Should violent pornography be banned?

[heiss93]

Do you think pornography that displays fictional violence against women should be banned why or why not?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Damn, it's a difficult question. Pornography which glorifies rape or domestic/sexual abuse should definitely be banned but it could potentially be used to police public morals, like outlawing BDSM porn and victimising participants in consensual but kinky sexual practices.

[Marsella]

Do you think that movies/books which display fictional violence against women should be banned?

[Cubensis]

No.

There really is no way to "ban" anything.

Look how successful the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" are.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It a complex answer, if the actor and director agreed to do it then it their choice.

[Reuben]

Quite simply no. As I have said before, this argument is in some ways analogious to the idocy that surrounds the debate on violent computer games. When people participate in either they are conciously engaging in fantasy. Neither are represented percieved by the recipient as a guide to social reality (see the fatuous arguments about the alleged impact of porn on wider perceptions of women), or instruction as to how to behaver. If you want to see what really fucks up social perceptions of women then you should read a newspaper. Here you will find sexist stereotypes genuinely masquarading as and news legitimate opinion.

[Black Dagger]

No - decreeing what is and what is not acceptable or 'normal' human sexuality or sexual behaviour is totally reactionary. As long as sex and sexual behaviour is consensual it should be legal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, for the reasons that Cubensis and Black Dagger stated.

[shorelinetrance]

no because i wouldn't have anything to masturbate too.

and i like masturbating.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No.

[Fawkes]

Yes, and the movie American History X should be banned as well because of the grocery store scene when the woman cashier has various chemicals poured into her eyes and mouth by Nazis. Even though it wasn't actually happening and everyone was merely acting it out, the fact that it was even displayed is absolutely unacceptable.

[Global_Justice]

it's completly different to violent films thats a stupid comparison. if we see a women getting beaten or raped in a film it is a completly different thing and isnt glorified. why do people watch porn? to get to turned on, to have a wank etc. porn which glorifies violent rape is not normal, who gets off on watching that? its not reactionary to point out that violent rape porn is unacceptable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

it's completly different to violent films thats a stupid comparison. if we see a women getting beaten or raped in a film it is a completly different thing and isnt glorified. why do people watch porn? to get to turned on, to have a wank etc. porn which glorifies violent rape is not normal, who gets off on watching that? its not reactionary to point out that violent rape porn is unacceptable.

You're missing the point. In both cases, it's only someone acting. Nobody is actually getting hurt. Who cares if depictions of violence aren't arousing to you? As long as it remains in the realms of imagination and play-acting and remains consensual (and doesn't involve minors), it's nobody else's business.

[bcbm]

Absolutely not, I have to pay my bills somehow.


porn which glorifies violent rape is not normal, who gets off on watching that?

People who have degradation, rape or other similar fetishes?

[Vanguard1917]

it's completly different to violent films thats a stupid comparison. if we see a women getting beaten or raped in a film it is a completly different thing and isnt glorified. why do people watch porn? to get to turned on, to have a wank etc. porn which glorifies violent rape is not normal, who gets off on watching that?

What about films, songs and video games which glorify all sorts of terrible violence? Should they be banned too?

As tempting as it is to say 'what kind of sick person...?' etc, etc., i think that this is actually a question of freedom. Should the state really be allowed to regulate the things that we as grown adults are allowed to see on a screen?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Do you think that movies/books which display fictional violence against women should be banned?
Of course not, but there is a clear difference in a movie or book which discloses details of violence, fictional or non-fictional, for the purposes of sexually arousing viewers.

It's kind of like the difference between a history documentary on Nazi Germany, and a Nazi propaganda video.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No - decreeing what is and what is not acceptable or 'normal' human sexuality or sexual behaviour is totally reactionary. As long as sex and sexual behaviour is consensual it should be legal.
The problem is that the behaviour displayed in these videos is rarely consensual.


You're missing the point. In both cases, it's only someone acting. Nobody is actually getting hurt. Who cares if depictions of violence aren't arousing to you? As long as it remains in the realms of imagination and play-acting and remains consensual (and doesn't involve minors), it's nobody else's business.
The problem is that availability of such material can have an effect on people, and there are clear policy considerations to be taken into account when crafting such laws.


What about films, songs and video games which glorify all sorts of terrible violence? Should they be banned too?

As tempting as it is to say 'what kind of sick person...?' etc, etc., i think that this is actually a question of freedom. Should the state really be allowed to regulate the things that we as grown adults are allowed to see on a screen?
Well that's really just typical anarchist sloganeering, isn't it? You're asking to open up the debate about whether or not the state is a legitimate institution. I think the discussion would be more interesting if we assumed that the state was a legitimate institution, but that it could not act without lawful justification.

[spartan]

The problem is that the behaviour displayed in these videos is rarely consensual.

Well not exactly, these films are designed to give the viewer the illusion that non-consensual activities are taking place as a way of arousing them.

The people taking part in the films are actors who have consented to the violent acts that will take place in the film.

The worry i have is that young teenage boys, who are in the middle of puberty, might get a warped view of women and sexuality in general by watching these films which depict violent degrading sexual acts commited by men against women who enjoy it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well not exactly, these videos are designed to give the viewer the illusion that non-consensual activities are taking place as a way of arousing them.
That's exactly my point...

[Lector Malibu]

Yes I think the type of porn that depicts rape and abuse is crossing the line. On a side note I find porn in most instances absolutely revolting to begin with. It's gross bigtime.

[Vanguard1917]

The problem is that the behaviour displayed in these videos is rarely consensual.



I'm obviously assuming that the videos are made on a consensual basis: i.e. that they involve actors who are consenting adults.


The problem is that availability of such material can have an effect on people, and there are clear policy considerations to be taken into account when crafting such laws.

The exact same argument is made by those who want to outlaw violent video games and censor films, music, publications, etc.

Where is your evidence of a relationship between watching violent porn and commiting acts of sexual violence?

I liked to kill scores of people on Counter Strike - especially by shooting them in the head or by blowing them up with a grenade. Is this going to risk making me a violent person in real life?



Well that's really just typical anarchist sloganeering, isn't it?


There's nothing 'anarchist' about it. As i said before, this is a question of freedom from state authorities telling grown people what is and isn't acceptable to be viewed. It's a question of liberty and individual self-determination.

[Vanguard1917]

The behaviour depicted in Grand Theft Auto is also rarely consensual, but we wouldn't suggest that the game should be banned on that basis. Why should porn films be?

[bcbm]

Of course not, but there is a clear difference in a movie or book which discloses details of violence, fictional or non-fictional, for the purposes of sexually arousing viewers.

It's kind of like the difference between a history documentary on Nazi Germany, and a Nazi propaganda video.

The difference isn't so clear. In both cases its a depiction of a violent act meant to stimulate the viewer in one way or another. I don't think the sexual element makes a difference.

And your analogy is rubbish. Violent pornographic films aren't advertising for violent, non-consensual sex. Viewers know its consensual, they're merely engaging in fantasy just like any other film.


Well that's really just typical anarchist sloganeering, isn't it? You're asking to open up the debate about whether or not the state is a legitimate institution.

No he isn't. He's asking if that is a legitimate function of a state, which assumes the legitimacy of said state.

--------


Well not exactly, these films are designed to give the viewer the illusion that non-consensual activities are taking place as a way of arousing them.

Yes, and they key word there is illusion. Viewers know it is fantasy. Its just like any other kink or fetish.


The worry i have is that young teenage boys, who are in the middle of puberty, might get a warped view of women and sexuality in general by watching these films which depict violent degrading sexual acts commited by men against women who enjoy it.

I doubt most boys will stumble across such porn by accident and even fewer will be aroused enough to keep watching. Those who are will probably figure out their kink soon enough anyway, so who gives a shit?

[spartan]

Here is a good article i found about people wanting to ban violent things (I posted it as a sort of carry on from the video game discussion though it applies equally to pornography as well):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/10/games.childprotection

[Luís Henrique]

I'm obviously assuming that the videos are made on a consensual basis: i.e. that they involve actors who are consenting adults.

I would assume that they involve actors who have nothing else to sell besides their labour force.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

I would assume that they involve actors who have nothing else to sell besides their labour force.

Luís Henrique


And they still consent to sell their labour power.

[Luís Henrique]

And they still consent to sell their labour power.

Which means that "consent" is insufficient from a revolutionary point of view.

Unless we take the line that it is not exactly consent.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Which means that "consent" is insufficient from a revolutionary point of view.

Unless we take the line that it is not exactly consent.

Luís Henrique


What is the point you're making (in relation to the pornography)?

[TC]

I don't think violent porn or, really any sort of porn involving consenting actors, should be banned in any criminal way...

But I think its acceptable to place reasonable restrictions on the way it can be advertised and places it can be shown so as to not be intrusive because violent porn is deeply upsetting, and in some cases feels emotionally violating and disturbing, to many people...as long as such restrictions are aimed at preventing people from inadvertently seeing violent porn rather than preventing people from voluntarily seeking it out.

I think people who find it truly upsetting have a legitimate interest in avoiding exposure to it (since that can be traumatic and triggering especially to people who have been abused) but that legitimate interest does not extend to preventing others from seeing it.

[Luís Henrique]

What is the point you're making (in relation to the pornography)?

That, in what it concerns its production, it is not different from donuts.

Do you stop eating donuts or demand their prohibition based on the fact that the workers that make them are wage slaves?

On the other hand, just because reactionaries demonise pornography, we shouldn't defend it with liberal arguments (the actors' consent, etc). The actors are exploited like any other workers; their consent is a fake consent like the consent of any other workers.

Otherwise we are left with the problem of why we oppose wage slavery, if it is consensual, and open to the idea that not everything that is consensual must be supported.

Luís Henrique

[Anashtih]

Do you guys think snuff films should be legal to own?

[Dimentio]

Do you guys think snuff films should be legal to own?

I have seen some snuff on the web. Poke out my eyes and drag me through the streets! :D

[Vanguard1917]

On the other hand, just because reactionaries demonise pornography, we shouldn't defend it with liberal arguments (the actors' consent, etc).

For me this is a question of opposing state censorship. I highlighted the consent issue in response to the possible suggestion that those involved in the films may be taking part against their wills or are unable to give consent (as is the case with children in child pornography, for example).



The actors are exploited like any other workers; their consent is a fake consent like the consent of any other workers.


Then, if there's no such thing as consent, if all consent in this society is 'fake', logically that would mean that there's no difference between a woman agreeing to appear in the films and a woman being forced to appear in the films. But that is obviously false: there clearly is a difference between someone willingly doing something and someone unwillingly doing it.

If we deny that there is, then i think we degrade active human agency: i.e. the capacity of people to decide whether or not they want to act in a porno, work in donut factory, join the circus, or work to overthrow the system.


Otherwise we are left with the problem of why we oppose wage slavery, if it is consensual, and open to the idea that not everything that is consensual must be supported.

No, but the precondition for overthrowing this system is the masses removing their consent to it. This presupposes a society made up of active subjects - people who can give consent and refuse to give consent.

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe that the state should intervene in such matters and do what is morally right for the nation.

[Black Dagger]

Seconded.

[Luís Henrique]

Then, if there's no such thing as consent, if all consent in this society is 'fake', logically that would mean that there's no difference between a woman agreeing to appear in the films and a woman being forced to appear in the films. But that is obviously false: there clearly is a difference between someone willingly doing something and someone unwillingly doing it.

Good point. In this case, we must then accept the idea that "consent", in and of itself, does not necessarily justify everything. So, ideas such as "anything goes between consenting adults" must be rethought. After all, we want a revolution to put an end to something that is "consensual" - wage slavery. A conservative could easily point to such contradiction in our discourse, and say that if the fact that wage slavery is consensual does not stop us from opposing it, then s/he isn't under the obligation to stop opposing pornography just because it is consensual.


No, but the precondition for overthrowing this system is the masses removing their consent to it. This presupposes a society made up of active subjects - people who can give consent and refuse to give consent.

Yes, I thing you are correct here. The problem this puts to us is to justify our opposition to wage slavery. It evidently cannot be made through the consent argument (and we should probably stop calling it "wage slavery" after all).

*************************

And people say pornography doesn't raise our theoretical level... ;)

Luís Henrique

[Dros]

There is actually considerable evidence (Japan :D) that violent pornography decreases the likelihood of sex crimes against women.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is actually considerable evidence (Japan :D) that violent pornography decreases the likelihood of sex crimes against women.

That might be true, but correlation does not imply causation. All that does is falsify the belief that violent pornography causes violence.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I meant to post this yesterday but it's apparently another thing I stupidly posted before signing in.
So..I generally consider myself a social Liberal, and it's been said that "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
For brevity's sake due to time constraints I'll sum up my views here as:
1. Softcore pornography these days holds little if any shock value, especially considering the kind of stuff we may see on the news.
There are a lot more vile things out there, in my opinion. Some of it does get repulsive but, having thought it over a little bit, as someone's already mentioned it's certainly better that such urges as rape fantasies are satisfied with pornography as opposed to actually being carried out.
2. Pornography seems to be a booming business in Western society. Consent or not, it's just another way for bourgeois institutions to make money off of base lusts. I certainly realize that you don't really need to pay at all to see pornography on the internet..but given current trends it's apparently profitable enough. That's where problems come in. So please..don't pay for porn.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That, in what it concerns its production, it is not different from donuts.

Do you stop eating donuts or demand their prohibition based on the fact that the workers that make them are wage slaves?

On the other hand, just because reactionaries demonise pornography, we shouldn't defend it with liberal arguments (the actors' consent, etc). The actors are exploited like any other workers; their consent is a fake consent like the consent of any other workers.

Otherwise we are left with the problem of why we oppose wage slavery, if it is consensual, and open to the idea that not everything that is consensual must be supported.

Luís Henrique

Luís makes an excellent point. Capitalism, as a consequence of being a private market, treats most people as whores; some jobs happen to be more despicable to the general population than others. This point should be brought up whenever someone asks you why capitalism is based on force. The proletariat sell their labor to another human being for much the same reason desperate women enter prostitution, and desperate men drug trafficking: economic dependence.

Porn should never be banned unless the people partaking in the filmed/photographed behavior did not consent - which also includes children. However, like another user said earlier on in this thread, where such "art" can be displayed can and probably should be dictated.

[communard resolution]

Difficult. To my subjective perception, there's a difference between rape porn and hardcore BDSM porn. If BDSM porn is the 'theory', consensual BDSM games would be the 'practice' - harmless stuff. As for rape porn, the 'practice' would be something much darker altogether. Of course, there's no proof that depictions of violent acts inspire viewers to translate these into 'practice', and as one poster pointed out, there may even be some evidence that an increase in the circulation of violent porn correlates with a decrease in sex crimes (Japan). What's making me nervous is that rape porn is so close to everyday reality and somewhat less of a 'fantasy' than BDSM or a first-person shooter video game.

That said, maybe we should think of rape porn as a symptom rather than a cause? What makes someone enjoy rape porn? Does it appeal to some atavisms in them, or do they enjoy that kind of fantasy because they've been conditioned by a misogynist culture?

To touch upon a rather delicate subject, quite a few women have told me they enjoy rape fantasies. One female friend commented that the extended rape scene in a French movie called Irreversible, which I found to be absolutely repulsive, was "the sexiest thing" she had ever seen. Such remarks always leave me perplexed. I don't think I'll ever be able, let alone willing to indulge in rape role play, although I've been asked to before.

I'm really not sure whether to repress or not to repress rape porn. I find it bewildering a kink like that appeals to a lot of people, male and female. But personal preferences/taste aside, I wonder about the broader reasons for this.

I guess I just don't understand.

[Lector Malibu]

Can we all just agree porn is gross?

[Kami]

Can we all just agree porn is gross?
No, it depicts a beautiful act (albiet often in a rather tasteless manner).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i like secks

[Lector Malibu]

No, it depicts a beautiful act (albiet often in a rather tasteless manner).

sure..whatever you say.

[bcbm]

There is actually considerable evidence (Japan http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif) that violent pornography decreases the likelihood of sex crimes against women.

I would like to see the source on this. From what I understand, Japan is a pretty sexist society and the majority of sex crimes go unreported.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

The minimum age to be married in Japan for males is 18.

The minimum age to be married in Japan for females is 16.

(You also need parental consent if under 20).

Women cannot re-marry within six months of divorce (according to the law, this is to avoid confusion as to the identification of a child's father).

97% of women choose their husband's surname

The rape law is also pretty unsatisfactory (rape within marriage is not really recognised, the onus is on the women to show she resisted etc)

A Survey on Violence between Men and Women which was conducted by the Cabinet Office in 2005, 26.7 percent of women had suffered physical abuse from their spouse.

And those whom are most likely to suffer 'sex-crimes' are immigrant sex workers.

Of course they are not going to report whatever crimes are committed against them by their boss, because their boss could call the immigrant authorities.

And they probably won't report it to the police because they would risk their deportation.

Edit: As to the actual question, no. Fictional pornography, like fictional books, fictional movies or fictional games shouldn't be outlawed.

[communard resolution]

Can we all just agree porn is gross?

Nah, it can be fun. 99% is too formulaic and unimaginative though, just like 99% of cultural output in general (music, films, ...).

Back to the subject: violent porn/rape porn.

[communard resolution]

I would like to see the source on this. From what I understand, Japan is a pretty sexist society and the majority of sex crimes go unreported.

