the problem regulating international labor generally, right?

Workers than earn $1 day making IPhones? Surely you don't imagine regulating international porn and its labor force is so easy?

[Kurska]

95. So... ban Iphones? n/t

[BainsBane]

97. No, again I'm talking about social consciousness

something leftists think about. Nothing is going to be banned in the US that results in labor exploitation or death of workers. We have a society where a few consider their desire for stuff--whether than stuff is phones, TV sets, or videos of violence against other human beings--to be far more important than the lives of the workers involved in the production of those materials.
Socially conscious people try to limit the extent to which they subsidize such economic exploitation, and they certainly don't argue that that labor exploitation doesn't matter or its a function of "choice," as the right does. We don't have a society populated by socially conscious leftists, however. US society is primarily reactionary, population with too many self-absorbed people who think only about what they want and don't think about the impact of their consumption on other human beings.

[ancianita]

262. +1 Learning here.

[Katashi_itto]

130. +100

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. Exactly.

I think it takes some brass to describe this as the position which respects womens rights.

[Democat]

259. Pro choice with an asterisk

Women can do what they want with their bodies, as long as it doesn't offend anyone.

That's the liberal position?

[Deep13]

305. For me the concern is twofold.

First, it really does have to be the voluntary and knowing free choice, and the audience may not have any way of knowing how free it was. There are many was to coerce compliance without actual violence (employers do it all the time). So if a portrayal of violence were something were especially realistic, I would tend to assume that it is real. When seeing evidence of violence, the assumption should always be that the violence is real unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The other problem is the effect that violent entertainment has on developing minds. Even if the observer is legally old enough to view such things, their minds are still pretty malleable well into their twenties. Repeated exposure to fictional violence from all sources normalizes violence and desensitizes one to it.

[Major Nikon]

331. I can understand your concerns

However, I'm not really sure if you are proposing some kind of solution. What would that even look like? And I'm not so sure you should just assume it's forced and run with it. Nobody is assuming the person at the car wash is a slave, and I'm not so sure that isn't far more likely.

As far as violent content goes, when violent content goes up and actual violence goes down, one has to question the correlative evidence. Remember that correlative evidence is still not causation evidence, which is even harder to demonstrate. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that connects cause to effect. The belief that something is true does not make it true.

[Deep13]

403. I have no idea what the solution is.

A global crackdown human trafficking would help, I suppose. A car was is not violent. Someone restrained and abused is, or at least it looks like it is, since makes violence the most logical conclusion.

[Vashta Nerada]

310. You hit the nail on the head with that one.

[99Forever]

44. I'll pass on this flamebait...

... and your entire "morally superior" attitude. I'll watch or not watch what I decide, not you or anyone else think is acceptable. Period. What YOU consider "the liberal position" means jack squat.

[BainsBane]

47. Morally superior? Wanting to be spared rape?

Women sure are getting uppity these days. They just don't know how to stay in their place.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

50. You sure seem to think so.

After all, you want to protect the ones who might have different ideas on sexuality than you from themselves.

[BainsBane]

101. I seek to protect myself and others from rape

So if someone's idea of sexuality depends on taking away my or others consent, they are beneath contempt. So yeah, I'm morally superior to rapists.

The continual evocation of morality and judgement about your private sex life only highlights your refusal to even think about the humanity of the women who make porn and those raped as a result of its dissemination. I don't understand the complete refusal to think about anyone but the consumers of porn.

[99Forever]

116. Who the hell said..

... a word about that nonsense, other than you?

Censors ALWAYS claim "moral superiority" as the reasoning behind their blatant attempts at controlling everyone. Fuck that, you aren't qualified to pass judgement on anyone.

[BainsBane]

117. This is about rape porn

that is produced with real women being raped and then leads to rape in civil society. Read about the connection between human trafficking and porn. Read some of the academic studies showing a link between violent porn and propensity toward committing actual rape.
That you think this is about your own sexual tastes and not the woman enslaved and raped to produce that porn, and those then raped as a result of its dissemination, shows how little women's lives enter your consciousness.

Refusing to think about the real life consequences of how this porn is made is not "freedom of expression." It's a kind of selfishness that ignores the basic human rights of others, and women in particular.

[Bonobo]

119. Insofar as we are discussing porn with actual rape, there is no disagreement.

So that is not what is being discussed really -or it would be a very short discussion indeed.

What is being discussed is the criminalization of depictions of rape, which is to say "rape play" or "rape fantasy" which is NOT RAPE, but is in fact much more akin to BDSM in that it is consensual.

[Major Nikon]

136. No! You can't call it BDSM!

You can tie someone up and put a ball-gag in their mouth, but that's not "rape fantasy", it's BDSM, which is OK.

[loli phabay]

238. i wish the poster would just come out and say they dont care if theres consent they just want it

Banned and people thrown in jail, or not. All this dancing around and missing the point of the difference between real rape videos and simulated rape in bsdm play is just dishonesty on their part. I will go first, real rape and forced sexual contact of any kind or any kind of forced slavery is wrong and should be fought. Consensual simulated rape, torture, slavery etc between consenting adults is none of anyones business.

[99Forever]

122. Lots of shit out there that offends me.

Do I get to pick and choose what other people are PERMITTED to watch or read?

Nope. Neither do you.

This is about CENSORSHIP, pure and simple.

Paint all of the lipstick you want on that pig, it's still a pig.

[BainsBane]

134. So it's all about what gets men off

If women are raped and killed in the process, why should you give a thought to it? What do their lives compare to male desire to inflict violence on them?

[EOTE]

152. Congratulations, that's your 1000th conflation between rape/killing and BDSM! You win a lollipop!

You also win the "Shit nobody's arguing for" award, but you've already got hundreds of those.

[opiate69]

391. + a brazillion.

[99Forever]

384. I guess if you have no valid line of reasoning...

... you just make shit up and fling it, eh?

[Major Nikon]

148. To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong

-- Betty Friedan

[Union Scribe]

169. No, it's just about porn. Any porn.

You've made that clear in numerous replies that condemn the entire scope of porn.

[BainsBane]

337. No it isn't. The entire discussion began in response to the UK decision

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

to make the Scottish law on extreme porn apply to the entire nation. IFIRC, You were in that thread. So don't try to feign ignorance now.

[BainsBane]

121. Who are you to judge

How Walmart treats their employees? Who are you to judge what or whether people pay their employees? Who are you to judge whether there are fatalities in factories as a result of unsafe working conditions? Who are you to judge if a manufacturer sells a product that results in deaths? That's his private business, after all. Censors always claim "moral superior" as the reasoning behind their blatant attempts at controlling everyone.

Those are all areas progressives regularly pass judgment on, yet when it comes to considering the circumstances of those working in porn, suddenly we aren't allowed to think about that? We are supposed to pretend it's all about the consumer and that the porn workers, whether free or enslaved, are inconsequential? That rape porn has been show to increase a viewers' propensity toward committing actual rape is irrelevant. None of those questions matter because . . . why exactly? Would it be because they are only women?

[99Forever]

125. I didn't say "liberals shouldn't ever judge," now did I?

What I said was, YOU are not qualified to judge.

Sorry you don't comprehend so well.

[BainsBane]

133. So everyone but me?

And you aren't going to answer the questions? You are insisting I not care that women like me are raped as part of a culture that supports porn to get men off? Only I can't speak out in judgement but others can? What about me means I have no rights? Because I suggested that the objects of porn and rape victims count as human beings, that abrogates my right to speak out or judge?

[99Forever]

383. I don't owe you "answers" to your out of line "questions."

You have NOTHING except a heaping pile of strawman nonsense to offer.

You want to be THE person to choose what gets censored. You don't get to, I don't care how much falsified garbage you fling or how much you gripe. We the People's Constitutional RIGHT to Freedom of Expression is not subject to your veto. Period.

[renie408]

107. LOL...that is not exactly what I would call a pass...

[BainsBane]

109. Enslaved women and children can't consent either

and the portion of the porn industry that uses slave labor is not small. The women raped as a result of the proliferation of this porn don't consent either (which MANY academic studies have shown a correlation between rape porn and tendency to commit rape). In typical fashion, you see this as all male sexual desire while it doesn't occur to you to even consider the women enslaved and rape as a result of this industry.

Between consenting adults"--every man seems to see this entirely as about his own sex life. It's porn, not your sex life. It's a commerce, it's buying and selling human bodies so men can get off watching women tortured and raped, and so some can watch that stuff and then go out and do exactly what they have seen on screen.

Your effort to invoke abortion is repulsive. This is all about denying women's very humanity and even right to life so that men can get off without having to think about the women actually involved in making that porn. There is no coincidence that every member of this site who opposes women's rights in some form or another is a major defender of rape porn.

[mfcorey1]

55. What makes you think that everyone on the thread was a liberal. Right wingers

often come here in disguise and spill their garbage. You are labeling a lot of innocent DUers.

[Big Blue Marble]

440. Having read the responses to this thread,

I certainly hope you are correct, because I am terrified by some of these justifications
of rape as entertainment.

[Kurska]

90. I just realized this is the second crazy thread we've had about this in two days.

I need to start selling t-shirts

"I survived the great DU rape porn war."

[In_The_Wind]

335. Where do I place an order?

[last1standing]

98. Faulty reasoning in OP.

As a liberal I support the speech rights of fundies and Nazis, but it doesn't mean I agree with what they say. Same thing with simulated torture porn; I support the participants' right to make the films but I don't enjoy watching them.

Also, you're mixing up "simulated" torture with "real" torture. Many people, male and female, enjoy BSDM during sexplay. I'm not going to judge them because, again, I'm a liberal. If these films help them enjoy a healthy, safe, sex life then I'm glad the films exist for them.

Why do you want to be the arbiter of how others have sex?

[last1standing]

208. You seriously don't know the difference?

I was about to actually write an explanation then realized that you must have heard it all before. And if you don't understand it by now, your probably never going to understand the basic premise that separates a liberal from a conservative.

[last1standing]

254. You've seen it. It sounds like you didn't understand it.

The difference lies in thinking that one's beliefs are inherently superior to another's. In this case, it appears you believe that you know better than someone else how one should engage in sexual activity so you want to restrict their activity to those of which you approve. That is inherently conservative.

Judging a murderer is far different than judging a porn actor. The murderer harms another person while the porn actor's do not. It is the difference between judging the results of one's actions based on their harm to others versus deciding to disapprove of an activity because it offends one's sensitivities.

Using your "logic," it is acceptable to repress homosexuals, Buddhists, Democrats and African-Americans because you disapprove of who they are. Merely get a majority to agree and pass a law that restricts their free association and speech.

Again, that is conservative, reactionary, status quo, theory. It is the law of the oppressor.

And you apparently agree with it.

[last1standing]

268. As I said, it appears you do not understand.

You can think anything you like. As a liberal, it's not my place to judge your beliefs, only to stop you from forcing others to submit to them.

