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..
Chatter: you seem to think all rape porn is done by actors … i mean you don’t really think that there are no people out there doing the real thing?
Chatter, the movies that started this discussion, what I have been using to define ‘rape porn’ were certainly done by actors. If someone raped a woman, and put it on video, that is evidence of a crime, not rape porn. You may not be able to tell the difference, but here are some clues. (1) Rape porn is commercially available, starring actors and actresses who voluntarily sign up for the movie and recieve a paycheck at the end. (2) Evidence of a crime is used to put someone in jail, and is not commercially available. You can’t buy it in a store or from a website. The people involved are afraid of the police, and don’t advertise what they do. You are about as likely to find it as you are a snuff film. (3) rape porn involves fantasy, not real life. IT IS NOT REAL. and the people involved, including the audience, know that (4) Rape IS real, and is a horrible crime. If you have trouble telling fantasy from reality, you should consider therapy, before your dog tells you to kill someone.
bean: “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.'”
bean, the women that I have known who have discussed these fantasies with me, do not fit that description. In fact, they couldn’t be further from your description. Obviously, both kinds of women exist. The ones who have unhealthy fantasies about rape should seek help, and the ones who are happily well adjusted but happen to like the experience of danger, submission, loss of control, and the threat of violence that is involved, should continue. The question is, can you *only* enjoy sex when you are playing out a rape fantasy, or do you enjoy all types of sex, and this is one of the fantasies that you enjoy?
If you happen to enjoy the occasional rape fantasy, it doesn’t make you sick, or repressed or unhealthy in any way. It is an expression of your sexuality.
Maybe you’d like to live in a society where the lowest common denominator makes the decision for everyone else. If there are sick people who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality – no rape porn for you. Pedophiles out there? Don’t let your wife dress up as a cheerleader as a surprise for you on your birthday – someone might be looking in your window and get the wrong idea. They might think you are a sicko, when in fact you have a happy, healthy sexual relationship with your wife and have no desire to sleep with teenagers. Even worse, they may become normalized through peeping in your window and become a child molestor. All from your little fantasy. Missionary position only, for everyone. It’s just safer.
I found another article recently about how internet porn users are becoming less interested in real sex. I’ll try to find it, but I’ll be hard-pressed to search through all the porn sites to find it.
Oops. Found the article and it was the one linked to Naomi Wolf’s essay. For what it’s worth, I’ll link it again here: Not Tonight, Honey. I’m Logging On.
One thing that the article mentions that I’ve been thinking about is the sudden prevalence of adult entertainment in pop culture. Anyone notice an increase in strippers and porn stars on general media lately, or is this just another cycle of crossover porn stars?
ewwww, strippers and porn stars? yick. Luckily, I don’t see that kind of stuff on my channel – FoxNews.
I’m pretty sure that most porn actors can make a whole lot more money in a single mainstream media appearance than they can in several pornographic films. Now let that sink in for a minute…
Also, in doing some more thought on this issue, I went to my favorite sex site for more info – Sexuality.org. Don’t worry, it is all in good taste with no explicit pics. It is supposed to act as a guide for sexual understandig and pleasure, complete with how-tos. (!)
Anyway, go to the BSDM page and see what they have to say about sexual submission. It’s interesting.
Arbitrary Aardvark: “Vanilla doesn’t do it for me.”
You know, I’ve heard this pseudo-argument anytime porn comes up–anyone who doesn’t like porn must be frigid, or only like boring sex. (BTW, vanilla is a wonderfully complex and rich flavor and smell. Too *bad* it doesn’t do it for you.) Frankly, Aardvark, sitting around and *watching* something seems uber lame to me–I’d rather have sex. But then again, I’m probably “vanilla” by your standards, since I take a dim view of porn in general.
Legally, I don’t think rape porn can/should be censored (as long as it can be proven that it was consensually made, etc.). However, I still think it’s disgusting, vile, and derogatory. If that makes me vanilla or a Nazi (to quote some of Andrea Dworkin’s detractors), so be it.
neko – ‘vanilla’ isn’t an insult – it is a description. In this discussion, it is meant to describe the wide variety of sexual behaviors and attitudes that are generally accepted by the mainstream. It is an attempt to do so in a non-derogatory way. Barenaked Ladies even described vanilla as ‘the finest of the flavors.’ Some people happen to disagree, for whatever reason they like some other flavor – and by making that choice, they aren’t trying to say vanilla is inferior to their chosen flavor – Rocky Road for example.
