Banning simulated rape porn, AIBU to be...

(126 Posts)
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 22-Jul-13 14:10:26

Uneasy ? Unpleasent -yes. Distasteful -yes. But, outwith arguments re trafficking and drug dependency, where participants consent is given, is this something government should be involved in ?

It feels a little bit like state limiting the boundaries of sexuality. What next ? Who decides ? Will rape in literature, films etc be next?

And what about murder ? What would Hollywood have to say about a ban on images of simulated murder?

Dunno what I think about it, really. Just, as I said, uneasy. confused

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Wed 24-Jul-13 10:26:58

Interesting article here from a young woman's perspective:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/porn-is-about-fantasy-sex--and-the-truth-is-that-some-women-have-rape-fantasies-but-this-is-very-different-from-the-real-thing-8727971.html

TumbleWeeds Mon 22-Jul-13 20:33:15

Rape Crisis South London clarified on Twitter that this change is not about filtering of images of rape. It is bringing the possession of images which depict rape into the same category as necrophilia, bestiality and life-threatening injury.

I have to say, I thought this was already treated with that sort of severity.
How can anyone say this should be the wrong thing to do? Because you know your 'personal freedom' should allow you to watch stuff that might just be about actors that enjoy rough sex.... hmm

Mme and Plenty True. I think they were stupid to announce it all at once, it's muddied the issues quite a lot.

Yes, Mme, there are at least three things being discussed on various threads -

1) ISP level filtering

2) banning rape porn

3) extra measures to catch and deter child sex abusers sharing stuff online

It's getting quite confusing. I'm against ISP filters but for the other proposals.

Gosh, the sweatshop argument. That's new.

We all know that just about everything we buy is tainted in one way or another by exploitation unless we have the money and time to shop around for every last thing (and do fair trade electronics even exist?)

Those of us who care do what we can to minimise the impact.

knowingly sitting there wanking to the abuse that is happening right in front of your eyes is, IMO, a whole nother level of wrong.

I can believe that you didn't know but now it's been suggested, please look into it and then see if you're still happy to use porn.

MmeLindor Mon 22-Jul-13 19:16:43

Important to note that the porn filter proposal is separate from the rape porn legislation.

This is about porn, not about films on TV

Just blogged about it, and chatted to some well informed people on Twitter -

... the plan to make images depicting rape illegal, which is explained in detail here. This has been slightly lost and muddled up with the filtering proposals which are causing controversy, which is a shame. Rape Crisis South London clarified on Twitter that this change is not about filtering of images of rape. It is bringing the possession of images which depict rape into the same category as necrophilia, bestiality and life-threatening injury.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 19:15:44

If you have done it without being in a position to know that not all apparently consensual videos are consensual, you shouldn't feel guilty.

If you continue to do it whilst knowing that you could be enabling someone to commit abuse by doing that, then you need to take moral responsibility for that.

Porn is easy to give up.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 19:15:39

interdasting -

You seem to be putting pornography in the same category as food, clothing and medicine. This is necessary stuff we all buy routinely and repetitively, despite the fact that the supply chains may have exploitive links.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 19:10:42

We're not talking about controlling fantasies. Or what consenting adults do together.

This is about controlling the distribution of a particular type of image.

Violent porn, made and distributed for profit, is colonising people's sexual imaginations and teaching them sex is about violence.

interdasting Mon 22-Jul-13 19:07:39

TunipTheVegedude By that argument, every time you take an action that may have, not even has, implicit, not directly as a response of your actions, harmful consequences for another human being, you bear responsibility for it. When you buy clothing, if it is made in a sweatshop, you are complicit in this, aiding the production of human suffering. If you buy Apple or Microsoft products, you're not supporting companies like FoxConn, which have such incredibly poor environments for workers they have regular suicides in their factories.
While it is noble to feel so responsible the suffering of other people, ultimately, something you do somewhere will indirectly harm someone. Probably kill them. The best thing you can do is not harm people directly, stop someone being hurt during the event if it is within your power, and if it's not, then do your best to ensure the perpetrator can't repeat the act, all within the legal framework we have for these things.
If I have watched porn that was actually abuse, that's unfortunate. Do I feel bad? Yes, I feel terrible for the person who was abused. Do I feel guilty for watching the video? No. I did the best I could by trying to ensure it was consensual, and non-exploitative by ensuring that it was the couple who uploaded it, that there was no violence, that there appeared to be consent during interactions/dialogue they had, etc.
The river analogy only goes so far before it falls down, also.

babybarrister Mon 22-Jul-13 19:04:13

I really don't understand why we should seek to control people's sexual fantasies though when it comes to consenting adults ...if someone is getting off on watching a simulated adult rape scene, why should this be prohibited but torture allowed?