Even so, you could argue the amount of violent porn is symptomatic of mainstream Japanese misogyny rather than a cause of it.

I think the conservative feminist "porn leads to rape" argument has long been refuted, not last by progressive feminists who are often pro porn.

I'm not sure about the effects of rape porn. I don't feel comfortable with it at all, but as I said, lots of men and women seem to enjoy it without translating it into practice.

[Os Cangaceiros]

To touch upon a very delicate subject, quite a few women have told me they enjoyed rape fantasies. One female friend commented that the extended rape scene in a French movie called Irreversible, which I found to be absolutely repulsive, was "the sexiest thing" she had ever seen. Such remarks always leave me very perplexed, and I don't think I'll ever be able, let alone willing to indulge in rape roleplay although I've been asked to before.

She thought that the rape scene in Irreversible was the "sexiest thing" she'd ever seen?! Wowza.

That's a pretty tough movie to take...if not for the rape scene than for the "fire extinguisher" scene.

[communard resolution]

She thought that the rape scene in Irreversible was the "sexiest thing" she'd ever seen?! Wowza.

That's a pretty tough movie to take...if not for the rape scene than for the "fire extinguisher" scene.

I thought so too, but see what I mean? Different strokes for different folks...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought so too, but see what I mean? Different strokes for different folks...

That's true.

I'm a pretty big horror fan, myself. I've seen plenty of films that a lot of people would find "disturbing" (for example, I consider Cannibal Holocaust to be an incredibly important and great film, albeit not for everyone.) Rape in movies still disturbes the hell out of me, though.

[communard resolution]

That's true.

I'm a pretty big horror fan, myself. I've seen plenty of films that a lot of people would find "disturbing" (for example, I consider Cannibal Holocaust to be an incredibly important and great film, albeit not for everyone.) Rape in movies still disturbes the hell out of me, though.
Yeah, I love Cannibal Holocaust, although the difference is I can't imagine anyone ever found it sexually stimulating. I hope. :)

[communard resolution]

I would like to see the source on this. From what I understand, Japan is a pretty sexist society and the majority of sex crimes go unreported.

Here's a link:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Also, go to Wiki and type 'rape fantasy' - I've just done that and found some interesting stuff on there.

[Herman]

Can we all just agree porn is gross?

No.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Even if porn is gross and degrading to the particular woman, it would be unfair to extrapolate that degrading act to the rest of women and say 'It is degrading to women!'

When a man engages in a degrading act we do not extrapolate that degrading act to the rest of men and say 'It is degrading to men!'

Whether you want to say that porn in general is degrading to women, you would need to show that most porography is "degrading" to women, and that is representative of society's view of women generally.

But (from what experience I have of pornography) that is not the case. If anything, the man's face is never depicted, the main thing we see of him is his cock!

The female actors, on the contrary, engage with the camera, we see their faces, see their whole bodies, hear their dirty comments etc. We are exposed to their sexuality. They certainly seem more sexually important than the male whom all we ever really see is his penis.

And of course they are paid more for it!

[Jazzratt]

Edit: As to the actual question, no. Fictional pornography, like fictional books, fictional movies or fictional games shouldn't be outlawed.

What about real pornography? (Sorry, couldn't resist).


The female actors, on the contrary, engage with the camera, we see their faces, see their whole bodies, hear their dirty comments etc. We are exposed to their sexuality. They certainly seem more sexually important than the male whom all we ever really see is his penis.

And of course they are paid more for it!


Well that settles it, women in the porn industry are labour aristocrats harvesting the benefits of the hyperexploitation of men. :lol:

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

What about real pornography? (Sorry, couldn't resist).

In real pornography, of someone being raped, then that could be covered under rape laws. :)


Well that settles it, women in the porn industry are labour aristocrats harvesting the benefits of the hyperexploitation of men. :lol:

Well...to be fair they are petit-bourgeoisie by definition. :lol:

[professorchaos]

In real pornography, of someone being raped, then that could be covered under rape laws.More "evidence" at this point than pornography.

[Jazzratt]

In real pornography, of someone being raped, then that could be covered under rape laws. :)

Sorry you misunderstand, when you said "fictional pornography" I interpreted as meaning porn that doesn't actually exist, in a lame attempt at a joke.

[Herman]

Sorry you misunderstand, when you said "fictional pornography" I interpreted as meaning porn that doesn't actually exist, in a lame attempt at a joke.

Your jokes are never lame honeypie.

And I would like to add to my previous comment:


Can we all just agree porn is gross?

Eeeew! People having sex! GROSS! WHEN DO PEOPLE DO THAT? NEVER! THEY NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS UNNATURAL! GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO HAVE SEX. YUCK!

[Eastside Revolt]

Yes.

[eyedrop]

To touch upon a rather delicate subject, quite a few women have told me they enjoy rape fantasies. One female friend commented that the extended rape scene in a French movie called Irreversible, which I found to be absolutely repulsive, was "the sexiest thing" she had ever seen. Such remarks always leave me perplexed. I don't think I'll ever be able, let alone willing to indulge in rape role play, although I've been asked to before. You should. It's arousing. If I just could get a chance to play out the other side of the fantasy though, either by a woman or a man it doesn't really matter. (Even though I'm define myself as straight)

What is sex without playing with the psychology of people? Just the friction that sex causes is quite boring if you seperate it from the rest. I advice the Masterful Lover Manual book, by David Shade, if one want to learn the psychology of sex. It's a very good source for how to manipulate the psyche in sexual encounters. How one can make people come without touching them and stuff. Hopefully post-revolution sex-education will focus on how to do sex, instead of the superficial bullshit we have now.

[Lector Malibu]

Eeeew! People having sex! GROSS! WHEN DO PEOPLE DO THAT? NEVER! THEY NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS UNNATURAL! GOD DIDN'T WANT US TO HAVE SEX. YUCK!

I am for one the farthest thing from a religious person you could ever imagine. Most churches burst into flames just by me getting within a 50 foot radius of them. I find sex absolutely beautiful. I just don't shoot my load over porn as I find it disgusting.

[communard resolution]

You should. It's arousing. If I just could get a chance to play out the other side of the fantasy though, either by a woman or a man it doesn't really matter. (Even though I'm define myself as straight)

What is sex without playing with the psychology of people? Just the friction that sex causes is quite boring if you seperate it from the rest. I advice the Masterful Lover Manual book, by David Shade, if one want to learn the psychology of sex. It's a very good source for how to manipulate the psyche in sexual encounters. How one can make people come without touching them and stuff. Hopefully post-revolution sex-education will focus on how to do sex, instead of the superficial bullshit we have now.

You could hire a prostitute to play it out? I'm sure they would find it a welcome change of pattern to their daily routine, plus it would give them a chance to expand on their acting skills.

As for me, I've declined the offer to engage in rape role playing simply because that particular fantasy turns me off, not because I wanted to be "politically correct in bed" or anything like that. That said, I'm not adverse to role playing in general, and I find even in 'regular' sexual intercourse there's often elements of sadism or masochism - where exactly to draw the line between these dynamics and a rape fantasy?

Personally, I find depictions of rape in porn distressful and somewhat saddening rather than stimulating, but I guess that's my problem... so the more I think about it, the less I'm opposed to restricting that kind of material.

Make people come without even touching them? Sounds like the best book recommendation ever! Seriously, that book sounds really good & I'll look it up as soon as I can. Thanks for that.

Yeah, I wonder what post-revolution sexuality would be like. Thing is, a lot of things get us off precisely because they're forbidden, repressed, taboo. It's more fun doing things when you're not supposed to be doing them, no? So in a sexually liberated society, wouldn't there be a chronic shortage of kinks?

[eyedrop]

I get what you are saying, without feeling comfortable with it it would probably feel guilty and bad. You shouldn't engage in it then. Guilt should be kept out of the bedroom (or wherever the sex is happening). All fantasies don't need to be played out either often it works just as good just to get your partner in a good state and tell her what is happening. During sex you can tell your partner a story and her/his mind will make up the details of the fantasy. It's not that important that the fantasy is really happening.

The homepage is www.Masterful-Lover.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.Masterful-Lover.com)
I find the e-mail service he provides quite good.

Here is one of the latest mail he has sent out to his subscribers (free)


Hi Gullik,

I love this email...


***EMAIL from Casey:

I read your whole book, great stuff.

My question has to do with techniques for girls with
pierced nipples. I recently ran into this for the first
time, and the girl seemed to be reluctant to let me
touch them, like they were too sensitive or something.
So I'm assuming you have to handle them differently.
Perhaps more gently.

The girl is age 20. The piercings are not that new.
Thin girl, big boobs, C cups. I'm sure she's getting a
lot of attention with those. We've met up twice so far.

I know she's into me and I've been very commanding. The
first time I saw her I wasn't able to fclose, but
that's not a big deal, did alot of other stuff, but she
wouldn't take out the boobs. She seemed to enjoy a lot
of my David Shade style dirty talk. Actually I threw so
much great material at her in the first meeting, and
got such a good reaction, I was pretty surprised we
didn't have sex. But not a problem, there was a really
nice vibe between us in general.

Second time we did have sex, but it was kind of in a
weird situation. Didn't have a lot of time and we were
in a really cramped space. Sex was not that amazing,
but my oral technique was top notch. Used deep spot,
welcomed method, she came twice and squirted. I was
surprised to see a 20yo squirt, and found her to
generally be more advanced than most girls that age.

Ok back to the boobs. First time she wouldn't take them
out because that was the "point of no return." Fair
enough. She said they're very sensitive. Second time
she did take them out but "only if you will fvck me" as
I was teasing her and making her beg for it. But when I
did get them out, I kinda could tell it was different
than dealing with unpierced. The rings are kinda in the
way. I don't want to pull on them or hurt her, tried to
work around them. Maybe I just need to be more
commanding, as I am with everything else. Maybe I'm
just out of my element cause I've never dealt with them
before. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to really
ask her how to work with that, especially since I don't
know her all that well yet. I usually prefer to come in
and know exactly what to do and just blow the chicks
mind, ya know. At least the first few times I think the
chick prefers if she doesn't have to explain anything
to you.

I think this girl is gonna be a real good one by the
second and third time we do it, but I want to be
prepared for pierced boobs in general, as it's becoming
more common.

Thanks for taking the time to read emails and respond.
I'm applying your material all the time and having a
great experience with it.

Casey

>>>MY COMMENTS:

Casey, I can tell that you are executing the material
"masterfully!"

Don't be surprised she didn't have sex the first night.
It was because she wanted to see you again. It hurt
her more than it hurt you for her to not have sex on
the first night.

She didn't "take them out" for the "point of no return"
the first night because she saw you as a sexual threat.
She knew you would make her do things she didn't want
to do :-) That's a good thing!

On the first night she said they're very sensitive
probably just as an excuse to not take them out. She
got them pierced for a reason. She knew that if you
were to stimulate her nipples, she wouldn't be able to
control herself.

On the second night she took them out and said "but
only if you will fvck me" because she wanted you so
badly. Outstanding!

And the fact that she came twice and squirted is
evidence that you allowed her to be all the woman she
loves to be.

You didn't say anything about pushing hard for the
first night close, but I would bet that you didn't.
Good. And it is because you didn't that she knew you
respected her and she could trust you. That's one
reason why you got together a second time and had sex,
and that she was readily able to orgasm and squirt for
you.

It is not surprising that the actual intercourse was
not that great, considering the time constraints and
cramped quarters. But it also had to do with the fact
that it was the first time together. No doubt the next
time will be awesome. There is a lot to be said for
familiarity.

I can understand that you didn't want to pull hard on
her nipple rings. She sensed that and knew that you
were careful to not hurt her. She knows that you can
"give it to her rough" and still be gentle with her and
considerate of her. She most certainly appreciates
that about you. She obviously feels safe with you,
evident in the fact that she was readily able to orgasm
and squirt for you.

She got her piercings for a reason. It may have to do
with the fact that her nipples are very arousing. She
is a highly sexual woman and her nipple piercings are
there to enhance her sexuality.

I would believe that she has fantasies around what you
should do with her nipples. After you and her are more
familiar with each other, you can simply ask her if she
has preferences for how her nipples should be
stimulated. You won't loose any points for asking
that. The reason she got piercings is very individual
to her, and she would be happy to share the story with
you.

Rock on Casey! You truly understand and implement the
material.

>>>CONCLUSION:

If you want to Be The Man that brings out the sexual
creature in a woman, and have success like Casey,
then get the knowledge of sexual techniques
and the beliefs of Sexual Confidence in my program
"Give Women Wild Screaming Orgams":

http://www.masterful-lover.com/n/wild/

And for the really advanced stuff, get my
"Advanced Sexual Hypnosis":

http://www.masterful-lover.com/n/manual/

Give women incredible pleasure,
David Shade


--------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions, I've made it easy for you
to ask. Just go to my "Ask David Shade" page on
my website and enter your question:

http://www.masterful-lover.com/n/askDavidShade/

When I receive your question, you will receive an
invitation to a free upcoming teleseminar, where I will
address all the questions. Plus, you will receive a link
to listen to my most recent teleseminar. And if your
question is on-topic, I will personally answer your
question in email.

And I love to hear success stories too. I want
to hear all the per.verted deme.nted things that
you and your woman have experienced together.
Those stories always get a personal response.
--------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005, David Shade Corporation.
All rights reserved.
David Shade and Masterful Lover
are registered trademarks of
David Shade Corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------
You understand and agree that David Shade Corporation
writings and recordings are strictly to be used for
personal entertainment purposes only. All content,
products, and services are NOT to be considered as legal
advice, medical advice, or professional advice. You are
solely responsible for your use of the ideas, concepts,
and content herein, and hold David Shade Corporation
harmless in any event or claim. All newsletter emails
have been "anonymized" in that the names have been
changed and any detail that may insinuate a particular
individual. However, all testimonials are reprinted as
is, with the actual names and permission of the
contributor. There may be occasional minor edits for
clarity.
--------------------------------------------------------
In his view what one should do in relationships is to work to open a womans sexuality ,which is suppressed, and leave them empowered.



As for me, I've declined the offer to engage in rape role playing simply because that particular fantasy turns me off, not because I wanted to be "politically correct in bed" or anything like that. That said, I'm not adverse to role playing in general, and I find even in 'regular' sexual intercourse there's often elements of sadism or masochism - where exactly to draw the line between these dynamics and a rape fantasy?Rape fantasies are often based on the total loss of control, which so much sex is, and giving one self completely in control of one's partner. It is a way of showing complete trust.



Yeah, I wonder what post-revolution sexuality would be like. Thing is, a lot of things get us off precisely because they're forbidden, repressed, taboo. It's more fun doing things when you're not supposed to be doing them, no? So in a sexually liberated society, wouldn't there be a chronic shortage of kinks?I must say I wonder about this too. So much of todays sexuality is based on what one shouldn't do and taboos. Todays women are on average more submissive in bed than men and I wonder if that is because of the on-going suppression. But sex is mostly about power positions and playing on them and that part will still apply post-revolution but will be different. Post-revolution sex-ed, as far as we will have it, will be just this kind of stuff, how to be a good sexual partner. Not how grouse a newborn child looks.

[IcarusAngel]

That's true.

I'm a pretty big horror fan, myself. I've seen plenty of films that a lot of people would find "disturbing" (for example, I consider Cannibal Holocaust to be an incredibly important and great film, albeit not for everyone.) Rape in movies still disturbes the hell out of me, though.

Yeah, aren't there like animal torture scenes in that movie and stuff? I've wanted to see it for a while but I've heard it looks so realistic some people thought it was some actual snuff film or something.

I am also a big fan of horror, though, so i might eventually check it out.

[Svante]

I am for one the farthest thing from a religious person you could ever imagine. Most churches burst into flames just by me getting within a 50 foot radius of them. I find sex absolutely beautiful. I just don't shoot my load over porn as I find it disgusting.

i agree wha t you say and i don't recieve m y off.

[Sentinel]

What many just don't realise is that there actually are a lot of people who are sexually either submissive or dominant, and only enjoy sex maximally if they get to fulfill their fantasies in erotic dominance role play. I belong to the first category, ie I want to get treated roughly in bed, and I'm not ashamed of it.

And I don't like the fact that my fetish is being singled out because it hurts someone's moral senses. As long as a person supports pornographic exposure of acts between consenting adults in the first place, s/he either supports 'violent pornography' too or is a moral preaching bigot.

Lacking a better idea, I'm moving this to Discrimination for now -- as it's definitely not a Chit Chat topic.

[F9]

No.if both of the "actors" agree with what they doing i dont see the problem.Of course if someone dont want this violent porn and she/he is forced to do it then it should be banned!

Fuserg9:star:

[Oswy]

I think this is a difficult area.

The first thing I thought of was Pierre Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic violence'.

It's not a simple matter of freedom of expression as there is the issue of who has the power to express their ideas and who doesn't, which ideas get communicated and which don't. For example, the widespread objectification of women in music-videos is carrying cultural hegemony, it is doing something, normativising something, making a set of ideas politically acceptable, not just offering something up neutrally.

[Revolutiondownunder]

difficult question.....

obviously that sort of crap is...... well crap.....

and it would be almost impossible to ban, otherwise Revleft would probably be banned right now.

So whats the answer?:confused:

[Malakangga]

hell fucking NO :cursing:

[communard resolution]

I think this is a difficult area.

The first thing I thought of was Pierre Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic violence'.