(OT: From http://www.m-w.com:
vanilla (adjective):
1. flavored with vanilla
2. lacking distinction; plain; ordinary
Sounds like a little more than a “description” to me.)
Sorry, Tor, I don’t buy it. I’ve heard it used as a derogatory term along with boring, frigid, etc. as a way to cast aspersions on anyone who doesn’t preach the gospel of porn. No one in the debate about porn has referred to vanilla as a preference or a flavor, it’s been used as an insult.
“Sorry, vanilla doesn’t do it for me” sounds dismissive and snide–and quite frankly judgemental. If the intent was to be non-derogatory, it fell flat.
What, are you desperate to be offended? Whatsa matter with vanilla? The finest of the flavors, I quoth. Here are some more definitions from the dictionary, since that is where you get your info from.
From the same damn place (m-w.com)
ordinary(adjective)
1 : of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events : ROUTINE, USUAL
plain(adjective)
…
6 a : belonging to the great mass of humans b : lacking special distinction or affectation : ORDINARY
7 : characterized by simplicity : not complicated
Even though Merriam Webster just went to their 11th edition, that doesn’t mean that they are right on top of every different usage of every word out there. If you feel inadaquate b/c you don’t like whips-n-chains – fine. Feel that way. The fact that I, and everyone else I have ever use the word ‘vanilla’ to describe a set of sexual preferences doesn’t mean it that way means nothing to you. I told you it was not an insult, but you went and looked it up, hoping to be insulted. If you want to be insulted, I can’t stop you. Here’s a secret – not everyone who likes whips-n-chains likes to have them every night. Sometimes, they just like to have plain old ordinary sex. And they really enjoy it – without the candlewax, studded dildos, leather restraints, cat-o-nine tails and harness suspended from the ceiling. And they call it vanilla.
Uhhh. . .I didn’t post the definition, Tor. That was someone *else*. It would help if you were to actually read the posts–including the nicks.
I already said why I thought Aardvark’s use of it came off as dismissive and rather judgemental. You don’t agree, that’s fine.
Oh, and another thing–I don’t believe you know *what* my sexual quirks are, so you can drop the rather weak “whips and chains” crack. The original conversation was about porn, not practices, and I commented on the assumptions I have run into whenever I voice my opinion on the subject. Here’s another secret for you–you’ll have a lot more credibility if you stick to what was *said* as opposed to what you’ve pulled out of your ass.
Uhhh…. I *was* responding to ‘Dictionary’ not to you, neko. I didn’t read your “Sorry, Tor, I don’t buy it.” post until after I posted my response to ‘Dictionary.’ You’re right, I have no idea what your sexual quicks are. To be honest, I don’t care either. The point I was trying to make is that I have never heard ‘vanilla’ used in an insulting manner. If you have, or have been insulted by the word vanilla, I’m sorry. Obviously, we disagree about, “sorry, vanilla doesn’t do it for me.” The people I know don’t feel that ‘vanilla’ is derogatory or insulting.
As for the whips-n-chains remark, that also had nothing to do with you – it was an attempt at a humorous way of explaining that even people who enjoy non-vanilla sex, including rape porn, enjoy vanilla sex as well. But obviously, you didn’t get the joke. Maybe because the comment was addressed to Dictionary.
Okay, first off, nobody in this discussion said “Sorry, vanilla doesn’t do it for me.”
What was said was: “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.”
In other words, he was saying: “I specifically like some of the things they’re trying to outlaw, and thus these prosecutions have personal effect for me. I do not get off on the things that most people get off on.”
If you take offense at that, that’s your business, but don’t try to twist it into something it’s not.
Furthermore, Neko, your dismissive (and even insulting) tone towards people who don’t enjoy “vanilla” activities is really offensive. Think of it like any other sexual preference. Would you say to a gay man “(BTW, heterosexual sex is a wonderfully complex and rich activity. Too *bad* it doesn’t do it for you.)”?
