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.

I had resisted..........

It's all got a bit Rumpole at the Old Bailey....

TunipTheVegedude

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.

That wasn't what I wrote, of course, but it pleases you to imagine that it was.

But did things like rape porn exist before the internet ? Dont think it's just the medium which has changed, it seems to be the message.

Given that generally, peoples sexual preferences are fixed(ish), why should this be?

You wrote this, flatpack ...

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.

(your bit in bold) What did you mean by this? I interpreted it in the same way as Tunip.

I agree with babybarrister about some of the other violence that is shown on mainstream films being beyond the pale too. It is however so hard to think of any drafting of legislation that would catch rape porn that excites men to go and commit such an offence from dramatic scenes in films/ plays that are possibly more acceptable in context.

Perhaps a distinction could be whether or not the main purpose of the rape/ violent sequence is sexual titillation (= unacceptable) or not (= ok, just). "Main purpose" is a legal test used in other areas of law so has some precedent for being workable - judges tend to know it when they see it.

Let me prefix this post with a warning that I may offend people.
Let me also preempt the "Am I porn user" question with the answer of yes, I am a regular consumer of porn.
I have manifold issues with these new laws and the arguments of those that support them, so bear with me, please.

For one, I have an issue with criminalizing sexual interests that run no risk to other human beings. You may argue that simulated rape could lead to actual rape, but I would argue that not all rapists watch rape porn, and not all watchers of rape porn are rapists. The two categories do, of course, overlap somewhere, but similarly, many rapists eat food. Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, you may have a personal issue with the concept of rape porn, but as long as it isn't hurting anyone, as long as the producers of the material take steps to protect and safeguard the participants from harm, and it is clearly marked as being fictional etc, along with warnings about harming others, then your emotions are your business and should be kept as such. Unfortunately, by criminalizing the production of such material, it's now not possible to regulate its production in the UK, and it will be produced, because there will always be a subset of people who have those kinds of fetishes. I hesitate to draw parallels, and I think this one in particular will get me crucified because it is not a good metaphor, but the "war on drugs" which criminalizes certain things has not been effective because there are always people who will want to purchase drugs, and the producers consist now of people who create said drugs in sheds with rat poison etc, among others. Outlawing something does not control it; outlawing something puts it beyond control.

As for the porn block, it will be laughably ineffective. ISPs have attempted to block things before, most notably being the website "the Pirate Bay", which is one website, which does not go out of its way to avoid being blocked or hiding what it is. That block has failed, with multiple reverse-proxy servers (websites you can go to that deliver the same content) springing up, and it can also be traversed with proxies, VPNs, anonymity tools, and any kind of traffic tunneling. It'll be extremely costly to implement, it may affect your internet experience (the way this will be implemented is a list of terms that will get a website banned, and if it's automated, there will be false positives and harmless websites could get blocked from casual browsing), and, frankly, it's stupid. Child pornography, for example, is not easily accessible on the normal internet; as someone brought up earlier, it's mostly transferred via p2p, steganography, darknets, and so on.
Instead of wasting my money on "blocking" porn in general (as well as child pornography), I would much prefer if the government actually did something about the producers of child pornography. I'm not going to join in self-promoting back-slapping and congratulatory rubbish when children are still being harmed, but instead of doing anything about that, we've decided to throw a rug over child pornography and say how great it is we're protecting kids.

Basically, I don't agree with criminalizing what people enjoy if it doesn't harm anyone (even if I or others find it unpleasant), I don't agree with outlawing something that needs to be regulated and controlled, and I know that the blocking is not only ineffective, but is just an excuse to say that "something is being done".

Yes. I do think people should be able to yell Fire! in a theatre and I believe they should be allowed to say whatever they want. That's free speech. We don't actually have free speech.

And, yes, there has been rape porn for as long as there has been porn. Written, drawn, at XXX theatres, on DVD and video tape.

Welcome to Mumsnet, Interdasting.

Your post doesn't offend me, but I have a question for you as a porn user.

You say,
'as long as it isn't hurting anyone, as long as the producers of the material take steps to protect and safeguard the participants from harm, and it is clearly marked as being fictional etc, along with warnings about harming others'

As you probably know, those things aren't guaranteed for the output of the vast majority of the porn industry. As a porn user, how do you ensure you only use material that falls into those categories?

(It goes without saying that I strongly disagree with your contention that as long as the performers are ok it isn't hurting anyone.
Promulgating the idea that violence against women is normal is misogynistic and deeply harmful to women.)

I think this one hinges on the definition, and it's going to be hard definition to work out.

Rape is absolutely 100% disgusting, wrong and criminal. Obviously. It shouldn't need saying.

The problem I have with this is that we aren't necessarily talking about rape videos. Because if it's a rape fantasy video featuring two consenting adults then it's not actually rape. I've had so many arguments with idiots who claim women "enjoy" rape as some have rape fantasies where they've completely missed the point about rape being sex without consent.

Emotionally I'd ban it on those grounds alone, as it seems to encourage certain fuckers to think they have a free pass and is an awful way to encourage victim blaming.

However at the same time is it right to ban something that's a consensual act between adults?

Personally I think consent in porn is a bit of a grey area, but legally it isn't.