It's not a simple matter of freedom of expression as there is the issue of who has the power to express their ideas and who doesn't, which ideas get communicated and which don't. For example, the widespread objectification of women in music-videos is carrying cultural hegemony, it is doing something, normativising something, making a set of ideas politically acceptable, not just offering something up neutrally.

Therefore violent porn is symptomatic of the dominant ideology at best rather than a cause of anything. If you ban it, you might as well ban music videos, men's magazines, women's magazines that give advice how to be attractive to men, and 99% of all cultural output in general.

That said, I doubt that what turns us on sexually necessarily translates into how we treat people outside of sexual intercourse. Sexuality has a lot to do with playing, indulging in a fantasies, transgressing taboos, reenacting things - these things can often be the polar opposite to how we interact socially on a daily basis. Nothing worse than being politically correct in bed.

[eyedrop]

That said, I doubt that what turns us on sexually necessarily translates into how we treat people outside of sexual intercourse. Sexuality has a lot to do with playing, indulging in a fantasies, transgressing taboos, reenacting things - these things can often be the polar opposite to how we interact socially on a daily basis. Nothing worse than being politically correct in bed.

Totally agree, I doubt that Sentinel which likes her(?) partners to be dominant in bed would like to be bossed around by them outside of the bedroom. I really wish that sex-ed would focus on how to have sex (more than 100 different ways of thrusting). Sex should have no guilt attached to it whatsoever no matter what your your sex entails, presuming consenting partnes. Starting to make moral laws discriminating certain kinds of sexual behaviour reinforces guilt in the bedroom.

[Sharon den Adel]

I think it should be banned. Although the women in the films agree to take part, and often go through a lot of pain during the making of these films, I think there is a line which should not be crossed.
Pornography which depicts mock rapes should be banned. Rape is a crime, and should not be something to sexually arouse another person. It is not something you like, it is something to be condemned, and pornography which depicts it makes it seem that rape is something both attacker and victim enjoy.

Any pornographic video which depicts something which is otherwise illegal should be banned. Entertainment or not, there is no reason why anyone need make a video mocking one of the most heinous crimes.

[communard resolution]

Any pornographic video which depicts something which is otherwise illegal should be banned.

I feel that you are basing your view too much on the question of legality. But what is legal and what not can be fairly arbitrary. I believe that pornographic depictions of watersports (I'm not referring to surfing) are illegal in New Zealand, while in other countries this is seen as a perfectly harmless kink.

The funniest porn movie I've ever seen was a gay flick which depicted a football match during which the players started kicking each other in the balls to erotically stimulate the viewer. I think the there are very good reasons why kicking people in the balls is illegal in real life. But would you ban a film like that for this reason?

I'm not saying that rape isn't a terrible thing and should be legal, I'm just saying that legality shouldn't be a point of reference for us.

As for your other points, I think it would be worth conducting a survey to find out the attitudes of rape porn consumers, i.e. how many of them are fully aware that they're only indulging in a fantasy of something that is terrible in real life, and how many actually think that real life rape is enjoyable to the victim.

[Jazzratt]

Any pornographic video which depicts something which is otherwise illegal should be banned. Entertainment or not, there is no reason why anyone need make a video mocking one of the most heinous crimes.

1) Why does this logic only extend to pornography? We can see endless theatrical examples of murder - for example - through all kinds of media. Simulated illegal acts do not need to be censored.

2) It's not mocking it. It's simulating it to (to put it euphemistically) entertain.

3) Clearly if the events depicted aren't actually simulated then the video is simply evidence of someone committing a crime and should be handled differently - but there is no reason why 2 consenting adults should not be able to engage in rape play and have it recorded if that is their wish.

[BobKKKindle$]

Pornography which depicts mock rapes should be banned. Rape is a crime, and should not be something to sexually arouse another person.

The fact that pornography shows something which would be illegal if committed in real life cannot be sufficient reason for banning violent pornography, because if this standard were applied to the rest of the media, it would also be necessary to censor many other articles, so as to remain consistent - for example, all of Agatha Christie's novels would be subject to censorship, given that ever one of them includes as least one scene in which someone is murdered, and Trainspotting would also be banned, because taking drugs is an illegal activity.

[Sharon den Adel]

We do see films which depict murder, but these films are not designed for people to sexually stimulate themselves, while pornography depicting rape is designed for that very purpose. That's the point I was trying to make, although reading over what I have written, I don't think I managed to get that across.

I just don't believe pornography should contain depictions of rape and/or violence, because rape and violence committed against a woman is no laughing matter, and I worry that if rape victims were to discover that some people actually become sexually aroused when watching pornograhic depictions of rape, they would feel that they are being made a mockery of, and that what happened to them is something to be used in entertainment.

[Kami]

and I worry that if rape victims were to discover that some people actually become sexually aroused when watching pornograhic depictions of rape, they would feel that they are being made a mockery of, and that what happened to them is something to be used in entertainment.
Now, here's the problem; there is NO right to not be insulted.
When no rights are being infringed and the act is between consenting adults, no matter how distasteful you may find it, no matter who finds it insulting or repulsive, that is no reason for you to stop it from happening.

but these films are not designed for people to sexually stimulate themselves, while pornography depicting rape is designed for that very purpose.
I play computer games a lot; a lot are designed that I actively enjoy killing someone. It might be tearing them to pieces, impaling them or throwing them off a tower. These are designed in such a way that I feel enjoyment at killing people, but you'd be off your rocker to say what I was doing had any bearing on real life, or that I actually wanted to really kill people.
People may be aroused by violent porn, and it is designed to arouse them in much the same way as a computer game is designed to give me enjoyment from killing. Why is the fact it is arousal rather than enjoyment suddenly changing the game? Frankly, it isn't.

[Module]

First let me say that I don't think that violent pornography should be banned, and I don't agree with the censorship of any pornography.
However, I think it's important to recognise where I think Sharon den Adel is coming from, (and certainly where I come from I say this)
While there is nothing wrong with pornography that depicts rape in itself, rape is something which is used against women every day, in real life, as a weapon of oppression.
People making light of it, by using rape, watching a rape as sexual stimulation is something that I, as a woman, find insulting. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statistics on sexual assault here, but the presence of rape in my society is what it is because of the sexist oppression that is inflicted upon women, as women.
You can equate it to murdering somebody in a video game, if you want, but in my opinion that is oversimplifying and trivialising the issue of rape and the sexual oppression experienced by women in our society.
I have little doubt in my mind that the attitudes which make somebody find the rape of women sexually arousing are those which contribute the extent women suffer rape, in real life.

[Sharon den Adel]

First let me say that I don't think that violent pornography should be banned, and I don't agree with the censorship of any pornography.
However, I think it's important to recognise where I think Sharon den Adel is coming from, (and certainly where I come from I say this)
While there is nothing wrong with pornography that depicts rape in itself, rape is something which is used against women every day, in real life, as a weapon of oppression.
People making light of it, by using rape, watching a rape as sexual stimulation is something that I, as a woman, find insulting. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statistics on sexual assault here, but the presence of rape in my society is what it is because of the sexist oppression that is inflicted upon women, as women.
You can equate it to murdering somebody in a video game, if you want, but in my opinion that is oversimplifying and trivialising the issue of rape and the sexual oppression experienced by women in our society.
I have little doubt in my mind that the attitudes which make somebody find the rape of women sexually arousing are those which contribute the extent women suffer rape, in real life.

That is exactly where I am coming from, thank you for saying it better than I managed to!

[BobKKKindle$]

We do see films which depict murder, but these films are not designed for people to sexually stimulate themselves, while pornography depicting rape is designed for that very purpose When people see murder depicted in a film, they do not suddenly experience the desire to go out and commit murders, even if the murder is presented as legitimate in the film – this is because people are able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. The same principle is also true in the case of pornography. When people watch porn, they are engaging in an act of conscious fantasy, and so are unlikely to see what is shown in a porn film as an accurate representation of how sexual interaction occurs in real life. Therefore, the argument that violent porn encourages or condones sexual abuse is incorrect.

One issue that has not yet emerged in this discussion is the fact that some women fantasize about being raped, or engaging in a sexual act where they are in a submissive role. There is a scene in the BBC documentary Lefties: Angry Wimmin where a woman who was part of the womens liberation movement talks about how, despite the fact that she and her comrades held demonstrations against sexual abuse (as a form of male oppression exercised by all men, even those who have never abused women) and argued for the prohibition of pornography, many feminists still had rape fantasies - how can we explain this interesting phenomenon, and how does it relate to whether pornography should be banned?



I have little doubt in my mind that the attitudes which make somebody find the rape of women sexually arousing are those which contribute the extent women suffer rape, in real life.Women are not raped because the rapist is sexually aroused or in a state of sexual frustration - rape is an exercise of power, and so just because someone is sexually aroused by the idea of a woman being raped, they may not actually want to rape a woman in real life. Again, viewing pornography is enjoyable because it allows the viewer to engage in fantasy - and so the argument that violent pornography must be banned to protect women is not legitimate.

[communard resolution]

One issue that has not yet emerged in this discussion is the fact that some women fantasize about being raped, or engaging in a sexual act where they are in a submissive role.Hi Bobkindles

I've actually brought this up before, you'll find some debate on page 3 of this thread. It is an interesting phenomenon - a lot women indeed have rape fantasies. Needless to say, none of them wish to be raped in real life.

Go to this wiki page, it contains some interesting cues:

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

[Oswy]

Therefore violent porn is symptomatic of the dominant ideology at best rather than a cause of anything. If you ban it, you might as well ban music videos, men's magazines, women's magazines that give advice how to be attractive to men, and 99% of all cultural output in general.

That said, I doubt that what turns us on sexually necessarily translates into how we treat people outside of sexual intercourse. Sexuality has a lot to do with playing, indulging in a fantasies, transgressing taboos, reenacting things - these things can often be the polar opposite to how we interact socially on a daily basis. Nothing worse than being politically correct in bed.

I'm suggesting that it's not just a freedom of expression issue. I'm suggesting that there's two sides to the coin and that what presents itself as mere freedom of expression might also be freedom of expression for a particular ideology which through its inculcative power promotes sexism and violence and thus inhibits wider freedoms; for Marxists it is the greater good which must come first, even above putative 'freedom'. To some extent I think the debate is academic because in modern technological society such material will always be produced. Nevertheless I still assert that 'freedom' can be understood in more than one way. Freedom for neo-Nazis to march around the Jewish quarter with Swatika flags is not a freedom for the Jews that might have to stand behind their windows and watch.

[Awful Reality]

"Violent Pornography," in the sense that it depicts women being harmed during the course of a sex act, should not be banned provided as the parties engaged in the sex act have consented to the action. However, if this is not the case, or serious bodily harm to the point at which injury, etc occur, there must be rather serious ramifications for the man.

However we should remember that most pornography is role-play, and BDSM generally doesn't entail actual violence, for lack of a better term.

[Awful Reality]

Hi...

Eh?

In any case, banning violent or BDSM porn is a terrible idea, because all it'll do is create a black market for such products, and therefore this pornography will 1) be Filmed in substandard conditions, 2) Create actual criminals out of everyday fetishists, and most importantly, due to the former two 3) Greatly increase the amount of pornography in which Women will actually be raped and/or physically harmed. And no way can we allow that to occur.

Mostly, people who watch this are again, just fetishists who have no interest in actually raping or sexually torturing someone. Saying that it should be legal because of what it depicts is creating a societal moral standard; we don't want to do that.

[Kami]

Eh?
I imagine he's a little confused at a restricted member posting in discrimination

Like the rest of the post ^^

[Awful Reality]

We do see films which depict murder, but these films are not designed for people to sexually stimulate themselves, while pornography depicting rape is designed for that very purpose.

Sexual stimulation, in the case not of actual real-life sex acts, but pornography and therefore most likely masturbation, serves merely as a means for amusement. It is like a movie as it entertains you in a completely superficial sense. In this way, an extremely violent horror thriller is no worse and no better than a BDSM scene of pornography. Does watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre make you want to do the acts depicted in it? Of course not, but it still satisfies you as a form of entertainment.


I just don't believe pornography should contain depictions of rape and/or violence, because rape and violence committed against a woman is no laughing matter, and I worry that if rape victims were to discover that some people actually become sexually aroused when watching pornograhic depictions of rape, they would feel that they are being made a mockery of, and that what happened to them is something to be used in entertainment.

It sure as hell isn't. But, very few people who are watching this, as I have demonstrated above, want to make it a laughing matter. And yes, they should be offended. But that is in no way the problem of any fetishist who choses to view this material.

[Dr Mindbender]

part of me says 'yes' but the other part says banning it will only drive it underground, like with child and animal porn.

Prohibition doesnt work.

[BobKKKindle$]

part of me says 'yes' but the other part says banning it will only drive it underground, like with child and animal porn.The danger of a black market emerging is not the only or the most important reason not to ban violent pornography. The state has no right to prevent people from engaging in any activity where all of the participants have given consent - therefore a ban would infringe on the rights of the people who enjoy watching violent pornography, and the women who appear in these films.

[Herman]

People making light of it, by using rape, watching a rape as sexual stimulation is something that I, as a woman, find insulting.

How are "people making light of it"? Especially when it's role-playing, just like any other similar submissive sexual game? What about a man being the "victim" of "rape"? Would you find that insulting? Should I find that insulting as a man?

[black magick hustla]

intellectual and artistic discourse should never be inhibited, no matter how vile and horrible it is. i know i'll get branded as a liberal for this, but i think anyone who wishes to censor anything because they personally find it appalling is my enemy in as much as i consider myself a writer and i write sometimes about things many people find offensive. without sacrilegy, there is no advancement in any of the creative arts. Some people consider Sade's work blasphemy, i consider it art. Victor Serge was one of the few bolsheviks that were able to understand the necessity of free discourse in the realm of the visual, auditive, and literary arts. +
+

[Sharon den Adel]

How are "people making light of it"? Especially when it's role-playing, just like any other similar submissive sexual game? What about a man being the "victim" of "rape"? Would you find that insulting? Should I find that insulting as a man?

If I were a man, I would find it insulting. I don't understand how men can watch pornography of women being man handled, ***** slapped and degraded, and get off on it. Surely there are better ways to stimulate yourself?

[spartan]

If I were a man, I would find it insulting. I don't understand how men can watch pornography of women being man handled, ***** slapped and degraded, and get off on it. Surely there are better ways to stimulate yourself?
Well would you rather them watching and fantasizng about it or actually doing it for real?

[BobKKKindle$]

If I were a man, I would find it insulting. I don't understand how men can watch pornography of women being man handled, ***** slapped and degraded, and get off on it.Just because you cannot understand why someone may watch a particular kind of porn, there is no reason to impose a ban, because sexual desire is something which is dependent on the individual - each individual is aroused by different things (as shown by the many genres of pornography which are available on the internet) and it is unfair that people should be forced to conform to what is seen as a "normal" sexuality just because the type of pornography they enjoy is not accepted by the majority.

Engaging in sex with a submissive/domination dynamic is, however, fairly common. The Kinsey Institute (source (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#bdsm)) quotes several studies, all of which show that those who enjoy or have expressed interest in submissive/domination sex comprise more than ten percent of the population. It is unlikely that all of these people have watched or intend to watch violent pornography, but this does show that if a ban were imposed, a large number of people would be adversely affected.

This is not a "complex question" as there is really no justification for any kind of ban - efforts to impose a ban are based on the mistaken assumption that pornography serves as a basis for sexual behaviour in real life, which is simply not true, because viewing pornography is an act of fantasy.

[Mather]

Do you think pornography that displays fictional violence against women should be banned why or why not?


No.

If it is consensual for all the parties involved, then it is not up to anyone else or states to either regulate or censor such material.

If you don't like something or it is not to your own personal taste, then just don't watch it.

For example; I am not into the foot fetish thing, but if other people enjoy it and they wish to act such acts on camera for others to view, then I have no problem with them doing so, just that I probably would not watch such films or photos.

Likewise I don't like the series Friends, but I would not seek to prevent others from watching it if they enjoy that show.

[Comrade Rage]

I voted yes.

[Herman]

If I were a man, I would find it insulting. I don't understand how men can watch pornography of women being man handled, ***** slapped and degraded, and get off on it. Surely there are better ways to stimulate yourself?

To some, this is a good way of stimulating yourself.

[communard resolution]

As the thread evolved, I've changed my opinion from "complex answer" to "no", so you can adjust my vote accordingly if you want (dunno how to do that myself now).

I feel the arguments against a ban are overall better and more rational, while most pro-ban arguments seem to be largely motivated by personal taste and/or emotions.

[Dóchas]

definitely, why the fuck would you want to watch that shit :huh:

[wigsa]

Define violence?

[Coggeh]

No , firstly you can't ban anything properly it always gets out there , education about violence against women to show its a major problem in society would be a good idea but say you and your girlfriend whatever were into that roleplaying or something ? whats the problem ? it doesn't entail actual acceptance of rape

[Coggeh]

First let me say that I don't think that violent pornography should be banned, and I don't agree with the censorship of any pornography.

Child pornography though .. thats a given right ? :huh:

[Black Dagger]

There's a difference between child pornography and other kind of pornography though - like there is between 'rough' consensual sex, and rape. Child pornography almost (?) by definition is not based on a informed, consensual depiction of sex or nudity - much of it is produced in the context of child sexual abuse (images or video created by parents, relatives, adults that have contact with a child) rather than a free, informed agreement between all parties. Violent pornography (with the exception of stuff that is actually depicting a real rape or violent sexual attack) is based on a depiction of sexual activity in which all parties have consented, even if some of this kind of pornography may involve simulated rape for example as a form of role play.

