It has not gone unnoticed (re: porn)

[BainsBane]

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (4)

That the mantra about "banning" violent rape porn, to those who not in fact advocated banning, is a transparent effort to silence those who question privilege. The hue and cry about "authoritarianism" is rather a concerted effort to silence the free speech of those who assert the rights of women and rape victims, male and female alike.

We too have a right to choose, and we have a right to speak.



Since the subject has come up: This OP was prompted by blanket condemnations and accusations of trolling visited on another poster, not myself. No one silences me.

[upaloopa]

1. I knew someone would tie privilege and anti porn

together. A couple of solutions in search of a problem.

[BainsBane]

2. Are you saying privilege isn't a problem?

That it doesn't exist?

[upaloopa]

6. He's what I said about a hundred times.

The problem you describe is this. Some people have privilege and don't know it and because of that they harm others without the privilege through their ignorance. And they need you to enlighten them on the subject.
That problem doesn't exist.
Growing up white and male you are GIVEN privileges that are not given to others. Being aware of their surrounding the white males are aware of the privileges GIVEN to them by sheer observance of the contrasts in life experiences in theirs and others lives.
Now it is not the fault of the one GIVEN a privilege that they have a privilege nor does it make them bad because of it.
It is what that person does with the privilege that is the deciding factor of good or bad.

[BainsBane]

7. Yet you seem to resent its being mentioned

Why is that?

[cleanhippie]

43. You should re-read what another poster said to you down thread.

You should reexamine what you post here. It doesn't read like any attempt to solidify support for anything other than your ego.

[loli phabay]

52. this, plus a brazilian

[BainsBane]

99. This is a Brazilian

Using Brazillian as a number bugs me too.

[BainsBane]

105. No way. It's Caetano Veloso

Depois que o Ilê passar

[BainsBane]

108. Oh, I see

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought that was a reference to a tacky musician named Gianni. I could have the name wrong. Oh, I know. I was thinking of Yanni.

[BuddhaGirl]

100. Yep!

[BainsBane]

118. actually it was prompted by the rude treatment Arcanetranse received

You really think THIS would solidify my ego?

[cleanhippie]

160. This whole OP was prompted for one reason and one reason only

To solidify your ego.

[BainsBane]

175. How convenient you are omnicient

It saves you from having to think about anything that doesn't reaffirm your own entitlement.

[cleanhippie]

176. Feeling better, yet? Keep trying, your ego will be soothed eventually.

[BainsBane]

180. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well

Peace, love, and all that good hippie stuff.

[cleanhippie]

196. Thanks for the lip service.

You've a long way to go understanding peace, love, and good hippie stuff.

[BainsBane]

220. Is that so

Because I have the nerve to criticize rape porn? The level of your anger at this is revealing.

[cleanhippie]

253. You give te term "facepalm" a whole other meaning.

[upaloopa]

60. No I don't

I think you are looking for responces contrary to your opinion. Those responces reinforce the concept or pardigm you have in your mind.
You could change the subject from privilege to something else and if the convoluted logic about that other subject were the same as used to put together the privilege argument you may get the same responce from me.
What I object to is this and it happens a lot on DU.
Someone gets an idea in their mind such as the privilege one or the porn = rape one.
They dream up a whole hypothesis around it and they make an OP about it.
Next a bunch of supporters appear out of the woodwork and reply that yes you are on to something.
Then the idea grows in intensity because of the support given it to where it is accepted as fact and those not in agreement take on the false mantel of being the very types that cause the problem to exist. That's where the bullying begins. You are berated until you give up thus quashing any opposition.
Days later the same idea is in another OP and the thing starts over again. It becomes truth by the shear a Amount of words put into it. Much like what goes on at Fox.
In reality a self loathing mind has created a fantasy that takes on a life.

[BainsBane]

101. Since you edited, I will have to edit

Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't dispute the first part or your post (most of the original post). Though I certainly wouldn't call my mind self-loathing. The dynamic is typical enough, though I am not silenced. The OP was about treatment to someone who felt so discouraged he left the site.

The reason I used the word privilege vs. women's rights is I didn't want to make it heteronormative.
Entitlement would probably have been a better choice. That, I think, expresses the extreme level of anger by those who so resent seeing any critiques of rape porn.

[Oscarmonster13]

178. where's the 'like' button?

you are spot on

[Agschmid]

182. Basically you just liked it.

[Oscarmonster13]

190. ;)

teehee I was being silly...thanks though!

[Agschmid]

192. No worries, welcome to DU.

[gopiscrap]

205. Welcome to DU

[BainsBane]

183. Interesting how many people seem determined to psychoanalyze me

Yet arrive on completely different assessments: you, I'm self loathing, others, I'm seeking to solidify my ego. All of this is evidently far more important than the issue of rape porn.

I noticed you edited your post to get in some condemnations of me. As a result my previous reply doesn't make sense.

[eridani]

121. As always, I recommend John Scalzi on this topic

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

[Peacetrain]

3. If I am threatened by someones right

to consume materials .. well it is my right to speak up. Forcible acts of any kind.. and that includes sexual acts.. have no place in my line of vision. I find it horrific and threatening. It especially has no place where my younger nieces and nephews have access to so that those values are impressed on them at a very tender age.

As my Dad used to say.. your rights end at the tip of my nose..


Edit to add.. I did not realize we were having this kind of discussion on DU.. That in and of itself is depressing..

[rrneck]

4. I support your right to kvetch.

Banning wouldn't do you any good anyway. But then, what good will speaking out do?

[BainsBane]

5. Kvetch

That is what you call efforts to stop violence against women? What good will it do? I don't know. Maybe this message will sink it at some point.

?width=645&height=645&type=flat&id=XGH5UGcrh6U5FnP1jmZfa5&time=1383480127&project=lainformacion

[rrneck]

10. What effort?

Posting in internet forums? Cooing over infographics designed by others? Displays of umbrage and disgust? Do you really think that will work? It might if you want legislation passed, but on this issue such legislation would be censorship. That'll never happen and you know it.

You can't coerce people into cultural change. You can't bully them into changing their feelings.

If you want to end the hatred of women learn to make art and plan to do it for a very long time.

[BainsBane]

13. No, one cannot coerce

One can try to appeal to a sense of social consciousness, which clearly is a lost cause when it comes to some. No one can convince anyone who doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself to start caring. People are what they are. The appeal is to those who do care.


As for efforts: Here are some

http://endviolence.un.org/

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx

[rrneck]

15. "Those who care" already agree with you.

Of course they won't help you if you piss them off. Just sayn'.

[BainsBane]

17. Piss them off?

So I should try this, "Please don't rape/hit me, sir"?

It's not just about me. It's about people's mothers, wives, lovers, daughters, sons, and husbands. It's about making a better society. It's about being a better human being.

[rrneck]

20. Cue Star Spangled Banner

and roll footage of mom, apple pie and the flag.

And the guy assaulting you does not agree with your position regarding internet porn.

You should reexamine what you post here. It doesn't read like any attempt to solidify support for anything other than your ego.

[BainsBane]

120. Your powers of perception once again fail you

It was prompted by the rude treatment and accusations of trolling visited upon Arcantetrance.
How you think something that this would help solidify my ego, I can't begin to imagine. If that were my concern, I would go around agreeing with everyone all the time like a limp noodle, so no one would ever dislike me.

Listen, you and I sit as far apart on the political spectrum as two people can get. You are on the opposite issue of everything that concerns me most in life--namely gun violence and violence against women. Our worldviews are diametrically opposed. Your focus is on your conception of individual liberty and mine is on social justice. I don't expect you to agree with me. You never have, and I seriously doubt you ever will.

[rrneck]

127. How do you think

you're going to do any good when you bring that attitude to the discussion?

[NaturalHigh]

202. Should individual liberty be sacrificed...

to satisfy your definition of social justice?

[nomorenomore08]

206. I think individual liberty and social justice are *both* worthy ideals.

The tricky part is how to accommodate both.

[RiffRandell]

25. Suggestion to edit to include "ma'am" as I'm fairly

certain there is female on male porn than may fall into the category you're arguing against.

[BainsBane]

114. 99% of rapists are male

My concern is not about all porn but rape porn and its influence on rape culture. That porn can be heterosexual or homosexual, but it is uncommon for a woman to commit rape, in real life anyway. I don't feel compelled to adjust my language to account for the 1%. In fact, doing so would distort reality by positing a false gender equivalence.

Additionally, I have never been sexually assaulted by a woman.

[RiffRandell]

123. I will agree that statistically it is more uncommon for women.

Please provide a link. I have done some research and so many rapes are not reported (male and female both) but what about male prison rape? I found this to be a reliable link:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

[ismnotwasm]

163. Also committed by men nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

271. "So I should try this, 'Please don't rape/hit me, sir'?" is about as effective as

the woman in the OP holding her hand out as if women being assaulted haven't tried that before.

[CTyankee]

110. If you don't speak out, then what???

Is this what MLK, Jr. did? Is it what women suffragists did? Is this what gay rights reformers did?

[rrneck]

124. It's not whether or not you speak out...

it's why.

If someone speaks out in an effort to help others, then great. If they speak out by wrapping themselves in some issue for the enjoyment of their own sanctimony, then they're just feeding off others. And worse, they're feeding off the people that need help.

Human beings have a very finely honed sense of fairness and when somebody seems to be feeding off of them it doesn't take long to get a negative response that can range from indifference to outright hostility. The righteousness of the cause or the good intentions of the advocate don't matter, people can tell when they're just railing at them to hear themselves rail.

The internet is a fine place for people to do stuff like that since there is always a ready supply of people to either outrage them, mollify them, or try to manage their emotional manipulations. And it spins the shit out of the hit counter for the admins.

[CTyankee]

126. the whole idea is to change the way our society feels about the rape culture.

That's the only way you help others (those victimized by rape). Being silent won't do anything.

[rrneck]

129. Profiting from the issue won't make it go away either.

Has that occurred to you? If people get an emotional charge from speaking out about the problem it will never go away. If organizations make a profit from it, it will never go away. In fact, do you even know what "rape culture" is? One poster in this thread has already tried to research it and had no luck. Look at the words; rape and culture. We all know what rape is, but what is culture? Culture is a collective way of thinking. The phrase offers a perfect moving target for perpetual umbrage and a bottomless revenue stream for academics and assorted bloviaters everywhere. You should be immediately suspicious any time you see the word "culture" preceded by a noun.

The people that profit most from this culture war bullshit are the people that own the media and communications corporations and they are followed closely by the people that churn out reams of hyperbole pushing others to either love themselves or hate somebody else. And the 1% laughs all the way to the bank.

[CTyankee]

149. I am at a loss to understand your thinking here. Bains bain isn't profiting from the issue.

And you haven't offered one example of what you are talking about. And no, a vague reference to "academics and assorted bloviaters" just isn't good enough. Nor is it even faintly proven, at least not by you.

Something is bothering you. Try to find out what it is. I mean it.

Feel better.

[chervilant]

152. While I admire your efforts with this DUer,

I must observe that he seems obsessively focused on defending rape porn as a "first amendment" issue, concurrently denying "male privilege." Not surprisingly, he won't acknowledge that he consumes rape porn -- apparently, it's none of our beeswax.

His tone, in general, is condescending, and his ignorance about feminist issues seems vast. I do not think he contributes much to this discussion.

[rrneck]

156. This DUer is defending the right to produce fiction whether it's good or bad.

If you were actually able to discuss the issue without insulting people maybe you'd get a more favorable response.

[chervilant]

179. Goodness!

Struck a nerve, did I? My observations are just that -- MY observations. And, you may disagree, but that does not invalidate my observations.

But, you might want to bear in mind: other people's opinions of you are not a definition of who you are. I based my observations on the tone of your posts, which is my prerogative. A quick jump to defense is quite unnecessary...

On the other hand, why so quick to defend rape porn and yet so reluctant to admit to consuming such porn? Why do you presume that those who want to legislate such porn are "prudes"? Rape is not about sex, so how can anyone defend portraying sexual violence against women and children as 'titillating' and 'erotic.' (And, please don't start in with the BDSM erotica; I find it offensive -- and, yes, condescending -- that you presume that feminists are incapable of discerning the difference between BDSM and rape porn...)

I don't expect a "favorable response" from you, as you're likely to slide right back into defensive condescension. Maybe you'll surprise me. Stranger things have happened...

[rrneck]

185. I find your observations about as helpful and enlightening as porn.

Perhaps you should pursue a career in journalism. I think the National Enquirer is always looking for a talent for accusing people of things and then assuming their denial is a confirmation of guilt. I defend bad journalism just as readily as bad art, so you're safe from my scathing condescension.

Why don't you produce something worth discussing rather than backhanded accusations drawn from your lack of imagination.

[rrneck]

155. Awwwww. Aren't you sweet.

If somebody doesn't agree with you they're sick.

So tell me, do you think every facet of feminist ideology is valid and important? Do you think each and every person who claims to be a feminist is in it for the good of society?

[CTyankee]

158. I find it difficult to follow arguments based on blather.

You still haven't identified who are the "assorted bloviators and academics." What are their names? Upon what writings of theirs do you base your opinion of their views? Usually a discussion of issues includes some references to what you are talking about. With you, I get the feeling of utter futility.

I could go on but I don't think you want to continue with this.

[rrneck]

159. I'll ask you again.

Do you think every facet of feminist ideology is valid and important? Do you think each and every person who claims to be a feminist is in it for the good of society?

And now I'll ask you something else:

If you don't think every facet of feminist ideology is valid and every promulgator of such ideas are a benefit to society, why don't you point them out and we can discuss them.

[CTyankee]

216. Ya know, buddy,I've had just about enough of this. Come back when you are calmer and can discuss

an idea on its merits. Start there and we can work out from it. But start with general, blanket condemnations and you will get nowhere.

[rrneck]

245. Well, I'll just have to work with what I've got then.

Every group of people from a single family to an entire country has an embarrassing lunatic fringe. From the obnoxious unreasonable uncle at Thanksgiving to fringe political groups causing havoc in an entire nation, they're an embarrassment to the rest of the group of reasonable people who have a more intelligent and nuanced grip on reality.

