rape in fiction

[Ignorant twit]

I think you've confused postive with satirical. Nobody in their right mind seriously believes that GTA3 is anything but satire. Dark satire, perhaps, but satire nonetheless. I suppose that all of the "Kill Jar-Jar" games on the net glorify violence and put it in a positive light?

Let us be honest, yes violence is often glorified in games and movies. Frankly I doubt it has any effect on the observer. My point is the EFFECT such portrayal has is no different than the EFFECT portrayal of rape has. Given that the effects are the same the GUIDELINES for protraying either should be the same. If we care greatly that rape be shown in a proper negative light, why should we not care equally as much that violence be shown in its proper light?

Technically, if you enjoy being "raped", you enjoy rough sex. Hence it ceases to be rape at that point. That's the distinction you seem to not recognize. Once both parties enjoy it, it's not rape. People writing about rape often seem to forget this little fact. Roleplaying a rape fantasy != actual rape.

Hardly. Enjoyment != consent. Just because you take pleasure in something does not make it consential. A person may enjoy taking halucinogens, but if you spike their beer they have not consented to using the drug ... regardless of if they've enjoyed it.

the primary point of contention. A rapist and a murderer are both pretty fucked up to begin with (who's more fucked up is another question), but the murderer leaves behind no victim to write about, because they are dead. Most of the problems here are that the author does a shitty job of handling the post-rape victim.

Most authors do a piss poor job of handling the victims of most crimes. That does not mean that equal care should not be taken for the victim of rape, to the victim of kidnapping, to the victim of attempted murder.

So which is worse, a show that has violence with little to no consequences, or a show that has rape with little to no consequences?

I would submit neither. They can be equally abhorrent. I just find it interesting that we care greatly that rape be properly shown while any other form of violence we don't care about.

Depends. Are they done well, or are they done poorly?

Assume they are are both well done, to equal magnitude. Assume they are both poorly done, to equal magnitude.

It is my contention that they are equal.

If it's consenual, IT'S NOT RAPE.

Pleasurable != consent. Pleasure is a neurological condition, it does not necissitate cognizant consent.

Ah, yes, Plot Point Devices, brilliant.

Sigh, take your pick we have plenty of life-after-death instances in fiction. From the undead to some form of technobabble revival.

Thing is, most rapists don't give a shit about their victims, and that's rather the whole point.

Most rapists don't even particularly care about the sex, it is about control (or so I have been told).

sequence depicting rape is NOT supposed to be generally arousing in a serious work.

I see would it then be okay to have a sequence of cold blooded murder be exhilerating in a serious work?

It is meant to be revolting, perverse, because that's what rape is.

No arguement there, however so too is murder, assualt, etc. Yet we have far fewer social taboos about the depiction of murder.

Get it? It's easy to convey murder. It's not easy to convey rape. Some people try, and convey sex, not rape. This is confusing and counterproductive to the purpose of the story. It's easy to portray the aftereffects of death. It's easy. Once more, not so with rape.

The ease with which one can screw it up does not render the two inequivalent. Do you honestly contend that there are no serious screw ups in the portrayal of murder in any serious work?

I think your definition of "glorification" is somewhat lacking, especially since you use GTA as a milestone, a game which has never taken itself seriously in the first place. I suppose you can't STAND Hot Shots Part Duex, because it has the highest body count ever in a movie.

To each his own. Senseless violence has never been attractive to me. Games like GTA hold no allure for me, neither do graphic protrayals of rape.

If rape is presented in fiction I consume, I expect it to be coherent and part of the greater work. If violence is presented in fiction I consume, I expect it to be coherent and part of the greater work.

I see no reason not to hold rape and murder to the same standard.

[Hotfoot]

Let us be honest, yes violence is often glorified in games and movies. Frankly I doubt it has any effect on the observer. My point is the EFFECT such portrayal has is no different than the EFFECT portrayal of rape has. Given that the effects are the same the GUIDELINES for protraying either should be the same. If we care greatly that rape be shown in a proper negative light, why should we not care equally as much that violence be shown in its proper light?

So "kill Jar-Jar" games glorify violence, according to you?

Still, you miss most of the point. Violence, except maybe in some remotely extreme cases, is inherantly bad. This is easy to recognize. You can show people that it is bad quite easily. There is no mistaking brutal physical torture for a morning workout. So what we have to compare here, essentially, is violence and sex. We make light of both violence and sex on a constant basis-like in Grand Theft Auto 3, or American Pie, or what have you. That does not glorify it. You glorify things in serious works, not satirical or humorous ones.

But hey, going by your logic, the Three Stooges are the biggest threat to civilization ever, since they "glorify" violence. They might as well be slapping the faces of crying women as the gang-rape them for their own pleasure.

Violence is a constant. We know it's bad, it's easy to recognize. We can acknowledge that, no problem. Sex is something we initially recognize as a good thing. Rape is bad. Sex is good. Violence is bad. But how do you tell the difference between sex and rape, unless you are very careful in how you show it? This seems lost on you. We don't need to be told that any violence is bad, but we do need to be told when sex is rape.

Hardly. Enjoyment != consent. Just because you take pleasure in something does not make it consential. A person may enjoy taking halucinogens, but if you spike their beer they have not consented to using the drug ... regardless of if they've enjoyed it.

Rape is FORCING someone to submit to sex acts. If the person enjoys such things, they don't need to be forced, hence it is not rape. Is this such a difficult concept for you? Fine, we'll use some examples then.

Example A: Boyfriend and Girlfriend act out a rape fantasy, having safe words and both with the knowledge that it was consensual.

Example B: Boyfriend has a little too much to drink, and starts demanding sex from his girlfriend. She plays coy, not saying no, but not saying yes. However, she enjoys the rough sex, and only played coy to get him riled up so she could act out a rape fantasy. This is not rape (but she could make a case for it in court if she wanted to).

Example C: Boyfriend has a little too much to drink, and starts demanding sex from his girlfriend. She says no, and tries to actually stop him. He forces himself on her. This is rape, plain and simple.

Even if it wasn't a boyfriend, but rather a total or relative stranger, the examples remain the same.

Most authors do a piss poor job of handling the victims of most crimes. That does not mean that equal care should not be taken for the victim of rape, to the victim of kidnapping, to the victim of attempted murder.

