Jim Leitzel – normally of Vice Squad, but in this instance guest-blogging on Crescat Sententia – reports that the Federal Government is cracking down on the owners of “Extreme Associates.” According to an ABC News report from August:
Jim also links to the case of a couple in Dallas who were “found guilty of three federal obscenity charges last month.” Following the link Jim provides, we learn that
Ragsdales offered obscene video tapes depicting rape scenes, which they categorized on the website as the “Real Rape Video Series” and the “Brutally Raped Video Series.”
And in an earlier post on Crecat, Jim links to “an amazing case” of “a couple in California who ran an Internet bulletin board was found guilty in Tennessee of purveying obscenity. (The same material might not have been considered to be obscene in California, which has different “community standards.”)” Following the link, it turns out that once again the material being prosecuted involved pornographic depictions of rape.
I wonder, is there a pattern here?
First Amendment lawyer Lawrence Walters, discussing the Extreme Associates case, fails to provide any independent reason we should care if Extreme’s customers are deprived of the chance to jack off to images of women being brutalized and raped. Instead, Lawrence suggests a “slippery slope” argument: we must defend Extreme Associates or Playboy magazine will be next! This argument assumes two things: first, that censorship of Extreme Associates will reliably (or even probably) lead to the censorship of Playboy, and second, that it would be an unbearable loss to culture if Playboy was unavailable.
Putting aside the question of why we should care if Playboy ceases to exist, I have to wonder – is there any evidence to support the theory that censorship of extreme rape porn will inevitably lead to the censorship of soft porn? After all, child pornography has been aggressively censored for decades, without any apparent “slippery slope” effect completely destroying our other free speech rights. If child pornography is any example, it should be possible to aggressively censor rape pornography without suffering any unbearable slippery slope effects..
If child pornography is any example, it should be possible to aggressively censor rape pornography without suffering any unbearable slippery slope effects.
I agree. I don’t see how one must necessarily follow the other. It’s just not true. I don’t see it as the ‘slippery slope’ he tries to claim it is.
This whole slippery slope argument really doesn’t give much credit to the intelligence of the population in general. As such, I’m not sure if I agree with it or not. On the one hand, I think people are overall intelligent enough to censor rape porn without starting toward censoring things anyone might ever assume to be offensive, but on the other hand, we’re depending on the same people who just elected Governor Schwarzenegger.
After all, child pornography has been aggressively censored for decades, without any apparent “slippery slope” effect completely destroying our other free speech rights.
I don’t know about the US, but in Canada we have some pretty nasty laws in place for dealing with child pornography, which in many cases makes illegal images of acts that are perfectly legal in real life. They’re also open to horrendous abuse, and the first “offenders” prosecuted under the laws were legitimate artists.
I haven’t followed the issue for a while (not since I wrote this (which I note is under my old name, whups!). But from what I’m told, your laws are headed in the same direction, and may well overtake us yet.
I think the burden of proof belongs to those wishing to outlaw particular forms of expression.
Aside from the gut-level squick factor that you don’t like it, what are the reasons for censoring these forms of speech? Keep in mind that the ONLY people who will be forced to watch this against their will are those in the jury.
[I will also point out that in child porn, there has generally been an easily drawn hard line between what is legal and what is not — the age of the models. You can’t make that kind of distinction in other cases. In the cases of simulated rape, if everybody participating in the video and everybody watching consent, why should you have the right to overrule them all?]
I’m pretty much with Lis (and Kelseigh) on this. If making the video doesn’t violate anyone’s rights (as it does in the case of child porn, and real rape porn if there were any), how do you know where to draw the line? You don’t want to end up outlawing any film that shows any illegal activity of any kind. You probably don’t want to outlaw every film that depicts rape, for the obvious reasons. If the law says something like “depictions of rape in a manner calculated to appeal to the prurient interest”, then you’re back putting power into the hands of the DA and so on to prosecute selectively, and you *know* that’ll be abused in at least some jurisdictions. In the case of child porn we’re fenced off from the slippery slope by the whole “informed consent of the actors involved” thing. In the case of (simulated) rape porn, the slope seems more dangerously close…
Trying to censor the imagination, and I believe that is what is being proposed here, is a very slippery slope.
It removes the boundry between committing a crime, and thinking about it. Censoring the representation of that thought through the available media is thought control.
Images and film are obviously hot-button items, but text can be subject to the same thought control persecution.
What you all think about censoring Sade?
This post misses the whole point, once again. The problem is not that censorship of violent porn might lead to censorship of nonviolent porn (and that’s bad.) The problem is that there is no good reason to censor violent porn. We’ve had this conversation already, months ago, so I won’t repeat myself.
In Australia, rape pornography has long been prohibited (RC-refused classification) due to the guidelines that prohibit material that shows acts of violence in conjuction with sexual acts. This has not prevented other hard core pornography from being classified X rated (and therefore available to the public). If you’re interested, the classification guidelines are available at http://www.oflc.gov.au
I have no problem with prohibiting the depiction of violent criminal acts in a forum intended to glorify them.
There is a simple reason this should be banned: Depicting rape in a positive and erotic light is hate speach against women, just as depicting lynchings in a positive light is hate speach against African Americans.
Lorenzo – and? Are we not allowed to suggest negative feelings towards people or groups of people anymore? I find that idea far more vile than the rape porn itself. You are suggesting censoring speech based on its content.
Whats more, there are plenty of Japanese cartoons with the same basic premise. Are those now illegal as well? What about a story about a man raping a woman?
Presumably if I and a consenting female wanted to do a role play where I raped her, that would be legal. What if we video taped it? Legal or not? What if we watched the tape? Legal or not? What if we showed it to some friends? Legal or not? What if we gave it away? Legal or not? What if we sold it? Legal or not.
Draw the line, and tell me why you put it where you did.
I personally think the construction of obscenity in Miller is an unworkable fabrication. It depends on “local standards,” and local standards control the definition of “patently offensive,” which plays straight into the hands of mischief-making prosecutors under the sway of John Ashcroft.
I agree with Justice Douglas’ dissent: the First Amendment does not carry with it an implied exception for “obscenity.”
The legality of the acts depicted in a film isn’t a good test of whether it should be subject to censorship – before the Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down American sodomy laws, anal and oral sex was illegal in many states. (I’m just waiting for Ashcroft or one of his fundie acolytes to prosecute purveyors of gay porn, using the unpopularity of the Lawrence decision as a barometer of how local juries would believe particular works of gay porn are “patently offensive.”
Re the Australian guidelines: they would be unconstitutional in the U.S. – the fact that a film or computer game must be submitted to the ratings board before distribution would be considered unconstitutional prior restraint.
Lorenzo: hate speech is not actionable in the U.S., except as an aggravating circumstance in an assault, rape, or murder, or if it involves trespass or menacing, like a cross burning.
And finally, I don’t think people like us will be in charge of who gets prosecuted. It will be John Ashcroft and the modern-day equivalent of William Jennings Bryan. I don’t want John Ashcroft telling me what I can and can’t view in the privacy of my home.
Lorenzo, I agree in principle. My problem is this: I know that what Amp is describing in this post is pornographic, and I know that rape scenes in films like Boys Don’t Cry is clearly not pornographic and intended to disturb the audience. The problem is, as others have more or less stated, if we start making this law, there has to be a stage where we decide what in between those two extremes do we consider the cut-off point between what is pornographic and what is not. Intent? That’s hard to say at times.
Anyway, this is a personally difficult issue for me, since I can understand the need to censor rape porn, but I’m still pretty close to a free speech absolutist. So I’m torn.
Lorenzo: hate speech is not actionable in the U.S., except as an aggravating circumstance in an assault, rape, or murder, or if it involves trespass or menacing, like a cross burning.
Reason #58,987 that Canada is better than the U.S.
I asked Jim to consider writing about extreme, which he did. I litigate about political speech on the net. Most of the cases protecting political speech on the net are porn cases.
I participate in an online forum for survivors of.. let’s say less than perfect childhoods.
