Banning simulated rape porn, AIBU to be...

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

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.

[Sirzy]

The difference is that generally speaking (I can't think of any exceptions but I am sure there are some) rape in literature and films is dealt with as a serious subject looking at the effect it has and not glamorising/making it look acceptable.

Although I have obviously never seen any simulated rape porn it is obvious that this is going to glamorise it, make it look like something which is fun/acceptable - so yes i would happily see it banned along with anything else which aimed to make rape seem a good thing.

[TylerHopkins]

Agree with Sirzy

[TunipTheVegedude]

We limit the boundaries of sexuality already. We say it is not acceptable to get turned on by sex with children or animals or involving murder.

[flatpackhamster]

Sirzy

The difference is that generally speaking (I can't think of any exceptions but I am sure there are some) rape in literature and films is dealt with as a serious subject looking at the effect it has and not glamorising/making it look acceptable.

You write this - and then you write:

Although I have obviously never seen any simulated rape porn it is obvious that this is going to glamorise it

How is it obvious? How do you know? You haven't seen it. You aren't in a position to make an informed opinion.

[Sirzy]

So what else is it going to be if not to entertain sick bastards people with the actual rape itself? if they wanted to watch people having sex they would watch ordinary porn, therefore having the rape as they draw to watch it means they are using that as the entertainment

[missinglalaland]

I agree with Sirzy.

Flatpackhamster, I think Sirzy has enough information in the abstract to give a reasonable opinion without having to watch the glamourised degradation of women.

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

"We limit the boundaries of sexuality already. We say it is not acceptable to get turned on by sex with children or animals or involving murder."

But that predicates on lack of consent, surely?

[TunipTheVegedude]

'But that predicates on lack of consent, surely?'

Yes, as does rape.

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

But this is not about rape. It's about simulated rape.

[TunipTheVegedude]

And we don't allow simulated child porn.

[TylerHopkins]

How do we know it's simulated? Just as we don't know if the participants in normal porn are doing it wilingly or being forced.

[flatpackhamster]

Sirzy

So what else is it going to be if not to entertain sick bastards people with the actual rape itself? if they wanted to watch people having sex they would watch ordinary porn, therefore having the rape as they draw to watch it means they are using that as the entertainment

But you don't know. You only think you know based upon your existing prejudices. That really isn't a safe place to be making a judgement from.

TylerHopkins

How do we know it's simulated? Just as we don't know if the participants in normal porn are doing it wilingly or being forced.

We do, because they can report a crime to the police.

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

If the paticipants in "normal" porn are doing it unwillingly, or being coerced, then it is, surely, rape?

[MrsKeithRichards]

You can get turned on by whatever you want, as difficult as it is to hear, it's the acting upon it where legalities kick in.

[Sirzy]

Flat pack - I have never seen child porn but I know that is wrong.

You don't really need to be an expert on a topic to think it is wrong!

[TunipTheVegedude]

Flatpack, I want to live on the planet you're on.
Most rape isn't reported. Most victims know that without corroborative evidence reporting just means they will go through intrusive and traumatic questioning that forces them to relive the crime again and the case is likely to be dropped for lack of evidence, even if they are believed by the police.
And seriously, how likely to do you think it is that a porn actress who shows up at the police and says 'They told me this shoot was with one man and wouldn't involve full penetration and when I got there they told me I had to do more stuff and I wouldn't get paid unless I did, and yes I have done full sex on camera before....' is going to get the case taken to court?

[flatpackhamster]

Sirzy

Flat pack - I have never seen child porn but I know that is wrong.

You don't really need to be an expert on a topic to think it is wrong!

No indeed. We've seen very clear evidence over the last few threads on this subject that ignorance is no barrier to having an opinion.

TunipTheVegedude

Your argument seems to be "It's hard to prosecute rape so we should ban simulated rape just in case", which IMO is the justification of the tyrant. 'Ban it, now, just in case'.

[Boomba]

this is ridiculous

[TunipTheVegedude]

Nope, I'm taking issue with your claim that we know the participants in porn haven't been forced because they can report crime to the police. It's an awfully naive thing to say. Are you a porn user?

[missinglalaland]

flat pack - We all have to make sensible judgements with imperfect information all the time. Nothing in practical terms is completely knowable, particularly what is going on in other people's minds. The fact that the world isn't black and white and there aren't certainties isn't an excuse for doing nothing.
Ultimately, there will be unfair exceptions in any rule you make. For me personally, protecting the vulnerable, whether they are marginalised young women being exploited on film, or young teenagers watching the films and having their sexuality potentially warped, is the most important thing. It is far more important to protect the young and the vulnerable from harm than it is to make sure that a grown consenting, sophisticated adult can indulge in their erotic interests unencumbered. The grown adult has a lot of options. They can read a book, they can play act with a like minded partner, they can use their imagination. Their right to life and liberty is hardly at stake here.

[JessicaBeatriceFletcher]

I remember reading - I think it was on the dating thread - that one of the regular male contributors had started seeing a woman who was very heavily into being constrained and had put his hand around her throat to simulate her being held and forced to have sex. He was very uncomfortable about this, refused to be drawn into that side of sex, and decided not to see her again. That woman obviously got kicks from that type of fantasy. Each to their own, I suppose. She might enjoy watching that type of porn.

[flatpackhamster]

missinglalaland

flat pack - We all have to make sensible judgements with imperfect information all the time. Nothing in practical terms is completely knowable, particularly what is going on in other people's minds. The fact that the world isn't black and white and there aren't certainties isn't an excuse for doing nothing.

But banning a legal act on the basis of zero evidence that it is harmful is ridiculous.

Ultimately, there will be unfair exceptions in any rule you make. For me personally, protecting the vulnerable, whether they are marginalised young women being exploited on film, or young teenagers watching the films and having their sexuality potentially warped, is the most important thing. It is far more important to protect the young and the vulnerable from harm than it is to make sure that a grown consenting, sophisticated adult can indulge in their erotic interests unencumbered.

I wonder if all these people you're protecting realise how 'vulnerable' they are? Perhaps you should stop seeing them as 'vulnerable' and start treating them as intelligent, functional human beings making decisions for themselves. Then you might be less prone to patronising them.

The grown adult has a lot of options. They can read a book, they can play act with a like minded partner, they can use their imagination. Their right to life and liberty is hardly at stake here.

Who are you to decide what consenting adults should be allowed to get up to?

This is, of course, ignoring the stupid idea that it's possible to 'ban' chunks of the internet that MN disapproves of.

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

missinglalaland, thanks for a very considered post. I would take issue when you say that liberty is not at stake here. One thing which has been emphasised on the news today is that peer to peer sharing, where these predators share images privately, via email, or on the darknet, is one area incredibly difficult to target. I can certainly see a situation where an argument very much like yours is used to justify vastly increased government intrusion into our emails etc.

[meditrina]

What is missing from this (utterly lacking in substance) announcement, is how such pornography will be defined. Until this is made public, we have no idea what might be included. Would a film such as Accused be banned?

If the rationale is the banning of portrayal of acts which would be a RL crime, then what about gory 'torture porn' movies?

[ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm]

Very much one of the things I am wondering about, meditrina.

Apparently has been law in Scotland for some time, with either zero or one prosecution.....