4 ms·

If the law made it illegal to posses images or video of an ACTUAL rape, I'd agree with it 100% (I hope this already is illegal). If it's a simulation made by tw

If the law made it illegal to posses images or video of an ACTUAL rape, I'd agree with it 100% (I hope this already is illegal). If it's a simulation made by two consenting adults, where's the harm? I find Justin Bieber to be "deeply offensive", why can't he be outlawed?

GeneralMayhem 13y ago
Even that opens up a lot of troubling possibilities when you get computers involved. Does scrolling /b/ and having the thumbnail of a picture that turns out to be an actual rape in your cache count as "possession?" If I email a bunch of rape porn to David Cameron, is he in "possession" of it? What if he downloads the attachment before realizing what it is? Ridiculous, sure - but what if it's not him but a suspect for other crimes or a political nuisance?
hahainternet 13y ago
The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. This is true as you say for a wide of variety of topics, but criminalizing those kinds of echo chambers is absolutely useless. Giving a person or agency the ability to criminalize those echo chambers in general creates a method of censorship backed by the law for any group of people. > Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible. > That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form. I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > This is true as you say for a wide of variety of topics, but criminalizing those kinds of echo chambers is absolutely useless. Giving a person or agency the ability to criminalize those echo chambers in general creates a method of censorship backed by the law for any group of people. In this case it's not the echo chambers that would be criminalised, but the intention is to block the media that may influence people to seek out these echo chambers. I'm not convinced it will work but that is at least the logic used. > This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible. There are many theories on this but I am aware of no well controlled study into violent pornography. If the research exists I would love to read it. > I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it. I don't claim that it's a complete solution, but to deny it could solve problems at all requires evidence. I can understand the logic behind prohibiting it, and have seen some (relatively weak) evidence to support the idea that pornography can alter a young person's behaviour significantly based on them trying to emulate what they see as desirable.
    - mattstocum 13y ago
      > but to deny it could solve problems at all requires evidence No, to make something illegal, you should have to prove that it is harmful. There is no proof that rape porn is harmful. You can't just throw out a hypothesis and then say "prove me wrong". That's not how science works, and it's not how law should either.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  > It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. Do you have some evidence to support your opinion?
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    I believe the evidence exists and I will spend the time to collate it for you if you can reasonably address the rest of my post.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. I'll assume that by "this" you mean rape fantasies. What if it is normal? Do you think there would still be harm in convincing people of that fact? > It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. So? >Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. Is it? How so? What about romance novels? >It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. Not so fast. Are you assuming that anyone who would watch/read such a thing is trying to work up their nerve to commit/participate in a rape? Or that once they've seen a depiction that they'll be somehow compelled to go and rape someone? Here is a quote from an article in Psychology Today: "Many men daydream about getting the girl by rescuing her from a dangerous situation--without the slightest wish to confront armed thugs, or be trapped in a fire on the 23rd floor." Thanks to speeder below for the link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/wom... >By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. Rapists may indeed seek justifications for their actions, or may wish to merely blame some external factor. Is it your opinion that suppressing such material would prevent the behavior? Can you support that opinion with evidence? How about the fact that rape has existed before pornography? Or that rape occurs in other social primates' groups (I'm assuming that no pornography exists for non-humans.)? >That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. Is there some proof that viewing or reading such material will cause previously ordinary people to become psychopath/rapists? Or is it merely popular to want to externalize blame for one's actions? >It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form. But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
- thenomad 13y ago
  Relevant: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/is-rape-porn-cultural-harm-argument.html http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/is-rape-porn-c...
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    My problem with this article is that the assumptions used are simply mirrors of his criticisms. He remarks that 'all they have' is a number of convictions but the arguments on the other side are also particularly weak. Considering the film Avatar literally has what can only be considered an animal rape scene in it and very few people noticed and actually took children to watch it I don't think 'rape culture' is a particularly egregious term. I'm no uberfeminist, but I can certainly see how pornography is extremely abusive in most cases. There's a reason there is a genre called 'porn for women' whos primary draw is that there's no gagging or slapping or facials. Sure some women enjoy these actions, but why the heck is it everywhere in porn?
