General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPornography, especially violent variants, furthers rape culture...
http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com/Layden_Pornography_and_Violence.pdfis part of the sexual template.
In other words, pornography makes violence sexy.
...
Sexual violence attitudes lead to an increased likelihood of violent sexual behavior.
Some studies have looked at likelihood measures while other studies have looked at actual
(self-reported) behaviors.
Pornography can start to cross the line between thought and behavior in the kinds
of fantasies that can produce an erection. One study exposed males to an arousing rape or
non-rape presentation and then asked them to try to reach as high a level of sexual arousal
as they could without any direct stimulation of the penis. In doing so, those who had been
exposed to the rape presentation created more sexually violent fantasies than those
exposed to the non-rape presentation. For these males, rape fantasies were now part of
their sexual template.
Another study examined measures of the likelihood of future sexually violent
behavior as well as past actual sexually violent behaviors. It found that all types of
pornography (soft core, hard core, violent, and rape) are correlated with using verbal
coercion, drugs, and alcohol to sexually coerce women. The likelihood of forcing a woman
sexually was correlated with the use of hard core, violent, and rape pornography. The
likelihood of raping a woman was correlated with the use of all types of pornography,
including soft-core pornography. All types of pornography other than soft core were
correlated with actual rape. Those reporting higher exposure to violent pornography are six
times more likely to report having raped than those reporting low exposure.
As well, one of the studies referenced in the paper above...
http://www.johnbriere.com/malamuth%20%26%20briere.pdf
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Oh wait, that's exactly wrong. Sorry.
In any case, for whatever it's worth, the minute I see inflamatory, insulting, and ludicrous phrases like "rape culture" I pretty much dismiss anything further the author might have to say.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)surprise.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)There might be "rape cultures" somewhere, several African and Mid East nations come to mind, but you are probably not posting from one. And yes, the term is used here in an effort to provoke an irritated response or denial, as is your response to me in this thread.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)A society where 1 out of 10 teenage girls report being pressured to have sex isn't rape culture. Where rape is considered a compliment isn't rape culture. (As many a feminist have been told - "You're too fat/ugly to rape!" Where being raped is an added deterrent to crime - prison rape is considered additional, justified punishment - isn't rape culture. Where trying to do something about rape is prejudicial against men, even tho men are 99% of the rapists, isn't rape culture. Where women are being told to be careful about what they wear, how much they drink, where they go, because men cannot control themselves, isn't rape culture. Where women are 9 times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger isn't rape culture. Where women are tasked with the burden of rape prevention, of taking self defense classes and not walking alone out in the dark and be more aware because telling men not to rape is unjust to men isn't rape culture. Elected politicians talking about legitimate rape, and rapist musicians and athletes and directors are being lauded and victims being hounded and harassed to the (literal) death and women speaking out about misogyny and receiving rape and death threats and men pasting their girlfriends heads on nude models and sending the photoshop jobs to websites and their employers and where women cannot walk past a construction site without being harassed and where a guy gets 1 year or no time in prison for raping underage girls isn't rape culture.
You know what? Being raped is just as bad whether you're in Congo or in Connecticut. The fear of rape might be easier to hide in Connecticut than in Congo, but that doesn't mean it isn't there for a great number of us. We just have to go on some of the threads here at DU to read the posts of plenty of DUers that get their rocks off by watching women being raped...oh, sorry, seemingly being raped, because of course as long as there's a disclaimer at the start of the vid it's just pretend, natch. All women don't have to be raped for them to live in a rape culture - there just have to be a constant threat of it. And that constant threat benefit men so much they are very loath to admit it exists, because then they would have to examine their privilege, and they don't like to do that. Better to keep those pesky feminists down by dismissing them out of hand, right?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i just crawled into bed.
you must have just crawled out.
awesome woman.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)And was met with a typical denial of rape culture and a refusal to actually listen to women who experience it. Sharia law states outright that a woman's witness is worth just half that of a man, if that, but men in our culture just refuse to listen to women, and dismisses what she says. Of course, if we have been raped, we cannot ever participate in a discussion about rape or rape culture, because we're too emotional (read: hysterical.)
To meet this at a purportedly progressive website... I'm getting more and more disillusioned, but thank you for the cheer-up!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Including such labels as Christian Conservative Culture, Welfare Culture, Women's Empowerment Through Education Culture, Reproductive Rights Culture, Male Persecution Through Incarceration Culture... you name it, it probably fits your rather loose standard.
But I will leave it up to you to prove your claim. Here's my challenge to you and the reader:
Name even a single movie in which the hero is a rapist, or in which rape is promoted as acceptable, or in which even domestic violence is promoted as noble behavior. I suspect you cannot.
Now name a movie in which the rapist is condemned or punished for his crime. You have already thought of one.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)A History of Violence - Maria Bello's character runs from her husband, he grabs her, pulls her down and rapes her. It is presented as fight f&%#ing, of course, but that is just one example of "sex" where the man overpowers a woman and she is supposed to like it.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)encouraging him to rape her while she was unconscious???
zappaman
(20,606 posts)he was alone with her and a devil popped up on one shoulder while an angel popped up on the other.
you can guess what each urged him to do.
in the end, he did not have sex with her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)didnt he later have sex with the 13 yr old on the football field? and wouldnt that be rape thru lack of consent with age?
i really do not remember. has been a couple decades since seeing.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)what on earth are you talking about?
she consented but that's rape?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Cause of age. Did he do her?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but just watched "The Haunting Of... Patrick Muldoon"...in this episode Frank Zappa's ghost came through to the medium..It's the first time I have seen an episode of "The Haunting Of...", when Zappa was being channeled I thought the whole show had to be parody...apparently it isn't sold that way..
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I have to see that.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Zappa's son..
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Must find! WTF?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I couldn't remember how they were related..just that it was about one of Zappa's kids having difficulties having a baby and Frank telling the medium that he (Frank) "is working on it"...LOL
zazen
(2,978 posts)A Doris Day/Rock Hudson madcap bedroom romp?
There has definitely been progress in the past 10 years in raising awareness in Hollywood such that you probably don't see rape, coercion, pressure, etc., glorified. I'm grateful for that.
The pervasiveness of violent internet porn and its effects on pubescent kids, in addition to the harms against those used in its making in the first place, are still of great concern.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)It was just natural to put wives in their places - and it wasn't rape when you were married to your rapist. Of course, you still have countries, even in Europe., where if the rapist marries his victim it isn't considered rape.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)but we can all agree that 13-year old girls are proper sacrifices for the great artists.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)In Goldfinger (1965), James Bond raped Pussy Galore, and it even converted her from lesbian to heterosexual.
gopiscrap
(23,758 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Africa Erotica
Asian Uncensored Rape caribean (apparently spelling isn't a requirement for titling rape porn)
Capture Of 6 Shibuya Gals
Brutal Japanese rape water torture
Hell Hath No Fury
Rape Zombie Lust Of The Dead
The Serial Rape-Murderer
Women of Valour CD1
Verzurrt And Gefickt
Fetish FAQ Chapter One
Princess Donna Day Two
The Perverted Side Of Sin
Initiation Of Claire Castel
Live-In Slave 4
Cellar Of Punishment
Bitch In A Boot
Sgt. Major Bondage Classics 3
Humiliee Et Abusee Sur Son Lieu De Travail
Breaking All Ties
Crimson Chess Dungeon
Sex Slave Debbie
Slave 2
Bizarre Games
Big Tom
秘密潜入捜査官 板垣あずさ 凌辱拘束尋問アクメ 板垣あずさ Azusa Itagaki
MAD-177 MAD GAME 7TH 美少女巨乳編 桐谷ユリア Yuria Kiritani HD
極・縛馬 其の二 一ノ瀬アメリ Ameri Ichinose STM-016 HD
極・縛馬 其の八 春日由依 Yui Kasuga STM-049
Altar Of Lust 1971
Asalto y violacion en la calle 69 1991
Bad Girls Go To Hell 1965
Beautiful Teacher In Torture Hell 1985
Beautys Exotic Dance Torture! 1977
Behind Locked Doors 1968
Black city 1982
Bleading Lady 2010
Black Blooded Brides of Satan 2009
That is about 10% of the films listed on one website. I could go on all night.