Very, very few men know what it is like to be raped. Many more people know what it is like to be in a life-threatening situation, or how to cope with death. Authors can and will write about things they have little to no experience with, and rape is something that can be extremely difficult for a male author to adequately portray. So yes, greater care does have to be taken when trying to convey rape.

I would submit neither. They can be equally abhorrent. I just find it interesting that we care greatly that rape be properly shown while any other form of violence we don't care about.

It's not hard to properly portray violence. It is harder properly portray rape.

Assume they are are both well done, to equal magnitude. Assume they are both poorly done, to equal magnitude.

Bad assumption. You assume that it's just as easy to accurately portray rape as it is to accurately portray violence, or that it's as easy to screw up violence as it is to screw up rape.

It is my contention that they are equal.

It's my contention that they are not, for the reasons above.

Pleasurable != consent. Pleasure is a neurological condition, it does not necissitate cognizant consent.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoyed being raped, I think.

Sigh, take your pick we have plenty of life-after-death instances in fiction. From the undead to some form of technobabble revival.

It's a cop-out. Nobody talks after they die, so the author is free to make up whatever shit he wants about how it was to die or what the afterlife is like. It's pure fiction to bring someone back from the dead to talk about their. Rape victims are real. Ghosts are not. There is no reason to accurately portray ghosts, because they don't exist.

Most rapists don't even particularly care about the sex, it is about control (or so I have been told).

And power, yeah. Even ones who have their box and tackle cut off can still go out and strike again. But like I said, the rapists aren't the problem, it's the victims.

I see would it then be okay to have a sequence of cold blooded murder be exhilerating in a serious work?

From the perspective of the psycho-killer? Maybe. To everyone else, no. Since we're talking about the victim's perspective, allow me to clarify: HELL NO.

No arguement there, however so too is murder, assualt, etc. Yet we have far fewer social taboos about the depiction of murder.

Once more, this is because murder and violence, unlike sex, are inherantly bad things.

The ease with which one can screw it up does not render the two inequivalent. Do you honestly contend that there are no serious screw ups in the portrayal of murder in any serious work?

No, but I do contend that it's much harder to screw up murder in a serious work. If 1 out of every 10 writers screws up murder, but 7 out of 10 writers screw up rape, wouldn't it make sense to say that portrayal of rape is harder to do well than portrayal of murder?

To each his own. Senseless violence has never been attractive to me. Games like GTA hold no allure for me, neither do graphic protrayals of rape.

GTA is equivilant to a graphic portrayal of rape? Oh, that's rich, especially seeing how you've never actually played the game, but rather go by what the mass media tells you. You want senseless, graphic violence? Check out a little game called "Soldier of Fortune". That is graphic violence.

Speaking of graphic violence, I suppose you don't like playing any video games, do you? Mario Brothers is excessively violent, as is Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Final Fantasy games, hell, just write off all those fighting games. Light Gun games are right out. Star Wars games are a wash, RPGs are almost all straight from hell. Real-Time Strategy games are the horsemen of the apocalypse, and Black & White is your worst nightmare made digital reality, along with SimCity and 4X games.

If rape is presented in fiction I consume, I expect it to be coherent and part of the greater work. If violence is presented in fiction I consume, I expect it to be coherent and part of the greater work.

I see no reason not to hold rape and murder to the same standard.

Then you're not paying attention. It is harder to portray rape than it is to portray murder, period. If you can't see why that is, I hope that you learn before you have children.

[Ignorant twit]

Violence is a constant. We know it's bad, it's easy to recognize. We can acknowledge that, no problem. Sex is something we initially recognize as a good thing. Rape is bad . Sex is good . Violence is bad . But how do you tell the difference between sex and rape, unless you are very careful in how you show it? This seems lost on you. We don't need to be told that any violence is bad, but we do need to be told when sex is rape.

Very simple if it's sex somewhere we have be lead to beleive both parties have consented.

I frankly don't understand why people have such a hard time differenting sex from rape. If you give me no reason to beleive said yes somewhere, then its rape. What is so hard about differentiating these two?

Rape is FORCING someone to submit to sex acts. If the person enjoys such things, they don't need to be forced, hence it is not rape. Is this such a difficult concept for you? Fine, we'll use some examples then.

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.

Just because a person takes pleasure in the physical stimulation it does not in ANY way substitute for consent.

Very, very few men know what it is like to be raped. Many more people know what it is like to be in a life-threatening situation, or how to cope with death. Authors can and will write about things they have little to no experience with, and rape is something that can be extremely difficult for a male author to adequately portray. So yes, greater care does have to be taken when trying to convey rape.

You keep coming back to that it takes more effort by the writer to meet the same standard:
That both should be properly portrayed.

Again why should we have any difference in the quality of the end product?

It's not hard to properly portray violence.

Right nobody ever goes over the top for violence It is not even a common occurance to splurge on pointless violence that contributes nothing to the plot

Bad assumption. You assume that it's just as easy to accurately portray rape as it is to accurately portray violence, or that it's as easy to screw up violence as it is to screw up rape.

You are measuring by effort, I am measuring by final result. I don't care how much effort it takes, for some authors (notably females who have been raped) it is easier to properly portray rape. All I care about is the end product. Does IT properly portray the sistuations it deals with?

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoyed being raped, I think

Depends on the circumstances. I think most people who have excessively impaired decision making capability via drugs, alcohol, or mental defficiency may well enjoy the physical stimulation, the same neurochemicals get released. They would not enjoy it if their higher brain functions were not shot to hell, but they aren't ... hell they might not even remember it.

Frankly I think your view is both disgusting and dangerous. So long as the victim gets off they wanted it? Who cares how inebriated the girl was when the nonconsential sex happened, so long as the pleasure receptors in her brain fired ... she wanted it.

Rape MUST be defined by the conscious giving of consent ... NOT the biochemical response to physical stimulation.

It's a cop-out. Nobody talks after they die, so the author is free to make up whatever shit he wants about how it was to die or what the afterlife is like. It's pure fiction to bring someone back from the dead to talk about their. Rape victims are real. Ghosts are not. There is no reason to accurately portray ghosts, because they don't exist.

Gee it is pure fiction and we are discussing fiction, what a surprise

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?

Even ones who have their box and tackle cut off can still go out and strike again. But like I said, the rapists aren't the problem, it's the victims.

