rape in fiction

[Queeb Salaron]

Hey, guys, his arguments aren't all that terrible. He made a few slips, though, that he needs to clarify. I mean, granted, his wording of his opinion is fucked up beyond belief, but I think he might actually have a point to all of this that we can all relate to, if he answers a few simple questions. If his answers aren't satisfactory, then we can flame him all we want. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt one more time.

That said, I wanna as you a few things, Twit:

But if you insist about dwelling upon the physical attributes of death try torture vs rape. The point is the same, if we can glorify violence, why not rape?

And then:

Why is that we can have games like grand theft auto, movies like Red Dragon, and yet anything with a rape sequence not handled perfectly with full socio-political implications noted gets hung out to dry? It just seems to be a double standard to me.

Why are you advocating the display of rape in the media? Most of us can agree that in modern society, we have become desensitized to certain images of violence. In part, that makes us a rather violent culture, as is evidenced by the 2 million Americans in prison today. Because of this desenitization (not just through media, but through the experiences of certain generations), certain violent images no longer affect us as deeply as they affected other generations. Are you advocating that we as a culture be subjected to the same desensitization of rape through media? If so, don't you think this will lead to modern society becoming not only violent, but sexually aggressive?

I suppose that depends on your point of view. Which did you find to be more appalling? The plastic shredders used to chop people into itty bitty pieces, or the state-funded "Rape Rooms" of Iraq?

The shredders. It just illicits more of, "THAT'S SICK AND WRONG!!!" response than the rape rooms. At the very least the rape rooms are something from which the victim can recover from. As you say death is final.

Here you tell us that murder is heinous, and rape is less so. Gruesome deaths are terribly offensive to look at, yes. But the violation of a person's most sacred essence is worse than any death I could imagine, or AT LEAST on the same level. You say that torture is "sick and wrong," but you never say the same for rape. Tell us, Twit, is rape "sick and wrong" in all cases? And if so, can you argue that murder is "sick and wrong" in all cases as well? I would argue that rape is always sick, and murder is only USUALLY sick. Terrorists get shot by the police before they have the chance to commit an atrocity: This is not sick. But any man or woman being raped is CERTAINLY ALWAYS sick. Why do you not make that distinction?

Sure writing about a person who loves being tortured is not common, but is it intrinsically any different than writing about someone who enjoys being raped? Just because one failing is more common than the other does not mean they are not in the same vein.

I defy you to give an example of a person who likes being raped. It's impossible, because such a person does not exist by definition of the term "rape." Rape, as you have said, is non-consentual sex. Which means that the victim doesn't want to have sex. How can someone enjoy something that they do not want? How can they like doing something that they do not enjoy?

The basic point is the same why do we care if a movie has a serial rapist protaganist or if a movie has a serial killer protaganist?

Because, as I have pointed out, rape is a much more sensitive topic than murder. Murders happen all the time. We see them on the news, walk by murder scenes on the streets, even joke about "killing that asshole" with our friends. No one ever jokes about rape. The police deal with crimes of rape on a very personal level without much outward show. We only see the most extreme cases of rape on television, and those are few and far between. And this is good. If rapists got publicity like murderers did, there would be a lot more rape. Rapists are all about demonstrations of power, and getting their victims on TV is certainly a display of power. That is why we care so much as to the nature of our pro / antagonists. Why do you NOT care that people could be subjected to this kind of thing?

[Ignorant twit]

Curios, you have "a real life" that precludes you from doing something simple like I dunno quoting something that I allegedly said blatantly; yet you are here firing off one liner replies ... and still not willing to quote that which you allege exists.

Probably because EVERYONE ELSE HAS DONE IT AT LEAST FIVE TIMES EACH ALREADY!!!!!!

Notice how it changes, when pointed out that his "real life" BS didn't cut it if he wanted to keep on insulting me, he now retreats to everbody else has done it.

Okay, fine Einy ... quote somebody else quoting where I directly and blatantly condoned of non-consensual sex.


Queeb:
Sorry I missed your intelligent posts against the backdrops of Einy's rants.

Why would threatening them make them want to kill their victims? Generally speaking, rapists aren't murderers.

To hide the crime. Generally speaking it is easier to catch a criminal if you have a witness. If you are dead either way ... what incentive does a sociopath have to not up the crime? If this doesn't hold true, then I fully support lethal injections for rapists.

The only reason we don't like your arguments is because you're coming off as a callous, unfeeling bastard. True, you never said that rapists were justified. But you never condemned them, either.

I took that to be a given. My apologies. Rapists are the scum of the earth, the sick bastards are a menace to society. If a victim shoots her rapist she should be given a medal, not a trial (as happens on occassion), and I don't care if she does it in a heat of rage or if she tracks the bastard back to his apartment and snipes him from the window.

There is a LOT more to pleasure than physical sensation. Rape victims can achieve orgasm, true. But it's not a pleasurable experience, because they're still being raped. Physical pleasure has nothing to do with anything, and, as you pointed out, it is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is the mental / emotional trauma suffered by the victims, and you have yet to address that topic.