There are hundreds of thousands if not millions.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)美少女巨乳編 桐谷ユリア
Means:
Yuria Kiritani: Young woman with beautiful big breasts version
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You have been checkmated on your challenge. Epic fail.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)The term "rape culture" means that we live in a culture where rape is excused or accepted. Everyone is affected by the rape culture, even if by subtle ways. Not everybody in the rape culture is a rapist. In fact, there doesn't have to be that many rapists for there to be a rape culture - it's the attitudes society has about rape that make a rape culture, not the rapists themselves.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I understand that this is politically correct and sensitive to say, but it's also silly. Let's consider...
No one rational would claim that we have a "Gay Culture" here in America, yet the media is absolutely filled with positive homosexual role models, prominent public figures (including right wingers like Dick Cheney) regularly speak out in favor of gay rights and equal treatment, public sentiment is rapidly swinging towards complete acceptance, and a wave of gay rights legislation is sweeping the nation. But it's damn sure not a Gay Rights Culture. Not yet.
Now compare all that with the crime of rape. Pretty important word in that last sentence, right? None of these things are happening with regards to rape or violence against women. Politicians and actors are not taking to the stage to extoll the virtues of rape, you don't see heroic characters on television getting in a quick round of wife beating set to canned laughter, the public overwhelmingly rejects real violence against anyone at all -- let alone women, and rape is widely considered one of the most horrific crimes imaginable. Nor are ANY states rushing to legalize any of it and if a politician even proposed something that batshit crazy they would be out of office before the week was out. Our society rejects rape. Period. We like our cars and our wars and our fast food and our guns, and you could say that any of these things define our culture. But rape? Not even close.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Wow, I wish I lived in the same world you did!
the media is absolutely filled with positive homosexual role models, prominent public figures (including right wingers like Dick Cheney) regularly speak out in favor of gay rights and equal treatment, public sentiment is rapidly swinging towards complete acceptance, and a wave of gay rights legislation is sweeping the nation. But it's damn sure not a Gay Rights Culture. Not yet.
Media filled with positive homosexual role models.... conservatives speaking out positively for gays... gay rights legislation sweeping the nation...
Now I understand why you cannot see that you live in a society that has a rape culture - you live in Neverland!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and there you go.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Our rape culture is quite the opposite - while rape is mostly condemned in the US, there's also a quiet acceptance of it. Rape victims are often bullied and not believed - even by the police. We're still a slut-shaming culture with a "boys will be boys" attitude. You may not see rape openly laughed at on TV, but being a victim and trying to get justice is a whole different story. The rape victim is always on trial too - sometimes even more than the rapist.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Some people don't even SEE it when it's right in front of them!
Imagine that!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Rape. And I could give a rat's ass if you feel insulted. I feel insulted by your willful denial of reality.
Rape culture is a concept that links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society,[1] and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape.[2]
Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)except in the form of pornography for their own arousal. They have turned denying reality into an art.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it bemuses me that one would pick rape porn as the nail to drive home the issue of the 1st amendment.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and screw her, and the very popular opinion on du that no one should feel ick, shame a man or value judge the man buying little girls used underwear in a vending machine.
we get the gest of your "popular" beliefs.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)sex with children is illegal ergo child porn is illegal.
murder is illegal ergo snuff porn is illegal.
rape is illegal ergo rape porn ____________________________ .
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)They defend free speech which may include depictions of rape. You may think it's abhorrent, but so are Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, and lots of other people that the ACLU has defended. Once you go down the road of suppressing free speech based on the flimsiest of evidence, there is no end to it. It doesn't take a porn freak or a Nazi to understand that.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and itis akin to yelling house on fire false alarm. you don't think so but, it is. hide and watch. it will happen. the ACLU will figure it out. They are not stupid and they are already working to figure out how to get out of this.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)watch all the soon to be illegal rape porn you want.
if that is what it takes for you to get off, more power to you.
that you choose this battle as your choice and path in life?
cool beans, dude.
I wish you love and light, peace and happiness.
Good night.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If I wanted to be just as disingenuous, I could say that by defending this OP, you are supporting homophobes which is actually far closer to reality given that the Witherspoon Institute is a front group for the worst sort of haters. However, it's been my experience that those who employ guilt by association fallacies rarely accept mirror arguments.
Cheers!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Understand this: I don't care what you do, what you watch, or who you do it with.
I care so little about your thoughts, desires and/or, needs -- you can not even begin to fathom how little I care about your thoughts and/or opinions on this or any other subject. You are a grown man. You need, want, desire nothing from me.
Just stay away from me. period.
End of discussion.
End of whatever DU back and forth we ever had ... forever.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous and furthermore you did it again in the very same message you claimed you weren't doing it. Seems like the need is to pathologize those who don't agree with you rather than trying to engage in substantive discussion. If that's the case you're doing us both a favor by not engaging.
Just sayin'
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)There is no substantive discussion to be had between you and I.
As for the rest of what you have to say to me, why bother?
Seems like you are taking my inventory based on the fact that I don't care for rape porn and you do.
Go find some other woman to play those games with you.
I am given to understand there are many (some right here on DU) who would love to live out a rape fantasy.
I conceded several posts back that I will not change you mind about it. I have no power to change the laws today or tomorrow.
So, I really do not get why you are being so insistent about this subject with me.
What is it with you - that you continue this subthread. Makes no sense to me.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Me:
You:
Me:
You:
Me:
You:
You:
Put words in the mouth of someone else while simultaneously and erroneously claiming someone else is putting words in yours.
Brilliant!
Now we are done, or at least I am and unlike you I can assure you that I mean it. Feel free to continue to be duplicitous.
Cheers!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that is why YOU are the duplicitous ONE.
not ME.
really, I am to believe that somehow mine and your 1st amendment rights are being eroded if this one small subset of supposedly fictional porn is to be regulated and or outlawed.
I am leaving for work shortly.
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #231)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Organized by:
The Research Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy of the Witherspoon Institute
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/summer/suspect-science
Robert George and NOM:
Princeton, N.J.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage in state legislatures, was organized in 2007 by conservative syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton University politics professor Robert George. George is an influential Christian thinker who co-authored the 2009 Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto developed after a New York meeting of conservative church leaders that promises resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same sex marriage.
NOMs first public campaign was in 2008, supporting Californias Proposition 8, which sought to invalidate same-sex marriage in that state.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners
Just sayin'
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Snuff features ACTUAL killing. Child porn features ACTUAL children. No one is suggesting that film portrayals of actual rape be legal, yet these threads don't go more than a few posts before someone makes the extremely dishonest and stupid assertion that there are people here who want to see actual rapes. Considering that we've had dozens of these threads and stupid suggestions like that are incessantly thrown about, you've lost on numerous counts. Maybe try having a discussion without relying solely on strawmen and maybe you'll get somewhere.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Cause that's the argument you're making.
I would run from someone I knew got off on seeing children abused in cartoons.
I would run from someone I knew got off on seeing women abused in movies.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)What you are suggesting is a thought crime. How are you supposed to know when the cartoon is a child? Are you going to bring out doctors in court explaining to juries how old cartoons are? Making such things illegal would be horrifically awful. You probably should run from someone who would watch such cartoons, but making them illegal would be even sicker.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If you are having trouble finding the confidence to get started, that's easy to fix too. PRETEND. You think Brad Pitt is really as "cool" as he seems in the movies? You think Tom Cruise really does the impossible? Hell no. It's called acting. So the next time you're feeling nervous ACT like one of these guys. Ask yourself how James Bond would ask out this woman, and do that. Believe it or not, that's how you build successful habits. And for Cthuhlu's sake don't fall in love with the first chick that you win. You're a wolf, a predator, so keep hunting.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)fuck the woman... care? snort. fuck her. treat her like a thing to be used.
i suppose she "earns" it by giving a stranger a bj and taking the 50. that is this posters interpretation of women earning respect. totally amazing
oh wait. that is along the lines of lecturing duers that grown men buy girls soiled underwear in a vending machine should be approached with out and ick factor. you know, no shaming. do NOT hold any value judgment. cause grown men getting off sniffy girls used underwear is a good thing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Same person who said feminists were the same as Fred Phelps.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)administration. suggesting treating ALL women as prostitutes is not misogyny?
clue me in. what am i missing.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Where is there no pornography?