So for example the Republican party has the Tea Party and to the right of them gun toting militias running around in the woods playing soldier. Those preening right wing nuts would embarrass Il Duce. And lets not forget the religious fundamentalists and their peculiar obsession with medieval science and morality. The political left no doubt has its share of bombastic nuts as well, but probably not enough of them. Since the collapse of communism the ranks of our lunatic fringe have been seriously eroded.

A fellow smarter than me once said that an unexamined life is not worth living. I would add that an unexamined ideology is not worth having.

These members of the lunatic fringe all seem to have something in common; an unwavering devotion to ideology as an object in itself. It becomes a fundamentalist religion, a precious thing that has to be defended at all costs, right or wrong. I expect there are many reason for this unquestioning embrace; fear, pride, arrogance, greed, ignorance, or any combination of all of them. There are times when unwavering devotion to ideology is essential, as in war for example. Extreme times call for extreme devotion.

And we are at war. A culture war. It's an ersatz conflict manufactured out of the most selfish motivations of its combatants. It's a wag the dog Las Vegas feathers and brass production for the emotional gratification of people who view culture as a product to be acquired and hoarded.

I asked you to engage in something any rational person should be willing to do. I asked you to engage in a bit of ideological self examination. And you couldn't do it.

[CTyankee]

260. No, you didn't. You asked me to join with you and talk feminism's "lunatic fringe."

You want me to take a belief in the rights of women, a defense of the dignity and humanity of women and basically tear down what has been a liberating, humanistic movement for half the world's people to satisfy your the depths unfathomable hatred.
And it surprises you that I do not join you in that rage and hatred. You speak of it as a "war" and indeed it is...for YOU.

You must calm down now and take some deep breaths. Practice meditation and self awareness. It could help you. It would certainly put you in a better place emotionally.

[rrneck]

262. Another fine example. nt

[xulamaude]

165. "In fact, do you even know what "rape culture" is?"

I realize that you did not direct this question to me but since you added that a DUer tried to research the subject and "had no luck" I thought I'd give it a google.

There's a whole lot of stuff out there including news stories and in depth articles and a wiki page too.

[rrneck]

168. Yep. I've looked at some of it.

But not a lot.

Culture is a collective way of thinking, but the phrase "rape culture" doesn't refer to any particular collective group or way of thinking. It's Orwellian implications imply that our culture is designed around the objective of raping women. And we've always been at war with Oceania. It's a marketers wet dream worthy of Frank Luntz and his "death tax".

[xulamaude]

171. Okay.

I find it interesting still though that you claim someone "had no luck" finding any information on a commonly used (if not understood or even accepted) phrase.

[rrneck]

172. Hang on, I'll see if I can find it.

There have been a lot of posts on the subject.

[xulamaude]

173. No need to bother.

I didn't mean to imply that I don't believe you. Sadly, I do.

[rrneck]

174. No worries

I wasn't having any luck anyway.

[JVS]

145. "Banning wouldn't do you any good anyway" I oppose bans because they do harm.

Banning something that shouldn't be illegal harms innocent people.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. And the fact that this is the 6th or 7th thread on the topic, would indicate that no "silencing" is

going on.

So what sorts of violent porn acts are we talking about? The "aggressive" acts like blowjobs which turn up in the much-promoted (despite being debunked) "88% of porn contains aggression" study?

However, it is disingenuous to argue that "no one has suggested banning". The thread which began this iteration of DU's smutapalooza, was specifically about a UK law specifically banning material.

So yes, actually, "banning" has been part of the discussion. And speaking of silencing tactics, pretty much anyone on this board who has had the nerve to make pesky "freedumb" arguments about how consenting adults should have the right to engage in consenting adult behavior in front of a camera if those people are all consenting, has been accused of being "sickos sitting at home screeching over their sick rape porn", or whatever the fucking ridiculous straw man/ad hominem is today.

So, now you've got another thread on the topic, which with any luck will hit another 800+ replies. Doesn't sound like much "silencing", to me.

[BainsBane]

11. Rape. That's what we're talking about. Rape.

Oral, vaginal, or anal. Any sexual contact without consent.

Silencing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024096085#post301

and the constant mantra about banning and authoritarianism.

Considering I have already answered that first question you posed--TO YOU--yet you continue to ridicule serious concerns about violence against women shows how you've managed to tune out the parts of those 800+ reply threads that didn't confirm your preexisting notions.

[rrneck]

16. Yep, that's what we're talking about

NOW.

[RiffRandell]

23. Ha!

Exactly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. If you are coming across videos of rape as often as you say they are out there....

....why aren't you forwarding them to the authorities? Shouldn't you be doing that instead of posting the same threads accusing the same people over and over of being rape apologists?

[RiffRandell]

24. +1.

For someone who is against porn/illegal porn, something tells me the OP watches it a lot more than I do.

[BainsBane]

36. Excuse me

What is this about? I don't recall having a single discussion with you? Is this sort of junior high school pettiness really necessary? If you have something to say, I would appreciate your having the integrity to address it to me directly.

[cleanhippie]

77. You're excused. Here are some words of wisdom another poster gave you.

You should reexamine what you post here. It doesn't read like any attempt to solidify support for anything other than your ego.

[loli phabay]

54. rofl, now this was funny

[BainsBane]

38. Show me where I have accused someone of being a rape apologist in these porn threads?

I await a link.

As for the issue of rape in porn, the key point is it is very difficult to know if the person has truly granted consent or not. One way around that is to purchase or watch porn from licensed, regulated companies. That make is far less likely one is consuming porn made with enslaved labor and/or where actual rape takes place.

Do I really need to explain to the difficulties of law enforcement on the WWW, particularly when productions take place abroad or are routed through international servers?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. Oh please

Of course you haven't directly accused anyone, because that would violate TOS, and you know better than that, don't you?

Your posts declaring things such as "Violence against women is a civil liberty" etc. etc....is clearly understood. Again, you have apparently established this place is filled with misogynists....there is a natural question to be asked beyond that, but I won't because it will lead to the inevitable "I will not be silenced" subterfuge you're trying to engage in here in the OP.

Again, if you see violent rape porn on the web, it's not too hard to find out the performer's names. Start working on it, if you truly believe someone cannot give consent.

[BainsBane]

144. Are you asserting that no rape porn is made without consent?

There is a host of information showing the opposite, from the UN to the State Department and virtually every human rights organization.

I have argued that porn viewers could engage in more responsible consumption by going through licensed and registered porn companies that pay fair wages. That suggestion has been either dismissed out of hand or ignored in lie of a mantra of "authoritarianism." That is no more authoritarian than calling for people not to shop at stores open on Thanksgiving.

I am glad you acknowledge that your allegation that I have called people rape apologists is false. Now all you need to do is stop making it.

I do not think the "place is full of misogynists." I think there are a handful of vocal misogynists who insist on disrupting any thread about violence against women to tell us that the subject itself is invalid. They whine about "misandrist" PSA in anti-rape campaigns that mention--horror of horrors--the word men. They have made clear that they see rape porn as fully acceptable. The overall impression that gives is that they see violence against women as a suitable topic in the public sphere only in terms of its arousal for men.

This piece gives a handy definition of five signs of misogyny that I think quite accurate:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/how-to-spot-a-misogynist-20120430-1xueh.html

Then I think there are many others in these threads who focus on the issue of personal liberty. In the process, they avoid thinking about the rights of porn workers, whether free-wage, enslaved, or bound through debt peonage. They invoke an argument of choice for porn workers yet not for retail laborers who work on Thanksgiving. There is a disconnect between caring about the wages and working conditions of retail workers while ignoring those same issues in the sex industry. Like many in American society, they don't want to think about the exploitation that gives rise to their consumption. They also dismiss the entire concept of rape culture out of hand without even considering an argument.

I know the argument of those who insist rape porn is protected speech. I doubt anyone here could summarize my position because they have made a point of refusing to consider the argument. Insisting I have insulted people as "rape apologists" and am "authoritarian" for expressing my views is one such way they seek to delegtimate speech that challenges them.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

151. Nope, I'm asserting that you can't believe women would consent....

....to the scenes you personally find problematic.

Therefore I again encourage you to file a complaint on their behalf. Every mainstream adult studio has a custodian of records. They even put up the legal notice on most box covers and at the start of the DVDs. Wow, how about that legally stuff, in the vile porn industry! So if you've got something, go for it.

[cleanhippie]

161. Doing that would require her to actually DO something other than rant on an anonymous message board

So THAT will never happen.

Another poster said something that sums up BainsBane position quite well:

You should reexamine what you post here. It doesn't read like any attempt to solidify support for anything other than your ego.

[xulamaude]

167. Rule #3

claim that women who voice their opinions on a message board aren't DOing anything but bolstering their egos.

What do you think she should be DOing if I may ask?

ETA - I see that she's been directed to notify authorities. Who's to say she doesn't.

[BainsBane]

242. Keeping my mouth shut like a good girl

What else?

[xulamaude]

255. *pats head*

good woman.

[BainsBane]

244. What precisely is it you are "doing'

by repeating the same insult multiple times on a message board? Does making your posts about personal insults rather than subject matter somehow elevate you to an activist?

[cleanhippie]

256. How's that ego doing? A bit bruised, I imagine.

You're gonna be ok though, I promise.

[BainsBane]

265. How can it be bruised

When you claim the entire point of this thread is to "solidify" my ego? Even your insults lack coherence.

[cleanhippie]

270. Yep, it's bruised. Badly, too, judging by your defensiveness.

This has been fun, but your absurdities have become boring, as usual. Have a great weekend and keep your chin up.

[BainsBane]

273. So it couldn't have been about propping up my ego then?

And of course you won't reflect on why you feel compelled to participate so enthusiastically in a thread you say is without merit. I have to hand it to you, you have a unique ability to write multiple posts without any reference or concern whatsoever with subject matter.

[cleanhippie]

283. You're projecting.

[BainsBane]

241. Actually I never said that women can't consent

Again you have completely ignored my points.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

281. You'll have to direct me to which post I'm supposed to refer to today....

....or this hour....to get your latest opinion. You are all over the place.

[libodem]

116. Yes

I would somehow flag authorities that something OBSCENE was being circulated. Snuff and crush films have no place anywhere.

It could be a legal offense to allow both extremes in one venue. In fact I had thought that if someone wanted paddled you couldn't show sex acts in the same movie? I think it is either or?


This is something I don't know anything about.....for once.


How does one go about gaining all this knowledge about something so distasteful? And all the energy emerged in the thoughts and images this subject evokes. Gag.

[Scootaloo]

181. It's not an issue of whether the actors consent

One generally assumes they are consenting.

The issue is the industry presenting rape as entertainment. As sexy. As something that's not only no big deal, but desirable.

it has nothing to do with a couple (or more's) personal kinks. it has nothing to do with BDSM, it has nothing to do with blowjobs. It has everything to do with an industry that portrays sexual violence as something entertaining, titilating, and admirable.

I get that this is probably difficult for you to understand, and I wish that DU allowed the posting of relevant links or videos so I could show you and others just what is being discussed, as you guys (ahem) all seem to completely, totally, blithely ignorant at all times. However, I do have a synopsis of one such video that I posted a few days ago.

We open with the aforementioned teen, in the aforementioned pool, apparently in her basement or something. A few minutes of this and she gets out to shower off. There's a loud bang, and she looks momentarily concerned, and steps out of the shower to check her surroundings. A young man sneaks down the stairs towards her, grabs her by the hair. While she screams, he yanks her head around, slamming her into the wall a few times. Then he drags her over to the pool, and forces her head into the water. He cokes her, yanks her around more, forces her face back into the water. Then, he forces her cheeks between her teeth with his thumb, and pushes his penis into her mouth while she struggles and fights against him. She doesn't comply, so he hits her, and tries again. More hitting until he finally gets it in there, then thrusts until she chokes. Then he twists her head hard to the side, and delivers a karate chop to her neck while she continues to struggle. Then he twists her arm around between her shoulders. There's some more jaw-wrenching and hitting involved in this guy trying to put his pecker in her mouth. She breaks away from him, running into the shower room, and he follows, knocking the door in. He punches her in the head, making it collide with the tiled wall behind her, then grabs her and drags her out, hitting her on the back as he does, before tossing her into the pool. More hair-yanking, hitting, and jaw-wrenching follows as he again tries to force oral from her. Then he throws her onto the floor, and slaps her repeatedly, before spreading her legs and penetrating her while she screams and fights him. More slapping and head-banging and choking occurs. She hits him in the chest, he responds by delivering a punch to the head. And then, everyone's favorite, anal with pool water as lube while she struggles. This involves slamming her head into a table a few times. He finishes up by ejaculating on her face and throwing her into the pool.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4096499

I don't think production should be banned, nor people arrested for viewing - no actual crime is being committed (one hopes...) after all.

But it would be nice if some other men around here could get it through their heads that this sort of material is, at the best, dehumanizing women.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. I do not think that presenting rape as sexy, entertainment, or no big deal is good. So we're clear.

I question the wisdom of badly written laws, and I am skeptical of badly written laws to able to distinguish between films where, to come up with two completely hypothetical plot examples:

1) Conservative Right Wing Blowhard and Degenerate Gambler Benn Billett is enjoying himself in Vegas and his dominatrix shows up, pulls him away from the slot machines, and ties him up upon whence they enjoy some consensual sex involving bondage.

and

2) a dramatization where Right Wing Blowhard and Degenerate Gambler Benn Billett is enjoying himself in Vegas when a masked female rapist in stilletto black boots shows up, pulls him away from the slot machines, ties him up for some non-consensual sexual activity.

But let me reiterate. I do not think that "presenting rape as sexy" is a good thing, or anything but despicable.

As for "nothing to do with blowjobs", fine, we're talking the entirety of the threads on the topic here on DU in the past week or so. Maybe you missed it, but in addition to numerous OPs sourcing religious right think tanks and organizations, was at least one containing an oft-touted statistic that "88% of porn contains aggression". A close examination of the criteria of that study indicates that the persons doing it were defining the insertion of anything in someone else's mouth as, itself, an "aggressive act". I get that I'm not supposed to point that out, but some people on this board clearly want to continue to use that '88%' figure, never mind the ridiculous logical orifice it has been pulled out of. Since that's the case, it's a valid topic.