—JRC
Stefanie Murray: You seem to not be reading what I am saying – neither porn rape AND child porn are acceptable. I am dealing with both issues. So before you accuse me of not paying attention perhaps you should do the same?
Tor: “You are about as likely to find it as you are a snuff film” umm you obviously haven’t seen some of the pop-ups from web sites – some people do not care about the police; they are not afraid and even in some countries have them on their side. These same people do crimes on film them all the time and then sell them on the internet. You seem to be unaware of what is available – you only have to surf some warez sites to see this.
Tor #2: “If you have trouble telling fantasy from reality, you should consider therapy, before your dog tells you to kill someone.” – Gee you really are being nice – not! Should I start to do the same? Let’s have a try: Your version of reality seems to be one where all the baddies get locked up by the police, well sorry to burst your bubble puppy, but the baddies are everywhere and temptation gets the better of these people. So your pretendy porn you seem to like only creates more bad people. Perhaps if you took off your arrogant-ignorant wig you might see the light for the day?
Dictionary and neko: I’m with you – sounds like more than “a description” to me too.
Tor #3: Perhaps you might consider being more understanding of people’s viewpoints than critical? Otherwise it can lead to further banter of the same type as I indugled in above – none of which I really meant btw. I respect what you have to say and it would be good if when people read it, it comes across as non-personal…
Chatter,
I’ve read your posts with unhappily waning interest. You’re too shrill for my taste. But worse than that, you’re unwilling to consider anything that you don’t already agree with to be valid.
Okay then. Rape porn making rapists: By the same logic you should be advocating the banning of violent films. Like “Pulp Fiction” or “The Terminator” or “Raiders of the Lost Arc”. As well as advocating the banning of guns, knives & plastic bags.
While I disagree with those who want to ban rape porn, I can understand their position and arguments. I think that the idea of “real” rape porn for sale by those who don’t fear the police is absurd. You give me the title, price & where it’s being sold of a “real” rape porn flick & I’ll believe it (and report it to make sure those people are prosecuted). Until then it’s unsubstantiated. I believe that there is stuff advertised as “real”, but that don’t make it so. When I was a kid, I remember “real” snuff films that weren’t. Not a one.
So maybe you should:
1) Substantiate your claims with facts. Don’t expect us to believe you just because you say so.
2) Show some consideration of what the other side is saying, and if something is valid just acknowledge it.
I have never once, in all my life and time in debating porn not heard the phrase “vanilla sex” as anything but derogatory and judgemental. It’s a bullshit cop-out to think it’s anything but. It’s the same as the use (in the way it’s used) of “sex-positive” as though those who don’t get all happy and horny over the degredation of women and sexuality are “sex-negative.”
As for those who get off on rape — what you are doing is nothing less than normalizing rape, and therefore perpetuating rape culture. Perpetuating rape culture is why so many women are raped and have so little recourse.
“As for those who get off on rape — what you are doing is nothing less than normalizing rape, and therefore perpetuating rape culture.”
You apparently didn’t read my posts. I used this type of porn as a teen and it never made me regard rape as normal or acceptable. It only made me hate myself. Are you open to that possibility? That the person using the stuff is using because of the taboo factor, because of the fact that the behavior is so obviously reprehensible, and that there is a possibility that the very ugliness and unacceptability of the act is the reason it titilates? And that the person using it could love and respect women and be using such material not because he wants to hurt anyone but because because he is intimidated by how scary the emotional power of women to accept and reject him as a person, as a lover is? That was the case with me. Then and now I find women incredible and loveable and beautiful and insanely awesome. So much so that they scare me because I feel inadquate next to them, because they rarely find me attractive. And so this type of porn was cathartic to me, a way for me to experience the vicarious thrill of being permitted to give a woman sexual pleasure. Because no one in real life would, then or now, accept me as a lover.
I eventually reject that stuff because it kept me focussed on my feelings of self-loathing and unloveablity. That’s what this material is about: not being desired, but illegally and illicitly finding sexual pleasure. It’s a sick kick, but understandable in my opinion, on a fantasy level (not on the level of real life action, obviously). I just don’t think it was healthy fantasy for me to indulge in as it reinforced my fear of women every time I pictured those fantasies in my brain.