A person has to be willfully oblivious to not figure out we live in a rape culture. But then if someone's advice to a friend looking to find a partner is to start offering women $10 for a bj, that says a great deal about how they view women. Rape culture is blaming a victim for her own rape, shaming her on social media to the point she commits suicide. Rape culture is a 4% conviction rape for rapists. It's 30 day sentences for child rapists and no prison time for raping a 13 yr old girl, with a judge calling her the "predator." Rape culture is the eroticization of rape through brutal pornography. Rape culture is men who insist on silencing women about rape. Rape culture is victim blaming and people who think the most offensive thing about rape is not the effect of the crime on victims, but that they might see women write about "rape culture." How awful for you. The trauma of being confronted with a woman who speaks her mind truly is awful.
Mix all that in with opposition to those radical EEOC laws passed decades ago, that's the trifecta.
The only thing ludicrous is your insistence on denying the most obvious reality. The question is why?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)So many movies and TV shows have men kidnaping, stalking, and killing women, even if there is not sexual violence involved. It normalizes violence against women in general by men.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)These situations are usually utilized not as a point of horror for the victim, but as a call to action for the male protagonist. "Someone killed my girlfriend, now I'm out for revenge." It casts the woman not only as an object to be acted upon, but as literal property of her male other.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)had an almost rape or rape.
i swear that man was obsessed with rape.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Either they could be the victim, or they could be the reward. And since the whole idea of "Gritty westerns" was to abolish the "fairy tale" vibe of older films, the latter was actually kind of rare, leaving all the weight in the "victim" category.
The abused woman was basically scenery; she served to tell the audience that this was a dangerous and morally void society where life and honor are both cheap - again, as a direct challenge to the earlier works in the genre, with white hats and silver stars. With the abused woman in this role, you didn't have to put any writing into setting the environment, you didn't have to establish, you just had to have a victim get victimized and that was it.
Basically rape was utilized for budget concerns and to spare the audience about twenty minutes of exposition and development.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Rape was at the core of the plot. He directed that one. In this case the protagonist was female (Sondra Locke) and rape (gang rape in this case) was the motivation to a bunch of extrajudicial killing.
Now that I think of it, Gran Torino (which he also directed) used sexual assault as the final straw which motivated his ultimate act.
Both films used sexual assault as a vehicle for commentary on the perceived failure of the justice system, which was, I think, the main point of the Dirty Harry series.
To me those plot devices make no sense if they can't produce outrage, and a feeling of vengeance in the target audience (and I suspect the target demographic for the Dirty Harry movies was male).
Kind of went off on a tangent with this one, quite normal for me...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Eastwood saw the president murder a woman.
Thanks for your posts seabeyond. I don't always agree with everything but they always make me think.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)For that reason, I don't think that it fits the message that you're going for.
You might instead consider Tightrope, a non-Dirty-Harry film about a cop tracking a murderer of prostitutes who may or may not be the cop himself.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)
i knew absolute was not quite there, but kinda border... as you say, started with concent, ended in abuse, attempted rape and death
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)The film was based on the book written by David Balducci. Though the sex was consensual the violence was not. I'm glad I never saw the film. Clint Eastwood in the role of the burglar that witnesses the incident would have ruined the story for me.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Not the book.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the violence, her trying to get away. so no. the abuse was not consent, really, at any point.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Not sure what movie I was thinking of, but now that you mention it, Hackman's character wound up stabbing her to death with a letter opener because she resisted him.
My mistake entirely.
[font color="red"]ETA: The film was Crichton's largely forgettable Rising Sun[/font]
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)There's no point to be made since Eastwood had nothing to do with how that was written. That was Balducci who wrote the book the film is based on. All Eastwood did was make a movie of a book that was a huge bestseller. The attempted rape and murder by the secret service that the character of the burglar witnesses was the point here, and since Eastwood had nothing to do with that there's no connection in this argument about Eastwood - it WASN'T Eastwood's concept but Balducci's who conceived the idea and wrote it.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)Westerns are set in the past. And in the past even more so than the present women really were treated as property. While there are many examples of women in history who took an active role in public life, the norm and the usual cultural expectation was that they would be passed from man to man, at best from loving father to loving husband. That sort of oppressive patriarchy really did dictate the lives of the vast majority of women.
So, those movies can also be seen as exposing an outdated, cruel and stupidly backwards way of thinking, if one looks at them from a slightly different angle, so to speak.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)that is clearly meant to be admired and that includes treating women as property. The good women are usually killed at the beginning, as an impetus for the hero (this is called fridging them, as it is a very typical trope) and any other good women are prostitutes or nuns. Whore or madonna, anyone? Not the healthiest view of women. And these films show values that culture thinks is good or important for men - willing to do violence when "necessary", not talking about ones feelings, being a lone wolf, breaking rules should they be too cumbersome etc. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood portray a really warped view on what it means to be a man, but they have impacted whole generations of men.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)while having babies, lol
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)ever see high plains drifter?
Response to seabeyond (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)""Someone killed my girlfriend, now I'm out for revenge."
" It casts the woman not only as an object to be acted upon, but as literal property of her male other." -
while i agree with your point of view...it is mainly seen as "you took someone i love..now i will took someone you love or may be i will directly kill you"
I agree that in real world, no one will literally start killing other person in that situation. It is over the top..but most of the films are same like that nowadays.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Founded in 2003 by Robert P. George and others,[3][4][2] the institute is named after John Witherspoon.[1] It shares many scholars with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.[2] Fellows include Chen Guangcheng, Harold James, John Joseph Haldane, W. Bradford Wilcox, and James R. Stoner, Jr.[5]
The Witherspoon Institute opposes same-sex marriage[6] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[7] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography at Princeton University in December 2008.[citation needed]
Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.[2]
The institute publishes an online journal called Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good.[8]
_________
This is a really conservative bunch, and just look at the donor foundations. Strange bedfellows we have here.
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)We will support our argument with a right-wing institute research who opposes Same-sex marriage, abortion, Stem-cell research, who constantly attack LBGT Families with their fake research studies, promotes globalization etc,,,...but yeah....they support a BAN on pornography...so yeah...they must have done this research correctly as this is our argument. Who cares about what they have stand on abortion...it is just a nonsensical feminist and women rights issue...we just care about banning porn...it doesn't matter if they have done 100s of fake research studies..they have done this study correctly and scientifically...it should be banned..
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And the paper, I believe, is not directly attributable to the Witherspoon institute. They simply linked to it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)With social conservatives even though radical feminists can absolutely be antiporn. Or, at least, against pornography in its current state.
I don't know much about the researcher who published the paper in the OP. But upon checking her university credentials, they seemed legitimate.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #83)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I never suggested otherwise.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #272)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)When nothing could be further from the truth. Even scientific fields considered rather straight forward, like physics, are rife with bias and agenda.
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)Also you quoted 4 paragraphs from it.
Also the research is done by Mary Anne Layden who is a long known anti-porn activist and also is a member of Anti-pornography organization...Of-course she will be non-biased while creating her report...
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Everyone is bias. The paper is an opinionated explanation using relevant studies. Anti pornography is not always bad.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The Witherspoon Institute is a homophobic shitbag organization which includes links to Prop 8 campaigns and funding homophobic junk science.
The anti-pornographer who authored your study said, and I shit you not, that the more porn women watch, the more likely they are to be raped.