That led me to Wil Wheaton’s blog, to boing-boing,
to reverse cowgirl, to sam stern’s blog formerly at jewishcheerleaders.com. Sam knows Lizzie at Extreme. I also knew of her positive reputation in the sex radical community, as an artist. And I know ashcroft; I was a flunky in his administration at one point.
So it’s both personal and political for me – these are friends of friends, facing life in prison for art. The “extreme” right – not my flavor, I mean the fundies – don’t like the emergence of the internet, which breaks down their social control mechanisms. They routinely use sex and children as weapons to try to stop or slow the growth of the net. There is a list of 49 other companies to go after if they win Extreme.
The real intent is the chilling effect on other artists actors and producers. These are people who want to outlaw comic books and aspirin. The chilling effects rippling from a few dozen high profile prosecutions might reduce the quality and quantity of the kind of porn I like, and the kind of art I like, and the kind of politics I like.
Vanilla doesn’t do it for me.
I do believe that porn can teach behavior, and there’s reason to be concerned. One approach might be to redeploy justice department assets to actually go after real rapists. Just a thought.
I’d also be the first to admit I haven’t seen the stuff I’m defending. I don’t buy violent porn,and extreme doesn’t offer free samples. I don’t think Ashcroft is 100% evil – he’s a mixed bag. But I consider Ashcroft a bigger threat than Extreme, and my part of it is to try to get the blogoverse talking about it. In ACLU v Reno, it was all those web sites that got involved that built the movement that won the case.
Thanks for adding to the discussion, and for having comments.
“guidelines that prohibit material that shows acts of violence in conjuction with sexual acts”
So is Boys Don’t Cry prohibited in Australia? Either answer seems undesirable: if it is, Australia is going to miss out on lots of important art and culture (and on lots of things that would help raise rape awareness); if it isn’t (and I imagine it isn’t) that means that the censor gets to exercise subjective judgement about what content is okay and what content is banned. Putting subjective content-based judgements like that into the hands of the state seems like a very bad idea (as the state invariably exercises it against disenfranchised and disempowered groups).
Better we work toward a culture where rape porn is legal, but no one wants to make it or watch it, than we try to hide the problem by criminalizing speech acts.
As I understand it, pornography is protected speech if they can establish that it has artistic merit. If they can’t, it’s not protected. There are rape scenes in works of art, from statues of Leda and the Swan to the movie Deliverance. A law which prohibits publication of scenes of rape and murder without artistic merit is OK in my book, so I’m not sure I’m a First Amendment absolutist. I don’t know what would happen to video games though.
Sade is my period and I’ve read a reasonable amount of him in French. He writes good clear prose, which is nice, and has some thought-provoking moments, but on the whole IMO he is badly overrated: 70% is tedious and with nothing really to justify the time it takes to read it.
[Sade] writes good clear prose, which is nice, and has some thought-provoking moments, but on the whole IMO he is badly overrated: 70% is tedious and with nothing really to justify the time it takes to read it.
Couldn’t agree more. I can understand some of the (historical and socio-cultural) reasons that caused such enthusiasm in the Surrealist movement, but now that Sade is legal, one can express directly an opinion such as yours (which I share) without it being misunderstood for an argument advocating prohibition (I still prefer reading André Breton’s prose than, say, even the Philosophie dans le boudoir).
I’m torn, as well. I’m pretty much a free-speech absolutist. the thing that concerns me, and i don’t know how much it should, is how much people LEARN from seeing the kinds of porn we’re discussing (and cringing at). Do people have a burning desire to see women raped, so they go find scenes that show it? Do they just grab something because it’s “extreme” and have their tastes shaped by what they saw? We know so little about this . . . and I think it’s relevant, because, in a way, the former is less dangerous than the latter. I don’t want ANYONE to want to see rape porn, to get off on that, but i especially don’t want someone to LEARN to like it, when something less violent toward women (or men) would have gotten them off just as well. And then there’s the distinction between what gets us off in our heads and what we would actually do in real life–what’s the connection there? And now I see that I’ve only added to the questions . . .
John Isbell: As I understand it, pornography is protected speech if they can establish that it has artistic merit.
And there’s the rub. Who gets to decide what is art? A work of art to one person is obscene pornography to another person. Recall all the controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe’s works?
I am also not convinced that sexual preferences are learned (and really, if you’re watching rape pornography, you had to have actively gone out and specifically looked for it). Even if they were, I don’t wish the government to be dictating what I can and cannot be turned on by. Otherwise, we end up with all these sodomy laws cracking down on people who are harming nobody.
Many people fantasize about things they would never do (e.g. killing the boss), and are perfectly fine contributing members to society because they know the difference between fantasy and reality. Those that can’t tell the difference are the ones who need to get help.
I’m pretty sure that not too long ago there was a court case that determined that the artificial child stuff still constitutes protected speech… would that have any bearing on the rape porn? I mean assuming that it is fake. I’m really conflicted as to the validity of “obscenity” as a crime.
Aside from the gut-level squick factor that you don’t like it, what are the reasons for censoring these forms of speech? Keep in mind that the ONLY people who will be forced to watch this against their will are those in the jury.
I share Carla’s concern that this isn’t about those “forced” to watch this, but about those who watch it and then gradually find that they can no longer be aroused by sexual situations that *don’t* involve violence. The trend toward shaving of women’s pubis in porn in the last two decades has led to both men who find normal pubic hair disgusting (! a major sexual characteristic?!) and to women who shave themselves to be attractive to their (porn-taught) men and to themselves (indirectly). How can we not think that violence also develops a taste for itself? especially in a venue specifically geared to the cultivation and feeding of particular tastes…
Better we work toward a culture where rape porn is legal, but no one wants to make it or watch it, than we try to hide the problem by criminalizing speech acts.
Well, this would be great. Better to work toward a culture where nobody needs drugs as escape than to have drug laws, but that doesn’t mean we want serious recreational drugs in the hands of our adolescents. What’s at issue here really isn’t whether some “speech acts” should be made illegal (although, of course, many already are — take libel, or attempts to foment a coup), but whether all kinds of videography are automatically protected “speech,” or whether some come under the heading of something else that can be regulated….
As a separate note, how can an “objective” viewer ever be sure that a particular film was actually made via “faux” rape, rather than the real thing? The latter would certainly be cheaper, and this is an industry that is happy to cut corners, especially away from the spotlight on the major names . . . That seems to play into whether we can afford *not* to regulate such a thing (if the producers can always claim that the violent aspect was faked)…
Count me as not feeling at all torn about this particular situation. If everyone involved in making and viewing the videos consent and no laws were broken, why the hell should it be any of my business?
And for a thread that starts by decrying slippery slope arguments among those defending porn, I sure see a lot of them from those opposing it.
those who watch it and then gradually find that they can no longer be aroused by sexual situations that *don’t* involve violence.
Has this kind of thing been documented at all or is it just another form of slippery slope argument? In contrast, I know of people for whom watching squick-porn was a way to satiate that particular need without having to commit such acts.
And do you really think it’s easier and less-risky to film a crime than to simulate it? Certainly not on an ongoing basis. Snuff films are fictitious, and in anything short of that, the victim would be around to testify. And in either case, you have a whole film crew as witnesses.
Legitimate pornographers have all models/actors sign documents of consent, including small operators. You want to make sure you’re getting genuine faux merchandise? Purchase from reputable porn dealers, who maintain such contracts.
Again, any proof of this happening in the United States within the last several decades? If not, this sounds like yet another slippery slope argument. I’ll note that this kind of employee protection is IMO yet another reason for keeping pornography legal, and thus covered by federal and state laws.
Why don’t we ALL try discussing this without resorting to slippery slope arguments. It would be quite refreshing to just once hold this conversation based upon the facts and personal experience rather than hypotheticals and speculation. And if you can’t seem to do that, maybe you ought to think what that implies about the merits of your position.