[bcbm]

Child pornography almost (?) by definition is not based on a informed, consensual depiction of sex or nudity

It by definition is not, but that is because in the eyes of the law children do not have the ability to consent. It generally is as you describe, but gets fucked up in cases such as a 16 year old taking a naked picture of themselves. They, too, can be arrested and charges with possession of child pornography and registered as sex offenders, at least in the US.

[Black Dagger]

It by definition is not, but that is because in the eyes of the law children do not have the ability to consent. It generally is as you describe, but gets fucked up in cases such as a 16 year old taking a naked picture of themselves. They, too, can be arrested and charges with possession of child pornography and registered as sex offenders, at least in the US.

Ah yes, good point. When i said child pornography i didn't define what i meant (as obviously i don't find the current legal definition to be adequate) - but i meant the kind of stuff which is produced by 'adults' in which a 'child' is the subject, usually for the sexual gratification of other 'adults' (yes i've avoided defining 'adult' and 'child' here as well ;) )

[apathy maybe]

definitely, why the fuck would you want to watch that shit :huh:

If nobody wanted to "watch that shit" then there wouldn't be a "market" for it, and thus wouldn't need to be banned.

Oh, and how are you proposing to ban it? Get the state involved? No thanks.

How about you go back and read the thread again, your position has been roundly trashed in previous posts, I'm not interested in repeating that.

[JimmyJazz]

If nobody wanted to "watch that shit" then there wouldn't be a "market" for it, and thus wouldn't need to be banned.

Whenever I want to make a point I have to make sure am hasn't said it already. It's annoying as fuck because he usually has.

[Ramachandra]

I voted yes.Even though the actors/actresses agreed to do so it still indicates kind of a in human thing.As i feel things like porn are things that cannot be eliminated completely.as far as people are going to be a biological sexual species the demand for porn will be there.But the thing is It is good if there are limitations.The same theory applies to drugs.If there are no legal limitations if u gonna be extremely liberal on such issues the results are gonna be bad i guess.I mean the impact on children,becoming a force which increases sexual violence are results which cause through violent porn.You cannot deny that it will lead to imbalance the mentality in a wrong manner which will pave the way to sex crimes.These are things that should be considered.

[JohnnyC]

Ha ha ha.It's funny how 22 percent of users who consider themselves leftist voted yes on this subject. :)

My opinion is, It's none of our business.Only if such porn affect us directly in some way (which it doesn't) we have the right to interfere with it.

[Black Dagger]

I voted yes.Even though the actors/actresses agreed to do so it still indicates kind of a in human thing.As i feel things like porn are things that cannot be eliminated completely.as far as people are going to be a biological sexual species the demand for porn will be there.But the thing is It is good if there are limitations.The same theory applies to drugs.If there are no legal limitations if u gonna be extremely liberal on such issues the results are gonna be bad i guess.I mean the impact on children,becoming a force which increases sexual violence are results which cause through violent porn.You cannot deny that it will lead to imbalance the mentality in a wrong manner which will pave the way to sex crimes.These are things that should be considered.

The problem is - your POV leads to be getting locked up/punished merely for watching two consenting adults fucking - how does that make sense? Ditto for punishing people people who choose to take drugs. How does either of those things 'protect the children'? You're punishing adults who are more than capable of making decisions about what is 'good' or 'appropriate' for themselves.

Also, the claim that 'violent porn' leads to 'sex crimes' is just that, an unsubstantiated claim. So yes, i will 'deny' that - until you can actually provide some evidence. I suppose you think that violent video games cause homicides as well? :confused:

[Sean]

Also, the argument that 'violent porn' leads to 'sex crimes' is just that, an unsubstantiated claim. So yes, i will 'deny' that - until you can actually provide some evidence. I suppose you think that violent video games cause homicides as well? :confused:
This case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm) is the one generally cited as the 'proof' that kinky sex makes you want to kill people. If you think about it, its also 'proof' that the sexually submissive who watch this type of porn should be put on suicide watch, not jailed since everyone will carry these acts to an extreme, real world conclusion.
I've been known to jack off to hot news readers, does that mean I'm going to occupy the middle east?

[Guerrilla22]

Most porn is degrading to someone, somehow, I'm affraid banning one particular genre doesn't make much sense.

[ZeroNowhere]

I would say that pop music was gross, disgusting and unnatural, it doesn't mean that I have any justification for banning it.
Really, let's not decide whether to ban things based on whether they turn you on.

[butterfly]

No. And furthermore anyone who says it should be banned makes it more enjoyable.

[StalinFanboy]

Apparently there are 31 people on Revleft that think we should be policing morality.

I think a certain 31 people should start hanging out with Christians...

[Mecha_Shiva]

Heeyyyyy now! Just because someone thinks porn is gross does not mean they are a prude or dont like sex or anything like that. I dont like porn, but i loooooove sex. I just enjoy actually partaking in sex much more then just sitting around and watching other people doing it. Boring. And most porn is made for men to watch so when i watch i just think of how bad i would kick a guy if he ever tried to say all the shit he is saying to the girl hes doing in the movie to me. "no, i do not like that and no i am not a *****.":blushing:

But, i dont think that violent pornography could be banned. If people want it theres nothing you can really do to stop them from getting it. And you cant punish everyone if a few people go out and act out the violent porn they see. not everyone goes and acts it out. some people just enjoy it.

I personally really really dont like violent porn and am extremly offended by it. But I wouldnt ban it based on my personal views on it.

[Jazzratt]

Apparently there are 31 people on Revleft that think we should be policing morality.

I think a certain 31 people should start hanging out with Christians...

It's not a simple matter of dismissing any attempt to argue that a behaviour should be described as "moral policing" and leave it at that, otherwise there would be no point in your engaging in the "discourse" (such that it is). Attacking arguments made, refuting justifications and generally engaging in something more pleasing than games of "You're the morality police! You're an immoral pervert!"-type-back-and-forth dick measuring is the way forward.

I am not, by the by, one of the 31 people.

[StalinFanboy]

I just don't think it's up to anyone to determine what fetishes are socially acceptable. What happens between two consenting adults is no business of anyone.

[ashaman1324]

i voted no ban.
its simply none of my business at all, as long as its consensual.

[Rangi]

Do whatever you please as long as it brings harm to no one but yourself.

I voted yes as I think that people who have had a good quality education and a safe and happy upbringing are somewhat more equipped to identify the difference between fictional fetishist sexual violence and the real thing.

I think that there are people in society who are ill-equipped to make such a distinction.

If you are aroused by the idea of violence then maybe you should reflect upon why this is. I don't condone censorship I just question why people would find violence arousing.

While I acknowledge the fact that S&M is alive and well in modern western society and that people who indulge in it are after a 'mind-fuck' - they should be wary that they don't end up with a fucked mind.

I know the idea of sado-beasto-necrophilia sounds interesting but to me it is just whipping a dead horse.

[Sentinel]

If you are aroused by the idea of violence then maybe you should reflect upon why this is. I don't condone censorship I just question why people would find violence arousing.Why should I 'reflect' over anything as long as I only engage in behavior everyone agrees upon? For your mental wellbeing?

Forget it, and stop being an patronising moral predicant. It's very uncool, you know.

I find power play arousing, as do many others. People are different, and you will have to learn to deal with it.

You aren't better in any way, or more 'normal', than us.


While I acknowledge the fact that S&M is alive and well in modern western society and that people who indulge in it are after a 'mind-fuck' - they should be wary that they don't end up with a fucked mind.How is that? How is my mind going to be 'fucked' due to my sexual prefences, which I choose to act upon, and feel good about acting upon?

[Rangi]

I'm sorry if my opinion offended you. I said 'maybe' people should 'reflect' upon their desire to view violent pornography. Is prompting people to think such a bad thing?

I have never said I was better or more normal than anyone else. In my line of work I deal with people and children who are on the receiving end of unwanted violent sexual attention and the human consequences of such attention.

I realize that people have different sexual desires and that I don't have to 'deal with it' I just merely accept that whatever someone else desires as their personal business.

I was sincerely curious as to why causing violence to someone might be arousing.

How far is too far? Visible injuries? Blood? Disfigurement? What kind of violence are we talking about - just a bit of rough treatment or simulated rape?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry if my opinion offended you. I said 'maybe' people should 'reflect' upon their desire to view violent pornography. Is prompting people to think such a bad thing?

Your little whinge still fails to provide any justification for why one should "reflect" on harmless fantasies.


I have never said I was better or more normal than anyone else. In my line of work I deal with people and children who are on the receiving end of unwanted violent sexual attention and the human consequences of such attention.

So what? Healthy people can distinguish between reality and fantasy. Unhealthy and unbalanced folks are going to do fucked-up shit regardless of whether media portraying such acts is available or not.


I realize that people have different sexual desires and that I don't have to 'deal with it' I just merely accept that whatever someone else desires as their personal business.

I was sincerely curious as to why causing violence to someone might be arousing.

Try asking a sexologist.


How far is too far? Visible injuries? Blood? Disfigurement? What kind of violence are we talking about - just a bit of rough treatment or simulated rape?

The intensity of the act is irrelevant, what matters is informed consent.

[Killfacer]

Consent is the only important thing. As long as it's two consenting adults then its got nothing to do with anyone else.

[Mike666]

If it's fictional then definitely not.

[bcbm]

I was sincerely curious as to why causing violence to someone might be arousing. Because they're into it and making your partner hot makes you hot?

[Rangi]

It's just you and me Noxion and we're in a cheap motel room....

... If informed consent is the order of the day then I'll start with a rusty trombone and then move on to a Cleveland steamer. Then you can turn my gas off until I pop my clogs.

After I'm dead you can give me a golden shower and then sell the DVD of it on ebay.

[bcbm]

:rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

It's just you and me Noxion and we're in a cheap motel room....

... If informed consent is the order of the day then I'll start with a rusty trombone and then move on to a Cleveland steamer. Then you can turn my gas off until I pop my clogs.

After I'm dead you can give me a golden shower and then sell the DVD of it on ebay.

Go for it, at least then someone would have a DVD that turned them on and you would be dead and therefor unable to make stupid inane posts like the above.

[Sean]

I just remembered this paper titled Porn Up, Rape Down (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013)

Abstract:
The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.
Its less than compelling evidence, however worth a glance over. Basically the idea is that people "get it out of their system".

[GeezAF]

Rape porn/violent porn should absolutely NOT be banned.

I think it's awful that some people think that those with rape/bdsm/degradation fetish should have no sexual outlet whatsoever. It's that kinda stuff that makes people wanna do that in real life. Some people when they see car crashes on a film, or see someone getting stabbed to death by jason vorhees they think "fuck yeah! HA! that shit's awesome!!" But they wouldn't say that if it was real life. It's because you know it's fake. Sure, you're pretending it's real cos that'd spoil the fun but deep, deep down you know noone's in any real pain.

If people couldn't wank to rape porn, maybe they'd try it in real life - who knows? There are women out there who fantasise about being raped and men who fantasise about raping women. As far as I'm concerned actual non-consentual sex is disgusting, but if two consenting adults wanna shag while one of em screams and wriggles about that's their business.

[F9]

Rape porn/violent porn should absolutely NOT be banned.



No, rape means : "Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent."(wiki)
So no, non consent sex or porn is not something we say yes to it!We are against it!

Fuserg9:star:

[Rangi]

Not many feminists on these forums then?

[F9]

Not many feminists on these forums then?

Why do you think this?There are feminists on this board and they arent a "minority"!

Fuserg9:star:

[GeezAF]

No, rape means : "Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent."(wiki)
So no, non consent sex or porn is not something we say yes to it!We are against it!

Fuserg9:star:

I know what rape is. I don't quite get your argument.

I'm talking about rape porn ie simulated rape scenes by two consenting adults.

My argument is that it isn't real rape, and if it allows someone who likes that kinda shit to 'get off' without harming anyone (i.e. By not actually raping anyone) then I can't see any problem.

If someone finds fictional images of violence against women sexy then as long as they know it's downright wrong in real life then I have no problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's just you and me Noxion and we're in a cheap motel room....

... If informed consent is the order of the day then I'll start with a rusty trombone and then move on to a Cleveland steamer. Then you can turn my gas off until I pop my clogs.

After I'm dead you can give me a golden shower and then sell the DVD of it on ebay.

Are you trying to make some kind of point, or are you just being a trolling dipshit?

[StalinFanboy]

Not many feminists on these forums then?

I'm a feminist. And I don't think there are any of those boring Bourgeois anti-sex feminists here.

[F9]

I know what rape is. I don't quite get your argument.

I'm talking about rape porn ie simulated rape scenes by two consenting adults.

My argument is that it isn't real rape, and if it allows someone who likes that kinda shit to 'get off' without harming anyone (i.e. By not actually raping anyone) then I can't see any problem.

If someone finds fictional images of violence against women sexy then as long as they know it's downright wrong in real life then I have no problem.

The point is, that it wont be "rape"!It would be consenting sex!Anw we just "play" with the words now, the point we both put forward is that consenting sex is ok with us!Thats the point and there isnt an argument here, we agree!

Fuserg9:star:

[Le People]

Half this thread has been a battle of symantics.

[politics student]

I'm talking about rape porn ie simulated rape scenes by two consenting adults.



Well if its simulated rape by two consenting adults then its not rape.

[Rangi]

A little from both of those options NoXion.

So the fairly recent case of a man finding another man over the internet for the particular purpose of arranging a cannibal feast with the first of the two men as the main course is completely okay so long as consent was given?

How can you be sure that someone offering themselves up as food for another human for the purpose of sexual gratification is in full control of their faculties?


I wonder if people doing this sort of thing might be a bit better off with some kind of professional help or even just a good old fashioned cup of tea and a wank?

[GeezAF]

The point is, that it wont be "rape"!It would be consenting sex!Anw we just "play" with the words now, the point we both put forward is that consenting sex is ok with us!Thats the point and there isnt an argument here, we agree!

Fuserg9:star:

Ahhh, I get it. For a minute I thought you were implying that all porn was unconsentual.


Half this thread has been a battle of symantics.

It's a pain in the arse, I know.

And with regards to consentual cannibalism; some people are just plain weird, and we're just gonna have to accept that.

That's my position.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A little from both of those options NoXion.

So the fairly recent case of a man finding another man over the internet for the particular purpose of arranging a cannibal feast with the first of the two men as the main course is completely okay so long as consent was given?

I don't know, I'm not privy to the details of that particular case.


How can you be sure that someone offering themselves up as food for another human for the purpose of sexual gratification is in full control of their faculties?

Perhaps a psychological examination? In any case, if someone truly wants to be eaten and can find someone willing to eat them, they will go through with it. The authorities can only deal with it after the fact, which achieves... what, precisely?


I wonder if people doing this sort of thing might be a bit better off with some kind of professional help or even just a good old fashioned cup of tea and a wank?

What makes you think they haven't already tried those things?

[F9]

Ahhh, I get it. For a minute I thought you were implying that all porn was unconsentual.

Of course not!;)

[Das war einmal]

You're missing the point. In both cases, it's only someone acting. Nobody is actually getting hurt. Who cares if depictions of violence aren't arousing to you? As long as it remains in the realms of imagination and play-acting and remains consensual (and doesn't involve minors), it's nobody else's business.


Is that so? How do you know that? Its not like they are all acting, I bet a lot of rape porn is actually real or done under pressure. As is lot of porn. Who knows? I dont know what to say about it, I'm thinking that banning should give a clear statement that this is unacceptable behaviour.

[Das war einmal]

I meant to post this yesterday but it's apparently another thing I stupidly posted before signing in.
So..I generally consider myself a social Liberal, and it's been said that "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
For brevity's sake due to time constraints I'll sum up my views here as:
1. Softcore pornography these days holds little if any shock value, especially considering the kind of stuff we may see on the news.
There are a lot more vile things out there, in my opinion. Some of it does get repulsive but, having thought it over a little bit, as someone's already mentioned it's certainly better that such urges as rape fantasies are satisfied with pornography as opposed to actually being carried out.
2. Pornography seems to be a booming business in Western society. Consent or not, it's just another way for bourgeois institutions to make money off of base lusts. I certainly realize that you don't really need to pay at all to see pornography on the internet..but given current trends it's apparently profitable enough. That's where problems come in. So please..don't pay for porn.

By watching on a free website, you indirectly are. Ever seen all those goddamn ads? Nonetheless good point, all this pornography is just another way of making money. A lot of money. I think I have the answer now: yes, violent pornography should be banned in a capitalist society to ensure that nobody's doing it against their will. Of course, it wouldn't be very logic to conclude that nobody would be forced in pornography or prostitution in socialist societies, it did happen but a lot less frequently. Many people work in the pornography to ensure they can pay for say, healthcare.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is that so? How do you know that? Its not like they are all acting, I bet a lot of rape porn is actually real or done under pressure. As is lot of porn. Who knows?

Until you present something resembling evidence, nobody. Gut feelings are worse than useless.


I dont know what to say about it, I'm thinking that banning should give a clear statement that this is unacceptable behaviour.That what is unacceptable behaviour? Real acts of rape and murder are already illegal. Banning simulated rape and the recording thereof will do nothing to affect rates of actual rape.