[last1standing]

334. LOL. You don't understand and refuse to learn.

What I said didn't fit into your cookie-cutter, everyone must behave like me, world so you have to dismiss me and my opinion. That is the epitome of a conservative mind-set.

You go on trying to force others to live according to your mores and I will continue trying to stop you.

Because I'm a liberal.

[last1standing]

344. I was very rude not to give you an answer that fit into your "worldview."

Have you ever considered how rude it is to demand that others live according to your whims?

Of course not.

[last1standing]

359. I'm sorry you can't handle a world where people don't follow your dictates.

Did that help?

[ogradda]

104. Who in the world defended torture of women for sexual gratification?

Are we talking actual torture or rape fantisies here? This thread looks like there's two different topics going on.

[BainsBane]

105. Really, you missed it?

There is this very thread, and then this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4050423

The difference is defenders of rape porn want to ignore the circumstances under which its made. They want to ignore the fact that a good portion of those women in extreme porn are enslaved. They pretend it's all consensual, when they don't know that is the case. Pornographers claim the rape and violence is real. That is how they advertise it. They do so because that is what their viewers want to believe.

Also academic studies show viewers who watch rape porn have a greater propensity to commit actual rape. They refuse to address that issue, aside from one addled attempt to link demographic changes in crime to BDSM, which isn't even the topic here.

Ignoring the actual rape that takes place in the production and dissemination of porn doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Willfully ignoring those points after repeatedly having them pointed out, and being directed to sources they can't bother to look at, shows a willful disregard for human beings and women in particular.

[orpupilofnature57]

108. The topics are being blurred by people putting Fantasy

over a depraved act . And once filmed it is no longer a fantasy, but a document of an act that is immortalized .

[Katashi_itto]

131. So the movies depicting rapes or violence are real?

Righhtt

[orpupilofnature57]

455. Yes, and watching lions eat a human being is educational

Wronggg.

[Katashi_itto]

459. It's certainly none of your business either way.

Unless it's a snuff film. You can stick in all the xtian references you like. What it comes down to, is as long as its not done for real or documenting something that happened accidentally, it's none of your business to try and censor it.

[orpupilofnature57]

499. Hail you, and your defense of " Artistic Rape " Talk about abuse of Liberty

See ya.

[Katashi_itto]

500. Whatever you say. Still doesnt change the 1st Amendment

[orpupilofnature57]

106. I checked in 7 times on what is clearly MISANTHROPE

BEHAVIOR, and as far as Freedom of speech, it's yelling FIRE in a crowded theater and deriving pleasure from the pandemonium of panic and crushed bodies .

[msanthrope]

123. Hey...wait a minute! nt

[orpupilofnature57]

453. NO NO I've read your posts, your msanthrope...

far from a Misanthrope .

[Dorian Gray]

112. Long thread ahead!!!

While I agree with you completely and find the idea of torture or rape porn abhorrent, I don't know that it is a "liberal" or "conservative" position. I don't know that sexual "fetishes" (or criminal behavior) is indicative of political leanings so much as personal issues.

(And I am not including Bondage/S&M porn in rape porn. I don't get that, but I don't think it's criminal. I do believe that there is a distinction between RAPE porn and bondage porn.)

[renie408]

114. I hear you.

I understand what you are saying and share some of your misgivings. I am troubled by the line that could be crossed from finding watching women being raped sexually stimulating to actually wanting to try it out. I find it interesting that this board can have heated discussions decrying the rape culture in this country and then attack you for finding rape porn bad.

On the other hand, people do all kinds of freaky things in the privacy of their own bedrooms and I say, "Good for you!!" If it works for them and nobody is getting hurt more than they enjoy...whatever.

Maybe where I start creeping a little bit is when you start distributing videos simulating rape to the public? Not sure, but I definitely understand how you feel.

[Bonobo]

115. A woman who fantasizes about rape doesn't want to be raped, but a man that does, wants to rape?

How does that work, logically speaking?

[Niceguy1]

149. women are good

Men are bad.

[In_The_Wind]

336. That all depends on who's point of view you're reading.

I disagree.

[JaneyVee]

120. A hit it and quit it OP.

[msanthrope]

124. Oh, the vanilla....nt

[seabeyond]

126. love my vanilla, with topping of chocolate, strawberry and marshmallow. add some whip cream, nuts

and cherry. throw bananas on the side.

why do you hate banana splits?

[msanthrope]

135. Sea, the adults are not talking about ice cream. I'm not interested in engaging in playful

banter with you. Please do not presume on our shared sex.

[seabeyond]

137. msanthrope, you threw out a jab. i countered. tell me about ... adults. nt

[msanthrope]

143. Indeed...I. appreciate your confirmation of the tag teaming. nt

[seabeyond]

147. really? create your own reality, dear? oh, and make sure you are the victim

as you throw your jab. so funny.

i though you just might let it go. but no. you had to go on and on. so.... take your last shot. no desire to participate. be the adult,

[msanthrope]

159. Do not call me 'dear.' nt

[seabeyond]

160. what happened to this free speech you all are talking about. wowsers. nt

[EOTE]

181. I thought you had no desire to participate?

Something about wanting to be the adult? Or does that not apply when you have another barely comprehensible insult you want to throw out?

[seabeyond]

183. lol lo. you are cute eote. always have been, always will be

[EOTE]

184. Awww, shucks. nt

[msanthrope]

190. Indeed. The next time you harass Skinner about adding certain words to the TOS

I shall send him this argument.....that you are all for free speech, now.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

194. so then, we should do away with the ToS? I really do not understand what you are saying here ...

also ... I wonder if Skinner thinks he was harassed ... ?

[msanthrope]

214. I happen to think the TOS is a work of genius as it stands. And I think

the next time there are calls to amend the TOS regarding language we should take seabeyond's sage advice regarding 'free speech.'

[seabeyond]

206. dear should be a no no word. bah hahahahah. hey woman, outta here.

but your argument fails. you are the one claiming free speech at all times. you are the one telling me what to say. no... to dear. it is yours to swallow, not mine.

[seabeyond]

209. uh oh. am i allowed to use woman?

[msanthrope]

218. Excellent. Then you should have no problem with men on this board addressing you as 'Dear.'

Right??? Any problem with that??

[Tuesday Afternoon]

228. take it up with California Peggy who addresses everyone as Dear.

[msanthrope]

257. California Peggy is sui generis. And she doesn't use it as an insult. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

280. I really don't know if sea meant it as an insult but, you took it that way, I understand.

[seabeyond]

246. again, as a lawyer, you know your argument fails. YOU say freedom of speech. YOU told me not to use

dear.

1 + 1 = hypocrite.

the onus is not on me, msanthrope. it is on you.

[msanthrope]

261. Freedom of speech applies to the government. It has nothing to do with you

using demeaning language towards another DUer, language you would not tolerate from a male on DU.

Again....is it okay for other DUers...who are male..to call you 'dear?'

Try answering that question, sea, before you accuse anyone of hypocrisy.

[seabeyond]

265. ohhh, you got me....

[msanthrope]

274. Gonna let you get back to the thread where you wonder if a 14-year old boy should be shown porn

as some sort of therapy....cause that one is just writing itself.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024074618

[seabeyond]

275. o.k.

[Systematic Chaos]

465. ROFLMAO -- It's been deleted!

It has a brazillion responses, but it's gone.

[msanthrope]

466. Oh yes...it has. nt

[itsrobert]

128. I think there is something wrong with people watching this type of porn

They are real sick people.

But, I don't judge.

[Katashi_itto]

132. That sums this up perfectly

[Major Nikon]

153. So who is going to help them?

And what would you call this condition exactly?

I'm not calling you a homophobe, but their reasoning really isn't that much different. It's simply inventing a pathology and then ostracizing people on that basis. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms really has no bearing outside their bedroom. For all I know my neighbors dress up in floppy shoes, big red noses, orange wigs, and throw confetti around while doing the wild thing. As long as I'm not being kept up at night by Yakety Sax blaring through the window, I could care less.

[Major Nikon]

161. What you describe is now widely considered quackery

That's why it was removed from the DSM, just like homosexuality.

[Major Nikon]

182. So

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic_personality_disorder#Removal_from_the_DSM

SSD requires non-consent, specified right in the text you just cut and pasted.

I'm not trying to connect the behaviors. I'm connecting trying to pathologize behavior for which there is no pathology and the parallels are pretty much identical.

[Major Nikon]

256. You're mixing and matching terminology

First you mentioned SPD, then you cut and pasted text about SSD(which I never claimed you got from wiki), which are two different things.

Cross-dressers are also listed by the DSM-5 as are people who get off on rubber clothing as well as other fetishes. The whole idea of listing paraphilia in the DSM is very controversial to begin with and does NOT in and of itself mean there's a pathology.

I never claimed or even suggested sadism doesn't exist. Where you got that from is anyone's guess. My claim is consensual BDSM is not a sickness. If you think anything you cut and pasted supports that idea, you have a poor understanding of what it is and isn't.

[Major Nikon]

284. I never said the DSM believes it is quackery

Nor would I. Nor did I even claim that SPD in and of itself is quackery(although even this is debatable). What I said is that what you describe is quackery, because it is. The idea that consensual sexual sadists and masochists are "sick" hasn't been widely accepted for a very long time. I'm not sure anyone still does, but if they do it's well outside the mainstream thought on the subject.

Unless I specify otherwise, you can assume my definitions coincide with dictionary definitions. If the context doesn't lead you to believe otherwise, the first entry is the one to run with.

sa·do·mas·o·chism

noun
1.
interaction, especially sexual activity, in which one person enjoys inflicting physical or mental suffering on another person, who derives pleasure from experiencing pain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sadomasochism

Here's what you wrote:

I judge people as sick who become aroused by physically, mentally or emotionally harming others. I think they need help. I think the people who consent to being physically, mentally or emotionally harmed also need help. Don't care if they are male or female.

Granted BDSM throws bondage and discipline in the mix, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything we've discussed.

So are we not on the same page here? Please explain.

[Major Nikon]

313. Sadism and sexual sadism are not the same thing

You can be a sadist and not a sexual sadist. Sadists are people who like to hurt other people. It can be someone like a cop who likes to beat perpetrators up for no other reason. SPD concerns sadism in general and I'm not even sure if the DSM-III even mentioned sexual arousal at all. At any rate it was never a pathology to begin with. It was just described. I'm sure someone wanted it to be studied and listed as a pathology, but this never happened and it was removed.

Even if something is described as a disorder by the DSM, does NOT mean it's a sickness. Consensual S&M was removed even as a disorder decades ago, probably around the same time homosexuality was or shortly thereafter when a lot of such consensual fetish crap was purged. SSD is a much narrower condition and generally refers to the desire for non-consensual sexual sadism. Even then it's not necessarily pathological, but I'm not going to argue that someone who gets their sexual jollies from hurting someone who doesn't want to be hurt isn't sick. The bottom line is that yes at one time people who engaged in consensual S&M were considered sick and this is now considered quackery by the mainstream and the same can be said for homosexuality and a lot of other sexual behavior. If you think it's sick, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you're going to find any medical professional worth the powder it would take to blow their nose to agree with you.