I haven’t read too far into detail, so someone else may have addressed it, but isn’t the arguement “child pornography didn’t lead to a slippery slope, so it’s ok for us to also aggressively censor rape-themed pornography” the very definition of “slippery slope?”
stage one didn’t lead to any serious consequences in society, and art is still just fine, so stage two should work just as well without doing damage?
the whole point, as I understand the slippery slope, is that by setting the precident, it goes from “everything’s ok and there are no negative conseqeunces” to “there may be some negative conseqeunces, but they’re much less important than our goal,” and so on.
while I may think rape porn is degrading and revolting, that doesn’t mean that the next step in that progression will still only remove negative aspects of society.
and Lis addressed something else I feel is worthwhile, my understanding is that pornography works more as a sort of catharsis than a trigger to actions. that seems more logical to me, but I would like to see a reputable study on the matter.
Hey, bean, I don’t know if you’re in the Boston area, but the last time we were in one of these porn & censorship threads, you said that doctors are selling me bunk as far as the treatment of female sexual dysfunctions are concerned.
Well, if you have any interest in learning what the experts are really saying, and even being able to question them yourself, the BUMC Institute of Sexual Medicine will be holding a free seminar on FSD: Symptoms and Solutions at the end of the month.
Let me know if you want more info.
While I’m not in favor of censoring the porn itself, I AM in favor of attacking the spammers who think I’m dying for it, as well as the ones who think I need to enlarge my penis or sell me worthless stocks.
Then again, being anti-spam isn’t a content-based restriction….
I am a male was exposed to this type of pornography when I was an adolesent and it totally fucked over my life. After whacking off to this type of stuff, I was full of shame, convinced I was sick and evil and was scared to approach the women I was attracted to because I subconsciously thought male sexual attention was evil, violent, and undesired by women. My subconscious became the male version of Andrea Dworkin: convinced that all intercourse is a form of rape because men are essentially sick. I totally shut down sexually after seeing this stuff, because I love women, think they the most amazing force of beauty, grace, power and wisdom on earth and didn’t want to expose them to something I now subconsciously connected with ugliness and violence: male sexual interest. This shit ruined my life.
“Recall all the controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe’s works?”
Whatever else these are, they are most definitely art. He is a fantastic photographer. He has photos I don’t like, but that doesn’t take the art away.
True, but generally any form of pornography when viewed at too young an age can have negative effects on someone’s development. That doesn’t mean it should necessarily be outlawed, but perhaps regulated, as it already is. Whether there is enough, too much, or too little regulation on pornography is a matter of debate.
Anyway, Lis’s idea makes sense, if we required pornographers, especially rape porn, to show signed forms of consent, it might help. I’m not sure if that alone can be absolutely trusted to ensure that the women portrayed aren’t being victimized. But then I guess that’s also true of all pornography.
Anyway, I have to run. More to think about, I guess.
“generally any form of pornography when viewed at too young an age can have negative effects on someone’s development”
I think that’s a bit too absolute a statement.
* any form of pornography?
* generally negative effects?
And how do you define what age is too young? I suppose if the person suffers no negative effects then they must have be old enough. But that varies from individual to individual.
Based upon my memories of which house we were living in, I was between six and ten years old when I discovered where my parents kept their
Playboys. And I used to flip through them to find the cartoons and jokes, skipping over everything else. The pictures and articles held no interest for me whatsoever.
It’s a mistake to assume that children have the same prurient interests as adults or that the same things will capture their attention.
I don’t think other forms of pornography would have had this psychically destroying effect. This stuff worked directly on the part of my brain that considered myself unattractive and unloveable. It reinforced my teenaged idea of myself as a freak outsider who could never be loved. By jerking off to this stuff I was establishing a story in my mind about sex which was all about me being an undesirable piece of shit that no woman would willingly make love with. I think it could have the same effect on adults. Or perhaps it only appeals to people who think that way already. In my case, through strange circumstances, this was the only type of porn which was available to me at the time. And it had an undeniable effect on my life.
Lis, I don’t deny I was being too absolute, I’m only grossly generalizing what I’ve heard of psychological assessments of this sort of thing. Still, I think anonymouse’s example is text book (although I’m not extremely informed in psychology, so any psychological assessment I give again results in gross generalization). But it’s simply that there’s a period in everybody’s life where they start to develop their understanding of their own sexuality. And too much porn too young (maybe not of the ultra-soft nude women posing seen in Playboy) would lead to someone defining sexuality more on what they see in pornography than with self reflection and experimentation, which isn’t good for one’s development.
Again, I’m sure I’m being too broad and absolute here, and if anyone is more informed than I and wants to exemplify the subtle nuances in this, or explain why I’m completely off on this, feel free.
I’m sure exemplify was the wrong word there. Screw it. I’m allowed the occasional pseudo-intellectualism same as everyone else.
“”Recall all the controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe’s works?”
Whatever else these are, they are most definitely art.”
I agree with that! But the various government agencies that have declared it not to be art (queer interracial erotic images?? Obviously filth, not art!!) wouldn’t agree. And they’re the ones with the guns and the jails. Which is why the law shouldn’t put that judgement into their hands…
“Recall all the controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe’s works?”
Whatever else these are, they are most definitely art. He is a fantastic photographer. He has photos I don’t like, but that doesn’t take the art away.
Sorry. I can’t agree here. Mapplethorpe to me was like Tom of Finland becoming a Vogue photographer who specialized in anatomically correct, multiracial Ken dolls in toy bondage gear. With occasional time out to photograph the equally soulless –er, sorry, “Classically beautiful”– Lisa Lyon or a nice vase of orchids. In both the literal and figurative sense, the work was was flawless and poreless and utterly devoid of life. I thought 99% of it blew chunks, just not for the same reasons the muckity-mucks in Cincinati did.
[[Lorenzo: hate speech is not actionable in the U.S., except as an aggravating circumstance in an assault, rape, or murder, or if it involves trespass or menacing, like a cross burning.]]
Reason #58,987 that Canada is better than the U.S.
So, the slurs and negative comments many of us make (which could be included under many definitions of hate speech) about fundies and Republicans should be actionable?
[those who watch it and then gradually find that they can no longer be aroused by sexual situations that *don’t* involve violence.
Has this kind of thing been documented at all or is it just another form of slippery slope argument? ]
Research has shown that exposure to particular pleasurable images, specifically that of porn, makes the viewer less interested in average sex with average people and more inclined to believe that extraordinary sex with extraordinary-looking people will be much more satisfying.
This research was specifically done with showing men images from Playboy and the like, then showing them pictures of their girlfriends. Brain waves changed after the experiment showing that men were less likely to view their girlfriends as attractive as the models and generally rated their own sex lives as less satisfying than before.
Will this apply to rape porn? Why wouldn’t it?
John S. – I’m not sure exact legal definitions, but if I say, for instance, “I hate all mauve people. They’re a bunch of ignorant mauvies.” That is merely a slur against mauve people, and not technically hate speech. If on the other hand I hand out pamphlets that convince people that mauve people aren’t really people and should be gutted, especially if there’s a history of gutting mauve people being socially acceptable, then that would be hate speech. It’s something more dangerous than a negative comment or slur.
In response to Ms. Lauren, speaking from personal experience, this was not the case for me. I would love to have normal sex. I never sought to have violent sex, sado-masochistic sex, or to abuse anyone physically or mentally after reading this violent porn. I have simply wanted someone to hug, kiss and cuddle with. It did not make me evil. But I have had such a low opinion of myself for most of my life, that few women have ever been attracted to me. And so, like in my adolescence, I am left with fantasy. Once the source of the violent porn was out of my life I shifted my fantasy intake over to lesbian material, in which men (and by extension myself) were not involved. This gave me peace from the self-hate generating imagery of nonconsentual sex, but is still basically about not being able to imagine any woman being attracted to me: it’s about women liking each other, which I can relate to a lot more than the idea of being attractive myself.
MsLauren: showing men images from Playboy… then… pictures of their girlfriends. Brain waves changed after the experiment showing that men were less likely to view their girlfriends as attractive as the models…Will this apply to rape porn? Why wouldn’t it?
Seems to me like it would also apply to attractive models on the covers of all magazines, not just pornographic ones. Heck, not just Maxim and FHM and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, but the attractive women on the covers of Cosmo, Vogue, etc. Or poster ads with Kate Moss. Never mind the attractive actresses in movies and television shows and beer commercials.