Ok – ‘vanilla’ sex is insulting. What should the kinky frontiersmen and frontierswomen of the world call the kind of sex you approve of? ‘Normal sex’? ‘Regular Guy/Gal’ sex? ‘Umm, you know, the usual’? Please tell me what phrase or word I can use to describe what it is that you do with your partner. Or, if you don’t want me making assumptions, what word or phrase should I use to describe the kind of sex my parents have. Not that I talk about their sex lives or anything, but it isn’t breaking any barriers.
I know, I know, I’m making assumptions again. What word or phrase should I use to describe the kind of sex I *think* my parents used to have – not that I think about it or anything. Can all the people who found ‘vanilla’ so insulting agree?
I’m sorry about your experience w/ the term “vanilla sex”, bean. But that hasn’t been my experience at all. Just to clarify: Is that only in the context of debating porn or is that in all contexts discussing sexuality?
I agree w/ Tor on this. Give another term that we can use that you don’t find offensive & I bet that’s what gets used in the future here. Obviously this is a subjective issue & if you find that term offensive I will not use it. But, please, don’t disregard the fact that there are those of us who have never been subject to the term as derogatory or insulting.
I have never once, in all my life and time in debating porn not heard the phrase “vanilla sex” as anything but derogatory and judgemental.
I’m sorry to hear that.
I was reading alt.sex.bondage in the early 1990s before the term entered common usage. It was intended merely as a descriptive. And, although there are connotations of vanilla as “plain,” vanilla is also the most popular flavor of ice cream (in contrast with BDSM, which is a minority), and one which is a good base for toppings making it a useful generic term for explaining things to the curious (you can just add a few sprinkles to vanilla to make a sundae; you don’t have to switch to rocky road).
Just as gays may talk about how to pass in the straight world, those with kinks talked about how to get along in the vanilla world, or in vanilla relationships. For example, this 1990 post or this 1997 FAQ definition.
The term vanilla as used for sex was not intended as a perjorative term — in fact, looking back in the archives, I see many people referring to themselves using that adjective. However, some people have used it as a negative.
Then again, many terms have both derogatory and non-derogatory contexts. Someone in NYC has been denied nonprofit status for his organization because it contains the word “Queer” in its name. [*]
So, vanilla can be used as both a positive and negative, therefore you have to look at it in context, rather than just assuming that the mere presence of the word implies an insult.
There are enough insults in the world; why go looking for reasons to be offended?
Just to clarify: Is that only in the context of debating porn or is that in all contexts discussing sexuality?
ALL CONTEXTS discussing sexuality.
I have to agree with Lis on this: When I hear people in the BDSM community talk about “vanilla sex”, they just mean “non-BDSM”. The only sense in which that is negative is that some people really don’t get into vanilla sex and I suppose you could say it means, “the kind of sex I don’t get off on.” (Except that a lot of non-vanilla sex is also in that category. I mean, just ’cause you’re into spanking doesn’t mean you’re into scat.)
But I don’t think you’ll find many of these people turning up their noses at vanilla ice cream.
Back to the Naomi Wolf thing, it occurs to me that one shouldn’t base a theory based on college students’ speculation on why members of the opposite sex aren’t giving them enough attention. Every college student wants more attention from members of their preferred gender, or from people of either in the case of bisexuals. You’re not going to, on average, get the most unbiased psychological reports from that.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a friend a couple of years ago. He asked me, “Why is it so hard to tell what women think?” I responded, “Because it’s hard to tell what people think. You just care more with women.”
Maybe not exactly like that. My response maybe wasn’t as coherent as that, but this way it makes me look smarter.
Jake Squid: I am expressing what I know; should you require proof or disaggree then that is your choice. I do not think it is my position here to try to convince you or anyone else into thinking the way I do.
Also, for the nth time now; I am talking about degree – the degree here is extremely low (on the love scale). Graphic violence (murder) is not really necessary in films and is most often not shown. Rape porn would be nothing if they aluded to it with their clothes on and they never showed the actual act.
Anonymouse – not all people who watch rape porn go out and do it. The point is – that it perpetuatues a culture that do. And it is this group of people who do it (especially those that do it for real) that need to be stopped – in their tracks – fullstop.
Okay, okay, I really tried not to think about the whole “Vanilla” debate.
I promise, I did. Swear to god.