[Major Nikon]

339. Relevance comes to mind

But other than that, no I can't imagine why you'd care if anyone agrees. That's for you to decide. As I said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion and I would never suggest otherwise.

Are you saying the S in BDSM does not get pleasure from hurting others?

No, and I'm not sure how you could infer that.

Sexual sadism disorder does not state that it refers ONLY to non-consensual situations.

I don't think you fully understand the conditions that are required to diagnose SSD as a pathological condition. It's not as simple as the dictionary definition of sadomasochism. What it does say is one would have to be significantly impaired by the condition. Going to jail, or the threat of going to jail would be one such impairment and this means non-consent as I don't believe there are any jurisdictions left in the US that outlaw consensual S&M. Are there other ways to be significantly impaired while engaging in consensual S&M? Maybe, but not many come to mind. If you couldn't get off any other way and it was having a significant impact on your life maybe, but how many does this really affect? If you can think of any then please share them, but even if you could I'm not sure how relevant they would be to this discussion.

[laundry_queen]

179. I agree.

I liken it to people who, for instance, like to cut. Now, do we leave people who cut their arms up and bleed all over the place because, "hey, it's their choice! Their body!" No we don't. We recognize it's not healthy behavior and people often end up getting sent somewhere where they can get mental help. Same thing here, IMO.

I agree it's sadistic behavior, and people who participate have serious problems. (I don't give a shit what the new DSM says - there has been a shitload of criticism regarding it but at any rate, it only removed it as a personality disorder, it doesn't mean sadism doesn't exist in other disorders. sexual sadistic disorder is still in the DSM-V)

[KittyWampus]

186. You used the same comparison that came to my mind. Cutting.

[Major Nikon]

202. SSD requires lack of consent

All sex is not rape (although there are some who disagree with that too). Consent is the distinction. Comparing SSD with consensual S&M is very disingenuous.

[Vashta Nerada]

224. People who cut themselves do need help.

But consenting adults who participate in BDSM don't need help because it doesn't affect others. I frequent a gay club in Minneapolis that specializes in BDSM. Do all those gay people need help?

Please.

[laundry_queen]

252. I don't think it's normal.

It has nothing to do with being gay why even throw that in there? wth? Anyone who participates in bdsm, gay or not, IMO, has issues. I don't see how watching others in pain is a turn on. I think it says something more.

However, I'm not going to march into your bedroom and tell you to stop. Just like I didn't march into my daughter's girlfriend's house to tell her mother (who was unhappy with the same-sex relationship going on) to take her teen to a mental hospital because I heard she might be cutting. I asked my daughter a few questions who let me know that her girlfriend's parents were aware and were getting her help. It wasn't up to me to find out what kind of help or what they were doing. That is for people close to her to decide. Same, imo, with other self harming behaviors or with sadistic behaviors.

[Vashta Nerada]

253. So, people who participate in BDSM need help?

Have you ever been to a gay pride fest? I dare you to go tell those people they need help.

You're really out of touch with reality.

[laundry_queen]

300. WTF does this have to do with gay people?

Nothing that's what. You think all gay people participate in BDSM? I'll be sure to let my daughter know. WTF over. Stop trying to conflate the 2. One has zero to do with the other.

There are aspects of BDSM I don't think are healthy, no matter who participates or consents.

You have a crafty way of debating. Reminds me of someone....

[BuddhaGirl]

422. I know, right??

I mean, in my opinion, vanilla sex is just boring, unimaginative, and not at all a turn-on to watch.

I just don't think it's "normal."

IMHO

[loli phabay]

244. lol, i gotta say the judgement then i dont judge made me guffaw

[Tuesday Afternoon]

282. do you believe in ignoring sick people?

[Rex]

138. Whaaaaaaa????

What thread? Surely you cannot be serious.

[cbdo2007]

150. Not everything is a "liberal" vs "conservative" argument...

as I'm sure there are plenty of sickos on both sides who like this kind of stuff.

Instead it is about freedom.

[ancianita]

155. One question I have is how anyone who consumes porn can call themselves a feminist.

To me, liberals who support the porn industry in any way, even in theory, only give lip service to feminism, and are not their allies.

[msanthrope]

156. What about erotica? Can we consume that? nt

[ancianita]

162. Don't know how it's defined. Probably, but in that industry, equal pay for equal work and all...

that. Wouldn't it be hard to regulate how erotica producers move on to porn, though? And I don't even know if they do, really, but profits tend to up the ante on productions and the procuring of participants. Production can become pretty unconscious that way, what with the temptation to make money from both markets.

[msanthrope]

185. Erotica is what you masturbate to. Porn is what other people use. nt

[EOTE]

189. Are you suggesting that the porn industry is sexist against males?

As female porn stars tend to get paid substantially more than their male counterparts. I "support" the porn industry in that I recognize its right to exist and am not for the censorship of any porn so long as all parties are consenting.

[ancianita]

405. If I am,it's not that, but the industry does have a predominantly male market, so I'd

assume that females get more because they're more in demand. Only a guess.

[EOTE]

517. Yes, that's exactly right.

So I assume you're a tireless advocate of men in the pornography business? Trying to get their pay of to snuff? I mean, the reason that men typically get paid more elsewhere is they are more in demand. So what have you been doing to make the porn industry more equitable for males?

[ancianita]

518. I haven't fought tirelessly against men in porn, that's for sure. Men as a group have 90%

of the world's money, which buys them a lot of nook market; so, sure, I'd back any legal means that porn industry men have, as workers, to create a negotiation body -- association, talent agency, union, etc. -- that buys them lawyers to negotiate industry base salaries, along with other contract benefits. I doubt that my efforts would be tireless. That level of involvement would be more appropriate for their cohorts, friends and families.

So far, to my knowledge, porn stars and wannabees haven't seemed to find the time to unite to get anything up to snuff. Some attempt in the 90's and a filing with the NLRB, or an association that organizes around STD's, is all I recall. If you know of such groups, you might mention them for the thread or post links so that the standard of action you urge here is one bandwagon that everyone can jump on.

I myself would back them with any/all moral support they need; but as for money, I've earned my share of what little the 51% has, and I've already earmarked my political and charitable groups for that.

It isn't clear to me that big supporters of the porn industry here actively work toward unionizing male workers, or promoting such an idea. I assume you're a tireless supporter of such activities yourself?

[EOTE]

519. No, I don't go about specifically advocating for unionization of porn stars.

But I do advocate for union membership in general. However, I'm not the one asserting that there's a problem with "equal pay for equal work" in the porn industry when it's females who make far more than their male counterparts in porn.

[ancianita]

521. Fair point that I was mistaken. Yet it's the exception in the economic scheme of pay for men/women.

[Vashta Nerada]

191. Yes.

Because porn is only about men having consenting sex with women.

[ancianita]

195. What. I'm being dimwitted?

I don't get the irony of what I'm saying that's seems so obvious to you.

Are you with the domination-is-more-a-turn-on-than-consent people? If so, please explain how the 'fiction' of lack of consent is a turn-on. Seriously. I'd really like to know.

[Vashta Nerada]

211. I don't know how it's a turn-on.

I don't get off on it. But many, many people do.

But if it's between consenting adults, why does it matter to you or anyone else?

[ancianita]

229. Depends on the fictional consent part, doesn't it. Ripe for production abuse, no? Isn't the

public display of human agency my concern? Is trust or distrust of others' motives a personal problem and not a public concern? Does the private realm of consent not translate into public identity realm? Is private human abuse not a public concern? Do the labels 'if' or 'private' or 'tradition' make any human abuse okay?

What about consenting children, is that okay? Is it possible that abused consenting children just grow up to be consenting adults in the industry? What does that mean for the public?

[jeff47]

249. Yay! Time for pulling bullshit out of one's posterior!!

What about consenting children, is that okay?

Children can't legally consent. That's part of why they are children.

Is it possible that abused consenting children just grow up to be consenting adults in the industry?

No, because consenting children do not exist. Because it's not possible to legally consent and be a child.

Is it possible for an abused child to grow up and enter the porn industry? Sure. Just like it's possible for an abused child to grow up and enter the "regular" movie industry. Or any other industry. In fact, childhood physical abuse seems to be a common trait among many 'great' actors (note that is physical, not sexual abuse).

Could the childhood abuse affect their willingness to consent? Sure. Our willingness to consent to anything from porn to membership on the school board depends on our personal history.

What should we do about it? Offer psychological support to the formerly abused children who want it. Which we've done via the ACA - psychological care used to almost never be covered by insurance, but now it is covered. Beyond that, these people are now adults who get to make all the decisions that involves. Including the decision to work in porn or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

502. It's telling that people can't make an argument against consenting adult behavior WITHOUT dragging

non-consent and/or non-adults into it, isn't it?

Happens every. damn. time.

Apparently it's too damn difficult to just admit the truth; namely "I feel entitled to dictate to consenting adult strangers what they can or can't do in their bedrooms and with their bodies just because that's why"

[DragonBorn]

285. Come off your high horse

One question I have is how anyone who consumes porn can call themselves a feminist.

Seriously? Because I watch porn means I think women dont deserve rights. If you really hold yourself to that idea then you've lost 90% of all male support and at least 60% of all female supports of feminism.

[ancianita]

306. Why's a question got to reveal I'm on some "high horse." Why can't it reveal that I'm trying

to reconcile the activity with the word, or 'walking the talk'. Seriously. I'm not saying that your watching porn means you think women don't deserve rights. I haven't met many porn watchers who'd say that, even if they did think it, and most of the men I've known have watched porn. Maybe you're right. Maybe I have lost support in the numbers you seem to be so sure of.

I don't want to dictate who can or can't be a feminist. I just observe or read about how men think about themselves and feminism. It's more like I don't feel confident.

I'm no expert in the porn industry or its consumers at all. But there's seems to be enough arguing here over how the consent issue is or isn't consciously agreed upon by producers or consumers. And when it is, there's arguing about how much integrity exists in porn's access and distribution.


There's a lot of high horsiness going on in the thread but I'm not feeling that way. I'm feeling more like I don't get how one reconciles the claim of feminist with what I've seen and read about here.

You've convinced me that I should shut up and keep lurking, tho'.

[One_Life_To_Give]

298. That has been an issue of 3rd wave Feminism

Those of the 2nd and 3rd waves having markedly differing opinions surrounding sexual autonomy and empowerment.

[last1standing]

357. Only if your idea of feminism is one in which women are helpless beings.

If you have a problem with porn because the women are slaves then work against slavery.

If you have a problem with porn because it forces women to have sex then work to provide other options.