I think I have the answer now: yes, violent pornography should be banned in a capitalist society to ensure that nobody's doing it against their will.That would only serve to drive it underground, therefore making impossible to monitor and regulate. Smart move!

[Jazzratt]

To those that advocate a ban, where do you draw the line on what constitutes "violent". Are you advocating the ban only of simulated rape porn or do you wish to ban any display of a dominant/submissive dynamic? What about light violent sexplay? And how do you define the terms attached to sexual violence?

And what realms of the imagination do you wish to build your walls around? Would it just be photos and videos of people pretending to be raped that you would ban or will explicit rape scenes no longer be allowed in comics, cartoons, books, computer games and narrative poetry?

Will two consenting adults be allowed to engage in rape fantasies in the privacy of their own homes or will you deem that to be unacceptable "bedroom behaviour". If it is the latter what else will you disallow in the bedrooms of mentally stable adults and why? If it is the former why will it become illegal for that couple to record their exploits?

Your position is poorly thought out, you fucks.

[Herman]

Your position is poorly thought out, you fucks.

:lol:

[Das war einmal]

Until you present something resembling evidence, nobody. Gut feelings are worse than useless.

That what is unacceptable behaviour? Real acts of rape and murder are already illegal. Banning simulated rape and the recording thereof will do nothing to affect rates of actual rape.

That would only serve to drive it underground, therefore making impossible to monitor and regulate. Smart move!


Thats a lousy excuse. Child pornography is illegal too and yeah its underground, but should you make it legal than? The thing is if you make certain things illegal, lots of people whould not dare to visit such a site, in other words, you make it unattractive for an audiance who feel its not worth the consequenses. Another example, prostitution is legal in the netherlands, but there are estimates that 80% is doing it against their will.

Lots of people are more or less forced to play in rapeporn or gangbanging to get payed the same way as workers are forced to work at terrible conditions.

[Das war einmal]

To those that advocate a ban, where do you draw the line on what constitutes "violent". Are you advocating the ban only of simulated rape porn or do you wish to ban any display of a dominant/submissive dynamic? What about light violent sexplay? And how do you define the terms attached to sexual violence?

And what realms of the imagination do you wish to build your walls around? Would it just be photos and videos of people pretending to be raped that you would ban or will explicit rape scenes no longer be allowed in comics, cartoons, books, computer games and narrative poetry?

Your position is poorly thought out, you fucks.

Yes lines need to be drawn and no this is not poorly thought out this is the case with many things, like the age of driving a car for example. I think there is clearly a difference between rapeporn in cartoons and that featuring real people.

[Jazzratt]

Yes lines need to be drawn and no this is not poorly thought out this is the case with many things, like the age of driving a car for example. I think there is clearly a difference between rapeporn in cartoons and that featuring real people.

You have answered 1 (one) chriticism of mine. I am interested mainly in whether two adults of sound mind can engage in simulated rape in their own bedrooms. If they can, why can they not make videos or take photographs of their actions?

I would love to see some consistency from you, it'd be nice :)

[Rangi]

People can do whatever they like in their own bedrooms. I don't think it is anyone's business but their own.

In my country there was recently a case that involved a sexual predator who admitted to being addicted to violent sub/dom pornography. He raped and tortured one young woman and then he raped, tortured and murdered a young deaf girl. His former partner told the authorities that he was into 'play rape' and other such sexually aggressive role-playing.

Does rape fantasy and violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sexual offending?

On a personal level; Would you like to see your mother, sister, daughter on the receiving end of faux-rape?

Does such material work towards the emancipation of women in modern western society?

[StalinFanboy]

Does rape fantasy and violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sexual offending? I don't think it does. There are obviously cases of people who are into violent porn who go out and actually rape or whatever, but I think it's safe to say that there was already some sort of imbalance in their brains.


On a personal level; Would you like to see your mother, sister, daughter on the receiving end of faux-rape? It's not up to me to determine what the women in my life can and should do.


Does such material work towards the emancipation of women in modern western society?By recognizing them as people that can make their own decisions regarding their sexuality, and their bodies.

[Black Dagger]

I bet a lot of rape porn is actually real or done under pressure. As is lot of porn. Who knows?

You must watch a lot of rape porn i guess? Otherwise? :confused:


I think I have the answer now: yes, violent pornography should be banned in a capitalist society to ensure that nobody's doing it against their will.

Some problems.

Banning something doesn't stop it from happening (otherwise crime - breaches of law - wouldn't exist), and certainly banning something like pornography does not prevent its production/peoples desire for it nor obviously the coercion of people into this work. For the record, the sort of behaviour you're talking about is already illegal - no one can be legally coerced into 'violent pornograhy' - so to proclaim bans on 'violent pornography' as a means to prevent any coercive activity is merely rhetoric.

In fact, usually in capitalist society banning something - say for example, sex work - leads to closer links with the black market, organised crime, violence, coercion and unsafe/unprotected working conditions. The best thing for sex workers in a capitalist society is to have rights and conditions protected by the law and workers organisations to ensure these freedoms.


Another example, prostitution is legal in the netherlands, but there are estimates that 80% is doing it against their will.


Whilst i agree that forced prostitution and 'sex trafficking' are a problem all over the world - i don't find the figure of 80% very believeable without some kind of evidence? If you want to make a serious case you really have to provide a source for statistical claims like that.



Child pornography is illegal too and yeah its underground, but should you make it legal than?

This is a fallacious response. 'Child pornography' does not involve two consenting adults, and is by definition (child) sexual abuse. 'Violent pornography' on the other hand is merely a type of pornography... which involves consenting adults and is not inherently abusive. You can't compare the two.



The thing is if you make certain things illegal, lots of people whould not dare to visit such a site, in other words, you make it unattractive for an audiance who feel its not worth the consequenses.

But what does stigmatising aspects of human sexuality have to do with preventing coercion or exploitation?

Making people feel bad about their turn-ons is an entirely different matter from preventing the traffic of women etc. Which is a real problem.

Really, this argument does not follow at all.


Lots of people are more or less forced to play in rapeporn or gangbanging to get payed the same way as workers are forced to work at terrible conditions.

Firstly, as has been stated numerous times - you've provided no evidence to support any of your claims. How many is lots? When? Where? Etc.

Secondly... so you oppose exploitative labour conditions? Join the club! I want to see an end to the wage system and capitalism too, not really sure what that has to do with banning some kind of porn though... Lots of people are 'more or less' forced to work - that's what capitalism is premised on - you have to work to live.

[Black Dagger]

Does rape fantasy and violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sexual offending?

Does watching violent films lead to an increase in assault and murder? What about playing violent video games?



On a personal level; Would you like to see your mother, sister, daughter on the receiving end of faux-rape?

Personally, i wouldn't want to see anyone in my family in any kind of sexual situation - i don't find myself attracted to any of them. But yeah, what a ridiculously irrelevant question to ask.



Does such material work towards the emancipation of women in modern western society?

No, it also probably doesn't contribute to the fight against global warming either - but again that's not the point of pornography.

The purpose of 'such material' is usually to get people off - and for the record, pornography is not restricted to the depiction of women or heteros generally (not stated, but implied by your questions).

[Das war einmal]

You have answered 1 (one) chriticism of mine. I am interested mainly in whether two adults of sound mind can engage in simulated rape in their own bedrooms. If they can, why can they not make videos or take photographs of their actions?

I would love to see some consistency from you, it'd be nice :)


Its very hard to control wether or not this is done out of free will. Next to that its a manifestation of exploitation. Next to the freedom of choice question you can ask yourself if this type of 'entertainment' is not glorifying capitalism

[Black Dagger]

Its very hard to control wether or not this is done out of free will.
Yeah you're right, adults (women especially) are incapable of ever consenting to sex - especially the taboo kind - give me a break! JR was talking about a couple ffs.

[Jazzratt]

In my country there was recently a case that involved a sexual predator who admitted to being addicted to violent sub/dom pornography. He raped and tortured one young woman and then he raped, tortured and murdered a young deaf girl. His former partner told the authorities that he was into 'play rape' and other such sexually aggressive role-playing.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for shit, there is always a counter anecdote about people who are part of the (really rather large) BDSM scene and/or engage in rape roleplay that don't rape and murder two people.


Does rape fantasy and violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sexual offending?

Black Dagger handled this well.


On a personal level; Would you like to see your mother, sister, daughter on the receiving end of faux-rape?

No. Family members aren't my cup of tea.


Does such material work towards the emancipation of women in modern western society?

No. It doesn't act to the detriment of women's emancipation either.


Its very hard to control wether or not this is done out of free will.

Uh, as long as both parties are of both of sound mind it's not all that difficult. That's what consent is all about.


Next to that its a manifestation of exploitation. Next to the freedom of choice question you can ask yourself if this type of 'entertainment' is not glorifying capitalism

What the hell are you talking about? It "glorifies capitalism" just as much as any entertainment (with or without scare quotes).

[butterfly]

On a personal level; Would you like to see your mother, sister, daughter on the receiving end of faux-rape?
I'll take this question how you intended it because the others were handled really well.
I would be concerned if either of them had a problem expressing their sexuality.

Paternalism comes to mind, especially because you assume that only females enjoy being on the receiving end of faux rape.

[Das war einmal]

You must watch a lot of rape porn i guess? Otherwise?

Why do you think so? I don't.


Some problems.


Banning something doesn't stop it from happening (otherwise crime - breaches of law - wouldn't exist), and certainly banning something like pornography does not prevent its production/peoples desire for it nor obviously the coercion of people into this work. For the record, the sort of behaviour you're talking about is already illegal - no one can be legally coerced into 'violent pornograhy' - so to proclaim bans on 'violent pornography' as a means to prevent any coercive activity is merely rhetoric

In fact, usually in capitalist society banning something - say for example, sex work - leads to closer links with the black market, organised crime, violence, coercion and unsafe/unprotected working conditions. The best thing for sex workers in a capitalist society is to have rights and conditions protected by the law and workers organisations to ensure these freedoms.

Thats the problem right there, of course I know that banning doesnt automatically solves the problem, but you cant make everything legal in fear that it otherwise becomes unable to control. What is legal and what is not is based upon the desires of society, more or less. If the whole society would say that violent pornography is no problem than it would be legal sooner or later.

Dont get me wrong I dont entirely disagree with you here, I am for strict regulation of legal prostitution. My opinions on violent pornography are based on moral principals.



Whilst i agree that forced prostitution and 'sex trafficking' are a problem all over the world - i don't find the figure of 80% very believeable without some kind of evidence? If you want to make a serious case you really have to provide a source for statistical claims like that.

I do. In fact, in my city, there are estimates that 50 to 90 % of the prosititution is illegal and the majority are here because of human trafficing.

http://www.stopthetraffik.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=39 (http://www.stopthetraffik.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=39) (This is a dutch article, stating that the police is frightened at the high rate of illegal prositutes in a large Dutch city, according to the statistics)

http://www.emea.nl/?p=14214 (http://www.emea.nl/?p=14214) (This is a message to the press from police and justice asking civilians to contact the police whenever they suspect illegal prostitution)

http://www.ad.nl/utrecht/stad/2732826/Utrecht_pakt_raamprostitutie_hard_aan.html (http://www.ad.nl/utrecht/stad/2732826/Utrecht_pakt_raamprostitutie_hard_aan.html)
(this article is about the prosicution of illegal prostitution, stating again that the majority of the prostitution is illegal)

As a matter of fact, the wallen, one of the most 'famous' dutch red light districts, are being partly closed because of the high rate of illegal activities.

As you see, making something legal doesnt automatically mean that it leads to a better situation.

And prostitution is probably easier to control than porn. Thats my main concern.




This is a fallacious response. 'Child pornography' does not involve two consenting adults, and is by definition (child) sexual abuse. 'Violent pornography' on the other hand is merely a type of pornography... which involves consenting adults and is not inherently abusive. You can't compare the two.

Well it would not be a problem if the adults are indeed both consenting, but thats the whole point, how would you know if they dont do it under pressure or something? If they are not consenting than its just as worse as child pornography.




But what does stigmatising aspects of human sexuality have to do with preventing coercion or exploitation?

Making people feel bad about their turn-ons is an entirely different matter from preventing the traffic of women etc. Which is a real problem.

This discussion is about the banning of violent pornography. There are two main points that could be an argument for such a ban:




The aspect of people being forced to play in such content
The repulsiveness of this here content



I think nearly everyone here would agree, that people only may take part in pornography or prostitution out of free will. Point B is a case of moral ethics. Although both points may seem like an entirely different matter, if there is no group B who are willing to pay to see such content than it is not interesting for people to exploit others for producing this.





Firstly, as has been stated numerous times - you've provided no evidence to support any of your claims. How many is lots? When? Where? Etc.


http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/10_oktober/11/binnenland/1011_0700_Kraggenburg_pornozaak.xml (http://www.rtl.nl/%28/actueel/rtlnieuws/%29/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/10_oktober/11/binnenland/1011_0700_Kraggenburg_pornozaak.xml) In this article its mentioned that a group African women was forced to play in violent porn movies, including animal sex. The suspects have gotten 14 year cel and are being locked away in mental hospitals. This, also, was in The Netherlands and we are talking about a country were there is much surveillance.




Secondly... so you oppose exploitative labour conditions? Join the club! I want to see an end to the wage system and capitalism too, not really sure what that has to do with banning some kind of porn though... Lots of people are 'more or less' forced to work - that's what capitalism is premised on - you have to work to live.
You dont know what this has to do with violent porn? Everything of course. If there were no market, it would be far less interesting to force people to do this kind of thing.


One last thing, in the Soviet Union pornography was banned and prostitution aswell. It did take place, ofcourse, but far less, than after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[SocialRealist]

No, it should not be banned due to the fact this would show a entity attempting to control acts of consensual works of fiction and that would be a step onto the path of authoritarianism and I think we saw what has happened in the 20th century when that path was taken.

[Das war einmal]

And we saw what happened when there is no government control to protect workers at all in the 19th century.

[SocialRealist]

And we saw what happened when there is no government control to protect workers at all in the 19th century.

Yes, we have seen that. But we must not resort to over protection of the working class. We must have a good balance, a balance of control and a balance of non-control.

[Das war einmal]

Yes, we have seen that. But we must not resort to over protection of the working class. We must have a good balance, a balance of control and a balance of non-control.

I think certain things, like softdrugs, should be made legal, most people know how to handle it quite well. But its naive to think that people who are participating in violent porn do it all on free will.

[SocialRealist]

I think certain things, like softdrugs, should be made legal, most people know how to handle it quite well. But its naive to think that people who are participating in violent porn do it all on free will.

We need to think about this, does the act harm another, is it consensual?

If it does not harm one and is consensual I honestly see no problem in violent pornography or anything else on this matter.

Now, why would you say it would not be on free will, both women and men have the ability to consent to an act.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats the problem right there, of course I know that banning doesnt automatically solves the problem, but you cant make everything legal in fear that it otherwise becomes unable to control.

Irrelevant. Legal activities are inherently easier to regulate than illegal activities. It may not be 100% effective, but it is still better than the black market, which is effectively a laissez-faire scenario in terms of regulation. Why else do you think it's more common for illegal drugs to have harmful additives and fillers than legally-produced foodstuffs?


What is legal and what is not is based upon the desires of society, more or less. If the whole society would say that violent pornography is no problem than it would be legal sooner or later. Also irrelevant. The fact that an activity is widely frowned-upon isn't sufficient reason for it to be prohibited.


Dont get me wrong I dont entirely disagree with you here, I am for strict regulation of legal prostitution. My opinions on violent pornography are based on moral principals. In other words, your personal preferences. Sorry, but policy should not be dictated by the whims of an individual.

I do. In fact, in my city, there are estimates that 50 to 90 % of the prosititution is illegal and the majority are here because of human trafficing.

...

As you see, making something legal doesnt automatically mean that it leads to a better situation.

And prostitution is probably easier to control than porn. Thats my main concern.[/quote]

If somebody is willing to traffick humans and force them into acts against their will, what makes you think a little thing like being illegal is going to stop them?

By making violent pornography illegal, you automatically discourage those who would otherwise produce it in an ethical and legal manner, leaving the market open to those willing to commit crimes to make money.


Well it would not be a problem if the adults are indeed both consenting, but thats the whole point, how would you know if they dont do it under pressure or something? If they are not consenting than its just as worse as child pornography.Because if it's legal, then it can be regulated. Inspections, laws etc can be enforced, whereas if it's illegal all that happens is that one particular operation can be uncovered and shut down, increasing the market share of those better able to hide their activities.


This discussion is about the banning of violent pornography. There are two main points that could be an argument for such a ban:




The aspect of people being forced to play in such content

Already illegal, so banning violent pornography does nothing to reduce this.


2. The repulsiveness of this here content Irrelevant. Your personal tastes should have absolutely nothing to do with it.


I think nearly everyone here would agree, that people only may take part in pornography or prostitution out of free will. Point B is a case of moral ethics. Although both points may seem like an entirely different matter, if there is no group B who are willing to pay to see such content than it is not interesting for people to exploit others for producing this.Perhaps you could restate this, maybe in English?