I don't understand this. You claim that if it is enjoyed, then it isn't rape. Yet you claim the problem with portraying rape is that the victim enjoys it? By your own standards aren't such things not rape but some screwed up form of consentual sex?

No, but I do contend that it's much harder to screw up murder in a serious work. If 1 out of every 10 writers screws up murder, but 7 out of 10 writers screw up rape, wouldn't it make sense to say that portrayal of rape is harder to do well than portrayal of murder?

I agree rape is harder to accurately portray, however my thought is that the FINISHED product should be held to the same "accuracy" standards. I care not if the author can easily and accurately portray rape (say because she is writing from first hand experience) or not; likewise I don't care if it is easy for the author to accurately portray other forms of violence (say because they have a police background) or if it is hard (because they suffer from ivory tower syndrome). All I care about is the standard to which the finished product be held.

GTA is equivilant to a graphic portrayal of rape? Oh, that's rich, especially seeing how you've never actually played the game, but rather go by what the mass media tells you. You want senseless, graphic violence? Check out a little game called "Soldier of Fortune". That is graphic violence.

I see so you'd have no problem with a rape based game that was, "satirical"? Say one which satorizes the victims of rape?

Once more, this is because murder and violence, unlike sex, are inherantly bad things.

Violence and death are not inherently bad. Is eating a steak inherently bad? Their moral standing is dependant upon the circumstances. Likewise sex is not inherently good or bad, it depends upon the circumstances.

Murder and assualt are inherently bad. Rape is inherently bad.

Speaking of graphic violence, I suppose you don't like playing any video games, do you? Mario Brothers is excessively violent, as is Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, Final Fantasy games, hell, just write off all those fighting games. Light Gun games are right out. Star Wars games are a wash, RPGs are almost all straight from hell. Real-Time Strategy games are the horsemen of the apocalypse, and Black & White is your worst nightmare made digital reality, along with SimCity and 4X games.

Sigh, as I have said before I don't mind violence if it is a coherent part of the work. I don't find graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence to be entertaining. For instance a game like Civilization I enjoy because the the violence is a coherent part of the game. Your standard FPS is not particularly appealing to me because in too many cases it just winds up as blow up these bazillion guys, figure out this trivial puzzle, blow up a bazillion more guys, so on and so forth.

If you intend to have ubiquiotious graphic violence you should have it have a point.

Then you're not paying attention. It is harder to portray rape than it is to portray murder, period. If you can't see why that is, I hope that you learn before you have children.

I don't care how much effort has to be put in, I measure only at the final product. I think rape is harder portray for two reasons:
1. Most people don't have a clue about rape.
2. We hold rape portrayal to a higher standard.

The day I see a satirical bit about rape I'd begin considering that we don't have a double standard with violence vs rape.

As far as the having children bit, that is unlikely to happen, I have one of those wonderful cancer genes that makes my chances of getting cancer by the time I'm 50 is somewhere around 90%. Any kids I have will stand a fifty-fifty shot at the same. Sorry, no thanks.

[Hotfoot]

Very simple if it's sex somewhere we have be lead to beleive both parties have consented.

Sex is the basic state. If we see sex on the screen, most of the time the first assumption is that both parties have consented. You have to do more than just showing sex on the screen to show rape. To show violence, all you have to do is show violence. It's not that hard.

I frankly don't understand why people have such a hard time differenting sex from rape. If you give me no reason to beleive said yes somewhere, then its rape. What is so hard about differentiating these two?

Okay: You see two people bumping and grinding up on screen. Do you assume that it is sex or rape? How can you tell? Going by what you're saying, the default state is rape. Since you never heard the woman say yes, she must have said no, thus, the act is rape. That is a ridiculous position.

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.

You are seriously twisted if you think that someone would be even remotely likely enjoy the sex from a rape like that. Sex is a very intimate activity. When it is forced like it is in rape, it's not an enjoyable experience.

Allow me to put it another way. I like pizza. Pepperoni Pizza is one of my favorite foods. If, one morning, I were to awake to someone violently shoving hot pepperoni pizza down my throat, I would NOT enjoy eating that pepperoni pizza. It's not a perfect example, but it should help to get the point across.

Having never consent she still enjoys it.

I'm not convinced this is a realistic example, or that it accurately portrays anything but very disturbed, already seriously unbalanced individuals who are about as common as nine-time lottery winners.

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.

Err...a classic sci-fi/fantasy scene? That's not classic in any science fiction or fantasy I ever remember reading. What have you been reading, exactly?

Just because a person takes pleasure in the physical stimulation it does not in ANY way substitute for consent.

Not all sex is pleasurable. Physical stimulation does not equate to enjoying an experience. I'd like to know where you get the idea that rape victims tend to enjoy the rape experience, as well.

You keep coming back to that it takes more effort by the writer to meet the same standard:
That both should be properly portrayed.

Again why should we have any difference in the quality of the end product?

Because all too often the writer puts the same effort into rape as he or she would into murder, and that same effort results in a lower quality portrayal in rape than in murder, and very noticably so.

Right nobody ever goes over the top for violence It is not even a common occurance to splurge on pointless violence that contributes nothing to the plot

Strawman. I never said that nobody every fucks up violence, so unless you have an actual point, shove it.

You are measuring by effort, I am measuring by final result. I don't care how much effort it takes, for some authors (notably females who have been raped) it is easier to properly portray rape. All I care about is the end product. Does IT properly portray the sistuations it deals with?

Apparently, in your world view, there are only two ways to do things, the right way and the wrong way. As a result, 50% of everything is done the right way, and 50% of everything is done the wrong way. Thus, we should see more properly portrayed rapes in stories to match the number of properly portrayed scenes of violence and murder.

That's a nice world, but utterly unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that when most people write about rape, the vast majority of it tends to be crap. The same is not so with murder and violence.

Depends on the circumstances. I think most people who have excessively impaired decision making capability via drugs, alcohol, or mental defficiency may well enjoy the physical stimulation, the same neurochemicals get released. They would not enjoy it if their higher brain functions were not shot to hell, but they aren't ... hell they might not even remember it.

Okay, now I'm going to have to call you on this. Please provide some evidence that shows that people enjoy being raped.

Frankly I think your view is both disgusting and dangerous. So long as the victim gets off they wanted it? Who cares how inebriated the girl was when the nonconsential sex happened, so long as the pleasure receptors in her brain fired ... she wanted it.