Why wouldn’t it?
anonymouse: I am a male was exposed to this type of pornography when I was an adolesent and it totally fucked over my life. After whacking off to this type of stuff, I was full of shame, convinced I was sick and evil
Not to make light of your personal experience or pain, and I know I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but it seems to me like our society’s condemnation of porn, masturbation, and alternative sexual preferences has more to do with your guilt than the porn itself.
Anonymouse, have you been to a sex therapist to deal with your issues? If not, and if you are having the problems you describe (pardon my skepticism, but I’ve had a tendency to be too trusting in the past and thus been taken advantage of, and the sheer convenience of a “text book” case makes me somewhat suspicious) then no time like the present to start working towards a cure. It probably won’t resolve itself on its own. [And if you don’t have money for a sex therapist, see whether any reputable sex therapists in your area offer group therapy; that can be less expensive and you gain through the support of others.]
The World Health Organization has stated that “Since health is a fundamental human right, so must sexual health also be a basic human right.”
But just because you attribute your problems to pornography doesn’t mean that other people can’t enjoy similar porn. Many people’s sexuality is enhanced through use of pornographic materials. And just as you and I and everybody reading this post are entitled to healthy and happy sex lives, so are the people who enjoy pornography.
MsLauren, do you have any more information about the experiment you describe? Where or when it was conducted, where you read about the study and its results?
I’ve tried Googling on a number of variant terms (MLS – I know how to search) and haven’t been able to find anything yet.
Thanks.
Lis: I take offense that someone’s sex life may be “enhanced” by viewing images of rape.
I had a longer response to many of the comments here, but lost it. I may respond in greater detail later if I regain my patience. : |
The research was referenced in an article of Psychology Today (not a reliable resource, I know, but bear with me). It was referenced in an article written by a producer? director? in the adult entertainment industry who had been through several divorces and failed relationships due to his search for perfect female beauty.
His conclusion was that he had been irreversibly damaged by his exposure to these images of perfection. Unfortunatly, the author pic had him flanked with several “beautiful” women.
(I’m trying to search for it, too, but keep coming up with porn sites)
There is also a book called Survival of the Prettiest that cites some research related to the effect of being bombarded with beauty imagery on men.
Oops. It was a Hollywood publicist (adult entertainment if you ask me). From Why I hate Beauty:
The contrast effect doesn’t apply just to strangers men have yet to meet who might be most suitable for them. In ongoing studies, Gutierres and Kenrick have found that it also affects men’s feelings about their current partner. Viewing pictures of attractive women weakens their commitment to their mates. Men rate themselves as being less in love with their partner after looking at Playboy centerfolds than they did before seeing the pictures of beautiful women.
This finding is all the more surprising because getting someone aroused normally boosts their attraction to their partner. But seeing beautiful models wiped out whatever effect the men might have experienced from being sexually aroused.
I take offense that someone’s sex life may be “enhanced” by viewing images of rape.
I don’t mean to offend, but…
I’m really feeling torn by this discussion. There’s much more that I could say — that I’d like to say — by describing my own personal situation.
But here’s the rub. I don’t post anonymously or even pseudonymously. And, although I liked the give and take the last porn thread I got involved in on amptoons, this site doesn’t feel like a safe space for me to share such intimate details about myself.
On the other hand, I think it would really enlighten the discussion.
As I said, I’m torn. This is the web. Once I out myself, it has the potential to follow me forever, and it could harm me professionally.
I might be willing to continue this portion of the discussion over email, MsLauren, if you could point me to a private (nonshared) email address (is the feministe contact info safe?) and will promise confidentiality of the conversation…
web@feministe.us
I would also like to clarify that I don’t believe BSDM practices constitute as rape imagery. Most people who practice BSDM have verbal contracts that help to define safe acts and boundaries.
The very definition of RAPE pornography negates these considersations.
Viewing pictures of attractive women weakens their commitment to their mates.
Just as an aside, I’ll point out that one of the advantages of the web as far as porn is concerned is the lower barrier to entry for production has vastly increased the variety of bodytypes that can be seen. Viewers are no longer limited to airbrushed and augmented Playboy stereotypes, but there are many more opportunities to (literally, in some cases) see the girl next door, such as naked nerds. [My hubby has a geek fetish (which, he adds, I count for)]
I thought I might add something to this post. Firstly, there were two comments I thought that were wroth quoting:
1. The problem is that there is no good reason to censor violent porn.
2. And for a thread that starts by decrying slippery slope arguments among those defending porn, I sure see a lot of them from those opposing it.
I don’t have much to say about quote no.2 aside from something like, “how true”, but for quote no.1…I will have to write a little here:
This person seems to be implying (with many others) that rather than have laws that ban things it is better to have a society that just does not want to do “those” things.
Well -duh- of course it would be great to live in utpoia but hello?!? we don’t! There are laws abound here on the planet for a good reason. Laws created by man and laws that exist by reasons most do not understand except that they make the planet go round the sun and give us gravity, etc.
Laws are there to guide us and teahc us not prohibit and while there are a high percentage of archaic stupid laws in place I don’t think it’s a good thing to say rape-porn and child-porn is ok when it’s on tape because of freedom of expression/speech or whatever. What a load of crap. Does this mean if I film myself raping 100, 000 women tied up over a period of 2 weeks and trying to stuff them with children that are alive it’s ok? Because this is what you are saying. You are saying that any degree of rape and child porn is ok when its on tape or is ‘art’.
Those who want laws for it are saying it’s not ok. They are trying to guide those who accept it and those who do it. If you do not understand this then perhaps you should be raped or have your child abducted and taken into the porn and prostitution scene while you watch.
Allowing free speech is one thing but allowing people to express abuse is another. You want to allow people to express abuse and some of the worst types of it at that?
Fair enough – I’m glad you are not the ruler of the world. Maybe you should go and hang out with some of the child-prostitution rackets that are going on in Russia and the east.
Chatter, most who state there is no reason to censor rape porn aren’t saying we shouldn’t regulate how said porn is produced, ie ensuring that the models comply and aren’t specifically raped or violated. So I don’t think your analogy quite works.
Lis, I’m not a troll, just someone who doesn’t want to be branded by my adolescent use of this type of porn. I don’t want my name archived on the internet as someone who is morally suspect and thought to be dangerous to women because I looked at this stuff.
I actually did not know that my situation was that common. (Or, at least common enough that you describe it as textbook case.) I mentioned it here not to try to derail the thread but because this subject is rarely discussed and I wanted to see if anyone else could relate to this experience. It sounds based on your description that other have been hurt in this way by porn and lost their ability to find love and making loving connections as a result. It is a very painful situation which causes me misery on a near-daily basis. The human need for touch is fundamental to emotional health, and this (among other things) has kept me from experiencing it.
Thank you for the suggestion of sex therapy, Lis. You are not the first to suggest it; people who don’t even know of the porn experience have suggested it due to my obvious shyness and self-loathing. I should look into it, despite my lack of medical insurance. And thank you for listening.
MsLauren: I don’t believe BSDM practices constitute as rape imagery. Most people who practice BSDM have verbal contracts that help to define safe acts and boundaries.
I think that a lot of those people who practice BDSM safely and consensually in a healthy relationship also fantasize that the BDSM scene is not consensual. A good deal of the point of the whole thing is the illusion and appearance of danger and being totally in somebody else’s power (or vice versa). Otherwise, they wouldn’t use techniques like safewords, which help provide the submissive partner with the illusion that there isn’t anything they can say or do to stop what is happening.
I think pretend rape porn or real makes no difference to those enjoying it Raznor.
Although this is not specifically about rape porn, feminist Naomi Wolf (best known for her book The Beauty Myth) recently wrote an article arguing that the high availability of internet porn has made men less interested in sex with real women. The article can be found here, for those who are interested.
Thanks to everyone for posting to this thread. I know this is an issue that people feel passionately about, but I ask folks to stay polite if they’re able.
I should point out that my personal position isn’t to favor the censorship of rape porn; rather, I’m indifferent to the censorship of rape porn. I’ll write more about this in a new post, I think.
People here (including myself) have been referring to rape porn and rape fantasy as if there was just one type. In Chatter’s point above, he or she states that people who use this type of porn wouldn’t care if someone was really assaulted in the making of it. In most cases, I doubt that’s true.