And you write this sort of tripe off as "everyone has bias"
So whether you didn't know about it or not, you certainly didn't self-delete once you did know about it.
Very telling that.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Either way, I lose and there will be someone complaining.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Kinda shows what passes for knowledge by you so long as it coincides with your ideology. Amazing you'd think you are so well read on the subject. The same author describes a study in which a rat evidently died of erotoxins from pleasuring itself to death, compares porn to crack, is a slut-shamer and ally of Judith Reisman, another far right wing purveyer of junk science who peddle their idiocy in hopes of receiving millions in grant money from Republican members of congress so they can fund more of their shit for brains studies. But hey, everyone is biased, right? It's all good.
Dr. Mary Anne Layden explained how a pornographic image is burned into the brain's pathways. "That image is in your brain forever," she explained. "If that was an addictive substance, you, at any point for the rest of your life, could in a nanosecond draw it up." Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, called on the Senate to take action against pornography, saying it's time to mandate that law enforcement begin to collect all data and pornographic materials found in the possession of anyone involved in criminal activity. Doing so, she added, would yield data showing whether pornography is being used as a how-to manual for sex crimes.
Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality echoed Layden's concern about the internet and the somatic effects of pornography. "Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause direct release of the most perfect addictive substance," Satinover said. "That is, it causes masturbation, which causes release of the naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can't do, in effect."
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And, like I said, there's always someone who will be unhappy.
I haven't posted anything suggesting erotoxins exist. That premise sounds quite absurd. Nor have I stated pornography should be banned. Nor have I stated masturbation is addictive or bad in any way.
I am deeply critical of modern pornography as a conduit for overt sexism and racism.
You have an agenda easily as strong as mine. So don't try to feed me a pile of garbage that this is a crusade against incorrect sources. It's not. I know the ideology you espouse. I know what you have to say on the subject. I know you think systemic sexism is a myth. So your attempts to conflate my ideological beliefs with homophobia or antisex sentiment are at face value utter BS.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)All I really know about you is the sources you reference, and you obviously know next to nothing about me or what I believe. Whether you realize it or not, it is possible to believe in the idea of "systemic sexism" without being an anti-pornographer. Many are, including many feminists. Since this concept seems to be foreign to you it only goes to show how much you don't know, but think you do.
If you value your own relevance, you should either check your sources, or at the very least acknowledge that they are bogus when such things are pointed out. If you want to continue to defend them, be my guest. You aren't the first anti-pornographer to channel far right wing garbage and I'm sure you won't be the last. And whether you realize it or not there's a lot of it out there which masquarades as legit and does come from right wing homophobic/misogynist sources as you have discovered. You can either learn from that or stand a good chance of repeating your mistake. However the body of real evidence that's out there does not support your assertions, so I'm not sure you'll be happy with that either.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)REALLY!
DU seems to be very enlightening today LOL
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I guess if you have to be a lab rat there are worse ways to go.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You copy the OP into a post, then self-delete the OP. That way at least the record is intact, no one can claim it said anything it didn't, but the thread is shut down.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Thank you.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)If rape porn makes rapists, then violent video games make murders.
If rape porn makes rapists, then violent movies make murders.
If rape porn makes rapists, then violent music makes murders.
If rape porn makes rapists, then...
You get my point.
Edit - In case you don't, it's that if you give credence to one form of entertainment (And I use this term loosely, but focused toward simulated rape porn between two consenting adults) causing a specific form of violence (IE - Rape porn creating rapists) then you also give credence to to any argument that fulfills the same basis - That is, a specific form of entertainment, causing a specifc (but relatable) action. In this case, violent video games (where you can kill simulated characters) would create murders.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Lancero
(3,003 posts)All the wars we have fought. How many have died in those wars - How many have been killed. Look throughout our history - Of all the murders committed.
I don't know about you, but that would point to a natural, and instinctive, desire to kill each other.
In any event, it's not our nature or instincts that determine who we are - Its how well we can control them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)who we are.
you are really going to argue that you see no difference between the two?
i am tired of people arguing so strongly a flawed argument when it is staring at them in the face.
if you cannot even acknowledge the difference between sex and murder, then done. there is no reasonable exchange of conversation and a waste of time.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Sex between two people. Forceful and without consent, but still sex.
So does this make rape a healthy part of who we are? Or do we recognize that this form of sex is wrong, and not a healthy part of who we are?
That said, their once was a time when we considered murder to be right. Do the Crusades ring a bell? You know - To kill a heretic is not murder? At this point in our history, we considered the murder of some to be right.
We've grown since those times and can now recognize murder as wrong, but if your going to argue that "we can easily recognize a action as wrong" then how can you explain that our species once considered that action, in some cases, to be right?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)now. define rape. is it really rape. was she asking for it. doesnt he deserve it, he paid for dinner. girls no really means yes. give her plenty of booze, then he will get it. he is married to her, she has to give it to him. she dressed like she wanted it. doesnt a man have to coerce, that really isnt rape. she was unconscious, she didnt say no. she was asleep, she didnt say no. so she is 12, she was taunting me. she wanted it.
need i go on and on. in a rape culture that continually promotes rape.
Response to Lancero (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Orrex
(63,208 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nothing to do with rape. why call it a "rape" fantasy, when it is all bout scripting a bunch of role play to have sex? but, we blur the line with sex with rape. that is where the issue is and my point.
sex is natural. but then throwing in rape as a norm, with all kinds of cutsey ways to make it fun ect....
where as murder... is murder. clearly a wrong
and ya, ... for those that want to pull away from a general discussion, with all things there are exceptions.
you are taking a very natural part of who we are
with murder you are not taking a very natural part of who we are
Orrex
(63,208 posts)It's certainly been a part of who we are as a species for as far back as we're able to determine. If it's not a "natural" part of us, then what is it?
I am also not yet persuaded that the portrayal of a fantasy version of a thing necessarily leads to an acceptance or normalization of the real version of that thing. Violent video games are the classic example; everyone I know has played them, and some of those people--both male and female--play them for literally hours each day. None of those people has committed assault as a result, much less murder, and these are first-person shooter games that they're playing. If an immersive you-are-there fantasy simulation doesn't lead to a real-world manifestation of a behavior, then I'm skeptical that a third-party portrayal of a fantasy simulation would more readily compel someone to act out the fantasy.
Further, to the extent that a person would act out the fantasy at all, it seems more likely to me (though I disclaim that I have no supporting data) that the person would seek out others with compatible fantasies, rather than imposing those fantasies upon unwilling victims.
This assumes a stable mind, of course. An unstable mind might indeed be more inclined to act out upon a victim, but that's a problem with the person rather than the fantasy medium.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Orrex
(63,208 posts)By that same logic, the following are also unnatural:
Veganism
Artistic ability
Brown hair
Straight teeth
Gender equality
An act or characteristic or behavior need not be universal (nor even widespread) in order to be natural.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)booyah.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)We could also look a bit deeper and observe that not everything that is natural is good, just as not everything that is unnatural is bad, though it can be argued that, as natural beings, anything that humans do is by definition natural.
It's certainly a hell of a lot more complicated than "rape porn leads to rape."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)role
adn you put that along side of all people eating, drinking, breathing air and having sex.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I assert that murder (and, by extension, violence in general) is a part of who we are as a species, at least insofar as it has always been evident in our species. The trait need not manifest in every member of the species in order to be natural; that would be a preposterous demand, as evidenced by the list of by-your-logic "unnatural" aspects of humanity that I provided.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)drinking and shitting.
i repeated it.
you say i lie.
i do not know how, but, hardly a lie if that is what i read in your posts.
thanks for that jab
done
Orrex
(63,208 posts)In fact, I glibly accepted your summary of my argument--a summary that you perhaps intended as ironic but which winds up being rather close to demonstrable reality.
Let us reformulate your summation this way: eating, elimination, procreation/fornication, and interaction--both violent and non-violent--are part of who we are not as individuals but as a species.