    - mattstocum 13y ago
      > Considering the film Avatar literally has what can only be considered an animal rape scene First, have you ever seen two animals have sex? It's almost always what humans would call rape. Second, the "animal rape" scene isn't any more rape than a human riding a horse is (I'm assuming you're referring to the Navi riding the dragon things). It depicted an activity that was normal for those species in their culture.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        Coerced sex does occur but 'almost always' is completely wrong. Besides I am not talking about two animals mating, as you then go on to say, it is a scene where a sapient, intelligent being subjugates a 'lesser' creature using a sexual organ for their own goals. It's really not something that belongs in a film that was so widely promoted.
        mattstocum 13y ago
- mattstocum 13y ago
  How is rape porn any different than watching violent movies? Both depict illegal acts. Why is one okay, but the other not? The act of rape is illegal, why isn't that enough?
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    There's quite a difference in degree isn't there? Violent movies typically feature death but briefly and without detail. Rape porn involves detailed and explicit humiliation of a single subject. Movies of that nature would face the same uproar, and indeed have (the idea of 'snuff films')
    - mattstocum 13y ago
      Snuff films face uproar because they depict actual murder, not simulated. I'm not arguing it should be legal to sell video of an actual rape.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      Briefly and without detail? Really? Seen a zombie movie recently?
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        I don't think he's seen any "Game of Thrones", or "Tudors", either.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > Violent movies typically feature death but briefly and without detail. You watch boring movies.
    - anaptdemise 13y ago
      Torture Porn - A splatter film or gore film is a sub-genre of horror film that deliberately focuses on graphic portrayals of gore and graphic violence[1] Some are even torture porn with explicitly detailed and violent rape scenes[2]. These are also planned to be banned if I am not mistaken.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film [2] http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/15/a-serbian-film-shocks-midnight-audiences-at-sxsw/ http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/15/a-serbian-film-sho... [3.a] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/torture-porn-attitudes-assessed-bbfc_n_1664557.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/torture-porn-atti... [3.b] http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/50537/uk-film-censor-get-tougher-torture-porn-movies http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/50537/uk-film-censor-get-tough...
- damarquis 13y ago
  I don't see a reason this argument would apply to simulated rape but not simulated murder. A large number of people enjoy watching realistic simulated murder in movies, in TV, and in video games. Your argument predicts that murder rates would rise after the arrival of the internet as people who enjoy simulated murder use online echo chambers to validate their belief that murder should be acceptable (it's highly unlikely that they are watching simulated murder for pleasure). Except murder rates haven't risen since the arrival of the internet. Why?
- tomjen3 13y ago
  You could use the same argument to ban gay pride parades as being gay isn't normal (only about 10% of people are gays), but guess what? The law isn't designed to get you arrested if you do something that others don't want to do and it shouldn't be. So stop giving a shit about where other people put their genitalia, unless it was not consensual.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > So stop giving a shit about where other people put their genitalia, unless it was not consensual. In this context we're talking about rape, so unless you think that gay sex is rape then it's really not an appropriate analogy.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      No, we are talking about porn-rape, which is a) not real and b) between two consenting adults. Real rape isn't really relevant since nobody supports it (to my knowledge).
DuskStar 13y ago
And I'd disagree with it 100%. Think of this scenario - you own a warehouse, and have a security system installed, with cameras on all sides of the building. A couple of nights later, you get a call from the police - a rape was reported outside your building from the night before. Your security footage would be useful evidence, they say - so you hand it over, not bothering to consult a lawyer first. The next week, you accidentally cut off the county prosecutor driving to work, and he files charges for "possession of rape video", based on the footage you handed over to police. The law has no provision for Mens Rea, so you are quickly convicted and are now labelled a felon and sex offender. And that's just one of the reasons you shouldn't ban the possession of images/videos of an illegal act.
- mattstocum 13y ago
  I agree there's clearly room for nuance, but there always is. No law should ever be treated as black or white, that's why we have prosecutorial discretion, judges, and juries.
  - jwatte 13y ago
    It would be great if the world actually worked like that even when someone's promotion or political career was on the line. Selective enforcement leads to cronyism and arbitrariness.
- rmc 13y ago
  Almost certainly the law will be written so that it's images of rape that are designed/published/created for sexual goals. This isn't really hard to do, as you say, you can just include a "mens rea" bit. Laws include "intent" all the time.
rmc 13y ago
I find Justin Bieber to be "deeply offensive", why can't he be outlawed? Because you cannot show you were harmed to anywhere the same degree that being a rape victim could,