I would divide nonconsentual fantasies into two types: the type where the subject of the sexual act ends up getting off and experiencing orgasms from the act and the type where the act of rape is portrayed realistically, where the woman or man (there is gay rape material out there) is shown as suffering horribly from the act, as a rape victim does in real life.
I divide the material and fantasies into these types because they signal different types of fantasy. The “victim enjoys it” fantasies are fantasies of giving people pleasure against their will. The “victim suffers horribly” fantasies are fantasies of torturing other people. Both are fantasies of control, but different types of control. The first type appeals to people who feel powerless and wish they had the ability to force others to desire them sexually. The second type appeals to people who relish the idea of causing pain with sex almost as an afterthought. Both are unhealthy in my opinion, but they are different types of unhealthy.
A person whose fantasies matched the first category definitely would care if rape porn presented to them was real and not simulated, because real rapes do not involve pleasure on the part of the victim. This was what the type of stuff I was looking at was about: fantasy stories of nonconsentual sex victims experiencing multiple orgasms from forced sex, as in Japanese hentai where slimy, tentacled creatures bring nymphets to orgasm. While the acts shown were dispicable, there is a different mental process going on in the minds of the people producing and digesting that type of nonconsentual fantasy than the type where the victim is depicted as screaming in terror and pain, as in a real rape.
Does this seem like splitting hairs or a useful distinction?
Actually, I think that’s a very important distinction, anonymouse. I, by the way, prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, since I always do, as a rule, when I can’t see how a person lying would lead to personal ill effects.
But the point is Chatter not that it makes a difference to the viewer, but rather to the models.
To illustrate what I mean, say for instance I decided to start a new form of “art” wherein I killed people and splattered their guts on a canvas. Clearly I would be guilty of murder, and punished as such. Whether or not the resultant “art” is actively censored is immaterial.
Similar for rape porn. If the models portrayed consent then there is no crime in the creation of the rape porn. If they don’t, then everyone else in the creation of it are guilty of rape or accomplices of rape. The question then becomes should we then actively censor (by which I mean writing legislation to regulate the viewing or distribution of) the product of the above situations? If we concede that we would in the second case, what about the first?
I pose these as open questions because I’m not sure what the best answer would be for this.
Ampersand, that’s an interesting article you link to, thanks for it. I think it’s interesting how pornography has become such an engrained part of society. Dan Savage’s columns, I find, are the best writings that more or less explain this phenomenon.
Anonymouse, thanks for writing so openly about your stuff. I can identify with some of what you say. What Lis said, you aren’t alone, and you might benefit from some kind of working on these issues. I’m a big believer in cocounseling instead of professionals (although the expertise they have is valuable too.) I decided against inviting you to the support group i’m in, because your issues are different than ours and I have a duty to maintain confidentiality. But another free online resource I’ve found helpful is at
http://soapbox.wilwheaton.net. It’s a big discussion forum, with areas for health issues, and the “boring adult conversation” forum welcomes sex or porn discussions. So far it hasn’t helped my sex life, but it helped me overcome a writer’s block and be more able to reach out to other people with words.
Part of who I am is a lawyer who fights for free speech online, but also part of me is a depressed shy hung up person addicted to online porn and online political discussions. You might check out “on our backs” magazine and site, for non-vanilla lesbian political porn.
=
all: So I’ve been thinking about this slippery slope thing – we’ve been focused on one side of the slope: if ashcroft wins, where does it stop?
But there’s the other side too: if ashcroft loses, where does it stop? Where would I draw the line? Where would someone even more of a free speech absolutist, but not a sociopath, draw the line? Are there, should there be, no limits to what can be shown online? Are there any moral standards we can agree on, that generate rules for
when the government could interfere with information that wants to be free? I don’t have a handy answer to this one. I haven’t read Eugene Volokh’s article on slippery slopes. I have read Eric S Raymond’s essay on why most porn is ugly and boring and most guys prefer the real thing.
So there’s a bit of a race to the bottom to find something harder, edgier, less boring, and yeah, even i have a squick point.
But I, and some of us geeks, find it hard to get to know women well enough to feel ok about suggesting kissing hugging etc. I’m bi, and a bit less inhibited about initiating such conversations with guys at the clubs i go to, although even that requires dragging myself away from the computer now and then.
Oh, btw, this thread has been mentioned in jim’s Vice Squad blog.
So, the slurs and negative comments many of us make (which could be included under many definitions of hate speech) about fundies and Republicans should be actionable?
Fundies and Republicans are not a protected class. Neither is the Alliance, or the NDP, or any other political party. So, perhaps before you start making snide comments, you’d want to find out what you’re talking about. There’s plenty of information about the hate speech laws in Canada — in fact, I posted something fairly recently, myself: when the Canadian government added gays and lesbians as a protected group under this law.
Chatter, most who state there is no reason to censor rape porn aren’t saying we shouldn’t regulate how said porn is produced, ie ensuring that the models comply and aren’t specifically raped or violated.
And how can you be sure that this will work? Linda Lovelace, anyone?
Hmm, well for me it is a case of guiding. Let me put it this way:
Whomever wants to allow porn fullstop to be published (and in this case gratuitous violence as well) be it rape bdsm or whatever, imagine you get your way and somehow not by the particular fault of anyone a child sees it and is adversly affected by it. (E.g. some bastard porn site takes over w*w.bananasinpajamas.com – cause we know porn sites don’t do that but let’s pretend they are bad people for a second).
This means your decision has hurt a child. Good for you.
Chatter 9:38 PM: If you do not understand this then perhaps you should be raped
Anyone who advocates harm against other people he’s talking to is clearly incapable of holding a civilized discussion, If you cannot separate the issue under discussion from the other people discussing it, then I see no further need in speaking with you.
Anonymouse 10:26 PM: I actually did not know that my situation was that common.
I don’t know that it is either. I was actually quoting Raznor’s 3:32 PM comment, where he said your “example is text book”
I meant more that it was a perfect example of what the anti-porn forces are trying to suggest will happen.
You’re the first I’ve met who has been hurt by porn in that manner. I know far more people who have benefitted from pornography in their lives, people of various sexual minorities, for whom porn was their first step in realizing that they were not alone in their desires, helping them to come to terms with themselves, stop their self-loathing and eventually come out of the closet as much happier individuals. These people tend to be ignored in discussions of porn, but they exist as well.
Ampersand 10:38 PM:
I’ve seen so many deconstructions of the falsehoods and misconceptions of Naomi Wolf’s essay in the blogosphere I don’t know where to start.
Anonymouse 12:25 AM:
Yes, that is a useful distinction. The further distinction is whether or not the participants/actors involved enjoyed themselves, which many people seem to be blurring.
Aardvark 1:41 AM: if ashcroft loses, where does it stop? Where would I draw the line?
Well, the line right now is actually fairly rigid:
All participants must provide their signed consent. All participants must be over 18. If the participants are underage, it’s childporn. If the participants didn’t consent, it’s rape or some other crime (I’m blanking on the term for peeping toms). And both of those are pretty easy to determine, what with signed paperwork and public records of birthdates and all. Everything else being suggested involves subjective evaluations of the content, which is just an invitation for overzealous prosecutors.
Bean 1:55 AM:
The fact that the only example you can think of is over 30 years ago should say something about how much better the industry has become since then.
One quick question: Why would we want to condone and protect any type of media that contributes to rape culture? And in the name of civil rights?
If Naomi Wolf is correct (and I’m not saying that saying she is), then porn is a substitute for action, meaning that availability of rape porn might actually cut down on crime.
But as far as I can tell, rape has always existed throughout human history (and even among some animals) so while there may be a few specific cases to the contrary, I don’t think one can truly blame so much of it on pornography.
So how should we counter the “rape culture” in my opinion? Rather than shutting down forms of speech and sending it underground where it becomes even less monitorable, we need to drown it out with more positive messages. I mean, who has a bigger problem with antisemitism? France outlaws neoNazi speech, and all I hear about are synagogue bombings and other acts of violence. In America, people have the freedom to speak up, but when they do, the bigger newsstories are the public condemnations and the communities coming together against such hate.