Because I don't presume to know anything about said trauma. Pleasure I can measure. Give me a decent neuro lab and we can see if the pleasure systems are active. Emotional and physcological trauma I cannot place into a bottle, like we have done with pleasure and pain. I simply assume that the trauma most (and I only refrain from saying all because I don't know) go through is hideous and similar to the trauma that comes when a family member is murdered (something I am familiar with).

Rape is bad. It causes trauma and life altering problems that take great stamina of character to overcome. The question of wether or not your brain floods with dopamine and you feel pleasure is irrelevant to all of this.

You must choose the way you respond to these posts very carefully, friend. You speak volumes by not saying anything.

So I've noticed, I'm being burned for things I have never said.

Why are you advocating the display of rape in the media? Most of us can agree that in modern society, we have become desensitized to certain images of violence. In part, that makes us a rather violent culture, as is evidenced by the 2 million Americans in prison today. Because of this desenitization (not just through media, but through the experiences of certain generations), certain violent images no longer affect us as deeply as they affected other generations. Are you advocating that we as a culture be subjected to the same desensitization of rape through media? If so, don't you think this will lead to modern society becoming not only violent, but sexually aggressive?

Personal opinion? I think we should work towards less glorification of violence. We do have a double standard about what you can show for violence and what you can show for rape.

I have yet to see evidence that either violence or rape protrayal has tangible effect on the real world.

Here you tell us that murder is heinous, and rape is less so. Gruesome deaths are terribly offensive to look at, yes. But the violation of a person's most sacred essence is worse than any death I could imagine, or AT LEAST on the same level. You say that torture is "sick and wrong," but you never say the same for rape. Tell us, Twit, is rape "sick and wrong" in all cases? And if so, can you argue that murder is "sick and wrong" in all cases as well? I would argue that rape is always sick, and murder is only USUALLY sick. Terrorists get shot by the police before they have the chance to commit an atrocity: This is not sick. But any man or woman being raped is CERTAINLY ALWAYS sick. Why do you not make that distinction?

Rape, is always sick and wrong. The ONLY exception I have is when the "statutory" part of statutory rape is utterly nuts, for instance if statutory rape is defined as sex with anyone under 21.

Murder, noting the difference between it and homocide, is always sick and wrong. Again if the laws are whack then I don't have a problem, for instance if your country says killing somebody attacking you is murder ... the system is wrong and it SHOULDN'T be classsed as murder.

with no dick wrote:
Oh cut the crap. A woman is at a club. She has a few drinks with an attractive man. They go back to his place. He slips her a roofer and she blacks out. She comes to is bound, gagged, and is being screwed six ways to sunday. She, having a B&D fetish, enjoys the sex.

Having never consent she still enjoys it.

In fiction we come to a classic sci-fi/fantasy scene where the victim is drugged with some type of euphoric and enjoys the behavior ... yet never consented to it.


Your words moron. Your blatant appogism for rapists.

Hardly, allow me to quote from elsewhere in that post,
"Pleasurable != consent. Pleasure is a neurological condition, it does not necissitate cognizant consent. "

I take issue with anyone who says enjoyment/pleasure/etc. negates the crime of rape. My point was, and always has been, that pleasure is a neurological response NOT predicated upon consent. As pleasure is NOT the same as consent, it is NOT justification for rape. If rape occurs and the pleasure response goes off ... it is STILL RAPE. The Bastard should still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I've read plenty of literature where victims of statutory rape (as in adults having sex with 12 year olds) describe deriving pleasure from the statutory rape. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE RAPE. Unless there is informed consent ahead of time it is rape and the bastard should be dealt with accordingly.

[Mad]

We do have a double standard about what you can show for violence and what you can show for rape.

I have yet to see evidence that either violence or rape protrayal has tangible effect on the real world.

I posted this earlier, but it was right during a wave of posts so it sorta got lost:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 964#472964

[Queeb Salaron]

To hide the crime. Generally speaking it is easier to catch a criminal if you have a witness. If you are dead either way ... what incentive does a sociopath have to not up the crime? If this doesn't hold true, then I fully support lethal injections for rapists.

Well, I don't think I ever argued that rapists should get the death penalty. Maybe I (or someone else) made the off-hand comment that they should be shot, but nothing beyond that. Certainly 25-life (the standard penalty for willful, unprovoked, gruesome homicide in most states, IIRC) would be sufficient.

But I do see your point. Even with a life sentence, what would stop them from killing their victims? If they're caught, they're in jail either way. So why not just kill the victim and try to hide her? ::Nods:: I see your point. But I would like to think that increasing the sentencing for rapes would decrease the number of rapes for a given state, simply due to the scare-factor. Maybe there's evidence of this somewhere...?

I took that to be a given. My apologies. Rapists are the scum of the earth, the sick bastards are a menace to society. If a victim shoots her rapist she should be given a medal, not a trial (as happens on occassion), and I don't care if she does it in a heat of rage or if she tracks the bastard back to his apartment and snipes him from the window.

That's a very good thing. And a good answer, as well.

Because I don't presume to know anything about said trauma. Pleasure I can measure. Give me a decent neuro lab and we can see if the pleasure systems are active. Emotional and physcological trauma I cannot place into a bottle, like we have done with pleasure and pain. I simply assume that the trauma most (and I only refrain from saying all because I don't know) go through is hideous and similar to the trauma that comes when a family member is murdered (something I am familiar with).