You get the same issue with BDSM, it's pretending to not consent rather than actually not consenting.

I do personally feel they are both unhealthy fantasies, and I know I'm not alone, but equally I know other people will find that viewpoint offensive.

And all of the above ignores the issue of rape scenes within films/TV, and whether they should be banned.

There isn't an issue about whether rape scenes in films and tv should be banned. No-one is suggesting they should. It is a straw man.

TunipTheVegedude, generally I don't consume "mainstream" porn produced by the porn industry. I find it not to my personal tastes. I, of course, cannot ironclad guarantee that anything I watch ensures that nobody is being harmed and that people are safe and being unexploited, but the porn I watch is generally amateur porn of couples that I try and ensure has been uploaded by the actual couple themselves.
It's certainly true that one cannot guarantee that the porn we watch is done safely, but from what I am aware of the American porn industry is under a relatively tough amount of regulation, although perhaps that may not coincide with British regulation (feel free to correct me on that).

Tunip Is that covered in this then? That's good.

Murder, your last point is what's really got me going on that piece of this.

Rape is depicted in all sorts if fictitious medium, film, TV, music. Are they all illegal now? Can Sherlock or Luther no longer solve a case where there was sexual assault?

Good to hear you avoid the mainstream porn industry, Interdasting, but if you think amateur means consensual you need to look into it more carefully.
There have been cases of women in abusive relationships being forced to take part in amateur porn and many others where a woman willingly lets herself be filmed having sex but the video is then uploaded without her consent.
If you watch amateur porn there is a risk you will have effectively participated in abuse. Please think again about whether you really want to do this.

I haven't read too much about this, been too busy ranting about people who don't understand technology trying to legislate it. Would be interesting to know exactly what their plans are?

Ok, from BBC News
"We are closing the loophole - making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape."

Hmm.. depends how they define pornography I guess. If they are defining it as something that causes arousal then that's iffy as that's could shut down film/TV depictions on the basis that someone may find them arousing.

The thing is Murder that some (as have replied to you) have no interest in understanding the technical issues that this causes.

They are happy to remain ignorant.

TurnipTheVegedude, you are absolutely correct that promoting violence against women is a terrible thing. Which is why simulated rape porn should be controlled by regulation, and should come with warnings. To promote something is to encourage the idea that it is somehow okay to do.
This is my opinion and feel free to disregard it, but I do not think, though, that rape porn actually does this. In order to depict an actual rape, there would need to be depictions of force, violence, pain, etc, right?
I can't think of a situation in the world in which a normal, healthy human being will see harming another human being and think "Yes, this is okay to do.". I am fairly certain that I could consume dozens of simulated rape videos and still be aware that it is wrong to hurt another human being.
Again, that is my opinion. It is entirely possible that consuming porn of some kind would twist my moral compass and empathy absolutely, to the point where I view harming another person as okay, but I do not think that is the case.

Interdasting -

I am not offended. I understand your argument. I just disagree. I do think that rape pornography is harmful.

The fact that outlawing it won't solve everything doesn't bother me. I am just pleased that it sends the signal that raping women is repugnant and not mainstream. I also think it will make it less likely that kids will stumble upon it accidentally.

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but often (not all of the time, but it is a known link) it is women who have been victims of abuse and rape who say they enjoy 'rape role playing' or watching 'simulated rape porn'. It doesn't mean that they are actually enjoying it, or being genuinely turned on. Just that they are trying to process what has happened by re enacting it.

I hate that 'but lots of women like it' that is trotted out. It's such a get out clause and just a shrug of the shoulders of any responsibility by the porn industry / men who are that way inclined.

Bit more here, seems it's not too badly thought out in terms of how they define it (context etc).

Does still leave the question of should we ban something even if it's consensual?

Rape fantasy isn't that uncommon a kink to be honest. From dubious consent-aka bodice ripping- all the way to forced orgasm and rape fantasy which is at the other end of the scale. One of my friend's used to be into the porn online; we discussed how we both played a few games involving safe words and she showed me the porn she liked for her kink because it was a bit of a surprise to hear her confession.

I'd always told her I enjoyed a bit of domination , throw on the bed and rough sex sometimes so she felt she could open up to me though it's a real taboo subject because people often confuse fantasy with wanting to give or receive the reality.

The websites she looked at involved a video at the end with the actresses and actors chatting and laughing, saying what they enjoyed and didn't so you had a reassurance it was part acting, pat enjoying the fantasy acted out.

But it's hard with any kind of porn to know whether consent is given or not, I've seen even some amateur porn where one party has been really wankered so I'd say that could possibly have consent issues. One of the BDSM websites I loved, which involved no sex as shut down due to consent issues- complaints were made against the person running the company and involving himself in the films, whether he was hurting the guys or not wasn't ever known or disclosed but due to the complaints the site was shut down.

I don't think you should censor things but I think more companies making porn should have some regulation in order to make consent issues clear. Ones which show the actor/actress are completely consenting and enjoying.

The only thing is most non-con porn making companies won't give a damn to be transparent and show there's consent for obvious reasons. But at least there might be a differentiation between companies showing their people want to do porn, and those who are being forced.

Giddy It really is used as a get out clause. I hate it. Does worry me how many idiots believe it too.