[Scootaloo]

197. No? That's good, but hard to read from your post

Neither I nor BainsBane nor any other posters I've seen are cheering for the UK's mulling over a ban. Like you, I don't see it helping anything and likely being badly enforced. Thus while that is the impetus that brought this discussion up, it is not what is actually being discussed. That is the social impact of presentation of sexual assault as a form of pleasurable entertainment.

Rather than searching to find a reason, any reason, to put your finger in people's faces for bringing it up, maybe you could I dunno... just say it's despicable, that you don't watch it, and encourage others to be so enlightened as well?

[Warren DeMontague]

198. It's despicable, I don't watch it, but I also don't make other peoples' decisions for them

or presume to. My head is busy enough with my own life. I don't have the time or the inclination to figure the universe out for other people.

If you "can't read" that I personally don't think encouraging or eroticizing rape is a good thing, well, I'm sorry. I've said the same thing repeatedly.

Let's be real- the entire context of the larger discussion began with, and has been swimming in, the notion of "banning". That's how the topic came up. To expect people to not discuss censorship in a discussion about censorship... I don't get it.

It's a discussion board. People aren't going to agree. The demanding that everyone agree, everyone say the prescribed correct thing... that's not a discussion. I don't know what it is, but it's not a discussion.

And don't even get me started on the strawmen and ad hominem bullshit.

[Scootaloo]

199. Yes, that's how the topic came up, but it's not what it's about

Congratulations, we're all on the same page about rape porn, we're all on the same page about the dumbness of legal bans, so why do you insist on arguing still?

[Warren DeMontague]

200. Who's arguing?

[BainsBane]

225. blowjobs

what complete and utter nonsense. Though, I hope you know a rape can be oral as well as vaginal or rectal. Rape by definition is non-consensual. The ongoing tendency of many here to reduce all arguments to one post they saw is incredibly tedious.

If you think presenting rape is despicable, then you in fact agree with those who have criticized rape porn. Yet how is it that you cannot bring yourself to say that and instead feel compelled to back up those who insist it is not? Why do you continue to ignore arguments about workers rights and insist on reducing arguments to the most absurd extremes and caricatures? Why can you not agree that advocating responsible consumption of porn through licensed and registered companies might not be so authoritarian after all?

[Warren DeMontague]

280. It wasn't "one post", it was a whole thread containing a ridiculous statistic that has,

nevertheless, been repeated in these threads numerous times.

I think "presenting rape as sexy" is despicable, indeed- but the threads around the topic, particularly when overlapping into the subject of consensual BDSM, highlight the glaring problems with coming up with a coherent and consistent (much less legal) definition of what constitutes "rape porn":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4105926

[BainsBane]

282. As I have said MANY times

There is NO relationship between consensual BDSM or consensual any kind of sex and rape. In fact, the ones I've seen repeatedly conflate them are those opposing criticism of rape porn.

It would be nice if just once someone could comment on the issue of workers rights, something liberals manage to ignore when it comes to porn workers.

Chris Hedges comments on such a disconnect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=30283

[Warren DeMontague]

285. I did. Workers in the Domestic adult industry are protected by the same laws as other workers.

AND there are additional regulations specific to the adult industry such as the 2257 reporting ones, which put lie to the idea that there is somehow widespread use of non-consenting or non-adult actors in said domestic adult industry.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make- you keep insisting it is about a specific type of porn, yet it is conflated repeatedly with porn-in-general. If you're trying to make a case against porn-in-general, I'd suggest you drop the facade that it's a small subsector of smut that you're making a point about.

If you really are just arguing against "rape porn" specifically, my point again is, the people who don't consume it, and have to be given explicit direction by you to seek it out on google so they'll believe you that its out there, are presumably not your target audience, because they're not watching it.

The people who DO consume it are likely to not be terribly receptive. So I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish.

[BainsBane]

288. the issue of workers rights applies to all porn, as to all industries

However the most extreme porn is the least likely to be done by licensed, regulated companies.
I'm not particularly keen on porn of any kind, but I equate the standard stuff with the girly pics you post in the men's group. The amount of clothing they wear is irrelevant. That has to do with issues of objectification that societal constraints on women that go far beyond porn.

The issue of these threads for the past several days, as you well know, is and has been about rape porn

And to those complaining that my comments are heteronormative, I am concerned about women's rights. The issues concerning men, aside from rape, as objects of porn are somewhat different, and anyone is free to post about them as they choose. I have a right to care about women's rights.
.
You are right that consumers of rape porn are not likely to be receptive. My one key realization from this entire discussion is that very few read anything or try to understand arguments they don't already agree with. That does not mean, however, I will refrain from pointing out hypocrisy in championing the rights of retail workers while ignoring the rights of porn workers.

I posted this OP to make a point. I posted the videos by Chomsky and Hedges to make a point. When people claim the opposition is all right-wing, or right-wing ideologically, they are lying to me and themselves. They can and will continue to falsify the nature of my argument and others, but I want to make it clear that I see through the artifice. And as someone pointed out, there are a number of people on DU who actually do read. They may not comment, but they lurk and read. Moreover, no one needs to read a single one of my posts if they don't want to.

[Warren DeMontague]

289. The so-called scientific studies are coming from right wing sources and think tanks. Undeniably.

In reality you've had several posters freak out that they were challenged on sources that would be laughed out of the building if the topic had been, say, creationism instead of "porn".

That there are people on "the left" that "oppose porn"... of course there are.

There is no disconnect between championing the rights of retail workers and porn workers. Like I said, domestic adult industry workers ARE protected by law, including additional industry-specific ones. Part of the problem is that "porn", in addition to being ill-defined, is less of a monolithic corporate industry than, say, an art form (or, if the adjective "art" is too problematic, perhaps a broad entertainment category) as such, it encompasses everything from Andrew Blake films to streaming pay-per-views to exhibition of amateurs who have an iphone camera. Not everyone in "porn" is even a "worker". There are plenty of amateurs out there who take their clothes off because, believe it or not, they enjoy it.

But if we are talking about legislation or workers' rights the way we do Wal-Mart, again, this deals with domestic policy and like I said, workers in the domestic adult industry ARE subject to such regulation. Of course, Wal-Mart has a presence beyond the Domestic US, and boycotting Wal-Mart is one way to address its broad corporate policies. Perhaps a boycott against corporations involved in the objected to adult industry practices might be another way to go, for those seeking some sort of change.

[BainsBane]

290. That point about the origin of those studies

Is a huge assumption about which I seriously doubt you have done enough research to know. Most studies are done in universities, which are far from right-wing. Now people may have posted some right-wing stuff on these boards because that is what they found open access online, but that's not the same as saying most studies that show a relationship between rape porn and rape are right-wing.

I have repeatedly advocated that people consume their porn responsibly from such domestic or European licensed and regulated porn companies. I have been either told that is an impossibility or the point has been ignored. People then again make posts calling me authoritarian. They seem determined to ignore the issues of porn workers rights.

[Warren DeMontague]

291. I know that Judith Reisman is right wing. I know that the "Witherspoon Institute" is right wing.

I know that the oft-flogged "lighted candle society" is right wing, unless having Ed Meese on your board of directors indicates something else.

My point stands; the people likely to be receptive to your suggestions on what sorts of masturbatory fodder they consume or not consume, are probably already doing so without your instruction, even. The people who aren't likely, aren't very likely to listen.

Porn, as an art form or entertainment medium, isn't going away. I remain convinced that the answer to bad art, bad music, even bad porn, is for creative minded producers to produce better stuff.

None of that means, of course, that you can't continue to populate GD with slow-loading threads on the topic of smut. Even if I "suggested" you do something else, you'd do what you want.

Which is kind of my point about people in general.

[BainsBane]

292. I will do a search of social science databases

and let you know what I turn up. It won't be right away. It is a simple fact that the majority of academic research, as I said, is conducted in universities and not in right-wing think tanks. Women's Studies, gender studies, queer studies, sexuality studies, etc. . (then often appear in single academic departments) are very far from right-wing fields.

I will post where I like. Those videos were already in HOF. I posted them in GD for wider viewership. People are free to use trash thread or ignore them. That people want to avoid seeing Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges talk about porn is the best reason I can think of to post them. They need to know their myopic views of the world are not universal. Besides, I have the added pleasure of watching people go through intellectual gymnastics to deny the reliability of the video clips.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. If it is supposed to be relevant or mean something that Chomsky and Hedges are anti-porn

then it ought to be relevant and mean something that Santorum, Shlafly, Robertson, Cuccinelli and the like are anti-porn, too.

[BainsBane]

294. as well as Noam Chomsky

The right also opposes human trafficking. Does that mean you'll support it? Come on. We can all think for ourselves. That's weak.

I'm not going to waste my time doing a literature search in a field I don't know if you're going to insist on ignoring everything.

[Warren DeMontague]

296. I will likely not change my opinion that consenting adults should be free to have sex on camera, no.

But trust me, if there was solid scientific statistical evidence that porn caused sexual assault, or that some large percentage of commercially produced adult industry porn involved non-consent, it would not take a ton of digging to find it.

In fact, it would be like scientific evidence that marijuana kills people- we'd never hear the end of it.

The fact that we DON'T hear hide nor hair much less the beginning OR the end of it, means that the agenda-driven people who have been looking for it for decades, haven't come up with anything.

[BainsBane]

300. That's not how research works. There aren't smoking guns

It doesn't work that way for the human genome or curing cancer. It's not going to work that way for a social science subject. What you're likely to find are studies exposing people to violent porn and then later testing their responses to see if any have become desensitized. Research establishes small bits of information that when built upon over time starts to form a picture.

The relationship between human trafficking and the sex industry, including porn, should be easier to find information on, but as with all illegal enterprises, it is likely to be very different to quantify.
The estimates of slaves taken from Africa during the transatlantic trade still vary widely among historians, even for the period the trade was legal.

Anti-Slavery International estimates that 2/3 of human trafficking victims are used in the sex industry. http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/trafficking.aspx

You can look through Google Scholar yourself. They won't have recent articles, but they have some older ones. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+trafficking+porn&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_vis=1

This looks interesting. A special edition in Sexual Research and Social Policy on Sexual Commerce and the Global Flow of Bodies, Desires, and Social Policy. You can tell from the title that it is academic ("bodies, desire&quot rather than aimed for a Christian right readership. That and the fact the author is at Columbia/Barnard.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1525%2Fsrsp.2008.5.4.1?LI=true#page-1

[Warren DeMontague]

302. No, but the core assertion of Dworkin/MacKinnon 2nd Wave Thought on the topic has been debunked.

Dworkin and MacKinnon assured the world in the 70s and early 80s that increased porn WOULD translate to increases in sexual assault.

Two statistical facts are inescapable- one, that porn is certainly more available than it was 30 years ago, and every single statistical analysis on the matter suggests that rape, like all violent crime, has declined in the same time.

That does not mean that "porn prevents rape", but it certainly debunks the assertion that it causes it, on any sort of regular or wide scale.

Also "The Global Sex Industry" ≠ "Violent porn" (still ill-defined, as I explained in my earlier linked post) which also ≠ "porn".

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

9. The "banning" context...

I may have missed something somewhere, and my apologies if I have. As far as I can tell, the recent spate of porn threads started from a discussion of the new British law, which seemed to be presented in the press as a ban of at least certain types of porn. I would suspect that the idea that the discussion is about banning or not banning comes from that.

I'm not sure, though. The porn threads tend to explode, and while they have plenty of passionate discussion, they may be low on clarity. Posters seem to tell one another what they don't believe, sometimes try to tell the other person what he or she does believe, but rarely seem to clarify what they, themselves may actually be advocating. I feel like this OP is declaring what it isn't, but not helping me understand what it is.

I point out this (possibly mistaken) impression on my part in hopes of some clarification of stances on the topic. I am interested, I want to learn. I don't know that I have an axe to grind. I am also an easy punching bag, if I am attacked. I don't know how to debate points well, can't defend myself effectively. Insofar as the porn threads become volatile quickly, I do worry that I may be smacked around a bit simply for posting in one.

[BainsBane]

12. I think your assessment is pretty accurate

Yes, they began with the British law and what people thought about that. Of course even saying one doesn't have an issue with the British law is not saying it should be imposed here. But then the discussion took off in various directions. So the response to a poster saying he was uncomfortable with the degrading nature of porn he Googled (which judging by his OP was pretty tame in comparison to rape porn) he was attacked as "authoritarian" and "trolling" for expressing that view. The same attacks have been made against women who have argued that they see a link between rape and rape culture. That very concept is something most refuse to consider. I have been told they won't even read a word past my mention of rape culture. So there we have it. My interpretation of it all: "All we care about is our "freedom" (translation: what we want). Your concerns about rape and rape culture are irrelevant. All that matters is our desires. Shut the fuck up."

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

22. Interesting.

Thank you for the response. I want a "big thumbs up" smiley, here, but I don't see one on offer.

Some months ago, prompted by discussions here on DU (I read the HoF group with some interest), I tried to do Google research on the concept of Rape Culture. I ended up, first, at Wikipedia, where the definition seemed more narrow and specific than its usage at DU would suggest.

Further searching led me to the blog of a self-described "RadFem", which was interesting and passionate, but still not really informative. In fact, it may have confused matters for me, as her main concerns seemed to be stamping out pornography and disliking Bill Mahr for something about fellatio. I read this for about a week, and it made me ask myself some questions, which is good. I stopped when she ended a post by concluding that she had to admit that she simply hates men. I was glad she'd reached this self-understanding, but felt a bit like there was little left to learn from that particular source.

That blog led me to similarly explore the views of the MRAs, so often mentioned by the blogger and her respondents. I concluded quickly that these guys were a bunch of wretched asshats, and didn't read much of what they had to say. My research fizzled out after reading about those bozos, with my questions still unanswered.

I would like to understand Rape Culture, as the concept is being invoked here at DU. It's a big idea, obviously, and seems to be the unexplained core idea behind many posts here. I am a male, an Aspie, and a middle-aged virgin, if you will. My place in any debate about sexuality is somewhere off to the side. But I am a male, and I want to be on the side of feminism. Currently I don't fully understand the parameters of the feminist movement as discussed on DU. Given the intensity and apparent anger in so many discussions here which touch upon Rape Culture (while not quite clarifying what it is), I am left wondering whether one such as myself is a welcome ally of feminism at all. I do want to be. I like to think we're all on the same side, ultimately. But I really do need some clarification.