GeneralMayhem 13y ago

Even that opens up a lot of troubling possibilities when you get computers involved. Does scrolling /b/ and having the thumbnail of a picture that turns out to be an actual rape in your cache count as "possession?" If I email a bunch of rape porn to David Cameron, is he in "possession" of it? What if he downloads the attachment before realizing what it is? Ridiculous, sure - but what if it's not him but a suspect for other crimes or a political nuisance?

hahainternet 13y ago

The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.

king_jester 13y ago
> The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. This is true as you say for a wide of variety of topics, but criminalizing those kinds of echo chambers is absolutely useless. Giving a person or agency the ability to criminalize those echo chambers in general creates a method of censorship backed by the law for any group of people. > Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible. > That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form. I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > This is true as you say for a wide of variety of topics, but criminalizing those kinds of echo chambers is absolutely useless. Giving a person or agency the ability to criminalize those echo chambers in general creates a method of censorship backed by the law for any group of people. In this case it's not the echo chambers that would be criminalised, but the intention is to block the media that may influence people to seek out these echo chambers. I'm not convinced it will work but that is at least the logic used. > This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible. There are many theories on this but I am aware of no well controlled study into violent pornography. If the research exists I would love to read it. > I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it. I don't claim that it's a complete solution, but to deny it could solve problems at all requires evidence. I can understand the logic behind prohibiting it, and have seen some (relatively weak) evidence to support the idea that pornography can alter a young person's behaviour significantly based on them trying to emulate what they see as desirable.
  - mattstocum 13y ago
    > but to deny it could solve problems at all requires evidence No, to make something illegal, you should have to prove that it is harmful. There is no proof that rape porn is harmful. You can't just throw out a hypothesis and then say "prove me wrong". That's not how science works, and it's not how law should either.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
> It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. Do you have some evidence to support your opinion?
- hahainternet 13y ago
  I believe the evidence exists and I will spend the time to collate it for you if you can reasonably address the rest of my post.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >The harm is in convincing people that this is normal or reasonable. I'll assume that by "this" you mean rape fantasies. What if it is normal? Do you think there would still be harm in convincing people of that fact? > It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic. So? >Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. Is it? How so? What about romance novels? >It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. Not so fast. Are you assuming that anyone who would watch/read such a thing is trying to work up their nerve to commit/participate in a rape? Or that once they've seen a depiction that they'll be somehow compelled to go and rape someone? Here is a quote from an article in Psychology Today: "Many men daydream about getting the girl by rescuing her from a dangerous situation--without the slightest wish to confront armed thugs, or be trapped in a fire on the 23rd floor." Thanks to speeder below for the link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/wom... >By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable. Rapists may indeed seek justifications for their actions, or may wish to merely blame some external factor. Is it your opinion that suppressing such material would prevent the behavior? Can you support that opinion with evidence? How about the fact that rape has existed before pornography? Or that rape occurs in other social primates' groups (I'm assuming that no pornography exists for non-humans.)? >That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. Is there some proof that viewing or reading such material will cause previously ordinary people to become psychopath/rapists? Or is it merely popular to want to externalize blame for one's actions? >It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form. But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
thenomad 13y ago
Relevant: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/is-rape-porn-cultural-harm-argument.html http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/is-rape-porn-c...
- hahainternet 13y ago
  My problem with this article is that the assumptions used are simply mirrors of his criticisms. He remarks that 'all they have' is a number of convictions but the arguments on the other side are also particularly weak. Considering the film Avatar literally has what can only be considered an animal rape scene in it and very few people noticed and actually took children to watch it I don't think 'rape culture' is a particularly egregious term. I'm no uberfeminist, but I can certainly see how pornography is extremely abusive in most cases. There's a reason there is a genre called 'porn for women' whos primary draw is that there's no gagging or slapping or facials. Sure some women enjoy these actions, but why the heck is it everywhere in porn?
  - mattstocum 13y ago
    > Considering the film Avatar literally has what can only be considered an animal rape scene First, have you ever seen two animals have sex? It's almost always what humans would call rape. Second, the "animal rape" scene isn't any more rape than a human riding a horse is (I'm assuming you're referring to the Navi riding the dragon things). It depicted an activity that was normal for those species in their culture.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      Coerced sex does occur but 'almost always' is completely wrong. Besides I am not talking about two animals mating, as you then go on to say, it is a scene where a sapient, intelligent being subjugates a 'lesser' creature using a sexual organ for their own goals. It's really not something that belongs in a film that was so widely promoted.
      - mattstocum 13y ago
mattstocum 13y ago
How is rape porn any different than watching violent movies? Both depict illegal acts. Why is one okay, but the other not? The act of rape is illegal, why isn't that enough?
- hahainternet 13y ago
  There's quite a difference in degree isn't there? Violent movies typically feature death but briefly and without detail. Rape porn involves detailed and explicit humiliation of a single subject. Movies of that nature would face the same uproar, and indeed have (the idea of 'snuff films')
  - mattstocum 13y ago
    Snuff films face uproar because they depict actual murder, not simulated. I'm not arguing it should be legal to sell video of an actual rape.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Briefly and without detail? Really? Seen a zombie movie recently?
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      I don't think he's seen any "Game of Thrones", or "Tudors", either.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > Violent movies typically feature death but briefly and without detail. You watch boring movies.
  - anaptdemise 13y ago
    Torture Porn - A splatter film or gore film is a sub-genre of horror film that deliberately focuses on graphic portrayals of gore and graphic violence[1] Some are even torture porn with explicitly detailed and violent rape scenes[2]. These are also planned to be banned if I am not mistaken.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film [2] http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/15/a-serbian-film-shocks-midnight-audiences-at-sxsw/ http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/15/a-serbian-film-sho... [3.a] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/torture-porn-attitudes-assessed-bbfc_n_1664557.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/torture-porn-atti... [3.b] http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/50537/uk-film-censor-get-tougher-torture-porn-movies http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/50537/uk-film-censor-get-tough...
damarquis 13y ago
I don't see a reason this argument would apply to simulated rape but not simulated murder. A large number of people enjoy watching realistic simulated murder in movies, in TV, and in video games. Your argument predicts that murder rates would rise after the arrival of the internet as people who enjoy simulated murder use online echo chambers to validate their belief that murder should be acceptable (it's highly unlikely that they are watching simulated murder for pleasure). Except murder rates haven't risen since the arrival of the internet. Why?
tomjen3 13y ago
You could use the same argument to ban gay pride parades as being gay isn't normal (only about 10% of people are gays), but guess what? The law isn't designed to get you arrested if you do something that others don't want to do and it shouldn't be. So stop giving a shit about where other people put their genitalia, unless it was not consensual.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > So stop giving a shit about where other people put their genitalia, unless it was not consensual. In this context we're talking about rape, so unless you think that gay sex is rape then it's really not an appropriate analogy.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    No, we are talking about porn-rape, which is a) not real and b) between two consenting adults. Real rape isn't really relevant since nobody supports it (to my knowledge).