If you have a problem with porn because it leads to low self esteem then create programs that increase self esteem at an earlier age.

If you have a problem with porn because it objectifies women then promote sexual imagery that engages in what you believe is sex on an equal footing where all parties involved share their bodies in a spiritual way that blah, blah, blah...

The truth is that men and women enjoy pornography of men and women because it provides an instinctive rush of chemicals in the body that we equate with pleasure. It is animalistic and objectifying, much like sex in general for most people.

Sex is better with love but it is not bad without it and most realize this. Sex is often about using one's partner(s) as a means of creating pleasure for oneself and little more. That doesn't make it bad or wrong, it makes it an act of pleasure that can be good or bad, right or wrong, depending on context.

Likewise, porn isn't right or wrong, it's a tool that can be used for whatever purpose the wielder chooses. Generally, porn is used as a healthy outlet for built up urges that have no other way of being released without help from others. Sometimes, it is used as a healthy enhancement for a couple or group who want to engage in fantasy during sex. Rarely, it is used as an educational tool by those who have existing sex issues, lack of knowledge or mental illness. The first two uses are healthy methods for using fantasy to aid in sexual gratification while the last method is an unhealthy use of porn as a tool that conflates fantasy with reality. Context is everything.

It is not feminist to demand that human being repress their animalistic urges; it is authoritarian. It is feminist to work on solving core issues instead of band-aiding symptoms that arise from them.

[LadyHawkAZ]

397. There are entire branches of feminism

that consider women just as capable of deciding what can go into their vagina as they are of deciding what should come out of it, and should be able to do so without being shamed, degraded or devalued for it.

We have this notion that adult women are capable of rational choice and consent, and are not children who need to be guarded, protected and guided.

We also don't consider either sex or the human body to be dirty, shameful, ugly or immoral.

YMMV.

[opiate69]

400. Out of the park....

[polly7]

401. Woot, there it is! +1000. nt.

[Capt. Obvious]

157. That other thread was too long

Thank you for starting another blockbuster.

[Dr. Strange]

263. Blockbusters are violence.

Long threads are also violence.

[Capt. Obvious]

277. Long threads are emptiness

And emptiness is cleanliness.

[EOTE]

292. And cleanliness is godliness.

And god is empty, just like me.

[Capt. Obvious]

297. And you see beyond the happiness in slavery

[rrneck]

164. Liberalism and morality are two different things.

The claim of "liberal" brings with no more certainty of morality than the claim of being "christian" or "Steelers fan".

[LittleBlue]

175. Simple answer

Why would it be a liberal position to defend torture of women for sexual gratification?

Because it's not torture, it's acting. And I defend freedom of expression in every instance.

I'm wondering why you don't. To many, and this probably includes you, freedom of expression is something that applies most of the time until it becomes just too icky, then the freedom goes out the window. That isn't me, my principles don't depend on convenience. Sorry.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

286. You really think that ALL porn is acting? you do realize that there is a whole set of

people who film their selves "doing the act" and call it amateur porn ... are they acting?

to act, the first definition of act is:

something done: something that somebody does

in this regard we are all actors: acting.

[LittleBlue]

302. Drinking is not healthy

Some drink themselves to death. Some drink and kill others. Drink related deaths must be one of the top killers in the US.

Cars accidents kill over 30,000 people every year in the US.

I would not sacrifice cars or alcohol just because of potential lawbreaking. I will not sacrifice the right to free expression for fear of abuses (that are already crimes anyway). The argument that legality should be determined solely to protect from the possibility of abuse, however remote, is laughable.

[JVS]

176. It's not liberal to throw people in jail for the type of fiction they read/watch/create.

In fact, it's barely civilized to do that.

[One_Life_To_Give]

180. Support the Klans right to say sick shit too

Many here support the freedom of Speech even when we disagree with the content of what is being said.

[gollygee]

231. How convenient then that the Klan

doesn't make porn showing how sexy and awesome lynchings are.

Because this porn is showing how sexy and awesome rape is.

[loli phabay]

247. well its pretty much covered in the autoeroticism videos

Plenty of them online.

[One_Life_To_Give]

271. "The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. "

http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison

“Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.”
― Neil Gaiman

I think it places me in fairly good company.

[Vashta Nerada]

187. If you're going to start a thread about it, at least educate yourself on the topic.

Fetish porn isn't only about women being "raped" (it's not real rape) and "tortured". Most people in fetish porn do actually consent to being "raped" and "tortured". And it isn't only women who participate in this. Men can do it to men, women can do it to women, men can do it to women, a woman can do it to a man, and trans participate in this also. The porn industry has many people who enjoy watching fetish porn and it's a multi-million dollar industry.

[anneboleyn]

212. Exactly. Dommes are very popular in bdsm and if they are professional they are well-paid.

[loli phabay]

248. extremely well paid is an understatement.

[ismnotwasm]

188. What people don't understand

Is that it's about sexual repression as well as misogyny. The sexually repressed haven't had the--call them epiphanies--it takes for true sexual imagination. And so are sell outs to whatever flavor of corporate imagery affects them-- for whatever individual reasons. Unfortunately they tend to think the opposite is true, that they have control of their sexual imagination, that they are not corporate tools.
Pornography is the sexual equivalent of shopping at Wall-mart.

Occasionally it can hit erotic high notes but it's rare. Pornography leeches out the truly erotic, leaving a need for violent or strange acts to replace it.

Rape porn is a side effect of male sexual entitlement and is very heterosexist. It doesn't matter If it's Gay porn. When that argument is brought up it's conveniently forgotten that the largest purchasers of lesbian porn--of whatever variety--are straight white men. Or that rape itself is a predominantly male crime, that male victims of rape still in our society are barely acknowledged, unless they are children.

It's also reflective of the increasing need in some to purge sexual guilt via increasingly bizarre kink, a way of enjoying "dirty" sex, because the viewer needs or wants that stimulation, looks at sex as something shameful and are generally too lazy to actually take responsibility for their own sexuality.

It's dishonest and contributes to rape culture by legitimizing rape. For those who argue it's harmless fantasy, I find that even more dishonest as well as disingenuous.

[ancianita]

197. Well said. I'm learning a lot.

[jeff47]

255. I could make the same argument about furniture.

As a hobby, I build furniture. As a result I'm able to tell the difference between "good" furniture and "cheap" furniture. Price is not a good indicator, btw. There is very, very expensive cheap furniture. And very inexpensive good furniture.

Those that buy cheap furniture just don't understand what they are missing. Good furniture is close to a work of art, but you will not find it in most furniture stores these days. Cheap furniture has displaced it because it is easier to make. It has leached out the truly good furniture, leaving a need for expensively-priced but cheaply-made furniture.

But lo and behold, we're not discussing the need to ban cheap furniture because the uneducated just do not understand what they are missing. Or how it demonstrates our society values the stupid over the educated.

But back to the subject at hand.

You've made a lot of assertions about porn that "just make sense" but are not born out by scientific studies. People do not devalue women more after seeing porn, for example. Watching BDSM porn doesn't make people believe that rape is good is another. Sure, it "makes sense" in that you can make a logical argument for it. But it's possible to test that argument, and the argument did not hold up to testing.

Just as a rough approximation, in all of human history there has never been more porn produced than today. And that porn has never been so easily accessible. At the same time, the rate of rape is down compared to the pre-Internet era. If porn caused the effects you claim, that should not happen - more porn should be causing more rapes.

"What about unreported rapes?", you ask. Well, why would the number of women not reporting their rape have suddenly gone up in the last 10 years? 30 years ago, life was much, much, much harder on women who reported their rape. So why would a massive number of women report their rapes then, but not report their rapes now? They wouldn't - the likelihood of not reporting a rape is at worse the same as then. But claiming that is a way to hide from results that do not match one's thesis.

[ismnotwasm]

304. BSMD is not rape porn

Jesus.

Increased porn and decreased rapes is a false analogy. There are many, many other factors that have lead to the "decrease in rapes"

I could say that rape still exists because we have porn at all and make as much sense. (it makes zero sense) You're furniture analogy also makes no sense whatsoever. Theoretically the human race could survive without furniture. That's not an option with sex.

Also, We're not talking about rape-- which I'm sure we can agree is a heinous crime, but rape porn. Right?

[jeff47]

327. In both cases, it appears that someone is being forced to do something.

Increased porn and decreased rapes is a false analogy. There are many, many other factors that have lead to the "decrease in rapes"

Except the increase in porn quantity and availability is really, really massive. If there was any link between porn and rape, that large an increase in porn should cause rapes to go up - there aren't any other factors that have increased anywhere near as much as porn.

You're furniture analogy also makes no sense whatsoever. Theoretically the human race could survive without furniture. That's not an option with sex.

Except the other example was not sex, it was porn versus "erotica".

Also, We're not talking about rape-- which I'm sure we can agree is a heinous crime, but rape porn. Right?

No, I was responding to someone who had extended the conversation to all porn, not just rape porn.

[Major Nikon]

411. "There are many, many other factors that have lead to the "decrease in rapes" "

I'm sure this is true, but a reduction in porn is certainly not one of those things. Seems as if it would be more productive to figure out what did cause it to go down rather than spending an inordinate amount of time on what didn't.

The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated for decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data. Evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual aggression is slim and may, at certain times, have been exaggerated by politicians, pressure groups and some social scientists. Some of the debate has focused on violent pornography, but evidence of any negative effects is inconsistent, and violent pornography is comparatively rare in the real world. Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000445

[freshwest]

531. Yours is the only response expressing what is important. When you said:

The sexually repressed haven't had the--call them epiphanies--it takes for true sexual imagination. And so are sell outs to whatever flavor of corporate imagery affects them-- for whatever individual reasons. Unfortunately they tend to think the opposite is true, that they have control of their sexual imagination, that they are not corporate tools.
Pornography is the sexual equivalent of shopping at Wall-mart.

People are not cognizant of the glory of sex, the being in the moment, in touch with each other and not just flesh. It is as if they could not truly enjoy themselves to begin with, so like a person who puts on a lot of makeup for glamor, they have long since lost the beauty of being alive.

They are, as you say, 'sell out's to something that will never satisfy completely, and does nothing in the real world to give them what they lack. No amount of shiny things, jewels, man-made contrivances and effort replace that which is lost. They feign boredom and need to be stimulated to feel alive again, but it is as if a nerve has been severed and they can no longer go with the flow, the wonder, the unknown, the gift of making love. And that act is not taught by media, it is made during the moment of loving.

The WalMart analogy is apt, and being in love with a highly commercialized product, little different than an electronic device or car. I do not see porn as intimacy, but a sham, a desire for something dead and buried.

If one still has what I'm talking about, they don't need to see it or read it as it resides in their consciousness free of charge and no need to go to media It will do what is needed without any teaching by con men.