I will be out for the holidays for approximately 24 hours. Any delay in response is an "away from keyboard" sort of thing.

[BainsBane]

278. I also was blessedly away for the holiday most of yesterday

I'm familiar with the Wikipedia definition, and it covers most of what I consider rape culture to be. Rape culture is a set of attitudes and believes that contribute to the prevalence of rape in society. It is manifested through a widespread tendency to minimize the significance of rape. It occurs in terms of low prosecution and conviction rates (currently at about 4% in this country); low sentences for rape offenders; victim blaming, whether shamming victims directly through social media or insisting women dress "appropriately" to avoid being rape. I submit that rape porn contributes to rape culture because it creates a view of rape as an expression of sexuality. It appeals to those who find rape erotic and may even influence viewers to act upon those fantasies. As the porn becomes less and less satisfying to them, they decide to try the real thing. Both Ted Bundy and Ariel Castro were avid consumers of rape porn.

Feminists, both here on DU, vary widely. Feminism encompasses many things, and I refuse to tell another woman she is not a "real feminist." You will see that charge, however, frequently waged against HOF members, particularly by men who don't like what someone there says. I have a major issue with a man who insists I'm not a real feminist because I don't share his view of an issue like, for example, rape porn.

I welcome you to participate in HOF anytime you like. I'm sure others there could share more about how they see rape culture.

Thanks for your reply.

[Xithras]

46. Yes, that's exactly where the context came from.

There was a thread about the new anti-porn law in the UK that criminalized the mere possession of "rape porn", even if it simply depicted entirely consensual BDSM. While most of the posters in the thread thankfully condemned the action as meddling in the private bedrooms of consenting adults, a number of posters immediately embraced the move and attacked those of us who defended the simple idea that consenting adults have the ability to make their own choices and that the government has no right to regulate either the sexual behavior of individuals or the publication of FICTION.

Over the past couple of days, those of us who choose to engage in BDSM have been accused of being everything from "deranged", to "mentally unstable", to "abusive monsters" in these threads. Those who have chosen to merely defend the right of adults to make their own sexual choices have been called everything from "rape enablers" to "woman hating sexists". The fact that some have pushed back is only natural.

[BainsBane]

275. I have made no such allegation

and have been very clear that rape and BDSM have nothing to do with each other. In fact, the ones I have most often seen conflating the two have been those intent on defending rape porn as free expression of sexuality (when porn is in fact commerce, not sexuality.)

As for your point that "it was pointed out" that the ban would influence consensual BDSM related porn: it was clear to me that few people in that thread had actually read the law and none had looked to see if any of the hypothetical scenarios they suggested were actually enforced in Scotland where the law is already in place.

Regarding your implication that there is something inherently superior DUers sitting around denouncing a law from another nation rather than saying they don't have a problem with it: I fail to see your or other DUers insisting you have the right to determine how the people of another nation should govern themselves is in any way superior, particularly when the outraged can't bother to look at the law or how it has actually been enforced.

[thucythucy]

14. One thing I've noticed is that when President Obama

asks Hollywood to make an effort not to glorify guns and gun violence, as he did earlier this week, you didn't see hundreds of people posting about what a terrific threat to "free speech" this is, nor did multitudes of DUers post about how ridiculous it is to try in any way to link portrayals and glorification of gun violence in the MSM with actual events in society. (Or if they did, I certainly missed it, and I did my best to do a site search on related posts. But: "Obama to Hollywood: Don't glorify guns" has thus far garnered a grand total of 19 replies).

But let ANYONE imply the same about rape porn, well, gentlemen: start your (search) engines! My guess is if Obama had said to the porn industry: "Don't glorify rape" well, Lord have mercy, how the fur would fly on DU!

I'm not sure what this says, other than that porn is evidently in an entirely separate category than other media. Sexism in commercials: condemn it! Racism in movies or on twitter (re: D'stort D'newsa's tweet about President Obama being a "grown up Trayvon&quot : not to be tolerated! (And just to be clear: I agree with all the responses condemning the above).

BUT, post a condemnation of the glorification of rape and violence against women in porn.....well, now all of a sudden, we're on the slippery slope to a right-wing fascist dictatorship.

Funny, isn't it. how that happens?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Intersting point, but..

just a little strawmanish.

Rape is a crime, as is murder, and both are depicted often enough, although the actual details of rape are usually only found in porn. Not always to the same effect, though-- without the penetration being shown, the scene where Sophia Loren's daughter gets raped by soldiers in "Two Women" still haunts me to this day. And then there's "Salo" and the Circle of Blood...

Rape, however, seems to get a far more emotional negative response for some reason. I understand how rape victims certainly wouldn't want to relive the experience on a screen any more than the relatives of murder victims would, but the reaction just seems out of scale. Movies where the victim is raped and murdered, the rape is reacted to as more horrible than the murder.

But, in the end, they are just movies, not reality. People do bad things in movies simply because that makes for interesting plot lines and characters and one of those bad things is rape. Often as not the bad things they do are justified internally and cheered by the audience while attacking innocents, as rape almost always is by definition, is condemned.

Which brings us to rape porn, which isn't mainstream and appeals to a very small audience. It's still just a movie. It's still fantasy. Nobody's shown that it increases real rape in real time. No one really knows why anyone watches it. But some are violently against it and make up stories about actresses kidnapped and forced into it, insane men drooling while masturbating and using it as a teaching video, or any manner of other horrors.

I suspect it's not the rape or bondage videos that are the problem here, just the depictions of any sex and Puritan reactions to them with rape being a handy tool for argument.

[thucythucy]

133. Talk about a little "strawmanish."

"I suspect it's not the rape and bondage videos that are the problem here, just the depictions of any sex and Puritan reactions to them with rape being a handy tool for argument."

Really? The old "you feminists just hate sex" ploy?

My oh my. And just in time for Thanksgiving, too.

For what it's worth, I enjoy sex very much, thank you, and have no problem with other people enjoying it as well, in whatever form or permutation, as long as we're talking consenting adults. Amazing how many times I have to say that, whenever the discussion turns to rape porn.

And I don't think "Two Women" is what most of us have in mind when we discuss rape porn. Nice try though.

As for the size of the audience for actual rape porn, that for me is only a part of the issue. There's now a couple of decade's worth of women studies material on how porn imagery--particularly and most disturbingly the violent stuff--eventually bleeds into mainstream media, which for me is just as much an issue as the original porn itself. Take the remake of "The Last House on the Left," for instance, with its long, graphic, excruciating rape scene. The fact that the major demographic for these films is young males is what, just coincidence? Or is the rape scene being used to draw these guys in? And to what effect, is what I'd like to know.

(Oh, BTW, I'm not calling for "censorship" here either, just to get that out of the way. That's generally up there with the "you must hate sex" response anytime rape porn comes up).

"Nobody's shown that it increases real rape in real time."

True enough, though there's a fair amount of research that shows that certain categories of film impact the way people--particularly young people--view sexual violence and rape survivors.

Just as two examples, in terms of slasher films, since I see a definite link between the two:

"Women victims get more screen time during their actual victimization and there are lots of examples of these women being chased and stalked in the film," said researcher Mary Beth Oliver, an assistant professor of communications at Virginia Tech University. "With men, sometimes you just see the corpse. These films strongly suggest that sexual women deserve to be punished in its most extreme form: Death....

Thrill Watchers, who identify with neither the victim nor killer, are what we consider "typical" teen-agers, Johnston said.

"I watch to freak myself out," they said. Horror movies are the equivalent of a roller-coaster ride, but with more bang for the buck.

These teen-agers have high levels of empathy and are excited by the movies' intensity of suspense. For these teen-agers, the best slasher films are those that shock and titillate most dramatically. Thrill Watchers characterize the films as not real and describe the victims as stupid....

But it is far less certain whether the films are as benign for Gore Watchers and Problem Watchers, who view the cinematic blood-splattering for sadistic purposes or as a way to escape isolation and to exorcise anger....

By far the most worrisome group are the Gore Watchers, who are most notable for their lack of empathy and their belief that victims who are hacked to bits deserve their fate, Johnston said.

And Oliver, who calls most slasher films misogynistic, worries that young Gore Watchers, whose ideas about sexuality are not fully formed, are too impressionable for a high diet of such bloody fare.

"It's really disgusting," Oliver said. "There is a sick morality lesson going on in these films that says that sexual women are bad and deserve what they get in these movies. That makes for a very volatile, potentially dangerous situation."

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-01/news/ls-61053_1_slasher-flicks/2

Other research focusing on college students suggests that long-term viewing of these movies can lead to decreased empathy for rape victims. This research has been going on for years:

"After seeing the films, according to data described at the symposium, the men found the movies to be progressively less upsetting, more enjoyable and less debasing to women. When asked to sit in as the mock jury of a rape case the men more often judged the rape victim to be at fault for what had happened, according to Dr. Donnerstein.

''A guy who has raped 20 women is the extreme of where those attitudes point,'' said Dr. Gene G. Abel, a psychiatrist at Emory University, in an interview....

''Straightforward pornography, movies like 'Debby Does Dallas,' don't seem to have these effects on people's attitudes toward women,'' Dr. Donnerstein said in an interview...

A small group of men in the study of slasher films showed in their initial testing such a strong similarity to the profiles of men willing to commit rape that for ethical reasons they were not allowed to view all five films.

Along with an attitude of callousness toward women and such beliefs as ''women want to be raped,'' men in this small group also scored higher on tests for traits of hostility and mental turmoil."

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/28/science/violence-against-women-in-films.html

That's just two articles grabbed pretty much at random. There are probably dozens more by now.

I would suggest that rape porn is more similar, in its effects, on viewers--particularly on younger males--than "vanilla porn" of the "Debbie Does Dallas" variety. Keep in mind, two prevailing themes in rape porn are a) she says no, but will eventually say yes, since all women are sluts under the surface or b) she's such a bitch, she deserves to get raped. (Side note here: one indication of the trend in the porn industry for ever more extreme forms of titillation is just how tame DDD seems today, when compared with even much "mainstream" porn). This of course just reinforces the rapist mindset--how can it not?

But to some extent this is beside the point I was making. I have no idea whether anyone has ever shown that "Birth of a Nation" for instance led to an increase in racist violence, (though the KKK did use it as a recruitment tool). That doesn't mean I can't decry the racist content of the film.

And if I do, I certainly wouldn't expect a host of DUers to jump to its defense.

Really, the response has been quite eye-opening.

All that aside: happy Thanksgiving, you treasonous bastard you! And if you're in the eastern US or midwest, be very careful driving out there. Last time I checked the roads were a mess.

[TreasonousBastard]

136. Now you're stretching...

Nowhere did I bring up any porn-hating feminists-- I'm talking in general about anti-porn crusaders, who may or may not be feminists. Or female.

I thought I was clear about "Two Women" not being porn, but having a profoundly moving rape scene. Both mother and daughter are powerless against the marauders and that's driven home brilliantly. Compared to it, rape porn is a cartoon.

Yeah, slasher flicks are pretty bad, but I'm not sure how they fit into all this. The comments about "deserving it" always meant to me that the victims did something really stupid. Female victims also seemed to me to be more sympathetic because they're not expected to be good at fighting back, and they get more face time simply because of the shock and sympathy factor. And you'll notice that the women tend to have slightly cooler heads in these flicks with one or two of the guys running off at the mouth and trying to run things. And they run things badly. What does that mean?

I get it that the first one to die in a slasher flick is the girl who's screwing when the action starts, but I never saw that as slut-shaming, just a cheap shot to start the action. Besides, nobody's going to be screwing when the slasher gets going, so get the titillation out of the way early.

And so it goes for polls and studies that show victim blaming and empathy disappearing. They've done studies on how news reports of these crimes affect the public of all genders and it leaves one questioning if it's porn, or any form of increased exposure that can cause a change in attitude.

And, yeah, I would imagine the audience for slasher flicks would lean more toward violence of any sort than the general population. No surprise there.

Feel free to decry anything you want. My problem with the decrying is confined to some people who are anti-sex and others (often the same ones) who are anti-porn of any sort.

Happy thanksgiving to you, too, and the threatened storm was just a little rain and a little wind around here. Traffic jams, airport delays, and even AMTRAK don't need much of an excuse to cause aggravation, but the weather was surprisingly light.

[historylovr]

147. It's all they can muster.

And it's a lame, tired, and weak argument.

[xulamaude]

137. Rape does get a "far more emotional response"

but not for "some reason". There are plenty of reasons many/most of which are deflected, ignored or otherwise dismissed all over everywhere and a whole lot of those reasons have been laid out the last several days right here.

And: "make up stories about actresses kidnapped and forced into it" is just beyond the pale.

Please.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. Ooh, very dramatic, but disagreeing with you does not...

...constitute "a concerted effort to silence the free speech of those who assert the rights of women and all rape victims." Sorry.

[BainsBane]

21. Of course not. I didn't say it did

And, for the record, this OP was not prompted by a response to me. But accusing people of trolling when they voice concerns and calling them authoritarian is a clear effort to silence. Attacking people when they post about actual violence against women because it doesn't focus on male victims is an effort to silence. Insisting public information campaigns about rape amount to "haranguing" men is an effort to silence. That juxtaposed with the heartfelt defense or rape porn paints a picture.

[Old and In the Way]

26. You didn't say it did?

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of this sentence in your OP-

"the hue and cry about "authoritarianism" is rather a concerted effort to silence the free speech of those who assert the rights of women and all rape victims. "

Sure sounds like you are accusing people on this board of "silencing (your) free speech" when they don't accept your authoritarian views on this subject and are willing to discuss/debate the points that your group makes. The fact that you then claim victimhood and you're being "silenced" because people disagree with you is very sad. I admit to being a male, but if I were a female, I'd be truly pissed with how a very small group of anonymous posters think they speak for all women on this board.

Most everyone on this board (male and female) appear to agree that (1) rape is unjustifiable and (2) what goes on in the privacy of consenting people's bedrooms is none of our collective business. Yet that seems to torque off certain posters here. Very curious.

[RiffRandell]

28. Great post.

[BainsBane]

33. You really are defending an entire genre

based on rape, torture, and mutilation of women? Seriously?

[RiffRandell]

37. Here we go attacking women who disagree with you.

Are we talking about Snuff films now?

