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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
>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/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?
> 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?
Certainly, rape is one of the most offensive crimes imaginable.
> So?
So the danger is on the Internet you can easily tailor your social circle to agree with you where such a thing would be impossible IRL.
> Is it? How so? What about romance novels?
Romance novels as far as I am aware do not involve crimes.
> 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?
Neither, simply that their fantasy is one of rape, not pretending to rape. If it's just a fantasy then it's creepy but ok, the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
> 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?
No of course I don't believe that suppressing such material would prevent the behaviour. The fact is that many rapists are mentally ill individuals. My hope is that careful management can reduce the exposure these individuals have to reinforcement.
> 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?
The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings. For example, that feminism is against the 'natural order'. That is quite a common one.
> But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants. It's a fine line to walk but I take issue with the idea that it's either all or nothing. It isn't, responsible measures can be taken without silencing dissent or isolating the vulnerable.
>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.
> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
Looking at the last two decades, I am willing to bet the freedom and diversity of the Internet is responsible for crushing far more dangerous "echo chambers." I am not sure how making a system less diverse or less free (as in speech) is a good thing. It is through diverse, open and free speech that echo chambers are canceled out. People searching out an "echo chamber" on the internet is no different than finding a church group or political group that exclusively prescribes to your views. History is filled with the negative effects of those social structures as well. The real "echo chamber" is a society that feels they know what is normal, appropriate and decent for everyone. It wasn't long ago that women were diagnosed with "female hysteria" and a bit longer since it was thought that whites and blacks couldn't interbreed.
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
- John Stuart Mill
>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.
This goes both ways. Someone predisposed to enjoy sex can be convinced that it is disgusting and wrong and there is something wrong with them. Someone with a predisposition to be open and trusting can be convinced that the whole of humanity is out to rape and murder them.
Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?"
- Joseph Henry Jackson
>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.
Romance novels are full of depictions of rape. The "unwilling woman in an arranged marriage/kidnapped by the male love interest is convinced that said marriage/kidnapping is totally okay via amazing sex" is an extremely common trope in historical/fantasy romance novels (the trashy kind with Fabio on the cover).
>rape is one of the most offensive crimes imaginable.
No disagreement there, but I said "rape fantasy". Do you consider them the same thing?
>So the danger is on the Internet you can easily tailor your social circle to agree with you where such a thing would be impossible IRL.
What's that got to do with anything here in this thread? Are you suggesting that HN is an enclave of rapists and aspiring rapists?
>Romance novels as far as I am aware do not involve crimes.
I'm told they do offer depictions of crimes. What other crimes should the depiction of be illegal and censored on the internet?
>Neither, simply that their fantasy is one of rape, not pretending to rape.
Completely unproven. You may repeat it all you like but you've offered no evidence.
> If it's just a fantasy then it's creepy but ok,
If it is just a fantasy then it is by definition, not rape, not an intention to rape, or a crime.
> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
There is no "echo chamber" of rape advocates.
>No of course I don't believe that suppressing such material would prevent the behaviour.
Then what good can come of suppressing the material?
>The fact is that many rapists are mentally ill individuals. My hope is that careful management can reduce the exposure these individuals have to reinforcement.
Why? It is a terribly dangerous precedent to set for something that you just admitted would not prevent rape.
>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.
So, even though it would not prevent rape, you want the whole of society to have their internet censored and monitored so that a small fraction of mentally ill people cannot(assuming the censorship is effective) get from the internet what you perceive would be a validation of their supposed deviant beliefs?
> For example, that feminism is against the 'natural order'. That is quite a common one.
You want to also censor debate that disagrees with feminists?
> But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together.
Even if there was a place where women discussed their rape fantasies?
> I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.
So you do, in fact want to start stamping out discussion of "deviant thought" on the internet. Should psychologists and therapists be required to report people who admit to having rape fantasies during counseling sessions, so the deviants can be monitored by their local police? Should they be marked with a tattoo (for everyone's safety)? Required to wear a tracking device?
> It's a fine line to walk but I take issue with the idea that it's either all or nothing. It isn't, responsible measures can be taken without silencing dissent or isolating the vulnerable.
Can you point to any past successes of censorship? Successful at either, preventing crime, or successful at not censoring unrelated content?
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?
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')
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]
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
>it is a scene where a sapient, intelligent being subjugates a 'lesser' creature using a sexual organ for their own goals
If you take out the "sexual organ" (I partially disagree with that term as it is also used for the transfer of thoughts) how is this any different than a human riding a horse? In both situations you have a sapient, intelligent being subjugating a "lesser" creature for their own goals.
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.