Well, I would assume that you could sympathize and make a generalization that all women who are raped are subject to SOME kind of trauma, though the degrees of it may vary. I think that's something you can safely assume from here on out. It would make you seem less callous.

You can sit a girl down on a psychiatrist's couch and find out if she's traumatized or not. Evaluation of data does not always have to be quantitative.

Rape is bad. It causes trauma and life altering problems that take great stamina of character to overcome. The question of wether or not your brain floods with dopamine and you feel pleasure is irrelevant to all of this.

Right. Good.

So I've noticed, I'm being burned for things I have never said.

No, you said some things that could be taken the wrong way. That was the purpose of my last post -- to illustrate some of those things and why people took them the wrong way.

Personal opinion? I think we should work towards less glorification of violence. We do have a double standard about what you can show for violence and what you can show for rape.

Yes, but isn't this double-standard necessary to keep rape on the screen and, to an extent, out of our every-day lives?

I have yet to see evidence that either violence or rape protrayal has tangible effect on the real world.

I wish I had saved the notes from a criminology class I went to last week, because Dr. Levin (of Northeastern University) made a reference to an experiment wherein a group of 12 men were exposed to slasher flicks with rape scenes and excessive violence. After a week of watching something like 8 hours a day of slasher flicks, they emerged with excessively aggressive behavior. They said that they were more inclined to rape a woman, as was done in the movies, after the week was over. They were eventually conditioned out of their psychosis, of course, but it was still there after the week was through. I wish I could remember the name of the experiment. Can anyone help me out with that?

Rape, is always sick and wrong. The ONLY exception I have is when the "statutory" part of statutory rape is utterly nuts, for instance if statutory rape is defined as sex with anyone under 21.

Careful. Child rape is considered statutory rape. You have to be more definite. I think two 15-year olds having consentual sex is not rape. But a 24-year old and a 13-year old having sex is just wrong. That part of statutory rape I agree with. Please redefine.

Murder, noting the difference between it and homocide, is always sick and wrong. Again if the laws are whack then I don't have a problem, for instance if your country says killing somebody attacking you is murder ... the system is wrong and it SHOULDN'T be classsed as murder.

Ok, but how does that relate to rape? Is rape ever justified like homicide is? (I mean by the "non-consentual" and "severely over/underage" definitions, not the "consentual 15-year olds" definition.)

Your words moron. Your blatant appogism for rapists.

No it wasn't. He was simply stating that just because a woman may deomnstrate the biochemical signs of pleasure, it does not mean that she enjoyed the act, nor that she gave consent. Which means it's still rape. He's saying that regardless of how much biochemical pleasure sensors react in the brain, non-consentual sex is still rape. Pleasure has nothing to do with anything.

I understand that you're very emotional about this, Pounder, but he wasn't advocating for rapists.

Unless there is informed consent ahead of time it is rape and the bastard should be dealt with accordingly.

"Informed consent" only applies to experimentation on human subjects. Just "consent" will do here.

[The Yosemite Bear]

If we decide to shoot this asshole, I get dibs after Wong.

Sure!

*hands Queeb a Railgun, a crate of DU Rail Slugs, and a pup tent*

Happy Camping!!

Sorry, but the order of shooting him in the head goes: LadyTevar, SirNitram, Drath Pounder, me, THEN Wong (in order of perosnal nerves he hit)

Hey, WHAT about ME, I started chewing his ass early one, because of this shit. I had to grow up with a physically abusive misgynistic stepdad, so I am pretty close on the know as to what the crime does to people.

and except my absense in the last few days due to work had been involved in this thread....

[Ignorant twit]

Mad: Your study does not show a link between rape and portrayal of rape. Without evidence to the contrary I assume such links to not exist.

Well, I don't think I ever argued that rapists should get the death penalty. Maybe I (or someone else) made the off-hand comment that they should be shot, but nothing beyond that. Certainly 25-life (the standard penalty for willful, unprovoked, gruesome homicide in most states, IIRC) would be sufficient.

I'm a beleiver in the death penalty. If you are not redeemable to society and you have committed a henious crime, I have no problems offing you. That should always be the maximum punishment for a henious crime ... if nothing else it gives life as a plea bargain option.

But I do see your point. Even with a life sentence, what would stop them from killing their victims? If they're caught, they're in jail either way. So why not just kill the victim and try to hide her? ::Nods:: I see your point. But I would like to think that increasing the sentencing for rapes would decrease the number of rapes for a given state, simply due to the scare-factor. Maybe there's evidence of this somewhere...?

If rape gives a life sentence and murder + rape gives a lethal injection it would deter killing the victim if the criminal would rather live in jail than die outright.

It is a tradeoff between deterring the crime in the first place and not giving the criminal incentive to make their crime worse.

Well, I would assume that you could sympathize and make a generalization that all women who are raped are subject to SOME kind of trauma, though the degrees of it may vary. I think that's something you can safely assume from here on out. It would make you seem less callous.

I beleive so.

You can sit a girl down on a psychiatrist's couch and find out if she's traumatized or not. Evaluation of data does not always have to be quantitative.