What the fuck? All right, listen up pal. In none of my examples was the victim lacking in their decision-making capabilities, so you can stop putting words in my fucking mouth. Obviously if the victim is drugged or otherwise mentally impared they are in no position to make a rational decision. What I said (and read this CAREFULLY shitstain) is that if the "victim" is not forced by the "aggressor", IT IS NOT RAPE, IT IS ROUGH SEX. For fuck's sake, learn to read. Meanwhile, you seem to think that girls get off when they're raped, yet you provide no evidence for that. Sure, it may happen, but it's so exceptionally rare as to be virtually non-existant. Yet you act like it's as common as a spring shower.

Rape MUST be defined by the conscious giving of consent ... NOT the biochemical response to physical stimulation.

No shit, dickhead. I wasn't talking about the biochemical response to the physical stimulation in the first place. Are you trying to live up to your name?

Gee it is pure fiction and we are discussing fiction, what a surprise

Well, hey, since it's fiction, "rape" doesn't exist. Women are subhumans who just exist as our fucktoys. You can't say it's not true or unrealistic because it's fiction, so neener neener neener.

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?

On the surface, nothing? But the one about serial killer is more likely to not be insulting to 80% of the intended audience. However, Sex is still an intimate act, whereas violence is quite public. The day that nobody fights in the streets and random orgies break out in the center of cities, I'd be happy to change my tune.

I don't understand this. You claim that if it is enjoyed, then it isn't rape. Yet you claim the problem with portraying rape is that the victim enjoys it? By your own standards aren't such things not rape but some screwed up form of consentual sex?

Okay, from the top:

If the victim enjoys the "rape" (note: rape victims tend to feel VIOLATED, not PLEASURED, by rape), then it's not rape (you have yet to provide any evidence that rape victims enjoyed themselves while they were raped). Rapists tend to enjoy themselves, but usually not in a sexual manner (serial rapists, particularly). One of the common pitfalls of writers depicting rape is that DESPITE the violation, the victim still enjoys the act of being raped. Other pitfalls include the victim becoming so broken by the experience that they become submissive from that point on, etc.

The point, however, remains: You have not shown anything aside from your opinion that rape victims "enjoy" being raped, either physically or mentally. I'm concerning myself primarily with mentally enjoying themselves, not physically, while you seem focused utterly on the physical. If all you can think about is the physical aspect of things, I'd hazard a guess at saying that you're either: A. a virgin or B. never made wild, passionate love, but instead settled for simple rutting.

Either way, please provide evidence that rape victims enjoy being raped.

I agree rape is harder to accurately portray, however my thought is that the FINISHED product should be held to the same "accuracy" standards. I care not if the author can easily and accurately portray rape (say because she is writing from first hand experience) or not; likewise I don't care if it is easy for the author to accurately portray other forms of violence (say because they have a police background) or if it is hard (because they suffer from ivory tower syndrome). All I care about is the standard to which the finished product be held.

Black and white, very nice, but still not very realistic.

I see so you'd have no problem with a rape based game that was, "satirical"? Say one which satorizes the victims of rape?

Replace "rape" with "sex", and you'd be right. I'd have no problem with a sex based game which was satirical. One which satirizes sex and sexual behavior.

But seeing as how I DON'T equate GTA3 to graphic rape, I don't make that same connection. Sure, you can make a game which satirizes rape and rape victims, but you'd have to walk a very dangerous line to avoid really offending people. Again, this is primarily because sex is an intimate activity. Violence is public.

Violence and death are not inherently bad. Is eating a steak inherently bad?

Ever killed an animal to get your steak? Ever look into an animal's eyes as it dies? Can you do that and honestly say that it doesn't make you feel just a little bad? I know I can't. But you know what? I place my continued survival above that of a far less sentient farm animal.

Also, for the record, eating a steak has nothing to do with death. The animal is long since dead by the time you sink in to the now-dead and decomposing flesh. A very poor analogy.

Their moral standing is dependant upon the circumstances. Likewise sex is not inherently good or bad, it depends upon the circumstances.

Bullshit. Cut yourself with a knife or poke yourself with a pin. That feels bad. Now beat off to a picture of Shakira or something. That feel good. When you cut someone with a knife or poke them with a pin, you can pretty easily imagine that it feels bad for them. That is bad. On the same note, if you give someone a handjob, you can pretty easily imagine that it feels good.

Now if a seven foot black dude named Bubba shoves his foot long hot dog up your ass without lube as he holds you down and beats you, you can imagine that you would feel bad. I would imagine you would feel extremely violated, and you'd probably be sore besides. Rape victims don't just have physical scars, they have emotional and mental ones as well.

Murder and assualt are inherently bad. Rape is inherently bad.

What happened to "nothing is inherently bad"?

Sigh, as I have said before I don't mind violence if it is a coherent part of the work. I don't find graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence to be entertaining. For instance a game like Civilization I enjoy because the the violence is a coherent part of the game. Your standard FPS is not particularly appealing to me because in too many cases it just winds up as blow up these bazillion guys, figure out this trivial puzzle, blow up a bazillion more guys, so on and so forth.

If you intend to have ubiquiotious graphic violence you should have it have a point.

Ah, so genocide is preferable to a fistfight, got it.

I don't care how much effort has to be put in, I measure only at the final product. I think rape is harder portray for two reasons:
1. Most people don't have a clue about rape.
2. We hold rape portrayal to a higher standard.

The day I see a satirical bit about rape I'd begin considering that we don't have a double standard with violence vs rape.

The day I see people randomly fucking in the streets after a car accident, you just might.

As far as the having children bit, that is unlikely to happen, I have one of those wonderful cancer genes that makes my chances of getting cancer by the time I'm 50 is somewhere around 90%. Any kids I have will stand a fifty-fifty shot at the same. Sorry, no thanks.

Fair enough, I won't mention adoption.

[Ignorant twit]

Sex is the basic state. If we see sex on the screen, most of the time the first assumption is that both parties have consented. You have to do more than just showing sex on the screen to show rape. To show violence, all you have to do is show violence. It's not that hard.

Again you are committing the fallacy that just because something is easier to do it should not be held to the same standard. It is easier to kill someone with a gun than your bare hands, that does not mean it we should make any distinction based on how hard it is to perform the action.