So are you saying all porn is based on rape, torture and mutilation of women?

Yes, I am serious.

[BainsBane]

40. No, I'm not saying all porn. This thread and all of the threads this week

have been about rape porn, not all porn. The genre of rape porn.

I have asked you a question. I have not attacked you. Contrast that with your approach of making snide comments to others about me. I am quite comfortable with asking you to clarify your views on the subject. The fact you are female hardly makes you immune from inquiry about your views.

[BainsBane]

31. I torque off certain posters?

Certainly I do. Yet I manage to do so without being flagged for review. Fancy that.

Raising a concern about a connection between rape porn and rape culture/rape is not authoritarianism.

Raising concerns about the rights of workers in the porn industry is not authoritarianism

Raising concerns about subsidizing human trafficking, eg. slavery is not authorianism

Denouncing those concerns as authoritarianism reveals a conception of rights based overwhelmingly around the privilege of the porn consumer.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Raising concerns isn't the problem or the issue.

It's accusing approx. 90% of the board of advocating against those concerns. Anti-Rape, worker's rights, and anti-human trafficking are something almost every DUer here agrees with...yet you and a small group of posters seem hellbent on portraying the rest of us as part of the rape-culture problem. That's what torques me off.

[BainsBane]

74. 90% really? Whose estimate is that? Certainly not mine.

And I don't for a second believe 90% of members here watch brutal rape porn. The only accusation here is the one you have made toward me as authoritarian.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

135. And this is how a lie is born

You're the only person on this board who has mentioned 90% of DUers watching rape porn. The person to whom you responded certainly didn't make the claim. You're either unqualified to participate in the discussion because you can't keep up, or you're a liar.

[Logical]

153. LOL, someone alerted this post........5-1 to allow it.......

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Very rude personal attack. Calling another DUer a liar is over the top inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 28, 2013, 11:02 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not if they are a liar.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with this poster. Those are the two options. n-t
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh FFS
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This whole discussion of rape porn is over the top on both sides. I wish I could hide every post on this thread, but that isn't an option. I agree that the "liar" bit should be avoided, but given the tone on the thread in general it isn't much out of line with the rest.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: this attack is disgusting - time for some civility here
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: calling someone out on having their account flagged for review in the past is also a call out and way out of line

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

154. Juror #1

[maddezmom]

34. You hit the nail on the head for me as a woman

Sick of being called an apologist of any sort because I may have different views. like I said in a different post...I don't like it when men tell me what to do, act like, etc and surely don't like it when other women think they know what is better for me than I do.

[BainsBane]

35. Who called you an apologist?

I certainly haven't. I don't even recall a single conversation with you outside of MIRT.

[maddezmom]

39. You only need to take a look at the HOF group

You don't need to specifically called out by name to be lumped in as an apologist or worse.

[BainsBane]

41. So in other words no one has called you a rape apologist

You have decided to accuse others of doing so because you didn't like something you read in HOF.

[maddezmom]

45. No in other words....

The implication is clear if you peruse HOF. Lots of buzz words in there to dismiss other women on DU when they don't fall in line. If you don't see it I don't know what to tell you.

~peace

[BainsBane]

48. Whatever position someone takes in HOF

is not an insult to Maddezmom. It is a serious mistake for you to take it so. There is no need to invent more drama or insults than already take place on DU. If you think someone is insulting you, I would encourage you to alert on it. Not knowing what particular posts you have in mind, I can't say whether they were critical of other women, as you say. I myself am not an essentialist. I don't believe that someone is superior or inferior, culpable, innocent, or immune from having their views criticized because of their gender. We are all capable human beings who can advance and defend our own views.

I understand reading posts in certain save haven groups can be upsetting to some, which is why I have one in the trash.

[maddezmom]

55. You really don't need to tell me how I should feel or react to posts on DU

Just because it is a safe haven doesn't mean people don't read the posts. Obviously or else there would be so many posts in HOF and other groups calling out other groups of DU'ers.

[BainsBane]

75. Okay, I'll put it this way

Accusing others of calling you a rape apologist when they haven't is dishonest. You have no right to accuse me of something I have never done. So spare me our poutrage.

[maddezmom]

84. I never said you called me one. Like I said if you don't see it being done to some

women in the general sense on DU. You know, we used to call them group attacks or painting with a broad brush. Some women on this thread seem to feel the same.

As for your poutrage comment...LOL! People on DU can see where the poutrage is coming from and it ain't me.

[MicaelS]

72. The clique in HOF is the closest thing we have in DU..

To an outright bunch of Maoists. Complete with a "Gang of Four, Five, Six, pick-a-number", Thought Police, purges and so on. That fact that HOF had to be created in the first place was because Feminists (not men) in the Feminist Forum could not get along like adults. That speaks volumes to level of discourse in HOF. Yes, we all know why the "Safe Haven" of HOF exists.

[ismnotwasm]

170. Bwahahaha

"Maoists"

You are too cute. Wrong, but cute.

[BainsBane]

236. Have you figured out yet

How we can be both Maoist and right-wing?

[NaturalHigh]

203. "Thought Police" is probably the best description I've read yet.

[BainsBane]

235. Right. What would you call the gungeon

Oh, wait. Let me guess, defenders of liberty. Because guns are important. Women's rights aren't.

How can I be both a Maoist and right-wing? How exactly does that work?

[MicaelS]

259. Authoritarian is an accurate label for Extremists.

No matter on the Far Left or Far Right who want to tell others how to live. For their own good of course. Or because someone doesn't like what others are doing. No matter whether that be owning guns, watching porn, using tobacco or cannabis, drinking or eating the "wrong" food or drinks, or so on.

I don't like Authoritarians of any stripe. Whether they be Marxists, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, or Libertarians.

[BainsBane]

263. And what is authoritarian about my position?

And do share with us what Mao has to say about porn.

[polly7]

53. You're right, maddezmom.

I was called a 'DU rape apologist' (whatever that is) straight out a long time ago and, in fact, this OP has accused me of posting for my boyfriend (sorry bf, I don't remember who it was, exactly ... no offense), because I disagreed with her on something in one of these threads. You're right, women here are being accused of all sorts of things because we all don't believe in limiting the rights of other adult women to do with their bodies as they choose. It's divisive and dishonest.

[RiffRandell]

56. And offensive.

Yet we're the ones accused of attacking women.

[polly7]

57. Exactly! nt.

[maddezmom]

58. Thanks polly

And I do remember that incident and an other of a rape survivor being lumped in with other apologist because having replied to someone in disagreement.

[Kurska]

59. Are one of the cohort gender traitors waiting for head pats from porn addicted men

That I've read so much about in sub-groups that shall not be named?

[polly7]

61. LOL! Apparently

but seriously, just .... no.

[RiffRandell]

63. No, even though I supposedly defend an entire genre based on rape, torture, and mutilation.

Please, give me some attention! I have no life!

[msanthrope]

150. When I objected to the word '*toilet' on this board, I became one of those

gender traitors. Apparently, I did not understand the use of the word '*toilet' academically.

[polly7]

169. I know, right?

I was compared to a six y/o just learning a new swear word and a bunch of other immature garbage because I thought it was so disgusting. I guess you and I just missed out on some of the higher edumacation we were assured we needed.

[opiate69]

106. Hi, girlfriend!!!(I do believe it was I she was talking about)

[polly7]

113. OMG .... Snookums!

How could I forget! I'm so sorry.

[opiate69]

115. Now, you'll need to be punished!

[polly7]

117. Oh, shit!

... do you know that coffee up the nose actually burns?!

[opiate69]

119. Lmao!

Sorry! Probably feels better than carbonated soda though lol

[polly7]

139. It's all good!

[pintobean]

62. I think the repeat threads

and the constant drumming, is someone trying to establish, or regain, credibility in that group. It's really rather sad to watch.

[loli phabay]

65. i think its a pathological issue, at least there is something going on

[pintobean]

71. You may be right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024101433#post19

[BainsBane]

238. That's evidence of pathology

My. You are insightful.

[pintobean]

249. You replied to yourself

and tried to hijack your own thread. What does "rape porn" have to do with silly language lessons?

[BainsBane]

252. Hijack my own thread?

I kicked it. It had to do with the fact I wanted to participate in that thread instead of this one.

[pintobean]

254. Uh huh

but here you are.

[BainsBane]

257. Two days later

and I can't resist your sparkling personality. You know I hang on your every word.

[BainsBane]

237. because women who don't think rape is fun entertainment

are pathological. Right. Or perhaps we just don't hate ourselves enough to suit you?

[loli phabay]

240. i am pretty sure you have enough hate for both of us. going by your posts.

[BainsBane]

246. Is that so?

How awful for me to disagree with you. It's so hateful.

[loli phabay]

248. yes, i do think hate is at the core of your posts, either of self or others.

[BainsBane]

251. How is arguing for workers rights hateful?

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It is hateful if it is in the porn industry but not retail? How is trying to raise awareness of human trafficking hateful? How is arguing for responsible consumption of porn through licensed and regulated companies hateful? How is trying to get people to think about ways in which rape porn contributes to rape culture hateful?

[ismnotwasm]

166. What the hell?

Credibility with whom? Am I supposed to care? We can review any number of groups and say the same thing. If I was worried about credibility, I'd be silent. As it is I generally take my activism elsewhere, and find connections and like minded people all over the world, to raise awareness and make positive changes. Fuck no I don't like rape porn, but more than that I despise the porn industry, which is as corrupt as Wall Street. So ironic, these threads, and I love irony.

Don't waste any "sadness" on me. I don't give a shit.

Do you think that furiously typing away on Democratic Underground in itself changes anything? It's a focal point, a discussion group and one that recycles topics endlessly. For, me it's just good practice.

Repeat threads are de jour for any topic. I just hide them after a while.

[pintobean]

177. That comment was not directed at you

nor was it about you. It's kind of funny that you want to make it about you, but you don't give a shit.

[ismnotwasm]

164. What?

I post a lot in there. I'm on the " perpetually outraged" list as well.

It's hilarious.

[Vashta Nerada]

98. +1000

[quinnox]

27. Maybe there is a lot of pushback because of how you and others in your group come across

Too often, it seems uncomfortably close to this -

[BainsBane]

29. Opposition to Rape and violence against women = thought police

Gottcha.

[quinnox]

42. Well, it does seem like many of you folks in that feminism group are pretty unflexible, rigid, and

set in your views, and are quick to broad-brush or use negative terms for any who might disagree with you. There doesn't seem much room for argument or discussion in other words, that doesn't coincide or align closely with your viewpoints.

[BainsBane]

189. Broadbrushing while attackiing broadbrushing

That takes talent.

[xulamaude]

195. LOL nt

[The Straight Story]

92. and that, right there, is the issue summed up

" Opposition to Rape and violence against women = thought police"

Rewording or just not seeing what people are saying. People keep saying they are on the side of women/feminists/etc but keep getting told they have not passed the purity tests and folks are running about saying 'look, we are such victims on DU! look at what they all say!' when they all are saying nothing of the sort.

But some feed off of that energy, then rush about in small cloisters to comfort one another from the evils of DU and it's admins.

[LittleBlue]

30. Okay, keep speaking out against porn

while the rest of society continues to watch.

Got no problem with people who don't advocate a ban.

[davidn3600]

47. The problem is you are asking for all porn to be banned because some of it is exploitative

You are painting too broad a brush.

Not all people who engage in pornography are being abused or forced.

[Old and In the Way]

50. They'll never admit to that, but

that's what they really have a problem with. They hate porn, maybe even sex...but they cannot come out and say that. So they attack it by equating it to rape, or sex workers being forced to do porn, or even human trafficking/forced porn concerns. And then accusing anyone who disagrees as "part of the problem".

I rarely see any of the HoF members discussing any issue here on DU, other than MRA/privilege/porn/rape culture. Almost like they are obsessed with these subjects.

[RiffRandell]

64. Unhealthily so. nt

[Niceguy1]

132. we already have all the laws

we need. If its not consensual its rape end of story. If it's consensual then there shouldn't be any problems with it. I think some of the HOF think that women are incapable of making their own infirmed choices, at least it appears that way.

[Kurska]

49. This entire stupid debate started over a thread talking about a law BANNING it

If people didn't want to be accused of wanting to ban it, they probably shouldn't have made literally hundreds of posts supporting or endorsing the spirit of the law in the first thread.

SMH

I'm a gay jew by the way, but apparently I'm the most privileged right wing activists in the world, because I disagree with you about freedom speech.

[uppityperson]

51. My problem with porn and gratuitious violence is it makes people more apt to be tolerant of

violence and sexist behavior. Once you get used to seeing something, you accept that as "normal" and are more tolerant of such behavior even if not consensual.

[etherealtruth]

66. You are correct ... it normalizes some pretty horrid behaviors

[Blue_Adept]

67. Horrid to some. Normal to others.

As we've seen in the threads, there's a wide range of what some feel is normal or horrid. I'm by no means saying rape simulated porn is right or normal. But we've seen that said about anything from spanking to hair pulling.

Sometimes the more things are on display, the more normalized they get. The more people talk about it and things change. For better and worse. Go back 30 years and watch talk shows and you'll see few people talking about abuse they suffered from family members, medical/psychological issues and so forth. I've had my elderly mother tell me that people shouldn't go on these shows and talk about how their parent raped them for example. But I've said that it's good that they do because they get it out there and other people who have gone through similar experiences find that they're not alone.

Some kid growing up discovers that he likes certain kinks, feels alone, but discovers through various communities and porn that it is normal and that they're not alone. That's a good thing.

[etherealtruth]

68. We are talking about rape porn

I am mortified that anyone would view rape as normal ... rape is not an adventure ... it is a horrific crime

[Blue_Adept]

69. Oh no

It's run the gamut of all things in these threads and with the couple of strong posters within them, including the original poster here.

But nobody is looking at rape as something normal. Anyone that is probably already has some screwed up ideas in their head.

But a lot of people, women especially based on my personal experience and through a variety of discussions on many sites over the years, enjoy the fantasy aspect of it with the right partner. That can horrify plenty of people and I totally get that.

[etherealtruth]

85. "But a lot of people, women especially ... enjoy the fantasy aspect of it ..."