I would be very interested to see an argument that refutes this.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is in us to murder. you said that.
i disagree. i think the vast majority of us do not commit the act nor have the impulse to murder.
so again. cleared that up. people can decide as they read.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)As a species, we have an impulse to violence. Perhaps not to initiate violence, but the impulse is there nonetheless.
Even in you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Orrex
(63,208 posts)If someone were to attempt to harm your child, would you sit by passively while that person inflicted harm?
Or would you seek to stop that person, engaging in violence if necessary?
You would not, in that case, be initiating violence, but it is incorrect to say that violence is not a part of who we are as a species.
My point is served.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to survive. it does not make it innate.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)And how a person might be shown to have an "innate" capacity for violence versus a "practical" capacity for it?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)breathing, eating, shitting, and having sex? yes.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Some quick Googling puts the number somewhere around 60 million, give or take. How many people are you willing to write off while still calling a characteristic "innate?"
Regardless, perhaps we should distinguish between fundamental, biological drives (eating/shitting) and inherent behavioral phenomena (sexual activity, violence).
And you didn't answer the question: how are we to distinguish substantively between an "innate" capacity for violence as opposed to a "practical" capacity for violence?
This may seem like a trivial digression, but in fact it's fairly central to the issue at hand, the assertion that fictional rape imagery inclines society toward rape-tolerance.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)all this gratuitous violence against women has an effect on men and women. And not a good effect.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Requires cause.
And the cause is choice - The choice, choices, that a person makes.
We like to point fingers at everything, we try to put the blame on anything but ourselves.
In the end, it always comes down to a person, and what they choose to do.
Rape has existed since before we bothered to record our history. It isn't a modern thing. It's not something that was created in response to the media that we watch, that we listen to, that we play. It has, and always will be, something that a person chooses to do.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)What am I missing here?
Lancero
(3,003 posts)The choice isn't be raped - But to rape.
No one chooses to be raped. But their are those that choose to rape.
Then again, if you had paid attention to my post, specifically the end, you would have seen that I have already said that.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)sorry. I am sure you do not think that the right to rape needs to be protected or glorified.
So, I am confused.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Cause and effect isn't really the best way to put it, but it is the closest thing I can use to describe it.
The issue with the choices a person makes is that many of those choices will pull in other people - People that would rather have nothing to do with that choice.
In this case, a person making the choice to rape. This choice pulls in another person - his victim. They never would have chosen to be raped, but as a result of someone else's choice, they have/could have been. (Figured I better put this as well, but the could have been describes cases where the victim manages to fight off their attacker.)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"Those reporting higher exposure to violent pornography are six times more likely to report having raped than those reporting low exposure."
becomes
"Those six times more likely to have raped reported higher exposure to violent pornography."
In other words, cause and effect are completely reversed.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Violent urges could be causing them to consume violent porn. Violent porn might be causing them to have violent urges.
Or there is another third variable causing both of those things and neither of them has a casual effect on the other.
The third variable problem, bane too all poor correlation jumps to conclusions.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is far more perverse and sickening to me than the most disgusting consensual sex act or pornography imaginable.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)best for other people and therefore get to tell people what to do.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Both feminists and the far-right want to control what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms.
Scary times....scary times.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Rallies and tar and feather people for consentual acts.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)There are many real feminists at DU both sides of this issue but's only a very vocal few pseudo-feminists who are trying to demand that everyone must walk in lockstep with them.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)people don't want to be called feminists no matter how much they believe in gender equality.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Because I understand what a feminist really is. It's someone who believes in the empowerment of women, not someone who believes they need to be told what they can and can't do with their bodies.
There are many problems with the way in which many producers obtain and use the women in their productions, similar to strip clubs and prostitution, but the answer isn't banning them, it is building a society in which women aren't forced into work they despise in order to survive.
Women should never be forced into work they find morally reprehensible out of desperation, but some women, like some men, really do find sex work to be liberating and enjoyable. They should be free to make that decision.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)What I'm seeing from the "BAN PORN" crowd isn't feminism, but something that resembles a group pretending to be feminists based on what they heard about "feminism" from listening to Rush Limbaugh, and playing to the stereotype of "feminazis".
Sorry, not buying it. The right-wing "academic" sources they're using just shows that their masks slipped.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Maybe next we can get some rousing Focus on the Family articles as well.
Ah, anti-porn ideologues. Where the Martinet Left and Radical Right can both persecute sexuality together.
I swear to god, we're like five threads away from seeing Peter LaBarbera shit being posted around here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)produced when people look at pictures of other naked, sexy people.
Otherwise known as "Erotoxins" - YES BE VEWWWWWY VEWWWWY AFWAID OF THE DWEAD EWOTOXINS
Yeah, Judith Reisman. She is also is a major religious right nutjob, has blamed Gay people for the Holocaust, that kind of stuff.
But her shit gets floated and promoted on DU because she's the only "scientist" in the Solar System who will claim that a naked picture of Veronika Zemanova is, quote, "1000 times more addictive than heroin".
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I knew it sounded like sea had latched onto something and was regurgitating, but I wasn't aware where it came from.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Reisman is a wackjob, and a particularly nasty homophobic bigot. If I were a churchgoer (and hell, even *I* celebrate Christmas) I would be offended as shit at the implied equivalency, there.
But apparently only thing that matters is Reisman's heroics in TRYING TO OUTLAW PICTURES OF NEKKID WOMEN LIKE TEH DANGEROUS DRUGS THAT THEY ARRRE!!!!!
SAVE US!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Is somebody saying that in the echo chamber now?? Sweet Jeebus.. talk about jumping the shark
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)A scientist? Put a photo and a bag of dope in front of an addict, and without being a "scientist" I can tell you what they're going for.
Unbelievable.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Blames Nazism on a core group of homosexuals who fetishized military culture and sexual cruelty. quite the raging sicko.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)I'm using Erotoxin.
Veronika is fetching, but what I really need is for someone to filter Emily Ratajkowski out of the Internet. I don't know why the fundamentalists don't recruit her for reparative therapy, because she is chipping away the gay in my household.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Yeah, I hear you. She's awfully attractive.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)"Reisman is also a visiting professor of law at Liberty University, despite the fact that she received her Ph.D in Communications. She is also Liberty Counsels favored expert on issues pertaining to sexuality, and her advice was endorsed by Rick Santorum, who also supported a ban on pornography.[4]"
Yeah right, I bet she is good friends with that nasty piece of work Babs
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)It's disgusting that this garbage is posted here. I'm not an alert hog though, and I think it reflects badly on certain posters, so by all means, leave it and let people know where you really stand.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)he must be furiously scouring the web for cites to back up his claim that don't come from disgusting, ignorant, homophobic right wing fucksticks.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Or it could be I was asleep like a normal human being. And then I've been at work. I know, crazy, right?
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)"Rape pornography teaches men" - Men who thinks that porn is a type of teaching and they should do the same in real life are dumb.
"He can conclude that her resistance is a sham and is part of a sex dance that leads to orgasm" - Any conclusion he can get is a dumb conclusion. He needs serious help if he concludes like that.
"The likelihood of raping a woman was correlated with the use of all types of pornography,
including soft-core pornography" - Ok..if everyone agrees on this study...why do we support to ban violent pornography? Why not ban porn all together because even soft-core pornography was co-related to raping a woman.
"It found that all types of
pornography (soft core, hard core, violent, and rape) are correlated with using verbal
coercion, drugs " - So softcore pornography also forces man in using drugs and verbal issues. Yeah, so it makes sense to ban porn together.
"alcohol (co-related) to sexually coerce women" - Yeah...ban alcohol..it is not only used by man to sexually coerce women, it is the cause of drunk-driving accidents and so on..what things.
"All types of pornography other than soft core were correlated with actual rape" - So ban all porn expect softcore but there is still correlation between softcore porn and raping a woman according to previous sentence.