Okay: You see two people bumping and grinding up on screen. Do you assume that it is sex or rape? How can you tell? Going by what you're saying, the default state is rape. Since you never heard the woman say yes, she must have said no, thus, the act is rape. That is a ridiculous position.

If the first thing I see on the screen is sex, chances are it sucks anyway. I prefer to meet characters before I watch them copulate. If you just see sex in a vacuum it CANNOT be considered a serious work. Sure we might see a scene and not know if is rape, just as we might see a death and not know if it is murder. We should be able to tell the difference later. If we can't then I have yet to see such an example that was considered serious.

You are seriously twisted if you think that someone would be even remotely likely enjoy the sex from a rape like that. Sex is a very intimate activity. When it is forced like it is in rape, it's not an enjoyable experience.

Let's say you are in a room with a gorgeous girl who you would love to get it on with. She asks you to strip, put on a blindfold, and spread your legs. You agree and do so. The best head you've ever gotten ensues. You would describe this experience as pleasurable? Yes (if I've swapped genders anywhere, please change them as you like).

Now you take off the blindfold and find that instead of the girl giving you head, a man had walked into the room and done so instead.

Your body sometimes responds even when your higher brain functions are repulsed.

I'm not convinced this is a realistic example, or that it accurately portrays anything but very disturbed, already seriously unbalanced individuals who are about as common as nine-time lottery winners.

The basics of is your BS ascertion that, "Technically, if you enjoy being "raped", you enjoy rough sex. Hence it ceases to be rape at that point." It does not cease to be rape at the point where you, in whatever state of mind you are in, receive pleasure. It ceases to be rape when both parties have given consent.

This is the ENTIRE idea behind statutory rape. Having sex before you are legally allowed to consent is enjoyable. There are an unknown number of kids getting it on in middle school (with each other) who say sex is enjoyable. It still is technically rape because they CANNOT give consent.

Err...a classic sci-fi/fantasy scene? That's not classic in any science fiction or fantasy I ever remember reading. What have you been reading, exactly?

Try mythology ... its called a love potion. Woman unwilling to have sex with one individual is drugged with a love potion and then begins screwing his brains out ... err lives happily ever as his newfound wife. Most recently I read this in the Vorkosigan series by Bjuold (Mirror Dance or something was the title). Or perhaps we could just look at "True Q" in TNG, using godlike powers to make some one love you (and presumably eventually have sex) wouldn't be rape, no

Not all sex is pleasurable. Physical stimulation does not equate to enjoying an experience. I'd like to know where you get the idea that rape victims tend to enjoy the rape experience, as well.

Of course not all sex is pleasurable, nor does physical stimulation equate to enjoying (which my dictionary defines to be "to receive pleasure from"). However SOME physical stimulation SOMETIMES does end up trigging a pleasure response REGARDLESS of the intentions of the conscious mind. Further this response can be illicited even if higher brain functions are sufficiently impaired to PROHIBIT consent.

Really we can set off the pleasure response in mice with an electrode in their brain. Non-consentual sex MOST OFTEN inhibits the pleasure response, but it does not do so in every case.

Because all too often the writer puts the same effort into rape as he or she would into murder, and that same effort results in a lower quality portrayal in rape than in murder, and very noticably so.

Again I judge off EFFECTS not intent or effort put forth.

I never said that nobody every fucks up violence, so unless you have an actual point, shove it.

Then why shouldn't we be equally hard on artists who can't do violence correctly?

Apparently, in your world view, there are only two ways to do things, the right way and the wrong way. As a result, 50% of everything is done the right way, and 50% of everything is done the wrong way. Thus, we should see more properly portrayed rapes in stories to match the number of properly portrayed scenes of violence and murder.

Now this is piss poor logic.

Let's assume I do beleive in only two possibilities. That both are equally likely is A MASSIVELY unfounded leap in logic. For instance I beleive all numbers are either prime or not prime. Only a moron would assume that they are equally distributed.

However my position is as moronic as your pitiful strawman. To begin I don't think every portrayal of violence nor of rape need be perfectly realistic. However if we say that you must get some percentage of basic facts right for one why not the other?

In any event what is not "crap" is going to be subjective determination. In my personal experience people have no qualms about any manner of violence you can have something like Gross Pointe Blank, something like Red Dragon ... I have yet to see or hear of anything remotely analogous on the rape side.

It's okay to have heros shrug off bullets, to have close friends turn on them and try to kill them ... and to have no emotional effect. Have a rape scene with the same callousness and the world is up in arms.

Okay, now I'm going to have to call you on this. Please provide some evidence that shows that people enjoy being raped.

Sigh pleasure occurs when the brain releases endorphins (aplha, beta, and gamma), these bind the opiad receptors in the brain and kick off a nice cascade. Certain repitive motions release endorphins by default, the higher brain functions (as well as other stimuli) can inhibit or alter the release of endorphins. This is more prominent in males than in females but still is true. If your penis is massaged by your hand, a woman's vaginal muscle, a car's vibration, or just about anything else the natural response kicks off a signal transduction pathway that goes to the brain and gives a pleasurable response.

Your higher brain functions can either facilitate or inhibit this pathway. In the case of rape, the trauma has a PRONOUNCED effect on higher brain function and acts as a giant kill switch on the cascade. If your higher brain functions are already shot to hell, then the kill switch doesn't work. Likewise if your brain is flooded with euphorics, like say slipped into your drink, then system can be locked on regardless of the surroundings. In famous studies if you crack open the skull, implant an electrode at the correct spot, you can ilicit the pleasure response with simple electrical stimulation (and if you give the mouse control they stop eating and drinking).

Further the SAME hormones which elicit the pleasure response are used in the pain response. If your brain chemistry goes out of whack then you can have pain stimuli illiciting pleasure responses.


The nuts and the bolts of it is this: Enjoying something is nothing more than receiving pleasure from it. Pleasure is a biochemical state of being. If the chemicals and electrical impulses are there in the right amount in the right places ... you feel it. You don't have a choice. If your higher brain functions are already toast you may not even be conscious of the physical manifestations of the pleasure response.

What the fuck? All right, listen up pal. In none of my examples was the victim lacking in their decision-making capabilities, so you can stop putting words in my fucking mouth.