Mercifully, I really do not know anyone that fantasizes about being the victim of a (violent) crime

[Blue_Adept]

86. That you know of.

Since many people do keep things in the bedroom like that. Because so many people get judge-y and all.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/200805/why-do-women-have-erotic-rape-fantasies

[etherealtruth]

88. Not a fantasy I engage in ... being a victim of brutality just doesn't do it for me

[mythology]

143. Except the definition of "rape porn" is so broad that it's useless

If anything that can be seen as degrading, again not defined, is out of bounds, then it's not just about "rape porn", especially since it's been alleged that many women in porn aren't there voluntarily.

There has been exactly nobody that I've seen who has said that watching actual rape is a good thing. There have been people who say that they enjoy engaging in BDSM which can involve consensual violence, some which seems to fall under the U.K. ban.

[etherealtruth]

148. I reamin unenterained by rape

I fully believe it desensitizes people to rape.

I have not expressed anything having to do with the banning of any "artistic" expression ... of any kind.

My understanding of the rape porn controversy is that is involved some actual presentations of rape ... hopefully the filming of rape (of anyone at anytime) disgusts us all.

[Sissyk]

70. Different opinions (re: porn)

Is not trying to shut someone up.

And please. You do not speak for this rape victim (survivor). So as far as speaking for all of us, please do stop.

[BainsBane]

73. I don't claim to speak for you

I never would, nor did I claim to. Different views are indeed not silencing. Denouncing someone as a troll and authoritarian is trying to silence them by invalidating their right to speak.

[Sissyk]

76. I think you should reread your OP.

You wrote "all rape victims".

[BainsBane]

78. Thank you for pointing that out

It was a mistake. I will correct it. The use of all was meant to be inclusive of men as well as women, but I can see how it read differently.

[Sissyk]

80. Thank you.

No matter what the subject, I dislike someone speaking for an entire group of people.

I see what you mean though. However, you could say women and men. It doesn't hurt to occasionally let everyone know you care about men.

[BainsBane]

82. Yes, I corrected it to specify men and women.

which is how I should have written it in the first place. The only reason I used we instead of I is that this OP was prompted by responses to Arcantrance.

[cleanhippie]

79. After reading the replies to this OP ad your subsequent responses, this is all that needs to be said

Another poster said this to you up thread. You should take it to heart.

You should reexamine what you post here. It doesn't read like any attempt to solidify support for anything other than your ego.

[EOTE]

81. You're not going to stop until the majority believe as you do, are you?

Don't let me silence you, though. I find these threads are often popcorn worthy.

[loli phabay]

83. more popporn worthy if you ask me.

[EOTE]

89. No doubt.

Again, not trying to silence in the least. In fact, I'll heartily give this thread another kick.

[loli phabay]

90. me too, the entertainmemt value is worthy of xhamster.

[Blue_Adept]

91. Not much of an xhamster fan

Generally prefer pornhub.

But pornmd has been great. a porn-google if you will. They also have some great analytics of who consumes what around the world based on keywords. Fascinating to see what other cultures/countries are into or by-state for the US.

[EOTE]

93. THIS is why I love threads like this.

Now I'm off to find out how Utah and Saudi Arabia fare.

[Blue_Adept]

94. It really is fascinating!

It's such a big world out there with so many different interests. I've discovered a few things through porn that has definitely made some happy partners.

[EOTE]

95. Truly. I've learned a lot in the past few minutes.

Mostly confirming my suspicions that Asians are pretty damned kinky. I think you mentioned being able to see top searches on a state-by-state basis, but I'm not seeing how to do that on the site, I'm only seeing by country. Can you clue me in? Thanks.

[Blue_Adept]

97. It used to be more accessible - Check this

http://www.pornmd.com/resources/infograph/

Then select USA at the top so you can select by state.

[EOTE]

103. Muchas gracias. nt

[nomorenomore08]

207. "Mostly confirming my suspicions that Asians are pretty damned kinky."

Are you sure you want to post that on DU?

[Blue_Adept]

87. A Psychology Today article on various reports for those that want to read more

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/200805/why-do-women-have-erotic-rape-fantasies

[renie408]

104. For the record

I don't think porn should be banned. I want people to THINK, that's all. I have a hard time reconciling being progressive and supportive of women and being a consumer of commercial porn. And I think that if you can reconcile those two things, you should probably think about that.

[BainsBane]

112. That's essentially my view

Or if someone must consume porn, get it from licensed and regulated companies to minimize the chances of subsidizing human trafficking.

If rape porn were banned, however, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[backscatter712]

111. Except you did advocate banning.

Several of you were loudly cheering the banning of what you call "rape porn" by the Tory Party's law in the UK, but seeing that the law was written broadly, including "real and simulated acts", it would have made all sorts of consensual sexuality potentially punishable by law.

Don't tell me you're just here to yell at us, not to demand bans. You were cheerleading the suppression of free expression, where no rape was taking place.

[BainsBane]

122. Not objecting to a UK law is not advocating banning

Whereas you seemed to think you should be able to determine British law, not the citizens of the UK. Shall I accuse you of supporting regime change because you seemed to think yourself and not Britons fit to make their laws? That something can legally be implemented in the UK doesn't mean it can here. And yeah, I care far more about the victims of human trafficking and rape than sadists who get off watching women raped and mutilated. Sue me. I'm quite comfortable with that position.

The law is in effect in Scotland. You can easily do a search to see how it has been enforced instead of inventing hypothetical scenarios, but reality doesn't concern you. Instead you want to create false scenarios to justify your absolutist libertarian position.

You don't know no rape was taking place. Most importantly, your continual efforts to pretend it doesn't shows how little it concerns you.

[Kurska]

125. Claim you don't support banning, then spend an entire post defending a law that bans

My lord, at least have the intellectual courage to stand up for your beliefs. You might as well, given you're not fooling anyone.

[nomorenomore08]

208. But then other posters will be all "YOU HATE PORN/SEX!!!" when all she's talking about here

are depictions of rape that, at the least, are indistinguishable from the real thing.

For the record, I don't think anything that's not an actual recording of a criminal act should be illegal. But when one can't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual depictions - no disclaimers etc. - then what the hell are we supposed to do?

[Prism]

128. 20,000 posts in one year?

Believe me, no one is silencing you.

What I enjoy about these dust ups is how you and your group start shitstorms by leaping into GD throwing haymakers, and if the people you're targeting give you even a percentage of it back, you scrabble away and claim you're being unduly victimized out of thin air.

There's bullying and abuse happening, oh yes. I do believe that.

[BainsBane]

131. Yes, being exposed to a viewpoint that makes you uncomfrotable

Is far worse than being the target of actual rape or violence. How awful for you to have to endure free speech. Of course you announced that you never read what I wrote, so my "abuse of you" can't really have been that serious, could it? You remain in your myopic world, unencumbered by dissent, nagging feminists concerned about trivialities like rape and rape culture--something you insisted I have no right to mention.

My OP was prompted by the rude treatment and accusations of trolling on Arcantrance, which resulted in his deleting his OP.

I did not claim bullying and abuse by members here. I observed efforts to silence through delegitimating speech. Accusing someone of being abusive and a bully for voicing their views is one such effort to declare speech illegitimate.

You are quite right that no one silences me, and that clearly disturbs you.

[Prism]

134. Doesn't make me uncomfortable

Seriously, you just make things up about people to suit your momentary need. Why do you think you're always at the center of conflict? Stuff like this post is why. I'm gay. I could not possibly be less interested in seeing women in porn.

How is it we have a bajillion threads, where people are having their sexuality denigrated, shamed, and called a psychiatric disorder, and the people laying down those attacks are the victims?

Rude? I'll go you one further. The attacks on sexuality are bigoted, right-wing, and have no decent place among liberal adult discourse. What is this, 1979?

Anita Bryant would fit right in here. And you're terribly out of sorts because the people protecting sexual freedom tell the authoritarians where to shove it?

You're not victims. You are the aggressors. And as a gay man who always has to defend his right to sexuality, I can spot an oppressive authoritarian aggressor when they show their mug.

And that's me being polite, btw.

[Puglover]

162. Perfectly stated Prism.

To me it boils down to, some posters want DU to be more of a support group or safe haven then a lively discussion board and boy do they get in an up roar when others simply say "No". Ugh, I simply do not engage in this ugly pointless bullshit but wanted to point out how much I admire your restraint and well thought out post.

[BainsBane]

229. It shows you ignored my entire argument

but you said you did. So clearly it does make you uncomfortable. Your entire emphasis is on the manufacturer and consumer of rape porn and shows absolutely no awareness of those who make the porn or are affected by its dissemination.

I have argued for workers rights rather than the obsessive focus on the user of porn. That is FAR from right wing.

I have argued that people need to pay attention to the issue of human trafficking and slavery, endemic to brutal porn. Not right wing.

I have argued that people should try to consume responsibly through licensed and registered companies. That is as right wing as not shopping on Thanksgiving or supporting Costco over Walmart.

I have argued that rape porn is part of rape culture, influences rape culture, and increases the viewers likelihood to commit actual rape. That is only right wing if one's vision of society excludes rape victims and women as human beings.

It helps to pay attention on occasion.

[Vashta Nerada]

267. Thread win.

[NaturalHigh]

204. People have been called "rape apologists" and worse in these threads.

If that particular poster gets so disturbed by people disagreeing with him that he deletes his OP, then maybe he should think about the purpose of a discussion board. It's a lot more than just getting a group of like-minded individuals to form an "amen chorus" to validate your views.

[Bonobo]

297. Worse than that.

BB actually said that the only people that would defend rape porn are likely rapists. Or something VERY close to that.

No, I couldn't find it, but I remember it.

[NaturalHigh]

298. Oh, but not according to her.

She has just engaged in civil discussion.

[Bonobo]

299. The "civil discussion"

BB:

Excellent

For some reason some feel a vested interest in maintaining rape. I wish I could say I was surprised.

[hrmjustin]

130. I wish the industry would not make rape porn.

Why anyone would like that is their own business but it is disgusting.

I think the industry should be more responsible but they are too busy making money and do not care about what their products might do to people.

[99Forever]

138. I have the priviledge to trash this repetitive flamebait horsedung.

Think I'll use it.

Bub bye.

[LadyHawkAZ]

141. At least one person certainly was advocating banning,

not just of rape porn but all porn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024096085#post41

I really don't mind saying I think porn should be illegal.

You are correct about doing a search for porn. It is clear what type of porn is driving the industry. I trust that they know their customers, and the images and words they display on their home-pages shows a clear direction towards pain and violence.

I think that all porn or sex trade business, where some form of trade is made for work that requires any type of penetration, should be outlawed. I also think the laws of a state should govern the actions of fetish porn.

Said poster has my respect for being the only one of the bunch with the guts to state their motivation in plain English. Everyone else keeps doing the dance of "NOBODY WANTS TO BAN YOUR PRON YOU PERVERT!1!!", while simultaneously calling all porn some form of rape, abuse or slavery. That's probably where the misunderstanding is. I can't speak for everyone, but if *I* genuinely believed that I was watching actual footage of actual rapes, you know what I'd do?

I'd be right out there trying to ban it and have the perpetrators arrested and jailed. Yep. Because I'm like that with rape. YMMV.

I think most of the free speech defenders would probably do the same. So perhaps we're projecting our own ideas of what would be an appropriate reaction to the filming of actual rapes onto others. Maybe the people calling porn rape, non-consensual acts, slavery etc. really do think it's OK to distribute the films in spite of that. Or maybe they just lack any real belief in what they're saying. You never know with people these days.

Are people trying to "silence" anyone? In the case of the cites from rabidly sexist and homophobic sources, certainly. I'd really prefer not to see that sick right-wing horseshit dragged here and glorified like it was something to be proud of. It appears that a number of people agree with me on that. Beyond that, no; criticism is not an attempt at "silencing" anyone. There was plenty of criticism. Some people can't handle critics.

On the subject of the original law though, the objection was not to this:

rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity

but to this:

criminalises the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:
an act which results or is likely to result in a person's severe injury
rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity

"Explicitly and realistically depict" is a a broad, undefined term and could conceivably cover consensual areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with actual rape. People brought up some very real concerns in the context of BDSM, which is by nature a) graphic, explicit and realistic and b) may result in injury ("severe" is not defined either). That discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with actual rape, but about the "explicit and realistically depictions" which may in that context appear non-consensual and/or causing injury (this quote from the article was also part of that: "Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not". Without any clear definition about what "depicted and simulated non-consensual behavior" might mean, it was a pretty valid concern. What happened to that discussion?

Someone jumped in and conflated it with rapists and violent predation.
A couple of people, actually.
Someone else called all participants mentally ill.
Repeatedly.

Etc. Not even an attempt at understanding or addressing what they might be concerned about, but a whole lot of calling them "rape defenders" and "sick" and "needing help" and conflating it with rape and abuse. Who was trying to silence who again?

I'm going to make this my last porn post because it's SSDD and I'm sick of it, but I'm going to point out what seems to me to be the most important and most unnoticed fact about the whole argument: when rape in mainstream movies (especially the freakishly graphic stuff like I Spit On Your Grave, where the rape took up a full third of the movie) got brought up, the same people complaining about simulated rape porn defended it. Think about that. That should say it all.

[backscatter712]

142. I'm with you in that I have limited patience.

Normally in these threads, I only make a few back-and-forths in an argument - after that, it's just the same shit over and over, and I rapidly get tired of debunking the same shit over and over, only to be called an evil baby-eating misogynist rape-defender. Either there's going to be a productive discussion, or there isn't, and calling me an an evil rape-defender indicates there isn't.

Usually, my pattern is this.

1. About a half-dozen rounds of back-and-forth with someone who responds to my arguments with non-sequiturs and ad-hominems.
2. After realizing I'm wasting time, and might as well be having a discussion with a dining-room table, I switch to ridicule.
3. I walk away, my point's been made, either people accept it or they don't.

My position: If it's consensual, meaning everyone involved is an adult and giving adult consent, it should be legal. Even if it's "nasty" meaning there's BDSM stuff, or freaky kinks. If someone isn't consenting, it's rape, it's already illegal, and should be illegal.