THE STUDY YOU ARE QUOTING WAS DONE IN 1986. EVEN BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTERS, INTERNET AND DVDs for many. THUS, MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WERE CONSUMING SEXUAL VIOLENCE THROUGH TV, FILMS ETC...
And above all, i do not accept any research done by a right wing institute : Witherspoon Institute who oppose same-sex marriage, abortion and stem-cell research.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... is that one form of visual content "causes a behavior" and that no others do?
How does that work?
More flamebait nonsense.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)There is reason Madison ave spends a fortune on advertising.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It is just another attempt by someone to control the free expression of others, apparently because they think their particular dislikes rate higher than other people's do.
I have yet to see any outrage over any other sort of violence in media that is FAR more prevalent and viewed by almost the entire population on a regular basis from them. I call that what it is, faux outrage, and nothing more than an insight towards their real agenda, a bitter and vindictive hatred of males in general.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)No, sex negative feminists do not hate men.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Is normative and destructive. It usually holds that pornography in its current state is misogynist. They either wish for the entire premise of porn to be re engineered, which is my position, or they reject pornography all together. The latter is usually reserved for conservatives.
Sex negativists also usually believe that sexual expression should always be egalitarian. At least that holds true for sex negative leftists.
I am a mix of sex positivism and negativism.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)If your explanation is correct, "commodification negative feminists" might be a more apt term.
Otherwise, scary images of Andrea Dworkin come to mind.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I certainly like what I've read of hers.
As far as PR goes, part of the counterculture movement is to eschew socially acceptable identities.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Dworkin also climbed in bed with the right wing homophobes in order to promote her cause.
Upton
(9,709 posts)The Commission's proposals for dealing with porn are hair-raising. They want stepped-up enforcement of existing obscenity laws; increased cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel and the IRS; and a computerized national database. They want forfeiture statutes, so that any proceeds from production of pornography can be confiscated. They want Congress to enact a statute that the distribution of obscene material "affects" interstate commerce. This would eliminate the necessity to prove transportation in interstate commerce in obscenity cases. According to the Commission, hiring individuals to participate in commercial sexual performances should be made an unfair labor practice. Transmission of obscene matter over cable TV and telephone lines should be proscribed. Obscenity should be made a predicate act for a group to be investigated under the frighteningly powerful Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and states should enact their own versions of RICO. All state legislatures should adopt the lower standard of proof of obscenity found in Miller v. California. [11] Pandering laws should be used against porn producers. Conditions within adult bookstores should be investigated and health violations prosecuted. Peep show booths should not be allowed to have doors or holes in the walls between the booths. Use of performers under the age of twenty-one should be forbidden by act of Congress, and producers, retailers, and distributors of sexually explicit material should be required to maintain records containing consent forms and proof of performers' ages. [12]
It was only by a very narrow margin that the Commission did not vote to recommend legislation that would have made vibrators and dildos obscene. Although the report admits that sexually explicit material which is text only (words) should usually be exempt from prosecution, Chairman Henry Hudson says in his individual statement that this exemption "is disturbing.
http://cultronix.eserver.org/califia/meese/
A man is known by the company he keeps...
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It really refers to the division of 2nd wave feminists between equity feminists and gender feminists, the former being the group that focuses on legal parity for women and the later is the group that tends to focus on pro-choice and anti-pornography. 3rd wave feminists also tend to identify as gender feminists.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the fuck said anything bout "oppressed males?" You want to oppress EVERYONE to suit YOUR militant view of the world, but your hatred for men is quite apparent and comes thru loud and clear.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Although I realise that's one of the most effective cliches against feminism. That it hates men. Save it for the men's rights meet and greets.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Sounds like a wonderful place to be. Where might one find such a gathering?
You don't hate men in much the same way I hear most other haters deny their hate also. Your agenda says otherwise.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Learn to not be the center of the universe.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Or do you specialize in strawman beating?
It really upsets you when a man won't let you bully him, doesn't it?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)An important aspect of a social or sexual hierarchy is that those of greater ranking possess access to those of lesser ranking.
In a male-centric society, men assume access to women at all times in various ways. Men also assume that in a male-centric society, favor is always paid to men. The greatness of men must always be recognized at one point or another.
What this means is any argument that doesn't base itself off the basic premises that men are great and that men have access to women is going to be challenged as man hating. And in order to even pass the supposed "smell test" of male chauvinists, you have to kiss the Kings feet, as you will.
In order to posit any idea that might implicate a mass of men in wrong doing, especially in wrong doing against women, you must preface it as not man-hating. In what other capacity is that a necessary prerequisite to a discussion? Most of those other examples revolve around dominant submissive relationships. Race, for instance, has similar rules.
Do not criticize the master before first paying him homage.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What a bunch of baloney.
Haters gotta hate.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)What a ridiculous thing to say.
Not at all surprising tho.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"male-centric society" does not mean men get access to women however and whenever they want, and even if it did that dynamic doesn't automatically exist in a smaller online community like DU. In fact, given that male directed sexism almost always gets a pass and the reverse is certainly not true it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that dynamic is not completely reversed or at the very least irrelevant.
If you want to further sexist stereotypes, go right ahead but please don't pretend you should automatically get a pass when someone calls bullshit. The patriarchy is not some convenient scapegoat one gets to use as an excuse for sexism. Denigrating all or most men is just as wrong as doing so for all or most women. It doesn't matter how you preface it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)If you haven't, for instance, studied political lesbianism or lesbian separatism, you aren't in a place to understand what I'm talking about.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)As you say, you aren't the first to come up with it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I can't dispute that. Your sources are unimpeachable.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)"PORNOGRAPHY CAUSES RAPE! BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN IT!"
"Um, actually, it doesn't. The numbers show otherwise..."
"YOU'RE AN ENABLER OF RAPE CULTURE!"
"You realize we have a First Amendment in this country, and you're talking about imprisoning people for engaging in consensual acts..."
[font size="4"]"YOU'RE AN EVIL WOMAN HATER! I SHOULD GET YOU BANNED!"[/font]
"No, that's not what I am at all. Let me explain my position again."
[font size="5"]"YOU'RE AN EVIL WOMAN HATER!"[/font]
"What is wrong with you? All I'm saying is that people engaged in consensual acts shouldn't face prison!"
[font size="6"]"DU IS INFESTED WITH MISOGYNISTIC TROLLS!"[/font]
"I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about consensual..."
[font size="7"]"I HOPE YOU DIE OF CANCER!"[/font]
The thread goes on for 1,000-5,000 posts, and ends when everyone else backs away slowly from the screaming crazy people.
Joel thakkar
(363 posts)You want proof that watching porn makes people rapist...Here it is
*Inserts a right wing institute website article who opposes same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell, supports globalization, clearly displays their hatred towards LGBT Families, is keen on bringing religion in politics etc...and provides a link to their studies about how porn (soft-core-hard-core-everything) turns man into raping monsters.*
"
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's just kind of annoying, until they proselytize MIRT.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Joel thakkar
(363 posts)Creating a thread with a right wing institute website, article and studies doesn't get hide in DU Jury...it is open with 3-3 votes on both sides.
*Let me now create a bunch of threads with right wing institute studies as source on different issues.*
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I'd like to see the results just to see how people justified keeping something from a RW site. I tend to usually let things stand, but always vote to hide if it's from a RW source...duh!
Like I said, consider the source/sources.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I think that is what we have. I saw another post successfully hidden this morning because the poster dared to say that most of the participants in "the knock-out game" were black. That appears to be true, but apparently, truth isn't enough to save a post from being hidden if it offends certain sensibilities.
Likewise, I had a post hidden in one of these rape threads because I drew a distinction between forceable rape and statutory rape. No violation of DU rules that I can figure out, no insults or name calling to anyone. Yet hidden.
In the present case, we have studies ginned up by rightist homophobes with a long pedigree of conservative bigotry, but they stand because they fit the political predilictions of the jurors.
The jury system is fucked up, but I don't know what to do about it.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And before guns, no one killed anyone else either.