Real data is quantitative But the problem with qualitative data is getting a repeatable metric. If we sit the same victim down with two different pysciatrists will they give us the same data? Is there a way to standardize the data?

There is a reason the only phsycology I trust involves things MRI, PET, etc.

Yes, but isn't this double-standard necessary to keep rape on the screen and, to an extent, out of our every-day lives?

I, personally, don't employ this double standard. I don't go see movies I think are going to be gratuitious violence or poorly protrayed rape. If a book I'm reading goes too far into either I simply close it. It is my guess that any form of societal control will eventually backfire.

I wish I had saved the notes from a criminology class I went to last week, because Dr. Levin (of Northeastern University) made a reference to an experiment wherein a group of 12 men were exposed to slasher flicks with rape scenes and excessive violence. After a week of watching something like 8 hours a day of slasher flicks, they emerged with excessively aggressive behavior. They said that they were more inclined to rape a woman, as was done in the movies, after the week was over. They were eventually conditioned out of their psychosis, of course, but it was still there after the week was through. I wish I could remember the name of the experiment. Can anyone help me out with that?

Now this is what I'm referring to in proof, granted not the best of data to judge off but still something. I'd have to see the article to make a judgement if the data and methodology are valid. If there is a casual relationship between misportrayal of rape and the real world, then that MUST be taken into account.

Careful. Child rape is considered statutory rape. You have to be more definite. I think two 15-year olds having consentual sex is not rape. But a 24-year old and a 13-year old having sex is just wrong. That part of statutory rape I agree with. Please redefine.

Where I live the law is 16 and up is fine. Under 13 is life. Over 13 is 15 years.

My only real qualm with these laws is that 15 years is much too low.


Now if the law read 21 and up is fine, while 13-21 is statutory rape ... I'd find that to be stupid.

As long as your laws are halfway sane, rape is always sick and wrong.

Ok, but how does that relate to rape? Is rape ever justified like homicide is? (I mean by the "non-consentual" and "severely over/underage" definitions, not the "consentual 15-year olds" definition.)

[The Yosemite Bear]

Do not tempt the bear's dark side to come out of it's much seculded hibernation. I still have nightmares of what I can do to another living being for crossing that line. My sister is currently phoning and emailing me because of the actions of her ex-husband, and I really am not that forgiving of my own gender right now.

yet yet i type in mostly lowercase, dispasionate because i am just too pissed for emotion. rape is about power, turning someone into an object. twit you really are pushing things a bit too far.

[Ignorant twit]

bah hit enter too soon.

Murder != homicide. Homocide is simply killing another person, this can be quite legal. It can even be a good thing. Given a sensible legal definition of murder, murder is never justified. Just as rape, given a sensible legal definition, is never justified.

"Informed consent" only applies to experimentation on human subjects. Just "consent" will do here.

Whichever. I just want to be absolutely clear that this consent is not under duress, not given by someone incable of doing so, etc.

[Ignorant twit]

Do not tempt the bear's dark side to come out of it's much seculded hibernation. I still have nightmares of what I can do to another living being for crossing that line. My sister is currently phoning and emailing me because of the actions of her ex-husband, and I really am not that forgiving of my own gender right now.

yet yet i type in mostly lowercase, dispasionate because i am just too pissed for emotion. rape is about power, turning someone into an object. twit you really are pushing things a bit too far.

Your sisters ex-husband sounds like one of the peices of scum that should be locked away for a good long time.

To be honest I don't understand what I ACTUALLY said is causing all this grief. Basically my point of view is that rape is non-consentual sex. Rapist should be tossed away, and NOTHING is a valid excuse ... not "She asked for it", not "she dressed for it", not "she enjoyed it". If consent wasn't given ... rotting in jail is a good place for you.

[Queeb Salaron]

Ok, can we let Twit off the hook now? He's explained his position, depsite the fact that his prior posts were called into question. And his position, save a few debatable points, are not that different from the positions expressed by the members who are most offended. Why this got so out of hand, I don't know. I think all of us made some rash comments, and Twit deserves our apologies. So let me be the first to apologize.

And let this serve as a reminder to those who really ARE of the opinion that we accused Twit of having, that such opinions will NOT be overlooked in this forum, and that such behavior is NOT acceptable. In my mind, Twit has been cleared of the accusations made against him, and I will contend this point from here on out. I choose to side with him because his opinion is not terribly different (details aside) than everyone else's. The only difference is his stance on media portrayal, and that's negligible. So now I encourage everyone to speak with a civil tongue. This man is clean.

--QS

[Dalton]

I agree with Queeb. The sort of mob mentality I watched unfold here is disturbing.

[Mad]

Mad: Your study does not show a link between rape and portrayal of rape. Without evidence to the contrary I assume such links to not exist.

It was the closest part of your message I could quote to make a response. I was mainly trying to explain why there's an apparent double-standard. Attitudes about rape can be reflected by authors of fiction (their misconceptions appear in their works), and people's attitudes about rape can be shaped some by fiction. Having popular stereotypical misconceptions reinforced (confirmation bias) certainly isn't going to do any good, especially regarding those affected by rape. Add to that the fact that sex in general is much more taboo than violence with intent to injure or kill (in the USA, at least), and it shouldn't be difficult to understand why depicting murders is more acceptable than depicting rape.