(http://www.rtl.nl/%28/actueel/rtlnieuws/%29/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/10_oktober/11/binnenland/1011_0700_Kraggenburg_pornozaak.xml)http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/10_oktober/11/binnenland/1011_0700_Kraggenburg_pornozaak.xml (http://www.rtl.nl/%28/actueel/rtlnieuws/%29/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/10_oktober/11/binnenland/1011_0700_Kraggenburg_pornozaak.xml) In this article its mentioned that a group African women was forced to play in violent porn movies, including animal sex. The suspects have gotten 14 year cel and are being locked away in mental hospitals. This, also, was in The Netherlands and we are talking about a country were there is much surveillance.


You dont know what this has to do with violent porn? Everything of course. If there were no market, it would be far less interesting to force people to do this kind of thing. Banning something doesn't reduce the demand for it, it just makes it more expensive, as illegal drugs demonstrate.


One last thing, in the Soviet Union pornography was banned and prostitution aswell. It did take place, ofcourse, but far less, than after the fall of the Soviet Union.Who gives a shit? Most of here do not seek to emulate the Soviet Union.

[Elly]

I think certain things, like softdrugs, should be made legal, most people know how to handle it quite well. But its naive to think that people who are participating in violent porn do it all on free will.

I don't see why there is a difference between "violent porn" and "classical porn". I mean, the important thing is that there is a consent of the actors, but you can have consent of actors for a scene of simulated rape, just as you can have coercition of an actor into doing things that, on camera, seem consensual.

So, having particular restrictions on "violent porn" (of course it also depends of the definition of "violent", but well) seems to me as a way to legislate more strongly against stigmatised sexualities (BDSM in this case).

Now this is not to say I am in favour of some fiction (porn or not) that seems to me like promoting rape, but I think that the solution is more education on sexualities, not repression. Should there really be a law, it would be perhaps more interesting to impose some kind of adviser explaining that it's a fiction, the basical notions of consents, safewords and things like that than to forbid everything . It's like action movies : I feel ill at ease when I see some movies where an american hero kills hundreds of third-word bloodthirsty bad guys, but I don't think the solution would be to censor them.

[Das war einmal]

Actually, if there is anything prohibited, the majority of the civilians need to support it, otherwise, people think it is unjustified. This is one of the first things they teach you if you have studied rights.

So far I have proven the fact that, while prositution and certain pornography is indeed legal in the Netherlands (with illegal prostitution, I ment women being forced in the prostitution, not that it was prohibited to prostitute yourself) there is a lot of criminal and illegal activity. So while it may sound like it makes sence that if you ban something it will only get worse, the facts contradict this. By the way, why am I here the only one who needs to support this with facts while none of you have delivered anything to proof your claim? I dont mind except that it is a bit odd.

By the way, this whole thing is not really to be compared with drugs. With drugs and then I mean stuff like marihuana and paddo's, whilst that being controversial aswell, we know that with the production, people arent being used against their will. That is my main concern and untill it is proven that extreme violent porn, or any other porn for that matter, is all made under free will, than it should be banned. You can be certain there will always be abuse, cause thats the whole point of capitalism. People need to sell there own body to survive and for that fact, this bussiness is just another fine example of exploitation.

By the way, I wasn't saying that women, in particular, cant fend for themselves. Its just the fact that the most people playing in porn are women, but the whole story goes for a lot of men probably also.

[apathy maybe]

By the way, why am I here the only one who needs to support this with facts while none of you have delivered anything to proof your claim? I dont mind accept that it is a bit odd.

Most people are arguing that to ban consensual sex acts, or the filming of said acts (even if they appear to be non-consensual), is a violation of the rights of the person's involved.

I'm not arguing that there will be less, more, or about the same, amount of rape, if all voluntarily made "rape porn" was banned. Instead, I'm saying it's a stupid thing to do, as the act of non-consensual sex (rape) is already banned. If you want to ban "rape porn" that was made voluntarily, you have two options. Ban people from simulating rape as a voluntary sex act, or ban the filming of said sex act. (Actually, you can also ban the possession of a copy of the film.)

Which is it going to be?

If you ban the act itself, you are intruding into the private lives of people, preventing them from doing something which harms no one at all.

If you ban the filming, the same thing.

If you ban the possession, the same thing.

Whoops, sounds like you want a puritan type "communism" rather than a voluntary ("anarchistic) type communism. Do you also want to force people to work?

[Das war einmal]

I think I have not made myself clear after all. If it was a voluntary than it would be no problem, but you need a whole different society to ensure this. The fact that this business is good for millions, is enough to ensure that people's rights are totally violated. Someone here said that pornsites are monitored by governments or something, maybe there are a few sites being monitored, but there are thousands new sexsite's every month, there is no way a goverment can control all of that. The police therefor focusses on matters that are allready illegal, like childpornography.

You know, I would support some sort of government activity by making clear to people that a lot of pornography is done without free will. What that has to do with forcing people to work, I don't know.:rolleyes:

[butterfly]

So in reality your saying that ALL porn should be banned because we cannot ensure it is consensual under capitalism?
Why do you single out 'violent' pornography and why would you assume people cannot make their own decisions:confused:

[Das war einmal]

Violent pornography was the case here, i didnt single it out. You know thinking about this, another problem is the obviously double moral standard. In this here society (I talk about the culture I know) pornography is a taboo. On television or on the radio there are strict rules what you cant show if it contents to much naked skin, in America I heard this is even worse. No one ever talks about it openly in the media but a lot of people watch it. Because of this, it may be the case that this is so attractive for criminal activity aswell. It would be much more consensual if we just handle the sex industry as just an industry as any other, like I do. My point is, or you ban it completely and invest a lot to ensure that the level of abuse and exploitation is as low as possible or you make it legal, but you start taking this bussiness seriously, discuss it openly with the whole society, build labor unions for people working in this bussiness and so on. For the later, you need a complete whole different society however. Thats why I have this opinion, in this society at this moment, violent pornography should be banned.

[butterfly]

There are discussion threads on the porn industry in general if you can be bothered to do a search.

Actually, if there is anything prohibited, the majority of the civilians need to support it, otherwise, people think it is unjustified.
If your agenda is to shut down the entire porn industry due to some instances of exploitation, you will not recieve majority support, in fact you would create an environment in which exploitation is more likely.

[Rangi]

If you get your rocks off by doing harm to the opposite sex of your species then may I offer you the thought that you have overt fascistic sexual fantasies that have been instilled in you through your formative period.

[RedAnarchist]

If you get your rocks off by doing harm to the opposite sex of your species then may I offer you the thought that you have overt fascistic sexual fantasies that have been instilled in you through your formative period.

Even if it's totally consensual and that member of the opposite sex is getting their rocks off by having "harm" done to them?

[Black Dagger]

If you get your rocks off by doing harm to the opposite sex of your species then may I offer you the thought that you have overt fascistic sexual fantasies that have been instilled in you through your formative period.

This is basically trolling (a fallacious 'fascist' comparison) - ditto for comparing people who get turned on by submission and domination to pedophiles. You're not making an argument, merely making an attack on a group of people - some of whom are participating in this discussion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So far I have proven the fact that, while prositution and certain pornography is indeed legal in the Netherlands (with illegal prostitution, I ment women being forced in the prostitution, not that it was prohibited to prostitute yourself) there is a lot of criminal and illegal activity. So while it may sound like it makes sence that if you ban something it will only get worse, the facts contradict this.

You have not shown any evidence that things will get better if you ban it.

Like I said, if someone is willing to traffick and coerce people into prostitution/violent pornography or whatever, they won't give a shit about the small matter of it being illegal.


By the way, why am I here the only one who needs to support this with facts while none of you have delivered anything to proof your claim? I dont mind except that it is a bit odd.As others have pointed out, this is irrelevant. Yes, people trafficking occurs in areas of legal prostitution, but that is no more to the point than trying to ban the dairy industry because some of it's products have been contaminated with harmful products such as melamine.


By the way, this whole thing is not really to be compared with drugs. With drugs and then I mean stuff like marihuana and paddo's, whilst that being controversial aswell, we know that with the production, people arent being used against their will.You're missing the point. In a black market, whether it's drugs or prostitution or pornography, there is precious little (if any) incentive for ethical behaviour. By banning an activity, ie turning it over completely to the black market, you ensure that basically only those willing to break the law, ie criminals, will get involved in that activity.


That is my main concern and untill it is proven that extreme violent porn, or any other porn for that matter, is all made under free will, than it should be banned.That's a bullshit kneejerk reaction - the correct response if one discovers an instance of sexual slavery is to shut that operation down and arrest the perps, not ban pornography wholesale and thereafter ensure that only criminals get involved in the production of pornography.


You can be certain there will always be abuse, cause thats the whole point of capitalism.Wrong, the whole point of capitalism is to make money. Capitalists are not cartoon villains twirling their moustaches and doing evil for the sake of it.


People need to sell there own body to survive and for that fact, this bussiness is just another fine example of exploitation. And making it illegal is going to do squat to change that. People will still be desperate enough to sell their bodies and there will always be unscrupulous folks willing to take advantage of that, even if it's illegal.

That's why prostitution happens even in places where it's illegal.


For the later, you need a complete whole different society however. Thats why I have this opinion, in this society at this moment, violent pornography should be banned.And I have pointed out why that's a fucking stupid idea.


If you get your rocks off by doing harm to the opposite sex of your species then may I offer you the thought that you have overt fascistic sexual fantasies that have been instilled in you through your formative period.

Might I suggest that your cranium is permanently lodged up your rectal cavity?

[hugsandmarxism]

As much as I find violent pornography revolting, I have to say no to banning it in cases in which the sex is consensual.

[StalinFanboy]

Like I said, if someone is willing to traffick and coerce people into prostitution/violent pornography or whatever, they won't give a shit about the small matter of it being illegal.

Ironically, today I was sitting in my room, rather bored, when I thought of how fun it would be to kidnap some people and then force them to fuck in front of me. I had everything ready too, and I was quite excited. But as I was getting into my truck I remember that it was illegal. Totally ruined my day.

[Das war einmal]

Killing is illegal too, some people however, kill even though it is illegal, so lets just make killing legal! - Fine example of how stupid some peoples logic here is.

Oh you have no way to proof that killing would be less if it is illegal if you do, bring me facts

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ironically, today I was sitting in my room, rather bored, when I thought of how fun it would be to kidnap some people and then force them to fuck in front of me. I had everything ready too, and I was quite excited. But as I was getting into my truck I remember that it was illegal. Totally ruined my day.Are you being dense on purpose? :rolleyes:


Killing is illegal too, some people however, kill even though it is illegal, so lets just make killing legal! - Fine example of how stupid some peoples logic here is.

No, my argument is that people willing to kill and coerce people are not going to be put off by the small fact that it is illegal. So making violent pornography illegal does diddly squat apart from criminalising those who would make it in an ethical fashion.


Oh you have no way to proof that killing would be less if it is illegal if you do, bring me factsSomething I never stated.

You're the one who wants to ban violent pornography, the onus is on you to prove that making it illegal will change things for the better.

[StalinFanboy]

Are you being dense on purpose? :rolleyes:
/quote]
Yes.

But I have a feeling this guy isn't.
[quote=red_resistance;1328111]Killing is illegal too, some people however, kill even though it is illegal, so lets just make killing legal! - Fine example of how stupid some peoples logic here is.

Oh you have no way to proof that killing would be less if it is illegal if you do, bring me facts

[Le People]

Killing is illegal too, some people however, kill even though it is illegal, so lets just make killing legal! - Fine example of how stupid some peoples logic here is.

Oh you have no way to proof that killing would be less if it is illegal if you do, bring me facts


The problem with this argument is that we are talking about the production and the distribution of a product (pornography) not an action that has no economic vaule (the actual murder, not the motives behind.)

[Rjevan]

In my opinion violent pornography should be banned.
You can't compare rape-pornography and e.g. a book which contains a rape scene that easiliy. The book usually isn't all about sensless violence, but these sort of pornos are.
And why should anyone watch stuff like this if not to turn him on? And some day maybe he thinks "Yeah, this looks like fun, turns me really on. Why don't try it myself?".

I don't say that everybody watching BDSM is a potential psychopath who will go mad one day, kidnapp some girls on their way to school and torture them to death, but some of these psychopaths were inspired by this sort of pornography.
And I think you shouldn't give these people the opportunity to get inspired.

Sure, if one really tries to get these pornos he won't be stoped by knowing they are illegal but it will make it more difficult for him to get them and maybe some people, who would have watched it, leave their hands off.

[SocialDemocracy19]

I agree with all my heart that violence being acted out or glorified in any way is a terrible thing, but like many people believe you cant ban everything ever prohibition(failure), the war on drugs (failure). Besides the more you ban things the more the people who desire what ever is illegal will go to criminals.

[Black Dagger]

The book usually isn't all about sensless violence, but these sort of pornos are.

Hint: Pornos are usually about sex.


And why should anyone watch stuff like this if not to turn him on? And some day maybe he thinks "Yeah, this looks like fun, turns me really on. Why don't try it myself?".


Prove it.

O right you can't - but by all means join the picket out front with all the 'soccer moms' protesting GTA IV because it leads to 'violent crime'.


I don't say that everybody watching BDSM is a potential psychopath who will go mad one day, kidnapp some girls on their way to school and torture them to death, but...

Funny, i thought this was exactly what you were saying:


And why should anyone watch stuff like this if not to turn him on? And some day maybe he thinks "Yeah, this looks like fun, turns me really on. Why don't try it myself?".

Hmmm.


but some of these psychopaths were inspired by this sort of pornography.


Prove it.

I mean honestly, you think if it had not been for that porno that dude watched he never would have committed such a horrible crime? 'The porno made me do it!' 'Psychopaths' don't need 'inspiration' to commit anti-social behaviour - they have deep-seated impulses that drive their actions far beyond something they happened to watch one time.

Also, re: psychopaths and sex offending:


No clinical definition of psychopathy indicates that psychopaths are especially prone to commit sexually-oriented murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_murder), and scientific studies do not suggest that a large proportion of psychopaths have committed these crimes.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_note-60) Although some claim a large proportion of such offenders have been classified as psychopathic, this evidence comes from single, unrepeated research study using the Rorschach Inkblot Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_Inkblot_Test), an invalid test for psychopathy and for sex offenders,[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_note-61) references not considering psychopathy, [63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_note-62) and studies concerning sexual homicide, a somewhat different population than the general class of sex offenders and not from meta-studies combining repeatable results.

61 ^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_ref-60) "What is Psychopathy - Sexual Psychopath (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1884/Psychopathy-What-psychopathy.html)". Retrieved on 2007-12-15.
62 ^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_ref-61) Gacono, Meloy, Bridges (200), A Rorschach Comparison of Psychopaths, Sexual Homicide Perpetrators, and Nonviolent Pedophiles: Where Angels Fear to Tread. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 56(6), 757–777 (2000)
63 ^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#cite_ref-62) Michael H. Stone (2001), SERIAL SEXUAL HOMICIDE: BIOLOGICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(1), 1–18, 2001


---------------------------------


And I think you shouldn't give these people the opportunity to get inspired.

So what's your solution? Ban 'violent pornography'? How on earth is that going to prevent psychopaths from committing crime?

No offense, but i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about - check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath) out. Actual psychopaths don't just sit around waiting to get 'inspired' to be psychopaths. Psychopaths don't need external stimulus to prompt their behaviour, they have internal desires for gratification which is achieved through their external actions.


Sure, if one really tries to get these pornos he won't be stoped by knowing they are illegal but it will make it more difficult for him to get them and maybe some people, who would have watched it, leave their hands off.

So you admit that your solution is a failure from the start? What's the point of a 'solution' that doesn't actually solve anything? :confused:

[Eddie]

I find rape porn erotic, and I have rape fantasies. Obviously the rape porn I like isn't real in the sense that someone is actually being raped, its just a fantasy, like any other scenario they dream up in pornos. And obviously I don't want to be raped by some random stranger, but I find the idea of being 'raped' by someone as something that turns me on. Its not rape, just roleplayiiiing it (and hence is consensual). I don't think that makes me sexist, I think I'm just attracted to the dominant/subservient role playing thingy and the idea of innocence. I don't think that makes me any more likely to rape someone or to be raped, or to encourage rape. It just makes me a kinky persyn.

[Rjevan]

Hint: Pornos are usually about sex.
Yes, about sex but not about violence.


Funny, i thought this was exactly what you were saying
I said maybe. This was an example of one person, who didn't speak for all BDSM-watchers.


Prove it.
Take for example Raffaele Sollecito who is accused to have raped and murdered the 21 year old Meredith Kercher with his girlfriend and a friend. The magazine "Der Spiegel" writes about him: "...is said to have a preference to violent pornos."
Chance? Maybe, maybe not.


I mean honestly, you think if it had not been for that porno that dude watched he never would have committed such a horrible crime? 'The porno made me do it!' 'Psychopaths' don't need 'inspiration' to commit anti-social behaviour - they have deep-seated impulses that drive their actions far beyond something they happened to watch one time.
Yes, they have deep-seated impulses and sure, they won't get these impulses through watching a porno one time but watching violent pornos over and over again may strongen these "dark sides" of their personality.
If you have, e.g. a disposition to pedophilia, you don't necessarily live it out. But to spend your day next to a Kindergarten is maybe not the best idea, because you could get turned on too much and give in to your "dark side" (sorry for using this "Star Wars"-terminology, but i think you know what I mean ;)). And if you have a tendency to rape fantasies it's probably not the best to watch rape pornos all day long. And if you don't have the opportunity to watch them because they are banned and you have difficulties to get them, the risk of "going mad" is reduced.


