Fun Stuff > CHATTER
The Great Porn Debate
RedLion:
--- Quote from: tommydski on 24 Apr 2008, 13:57 ---
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 Apr 2008, 13:31 ---I know people who have sexual fantasies about being murdered or executed, why is the idea of people who fantasise about being raped so hard to swallow?
--- End quote ---
I am sure people fully believe they have rape fantasies and I'm sure you believe them.
My sole point is that I don't think it really counts as rape because they are complicit. I think it constitutes misuse of the term rape if they want it to happen.
I don't blame anyone for being confused, it's at the extreme end of semantics.
--- End quote ---
No, I understand what you're getting at, and I agree completely. By definition, rape is forced on one of the parties; it's absolutely and completely without any kind of consent. So fantasizing about "rape" is much different than actually fantasizing about really being raped, since the individual has obviously given themselves a sort of mental consent to do so.
Barmymoo:
--- Quote from: morca007 on 24 Apr 2008, 13:14 ---I swear this is the only serious post I will make in this thread:
Anyone who makes any sort of "x makes you do/think x" claim and can't back it up with reliable peer reviewed research is talking out of their ass.
--- End quote ---
This part of the conversation seems to have been smothered by a new tangent but I'm going to try and drag it out again.
We've been studying media violence in Sociology lately, and we've read a lot of conflicting theories that looked at the effects of media violence on young children. It's not quite the same thing as porn and not the same audience but presumably the same theory applies. Some of the studies found that watching violent films increased aggressiveness. Some found it didn't have an effect. Some found it decreased aggressiveness. I suppose the basic answer to be drawn from these studies is that a) it's hard to get a conclusive result from a laboratory-based experiment or b) different people respond in different ways to violence.
One thing we agreed on in class was that people who are not totally repulsed by violence are more likely to watch violent films, and to commit violence themselves, than people who hate it. That isn't to say that someone who likes to watch The Chainsaw Massacre (for example) is automatically going to go and kill people, but it's fairly safe to say that if you can't stand the idea of violence, you're neither going to enjoy watching nor committing it. The same probably goes for rape and sexual assault, although I don't have anything to back up this theory.
Oli:
Recently I did an essay about censorship of video nasties* in the Thatcher era and the general consensus I gleamed from the sources I used was that video violence was, if anything, a catalyst rather than a cause. By that I mean if you're predisposed to violence watching a violent film could drive you to commit a violent act but watching a violent film is not in itself making you a violent person. Think straw that broke the camels back (or perhaps a rather more apt comparison).
I think it's a very small leap from the way video violence (bearing in mind that includes sexual violence) affects people to the way porn (and even more closely violent porn) is likely to affect people.
*According to the report Video Violence and Children (One of my main sources) Video Nasties are “Feature films that contained scenes of such violence and sadism involving either human beings or animals that they would not be granted a certificate by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) for general release for public exhibition in Britain”. The term includes films like the evil dead, I spit on your grave and driller killer.
Ozymandias:
There's a book that recently came out that I really need to read called Grand Theft Childhood that shows a correlation between not playing violent video games and feelings of aggression. It also shows a correlation between playing too many violent video games and feelings of aggression.
And when you stop and think about it, it starts to make sense. Very aggressive and sometimes violent games have been in human societies for millennia. Other primates fight each other for fun when they're bored. Isn't it plausible that this was an instinctual device not just to train themselves to fight, but also to release aggression in a safer manner than actual violence? If someone isn't releasing their violent tendencies, it can build up into something worse. If they're overdoing that release, it's a symptom of a very violent person to begin with.
Like I said, though, I haven't actually read the book or its sources, but thinking about that, it made sense...
Darkbluerabbit:
The most violence-prone girl I know didn't even grow up with a TV. She read a lot of Sci-Fi though.
--- Quote from: 20 jazz funk greats on 24 Apr 2008, 20:35 ---does this masters and johnson theory have anything to say about MEN that fantasize about getting raped?
it's all hurrrr women do not feel comfortable with their sexual desires and therefore want to reinforce their own feelings of guilt about them hurrr.
seems a bit outdated to me. but hey, what do i know, i'm a girl, and that clearly indicates i don't like non-procreative sex. :roll:
--- End quote ---
Like I said, it was an older book. Late 80s, I think. But, if you think that women don't still receive negative messages about being sexual, then I envy the world you live in.
They did indeed make a point about men, but it had to do with being raped by another male. Some of the men they spoke to (they do a lot of interview based studies) who identified as straight said that they had fantasies about homosexual rape. Again, M&J theorized that they felt ashamed of having homosexual fantasies and had to put it in the context of forced sex to take the "blame" off of themselves.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version