Of course, then the question becomes "why is sex more taboo than fighting"? But finding the answer to that should help lead to figuring out this alleged double standard.

[Queeb Salaron]

Of course, then the question becomes "why is sex more taboo than fighting"? But finding the answer to that should help lead to figuring out this alleged double standard.

Sex isn't more taboo than fighting. Rape is more taboo than murder. There is a DEFINITE difference.

But to answer the implied question, America was raised (and is currently being nursed) by Puritan standards. That's why states still outlaw sodomy and all homo-erotic acts, and why some politicians are bent on telling Americans what their family values should be. It is also part of the reason for our outrageous drug laws. The Pilgrims stepped off of the Mayflower not 5 miles from where I'm sitting right now, and the laws that they created to govern themselves have changed little since. As the old joke goes, why were Puritans against having sex standing up? Because it may lead to dancing.

And even now, when club dancing actually DOES resemble vertical sex, we still see remnants of the Puritan age. Sometimes I wonder if anyone but me recognizes this fact.

And if I could, I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could photoshop a picture of Santorum with a big black puritan hat and one of those huge shiny belt buckles.

[Darth Wong]

Mad: Your study does not show a link between rape and portrayal of rape. Without evidence to the contrary I assume such links to not exist.

So you feel that every study on the effectiveness of indoctrination and desensitization techniques is bullshit? Because that's all this is; a lower-level form of the same phenomenon. And by the way, NO ONE EVER PORTRAYS A MURDER VICTIM ENJOYING IT.

BTW, you are still attempting to change the subject from "is it a good or bad thing to write about this" to "can you PROVE that women will DEFINITELY get raped more often if someone writes about this"; a shameless attempt to polarize the subject into black and white.

I'm a beleiver in the death penalty. If you are not redeemable to society and you have committed a henious crime, I have no problems offing you. That should always be the maximum punishment for a henious crime ... if nothing else it gives life as a plea bargain option.

Perhaps you will explain that to the family of the next rape victim that gets murdered under your scheme, since there would be no incentive whatsoever NOT to kill the victim if you make it a capital offense. In fact, there is a very strong incentive to kill the victim in that case, since you are less likely to be caught with no living witness.

Real data is quantitative But the problem with qualitative data is getting a repeatable metric. If we sit the same victim down with two different pysciatrists will they give us the same data? Is there a way to standardize the data?

There is a reason the only phsycology I trust involves things MRI, PET, etc.

And what does any of this have to do with your attacks against our position that it's bad to portray rape in a positive light for fiction purposes?

As long as your laws are halfway sane, rape is always sick and wrong.

Then what was the point of all your bullshit about how rape can be pleasurable?

[Queeb Salaron]

Wong, please cool your jets a bit... You're taking these statements a bit out of context.

Mad: Your study does not show a link between rape and portrayal of rape. Without evidence to the contrary I assume such links to not exist.

So you feel that every study on the effectiveness of indoctrination and desensitization techniques is bullshit? Because that's all this is; a lower-level form of the same phenomenon. And by the way, NO ONE EVER PORTRAYS A MURDER VICTIM ENJOYING IT.

It's not that he believes it's bullshit, Wong, it's just that he hasn't seen these studies. I offered a piece of evidence that was alluring to him, but I couldn't find anymore information on it. I'll keep looking, though. And as soon as I find the study, I'm sure he'll agree to any point that follows from it. And your last statement is true: No one really ever portrays a murder victim enjoying his death. But there are portrayals of people who enjoy killing. Hell, look at House of 1000 Corpses.

BTW, you are still attempting to change the subject from "is it a good or bad thing to write about this" to "can you PROVE that women will DEFINITELY get raped more often if someone writes about this"; a shameless attempt to polarize the subject into black and white.

I don't think he's trying to polarize it, really... He's just asking for some evidence. He's trying to tie the two subjects together by defining the "good" in "is it good to write about rape" as "does it have a profound negative impact on the minds of those who read it?" Personally, I think the answer is no. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It is the demented mind that seeks to read about rape, not the literature that makes a demented mind. But I don't know if Twit shares that opinion.

I'm a beleiver in the death penalty. If you are not redeemable to society and you have committed a henious crime, I have no problems offing you. That should always be the maximum punishment for a henious crime ... if nothing else it gives life as a plea bargain option.

Perhaps you will explain that to the family of the next rape victim that gets murdered under your scheme, since there would be no incentive whatsoever NOT to kill the victim if you make it a capital offense. In fact, there is a very strong incentive to kill the victim in that case, since you are less likely to be caught with no living witness.

Wong, you've really got to read ALL of the stuff he has to say. Of course he'd like to see the death penalty inflicted upon rapists. We all would like to see those bastards rot in hell, or be tortured to death, or have their penises lopped off. Twit also made the same argument that you did: If we offered the death penalty for rape, there would be no reason for rapists to keep their victims alive. Here's exactly what he said:

Generally speaking it is easier to catch a criminal if you have a witness. If you are dead either way ... what incentive does a sociopath have to not up the crime? If this doesn't hold true, then I fully support lethal injections for rapists.

See? He said the exact same thing that you did.