Of course dumbass because you picked piss stupid examples to back up a lousy point you made, I shall reiterate what exactly you claimed originally:
"Technically, if you enjoy being "raped", you enjoy rough sex."
"If the person enjoys such things, they don't need to be forced, hence it is not rape"

What I said (and read this CAREFULLY shitstain) is that if the "victim" is not forced by the "aggressor", IT IS NOT RAPE, IT IS ROUGH SEX. For fuck's sake, learn to read.

You said if you enjoy it. Enjoyment is BIOCHEMICAL response. I get the right set of chemicals and electrical impulses ... you will enjoy ANYTHING. If your higher brain functions tank, say through consuming too much of your favored drug, the pleasure response is still active. Even if your date is wasted beyond any ability to give consent, it is still biochemically possible for the pleasure response to get going.

Meanwhile, you seem to think that girls get off when they're raped, yet you provide no evidence for that.

Oh piss off. My contention is that anyone, especially males, naturally starts off a signal transduction pathway in response to physical stimulation. If nothing impedes the signal cascade, the result is pleasure. Thus regardless of the circumstances if that cascade goes off and isn't inhibited YOU ENJOY IT.

In MOST RAPES the pleasure response DIES because stress response (among other things) acts as a giant kill switch. Think about it stupid crap like stress from work can sap the pleasure from sex. How much MORE stressful is rape?

However in a MINORITY of cases the pleasure response is not stopped. In MOST of these it is because of something inhibiting higher brain function, i.e. drugs. In an EXCEPTIONALLY rare number of cases the brain mixes up the pain and pleasure responses, thus where pain stimuli are being elicted, pleasure responses end up taking over. This is part of the reason many people enjoy "rough sex" the pain and pleasure responses are closely intermixed.

I'm sorry if the fact that pleasure is a biochemical response offends you, but DEAL WITH IT.

Yet you act like it's as common as a spring shower.

BS. My only contention is that REGARDLESS of wether or not the victim undergoes a pleasure response IT IS STILL RAPE. IF YOU DON'T CONSENT IN SOME MANNER IT IS RAPE ... PERIOD. Pleasure, in the MINORITY cases it exists, or in the MAJORITY cases it doesn't IS IRRELEVANT.

WHAT IS SO BLOODY HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?

No shit, dickhead. I wasn't talking about the biochemical response to the physical stimulation in the first place. Are you trying to live up to your name?

I'm sorry but pleasure IS a biochemical response. If you enjoy something it literally means because it "gives you pleasure". The DECIDING FACTOR IS THE ACT OF CONSENT.

Even if you meant some other concept, the simple fact of the matter is two mature 12 year olds having sex will enjoy it (most likely). It is still technically rape because neither can give consent. SO QUIT MUCKING UP THE ISSUE.

On the surface, nothing? But the one about serial killer is more likely to not be insulting to 80% of the intended audience.

In other words a double standard exists. CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

However, Sex is still an intimate act, whereas violence is quite public. The day that nobody fights in the streets and random orgies break out in the center of cities, I'd be happy to change my tune.

In other words despite all your earlier BS the REAL reason you care more about rape is it is a private affair. That we must tread more carefully around the private aspects of life than around public ones?

If the victim enjoys the "rape" (note: rape victims tend to feel VIOLATED, not PLEASURED, by rape), then it's not rape (you have yet to provide any evidence that rape victims enjoyed themselves while they were raped).

What the hell is your problem? Enjoyment is a biochemical response. Wether or not it is present is IRRELEVANT.

RAPE IS NONCENSENTUAL SEX ... PERIOD.

I'm concerning myself primarily with mentally enjoying themselves, not physically, while you seem focused utterly on the physical.

Well yes sherlock pleasure is a physical response. If the right conditions exist in your brain it doesn't matter what the circumstances are you feel pleasure and thus enjoy the experience.

If all you can think about is the physical aspect of things, I'd hazard a guess at saying that you're either: A. a virgin or B. never made wild, passionate love, but instead settled for simple rutting.

No I just happen to have the brains to realize that the physical aspect of enjoyment and pleasure have nothing to do with the higher mental states of contenment, tranquility, love, etc.

Sigh quoting one Matthew Rosenberg, certified social worker and sexual abuse expert:
"A very high degree of psychological damage can occur if the offender makes the victim feel physical pleasure during the offense(s). This will produce a level of guilt and shame that is very powerful. Moreover, the victim is less likely to disclose the abuse, and if he or she does, they are very likely to minimize it. This would be because the victim may feel partly to blame for the abuse because they experienced pleasure (this is a grooming technique). I have treated countless victims who, after the abuse was revealed (either through someone observing, or indirectly), did not disclose the full extent. They fear they will get in trouble for not telling themselves, and fear and shame because they experienced physical pleasure. As the victims grow older, they may be unable to process the abuse, and continue to blame both themselves as well as the offender. The shame produced can be so intense as to create suicidal ideation, a loss of "self", and self-destructive behaviors. "
Yep it happens. It may not be the majority, it may be due solely to biological hardwire, but it can occur.

Replace "rape" with "sex", and you'd be right. I'd have no problem with a sex based game which was satirical. One which satirizes sex and sexual behavior.

Nice duck. So you'd have no problem with a rape based game that was, "satirical"? Say one which satorizes the victims of rape?

Sure, you can make a game which satirizes rape and rape victims, but you'd have to walk a very dangerous line to avoid really offending people. Again, this is primarily because sex is an intimate activity. Violence is public.

And again there is a double standard because one thing is private and one is public. Something I personally beleive to be stupid, but that is just me.

Ever killed an animal to get your steak? Ever look into an animal's eyes as it dies? Can you do that and honestly say that it doesn't make you feel just a little bad? I know I can't. But you know what? I place my continued survival above that of a far less sentient farm animal.

Actually I slit bambi's throat (he already had a rather large hole in the neck). Death is part of life, deal with it. Can't say that I felt bad, the herd in that area was overpopulated and they opened the season back up to prevent starvation.

Also, for the record, eating a steak has nothing to do with death. The animal is long since dead by the time you sink in to the now-dead and decomposing flesh. A very poor analogy.

I see and for those of us who go hunting and on occassion kill our own deer steaks, skin em, and slice a bit off to cook over the campfire ... that is not all related to death?

Must be nice to pretend that you have no part in death.