Also there seems to be an assumption that it is only man on woman rape fantasies that are being considered - what about other combinations? a gay man has just been prosecuted to engaging in gay sex acts and then videoing HIMSELF at a gay sex party - thank god the jury saw sense and refused to convict him ....(cannot find link but was on Radio 4 this morning ...)

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 19:00:16

That's true, Plenty - women too.

And women, Tunip. I used to be a porn user until I learnt more about the industry, including the 'amateur' market hmm. It just kinda stopped hitting the spot after that.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 18:55:22

Plenty -

yy!

It's not just the people immediately involved. We are all affected by this stuff because it is our culture. The people who produce this stuff are bit like environmental poluters. They take a profit, and we all collectively bear the costs.

Tunip Because I'm watching the shambles of the ISP porn filter plan. It's not exactly inspired trust.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 18:53:16

Interdasting, you don't strike me as someone who doesn't give a shit. I think there are a lot of men out there who have convinced themselves their porn habit is ok but if they look more honestly into it they will see why it is problematic.
I would really recommend that you read the Gail Dines book linked below.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 18:50:04

Interdasting, if a man is putting a woman through ongoing abuse by putting a video of her out there to be watched by other men, then the men doing the watching are helping him abuse her.
To take up your river analogy, he has chosen that place by the river because he knows he'll have an audience there and you aren't watching in horror, you're wanking over it.

Would you watch porn if there was a 75% chance the woman in it was being forced? Probably not. What about 50%? 10%? 1%? Where would you draw the line?

If you wank to it you're participating interdastic. People wouldn't upload it if people like you didn't seek it out. Tunip's right, you have no idea whether what you are watching is truly consensual, however you might 'feel' about it. You could quite easily be tossing one off to a rape.

interdasting Mon 22-Jul-13 18:48:37

MurderOfGoths I don't agree with emotional responses when it comes to controlling what consenting adults are interested in. For decades emotional responses were responsible for homosexuality being illegal.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 18:45:18

That was in answer to Tee's post of 18.31 and MurderofGoths.

Why are people assuming that the govt would not use a fairly standard legal definition of pornography?

Tunip After reading the actual legislation I agree with you. It is quite definitely porn rather than just any depiction of rape. Which is good.

Still feel odd about banning something which is consensual between adults.

My gut instinct is ban it ban it and then ban it some more. But I know that's an emotional response more than anything else.

interdasting Mon 22-Jul-13 18:41:40

TunipTheVegedude, "If you watch amateur porn there is a risk you will have effectively participated in abuse."
This is not the case at all. Participation is not the same as witnessing something. If you see a rape and cannot stop it immediately due to being, say, on the other side of a river (terrible example, I know), you have not participated in the rape.
If I was to feel that something I had watched was a depiction of abuse, I would absolutely report it to the police, for example.

If people want to wank to rape fantasies in their heads or RP rape fantasies with consenting partners that's one thing. Making a simulated rape porn video and releasing it on the internet is something else - it's then out there as part of the culture within which women have to live their lives. It now has a wider impact than just on the people immediately involved in its production. Same with BDSM.

I know it would be impossible to police in any case but there's a principle here - currently, a corpse, which by definition has no feelings or interests of its own, has greater protection in law than a living breathing woman.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 18:41:03

This proposal is about pornography.

Even a cursory glance at the BBC news item here makes it perfectly clear this is what Cameron is talking about.

There is no suggestion of banning every depiction of rape in film and literature. So unless you are trying to tell me that Sherlock is explicit material produced for the purpose of sexual gratification then yes, he can continue to solve cases involving sexual assault.

This is about rape porn, people! Not about banning any and every reference to rape.

Mia4 Mon 22-Jul-13 18:40:23

GiddyStars You're right, some also write fic and fanfic involving rape and rape fantasy for the same reason too.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now