All media is a form of learning. We learn how to do something we want to do with a textbook or manual, then we practice, then we do it. I know that you know what I mean, and what this is practicing for. It will not be satisfied, every real thing in the flesh won't be good enough and will be compared.

This is a problem some young men have expressed to me. After seeing so much porn online, knowing their chances of getting a girl to do all they saw were not very good, they are not interested in them, and do not respect them as they can never, no matter what they do for them, equal their fantasy, and said they also do not they respect themselves. Some have rebelled from this so called freedom, and said they are going to find out what life and love and what they want is.

Life is not meant to be just a fantasy we have been taught, or following a program given by media, but living. Those who think it is the ultimate freedom, are denying that they are being disrespected and manipulated for the profit of someone who does not know or care about them. Nothing of value passed between them, just money. Porn is as useless as watching a fish out of water gulping for air unable to get back to the real source of its existence. It is part of the process of dehmanization we are being put through, and not for our own good.

Thanks for your post.

[Nye Bevan]

193. Short version: "WAY too much sex and violence in the movies and on TV. "

"The Government should ban it".

[yurbud]

200. that is not a progressive vs. conservative issue as much as libertarian vs. conscience

[Kurska]

205. More like, my body my rules

vs. your body my rules

[yurbud]

213. that kind of porn is a symptom of a problem not a cause

I would like to see it banned too, but like heavy metal and gangster rap, people aren't lured into looking at it while they are looking up bible verses--they seek it out because of deformities in their soul or psyche or whatever.

Let's face, on the internet, you can never even look for porn and end up eventually seeing every possible variation. But you only look the second, third, and fiftieth time at stuff that turns you on.

If seeing rape porn could make you a rapist, seeing gay porn could make you gay and seeing adults dressed in diapers could make you Vitter.

On the other hand, if cops find evidence a rape suspect was looking at this stuff, it should be considered circumstantial evidence of tendency to rape.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

235. it could also be a sign of a problem, I think -

Medically speaking signs are objective information that which can be measured whereas symptoms are subjective as being that which is described by the patient and can not be measured.

[yurbud]

427. ok

[hrmjustin]

226. My concern about rape porn is that it can desensitize some people who watch it.

I am not advocating making it a crime but I would say the industry needs to rethink making this stuff. The bondage stuff that others are talking about does not bother me and is part of many people's lives. Not my cup of tea.

[LadyHawkAZ]

415. As far as desensitization goes,

I think we have more to worry about from mainstream depictions in movies and TV than we do from porn, since it is ubiquitous in both, is depicted more as a normal part of life than as fantasy, and is more socially acceptable to view. I think you'll agree that by the time someone goes searching for porn with "rape" as a keyword, the desensitization has already taken place.

[hrmjustin]

417. I am not sure the desnsitization has already happened when the person types the

word rape.

[LadyHawkAZ]

419. I'm curious why you would think that

It seems to me that by the time the person is seeking it out in porn form, the damage is already done.

[hrmjustin]

421. If someone is curious and look it up they are not desensitized by it yet.

Not everyone who looks at it has gotten to that point yet.

[LadyHawkAZ]

423. I'd have to disagree with you

Someone saying to themselves "Gee, I wonder what it would be like to watch a rape", and then following through on it, implies an already present loss of sensitivity to the subject, in my book.

YMMV.

[hrmjustin]

424. Ok well we disagree on this.

[Tikki]

241. I am with the OP and Bainsbane on this one...

It's all fun and games until your college aged son or daughter comes home black and blue and
traumatized because it's the cool thing to do, simulate sex 'fun' or be hazed that way…or a co-worker puts pressure
on another to get with the program or..

Technically the submissive party is consenting but under a weird kind of pressure put into place by a society the actually
glamorizes these actions….think magazine models showing up in print with bruises or under the hand of the dominant.

Legally it is whatever if both consent…but the courts are filled, thankfully, with others who really didn't consent
and want their story told.

I stand up for the exploited no matter how naive they seem.


Tikki

[Tumbulu]

407. Thanks, this is really where I fear it leads

and I do wonder how we navigate out of this mess. I feel sad for young people whose imaginations get polluted in this way, and to fit in consent to being hurt both physically and emotionally.

[Scootaloo]

251. I regard it as a desensitizing form of "entertainment"

It enshrines the notion that the rape victim "wants it" or "deserves it," glamorizes the rapist, and encourages the viewer to see the entire situation as sexy.

The problem is, that it's also fictional. The people on screen are actors, paid to do this part, and are free to call cuts, take breaks, or just walk off the set. While I suppose an argument could be made about the degree of consent that could exist in a pornographic workspace, it is consensual.

I find it very grotesque, and would generally assume that a person who likes to watch it is a severe asshole, if not worse. But I can't think of any solid argument for banning its production, much less criminalizing viewing it.

[anneboleyn]

307. Wow. Very offensive to the entire BDSM community, in which domination "scenes"

are common and feature women dominating men (in fact dommes are very popular), men dominating men (also very popular), women dominating women, and men dominating women. Actual penetration can't be shown in porn dealing with bondage or bdsm themes in the U.S.

Why would anyone who is into bdsm, including this type of porn, which represents a kink within bdsm, be a "severe asshole?" The community is very broad and inclusive and careful to avoid any behaviors that are not consensual. That's why the play involves "scenes" and always a safe word.

The extremely judgmental comments in this thread are alarming considering that this community hypothetically supports liberalism -- meaning no censorship and no calling people who like bdsm porn "severe assholes."

[Scootaloo]

311. Do you get off on seeing someone attacked and raped?

Cause that's what I'm talking about. Not bondage or BDSM, but pornography that purports to depict a rape. I think I made that pretty clear when I said

It enshrines the notion that the rape victim "wants it" or "deserves it," glamorizes the rapist, and encourages the viewer to see the entire situation as sexy.

So, do you get off on seeing someone raped? Congratulations, I think you're an asshole. Do you have a hard drive full of lolicon hentai? Congratulations, I think you're fucking creepy. If you have a problem with that, well tough, I have a problem with someone finding rape arousing. Imagine that, a difference of opinion.

[Iggo]

283. You should have trashed that thread as soon as you saw it like I did...

...and like I'm doing with this one.

[Prism]

308. Never come to San Francisco

Certainly not on various weekends

[Tumbulu]

408. I often come to SF

are you implying that people in SF advocate violent torture for pleasure? I don't think so.

Dressing up in wild costumes, walking around nude, these things are all fine with me and perfectly legal and normal in parts of SF.

Freedom is not the same as allowing torture to go unchallenged in our culture.

[Prism]

413. Dore Alley would wreck some people in this thread

Yes, "torture" play is part of human sexuality. We have festivals in SF where sexual torture takes place right there in the street.

I find it odd to question what "liberals" should approve or disapprove of involving a sexual freedom that is very much celebrated in arguably the most liberal sexual bastion in America.

I'll be honest, and I mean this gently as possible, I don't think you or many people in this thread are very familiar or experienced with the subculture you're decrying.

It reminds me of the African fundamentalist who ran around claiming the gays were "eating the poo poo!"

One should always speak from a place of knowledge in sexual matters. Anything less is a threat to reproductive freedom.

As ironic as that is on this board.

[Tumbulu]

428. I do not see torture and rape as sexuality

they are aggressive violent acts. And if someone sees it that way, then I am sad to hear it.

I am talking about injuring people, and do not think that there is anything acceptable about that.

[Prism]

432. But they are a part of sexuality

Whether you recognize it or not is immaterial. It's like saying you don't see the sky as blue. You're free to say so, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

I've already fought this battle as a gay man. People once thought gay sex wasn't normal human sexuality. They felt sad for us. We were so abnormal. Something was wrong with us.

Pfft. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Ideology and sex do not mix. We have a rich and stupid history of what happens when people attempt it.

Frankly, your approval or disapproval is completely unnecessary and inconsequential to what consenting adults do to get their jollies. I see the impulses in these latest threads totally indistinguishable from those exhibited by fundamentalists. It's going to precisely the same place.

Sorry, but people who have fought their entire lives for sexual freedom - a fight that protects a woman's right to choose, btw - are going to rightfully resist this illiberal ideological spasming.

[Tumbulu]

433. Am I right, you think that simply because hurting women fits into someone's idea of sex

then this type of porn should be defended by liberals?

I disagree.

I do not condone hurting anyone or anything on purpose and certainly not for the pleasure of one at the expense of the other.

[Prism]

434. This is what I mean by lack of knowledge

In BDSM, being hurt is part of the pleasure for the participants. When consenting adults are involved, it isn't "at someone's expense." It's a mutual exchange.

And the other reason I say there's a lack if knowledge here is the conceit that women are always submissive to a male's power. One word could clear that up: dominatrix.

A whole lot of women get sexual pleasure from humiliating men - and a whole lot of men derive sexual pleasure from being humiliated.

See what I mean about a lack of knowledge in this discussion? It's clear to me you're just plum unfamiliar with the material you're so upset about. Do you think that's useful?

None of this is my personal cup of tea, but who am I to tell people to knock it off? It's none of my business.

None of yours, either.

[Tumbulu]

435. It is my business that women are raped for profit

and for pleasure.

I cannot see how any liberal can condone anyone being injured for financial gain.

Rape is a type of assault and it hurts, with lifelong injuries that can be sustained.

I do not understand how you equate someone's right to participate in playacting with an industry that tortures and injures women for profit. This makes no sense to me.

[KitSileya]

309. The rape apologists in this thread make me sick!

They harp on it being consenting and fiction, when they damn well know that much of it isn't, and that even what is consensual, cannot be verified as being consensual. They don't care about the consequences, not about the ones who are in rape porn, nor about the consequences for those who watch it.

Let me spell it out with an analogy. They are like someone who sends an envelope with white powder in it to an elected official. They will get in trouble whether the powder is flour or anthrax, because it causes a lot of measures to be taken. The rape apologists on this thread, however, are howling about their right to send envelopes of white powder, and how it is free speech, and what about if they write it is flour on the flap of the envelope - completely disregarding the agony of the person opening the envelope, which may in some cases cause panic attacks, hospitalization, or even death, as well as the money spent on procedures to contain white powder in envelopes. Because, goshdarnit! They get off on sending envelopes full of white powder, and it is their right to do so!

The same with rape porn. The police doesn't know whether the porn is really rape or not, so they have to act. The lawmakers don't have the guts to ban porn entirely, but they will at least make it illegal to be in possession of rape porn where one of the participants seem to be raped, or injured, or where they abuse animals and corpses. In that way they will make it at least a bit more risky to possess such porn, and that will be a further disincentive to make it and distribute it. The consumers of such porn CANNOT know whether the rape porn was produced without actual rape, unless they were actually present in the room when it was filmed. Unless they actually witness the consent being given, without duress of any kind - it being filmed doesn't count, as anyone can stand out of camera angle with a gun - they cannot know it is consensual. And I agree with the British lawmakers that anyone who doesn't give a flying f&%/ whether the person they are watching - man or woman - is being raped, deserves a prison sentence.