Bullshit. Cut yourself with a knife or poke yourself with a pin.

Actually no, acupunture felt rather nice the one time I tried it. Likewise I barely feel it when they put a needle in the vein to take blood, its a middle itching sensation for me.

What happened to "nothing is inherently bad"?

I got caught up in parrelling your rhetoric, my apologies.

Ah, so genocide is preferable to a fistfight, got it.

Sigh first off civilization is about assimilation. Why kill off the enemy when you can assimilate their civilizations into your society?

In any event I care about the CONTEXT. War is perfectly acceptable when dealing with grand history. Fistfights are perfectly acceptable when looking at a bar room brawl. What I find distasteful is screen after screen of sensless violence.


So let's pare this down because length is getting bad:

1. Rape is SOLELY and ONLY defined by the act of consent. Enjoyment and pleasure have NOTHING to do with the distinction.
2. Rape is a private matter is subject to greater scrutinty because of this fact. Violence is a public matter and subject to less scrutiny because of this fact.


Can we agree on those two basic PREMISES and DITCH baggage on those? Like say delete anything else in your reply which doesn't first assume these two premises?

[Edi]

I don't see as how rape should be banned from books by any measure. However, it needs to be given the full measure of scrutiny when it happens, in the sense that it is not trivialized or confused with consensual sex or portrayed as something positive, or portrayed in a manner intended to arouse.

In general, I don't mind rape scenes in books that serve to further the plot and that are well done (even if they are disturbing, and in fact, they should be), but rape scenes that serve no purpose and are just gratuitously included are not acceptable. For this reason and others both stated and not stated, I find e.g. Goodkind's books offensive in the extreme, and why I find e.g. Geroge R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire to have some very questionable elements in places.

As for you, Ignorant Twit, you're really getting on my bad side today. Why don't you just shut the fuck up instead of posting more drivel? I read through the whole mess that is the debate between you and Hotfoot, and you are again masterfully nitpicking semantics and dodging the issue while ignoring the content and context of what he says. Anybody with a working synapse (which obviously excludes you) wouldn't have the slightest problem in grasping the message Hotfoot is relaying here, but apparently you do. More's the pity for any girl who will make the mistake of entering into a relationship with you.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

Another suggestion:

Closetland: Rape is very simular to child abuse, and torcher. The purpose is dehumanizing someone.

People can recover from those things, and forge themselves stronger. I won't ever get back full vision in my right eye, but I have a great deal of compassion and strength as a result of surviving my first stepfather.

not to reveal in that jerk Neizche's philosphies though,


also I.B. have you read Crow: Flesh and Blood?

it's a real good Graphic Novel.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Now for some people the domination "Fantasy Rape" is a popular form or Role Play between two consentual partners, is completly different from the crime, and some of what was posted in the last page can't seem to understand the inhairent difference between the two.

This is WHY vampires are such good erotic characters, it's not saying that killing another to extend your own life is thought to be good, and people really would not get off on being killed by a vampire if they were real.

[InnerBrat]

No, not read it, but I may have a look for it, thanks.

[Keevan_Colton]

Now for some people the domination "Fantasy Rape" is a popular form or Role Play between two consentual partners, is completly different from the crime, and some of what was posted in the last page can't seem to understand the inhairent difference between the two.

This is WHY vampires are such good erotic characters, it's not saying that killing another to extend your own life is thought to be good, and people really would not get off on being killed by a vampire if they were real.

On behalf of those with whips, chains and fangs I'd like to add a hearty hear hear.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well it's paraphrased from Susan Brownmiller's "Men, Women & Rape", and the Karl Yung symbols on the animus factor.

there's a big difference between acting out one's darkside in the context of a shared fantasy, and living in the darkside.

I get really tired of politicians and pundits who can't tell the differnce between the two.

[NapoleonGH]

im getting really really sick of people trying to oppress me "for my own good" or "out of respect for people's feelings" what thehell should any writer care about some woman who was raped getting pissy about a rape scene in a movie or book? I mean do they not include war in movies and books so that soldiers dont get their panties in a bunch? or how about movies about disease, we've all been victims of disease afterall? how about Lassie, that timmy kid kept on getting traped in things, wouldnt that make a victim of claustrophobia awefully scared?

Find something worthwhile to talk about people

[The Yosemite Bear]

How old are you?

I'm guessing teens, right

How would you like to be torchered?
or abused as a kid?
or have someone beat you to a bloody pulp because they could?

It's the same crime

[InnerBrat]

im getting really really sick of people trying to oppress me "for my own good" or "out of respect for people's feelings" what thehell should any writer care about some woman who was raped getting pissy about a rape scene in a movie or book? I mean do they not include war in movies and books so that soldiers dont get their panties in a bunch? or how about movies about disease, we've all been victims of disease afterall? how about Lassie, that timmy kid kept on getting traped in things, wouldnt that make a victim of claustrophobia awefully scared?

Find something worthwhile to talk about people

You're quite right, how DARE rape victims get upset when rape is glorified and treated like a sport by people with no experience in the matter.
Because when writers portray rape as a method of breaking women in like ponies, that's in no way going to have a dangerous effect on young men reading it.

Fuck off.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The Newbie doesn't know how close to being HOSed he is, with just that one post.....

[NapoleonGH]

Let us review shall we.


Did I condone rape? No

did I say that it is stupid to prevent people from writing books and making movies include rape scenes out of concern for the "emotional well being" of the rape victims, hell yes. Repressing the description, discussion, and exposure to an idea will only increase the power of the idea, the only way you can actually make people understand an issue is to discuss it openly, and often, in any and all ways possible.

Now you still have yet to respond to my basic question, why is rape different from another crime? why do we decide that we should even discuss censorship about rape as an issue when you can have murder/killing, mass government sanctioned murder/killing (schindler's list anyone?) aka genocide/war movies/stories/books, and any of a host of other traumatic violent experiences? If you were to take the emotional state of readers into account when writing anything you would never be able to produce ANY form of literature/movie/media of any form, as someone will always be offended/"emotionally damaged" by it, so why talk about rape like it is fundamentally different than any other violent crime/act?

[InnerBrat]

If you'd bother to read most of the thread, you'd have noticed we were talking about the treatment of rape by ignorant and misogynistic authors.

Was anyone suggesting that we take Shakespeare of the shelf? No.