So you admit that your solution is a failure from the start?
No, otherwise I would not argue for it. ;)
It would be silly to say: "Oh, yeah, ban all violent pornos and nobody will be able to watch them and the world will be a better place without violence and rape!"
I just said that I know it isn't the perfect solution and it won't stop everybody from watching violent pornos but it would stop some. And that is a progress.

I get your point with the definition of "psychopath" and I agree. I generalized there. :blushing:

[Revolutionary Youth]

Well, in my country, Vietnam, spreading pornography in any form, any kind or having a business of prostitution will guarantee yourself a ticket to the police station already!

I think it is mostly because of our Asian-Vietnamese culture: exposing your body naked for another eyes to see is considered to be a disgusting act.

I think Chinese is the same too.:)

[danyboy27]

Well, in my country, Vietnam, spreading pornography in any form, any kind or having a business of prostitution will guarantee yourself a ticket to the police station already!

I think it is mostly because of our Asian-Vietnamese culture: exposing your body naked for another eyes to see is considered to be a disgusting act.

I think Chinese is the same too.:)

chinese pornography do exist, but there is restriction in place to avoid the industry of spreading. china could compete with america on that field any day.

[Jazzratt]

Well, in my country, Vietnam, spreading pornography in any form, any kind or having a business of prostitution will guarantee yourself a ticket to the police station already!


Do you have any statistics to show that this has significantly decreased sexual assaults, rapes and related crimes? (In fact, are there any statistics on sexual crimes within Vietnam? A cursory scanning of the internet turned up nothing).

[danyboy27]

i found a couple articles on brothels and women forced to have sex with peoples, but that not exclusive to vietnam, it kinda happen all over asia.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Do you have any statistics to show that this has significantly decreased sexual assaults, rapes and related crimes? (In fact, are there any statistics on sexual crimes within Vietnam? A cursory scanning of the internet turned up nothing).

Sexual crimes within Vietnam are extremely rare. Thanks to the policy of our government. So you mean that since the sexual crimes' rate in our country is low, pornography won't be a problem right? I don't think so, I don't want my country to turn out to be like a second US or Amsterdam, where porn industry is legal. That's so sickening!!! (I'm sorry for saying that but I'm quite a nationalist guy)


i found a couple articles on brothels and women forced to have sex with peoples, but that not exclusive to vietnam, it kinda happen all over asia.

Yep, you can not exterminate it completely, but at least, it is very low here in Vietnam.:)

[Jazzratt]

Sexual crimes within Vietnam are extremely rare. Thanks to the policy of our government. So you mean that since the sexual crimes' rate in our country is low, pornography won't be a problem right? I don't think so, I don't want my country to turn out to be like a second US or Amsterdam, where porn industry is legal. That's so sickening!!! (I'm sorry for saying that but I'm quite a nationalist guy)


Look, I asked if you had statistics not for a display of your patriotism. Do you have any independently sourced, reliable statistics to back up your claims?

[JimmyJazz]

Voted no. Fictional violent-themed porn is a victimless product. Contrast it with nonviolent-themed but nonconsensual porn, which actually has a victim.

People need to learn to separate reality from fiction. It isn't a thin line; it's pretty much a gaping canyon. The difference is consent.

I'm all for strong social taboos against violent porn: they prevent people who may be very uncomfortable with it from having to be exposed to it. However, there are people who are comfortable with it, and as far as I know these people do not commit a higher number of real-world rapes (or domestic abuses, or whatever) than the general population.

So society can restrict its distribution and advertisement to very limited venues, but no, it has no right to altogether limit its production and distribution simply because it makes some people uncomfortable. That's the tyranny of the majority in action.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Look, I asked if you had statistics not for a display of your patriotism. Do you have any independently sourced, reliable statistics to back up your claims?

Well, the most reliable source will defenitely be the official website of the General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Unfortunately, it is under maintenance, so I can not provide the statistics to you now, sorry.:tongue_smilie:

Here is the website: http://www.gso.gov.vn/

[Pogue]

Banning it would send it underground. Thats where things get bad.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Sex Industry and Public Policy, Australian Institute of Criminology

"The aggregate data on rape and other violent or sexual offenses from four countries where pornography, including aggressive varieties, has become widely and easily available during the period we have dealt with would seem to exclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this availability has had any detrimental effects in the form of increased sexual violence."

There is no way to link pornography to violence towards women. But I don't see how that justifies it's continued tolerance. There are no graphs and/or other empirical measurements to link racist websites with race-related violence, but that doesn't mean we should allow such filth to persist. It can be 'fictional', but it still often features real-life situations in which women are promoted as promiscuous and available. It's not hard to find "fuck my wife", gang bangs, or domination porn here or there on the internet. It feeds into natural male sexual needs by making women out to be overly docile.

It can be described as social control of sexuality itself. If females were the dominant sex and massively publicized pornographic material of men having homosexual sex, there'd be many males who'd approach the question of gender and power in society more critically based on how their masculinity was conditioned to resemble something other than what they truly believe it is. 'Porn' doesn't hurt you, but it certainly does not make you stronger.


Whoops, sounds like you want a puritan type "communism" rather than a voluntary ("anarchistic) type communism. Do you also want to force people to work?

If you don't feel that certain forms of oppression(s) should be 'illegal', then should we just not promote a revolutionary culture altogether? Should racist, sexist, or homophobic views be left alone? I don't think so.

[apathy maybe]

If you don't feel that certain forms of oppression(s) should be 'illegal', then should we just not promote a revolutionary culture altogether? Should racist, sexist, or homophobic views be left alone? I don't think so.

How is voluntary "violent porn" oppressive to anyone?

Two men engaging in "rape sex" and having it filmed is not sexist...


Of course, sexist, racist &c. views aren't welcome in our future perfect society. But we aren't talking about that...

[Labor Shall Rule]

How is voluntary "violent porn" oppressive to anyone?

Two men engaging in "rape sex" and having it filmed is not sexist...


Of course, sexist, racist &c. views aren't welcome in our future perfect society. But we aren't talking about that...

It promotes perceptions of sexual dominance, submissiveness, sex role stereotyping or viewing persons as sexual objects. It is oppressive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It promotes perceptions of sexual dominance, submissiveness, sex role stereotyping or viewing persons as sexual objects. It is oppressive.

No it doesn't. No more than Quake promotes running around shooting people with a chaingun.

[Labor Shall Rule]

What is the difference from a woman getting fucked in the ass and being called a '*****', and a black guy that is called a 'nigger' while being beat up in a video game? It seems like you can superficially prioritize the oppressions you dislike and arbitrarily select the harm you see in them, but females are left out of that equation.

It's sad how certain males on this site think that depictions of women in subversive roles is somehow good because it's 'voluntary' - it's not. If we treat patriarchy as a choice, rather than seeing that it is dynamic that is re-enforced by certain ideas (some that may not even be 'harmful') through printed literature, photography, films, video games, sound recordings, paintings, plays, animation, and other varieties of media, then you are leaving an awful lot of people out of our revolutionary movement.

I don't think that porn should be 'banned', but why shouldn't certain images of the objectifying of women be questioned thoroughly? If a certain film is reactionary garbage, why shouldn't it be outlawed with the other racist and sexist shit we want to get rid of?

[apathy maybe]

What is the difference from a woman getting fucked in the ass and being called a '*****', and a black guy that is called a 'nigger' while being beat up in a video game? It seems like you can superficially prioritize the oppressions you dislike and arbitrarily select the harm you see in them, but females are left out of that equation.

You are neglecting a whole range of porn you know...

What about a man getting fucked in the arse and being called a "*****"? What about a man getting fucked in the arse and being called some other derogatory term?

Porn isn't only made to satisfy the lust of "normal" heterosexual men you know...


You can find all sorts of stuff, made for women by women, made for gay men, for gay women, for people in to bondage, for people who like all sorts of weird (for me) fetishes.



I don't think that porn should be 'banned', but why shouldn't certain images of the objectifying of women be questioned thoroughly? If a certain film is reactionary garbage, why shouldn't it be outlawed with the other racist and sexist shit we want to get rid of?
OK, sorry I didn't read your whole post the first time through. Would you object to porn of a women beating a man? Rather than the man being dominant, the women being dominant?

What's the difference? Should violent porn where one woman is "raping" another be banned? (Or one man another?)

[Labor Shall Rule]

OK, sorry I didn't read your whole post the first time through. Would you object to porn of a women beating a man? Rather than the man being dominant, the women being dominant?

What's the difference? Should violent porn where one woman is "raping" another be banned? (Or one man another?) I find it hard to imagine anti-male porn. What would the chick say in it - "You fucking cock, I'm going to stick your dick in my junkhole without your consent"? Men aren't called '****s' or '*****es' for a reason - male-hate is not institutional. I really can't even think of any 'hate' labels for men altogether.

My point is that you attack reactionary things because they are reactionary, and leave it at that.

[apathy maybe]

I find it hard to imagine anti-male porn. What would the chick say in it - "You fucking cock, I'm going to stick your dick in my junkhole without your consent"? Men aren't called '****s' or '*****es' for a reason - male-hate is not institutional. I really can't even think of any 'hate' labels for men altogether.

My point is that you attack reactionary things because they are reactionary, and leave it at that.
How about wearing a strap on?

But yes, of course you attack reactionary things. But I have trouble calling voluntarily made "violent" porn, made by, and for people who like that sort of thing, "reactionary".

[JimmyJazz]

I really can't even think of any 'hate' labels for men altogether.

"son-of-a-*****"

[Jazzratt]

I find it hard to imagine anti-male porn.


I don't think that was what was being driven at in apathy's post. I could be wrong, but it strikes me that he was merely pointing out that porn isn't automatically going to involve a woman. And it's far from certain that porn, in and of itself, is anti-woman.




What would the chick say in it - "You fucking cock, I'm going to stick your dick in my junkhole without your consent"?


:lol: I don't imagine that in any kind of porn, ever, people word their actions in such a formal manner (i.e "I'm going to do xyz without your consent."). Anyway, if it did exist I imagine that the woman would generally sound like and employ the sort of phrases prevalent in femdom.



Men aren't called '****s' or '*****es' for a reason - male-hate is not institutional. I really can't even think of any 'hate' labels for men altogether.

Why is this odd, entirely North American, belief that "****" is specifically an anti-woman insult so popular? But yes, I agree that sexism against women is more prevalent and their aren't any "hate labels" for the reasons you describe.


My point is that you attack reactionary things because they are reactionary, and leave it at that.


Yeah, and violent porn (in the abstract, perhaps not so much in the current environment but that's true of all porn) isn't reactionary.

[StalinFanboy]

I find it hard to imagine anti-male porn. What would the chick say in it - "You fucking cock, I'm going to stick your dick in my junkhole without your consent"? Men aren't called '****s' or '*****es' for a reason - male-hate is not institutional. I really can't even think of any 'hate' labels for men altogether.

My point is that you attack reactionary things because they are reactionary, and leave it at that.
You've never heard of fem-dom?

[Black Dagger]

Yes, about sex but not about violence.

What is meant by 'violence' is open to interpretation, so sex and 'violence' cannot be regardeded as mutually exclusive (spanking is a turn on for a lot of people for example) - which seems to be your suggestion.
But yes, you are repeating my point here - 'violent pornography' is mostly about sex - not violence. This is what separates it from youtube videos of teenagers in skate parks beating each other up.


Take for example Raffaele Sollecito who is accused to have raped and murdered the 21 year old Meredith Kercher with his girlfriend and a friend. The magazine "Der Spiegel" writes about him: "...is said to have a preference to violent pornos."
Chance? Maybe, maybe not.

I think you are misusing this example.

First of all, one example is not indicative of a pattern - you need more evidence to make a case.

Secondly, in your last post you suggested that watching violent porn may lead someone to become a rapist (you have now cited the above as evidence). But in the case you have provided it's not clear whether the offender became a 'rapist' after watching violent pornogaphy, or the reverse - their impulses or desires to rape lead them to material that mimics these acts. You seem to be suggesting a causal link - despite no evidence to support this.

I don't know this case so i cannot say with any certainty - but i think it's reasonable to assume that a rapist is a rapist before they run a google search for 'rape porn' - and so a rapists apparent preference for violent pornography is a result of their desire for sexual domination and power (their turn-ons) not the cause of it. Evidence for this, rape has existed for thousands of years prior to the existence of violent pornography.



Yes, they have deep-seated impulses and sure, they won't get these impulses through watching a porno one time but watching violent pornos over and over again may strongen these "dark sides" of their personality.

This is at best, debateable. Perhaps this may apply people who would are close to becoming rapists already - to wet their appetite just a little more - but in such cases a causal link is still not definitive, and thus the whole thing remains dubious; for the majority of people who watch this stuff though... which is what you're saying? No i completely disagree. The amount of violence i have seen in my life - in the 'real world' - in films, tv - and the amount of violence i have inflicted through video games - nope, can't say i have a 'dark passenger' just yet.

Also, in regards to sex - one does not have to have the desire to act out what one sees in order to enjoying watching in the first place. But n



If you have, e.g. a disposition to pedophilia, you don't necessarily live it out. But to spend your day next to a Kindergarten is maybe not the best idea, because you could get turned on too much and give in to your "dark side" (sorry for using this "Star Wars"-terminology, but i think you know what I mean ;)).

I don't think comparing people who like 'violent pornograhy' or have rape fantasies to a pedophile is apt at all. The former can ('violent pornography' is a huge diverse category) enjoy simulated acts of non-consensual sex the latter enjoy sex/sex acts where the lack of consent is real and not faked at all. The former is a victimless 'crime' (watching 'violent' porn), the latter is a horrible life-altering crime (child abuse).



And if you have a tendency to rape fantasies it's probably not the best to watch rape pornos all day long.

I guess, but only an insignificant number of people watch pornos 'all day long' anyways - so this is not really saying much? Also, you are pigeon-holding people here - i doubt people who have 'rape fantasies' are interested exclusively in watching rape porn'.



And if you don't have the opportunity to watch them because they are banned and you have difficulties to get them, the risk of "going mad" is reduced.

Could this ban not also have the opposite effect? I think Noxion made this argument earlier - I.E. The existance of rape porn acts as valve - a release of pent up desires that people may repress in themselves (taboo) - a satisfaction for their urges and desires. Banning rape porn removes this safety valve for anti-social desires - such as rape.



I just said that I know it isn't the perfect solution and it won't stop everybody from watching violent pornos but it would stop some. And that is a progress.

Ok, but since watching 'violent' porn is not inherently wrong - what is the point here? If it won't stop anything that is actually bad, then surely it is pointless?

[Black Dagger]

It's sad how certain males on this site think that depictions of women in subversive roles is somehow good because it's 'voluntary' - it's not.

I think your position renders women inanimate objects which are merely manipulated by men whilst remaning incapable of making decisions over their own lives. And that is more reactionary than anything those 'certain males' you mention have said thus far in this thread.



If we treat patriarchy as a choice, rather than seeing that it is dynamic that is re-enforced by certain ideas (some that may not even be 'harmful') through printed literature, photography, films, video games, sound recordings, paintings, plays, animation, and other varieties of media, then you are leaving an awful lot of people out of our revolutionary movement.

And if we make patriarchy out to be this insurmountable monster that keeps women under the complete control of men we render women (and men) helpless in our struggle against it. Whilst patriarchy attempts to limit the choices of women, it does not remove their agency - women are fully capable of giving consent, and enjoying sex play that involves domination or submission without being mere dupes.



but why shouldn't certain images of the objectifying of women be questioned thoroughly?

What are you talking about? You seem to be trying to drag this thread into another 'does porn objectify women?' discussion. This is not one of those - please just bump and old discussion on that matter, there are dozens in the sticky at the top of the forum display. Please try to keep this on topic, 'violent porngraphy'.



If a certain film is reactionary garbage, why shouldn't it be outlawed with the other racist and sexist shit we want to get rid of?

I'm sorry but you seem incapable of discerning fact from fiction - we're not talking about snuff films here. There's nothing inherently 'reactionary' about a bit of BDSM or even 'rape fantasies' - or the porn that depicts these things.

Pornography contains simulated/fictionalised sex scences - nothing that happens is meant to be a guide to everyday life - it's entertainment. It's the same for violent video games or films - they show you something, the intention of GTA IV's creators was not to encourage people to start stealing cars and assaulting police officers but to enertain. For many people 'violent pornography' is sexually entertaining, c'est tout. That's not reactionary, where as advocating rape is.

[Elly]

It's sad how certain males on this site think that depictions of women in subversive roles is somehow good because it's 'voluntary' - it's not.

Well, I obviously think that women in subversive roles is good :o

More seriously, I think you meant "submissive", and, well, I don't know if I'm "female" enough to speak, but I would say that the question isn't necessarily whether it's good or not (I personally think it depends how it's done, and mostly it's *not* good) but whether it should be particularly stigmatised.


If we treat patriarchy as a choice, rather than seeing that it is dynamic that is re-enforced by certain ideas (some that may not even be 'harmful') through printed literature, photography, films, video games, sound recordings, paintings, plays, animation, and other varieties of media, then you are leaving an awful lot of people out of our revolutionary movement.

I agree with that, but for me the problem is, to put it simply: in the current system, domination of the woman by the man in the "couple" is not limited to BDSM. I think it's the whole of heterosexuality. I think the real problem with BDSM is not that real domination is higher (actually, I think in real BDSM there are really interesting mechanisms of consent of safeword) but that it is more visible. If I go out with a guy wearing a dog collar and being hold by a leash, that's shocking. But if I have to be nice to him because he is the one who has the credit card, that's perfectly OK.