Real data is quantitative But the problem with qualitative data is getting a repeatable metric. If we sit the same victim down with two different pysciatrists will they give us the same data? Is there a way to standardize the data?

There is a reason the only phsycology I trust involves things MRI, PET, etc.

And what does any of this have to do with your attacks against our position that it's bad to portray rape in a positive light for fiction purposes?

Nothing. I asked him to answer a question for me. It was a bit OT; we were talking about rape in general, not rape as it pertained to fiction.

As long as your laws are halfway sane, rape is always sick and wrong.

Then what was the point of all your bullshit about how rape can be pleasurable?

He said that rape can be BIOCHEMICALLY pleasurable. That means that if you were to stick electrodes in the pleasure centers of rape victims that weren't drugged, you'd get a viable reading. As far as WE define pleasure, though, it is anything but. It was an idle, off-hand comment that he made in reference to Hotfoots assertion that sometimes pleasure implies consent for "rough sex" (see: BDSM sex).

Hope that cleared things up a bit.

EDIT: FIxed the quotes. 2x.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, to interject on the matter of killing - Sometimes it can be consensual, after a fashion. In warfare the individuals involved know they can be killed, and have signed up with the full knowledge of what their positions entail. Their goal is to kill, and part of that goal requires them often to exposure themselves to being killed.

Murder is the intentional killing of someone who didn't make a conscious decision to put themselves into that process. Depicting murder is then very different from depicting military conflict.

In the same way, you'd sorta have to wonder about someone who played a combat simulation game solely to gun down the innocent civilians, wouldn't you?

[Queeb Salaron]

<snip>

Eh, I dunno about the consentuality of military deaths... I mean, if it were consentual, they wouldn't try to preserve their lives at all costs.

[Darth Wong]

It's not that he believes it's bullshit, Wong, it's just that he hasn't seen these studies. I offered a piece of evidence that was alluring to him, but I couldn't find anymore information on it. I'll keep looking, though. And as soon as I find the study, I'm sure he'll agree to any point that follows from it. And your last statement is true: No one really ever portrays a murder victim enjoying his death. But there are portrayals of people who enjoy killing. Hell, look at House of 1000 Corpses.

That's the whole point though, isn't it? I said at the very beginning of this thread that the question of whether rape in fiction is bad depends on whether you portray it as a good thing or a bad thing. Someone who portrays rape as a good thing is sick, and there is a real risk that people who are exposed to the kind of porno which makes rape seem enjoyable will feed the all-too-common mindset that women want it. Writers like Heinlein have even said as much; it is hardly such an unusual mindset that one can easily dismiss its existence.

BTW, you are still attempting to change the subject from "is it a good or bad thing to write about this" to "can you PROVE that women will DEFINITELY get raped more often if someone writes about this"; a shameless attempt to polarize the subject into black and white.

I don't think he's trying to polarize it, really... He's just asking for some evidence.

In other words, he's assuming that a face-value despicable act like showing rape in a positive light should be assumed good until proven bad despite its obviously heinous nature, until we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people actually act on this. This is like saying that simulated child porn is OK as long as you can't prove people actually go and rape children as a result.

*waits for someone to try to turn this into a civil liberties discussion*

He's trying to tie the two subjects together by defining the "good" in "is it good to write about rape" as "does it have a profound negative impact on the minds of those who read it?" Personally, I think the answer is no. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It is the demented mind that seeks to read about rape, not the literature that makes a demented mind. But I don't know if Twit shares that opinion.

Chicken and egg. It's more likely a bit of both. Unless, of course, you have some reasoning or evidence to argue that repetitive depiction of an idea will have no effect whatsoever on implanting that idea into the mind of a reader (seems to work quite well for religion).

Wong, you've really got to read ALL of the stuff he has to say. Of course he'd like to see the death penalty inflicted upon rapists. We all would like to see those bastards rot in hell, or be tortured to death, or have their penises lopped off. Twit also made the same argument that you did: If we offered the death penalty for rape, there would be no reason for rapists to keep their victims alive. Here's exactly what he said:

Generally speaking it is easier to catch a criminal if you have a witness. If you are dead either way ... what incentive does a sociopath have to not up the crime? If this doesn't hold true, then I fully support lethal injections for rapists.

See? He said the exact same thing that you did.

OK, fair enough. I was hasty on that one.

He said that rape can be BIOCHEMICALLY pleasurable. That means that if you were to stick electrodes in the pleasure centers of rape victims that weren't drugged, you'd get a viable reading. As far as WE define pleasure, though, it is anything but.

Then what does it have to do with anything and why was he fighting so hard to defend the point?

It was an idle, off-hand comment that he made in reference to Hotfoots assertion that sometimes pleasure implies consent for "rough sex" (see: BDSM sex).

There is a such thing as implied consent, but that has nothing to do with this bizarre argument that rape can be pleasurable.