[Vashta Nerada]

314. Nobody in this thread is defending rape.

They're defending the right of consenting adults to participate in simulated rape videos. It's a fetish that you clearly don't understand.

[KitSileya]

316. Oh, I understand it just fine.

Consenting adults in simulated rape videos...How is anyone to know that these are consenting adults? The white powder may just be flour, but unless one tests is, one cannot be certain. Unless the viewer of the porn was actually present at the filming, how is one to know that it is just simulated?

[Vashta Nerada]

317. How do we know actors in R-rated movies consented to taking their clothes off?

You can make the same argument about anything.

[KitSileya]

323. We don't, do we?

However, British lawmakers have clearly realized that going after all porn isn't viable, so they are at least doing something about porn where there is a great likelihood that someone was injured, or it was non-consensual.

[mythology]

414. Please present some sort of evidence that there's a

"great likelihood that someone was injured, or it was non-consensual" in any porn distributed through legal means. I don't mean found on 4chan or on the TOR network.

I get that a lot of the really rough stuff is uncomfortable to watch, but that doesn't mean that you have presented any evidence that it's without the consent of the people in the video and is thus illegal.

[mwrguy]

358. Here is how you know if actors are consenting

Studios like kink.com interview the actors beforehand and ask them questions about what they are going to do, what their limits are, why they are doing it, and how to call the whole thing off with a safe-word or signal. They also interview the actors afterward.

Legal documents are kept on file in accordance with state and federal laws, and each video shows a legal notice regarding this.

[Kurska]

318. So, you say we should ban all rape porn because we can't verify if it is real or not.

Alright, why haven't we banned all depictions of murder in fiction as well?

Apparently we as a society have no difficulty in disguising between real and fake murder. Apparently doing so for rape is impossible though.

[KitSileya]

319. Well, when the murder victim walks off the stage afterwards, it's pretty easy to most of us,

at least, to see whether there's been a murder or not. With rape... not so much.

[rrneck]

321. It'snot hard to prove it's consensual.

All the production company needs is a signed contract and a cancelled check.

[KitSileya]

322. Yeah, because that sure is a way to prove anyone wasn't pressured or forced.

Because no one's ever signed a contract under duress ever, and pimps have never stolen the money of the prostitutes they control.

[rrneck]

324. A contract signed under duress is null and void.

No contract - no consent. No consent means the film is evidence of a crime.

[KitSileya]

325. Yes, it would be, wouldn't it.

But it doesn't seem like those who like rape porn care about whether the porn they watch was filmed without consent or not. British lawmakers are trying to do something about at least porn that seems to or actually injures one or more of the participants, or that portray sex with animals, or with corpses, or that is or seems to be non-consensual. Why don't the consumers care about whether what they are watching is a crime or not? I think it is because their titillation is more important than the people in those videos.

[rrneck]

330. They may be skeezy and creepy

or they may not. Either way you can't make skeezy illegal.

You can require the production company to keep records and make them available to the authorities by informing consumers in the media they consume.

[KitSileya]

333. It's not only skeezy and creepy.

British authorities are going after porn that is indistinguishable from films of real rape, or injury. Flour or anthrax? Should we allow people to send letters with white powder if they have receipts and statements that it is flour and only flour, or does the letter itself cause harm? Here on DU we decry Fox news and what it does to those who watch it, and more and more scientists are understanding what a steady diet of Fox news does to a person's brain, such as that documentary that was mentioned on DU a month or so ago. Why is it so difficult to believe that those who watch rape porn are affected by what they watch? They are watching films that purports to be real rape, or real torture. How can it not affect them?

[rrneck]

338. If it's indistinguishable it's impossible to prosecute.

You can't regulate fiction. Such laws would depend on a subjective standard. Flour and anthrax have different chemical properties that can be empirically measured. You can't regulate something based on how someone may respond to it.

[KitSileya]

343. Apparently British lawmakers have decided that fiction or not doesn't matter.

They have decided that, to use my analogy, the sending of the letter is illegal, regardless of whether the white powder is harmless or not.

[rrneck]

349. That doesn't make them right.

There are more per capita surveillance cameras in Great Brian than anywhere I understand. Be careful what you wish for.

[KitSileya]

355. According to Cameron, they want to make it illegal to possess porn that cannot legally be sold

In other words, the porn is illegal to sell in the UK already; however, the internet has made such a ban meaningless. What they are doing is closing a loophole, and the impetus is several murders where the murderers watched such porn beforehand, and experts who say that such viewing such porn increases the risk of raping someone.

To be honest, I live in a country where you cannot buy a gun willynilly, and where the laws are stricter than in the US in many areas. We condone the German ban on material that denies the Holocaust, and honestly, I'll sleep very well at night should rape porn be banned both in the UK and where I live.

Great Britain may have more per capita surveillance cameras, but the US does more surveillance than any other nation on Earth. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

[rrneck]

364. You're right on that score.

That NSA scandal is a mess.

The free exchange of information makes a culture more agile. That agility, meaning the ability to change in the face of changing circumstances, is the heart of liberal ideology. I prefer to err on the side of freedom of expression. Even if I dislike the content of that expression.

[KitSileya]

368. Thanks for the civil discussion.

I've got to go to bed now ( I live at GMT+1), but I'll be back in the morning, just in time for your bedtime, I suspect.

[rrneck]

378. Always a pleasure.

Have a good evening.

[ancianita]

328. Exactly. But I'd speculate that suits for either performance or enforcement in either the pimp or

porn industries are not that common to public legal settings.

[Vashta Nerada]

347. Good luck with that one.

I agree with you, however.

[Tumbulu]

390. Me too and thank you for the excellent analogy

it is exactly the problem.

Well stated!

[bowens43]

329. its not real

[seabeyond]

342. and a lot of it is. now what? nt

[EOTE]

350. Go after those making the real stuff.

This brought to you from the editors of "Duh: Magazine".

Just like we go after those who actually kill people and film it rather than going after the makers of "Saving Private Ryan". Just like we didn't go after Michael Douglas in Wall St., rather we SHOULD be going after real financial predators. There are a number of people on this thread that need to realize that just because something is seen on film/video, that doesn't mean it actually happened.

[seabeyond]

360. It is not that simple which you have been educated and abviously recognize. But, you cavalierly

Dismiss rape. Which is the suggestion many make, dismissal and desensitize to rape, with consumption of violent rape porn.

[EOTE]

361. Of course it's that simple.

There's always going to be fake stuff AND real stuff being made. It's the job of law enforcement to go after those making the real stuff. And sometimes film makers make the job of the police more difficult, as in the case of a series of Japanese films in the late 80s/early 90s that depicted very realistic torturing and dismemberment. A number of people got their hands on bootleg versions of the videos and reported it to the FBI. The FBI did some investigation and shocker, they discovered it was an actual production and no one went to jail. Happy day, right? Not for a lot of people on this thread who would instead prefer that the makers of the film get locked away. It really is that simple. If it's real, it's illegal. If it's not, then it's not illegal. This is really all about so-called "liberals" getting off on telling consenting adults what they can and can't do and telling consenting adults what they can and can't watch. All this ridiculousness bringing up "But these aren't consenting adults!" is just more bullshit trying to deflect from the vapidity of their arguments. NO ONE here is advocating that video of real rape be legal to possess, but the nanny staters sure are trying to make it seem that way.

[seabeyond]

371. But many on here are willing to not care so much if it is real or not as long as it is real enough

Get off on. Point. All the people cheering their rape porn are well aware some of it the are getting off on is real rape. Meh... Let the cops deal with it. Next video....

[EOTE]

516. That reply has nothing to do with what I posted.

You're basically saying: "So what if there are plenty of logical reasons for not banning such a thing, men are disgusting so we need to do this!". You are solely commenting on a person's thought processes which should have absolutely zero bearing on any law. Many of the comments here are well beyond stupid.

[aikoaiko]

332. being a liberal is not always convenient.

[HappyinLA]

340. Just some thoughts from someone who works for a place that makes "rape porn".

After spending my days reading this site for quite some time now (I so so happy to find it), I find a topic that I can actually speak of, that I'm guessing most folks don't know much about. I work in the adult entertainment industry.

First, I see a lot of talk about consent. For US based production, what I can address, we have a lot of paperwork. Making a porno is in a lot of ways no different than any other video production. You have auditions, ask for performers to come in, they all get told up front and in detail what the job is. There is no mystery to any of this. If they get cast, they sign a contract. The contract spells out specifically what they are doing (each individual sex act) and what they get paid. They have to provide proof of STD tests, agree they don't have injuries or anything that might be aggravated by working, etc. This is all done up front, there is no cornering them on set to sign the paperwork. Once on set they'll do a consent video where the performer will agree again. All this stuff is filed away according to law for access by anyone who wants to see it. All the consent stuff is taken very seriously because of the nature of some of the videos we make. And yes, we make "rape porn", but not exclusively. Most is pretty generic "pretty people fucking" type stuff. But we do fetish things like preggers, grannies, bondage, etc. No corpses or animals, that's messed up and illegal.

Second, we get subpoenas all the time. Someone in Oklahoma catches their kid watching a video and thinks the performer is too young, they call the cops and we get a visit to provide proof it's all kosher. We have people who's only job is to compile this information for law enforcement.

Third, the UK/Scottish laws. Frankly, they're a joke. Our entire business is built around getting around laws like this. Literally, they founded the company I work for specifically to provide porn to countries where it is illegal to possess. We created an entire law firm for just this. The trick is "possession". Turns out, that as long as you are watching a streaming video, if that video isn't streaming from a server in your jurisdiction, they can't touch you. So we house those videos in places that they are legal, so people all over the world can enjoy them. In fact, these laws make it possible for us to make a lot of money. In the places where these laws don't exist, we can't make a penny.

[gopiscrap]

345. welcome to du

[Vashta Nerada]

348. Thanks for making it clear for us.

Those who are against this should really read your post.

[EOTE]

354. One question. Why do you support sex slavery?

Totally kidding. Thanks for your input on this matter. I'd like to think that a reasonable voice on this matter who's obviously well informed would quell some of the hysteria around here, but most likely not. Oh, and I really hope that for your sake and mine that pornographic actors/actresses won't have to be wearing protective facial gear in the near future.

Welcome to DU.

[BainsBane]

363. Surely you will acknowledge that not all porn is made that way

California is known to license and regulate porn companies. Members here, however, insist they don't just get their porn from such companies. They view porn uploaded by all kinds of people and producers. I'm sure you are aware than in many places, and even in the US, there is porn made without any of that consent paperwork, that some of its subjects are there via human trafficking.

If people made a point of viewing porn only from licensed companies, that would be a lot better. People have insisted that is not what they do.

[Blue_Adept]

375. So basically...

in an effort to take down the wrong kind, the right kind has to be taken down as well?