We were discussing the harmful effects that can result from poor treatment of the character of the rape victim.

Now you still have yet to respond to my basic question, why is rape different from another crime? why do we decide that we should even discuss censorship about rape as an issue when you can have murder/killing, mass government sanctioned murder/killing (schindler's list anyone?) aka genocide/war movies/stories/books, and any of a host of other traumatic violent experiences?

On the second page of this thread, Hotfoot puts it quite clearly, because the rape victim has to be written inot the story afterwards. Because the rape victim is still alive and has to recoil from the experience. Because a poor treatment of this character, and the character of the rapist can blur the line between rape and sex, and give the impression that rape is OK.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Thank's IB I am staying my hand for now, because new posters (and some of us old posters) don't always read the whole debate before adding their .02, also the tendancy to smack down a new poster becomes quire frequent around here.

also Napoleon you never answered my question?

[NapoleonGH]

I would still disagree heavily, I would say that it really shouldnt matter how an author treats rape anymore than how an author handles any other violent crime. Sure it could influence on whether or not you wish to read it, but regardless why should we prevent people from writing it?


No yosemite i didnt answer because i really dont see how what you asked has ANY significance to this discussion. first off why does a person's age matter, discuss the ideas (I happen to be an 18 year old high school senior who will begining in the fall be a member of the Columbia College class of 2007 (columbia college is the non-engineering undergraduate school at Columbia University)), not the age. Secondly, why does whether or not i like being tortured have anything to do with whether we portray such things in our TV/Movies/Books/etc?

[Hotfoot]

Lost my response to a fucking invalid session.

Ignorant Twit: Try fucking reading my posts before you spew your bullshit everywhere, and try reading them carefully this time.

According to you, two freshmen in high school can't fuck each other becuase it's statutory rape. You. Are. Wrong. That is defined as peer sex and is perfectly legal, even though it is statutory rape for a college freshmen to fuck a high school freshmen.

Meanwhile, your definition of enjoyment is flat-out wrong, and frankly your assertion that someone who is unconcious can enjoy ANYTHING is disturbing.

You have provided no evidence to support your position that rape victims enjoy being raped, an instead have in fact shown that rape victims do not enjoy being raped, which was my assertation the whole time. I refer you to the following statement which I previously made:

Meanwhile, you seem to think that girls get off when they're raped, yet you provide no evidence for that. Sure, it may happen, but it's so exceptionally rare as to be virtually non-existant.

You have yet to prove this contention wrong. In fact, you've gone so far as to PROVE IT through your own logic!

Also, judging by your previous post, Manslaughter is equal to Murder one. Mass murder is just multiple counts of murder/manslaughter, and genocide is just a little more, no biggie. After all, you don't care about anything but the end result. So what if it was just a kid who accidentally shot is best friend with his father's gun? He gets the same punishment as a man who brutally beat someone to death with his bare hands....

I get the strongest feeling that you are attempting to troll here...

[Ignorant twit]

If you'd bother to read most of the thread, you'd have noticed we were talking about the treatment of rape by ignorant and misogynistic authors.

Was anyone suggesting that we take Shakespeare of the shelf? No.

We were discussing the harmful effects that can result from poor treatment of the character of the rape victim.

Now you still have yet to respond to my basic question, why is rape different from another crime? why do we decide that we should even discuss censorship about rape as an issue when you can have murder/killing, mass government sanctioned murder/killing (schindler's list anyone?) aka genocide/war movies/stories/books, and any of a host of other traumatic violent experiences?

On the second page of this thread, Hotfoot puts it quite clearly, because the rape victim has to be written inot the story afterwards. Because the rape victim is still alive and has to recoil from the experience. Because a poor treatment of this character, and the character of the rapist can blur the line between rape and sex, and give the impression that rape is OK.

Oh come now. You seriously beleive that the portrayal of rape in fiction has lasting effect on people's lives in the real world? Can you point me to a single real world rapist where the cause was because little Johnny saw a movie with a bad portrayal of rape?

If we make the arguement that skewed perception of rape comes from movies ... why in hell isn't that same arguement applicable to violence?

To me a poorly portrayed rape scene is just like a poorly portrayed violence scene. Bad taste, but nothing lastingly wrong. Sure there are plenty of video games, movies, and books I don't enjoy ... but that is a question of *taste*, not because I'm under the delusion that misprotrayal of actions in fiction have gross tangible results in reality.

[Darth Wong]

Oh come now. You seriously beleive that the portrayal of rape in fiction has lasting effect on people's lives in the real world?

Don't change the subject, twit. We're talking about what is good and bad practice in fiction, not whether fiction controls the behaviour of individuals.

Can you point me to a single real world rapist where the cause was because little Johnny saw a movie with a bad portrayal of rape?

Apparently, the concept of the complex cause evades your feeble mind.

If we make the arguement that skewed perception of rape comes from movies ... why in hell isn't that same arguement applicable to violence?

We do. At least, those of us who aren't indoctrinated by Christian anti-sex propaganda do. Onscreen desensitization to violence is probably a bad thing for society. However, it is generally agreed that the right to freedom of expression is important enough to prevent the use of censorship to prevent this. It doesn't change the fact that certain things are just in bad taste and probably bad for people to write.

To me a poorly portrayed rape scene is just like a poorly portrayed violence scene. Bad taste, but nothing lastingly wrong. Sure there are plenty of video games, movies, and books I don't enjoy ... but that is a question of *taste*, not because I'm under the delusion that misprotrayal of actions in fiction have gross tangible results in reality.

Of course, since environment has no effect whatsoever on behavioural patterns

[NapoleonGH]

to be fair darth wong, while environment does play a role in behavior, no real conculsive evidence shows a causative relationship between violent media sources and acting violent in the long term.

[Shrykull]

Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead had a fairly controversial rape scene.

There's this old movie with Bert Reynolds in the 70's called Deliverance, which includes a rape scene, we watched in class, she skipped over the rape, scene, shut it off and fast forwarded it.

[InnerBrat]

Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead had a fairly controversial rape scene.

There's this old movie with Bert Reynolds in the 70's called Deliverance, which includes a rape scene, we watched in class, she skipped over the rape, scene, shut it off and fast forwarded it.

you watched Deliverance in class? OMG.

"Squeal like a pig, boy!"