I think violent pornography is in majority sexist, not because it's violent, but because most of it is made by men for men, in an heteropatriarcapitalist system. And it's not limited to porn, it could be extended to actually literature, movies, photography, computer games... I don't think it shouldn't be criticized, but I think you can't say "all porn intrinsically make people sexist", or "all video games make people violent". I think it is more interesting to say that this trend in porn movies is problematic, and that aspect of some video games, while there are interesting things in this porn movie or that game.

[apathy maybe]

I know that the "thanks" thing is intended to limit the number of short "I agree" posts. But I just wanted to high-light a couple of very important points from the previous post.


If I go out with a guy wearing a dog collar and being hold by a leash, that's shocking. But if I have to be nice to him because he is the one who has the credit card, that's perfectly OK.
I want to give you a hug and kiss for this. This is a great quote, and not just in this context. (Except, if you go out with a dog collar and a leash, probably you are consenting, and even desiring to be like that. Some people like that sort of thing after all.)


I think violent pornography is in majority sexist, not because it's violent, but because most of it is made by men for men, in an heteropatriarcapitalist system.
Exactly. (I also think that a lot of people aren't even aware that they mentally define porn to mean "porn with submissive women for 'normal' heterosexual men". They ignore a wide range of other porn, including porn for gay men, for heterosexual women etc.)

Edit: Slightly relevant:
http://russellsteapot.com/images/knowyourbible/half/Tim2-11_half.JPG

[Black Dagger]

Le People please only make a post if you have something to contribute, that sort of post really isn't appropriate for this forum. Keep the one-liners for chit-chat please.

[Banjobe1]

I don't think it should banned. Sure it's gross and just plain weird but somebody's getting turned on, and better they touch themselves to this shit then go out on the streets, ya dig?...

[Comrade Anarchist]

as long as the woman wants to be part of it.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

This issue came up for debate in the U.S surrounding the Meese Reports and there was some dispute in feminist circles about what position to take. Link to an article arguing against the ban: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/pornPR27.html

[Atlanta]

It should be discoureged behavior.

American History X is not glorifing Fascist violence so I dont see such an issue.

[Ephydriad]

We shouldn't "ban" any form of expressive media. And if it's consensual, nobody's getting harmed anyway. Just cause it ain't your spank doesn't mean you should censor it.
We should focus more on REAL violent crimes and REAL rape instead of fictional stuff. Where are the widespread magazine campaigns for the betterment of women?

Is it here:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9168/115240f520xc1.jpg

Or perhaps here:

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6602/organdonationol3.jpg

Somehow I think we're missing the point. Violent pornography is only a 'problem' because it is not checked, but enhanced by mainstream society, those who claim that we should ban it while allowing this sort of nonsense.

[CommieCat]

I think the crux of the issue is that people need to distinguish/understand the difference between something *probably* being sexist (not that all or even a majority of violent pornography is - that is a whole different issue which would need to be addressed and is far more complex) VERSUS supporting state censorship or encouraging state persecution of those who film/possess/watch violent pornography.

I don't know about you, but I think supporting one state's action of persecuting someone based on their sexuality is opening a whole floodgates for future persecution. I don't want someone persecuted on the basis of their sexual taste of violent pornography just like I wouldn't want someone to be persecuted on the basis of them having homosexual pornography, or any other sexuality which steps outside what is 'heteronormal.'

Just because something is sexist doesn't mean that the state is justified to persecute those whom say/do/support it. Even if that WAS the case, violent pornography which DOES encompass a WHOLE variety of porn from light BSDM to rape fantasy, is such a wide variety that it could encompass a variety of contradictory sexual attitudes.

[CommieCat]

Ephdriad


We should focus more on REAL violent crimes and REAL rape instead of fictional stuff. The media DOES focus on REAL violent crimes and REAL rape. Often, its as if they focus on nothing BUT that. And more than often, its not actually about addressing the actual causes/social circumstances of the (alleged! - let's not think that someone can be assumed guilty!) rape, but its done in a manner which can only support/lead to tighter restrictions/attitudes on female agency, that you shouldn't go out at night because you're going to be raped by in a dark alley by a stranger, which is statistically a MINORITY of rape cases. Sure, sexual violence is something that needs to be addressed and should be, but not in the scare-mongering, paternalistic manner most often applied.

[Janine Melnitz]

Wow, guys. I voted "no" but not for the fucking liberal reasons this thread is filled with. I think nearly all pornography -- maybe especially the "normal" kind -- is an attack on women, and I don't really give a shit about "freedom of expression". I'm against banning any of it, though, and mainly for tactical reasons:

There's a reason why old-school patriarchy-boosters are virulently anti-porn -- namely, that the sickness of porn exposes the truth of "normal" sex relations. How many feminist critiques of patriarchy have some basis in the analysis of porn? It baffles me when these same critics turn around and call for the suppression of what's proven to be such a valuable resource -- porn is the rosetta stone of sexual oppression. I understand the part about its production being exploitative, but I'm definitely in the "All industries are exploitative" camp. Sex workers should probably organize; they certainly need legal protection; but they don't need to be rescued out of paternalistic concern. (This attitude's a little understandable from women, but it's fucking disgusting from men -- "I'll save you from this foul den of vice, fair maiden!")

P.S. I am shocked -- and a little appalled -- that in all these pages, after several people danced around the "Well what about dramatic depictions" question, it hasn't occurred to anyone to ask how one distinguishes between porn and dramatic depictions. Isn't this the oldest question in debates about obscenity? Someone here actually mentioned "material intended to stimulate", presumably calling for court-appointed telepaths. Or you can go by whether people masturbate to it, which apart from requiring a lot of surveillance equipment would ultimately lead to banning all media depicting any kind of violence, since the rule of human perversity is that no matter what you produce, someone will jack off to it (c.f. furries). I guess I'm being needlessly absurd; presumably we'd resort to juries deciding whether something had artistic merit. I'm not entirely opposed to that, but I don't think it would actually help; under such conditions, porn would simply be smuggled in under the banner of Art (as, I'd argue, it has been for most of Western history)

[Janine Melnitz]

p.p.s.


secondly, in your last post you suggested that watching violent porn may lead someone to become a rapist (you have now cited the above as evidence). But in the case you have provided it's not clear whether the offender became a 'rapist' after watching violent pornogaphy, or the reverse - their impulses or desires to rape lead them to material that mimics these acts. You seem to be suggesting a causal link - despite no evidence to support this.
rad use of quote marks, dude

[eisidisirock]

I think that PORN should be banned.

[Killfacer]

p.p.s.

rad use of quote marks, dude

Your an idiot

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow, guys. I voted "no" but not for the fucking liberal reasons this thread is filled with.

It's not enough to call something "liberal" - you actually have to demonstrate why it is spurious or irrelevant. Dismissing arguments because they are "liberal" says nothing about why the argument is wrong or why your arguments are correct.


I think nearly all pornography -- maybe especially the "normal" kind -- is an attack on women, and I don't really give a shit about "freedom of expression". I'm against banning any of it, though, and mainly for tactical reasons:

There's a reason why old-school patriarchy-boosters are virulently anti-porn -- namely, that the sickness of porn exposes the truth of "normal" sex relations.Lolwut? Since when did porn constitute an accurate representation of actual sex or sexual relationships? Anybody who thinks that is in for a big disappointment.


I think that PORN should be banned.

Why?

[Janine Melnitz]

Your an idiot
no u


It's not enough to call something "liberal" - you actually have to demonstrate why it is spurious or irrelevant.
No I don't.


Dismissing arguments because they are "liberal" says nothing about why the argument is wrong or why your arguments are correct.
You're right, it doesn't -- and I didn't claim to be refuting anyone's arguments (if this had been my aim, I'd have quoted or made direct reference to them). Shit, I can't even remember who I'd be arguing against -- after a couple pages I was just skimming, rolling my eyes every time I saw "freedom of expression", making sure that the post I had in mind wouldn't be a repetition of someone else's.


Lolwut? Since when did porn constitute an accurate representation of actual sex or sexual relationships?
I'm genuinely surprised that you think I claimed this. Can you really not think of any other ways than "accurate representation" that a cultural product might expose the truth of a social situation?

[Janine Melnitz]

Oh no bad reputation :(


Gee thanks for contributing to the debate.
Was...am I required to? Even if I don't find any of the debates interesting?

I found the topic itself interesting, which is why I offered my position, in case anyone wanted to debate with that.

Oh hell it's because I put "fucking" in front of liberal. Yeah that was needlessly hostile, my apologies.

[ScarletShadow]

"I don't approve of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
I don't like it, but I am never one for censorship.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

something has just occurred to me. Why do we constantly argue over whether we should ban this or that? If we get what we want "a stateless, classless society" then all these arguments, that do nothing but kinda open a bit of a rift between each other are worthless. I dont care what a couple of consenting people do with each other but in reality none of us have a say nor would we be able to enforce banning something like this... it kinda goes against our principals dont it?

[apathy maybe]

Oh no bad reputation :(


Was...am I required to? Even if I don't find any of the debates interesting?

I found the topic itself interesting, which is why I offered my position, in case anyone wanted to debate with that.

Oh hell it's because I put "fucking" in front of liberal. Yeah that was needlessly hostile, my apologies.

Yeah, I gave you that bit of bad rep.

If you don't find the debate interesting, don't fucking post anything. If you are just going to post crap, you'll continue to get bad rep. If you only have crap to post, it is better to not post at all.

No one said, "you must contribute to the debate". However, if you aren't going to contribute, don't fucking post...

(Oh, and only a few wankers care if you write "fucking" or not. No one else around here does.)

[Political_Chucky]

Exactly. (I also think that a lot of people aren't even aware that they mentally define porn to mean "porn with submissive women for 'normal' heterosexual men". They ignore a wide range of other porn, including porn for gay men, for heterosexual women etc.)

Edit: Slightly relevant:



I don't understand? Isn't it just as sexist saying the industry is what it is because of men? There are plenty of women who watch porn. I think this post is entirely bogus. Violent pornography is definitely a fetish and something that just intrigues and just plain gets people horny. Porn is pretty much an act in itself like wrestling. Suppose to be real, but only for entertainment. I mean, when do you see mainstream videos of people actually getting raped? Some women and men like to be submissive and allow someone to take full control of them. Other like to be dominent and like to feel this power. So within porn videos its not that big a deal I think if its only for arousal purposes. The videos are only a setup act for the fetishes.

Men and women also both direct and act in the movies so isn't it a bit biased that women don't also like these things? Just because you may feel that way, dosen't mean everyone does :P

Now real shit like people getting raped or with girls underage(which is stil kind of a question mark considering who is underage if they are prepubesent.) But those are an entirely different story and I don't know how you can rid of that that unless with legalizing prostitution.

Btw, Commie cat nice points.

[apathy maybe]

@Political_Chucky

Where porn is made for 'normal' heterosexual men, by 'normal' heterosexual men, in a system where 'normal' heterosexual men have the majority of power and society is structured to the needs of these 'normal' heterosexual men, then it is likely that that porn can be sexist.

If you read through my other posts, you'll note that I attack the idea that all porn is sexist, because of the fact that some of it is made for women, by women, for gay men, by gay men, etc.

I don't exactly get your point, are you attacking my post?

[Reuben]

The ban on violent pornography represents the worst aspects of contemporary british political culture. The real question here is what role criminal law should play in our society. Specifically its a question of whether criminal law should be used to deter people from partaking in actions which are demonstrably harmful to other or to society at large, or alternatively whether it should be used to enforce the cultural and ethical preferences of the majority. This law reflects the latter approach. Notwithstanding the dubious attempt to to establish a causal link between violent pornography and real life violence, Violent porography has been banned because in the words of one Labour politician it is 'abhorrent'. It is something that many people find disgusting or discomforting, htat makes us feel queezy, that might offend our sensibilities. None of this is sufficient to justify banning it.

People - both citizens and politicians - really need to grow the fuck up. They need to understand that in a diverse and pluralistic society, they should not expect to ban that which they do not like. People who are unwilling to tolerate lifestyle choices which bring them discomfort are not fit to be part of an adult political community.

[Janine Melnitz]

No one said, "you must contribute to the debate". However, if you aren't going to contribute, don't fucking post...


I found the topic itself interesting, which is why I offered my position, in case anyone wanted to debate with that.
I am pretty sure I brought up at least a couple points that haven't been mentioned so far! It's not like I'm the fourteenth person with a one-line quote of Voltaire or somebody

[Political_Chucky]

@Political_Chucky

Where porn is made for 'normal' heterosexual men, by 'normal' heterosexual men, in a system where 'normal' heterosexual men have the majority of power and society is structured to the needs of these 'normal' heterosexual men, then it is likely that that porn can be sexist.

If you read through my other posts, you'll note that I attack the idea that all porn is sexist, because of the fact that some of it is made for women, by women, for gay men, by gay men, etc.

I don't exactly get your point, are you attacking my post?

I'm not attacking your point and i'm not agreeing, but i'm just saying in this case some things are made to be sexist. Porn is for the individual's taste and cannot necessarily be politically correct. Its like saying I discriminate against the obese or blonds if I don't find them physically attractive. Porn is served to the people based on what they want.

Also, there are many actors and directors who do both hetorsexual and homosexual material. There are even supposible "straight" male actors who perform or have sex on screen with other men so I don't see how porn is literally sexist. The porn industry's coprorate may be a majority of males which is an entirely different thing from just porn being sexist. Its the porn industry that is sexist not the porn.

[Dr.Claw]

1)I don't think the porn industry is sexist, because it is ran by women(behind the scene) especially fetish porn.

2)I've seen alot of BDSM (violent porn) were the male is the one playing the submissive role.

3)In BDSM both partners like it, even the submissive one.(I suggest you do some reasearch on the topic)

4)How exactly do you ban a type of porn especially one with a really large audience. I think that if you ban BDSM porn, People will go out and actually rape people,film it and sell it?

So as long as it goes on between 2 consenting adults I don't think it should be banned.

[Dr.Claw]

or many consenting adults hahahahaha:lol:

[Black Dagger]

No probs with your post except this:


I think that if you ban BDSM porn, People will go out and actually rape people,film it and sell it?

Total fallacy. The vast majority of people who are into BDSM or 'violent porn' are not rapists - and this is not as you have implied - merely because they have 'violent porn' as a substitute for real actions - that's a huge thing to claim and it's not substantiated. Banning 'violent porn' doesn't make rapists, quite simply there is no causal link between the two. Like there is no causal link between playing/not playing 'violent video games' and the likelihood of someone shooting up a highschool. It's the (fallacious) logic of conservatism.

[Dr.Claw]

I should have been more clear when I said "I think that if you ban BDSM porn, People will go out and actually rape people,film it and sell it?" When I said "people" I didn't mean the actual fetishists themselves, I meant sicko's who would do anything to make a dollar. People who are into BDSM are ironically compassionate and caring when they aren't role playing.

[Black Dagger]

Oh ok, my mistake - sorry.

[Bitter Ashes]

There's something in psychology known as operant conditioning. In particular, reinforcement is worth looking at.
The basic idea of positive reinforcement is that if you give the body a reward when, the stimulus (in this case images of rape) is presented, then the mind will learn to associate it with goodness and increase the likihood of that behavior bieng repeated.
I think we can see where I'm going with this and you can take a wild guess what I voted.

[Dr.Claw]

Violent children will play violent games.
Rapists will watch violent porn.
Non-Violent children will play violent games
Non-Rapists will watch violent porn.

What it comes down to is different levels of gratification. Think about it...
I suggest you do research on fetishes.

[butterfly]

There's something in psychology known as operant conditioning. In particular, reinforcement is worth looking at.
The basic idea of positive reinforcement is that if you give the body a reward when, the stimulus (in this case images of rape) is presented, then the mind will learn to associate it with goodness and increase the likihood of that behavior bieng repeated.
I think we can see where I'm going with this and you can take a wild guess what I voted.
So your suggesting people who watch 'violent' pornography frequently will feel the need to find a partner to experience consentual roll play.
What exactly is the problem with that? and have you bothered to look into the lifestyle?

[Bitter Ashes]

So your suggesting people who watch 'violent' pornography frequently will feel the need to find a partner to experience consentual roll play.
What exactly is the problem with that? and have you bothered to look into the lifestyle?
There's nothing wrong with consentual roleplay of the same thing imo. And yeah, I have bothered to look into the lifestyle. I have a few friends who are into BDSM and they explained it all to me. Not my personal cup of tea, but I dont have any gripes about it if it is thiers. So dont make assumptions.
Anyway, getting back on topic....
I do not believe that people who watch violent pornography frequently will feel the need to find a partner to experiance consentual roleplay with. I'm suggesting that they wont bother and just go out there for the real thing.

[Rangi]

On the question of bondage, S&M and fetishism... It's all about personal choice and personal responsibility.

Some people might find sado-beasto-necrophilia arousing. To me it's a bit like whipping a dead horse. I've done it all before.

I would rather fancy a nice hot cup of tea - but it doesn't half scorch your willy.

[butterfly]

Scaeme;
So why exactly are you under the impression that the conditioning process would be devoid of the concept of consensuality especially considering you are so familiar as to why people enjoy power play?
Additionally, why do you apply your theory solely to violent pornography which is clearly consensual, and not pornography in general?