It didn’t work.
So, for folks who are interested, try going to Google, clicking on “groups” and pasting in “vanilla group:soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm.*”.
What you’ll get is a decent cross-section of how BDSM folks use the term “Vanilla” in their every-day discussions. There’s some of the argument we’ve had here, with some folks hearing “Vanilla” as a pejorative, and others explaining that they use it as a descriptive meaning “non-BDSM.” More to the point, however, I think it’s useful to read some of the posts that don’t actually discuss the meaning of “vanilla,” just to hear how it’s usually used in context.
Some relevant links:
Pornography as a Cause of Rape
Pornography forms French children’s views on sex
Censored Truth
See No Evil
Deep throat, porn chic, the old-in-and-out and a few angry feminists
Porn in the USA
The point is – that it perpetuatues a culture that do.
It’s comforting to think that it’s just “rape porn” that shapes men’s attitudes, and if we got rid of it we’d fix the culture. It’s a lie, though.
Mainstream media is loaded with sexism, with the idea that rape is just romance by other means, and that violence is OK and powerful. Long before a boy gets his hands on a copy of Penthouse, he’s seen non-porn movies that portray women as things and fools and proper men as kicking ass to get their way. Pick any action move you like. Heck, pick any number of ‘chick flicks’ or romance novels that show men that persistence/stalking = winning the girl.
And yes, vanilla is one of those words that can be used perjoratively but usually isn’t, just like “straight.” As has been pointed out before, vanilla is still a flavor.
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.
A bit late to the party, but I have one: utilitarianism. Not, censoring this stuff will eventually deprive me of “Penthouse,” but the censorship will deprive the people who like it of it right now. It makes them happy, it doesn’t make me unhappy (much) — the greatest good is to leave it be.
Does it cause rape? Probably not directly, that is, in the same way rapists do. For a liberal, I’m a pretty straightforward law-and-order guy: lock up (or fix) the bad guys, don’t go around seeking root causes. If we take every effort to make it clear that rape in real life is Not OK and lock up people who don’t get the message, I think that’s more valuable and better from a civil liberties perspective than getting rid of porn, even violent porn. As mythago said, the problem goes deeper than that anyway.
Dead thread revived – current status of the Extreme Associates case is in limbo – the U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the charges, applying Lawrence v. Texas and indicating that the right to privacy stated in Lawrence facially invalidated the obscenity laws used in this case.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Circuit Court’s dismissal, indicating that the Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of whether Lawrence invalidates the obscenity test in Miller v. California.
Again, please consider what the consequences of obscenity laws are – people like Alberto Gonzales and (formerly) John Ashcroft will be in charge of enforcing them. Gonzales has indicated that the United States can ignore the Fourth Amendment and FISA Court guidelines in wiretapping cases; why not ignore other sections of the Constitution to go after political enemies?
I suppose my concern with something like this is not necessarily “slippery slope” so much as it is “where is the cut off?” In one action prohibiting “violence in conjunction with sex” (as was mentioned earlier as an Australian example of prohibited material), the room for interpretation is stunning.
Even within “rape porn,” there is a great deal of variety. There is violent rape. There is “gentle” rape. There is spiteful rape. There is rape where “she really wanted it anyway,” and within the story (such that it is) that may be completely acceptable. (I realise that this leads swiftly to a completely different–and important–topic, but let us consider for a moment that all people watching such films know and understand that all forms of “real rape” are A Bad Thing.) There are rapes where the lovely protagonist is restrained… and then there is pornography that is Not Rape.
Many (certainly not all, but a large number) of these films in the genres above could be dubbed, the stories changed–with no actual video editing–so that the stories are completely consensual. Spiteful Rape becomes Angry Passionate Sex After A Fight. “Gentle Rape” becomes a secret rendesvous between lovers. There is an entire world of Bondage and BDSM that is completely consensual (and is marketed as such)
So what is banned, and what is not? To paraphrase a poster above: Where is the line, and why is it there?
Fine. I’ll publically repudiate the A.G. if you’ll do the same to Larry Flynt. :D
Agreed, alsis. Larry Flynt is a jerk who produces poor-quality prolefeed porn. Better off to do it yourself….
Amp, will please ban my husband for being an inveterate smartass ? Thank You. :p