[BainsBane]

187. The issue is that some of it is not consensual

and demonstrably so as proved by any number of human rights organizations.
Yes, stuff is already illegal. Does that mean consumers can consciously absolve themselves from all responsibility for subsidizing slavery, as people here are intent on doing by ignoring it? Or, as I have suggested, why not consume their porn from licensed and registered companies? Even that suggestion is met with great opposition, hence the charges of authoritarianism to me.

[JVS]

146. Not to mention that the entire issue was brought up by a UK ban on the porn in question.

This makes the "nobody is talking about banning" claim ludicrous. Obviously somebody has put forth the idea if it found its way into legislation.

[BainsBane]

188. Where did I said "no one was talking about banning"

Complete bullshit. The point was that people have taken that position toward those who did not advocate banning, like Arcantrance, who was called a troll and driven off the site. Congratulations. One more person who thinks women have rights gone.

[BainsBane]

186. One poster does so

Justifies attacking everyone else who critiques rape porn or suggests responsible consumption as "authoritarian" and a "troll"? It's clear to me that some are just super pissed off that anyone dare challenge their entitlement by--God forbid--asking them to consider the rights of the people who make that porn, or worse yet those affected by its dissemination.

That trope about calling people rape defenders has been proved false and it's a dishonest charge. When queried, everyone who makes that allegation backs down.

I have already been accused of homophobia and siting right wing sites. When I demanded proof, the person could produce none. I have used no such sites. You are free to debate yourself ad nauseum or another poster, but when you attribute to me that kind of shit, it pisses me off I great deal. You have no right to make baseless allegations against me to solidify your one-dimensional view of opposition to the issue.

You clearly have not paid even the slightest attention to my argument. Instead, you insist everyone really thinks what you assume they do because that's easier for you than dealing with the substance of actual arguments. Your post is another series of non-sequiturs, distortions, and exaggerations that addresses nothing I have argued.

[rrneck]

193. What is your argument? nt

[BainsBane]

231. All you need do is actually read some of the responses

I've made to you. It is about workers rights, and not excluding porn from the industries so-called liberals care about. It is about slavery, common in the sex industry, including porn. It is advocating responsible consumption of porn through licensed and regulated companies to lessen the possibility one is subsidizing slavery or extreme workers exploitation. It is about the ways in which rape porn is part of rape culture and influences the propensity for viewers to commit actual rape. It is about ways in which rape porn desensitizes viewers to violence against women and other victims.

There have been many, many threads on the subject, and I have made far too many posts on the subject. The problem is no one seeks to understand. They ignore what I actually say in an effort to reduce the argument to caricatures they can easily dismiss.

[rrneck]

274. Okay,

Let's see what we have here. We have slavery, industry compliance with the law, cultural impact of porn, psychological impact of porn, and the right of performers in the industry to fair treatment and pay. Good.

Well, as has been pointed out many times to you before, slavery is illegal here in the United States. I guess it still happens, but anyone who gives consent to perform in a dramatic production is not a slave. So you got nothing there.

How do we verify someone is not a slave? Well, when they verify consent. Such verification comes in the form of a contract and payment for services. I understand from reading here that a video statement is common practice as well. The infrastructure for that is already in place and is used throughout the industry. It's called a 2257 statement of compliance. That law is the rusult of an industry scandal involving Tracy Lords, who appeared in porn movies and magazines before she was legally old enough to do so.

Now, it is possible that people get in over their heads and are forced to do things they didn't want to do even with the existence free resources that allow them to make informed choices regarding their contractual entanglements. Porn producers have already gone to jail for such abuses. And since porn is a multi billion dollar industry with deep pockets ripe for class action suits, you got nothing there either.

And how do actual honest to god porn rapists get caught? Well, only a blithering idiot would document themselves committing a crime and sell it to the world on the most efficient means of mass communication in the history of the human race. That should make the cops job pretty easy. All of the above should also take care of your complaints of the consumption of illegal international porn here in the United States, so you got nothing there either. If it really bugs you, when's your flight to Thailand?

So with the combination of good old fashioned police work and a system of documentation for compliance with the law already in place, you got nothing.

The psychological impact of porn is impossible to measure because it invariably results in an exception fallacy. And the obvious problems with cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies mean you got nothing there either.

So in terms of the cultural impact of porn, well, I guess if you want to climb into bed with the right wing nuts at the Witherspoon foundation that's up to you. But your willingness to do so brings us to the most interesting of your arguments against porn. Now the fun begins.

Every worker deserves to be fairly compensated for their labor in a safe work environment. There is a way to make that happen. Some call them unions. There are already actors unions in existence. So why don't actors in the porn industry join those unions? Probably the same reason women in the porn industry find it almost impossible to do anything else if they want to leave. Porn has been so stigmatized by those on the right and the left the social, political, and legal tools to which they should have a right are denied them.

So, after a too long post you have no excuse for any of the arguments you seem so fond of repeating. And I've done a boatload of research for you, so as soon as you can take a break from exercising your sanctimony muscle, maybe you can get to work actually finding a way to help people instead of using them as a foil.

[LadyHawkAZ]

194. I don't back down.

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:33 AM - Edit history (3)

Not when I'm right, anyway. It's why some people don't like me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post119

BainsBane (20,348 posts)
119. See what I've written
before directing me to arguments I've already addressed. The only ones conflating BDSM with rape here are the defenders of rape porn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024073698#post96

BainsBane (20,351 posts)
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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024073698#post109

BainsBane (20,351 posts)
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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post531

Tumbulu (3,602 posts)
531. So, you are a rape porn defender ?
why would you defend such atrocities? Do you enjoy seeing women tortured? What the hell is this about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post556

Tumbulu (3,602 posts)
556. sick defender of women being tortured and beaten!
Oh the first amendment allows this somewhere? Think again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post42

ismnotwasm (13,720 posts)
42. Are people really not understanding what rape porn is?
Or is what I'm reading a passive-aggressive defense of it?
"I spit on your grave" is not porn. Not are shows that depict rape. I suggest rape porn defenders define their definitions before acting as creepy as possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post607

orpupilofnature57 (11,448 posts)
607. This thread is in GD, and it's about Scumbags that support
MISANTHROPIC behavior, I've been here for ten years and this is the first time I've heard RAPE being defended, which is what You're doing . Should films depicting the slaughter of a race and nothing else as far as a plot be legal ? NO because in itself it's a hate crime, same here .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024073698#post309

KitSileya (1,711 posts)
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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post688

seabeyond (89,485 posts)
688. if you are defending the right to the rape porn, then ya, you are defending real rape. a vast amount
of the rape porn is done by women and children kidnapped, blackmailed, forced to commit acts they do not want to do, raped. and "simulated" is added on. when a buyer does not know whether he is jaking off to "simulated" rape or rape of a human being, ya, he is part of the problem.
is it not a buyers responsibility to KNOW he is not getting off on a human being that has no freedom, no voice, that is raped and brutalized, and abused, demeaned, humiliated, for his enjoyment?

"People don't want to wade back through long-ass threads and repost what they saw you say in there" =/= "proven false". More than one person called other DUers rape defenders and/or rape porn defenders, you were one of them. There's a sampling of the posts. Feel free to spin.

As far as Arcanetrance's thread goes, his deleted OP equated all anal sex and object insertion with rape, and while I don't think he was deliberately trolling, that stance got righteously criticized as BS because it was BS. Other people seemed to feel he was trolling. They have a right to speak, too, don't you think?

(ETA because you've now edited your post to add stuff I never said: Two separate OPs, here and here (now deleted), used sexist and homophobic right-wing propaganda as reference- specifically, the Witherspoon Institute. Nowhere did I say YOU had, since I did not see you do so. Nor, as far as I know, did anyone else say YOU had, although feel free to link if they did and I'll rant about it. YOU might not have posted the stuff, but others DID, and got called out for it, particularly by the LGBT here and their supporters. What, specifically, is your problem with that? Who is trying to silence who again?)

I paid attention to your argument, and even agree with the main point of it. Footage of actual rapes has no business on the market, for sale or otherwise. NO ONE had an argument with that. The problem was that you weren't interested in anyone else's issues with the law in question. You just kept harping on that one issue when other people had completely different and equally valid concerns, EVEN THOUGH they all agreed with the main point- rape footage shouldn't be legal to market or own. Several DUers came out as being or having been participants in BDSM and having concerns with the law on that basis (didn't I just spell this out in the last post?), and were rewarded by being called "sick" and mentally ill and in need of help. No attempt to address their concerns with the law as the law was written, just a bagful of slut-shaming. And you complain that you are being silenced??

If you want respectful dialogue on your views, next time try giving it. That's my advice.

More than one person in the threads was insisting that all porn or most porn = rape, non-consent and slavery. As I said, if a person really believes that all the sex depicted is rape and isn't calling for a ban, that person has a screw loose somewhere. That's what I'd do, if I believed that. Why wouldn't anyone else? So if all those people really aren't calling for a ban of what they're absolutely sure is footage of rape and enslavement, I'd like to know why not, and why they think it's OK for the stuff to be marketed (sorry, I just don't feel that free-market vote-with-your-wallet thought is appropriate in some cases, and rape is one of those cases). If they really ARE calling for a ban and just weren't being honest about it, or they are saying something they don't actually believe for shock value, that's fine, but in that case either the call for banning or the dishonesty needs to stop.

I don't distort arguments. I don't have to. People make their own distortions, I just point them out. For some reason, it's never well received by those people. Not new, not a surprise.

I'm going to dinner. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

[BainsBane]

223. Nothing you have quoted from me in anyway supports your false allegations

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

These threads are full of people defending rape porn. I have said repeatedly my point has been about rape porn, not porn. Conflating the two is bullshit. That you continue to do so tells me you have paid attention to exactly nothing. You have not only failed to pay attention to my argument but haven't even followed the subject of the discussion.
Here's a hint. It's in the OP.

As for the second quote: are you going to seriously argue that slaves consent?

Amazingly, that I advance an opinion--horror of horrors--is not calling someone a rape apologist. People insist repeatedly that rape porn bears absolutely no relation to rape, yet now you insist my observing that people are defending rape porn (which is the fucking point of this discussion) amounts to calling them defenders of rape. The irony is thick.
You have no proof because I have not done it. I am not a collective. I am one person. Shall I attribute to you every statement by someone I disagree with?

Your entire characterization is a complete distortion.

Since you know my argument so well, try responding to it. Tell me why porn workers don't deserve the same concern from so-called "liberals" as other workers?
Tell me why suggesting responsible consumption through licensed and registered companies is so awful? How is it that so-called liberals can fret about shopping on Thanksgiving but not feel they bear any responsibility for the exploitation of the workers in the rape porn they consume?

But you don't deal with any of those points because you prefer to reduce it to the argument you saw someone once make and that way you don't have to actually think about the issues involved.

When you make false accusations against a person, you are in no position to demand respect.

[LadyHawkAZ]

276. Seriously? "Lalalala I can't hear you and you're a liar" is the best you can do?

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

These threads are full of people defending rape porn. I have said repeatedly my point has been about rape porn, not porn. Conflating the two is bullshit.

True, it's about rape porn. I wonder if we have a definition of rape porn that we are working from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post100
BainsBane (20,400 posts)
100. Look up rape in the dictionary
Rape by definition means the absence of consent. It's not that difficult of a concept.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post111
BainsBane (20,400 posts)
111. Are we talking about rape porn or not?
Because if so, consent has nothing to do with it. It depicts rape (and sometimes is actual rape) because the twisted assholes that watch it are violent predators in waiting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024050423#post140
BainsBane (20,400 posts)
140. Here is the point
I'll spell it out very clearly for you. Rapists like rape porn. Rape pron increases rape. The UK is banning rape porn because they want to (shock and horror) cut down on rape.
Additionally, some rape porn is actually rape. There are farms in Thailand where young girls are forcibly kept and raped to produce that shit misogynists pay to watch. You pretend it's all simulated, but I don't think you actually believe it. If people didn't believe it was real, they wouldn't pay for it.

Oh it appears that we do. So now you can explain the huge difference between calling someone a rape defender (i.e. defending rape, by your definition) and a rape porn defender (i.e. defending rape, by your definition).

You can shift your goalposts around all you want. I'm still standing in the same place.

I am not a collective. I am one person. Shall I attribute to you every statement by someone I disagree with?

JFC. My statement in my first post referred to several people, not just you, so I posted quotes from several people, not just you. It's funny how this keeps flipping to "all about you". You made yourself part of a collective when you posted this OP in solidarity with others. Trying to disassociate yourself from them when embarrassing collective behavior is pointed out is just juvenile.

You are welcome to address, at any time, your false allegation from your previous post that I accused you, personally, of posting right-wing sources. I notice you completely left that false allegation out of this complaint about supposedly false (except not) allegations.

When you make false accusations against a person, you are in no position to demand respect.

Amazingly, we agree on something.

Since you know my argument so well, try responding to it. Tell me why porn workers don't deserve the same concern from so-called "liberals" as other workers?

I've never argued that they didn't; in fact I extend this concern to other types of sex workers that a small but vocal minority on this board prefers to see criminalized, abused and killed. All workers deserve the right to a living wage, health care, a safe working environment in their chosen profession and readily available legal redress without consequence if the safety protocols fail, and a safety net in case of emergency, regardless of what their chosen profession might be. They also deserve to do that job without a segment of the population shaming them for it. Now that that's out of the way, can you address the concerns I documented in my first post, and the sickening response that was given to it in the threads? And the points I made about "It's all (or mostly, or substantially) non-consensual/rape/abuse but we don't want to ban it"? Those are discussions I'd like very much to see happen.

But you don't deal with any of those points because you prefer to reduce it to the argument you saw someone once make and that way you don't have to actually think about the issues involved.

[Threedifferentones]

215. After literally hundrends of posts on the subject, you won't respond to this one.

I'd like to thank LadyHawk for doing the legwork that I am too lazy for.

You have constantly implied that anyone who does not agree with everything you write about porn overlooks or even supports rape. You frequently assert that anyone who does not agree with your views of porn is some sort of old school patriarch who does not believe women are fully human. Then, when someone calls you out on it, you insist you never said that. But of course you did.

And just like you won't respond to LadyHawk, now that she has proved her point beyond doubt, you also won't respond to any of the more insightful posts.

You won't respond to the gay man upthread (Post #134) who points out how your policing of other people's libidos reminds him of the homophobia he has faced, because there is no way for you to do so without admitting you are wrong.