[Nova Andromeda]

"There is a such thing as implied consent, but that has nothing to do with this bizarre argument that rape can be pleasurable."
--What is your definition of rape? If an "of age" woman is drunk and has sex with an unintoxicated man it is considered rape (at least where I grew up) since she was unable consent due to being intoxicated. This remains true even if the woman wanted to have sex before, during, and after the fact. Are you saying this form of rape cannot be pleasurable for the woman? If that is the case what is your definition of pleasure or do you believe sex cannot be pleasurable while one is intoxicated?
-You should note that I do consider the above crime of rape as a crime though not as heinous as forceable rape where the man physically forces himself upon woman (I guess that would be aggravated rape or rape with special circumstances).
-As a sidenote, I know for a fact that many people have sex while intoxicated regardless of the law.
-As far as punishment is concerned I think women (who have both been raped and suffered other horrible trama) should be asked what they would chose if forced to chose between rape and the other kinds of trama (e.g., would you rather be raped or lose a hand?, an arm?, be killed?). The punishment for rape should then be adjusted to the crime that women in general consider equivalent to rape plus manditory castration and possible hormone therapy (estrogen worked on my parents' cat).

[Edi]

Oh I see I'm supposed to prove that misportroyal of rape doesn't have an effect in the real world I take it your principle of parsimony only applies when its on your side.

You claim there is an effect ... your burden of proof.

Hey fucktard, did you happen to miss Lady Tevar's post, and the one by Mad, which quoted a scientific study at that? You've been given proof, and you've chosen to ignore it because it shows your position to be utter bullshit.

I don't think misportrayal of rape has real world effects. The principle of parsimony says we should not assume that misportrayal of rape has real world effects without proof. If you have proof to the contrary then we can talk.

Again I don't think that the misportrayal of rape has gross tangible real world effects. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but I don't accept a premise of A causes B without proof.

You've already been given the evidence, by Lady Tevar and Mad, you turdfucking fucktard! That evidence directly demolishes your ridiculous claims, and only reinforces what everyone else here was saying. All you've done in response is semantic nitpicking, evasions, backpedaling and lies. Fuck off!

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

<snip>

Eh, I dunno about the consentuality of military deaths... I mean, if it were consentual, they wouldn't try to preserve their lives at all costs.

Don't try to make an exact comparison; that would be ridiculous. However, a broad synthesis can be found, I think. Military personnel consent to risk their lives. Granted, there is the qualifier of risk, which is a pretty big one - Nobody in the military wants to die (barring cases like Imperial Japan) - but they still volunteered for the action of combat. They knew there would be bullets flying around, etc.

People driven in front of tanks with machine guns pointed at them to clear minefields by an army did not consent to have that done to them, nor did, obviously, some random person walking down the street in a city who gets hit by a bomb. This is why civilian casualties excite such anger.

Now, note, I'm only making this comparison because of his argument that violent computer games should be banned because violent depictions of rape are bad. I'm just attempting to demonstrate that, well, not all death is murder - Just like not all sex is rape. And there is a clearly defined line as to which is which, and thus which is appropriate to display in a remotely positive light, and which ought only be displayed negatively if the work in question is anything other than trash to be protected solely because the alternative is letting the government censor things.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The punishment for rape should then be adjusted to the crime that women in general consider equivalent to rape plus manditory castration and possible hormone therapy (estrogen worked on my parents' cat).

It's not unreasonable to compare rape to murder in many cases. The problem is that it's ultimately a psychological crime, and one that can affect people differently depending on their psychology. The punishments that would be commisurate for the crime (short of just removing whoever did it from society for society's good, which has problems already mentioned in this thread I believe), honestly, are considered cruel and unusual in most western nations.

40-50 years, no parole, and chemical castration. That would probably be the best that society and our justice system can manage.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, looking back over this entire thread, I think the sickest aspect of the Gor books is they were actually written by a psychologist. Many people probably believed that shit because John Frederick Lange, Jr., Ph.D. (AKA "John Norman") got to have those three fancy letters behind his name for a psychology degree, and thought he must have figured out the "secrets of male and female sexuality" or something. End result, near-cult status and a bunch of fanatic rapists who think the world actually works the way he says. And more proof of the uselessness of psychology in evaluating the human mind, though it's proof we could entirely do without.

[Queeb Salaron]

Now, note, I'm only making this comparison because of his argument that violent computer games should be banned because violent depictions of rape are bad. I'm just attempting to demonstrate that, well, not all death is murder - Just like not all sex is rape. And there is a clearly defined line as to which is which, and thus which is appropriate to display in a remotely positive light, and which ought only be displayed negatively if the work in question is anything other than trash to be protected solely because the alternative is letting the government censor things.

::Nods:: I see your point. But Twit did point out that difference a couple of posts ago. And I don't think he ever argued that violent video games should be banned for thier violent content... But I could be wrong about that. It's a bit early, and I'm still cleaning out the cobwebs.

As for media portrayals, though, the media has ALREADY chosen to make the distinction between sex and rape. Unfortunately, rape is portrayed in movies, TV shows, etc. "Deliverance," "I Spit on your Grave," "The Toolbox murders,"... all of them portray rape in some fashion. Any movie about Ted Bundy or the Hillside Slasher has rape in it. There was a movie made about the Marquis de Sade (Called "Marquis," I believe,) that depicted rape. Of course, A Clockwork Orange even made the rapist the protagonist and had the audience feeling sympathy towards him by the end of the movie. There was some movie with Sally Fields and Keefer Sutherland about rape, too, but I don't remember the name of it. And none of these movies were considered "trash" by the Motion Picture Association of America.