Now, some might argue that per capita rape and murder as less now than before and we as a society have evolved, but none of that can be true because guns/porn.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)list of cites. Disgusted at the OP but I have a question. Do you also think that if I watch Gandhi I will become a self actualized leader of a peaceful revolution? If I watch only 1940's films about the selfless sacrifices of the discovering class, will I become Madame Curie or Dr Pature?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...given the number of love songs that have been written in the history of music, you'd think we'd all be having sex 24/7.
Or as he puts it:
"There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another."
Frank Zappa
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Yavin4
(35,438 posts)There are several mainstream movies, books, websites, blogs, etc. that could fall into this definition of violent porn.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Who better?
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Never entrust authority with those who sue for it.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Would that change anything for you? Just asking.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fact is, some folks are very upfront about their "sex-negativity", their opposition to "unnatural" acts like PIV, and the like.
Whether or not these positions are absurd, the fact is some folks seem to be adopting them, and self-labeling accordingly, in total seriousness.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They are outliers
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Rapists decide.
Where does a so-called "sex negative" feminist have power anywhere in this world?
Oh, you mean you might have to be exposed to the horror of a woman you disagree with speaking her mind? How awful for you.
"Sex negative feminists" is a slur, but I get your point. If we object to rape, torture, and mutilation of women, we're major buzz kills.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I managed to get half chapter in and thought... "Holy Crap this is terrible"
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Or at least the vast majority of it. The OP said he was a fan of Dworkin, who described heterosexual sex as coercive and violent.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Does not mean I agree wholeheartedly with EVERYTHING the author says.
That's part of being a mature intellectual.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Is both physically and verbally violent.
The fine line is what brings about uncertainty. But if we even have to raise the question, odds are fairly high whoever is producing the content should deeply reconsider the message they are attempting to convey.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There's also a lot of homophobic shitbags out there who should rethink their warped ideology as well, yet you seem to have no issues providing their sites with traffic. There are always going to be those out there who are producing content that is abhorent. That doesn't mean society needs to be reordered to deal with it. Free speech doesn't mean you have to like what everyone has to say. My basic rule is as long as consenting adults are doing it, it's not my position to tell them they can't regardless of whether there's a camera involved and someone else is watching it. There's already too many folks out there trying to force their version of morality on everyone else, including those you are channeling. That road leads to some very dark places. And those who claim they aren't for banning don't seem to have a very good answer for exactly what they are for other than wagging their fingers which doesn't seem to have accomplished much in the past 40 years or so.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I do not endorse banning pornography despite my agreement with much of the theorizing constructed by people like Andrea Dworkin.
I believe that making visible the violence, sexism and racism inherent in mainstream pornography, and critically analyzing it, is the best method of reducing its prevalence.
Hiding it, banning it, is actually an excellent way of making certain types of demented sexuality absolutely prolific. This is the fundamental idea people like Michel Foucault explain as a source of the multiplication of sexuality and sexual dialogue. It becomes taboo and thus becomes eroticized.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Seems counterproductive.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Since when are right wing sources allowed here?
Next, you're going to tell me that since I play GTA, I'm going to shoot up shopping malls and schools.
Here's what I learned in the last couple of days: since I watch porn, I'm a potential rapist. Hyperbole much, people?
Good god.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The Research Program on Family, Marriage, and Democracy of the Witherspoon Institute
http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com/about.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
Nice to see the anti-porn crowd allied with Rick Santorum types.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So there's that.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I anxiously await your OP on The Meaning Of Marriage and Marriage And The Public Good, or perhaps on Embryo: A Defense Of Human Life, courtesy of the same source.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Some people LIKE having sex.
Some people don't mind getting PAID for doing something they LIKE!
Some people LIKE to watch the people who LIKE having sex.
That is all.
If anyone is harmed or taped for porn against their will that is a crime. And another matter entirely.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It's not as simple as you wish it would be.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000445
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Violence totally pervades free online pornography.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But you have provided no evidence to support said opinion and the metaanalysis was a quantitative investigation based on exhaustive research.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)All you have to do is peruse the videos with the most views and highest ratings. It's epidemic.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which the authors never disputed.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That it is nearly everywhere. That the vast majority of online pornography, even videos that at face value seem benign, possess violent rhetoric and imagery. That doesn't simply mean rape porn, by the way.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But even if we assume your poorly supported opinion is true, that simply makes the analysis even more valid because there's still no causation evidence and the correlative evidence goes the other direction.
It also seems to be a very poor assumption to begin with seeing as how we have the poorly supported opinion of an anonymous internet poster (who parrots out "data" funded by the worst sort of rightwing bullshit mongers) vs the opinion of two widely referenced experts in their respective fields supported by exhaustive research.
Which one do you think is more relevant?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Do you consider female on male oral sex to be inherently "violent"?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)But not that such inequitabiliy is inherent or innate. It is a product of normative sexuality.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The definition of "gagging" in the study you posted, was this:
This is an odd definition. Because the "gag reflex" as is commonly associated with fellatio, is not particularly about breathing or not being able to breathe. Humans can breathe through their noses. So either these people found smut with odd shaped penii that were somehow able to go inside mouths AND obstruct nasal breathing, or they're defining the insertion of anything into a mouth which could be construed as obstructing the breathing through the mouth, as "obstructing breathing".
See what I'm saying? And there's really not very many things which CAN be put in a human mouth, save maybe snorkels, which aren't going to obstruct mouth breathing.
...in short, it really looks to me like they have defined the putting of a penis in a mouth (or a sex toy, or a hand ) itself, as an "aggressive act". Which is convenient if you're trying to make some statistical point about "aggression in porn", because certainly there's a lot of fellatio in porn.
So let me ask again; would you include blowjobs in a list of "aggressive, violent acts" if you were trying to categorize porn for a study like this?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Along with any other form of male on female sex that Andrea Dworkin defines as rape (which is all of it).
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL,
This really isn't that hard
How old are you by the way?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I deny the very existence of socialization.
There, I just did it.
Words sure are fun to play with, aren't they?
To quote T.S. Geisel, fun is fun, but you have to know how.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Hitchens' razor.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)First you railed against FEMEN, and that their tactics (naked boobies) were too disrespectful or whatever.
You also think the full face veil is a good thing, and that anyone who criticizes the hijab is disrespecting their culture.
And now this... all from a dude.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I've never supported full face veils. I also regularly criticize the diminutive aspect of traditional dress like the hijab. I don't remember ever specifically arguing otherwise on here.
I have however been critical of FEMEN. You got that one right.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I do not think that women would willingly wear them if they were not oppressed, and I think that there is a need for a ban in western societies, because those women do not get to decide for themselves. That may have been the difference. I do recall you saying that women can and should decide for themselves whether they wear the hijab or not? Well actually that is wishful thinking on your part, in some cultures.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Precisely because the last thing we need is more authoritative bodies making legal decisions for women.
However, and this is important, I think it is terribly important not to further a social structure conducive to oppressive rhetoric and violent imagery against women.
Is there a possible world where dress like the hijab can be liberatory? I believe so, yes. And so do other scholars. However, that there is a possible world where such dress could be liberatory does not mean that the general trend is toward liberation. It absolutely isn't. In countries where burkas and hijabs are most used, the dresses are required by law. That's a very serious problem.
It's important, still, to consider the reality that it is not only legal sanctions that we need to address. Just as the social and legal expectation of women to cover up is oppressive, so too is the social expectation that women reveal their bodies. The core issue with both of these trends is the objectification of the female body and the erasure of female autonomy.
Women should be educated on the historical and social significance of certain types of dress. However, most importantly, women must be free to do whatever they want with their bodies.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4081986
So how does one reengineer porn without banning exactly?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)He hasn't nearly exhausted the plethora of fundi-licious, right-wing, homophobic sites to cite.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)and, while we're at it, fuck it.. let's have Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts weigh in too
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So I didn't miss by much
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Gee.. I wonder why the only data they can come up with to confirm their authoritarian banality is right-wing fundy buffoons? Couldn't possibly be that they're just flat fucking wrong, maybe?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Even a "radical feminist" as you have called yourself, although I do think it is questionable to be calling yourself a "radical feminist" on an internet message board without adding the disclaimer that you are a male.