DuskStar 13y ago

And I'd disagree with it 100%. Think of this scenario - you own a warehouse, and have a security system installed, with cameras on all sides of the building. A couple of nights later, you get a call from the police - a rape was reported outside your building from the night before. Your security footage would be useful evidence, they say - so you hand it over, not bothering to consult a lawyer first. The next week, you accidentally cut off the county prosecutor driving to work, and he files charges for "possession of rape video", based on the footage you handed over to police. The law has no provision for Mens Rea, so you are quickly convicted and are now labelled a felon and sex offender. And that's just one of the reasons you shouldn't ban the possession of images/videos of an illegal act.

mattstocum 13y ago
I agree there's clearly room for nuance, but there always is. No law should ever be treated as black or white, that's why we have prosecutorial discretion, judges, and juries.
- jwatte 13y ago
  It would be great if the world actually worked like that even when someone's promotion or political career was on the line. Selective enforcement leads to cronyism and arbitrariness.
rmc 13y ago
Almost certainly the law will be written so that it's images of rape that are designed/published/created for sexual goals. This isn't really hard to do, as you say, you can just include a "mens rea" bit. Laws include "intent" all the time.

rmc 13y ago

I find Justin Bieber to be "deeply offensive", why can't he be outlawed? Because you cannot show you were harmed to anywhere the same degree that being a rape victim could,