Speaking of the Naomi Wolf essay, here are some responses to the contrary by other women: Avedon, Carly and Julia
And by a few men:Dan, Daniel, Eric, James and Matt (see also Avedon’s comment near the bottom of this one)
Lis: Are you suggesting that rape is natural?
Rape porn and child porn are two totally different things – both in RL and under the law. Child porn involves the filming of children, who can’t consent and whose abuse is being filmed. Child porn is completely underground and the people involved (except for the children) almost never appear on film, at least their faces. Child porn is evil, and illegal in every state and over much of the world.
Rape porn involves actors and actresses who consent and are paid for their performance. Extreme Associates, while not the biggest player in the Adult film world, is still a major company. The officers, directors, cast and crew would be extremely simple to track down, as would the signed consent forms that each actor provides, along with proof of age.
Extreme Associates (the company who’s prosecution started this thread) is not a charity, nor is it supported by a foundation. It has thrived in the adult film world by catering to a niche – people who like watching films involving age-play and simulated non-consensual sex (why they picked on Extreme Teens #24, I don’t know – *all* of their Extreme Teens movies have ‘adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes’ – little girls meaning approx. mid to late teens).
My point is the if it is not illegal to do it, it shouldn’t be illegal to film or watch it. My wife and I attended a ‘James Bond’ party some time ago. I was Eric Kreigler and she was Bibi Dahl (say it out loud if you don’t get it) from the movie For Your Eyes Only. If we had gone home that evening and continued in our roles (we were both way over 18) – would that have been illegal? If my wife had a rape fantasy (and many women do – this does *not* mean they want to be raped – it is just a fantasy that many women have) and I played the ‘Horny Catburgler’ should that be illegal. Even if we filmed it? Showed it to some friends? Displayed it for money on the internet?
If our amateur efforts are ok – then you can’t draw the line, except through asking a bunch of random jurors to decide what I should and should not be allowed to see. Hopefully, on each of those juries there will be one person like me who says, “I may not want to see it, but maybe someone else does, and since no actors or animals were harmed in the filming – it is none of my business).
And Anonymouse – stop watching porn. It isn’t good for you. You are using it as excuse to not go out and have a real relationship. Stop watching hentai, lesbian porn, rape porn and reading about any of it. For some people, it enhances their lives. Yours – it is hurting. No, this isn’t a reason to ban porn (if you don’t understand this, go look up hyponatremia). But you won’t die if you stop watching porn. You might get a little horny, which might motivate you to find a girlfriend.
I think whether it’s natural or not is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
Some people use evidence of so-called natural behavior in the animal kingdom as justification that an action must be acceptable. Whereas others point out that part of being human means overcoming such bestial impulses.
Here’s my question (this goes to amp’s original post as well): What’s the ultimate goal here — preventing rape or preventing porn? If the objective is to stop rapes from happening, then the focus should be on things with a more directly causal relationship than pornography.
We assume that purveyors of child pornography will harm children, hence the ban. Why wouldn’t we assume that purveyors of rape porn wouldn’t hurt women?
We assume nothing. The purveyors of child porn hurt the children *when they make the porn*. The purveyors of rape porn – at least the mainstream purveyors, do not hurt women. The women voluntarily walk into the office, film the movie, and then cash their check.
There is a series of movies where they film explicit consent in the beginning and at the end. They tell the women exactly what is going to happen, and they respond. They even ask them why they are appearing in the movie. The responses range from, “I need the money” to “this is my thing, I really like doing this, and I do it with my boyfriend and I’d like to do it on film.” The movies involve violence, humiliation and simulated non-consensual sex. They are extremely hard core.
The women, as adults, voluntarily consent. Maybe you don’t agree with their decision, or understand it, but as adults, we get to make decisions without checking with you first to see if it is ok.
We assume nothing. The purveyors of child porn hurt the children *when they make the porn*.
If my assertion is untrue, why do we also prosecute those who possess child porn, not only those who make it?
May I offer as recommended reading the Supreme Court decisions Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (virtual child porn) and New York v. Ferber which found it prohibition of child porn acceptable.
Society has made a reasonable decision that it requires a certain level of mental development to knowingly consent to particular actions (in this case, sex). For better or worse, the way we make that determination is by chronological age (with exceptions in cases of mental retardation and other mitigating factors, which is why “sex where the capacity to consent is impaired, as by drugs and alcohol” is a crime).
Chronological age isn’t a perfect measure by any means: I know some very mature and responsible teens and some very irresponsible “adults,” but so far that’s the best way we’ve found (both easy to determine and generally true for the majority).
In the Ferber decision, the Court was willing to accept arguments that “the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.” A footnote points out that the State has a compelling interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological wellbeing of a minor.”
But there comes a point when children grow up. There must be some point at which an adult is capable of consent. To go further and speak of protecting women in the way we talk of protecting the children is infantilizing, and feels like a worse threat to women’s autonomy and women’s rights than the alternatives.
why do we also prosecute those who possess child porn, not only those who make it?
In hopes of drying up the market. It’s explained in further detail in the Ferber decision, particularly the footnotes on this page
To go further and speak of protecting women in the way we talk of protecting the children is infantilizing, and feels like a worse threat to women’s autonomy and women’s rights than the alternatives.
I disagree. My conclusion is that to eradicate rape, one thing that must be done is to eradicate rape culture, including those things that show rape as normative sexual behavior, as in rape pornography.
RE: the child porn thing, I was just asking. I’m not too versed in porn theory.
Ms Lauren wrote:
Lis: Are you suggesting that rape is natural?
Mallard ducks and chimpanzees come to mind as two species which have frequent gang rape that often ends in the injury or death of the female. Mallards are . . . um . . . kind of over-the-top: the recent Ig Nobel prize in biology went to the authors of the paper “The First Case of Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard” — a paper reporting an incident in which a mallard duck flew into a window and broke its neck, and the corpse was almost immediately raped by another mallard for an hour and a quarter.
“Natural” is such an odd word. If, by “natural”, you mean, “occurs in species other than humans, without human intervention,” then, yes, I suppose you could say that “rape is natural”.
There are reasons that it’s a bad idea to assign any kind of moral value to the term “natural”.
Ms Lauren wrote:
Lis: Are you suggesting that rape is natural?
Mallard ducks and chimpanzees come to mind as two species which have frequent gang rape that often ends in the injury or death of the female. Mallards are . . . um . . . kind of over-the-top: the recent Ig Nobel prize in biology went to the authors of the paper “The First Case of Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard” — a paper reporting an incident in which a mallard duck flew into a window and broke its neck, and the corpse was almost immediately raped by another mallard for an hour and a quarter.
“Natural” is such an odd word. If, by “natural”, you mean, “occurs in species other than humans, without human intervention,” then, yes, I suppose you could say that “rape is natural”.
There are reasons that it’s a bad idea to assign any kind of moral value to the term “natural”.
I’m not versed in porn theory, either. This is just what I’ve picked up from my own personal reading.
You’ve mostly been talking in terms of protecting women and the harm that can befall women. Let me explain what I mean when I suggest these are infantilizing beliefs.
It may seem like remote history by now, but it wasn’t that long ago that adult women couldn’t sign legal contracts without the presence of a male relative. And, from what I’ve read, it was a real struggle to overcome those barriers.
To go back now and say that women cannot consent to certain actions involving her own body, forbidding and nullifying any written agreements she may make to that effect… That’s a huge step backwards.
It’s codifying women as a weaker sex, and that will have legal ramifications.
A long time ago, I looked at one of MacKinnon’s proposed laws. As written, a woman who knowingly and willingly performs for pornography, with a signed contract and paycheck, would still be considered a victim of coercion and sex discrimination.
If I am not allowed to take responsibility for what I do with and to my own body, solely because I am a woman… If legal contracts to pose for pornography can be invalidated by later saying I was coerced, what does that say about trusting women with other legal contracts? Couldn’t those be invalidated in similar manner? All it takes is one woman who decides “I was coerced” is a good way to get out of a bad debt, and all women become bad risks.
Follow the precedents, and it leads right back to requiring a man’s signature for everything.