You can call yourself a feminist, but you do not speak for me, buddy boy.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's what feeds their righteous indignation. I could give a shit less if all porn disappeared tomorrow and never returned, but I see the anti-pornographers as a far bigger threat than anything porn could accomplish.
"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong."
-- Betty Friedan
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)They seem to think that anyone with a different point of view must secretly max out their credit cards buying internet porn.
Zealots scare me far more than pornography.
RandySF
(58,799 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)but now I don't think that will be necessary.
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Seriously, consider more complicated realities.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Orrex
(63,208 posts)You are assuming that rape-themed porn has a causative relation to actual violence, though I suspect that you will assert that this is not the case.
It's especially curious because several people have produced statistics showing a decrease in incidence of rape despite a vast increase in porn availability. Yet you dismiss these statistics apparently for no reason other than that they contradict your assumption.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which you couldn't seem to counter with much more than your poorly supported opinion on a tangential point.
When porn content both in quantity and severity has gone through the roof and rape is down by 50% over the same time period, it does present a problem for those who have been promising us that 'porn causes rape' at least since the 70's, don't you think? Especially when the "causally linked" evidence is even more problematic for the Dworkin fans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)i strongly suspect that rape is declining with other violent crime due to a combination of economic and demographic trends to which such things are normally correlated.
However, none of this would even be on the radar if we hadn't had 3 decades, now, of 2nd wave figures like Dworkin and Mackinnon assuring us that increased availability of porn WOULD result in more rape. Not "might", not "could", but WOULD.
So here we are, several decades between debbie does dallas and internet streaming tube porn. And, we have statistical data we can look at.
Correlation is not causation. But a glaring inverse correlation of the sort we see? It blows a giant logical hole in the old Dworkin-MacKinnon assertion.
They were wrong. They're still wrong.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And this is certainly technically correct, however the correlative evidence isn't even close. Porn is up both in graphic content and quantity significantly, and not by just a little. Rape is down, and not by just a little.
So in order for their hypothesis to be correct, those other factors at work must have made enough of an impact to completely overshadow any impact that porn created. So even if we assume there is a causal relationship between porn and rape, that relationship can't be very significant (remember porn way up, rape way down).
And where's the causal evidence? It turns out there never was much (at least if you throw out all the junk science and false conclusions).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000445
Not only that, it turns out that the causal evidence may actually go completely the opposite direction, which most certainly is supported by the correlational evidence. Even as far as "rape culture" goes, guess what actually was found to have a measurable effect on sexist attitudes? Wingnuttery in rural areas. Surprise!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut
Dash87
(3,220 posts)I think it does hurt men's image of women, but on the other hand porn is also permissible by this country's 1st amendment, like it or not.
On the other hand, there is no place for porn where a woman is hurt, humiliated, etc. None! I'm not sure why this type of movie would have an audience, and frankly I find the concept itself both horrifying and weird. It's not like I'm a prude - I just think watching someone else in pain or in fear is not a normal thing to find sexually attractive.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #185)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I myself watch pornography. My argument has never been to make pornography illegal.
My argument is however to point out that pornography is deeply seated in violent, sexist and racist normative values.
Rape can absolutely be about gaining sexual access to unwilling women. The argument that they could just go find someone else who is willing is irrelevant. They want to have sex with the woman they are raping. The underlying reasons for that are more complex. But you can't just say well it has nothing to do with sex because they could just go find, for instance, a prostitute.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)I wouldn't enjoy seeing a woman or a man degraded, hurt or harmed in any manner.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)For those who missed it, the Court said (short version) adults having access to porn is not a crime. Well, some people didn't like that decision. The current POTUS was LBJ, who appointed a commission to study and recommend to the Congress what effect this is going to have.
The 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography came back with their study that said (short version) porn was not a problem in Denmark, by implication it may not be a problem here either.
That was rejected by the Congress and we all know the Congress is always right.
The Meese Commission appointed in 1986 by St Ray-gun (blessed be his name) came to the exact opposite conclusion. To whit: porn is evil. Porn causes rape. Porn destroys the moral character of anyone and everyone who comes in contact with it.
The head of that Commission was none other than "hang'em high Henry" Hudson a big R republican, who later as a Bush appointed judge declared the ACA unconstitutional.
Another exemplary figure on that Commission was the Reverend Focus on the Family James Dobson.
So there you have it. (the short version)
If you detect a hint of sarcasm, then my job here is done.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)penultimate
(1,110 posts)That is just weird shit, and I'd avoid someone who had such a weird fetish. Although, there could be a debate about if consenting people are involved (fake rape porn) on all sides, then what right do I have to say people can't do it? After all, there are lots of fake activities shown on TV and in movies that are illegal and bad. Should those be banned too? (not sure if anyone is saying it should be banned, but I know it was recently banned somewhere..I think the UK) I've seen many people killed in movies, but I have no desire to kill anyone. I've seen rape scenes in movies too, but I have no desire to rape anyone either. But that being said, I rape porn is weird to me and I won't fight in its defense. Which probably makes me an asshole, but ehnn.
As for regular non-rape porn causing rape. I don't really get that either. I've seen plenty of porn and non of it ever made me want to rape anyone in any sort of way. Most the porn I've seen these days is made by a couple of people at home who want put on a show. I'd say in a lot of them it looked like the female was even the one who was enjoying the camera the most (even in control) I don't get how that is harmful to anyone or how it could trigger someone to rape.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)-- Mary Anne Layden, PhD
RandySF
(58,799 posts)Like the culture the woman grows up in?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)An interesting take on the "porn causes rape" meme, though. Same author as the OP.
edbermac
(15,939 posts)RandySF
(58,799 posts)Porn depicting consentual acts does no more to encourage rape than consensual sex encourages rape. I'm sick and tired of being told how I should live even in the most private aspects of my life. That's what Republicans want to do and we should not try to copy them.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Is not the same as forcing you to do or not do something. It isn't even telling you how to live. It's a confrontation with reality.
RandySF
(58,799 posts)And I have never raised my hand against anyone. So go find someone else to buy it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)In all social science issues.
Let's just get your opinion on all matters so we can stop wasting our time trying to figure out appropriate answers.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)flvegan
(64,407 posts)Seriously? The idiots that think this, broad brush, wouldn't know violence if it (forgive me) kicked them in the ass twice.
While I think that there is a segment of porn out there that is particularly demeaning to women, that I find disgusting and makes me just a bit angry, to suggest that porn, in general, makes violence sexy is devoid of common sense. There is nothing sexy about rape, or anything else that creates a sexual victim situation. NOTHING.
Be really careful what you call violent, lest you have that mirror turned around on you for what you deem "okay" personally.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Rape is very often a form of sexual gratification. And sexual gratification is very often a display of power.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #267)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so, no rape culture exists because you do not want to hurt mens feelings?
brilliant.
takes care of that. i guess we are done here.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Sex and sexual gratification itself are elements of rape. Not the only elements but far from non-existent.
Rape is a play between sex and power. How those two elements interact is different with each case. For instance, date rape where the man drugs the woman is very much about sexual gratification.
It is a mistake to completely disassociate sex and sexual gratification from rape. It is an attempt to desexualize the act of rape precisely because we do not want to consider the reality that sexuality can be so perverted. But it absolutely can.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which most criminologists, feminists, and mental health professionals agree.
So the idea that rape shouldn't be considered along with other types of violence is not a good one. Is watching simulated murder causing people to go out and perform actual murder? This is no less valid of a question than if one substitutes "rape" for "murder" or any other violent crime.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)That is also what was said by Mary Anne Layden, the source of the "study' quoted by the OP.
Does that sound like victim blaming to anyone besides me?
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Just another RW fundie study to "teach" us all about the evils of sex. I still can't believe people on cite this types of sources.