You won't respond to that guy with Asperger's up thread (#22) who is asking for some clarity on exactly what "rape culture" means. That's because when you get down to it rape culture is a nebulous term, the definition and even the very existence of which is debated by feminists scholars, most of them women. So, your response would need to be thoughtful, nuanced and original. Fat chance.

But I'll bet pennies to the dollar you will continue to yell about rape apologists and the culture they comprise elsewhere on this site, as if repeating the same things over and over makes you right, even in the face of obviously valid criticisms.

[BainsBane]

272. That is not what her posts indicated

the quotes she provides shows me using the term "defenders of rape porn." This entire time people have insisted rape porn has absolutely nothing to do with rape, but now you insist my referencing "defenders of rape porn" is exactly the same as charging people as defending rape.
The cognitive dissonance at work is astounding.

I didn't respond because I was spending Thanksgiving with my family, something you clearly think I have no right to do. Look at the time stamps.

No, I won't respond to every post in this thread because the majority say exactly the same thing, show no understanding or interest in the issues I have raised, and I have other things to do with my life. Moreover, in the many hundreds of threads I've posted, I have responded to most if not all of the points you raised. You do seem intent on reading without absorbing anything anyone says that doesn't reaffirm what you want to believe.

I have learned one thing from these threads. People's minds remained closed, and it doesn't really matter what one writes. They won't read it, think about it, or challenge their own sense of entitlement in anyway. It's all about them, and any effort to get them to think about any human being they don't want to consider is a lost cause.

You bet I'll talk about rape culture, and I will keep doing so until there is no more rape. Why that should bother any law abiding person I can't begin to imagine.

Edit: I do thank you for pointing me to post 22. Why you assume something nefarious in the fact I can't get to everyone of these 250 posts, I don't know. Perhaps it's because that is how you yourself operate.

[PoliticalPothead]

184. Wow. So much male privilege in this thread

I feel like I'm on an MRA forum.

The only thing OP is saying is that trying to discredit someone by calling them "authoritarian" when they haven't advocated anything that could be described as authoritarian, is an obvious silencing technique.

OP is simply SUGGESTING (notice how I didn't say DEMANDING) that people who consume pornography SHOULD (notice how I didn't say MUST) try to make sure the production company is legitimate and is treating its workers respectfully.

This is no different from progressives boycotting Walmart for their awful treatment of their workers, and calling that authoritarian is no different from right-wingers calling anyone who supports economic justice a communist. It's a silencing technique, nothing more.

[nomorenomore08]

209. And yet they act like they're being ordered around. Frankly, I don't get it...

[Harmony Blue]

210. Actually MRA isn't about privilege but trying to

focus on issues our society tends to ignore given males have always been viewed as disposable (especially in time of war). However, where MRA have it wrong in my opinion, as well as feminists, is that they try to mold the opposite gender for their own designs or desires through shaming. I have been shamed by traditionalist MRA Christian men for not considering marriage while feminists have shamed me for not protecting them or speaking out for their cause (pretty ironic). Reality is the best move I have discovered is to not play the game or allow the shaming to dictate the choices I make.

If I choose to marry it will be on my terms and not what a MRA or feminist tells me to do or think or act. Many young men are walking on eggshells these days because MRA's and feminists are bickering over trivial issues at times (eg should you open a door for a woman or not?) and these young men are not able to make sound decisions in their relationships. My honest opinion is that I am happy being single and a lot people will attempt and will continue to try to shame me to take on some type of gender role (eg worker drone for a traditional nuclear family) or be a white knight for some type of cause.

My age group and the younger age groups have diametrically different ideas when it comes to a variety of topics when it concerns sexuality. But if we condemn all of sexuality we miss a valuable opportunity to educate men and women about consent and sex. BDSM principle is about consent if a partner says no then that means no. Most men and women do not understand this and this is where rape comes in but BDSM focuses on the consent of the partner being of utmost importance because it requires a high level of trust and integrity to allow someone to be in a position of power and the other to be submissive.

[BainsBane]

227. MRA is a far right wing ideology, the gender equivalent of White Supremacy

It is an ideology and movement built around hate. White supremacists hate people of color; MRA adherents hate women.

[Harmony Blue]

264. MRA's are right in some aspects:

Alimony laws/divorce laws. are lopsidedly against men and men are often used as tools for wars to enrich the oligarchy. That doesn't make them like white supremacists because white supremacists don't operate on facts. Now, if you want to continue to operate without looking at facts to formulate your opinion you may. However, you do yourself and the feminist movement a disservice by not looking at the numbers and facts.

[BainsBane]

266. If I want facts, I don't go to a hate group

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Women are the oligarchy? The law holding men responsible for supporting their own children really is an anathema. What's even worse is some women think they have a right to refuse sex with a guy just because they don't want it. Facts are the last things those people care about.

These threads certainly have revealed a great deal about who people on this site are.

[Harmony Blue]

295. Actually I don't consider MRAs or Feminists as hate groups

The closest to a gender hate group in my opinion would be the MGTOW phenomena. However, as much anger and misogyny they (MGTOW) display in the end their belief system is built upon non violent disengaging from societal norms and going their own way peacefully as the best course of action. Avoiding to forge relationships with women is actually more realistic than what MRA or feminists are doing by trying to shame people into submission (it never works). MGTOW's do a cost/benefit analysis and realize the majority of divorces are initiated by women now in most Western and Eastern countries of the world and alimony/child custody tend to favor women now not men in most cases. So, they choose to walk way from the institution like marriage and the worker drone paradigm.

How does this tie into porn? Well, pornography is increasingly popular with young men and women are feeling like the the art of courtship is being lost because of pornography providing an outlet for men. The forging of long lasting relationships seems to be waning. But until the risks for men are reduced pornography will increase in popularity because the risks are low compared to the high costs of relationships (cohabitation is now consider legally binding in some countries of the world where alimony can be awarded just like marriage). To me, most pornography doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't reflect real life interactions with men and women regardless of sexual orientation. But because pornography depicts a fantasy that is the appeal which can not be found in real life. As Japan shows more and more men are not interested in sexual relationships with women (it is mutual with Japanese women but not as strongly as the men) and are more interested in being single and free.

Pornography is an outlet for men that choose to completely disengage from physical relationships with any women. Does this bode well for our human species? In my opinion no, but given males have different reproductive strategies than females it is clear that marriage was an important part of bringing the two sexes together and why sex was only allowed once married. But given sex is available now freely and even more so through the fantasy world of pornography the world is seeing a massive paradigm shift. The worker drone paradigm falling apart doesn't only apply to males but also females that are career driven. They(females) are torn as do they continue their careers, try to start a family, or try to juggle both? No easy answers and it is a complex and multi-faceted problem.

The oligarchy is composed of a few men and women that hold 1% of the wealth of the country and are the movers and shakers of this country and possibly of the world. If you think a woman like Oprah is on the side of us little peons on the bottom man or woman you are sadly mistaken. Bill Gates isn't our friend when it comes to education "reform" either so lets cut to the chase and realize the oligarchy is real and tangible.

The only thing revealed in my opinion is that consent isn't clear cut which is why the laws regarding rape vary so widely and I would say having a good debate is better than arguing I am right and I am taking my by ball home.

Lets have the debate.

[NaturalHigh]

211. Disagreeing with the OP is not "silencing"...

nor is it male privilege. It is disagreement, most often in more polite terms than the OP disagrees with others who do not enthusiastically endorse her viewpoints.

Supporting the rights of consenting adults to do and watch what they want has nothing to do with male (or any other) privilege. Disagreement is not silencing. Trying to frame disagreement as "silencing," though, is most definitely as attempt to silence.

[PoliticalPothead]

212. Simply disagreeing with someone is one thing.

Trying to discredit someone by calling them authoritarian is another thing entirely, and that's what OP is talking about.

Thanks for the strawman though.

[NaturalHigh]

213. Some people do believe that the OP's views...

are authoritarian. I tend to agree. Again, expressing that opinion is not "silencing."

Frankly, I think you are promoting a strawman argument more than those disagreeing with the OP.

The OP tends to go on the attack against anyone who dares to disagree with her. That is an attempt to silence. I don't apologize for expressing my disagreement with the OP or anyone else. That's just part of participating on a discussion board.

[PoliticalPothead]

214. How can you say that

When OP has not advocated anything that could be described as authoritarian? If you feel that she has, please show me where because I can't find it.

I also cannot find OP attacking anyone. All I see is her disagreeing with people who have responded in disagreement to her, aka discourse. That is very different from just calling people authoritarian, a silencing technique akin to McCarthyist red baiting.

[BuddhaGirl]

221. See post 194

Evidence of OP's name-calling with those who disagree with her.

[BainsBane]

233. wrong. The OP is BainsBane

Not a collection of random posters. She provided no examples of name calling. Defending rape porn is not name calling. That is simply what most people are doing in these threads, whereas I am criticizing it. Contrast that with names against me in this thread: authoritarian and right-wing.
I haven't even read most of the comments here. In other threads I have been called a feminazi, crazy, a bully (oh, that's in this one too), and a whole lot of other names I've purposefully forgotten about.

Edited to add: Thought police and "Maoist." I wonder how it is I can be both Maoist and right-wing

Oh yes, you all are just deluged with name calling. The cognitive dissonance is truly a marvel.

[BuddhaGirl]

243. Enjoy your victim mentality

[BainsBane]

247. LOL

It other words, you were shown to be full of crap. You complain about name calling and it's acceptable. I show you are full of it, and I'm a victim.

Cognitive dissonance #245,658,324

[BuddhaGirl]

258. you were already shown to be a name-caller

glad you can laugh about the truth being pointed out to you! LOL

[BainsBane]

269. No, I was not

To point to the truth, you would have to know it. Observing that people defend rape porn is not name calling. It is a simple description of one of the sides in this debate. If you think it amounts to an insult, that is what the alert system is for. Moreover, she claimed I accused people of being "rape apologists." All this time many have insisted rape porn has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rape, but now you all decide to conflate the two.

The kindest way to describe that is cognitive dissonance.

[BuddhaGirl]

277. see post 194

n/t

[LadyHawkAZ]

284. That's twice now that you've attributed something to me that I never said.

Moreover, she claimed I accused people of being "rape apologists."

Produce the link where I said that about you.

[BainsBane]

268. Disagreeing isn't. Silencing would be seeking retribution against a woman

who has the nerve to press charges against her rapist.

Consenting adults: I've dealt with that same point so many times I'm bored. One of the more interesting aspects of its repetition is it shows the extent to which many are unable to distinguish porn from their own sex lives. Porn is not someone's personal sex life. It's commerce.

[NaturalHigh]

286. Porn is not a part of my sex life...

so that pretty much blows that argument out of the water.

[NaturalHigh]

201. Don't like it, don't watch it.

I don't like porn, so I don't watch it. I'm just not into the telling people what they can or can't like.

How hard is it just to leave people alone and not try to push your views onto them? Nobody is trying to silence you. They just won't let you dictate to them, and that is what offends you.

[BainsBane]

226. Maybe issues like workers rights, slavery, rape culture, the influence on actual rape

that sort of thing.

[NaturalHigh]

287. Were you responding to me?

I don't understand your post.

To be clear, though, slavery, trafficking, and rape are already illegal. Nobody here is defending them. If you come across a post defending any of those, please PM me, and I will personally alert and beg for a tombstone.

As for telling consenting adults what they can or can't watch or do - nope, not into that. If you are, then by all means, lobby your legislators. My guess is that you won't get far, though.

[Throd]

217. When you put yourself on the cross, how do you pound in that last nail?

As was pointed out upthread, with 20,000 post in one year, you are certainly not being silenced.

[BainsBane]

219. Try reading the OP

[Throd]

222. I read it twice.

[BainsBane]

224. Well, if that were so

You would know that my OP was prompted by someone who has been silenced. I have never been and will never be silenced.

[Throd]

228. That has never been in any doubt.

[BainsBane]

230. Yet you nonetheless felt compelled

to ignore the reason for the OP to take some some swipe about my post count. I guess if that's all you have to say, so be it.

[tammywammy]

232. He was "silenced" when he left on his own accord.

No one banned him. He's still a member.

[BainsBane]

234. My point is about deligitimating speech

by calling people authoritarian and a troll. That is an attempt to silence. Pretending it is not is disingenuous.

[Warren DeMontague]

303. Apparently, pointing out that someone is using right-wing, Heritage Institute type sources

is "silencing" them.

[HappyMe]

218. Silenced?

Please.

You give your opinion, just as others give their's.

Even if somebody dumps you into 'ignore', you will only be silenced to that person.

[penultimate]

239. What exactly are you speaking up against that has others disagreeing with you?

I find it hard to believe there is anyone here advocating that that real rape should be legal and available online for creep's viewing pleasure.

Is it fake/simulated rape things? If so, I don't really understand the appeal of that either, but I don't see what right I have to look down upon the people who take willingly take part in that. There are some women who are turned on by that weird stuff. They have those so-called "rape" fantasies. It's not a real rape fantasy, because the fact it's consensual removes the 'rape' aspect of it. It's just weird role playing (neither you nor I have to understand its appeal of it)... So if both parties are into it, are we supposed to discourage people from doing what they want? If so, what gives us that right? Does it only become wrong if they film it and allow others to view it? If so, why? Does it only become wrong if they film it and then sell it? I fail to see why mine or yours personal opinions should hold relevance to them and what they do.

By me stating my opinion above, I am not trying to silence you either. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from and also explain to you where I'm coming from.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

250. Is "Violent Rape Porn" a large part of the pornography consumed?/nt

[BainsBane]

261. I don't think it's small

but I couldn't quantify it. This whole topic initially began with a post about a British law that will soon ban possession of illegal porn the state regards as extreme. The original OP called it a ban on rape porn. To tell you the truth, I don't know how much of porn is rape porn. That's a good question actually. If you Google it you get a lot of results, so it's not insignificant.

[RandySF]

301. No one is trying to shut you up.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 05:43 AM - Edit history (1)

But those who disagree have the same right to express their opinion as anyone else. I guess since we are on this topic I would also say that if you want to use the bully pulpit and ask others to refrain from watching "rape porn", more power to you. But if you are looking for legislation to ban it, then I can't agree.