Now I’m not saying there’s no difference between the sexes, but I think it causes more problems to think of these situations solely in terms of women being victims and needing protection. And any laws being considered should definitely be worded in gender-neutral terms, or they could cause unintended problems.
I don’t believe I “infantilized” any women in my assertions. Furthermore, I am perfectly aware of women’s history.
The “I’m right, you’re ignorant” rhetoric is really starting to come through on these comments, especially toward those of us who refuse to condone rape culture.
I posted a fuller response on my blog and I’m done commenting on the issue. I refuse to be berated because I take an unpopular (or less vocal) point of view.
Well put, Lis. I kept wanting to jump in, and then I would see your thoughtful posts had already addressed the issues.
I would say, to Ms. Lauren and others concerned with the “rape culture” that it might be far more effective to change the *culture itself* rather than its products. Otherwise, there would still be a high demand-and thus the underground creation of– the porn you object to.
Changing a culture seems impossible, but it’s not–great strides have already been made in the ways women are treated and portrayed. Not enough, of course. But as women gain in power and add more to the cultural discourse, I think what people find sexy will begin to change too. I think it is already changing, and that though imperfect, images like Ripley in Aliens and Buffy show that women with power can be highly attractive to both sexes.
I’m a big believer in killing things by exposing them to the light, not by burying them. If we allow *consenting adults* the freedom to express their darkest thoughts, then those thoughts lose some of the power that comes from being forbidden, underground, and secret. And then maybe we find more healthy ways to find one another attractive.
Just my $.02.
Not trying to come of as berating; it’s just that my writing style tends to get become very thorough and technical and overexplanatory, because I’ve gotten burned too many times in past online discussions. I think I can gloss over one assumption in a chain of logic, and that’s the point that gets challenged and ends up derailing the whole conversation.
I’m sorry if it felt like an attack.
I’ll confess, I’m also somewhat amused that both of us perceive we’re on the defensive with the less popular POV. That’s certainly how I felt based on the comments overnight and the positions taken by our hosts. [If I thought I were speaking for the majority here, I wouldn’t’ve felt such a need to defend my opinions so strongly.]
Anyway, just rambling. It has been a pleasure talking with you, and I didn’t mean any disrespect.
To eradicate rape, we should devote more time, money and effort into catching rapists. If we treated rape like the FBI used to treat kidnapping – with close to a 100% success rate – rapists would know that they were going to be caught before they committed the crime. Most rapists would likely then give up raping, and go home to their Extreme Associates movies, bothering no one. Or they would be in jail for a very very long time. Of course, we would then have to deal with the issue of prisoners raped by other prisoners, which we should do, but it is a little further down my priority list.
Go, Lis! I applaud your valor.
Certainly one “slippery slope” argument about porn regulation can already be validated: the Cambria List, a voluntary set of guidelines that porn industry lawyers themselves suggested (and some companies have adopted) to help stay under Ashcroft’s radar. The list suggests banning things like BDSM and peeing, and then goes on to include No male/male penetration. No transexuals [sic]. No bi sex. No black men with white women themes.
So very quickly Ashcroft’s coziness with anti-porn advocates becomes a way for civil rights to get tangled up. Again. Now, of course, the industry is not the victim here: they are in it purely for the (very big) money and are happy to fit themselves into whatever box keeps that moolah rolling in. But the point is, that box keeps a lot of people out, for the very bad reason that depictions of them/their fetish/their gender/race/orientation might piss off the wrong people.
And that is chilling.
Another example: the first obscenity case brought in LA under Ashcroft’s watch was against a movie called “Tampa Tushy Fest” because its (very cool, very sexy, very very woman-empowering, IMHO) scene of fisting “violates community standards” (scroll down to the part about the LA deputy prosecutor). The woman getting fisted in that scene clearly directs the action at all times, telling her partners what to do and when and enjoying it. How horrible!
As someone (else) who has struggled all her life with sexual issues, I have to say that sometimes porn has been liberating, other times it has made me defensive or angry, other times it has squicked me. But, that’s me. And just as I wouldn’t want other people to mess with my access to those things that help me get through my own issues and back in the groove, I don’t think I have the right to dictate other folx’ tastes or access…as long as the production is legal and consensual.
As for rape porn facilitating rape culture…if that’s so, I agree with Lis that belling the cat, as it were, and engaging it in the open is a far better way of mitigating its influence than to disapprove it into the shadows where its forbiddenness could give it more power. Once again, always assuming that the production is consensual.
PS– Anonymouse, I really appreciated your distinction between types of power depictions. Dead on, IMHO.
And I second (or third) the suggestion that you seek counseling. Puerly because no one can live very long or well with the kind of self-loathing you describe. And you shouldn’t have to!
Lis: One of the links you gave referred to Dworkin as a “Nazi” (remember, any Jewish woman who disagrees with you is the equivilent of Hitler! Always call her a Nazi!), while another went on and on about how Naomi wasn’t being hit on anymore (based on nothing but the assumption that anyone who writes an anti-porn article must not be hit on often, I guess).
I’ve gotta say, I’m disgusted at Avadon’s comments in particular. I don’t see any difference between the sexism of Avedon’s assumption that Wolf must not get hit on, and the sexism of the stereotypical anti-feminist who assumes that feminists are fridgid. It’s appalling, misogynistic bullshit, and twice as appalling coming from a feminist like Avedon, who should know better.
As it happens, I don’t agree with Wolf’s article. The problem with Wolf’s argument, for me, is that it’s all anecdotal. While I don’t doubt that her anecdotes reflect a part of the truth – doubtless there are some people out there who feel that way – Wolf doesn’t demonstrate in any way that these anecodotes actually reflect a larger trend, and not just reporter’s bias. Especially weak is the idea that female insecurity about appearance is a new thing – just glancing at a two-decade old book such as (say) The Beauty Myth will quickly show that there’s not necessarily anything new going on there.
I could go on, but I hope you notice that I managed to disagree with Wolf without calling anyone a Nazi, and without snidely implying that there must be something inadequate about Wolf sexually since she doesn’t agree with me.
Wolf may be wrong (in my opinion), but she still shows ten times the intelligence and class as her critics, if the links you provide are typical.
Oh, one more comment: Although I criticized Wolf for using purely anecdotal evidence to make her case, most of the critics Lis linked to made the identical error while trying to prove the opposite case.
I do not particularly wish to participate to this discussion (my only contribution was more than slightly off topic), but allow me to add that there should be some warning to one of the links provided by Lis, the one to Carly’s blog, which, unlike the others, contains very explicit descriptions and at least one picture.
Moreover, it would not have been irrelevant to point out that Carly is an “insider” in what is referred to as the “industry” (not as an actor, which is also worth pointing out).
Please keep in mind that this is not intended as a refutation nor a response to Lis’ comments (although I admit spontaneously agreeing with the opposite views expressed by Ms. Lauren or Bean).
This is just because not all Alas readers live in the United States or in countries which have similar laws on Free Speech.
The second reason is that, in a previous “thread” (about Chomsky and the negationists), I myself happened to link to a text-only page which was quite decent, but, as I found out later with much frightening, was hosted on a site containing very offensive pictures and captions. I posted immediatly a warning in the next comment, but I still worry if anybody had the time to check out the rest of the site before I did.
I’m uncomfortable with statements about what “child porn” is that assume we’re always talking about actual photographic images. And maybe if people sort out the difference between these things they would be able to clarify what it is they object to. Is it the image, or is it what is done to create the image? These are two entirely different things.
Are depictions of rape or sex involving minors, regardless of how they are made, even if they are entirely simulated, or writing, or drawings, as offensive as images made from real rapes? I would insist they are not. (Although the Canadian “child porn” laws originally prohibited any representation at all of sex involving those under 18, even if it was entirely consensual and legal sex – the age of consent being 14 – and even if it was written or drawn.)
But one person has suggested that pornographic images of rape encourge rape culture. I don’t think they do, but I think an absence of good sex education causes real harm. It tends to be the case that sex education is of low quality or less likely to exist at all where sexual imagery is most suppressed.
