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.

YY = yes yes

"And we don't allow simulated child porn."

Yes. We do. Ever seen any porn marked "barely legal" or similar? Supposedly 18 year olds dressed as school girls?

That would be simulated child porn.

This is a horrible plan BTW. I will opt in in anyway necessary in order to not have my Internet censored.

Thanks

I think they should. I think the people getting off on it probably haven't experienced it.

Yes, we do allow 'barely legal' (I've read Gail Dines on this and know exactly what you're referring to) but my point here, which I think was fairly clear, is that there is a category of material that would already not be allowed due to its content regardless of whether or not actual children were harmed in its making. If it were simulating actual younger children, rather than porn fantasy big breasted girls sucking lollipops with their hair in bunches (yuck) the makers would not get away with it as they do.

TunipTheVegedude

Yes, I think we are, Things, but I think the kneejerk libertarian preference for free expression in every possible way that our generation tends to start off with is harder to justify than it used to be, given the nature and spread of porn now.

The jerking of knees is taking place entirely on the side of the bansturbators.

'Bansturbator' is a silly word.
Are you a porn user, Flatpack?

The problem is, how can you say it was 'simulated' rape?
In case of a murder in Hollywood films, you might really see the crime, you might have lots and lots of special effects that you will be able to see if you look at the film image after image.
In the case of 'simulated' rape, how do you know?
1- you need to see there is PIV for sure so it needs to be about porn.
2- And then how will you know it's a simulated rape rather than a real one? Apart from having an 'actor' who will be happy to play the victim and have PIV, can you have any special effect that will protect the actor (like actors are protected in a crime scene) but will give the feel that a rape has happened?
And then most importantly, in a 'crime scene' in Hollywood films, everyone knows it's about special effects. Not about doing things for real. What about all the porn films? Is the idea not exactly the opposite? That the actors ARE doing the stuff for real and that's why you can get all these 'arousing' images?

And what if we actually put a legislation on what is allowed re our sexuality? I would be very uneasy with a situation that would normalise behaviours that are 'extreme' (eg being turned with the idea of being raped) so much so that people who are not that way inclined will feel they have to do it anyway 'because it's normal to do so'.
Note that I am not talking about a legislation on what happens in the bedroom. That IS up to individual taste.

Tunip it matters not if someone is a porn user. I am a porn user. So what?

What I find incredible, and rather disgusting, is how ready porn users are to take the risk that what they are jerking off to is non-consensual. Even if a large number of the women performing are free from addiction, economically in a position to pick and choose, and totally cool about it, how does the porn user know that those are the ones s/he is watching?

Porn in which the actress was manipulated into doing acts she wasn't comfortable was doesn't come with a sticker warning you, so every time you pay money to watch something like that you are risking paying money to someone for raping women.

I find it absolutely gobsmacking that most porn users think that risk is fine. Some are probably naive about the reality of the porn industry but I think many know but choose to ignore it.

x-posted there, Tee. That's why I think it matters.

Obviously there are some people who have enough nous and awareness of the industry to be in a better position to seek out genuinely non-exploitative porn than others, but from Flatpack's post earlier about how we know porn must be consensual because otherwise the victims would go to the police, I suspect s/he is not in that group.

Tunip,

Re Gail Dines, you may enligten me yet ! Not heard of her before , will be looking at her blog etc with interest.

Gail Dines

Pornland is an excellent book, though one you will wish you hadn't read.

The porn industry aren't too keen on her.

The major problem for me is that you can't tell whether material is viewed with a view to sexual gratification or not.

There is rape depicted in a Buffy episode I watched recently....I could have been jerking off to it...or I could be viewing it as intended as a powerful message on how affecting such a thing can be.

So did I break this future law or not?

I am a porn user in terms of reading more than video but, yes, I do think there is a disconnect between the reality of the porn industry and people who use it.

And it's not porn that's bad. It's the porn industry.

However, when there was a movement to make porn more female friendly, it failed.

Ultimately, it is hard to defend rape porn. I don't see anybody doing that. It's unattractive and unworthy. So, instead, people defend liberty and free speech, instead.

Of course, your liberties end where my liberties begin. We are all constrained by each other. If we weren't, the strong would take everything and the weak would be crushed.

Freedom of speech is a relatively new idea. I don't think it is a good in and of itself. It is good because it allows us to challenge authority, debate, think through challenges together and avoid tyranny. It is most important, when it is political speech. Free speech in regards to pornography is fairly selfish and frivolous. No harm in being selfish and frivolous, if you are having fun and aren't hurting anyone else, but I think it is hard to argue that internet rape pornography is doing us a great good that outweighs it's harms.

I am basically a libertarian. And distrustful of government.

When ANPR cameras were introduced, they were going to be used to combat organised crime, and terrorists. Now, they are in car parks, and the government sells our data to cowboy clampers.

When the government says it will be banning something, I reach for my (metaphorical) revolver.

However, some of the contributions here have definitely given me food for thought.

'There is rape depicted in a Buffy episode I watched recently....I could have been jerking off to it...or I could be viewing it as intended as a powerful message on how affecting such a thing can be.

So did I break this future law or not?'

Even if you were jerking off to Buffy, you won't have been breaking the law, because unless Buffy is a lot more explicit and less interesting than I remember it, it's not porn.
Legal definitions of porn vary but AFAIK they tend to involve 2 things: it has to be explicit, and it has to be material made primarily for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Someone getting off on something doesn't turn it into porn.

Missinglalaland - I absolutely agree. You put that really well.

Things - I do see where you are coming from re distrusting governments.

Free speech in regards to pornography is fairly selfish and frivolous. No harm in being selfish and frivolous, if you are having fun and aren't hurting anyone else, but I think it is hard to argue that internet rape pornography is doing us a great good that outweighs it's harms.

I agree. In fact I think an awful lot of porn is degrading and harmful to women and the good of internet porn generally is outweighed by the harm it causes.

Free speech has to be complete and total, or it's not free speech.

As soon as you start restricting it, it's no longer free speech.

Who decides what should go on the censorship list?

And, yes, I disagree with hate speech laws as well.

So you're cool with libel, threats and child porn (as long as no children were harmed in the making) as well?

Can we shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre?

Wrong, free speech has to be restricted to the extent it impinges on someone else's freedom. I.e. the freedom to walk down a street without being subjected to threatening language.

TunipTheVegedude -

^So you're cool with libel, threats and child porn (as long as no children were harmed in the making) as well?

Can we shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre?^

You said it before I had the chance!

Things - I think you are right to be cautious about any new restrictions or additional government control over us. This just seems to me like applying the existing standards that we had over porn to a new medium, the internet.