Granted, there is a distinction to be made between Obscene films (none of which are listed above), X-rated films (again, none are listed above), and R-rated films (and all of the movies above are R-rated). And if that's a travesty of the ratings system, then so be it. But I think it hints at something a bit more powerful than that: Rape is beginning to be desensitized. Turn on Lifetime, and you'll no doubt see a flick about a woman who has been raped and who tries to get back at her aggressor. Turn on Law and Order SVU, and there's a woman who got raped. It's usually portrayed as a negative thing (except in the case of A Clockwork Orange), but such is not always the case. I think we ARE becoming desensitized to the prospect of rape, and this is due to the media. I'm not going to go so far as to say that this desensitization will lead to an increased rate of rape, but I will say that there are studies that have been done to prove that men are more aggressive after prolonged exposure to such media.

That went longer than I intended for it to go. Sorry, all.

EDIT: Remind me to talk about the Marquis de Sade later.

[Ignorant twit]

So you feel that every study on the effectiveness of indoctrination and desensitization techniques is bullshit? Because that's all this is; a lower-level form of the same phenomenon. And by the way, NO ONE EVER PORTRAYS A MURDER VICTIM ENJOYING IT.

BTW, you are still attempting to change the subject from "is it a good or bad thing to write about this" to "can you PROVE that women will DEFINITELY get raped more often if someone writes about this"; a shameless attempt to polarize the subject into black and white.

No I'm argueing that misportrayal of rape doesn't cause sociopaths to commit rape. Rather that sociopaths seek out misportrayals of rape. You assume A causes B. My guess is A is a symptom of B.

Frankly the question either boils down to a question of taste, or there are real tangible results that cannot be ignored. If you ascert the latter, the the principle of parsimony requires you prove it to have any bearing on the discussion.

Quote:
I'm a beleiver in the death penalty. If you are not redeemable to society and you have committed a henious crime, I have no problems offing you. That should always be the maximum punishment for a henious crime ... if nothing else it gives life as a plea bargain option.

Perhaps you will explain that to the family of the next rape victim that gets murdered under your scheme, since there would be no incentive whatsoever NOT to kill the victim if you make it a capital offense. In fact, there is a very strong incentive to kill the victim in that case, since you are less likely to be caught with no living witness.

In fact actually read my posts and attacking what I actually advocate might help the matter Mike. The VERY NEXT BLOODY SENTENCE AGREES WITH YOU.

"If rape gives a life sentence and murder + rape gives a lethal injection it would deter killing the victim if the criminal would rather live in jail than die outright.

It is a tradeoff between deterring the crime in the first place and not giving the criminal incentive to make their crime worse. "

WHY IN HELL DO YOU KEEP ATTACKING STRAWMEN? If my position is so sick and indefensible why in hell are you attacking it with selective, spliced quotes and distorting it beyond recognition? Why MUST you keep leaping off on these half-assed attacks that HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY?

I have stated my agreement with your position MULTIPLE TIMES, IN ALL BLOODY CAPS, and in DIRECT REPLY TO YOU. WHY IN HELL DON'T YOU GET IT?

And what does any of this have to do with your attacks against our position that it's bad to portray rape in a positive light for fiction purposes?

Nothing, Queeb MADE A STATEMENT AND I MADE A DIRECT REPLY TO IT. Damn what the hell is your problem, do you not even bother with this basic English construct called CONTEXT?

Then what was the point of all your bullshit about how rape can be pleasurable?

You mean you didn't even bother to read that in the FIRST PLACE? You decided to go on a nice little twitch hunt without reading through? Hotfoot stated in no uncertain terms that enjoyment is equivalent to consent. That is BS and I called him on it. It frankly PISSES ME THE HELL OFF when anyone ascerts that ANYTHING SUBSTITUTES FOR CONSENT. There is ample evidence to the contrary; from statutory cases where the victim doesn't know enough to give consent, to drug cases where the higher brain functions are too impaired to give consent. In either case the sick pervert who perpetuates rape in those cases still deserves to rot in jail even if the medial forebrain bundle does its normal job.

By the way Mike, I'm still waiting for a reply:
How in HELL do justify claiming this:

He is now attempting to seriously argue that rape is not as serious a crime as claimed by women.

Also do you care to give your definition of pleasure or not?


Now Mike can we debate this REASONABLY or do you intend to continue with the twitch hunt? Will you continue to attack gross strawmen even when I have BLATANTLY stated the opposite? Can you confine yourself to attacking positions I have ACTUALLY STATED and NOTING THE CONTEXT in which statements were made? Can we do this without you splicing apart points and even sentences before responding?

Or do we just continue with you not even BOTHERING to read an entire frikking post, not bothering to notice when I'm making a DIRECT reply to someone else, and all the other crap you've pulled thus far?

If you want to continue rationally, then I will. If not let's get out the stake and kindling and get the twitch hunt over with. Frankly, it isn't worth it for me to continue when people like DP, Einy, and You feel free to slip words into my mouth and lack the balls to even TRY to prove your case.

So what will it be, Mike, a rational debate or a twitch hunt?[/quote]