I don’t believe people’s sexuality is much changed by looking at pornography. What the research seems to show is that an individual’s base sexuality is set pretty early in life, and that they will eventually respond to sexual fantasy that is consistent with the sexual agenda they have already formed. While there is room for a certain amount of adjustment and refinement, you don’t wander too far afield of your base sexuality. For example, looking at pictures of someone fucking chickens doesn’t mean you’ll suddenly get hot to fuck chickens.
(Some people confuse expansion of sexual choices with “changed” sexuality, but very often it’s just that it’s occurred to them that they can get the same things from a different situation. E.g., some people assume that a particular type of sexuality is only available from men but then learn that they can get that from women too. But as long as they hadn’t realized that, they were interested only in men and thought of themselves as entirely straight or entirely gay. Now they think they have “become” bisexual, but in truth they had that sexuality all along. It doesn’t mean they will also suddenly develop a fetish for high-heels or bondage just because they look at a lot of fetish porn.)
I’m not aware of any evidence that children have been harmed by looking at pornography, whether violent or not. I think you’ll find that people respond culturally to those norms that are widely expressed in the culture itself rather than being specific to pornography. In fact, the very fringe nature of pornography appears to suggests to people that memes which they see expressed only in pornography are not acceptable values.
(That’s a shame, really, since pornography actually seems to value violence much less than mainstream culture does.)
And, um, Ampersand, I didn’t say I assumed Wolf wasn’t being hit on – I specifically said she might very well be getting hit on. But if she thinks college men are experiencing pornography all that differently from other men, she failed to point that out, thus leaving the impression that she was talking about an overall cultural phenomenon rather than one that only affects college students.
Avedon, here’s what you wrote:
So you assume either than she’s not getting hit on, or she is but thinks she’s not, or whatever. In either case, you’re making an ad hominon attack on Wolf – suggesting that her argument must be motivated by sour grapes, or by a dissatisfaction in how often she’s hit upon, or whatever.
The point is, that you even think it’s relevant to bring up whether or not Wolf personally is hit on (and the implication that if a woman disagrees with you about sex, it must be sour grapes) was wrongheaded and (imo) sexist. Your argument would be much stronger if you were willing to skip the ad hominon altogether, in my opinion.
But when Naomi Wolf’s argument largely consists of the notion that men aren’t hitting on women any more because they can get satisfaction elsewhere, saying “men are hitting on me” is a relevant response.
Lis, I agree (although it’s also anecdotal). But speculating about how often Wolf is hit on, and implying her argument is motivated by sour grapes, is not the same as saying “men still hit on me.”
Lis: “Anyone who advocates harm against other people he’s talking to is clearly incapable of holding a civilized discussion, If you cannot separate the issue under discussion from the other people discussing it, then I see no further need in speaking with you. ”
That’s great Lis because you’re not speaking with me – we’re having a discussion. If you don’t understand my point then that’s your problem – no need to be like that. If you need further clarification because you don’t understand it then you only need to ask. Assuming I advocate harm only reveals your ignorance of what I was saying. If you also don’t understand this then just say so and I will elaborate in a simpler way for you.
Tor: you seem to think all rape porn is done by actors – you are also ignorant – i mean you don’t really think that there are no people out there doing the real thing? I mean come on… Also actors doing “pretend” rape (gee that’s a great thing to do) only encourage the other people who do the “real” rape.
As for the discussion that is evolving about people’s desire for sex the and ability to fulfill it with other people – it osunds a lot like a high school discussion to me. There are those who grow up and out of it and those who don’t. Those who don’t spend the rest of their lives “tormented” by their desires and some of these people end up getting into porn into even lower forms of desire. If we help everyone to realise this and help them to become aware of the way out of this situation then we will be in this “utopia” that others keep mentioning where we have no need to censor it because noone does it.
and many women do – this does *not* mean they want to be raped – it is just a fantasy that many women have
Indeed — but a number of psychological studies have shown that these women tend to have been brought up in a strict, sexually-repressed atmosphere, and are petrified of being the “bad girl,” therefore rape fantasies allow them to fantasize about sex without being deemed a “slut.” These same studies have shown that rather than promoting the rape fantasy ideal, working towards a more healthy view of their own sexuality has far better mental and emotional health results. The woman comes to embrace her own sexuality and sexual desires without the simultaneous giving up of control.
As for “going after the rapists,” well, why is it that society (and the law) isn’t doing this more often? Think about it, fewer than half of women report their rapes; of those that do, approximately 30% result in a conviction. And why do you think this is? It’s because we live in a rape culture which has come to normalize rape as sex. Oh, sure, not the stranger jumping out of the bushes and attacking a woman, but date rape — you know, that type of rape that makes up 86% of rapes in this country. Rape porn is but one facet in this rape culture. Will banning rape porn cause all rape to cease? Nope, but it will be one of many steps in the right direction. Because before we can really get the law (and society) to “go after the rapists,” we have to change society so that it will see rape as rape — and not a legitimate form of “sexual expression.”
Thank you, bean for saying what I have been trying to say this whole damn time. I must have my stupid cap on.
To think some people can accept rape as anything else other than rape and a bad thing that must not be done…oh not to mention child porn :/
“To think some people can accept rape as anything else other than rape and a bad thing that must not be done…”
Theft is a bad thing that must not be done. Are you suggesting that movies and other forms of fiction not show people stealing things?
To clarify, even though I entered this thread to discuss how I think I was fucked up by this kind of porn, I’m not really for censoring it, either. Mainly because, as has been discussed above, censorship is usually in the hands of unsubtle beauraucrats.
BTW, Anonymouse, no way to send this via email, but when/if you look for a therapist, you may want to check the KAP list to look for doctors in your area.
Thank you very much, Lis. As a matter of fact my biggest reason for not seeking a sex therapist was worry that they might not understand and think I was dangerous.
Anonymouse: in my opinion I would be very careful when choosing a counsellor; there are many who are very ignorant about the proper way to help.
Also, stealing/rape??? I don’t see the link there…stealing i sbad yes but the degree is so far apart. The degree of “evil” required to perform rape or enjoy it (and child-porn) is the problem. It is a very low form of life and that is why I advocate even the most ignorant of politicians doing there job for once and stopping it in every form. This does not mean hiding from it as I have said in my posts above.
Chatter:
You seem very firm in your opinions, but you don’t seem to be paying close enough attention to the conversation. Who here is advocating child porn? Would you please quote me one example from this thread that says that pornography involving children is acceptable? It’s not the issue here, and the way you’ve been repeating it over and over seems to me to mean that you are either not paying attention or trying to sensationalize the topic by conflating the two issues over and over. Neither strategy is very flattering to you, IMHO.
Although this is not specifically about rape porn, feminist Naomi Wolf (best known for her book The Beauty Myth) recently wrote an article arguing that the high availability of internet porn has made men less interested in sex with real women. The article can be found here, for those who are interested.
Iteresting theory. I’d need to see more data for me to be certain, but if it is true it means that essentially mass-market porn is harmless in the sense that it does not promote violence or abuse. Instead, it’s merely a social quirk that will work itself out. Like any new communication medium, the internet has lots of porn, this will die down in time. More importantly, the fad for far more porn than previously will also die down. As long as no one is getting hurt, I honestly see nothing to worry about. In 20 years, the mid 90s to late 00s will likely be seen as an era where porn was big and had some odd social implications.
The only part of the article that troubled me was the last portion, where the author goes on about the supposedly wonderful benefit of engaging in the sort of horrific repression of sexuality and rigid control of women’s bodies found in Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is one of the most misogynist faiths that I know of and their taboos for women are fairly (IMHO) horrific. Not only to these taboos focus on control of women’s bodies and women’s sexuality by men, they are also based upon the idea that both sex and women’s bodies are unclean and dangerous. I’ve heard fundy nutballs on the far-right talk about the supposed benefits for women of those sorts of restrictions and it greatly disturbs me to hear that sort of crap written by a feminist whose ideas I’ve often agreed with. I’d far rather have rape porn on prime time NBC than to see such regressive, misogynist, and deeply regressive attitudes become common. I very much hope this sort of sick thought never becomes part of mainstream feminism or mainstream society.