‘Rape porn’ possession to be punished by three years in jail, David Cameron to announce

[BainsBane]

779. Wow. That's got to be the most bizarre posts I've ever read

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Mine was my interpretation of what the British law bans. It does not ban all porn or all rape porn, but it specifies certain kinds of porn which you can read about yourself.

That I don't think it problematic to ban extreme rape porn that studies have shown increase the likelihood viewers will commit rape means I am trivializing rape? If I object to the fact that some men enjoy watching women raped and mutilated for kicks, I trivialize rape? If I talk about link between human trafficking--slavery--and porn, I am trivializing rape? Because I object to the zeal with which some in these thread seek to maintain rape culture through porn and the absolute denial of the humanity or rights of women who appear in that genre means I am trivializing rape?

Tell me, if this rape porn is all so consensual, why do it's producers bill so much of it as real? I expect most of what pornographers claim is real is not, but its viewers want to believe its real. If they didn't, its makers would not bill it as being real.

I don't know what consent is? So who exactly gets to determine consent? Are you seriously claiming that I don't know when I consent to sex or not? I don't know what you all are imagining when you talk about consent in rape porn. You have no idea if the person raped in the film gave consent or not. The viewer doesn't ask her consent. Porn is not your personal sex life. It's commerce, the commodification of human bodies, in this case the commodification of simulated rape and even real rape. Some participants in porn consent in the sense they appear in those films because economic circumstances compels them to, others are forced into it through debt peonage and some are enslaved. The British law seeks to limit the most brutal kinds of porn that may in fact be depictions of actual rape, mutilation, and murder. Yeah, it's a major buzz kill that British men will have to watch simulated rape instead of actual rape. Clearly there is no freedom if they can't get off watching the actual rape and mutilation of women. That is what you are defending in your outrage to this law, and that you have the fucking nerve to tell me I don't know what consent is as low and deplorable of a statement as I've seen made on this site. That you think you get to determine what consent is for others is repulsive. That you think you get to tell rape survivors they are trivializing rape goes beyond any conception of human decency.

There are some bizarre arguments in this thread, but yours jumps the shark. Your desperation to justify a pornographic form that promotes brutality toward women has led you to some pretty fucked up arguments. There is low and then there is telling a woman she doesn't know what consent is. There is disgusting and then there is telling a rape survivor she is trivializing rape, all in some fucked up effort to justify the most brutal and extreme porn that exists.

I just noticed you edited your thread to make your prononcement of putting me on ignore. Good. Becasue I really don't need to talk to anyone who tells a woman she doesn't know what consent is, or tells a rape survivor she is trivializing rape because she doesn't find objectionable a law that seeks to keep women from being raped and beatend for the purient interest of men, something that is apparently so important to you than you sink to unbelievable depths in justifying it. I'll await your next attack on a rape survivor so you can tell her she doesn't know what consent is and she needs to shut the fuck up and go along with whatever men tell her to.