[HappyinLA]

388. No, not all is made that way

but having been in the business for over a decade, the stuff that is illegal is pretty rare. There are just too many willing participants to warrant any kind of large scale illegal operation. The truly illegal stuff is kept in the dark, I've seen some of it and as someone who's been around the production side of it, it's easy to tell the difference. It's not something you are going to find on a popular tube site. The problem is that for the casual viewer, or the non porn viewer, it can be very hard to tell the difference. We made one "rape porn" video that everyone who saw it was convinced was real. It was truly disturbing, total 'trigger warning' level stuff. Right up to the end where the girl starts laughing because she freaked out the other performers who started to think something was wrong. I imagine we saw a number of subpoenas for that.

I can't condemn an entire genre because there are some evil people making it also. Especially when banning it wouldn't necessarily change anything. The illegal stuff is still going to be found where it is found now. All that would happen is the legal stuff would become valuable and go underground too.

I'd be curious to see how many prosecutions the Scots had under their law. Are they even using the law, or is it a political "tough on crime" thing to make everyone happy?


That being said, I've also seen where the trafficking has gone. There is a whole new technology in porn that's sadly tailor made for it.

[Major Nikon]

420. This makes the most sense in this thread

The kiddie stuff seems to be the most ripe for human trafficking because there is no legal source of participants. When there is no shortage of willing and consenting adult performers who will work for cheap on the commercial side and for free on the amateur side, I just don't see the motivation. One would be taking a large risk for no gain. It seems as if there's a far greater chance the person picking your fruits and vegetables is a slave.

[Tumbulu]

393. And so do you see yourself as a liberal or a libertarian?

I associate the liberal approach to be towards inclusiveness and support of each other in our lives and work. I consider liberals to be against exploitation.

How can fictionalizing torture bring us closer to equality and respect?

I do not get how just making sure something is legal makes it OK.

I do not find it at all OK. I worked hard to get Prop 2 passed here in CA (this was about getting laying hens out of tiny cages and pigs out of crates, etc.). I raise livestock, and farm organically. It matters to me that animals are treated humanely and I have spent my life working towards improving the welfare of all farm animals personally and through the legislative process.

I cannot see how violent porn, whether it is legally produced or not leads us towards treating all people humanely and with respect.

I do not see how this "freedom to view women tortured and subjugated through violence" for the benefit of sexual gratification builds a liberal agenda or base.

[Blue_Adept]

395. So what you're saying is...

is that men and women who enjoy having this applied to them are in the wrong as well?

[Tumbulu]

404. I am sorry, I do not understand your post

or how it applies to liberal vs libertarian.

[Demo_Chris]

398. Very interesting. Welcome! nt

[booley]

366. Oh great, another one of these

in which how good a person you depends on how closely you agree with the OP, the difference between a fantasy and reality is done away, and we all have to pretend there no women could possibly get turned on by a "taboo" subject or BDSM so she must have been forced.

I am not sure why I am even bothering but..

You do know what a safe word is, right?

Some woman actually like rape fantasies, the operative word being "fantasy. These same women would freak out (rightfully) at a rape reality. The same for men

It's a kind of a "safe danger", allowing someone experience and work out a taboo subject in a way that doesn't actually hurt themselves or others. Doing this is not a pathology. When done right it's perfectly healthy.

So maybe people can defend this and still call themselves liberal is because they acknowledge there are different kinds of people in the world. Just because something is strange or hard to understand or even disturbing to some doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

If there is anyone being forced into doing these, that cant' back out when it goes too far then yes, we can say that's wrong.

But I know plenty of both genders that be subjected to what you describe at "torture" for free.

In other words when you deliberately try to conflate a fantasy with a reality as if the two are the same, you do a disservice to everyone.

[Blue_Adept]

372. A great thread

I love reading threads like these. Honestly. The tangents alone are worth it.

My significant other, a woman, and I have times where she wants this kind of experience. It's all consensual, safe word in place and talked about ahead of time. She wants to be freed from the controlled nature of her days, parenting, work and so forth. There are a lot of reasons people of both sexes want to partake in it.

A girlfriend of mine from a few years ago was the first person I had been with that wanted this kind of experience. Like anything else in life, I did my research, read in various communities about it and went through the whole scene setting, expectations, safety and so forth.

And for both of the women I was with, a good part of it was also watching some of the videos that legal companies make where, as noted in a post above from someone in the industry, is all very defined and consenting. Yes, there are the wrong kinds out there with real rapes. Are they coming on the mainstream adult sites? Honestly, a lot of the discussion here is from people that don't have much experience with porn sites and those communities, instead giving the impression that they're speaking from a couple of decades ago.

My normal work has me dealing with a lot of people that are in their twenties across the whole range of years there. And my business has largely been dealing with that age range since twenty years ago when I was in my twenties. What's been interesting to watch is the number of women out there that now consume adult entertainment. It's not mainstreamed and in some ways parts of it shouldn't be, but there are so many women making adult material for themselves now that involves all sorts of fantasies that there is a huge disconnect out there.

The number of people talking about how it's evil are those that haven't realized that a huge chunk of what's out there (not the amateur material that gets posted) is all fully corporatized and simply a business. Businesses that get attacked regularly and will play above the board constantly to ensure their continued operation.

Nobody is for real rape videos out there. And it's worth making sure none are out there. But the commercialization of the fantasy is something that is a 100% legal and should always be. Otherwise we get the slippery slope like what amazon and others are doing when it comes to erotica in what they ban and censor from availability. entirely in their right, but it's the wrong approach.

[liberal_at_heart]

376. I am so sick of this crap. Trashing thread.

[TroglodyteScholar]

379. You seem to give women very little or no credit

Do you see that your position is resting on the false assumption that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves, and therefore only able to occupy the role of victim?

It's a vile little premise, and you're probably not even aware that you're counting on it. But women are either men's equals (sexually and otherwise) or they are helpless victims of relentless abuse in the form of the sex act. But not both.

I prefer to see a woman as capable of deciding to what degree she wants to be objectified sexually...the same choice I trust myself to make on my own behalf. And I think that's pretty in line with modern day liberal thinking.

Note I'm not denying the existence of real abusive situations...I'm addressing the topic in generalities the same as you. I'm no more willing to tolerate actual sexual victimization than you are.

[Tumbulu]

392. There is nothing false about my assumption that torturing people

for pleasure is wrong and should not be encouraged or condoned by society and especially by liberals.

[TroglodyteScholar]

396. So in the case of a woman who willingly participates in something you don't like...

...it's your contention that you or someone else should have the right to make that decision for her instead?

Doesn't sound like a liberal position to me at all. Not even a little bit.

[Tumbulu]

406. It sounds like a libertarian position, not a liberal position

to advocate torture, humiliation and pain for financial gain, or sexual gratification for financial gain.

Are you suggesting that women being raped is somehow something women want?

As a woman who has known many women I have yet to meet one who wants to be hurt, beaten or raped or have anything violent done to them. As a matter of fact I know no men who invite such things into their lives willingly.

I thought that liberals stood for being fair and humane and respectful to each other and to all life. How does such treatment however fictional one may consider it fir the liberal ideology?

[TroglodyteScholar]

409. How does one's private sexual behavior become "advocating" in your mind?

Amazing.

P.S. I don't want any part if the "liberal" ideology that conflates consensual sex acts with rape advocacy. THAT is not honest, fair, nor healthy.

[Tumbulu]

429. My post and this discussion is not about what people do in private

It is about what is filmed and sold as pornography. This is about commercial businesses selling images of women being raped and tortured. And people buying such products.

Why is this being mixed up?

[mythology]

418. It must be hard on the knees jumping to those sorts of conclusions

Really asking somebody if they support rape should be beneath you. Nobody here is saying that women should be raped. It's the intellectual equivalent of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I can pretty much promise that if you're not a complete hermit, you know people who are into BDSM and thus can take enjoyment out of the consensual pain, humiliation and/or submission involved. They may not tell you, but that's a lot like when a guy says he doesn't know any women who have been raped and so rape must be rare. It's really just a sign that people don't talk about it.

[Tumbulu]

430. I know of no one into BDSM and am not even sure what it is

and this is not about what you or I do. It is about what is sold and viewed. And how I am mystified that progressives and liberals somehow defend the production and commercial sale of images depicting violence against women for sexual gratification, as though it has no impact on society and on women as a group.

[loli phabay]

476. as another postet said you need to join a site like fetlife so you can see how common kink is

I just perused another site that has four times the membership of du and a lot more active members, so mayby its more common than you think.

[opiate69]

425. "I have yet to meet one who wants to be hurt, beaten or raped or have anything violent done to them"

Well.. If you were to go make a free account at fetlife, you'd meet thousands of them.

[loli phabay]

477. its tempting to make an account and walk some posters through the site so they can see

What exactly they think they know about.

[duffyduff]

382. Because people don't truly understand what porn is all about.

They hide behind the phony civil liberties that thinks that exploitation of others is okay. They don't even know what "consent" entails.

Financial pressures to work in porn (or prostitution, for that matter) is NOT "consent."

[booley]

385. I think many do understand what consent means

For commercialized porn, it means someone responded to an ad, signed a release form and then got paid.

For amateur, it means showing what that person was already doing in the privacy of their own home anyway.

Saying that needing the money undermines consent is silly. By that same logic the person filming is being exploited as much as those in front of the camera.

[Orrex]

387. That's too blunt an instrument

Financial pressures to work in porn (or prostitution, for that matter) is NOT "consent."

The exact same thing can (and perhaps should) be said about any unpleasant job that people might perform under duress or out of necessity.

[Tumbulu]

394. So true, nt

[Vashta Nerada]

412. Financial pressures to work in fast food or retail isn't "consent" either.

Your argument can work for anything and everything, so it's null and void.

[Tumbulu]

436. So, you think working at McDonalds

is the same as being raped for the pleasure of unknown viewers?

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

And as liberals we are working to increase the minimum wage and have safeguards for workers, break times, overtime pay etc.

Sorry being coerced or enslaved into being raped is never OK.

[Vashta Nerada]

437. It is metaphorically "rape".

And I'm not the only person who thinks this that replied to you.

But you knew that.

[Tumbulu]

438. I have had demeaning jobs, plenty of them

Let me tell you, there is no comparison.

Highly offensive post.

[Vashta Nerada]

439. It's highly offensive that you would think there's no comparison.

I'm only using this as an example back to post #382.

When people who have college degrees have to accept crappy low-paying jobs at McD's and Walmart because of financial strains and pressures, that is demeaning to them and it's something they're forced to do. It's an apropos comparison.

[Tumbulu]

450. Sorry, you lost your credibility with this line

I suggest you reconsider what you are saying.

[CFLDem]

389. Rape porn is creepy

because it is creepy to get off to rape.

One of the few times a circular argument works.

[Jamastiene]

410. I agree.

Porn that isn't about raping women and torturing women is one thing, but porn that is about raping and torturing women? I can't get with that. I can't agree with that. I draw the line there and at child porn, bestiality, and anything else that involves forcing anyone or anything. No fucking way. It's just deranged to me.

[XRubicon]

416. I think you are having trouble distinguishing reality from theater

Try some Xanax, it would probably help you get through the day.

[Tumbulu]

431. Sorry, violence against women for pleasure

is just as bad to me as putting calves in crates and hens in small cages. It is cruel and demoralizing and should not be part of the liberal platform.

I can see it as libertarian, but not liberal.

[TransitJohn]

426. Banning simulation is akin to thought crime

Not a fan.

[Tumbulu]

469. You have no concern over sex slaves, or the effect that

this normalizing and fetishizing of cruelty and violence has on others? You think your right to free access to any and all stimulation comes without any responsibility to others and how they are treated?

I associate this lack of concern for others with republicans or libertarians.

[TransitJohn]

479. Uh, what?

Pornographers are human traffickers? Liberals banning art they don't like? Where am I?

[Tumbulu]

481. Uhm, let me introduce you to the real world

and I am sorry for you or anyone else who finds torturing people for pleasure art.

And this is not the liberal platform, torturing people for profit and pleasure, more what I associate with republicans.

[Drunken Irishman]

448. Why does porn always devalue into a debate over women's rights?

There is straight porn for women, lesbian porn for women and gay porn for men. What's the difference?

There are a lot of gay fetish websites out there - from twinks to leather to, yes, rape porn. And? Where are the moralists when it comes to that - do they assume it leads to male-on-male violence?

It just is always interesting that porn objectifies women ... but not all porn deals with women. A great deal of it, A LOT OF IT, is targeted toward either straight women looking at men (Play Girl) or gay men wanting to look at gay men. There are millions of gay porn websites out there - millions of photos from scat to S&M to incest that involve solely men. Are we going to rally against that too or are we only going to hate on straight porn for men?

[Tumbulu]

449. This discussion is about how I get the idea that members of DU

think it is a liberal position to defend the rights of people to produce and watch violent acts against women for pleasure, vs the rights of women to not be raped on film. How hurting people for pleasure and financial gain does not strike me as a liberal position.

And by the way, are you against women having any say in this? It is predominantly women who get raped in these films I am told. And why would you sue the word devalue?

Is there something less about women having rights? And the right not to be raped for someone else's imaginary potential pleasure?

I am not surprised that libertarians feel entitled to let everything be allowed. But liberals? Why are liberals defending torture of people for financial gain or pleasure. That is what I want to know.

Do you consider yourself liberal or a libertarian?

[Drunken Irishman]

451. Why do you continue to focus on women?

I would see your point if there weren't genres of porn that also involve men being raped or attacked or forced. Do you have any problem with that? If you watch gay rape porn, does that mean you hate men too?

[Vashta Nerada]

452. You're tilting at a windmill with that poster.

[Tumbulu]

457. I do not watch porn at all, so all these genres are unfamiliar to me

You are most welcome to start your own discussion about these cruel acts.

[Drunken Irishman]

458. If you don't watch it, then what concern is it to you?

[Tumbulu]

467. How about the fact that it normalizes violent behavior ?

How about that sex trafficking and child and female sex slaves count in the millions- why wouldn't it be important to me?

Do you think violent porn is not effecting people all around me and us?

Do liberals not care about the countless people injured by these businesses making money in this way?

This liberal sure does.

[loli phabay]

475. you know i know nothing about baseball, as i dont watch it

So i have the sense that when it comes up in conversation i dont try to tell the people talking about it that the touchdown rule is bad.

[Quantess]

460. One of my alltime favorite films is A Clockwork Orange.

"Deliverance" is a genius film. I also appreciated "I Spit On Your Grave" although the rape scenes were graphic and hard to watch. But it is a powerful film.

Marquis De Sade wrote some awful stuff but I feel better to have read some his most notorious works. I don't like censorship.

[Tumbulu]

468. This is about my quest to understand if this DU approval of violent rape porn

is a liberal or a libertarian thing.

You strike me as a libertarian, not a liberal. It is not about you, it is about who is injured by the genre. The production of such films includes plenty of sex slaves (lots of proof of that in posts above and in various reports) and the people whose lives are reduced in dignity or health because someone became comfortable with rape by repeatedly being stimulated by watching these images, and then tried it on them.

Those movies are not what we are talking about in this thread.

Do you care about farm animals being tortured? Do you seek out animal products from animals that were not mistreated via factory farms? In general liberal care about how their actions effect others. And they take personal responsibility to reduce the harm that they cause others and life on the planet.

At least this is my view of liberals.

[NaturalHigh]

463. I don't like porn.

I frankly wish that it didn't even exist. However, I also hate people trying to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do or how they are supposed to think.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it. Works for me.

[Tumbulu]

470. But is it a liberal position to not care about the effect of violent rape porn on the

actors, the sex slaves, the trafficked humans?

I am trying to get an understanding of why on this liberal board so many posters think it is OK to torture women for fun and profit and call it freedom.

Freedom for whom?

[Warren DeMontague]

471. Elsewhere on this site you have someone posting a study that defines blowjobs as "violent acts"

The deseprate attempts to somehow conflate consenting adult porn with violence and non-consent.. People see through the agenda.

I'm sorry, but simply saying over and over that porn is full of non-consenting tortured people who are being coerced against their will, doesn't make it so.

It's against the law, everywhere on the planet as near as I can tell, to force anyone to have sex in front of a camera. These things are already illegal.

No one "thinks its okay to torture women for fun and profit". I guarantee you that no one- not one single person in ANY of these threads- has said that it's okay to do anything with anyone who isn't consenting. When people CONSENT to do things, like engage in "violent acts" like blowjobs, or spanking.... or the "aggressive verbal assaults" like when someone talks dirty to someone else- they are CONSENTING.

You have consenting adults- lots of them- in this country, in places like Los Angeles, who get paid to take their clothes off or have sex in front of a camera. It's their job, they choose to do it. Other consenting adults watch it. You also have a lot of people, in this age of easily available phone cameras and the like, who enjoy having sex for others to watch simply because they get off on it. Horrors, I know! But they do.

When consenting adults watch other consenting adults screw in front of a camera, that's not "rape" "slavery" "violence" or any of that other shit. And the attempts to convince people that they are, same crap that's been going on since the days when Andrea Dworkin happily helped Ed Meese with his Anti-porn comission.. People don't fall for it. Very few people think that getting outraged over images consenting adult sex, constitutes a "liberal, progressive" position. That ship sailed long ago.

People want to say "88% of porn contains violence" because they have a study where a "violent act" is defined as a penis going in a mouth... that's simply ludicrous, and you honestly wonder why it doesn't fly?

[NaturalHigh]

473. +1

[Tumbulu]

487. My agenda is to understand how someone calling themselves liberal

can defend hurting people for please or profit.

Your arguments, that it is all fun and games and all consenting is pretty fantastical.

The only porn I ever saw was while in West Africa at a resort thing the Swedes ran in the late 70's. For some reason we had to stay there overnight, it was a totally bizarre place.

It was pretty tame stuff compared to what I read about. But the men who watched it turned around and brutalized the women as a result. I heard so many African women beg us (the white women) to get them to stop showing this horrible stuff (as if we had any power over this!) as it was making their life worse, and they already had been been castrated by the female mutilation, so no orgasms in this lifetime for them.

The silly notion that these things some people do for pleasure only effects them is beyond cold hearted, and smacks of a provincial life. Depictions of all violence on films shown in public or private effect people. There are regulations about this for a reason. This sort of porn is already illegal, why would any liberal be supporting and defending it?

We are an imitative species.

I do remember the acts shown as really dangerous, all this action that would lead to painful infections in any normal woman. Perhaps these actors and actresses get immediate medical attention, but normal women who have to wait a long time to go to the doctor and pay lots of money in copays should not be encouraged to do any of these things and it seems to me that porn glorified infection causing activities.

And even that stuff I saw in the late 70's was demeaning and violent, slapping and spanking....I was just horrified and still am, really what in the hell is this really about? And that was tame Swedish soft porn. God knows what has been normalized since.

It is clearly all about normalizing and fetishizing violence against women.

I do not find this to be an acceptable liberal position.

[Warren DeMontague]

489. And what you're doing is setting up straw enemies & placing them on yr. own semantic playing field.

"Liberal" is a label, like so many other things.

[Tumbulu]

493. You honestly think that hurting

People on purpose is part of being liberal? I clearly do not even think hurting animals goes with liberalism.

[Warren DeMontague]

501. Direct Quote: "You honestly think that hurting People on purpose is part of being liberal?"

Thank you for illustrating so succinctly EXACTLY what I'm talking about.



Here's a hint: If I wanted to say "hurting people on purpose is part of being liberal", that's what I would say.

[Tumbulu]

503. Well, I find this hard to believe.

Do you buy food from animals that have been tortured (ie from factory farms) as well?

Sorry, very sad to read this.

And there is nothing stuffed shirt about caring for people and animals and the environment. In fact it is what I thought liberalism was about.

I guess there is another side to the Democratic party. The get what you can get for as little money as possible and just care about yourself and not how your choices impact anyone else.

Sad to read this.

[Bonobo]

507. "And there is nothing stuffed shirt about caring for people"

OMG, she didn't even GET the straw man reference...

"stuffed shirt".

[Warren DeMontague]

509. Straw Man Argument.

For someone who doesn't know what it is, you're a master of it.

[NaturalHigh]

474. See Warren's reply to you.

He said it better than I would even have the patience to try.

[FedUpWithIt All]

510. I've been avoiding this subject pretty carefully.

Because of the tone of the OP i thought i could venture in but just reading a little bit has me feeling ill and upset.
Back into my cave

[Tumbulu]

512. It is very sad to me

I just am amazed at how hated women appear to be.

These threads have me pretty down about the DU "community".

I wish there was some other conclusion.

[orpupilofnature57]

515. I love woman and would say most people here do .

This is an outcry about freedom of speech, and this subject is the lowest form of that Right .

[BuddhaGirl]

520. As a Liberal

it's very sad to me to see fellow Liberals sit in judgement of porn made by consenting adults, including BDSM porn which I and my Liberal, women-loving hubby enjoy watching together.

So screw your puritanical opinions...really.

[orpupilofnature57]

522. Difference is you and your husband are enjoying porn

depicting someone being raped has nothing to do with BDSM porn, difference ? no victim, just people having fun .

[BuddhaGirl]

525. There is simulated rape in BDSM porn

made by consenting adults. But I think you already knew this.

[orpupilofnature57]

526. Bingo, I did . But I don't in a rape film, unless like You " Simulation "

is Expressed in a way of distinguishing itself from an act second only to murder .

[BuddhaGirl]

528. see post #471

n/t