Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Rolfe]

Has anyone discussed the droit de seigneur yet?

 

[Chanakya]

If the actor actually jumps from a tall building with no safety wires and no hidden cushion at the bottom, then the jump isn't fiction. But that's generally not how movies do jumps from tall buildings. Generally they use safety mechanisms that the audience doesn't see. It's the difference between what the audience is shown and what actually happened that makes such a jump fiction. Same with a typical movie fight: it's fiction if they aren't actually hurting each other, because what is depicted isn't what actually happened. In contrast, a lot of the stuff that happened in the Jackass movie wasn't fiction. It actually happened the way it was shown. If a actor is running down the street, no tricks of special effects or editing, the running isn't fiction, even if it's used in a story that is fictitious. If what's being portrayed is what actually happened, that's not fiction.

And in porn, what they portray in terms of the sex is what actually happened. It's not fiction.

This is frankly a retarded definition of fiction. If what's shown is what actually happened, then it is not fiction.

Nope, it's fiction. The depiction is fiction. Whether it is CGI, or simulation, or an exceptionally fit actor with exceptional training and exceptional support staff performing a stunt: but in either case, to mistake this for reality, that an ordinary viewer might imagine they could or should try themselves in their everyday lives --- which last is what is the point of this discussion --- is what is ...well, not necessarily retarded, but wrong, certainly.

 

[theprestige]

Simulated sex acts in support of a fictitious narrative are simulated sex acts. Real sex acts in support of a fictitious narrative are real sex acts. It takes a special kind of chutzpah, trying to overturn a tautology.

I'm going to agree with Ziggurat. Implications of Chanakya's premise:

• Halyna Hutchins' death was fictional. Presumably the bullet, the gun, and the actor were fictional as well.
• Brandon Lee's death was fictional.
• The deaths of Vic Morrow, Myca Dinh Le, and Renee Shin-Yi Chen on the set of The Twilight Zone were fictional.
• Martin Sheen's breakdown and concomitant injuries on the set of Apocalypse Now were fictional.

 

[Chanakya]

Simulated sex acts in support of a fictitious narrative are simulated sex acts. Real sex acts in support of a fictitious narrative are real sex acts. It takes a special kind of chutzpah, trying to overturn a tautology.

I'm going to agree with Ziggurat. Implications of Chanakya's premise:

• Halyna Hutchins' death was fictional. Presumably the bullet, the gun, and the actor were fictional as well.
• Brandon Lee's death was fictional.
• The deaths of Vic Morrow, Myca Dinh Le, and Renee Shin-Yi Chen on the set of The Twilight Zone were fictional.
• Martin Sheen's breakdown and concomitant injuries on the set of Apocalypse Now were fictional.

That's nonsense. Those implications don't follow.

An actor might have a real emotional breakdown doing a scene that's triggering for them. That doesn't mean that what they were depicting on screen isn't fiction. ([eta]Likewise, an actor might actually get injured, or even die, while performing a stunt. That doesn't mean what's being depicted on screen isn't fiction!![/eta])

What is fiction isn't what the actors are doing. What is fiction is what is being depicted. That is the difference that Ziggurat and theprestige are either not seeing, or, heh, maybe fictively trying to present as if they're not seeing.

(And what is being depicted remains strictly a work of fiction, regardless of how much realism goes into the acting.)

 

[theprestige]

That's nonsense. Those implications don't follow.

An actor might have a real emotional breakdown doing a scene that's triggering for them. That doesn't mean that what they were depicting on screen isn't fiction.

What is fiction isn't what the actors are doing. What is fiction is what is being depicted. That is the difference that Ziggurat and theprestige are either not seeing, or, heh, maybe fictively trying to present as if they're not seeing.

(And what is being depicted remains strictly a work of fiction, regardless of how much realism goes into the acting.)

This discussion is about what the actors are actually doing, not the fictional narrative they're supporting with their actual actions.

 

[Chanakya]

This discussion is about what the actors are actually doing, not the fictional narrative they're supporting with their actual actions.

No, this discussion is about what they're depicting.

 

[Poem]

No, this discussion is about what they're depicting.

You attend a porn set and watch real sex happening....you think that's fiction?

You've got lost in semantics Chanakya.

 

[Chanakya]

You attend a porn set and watch real sex happening....you think that's fiction?

You've got lost in semantics Chanakya.

Not "attend a porn set". That's meta, that's "real".

Porn's a show, like any other (in this sense). Of course it's fiction.

...Actually, that's the last thing theprestige intended, but he's made a compelling argument supporting my case that it's fiction. You watch the movie Brandon Lee was shooting when he got killed, do you imagine that movie's real, not fiction?

Nope, Poem. We're disagreed on the meat of the argument, not semantics. And on that I'm right, and you're wrong. (Happy to change my mind, though, if you can show me otherwise. Remember, you're watching porn, you're watching the movie Brandon Lee starred in. You're watching the depiction, the performance. That's what porn is.)

The semantics part was brought in by Zig and theprestige, who're old friends. That's a different narrative, don't worry about it.

----------

Also, the rest of what I said to you? Above the separator line, in my last comment to you, in response to what you'd said to me? Agree, disagree? Either case, why?

 

[Myriad]

No the problem is not solved. Society is still showing porn to kids. No responsible adult would have sex such that a child could see and hear them...so why are they shrugging at porn?

Because it's already illegal (you claim; I'm no lawyer so I make no claim either way) to show porn to kids.

If kids are seeing porn because people are breaking the law, how does passing another law help?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope, it's fiction. The depiction is fiction. Whether it is CGI, or simulation,

CGI and simulation are fiction. Nobody is disputing that.

or an exceptionally fit actor with exceptional training and exceptional support staff performing a stunt:

Stunts are often fiction, because they are often done in a manner which portrays the stunt in a manner different than it actually was performed.

but in either case, to mistake this for reality,
that an ordinary viewer might imagine they could or should try themselves in their everyday lives

That's a completely different issue, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is fiction.

Have you ever watched the documentary Free Solo? That's not fiction, that's fact. And yet, you should not try that yourself. And the reason you should not try that yourself has nothing to do with whether or not it's true.

 

[Chanakya]

CGI and simulation are fiction. Nobody is disputing that.

Stunts are often fiction, because they are often done in a manner which portrays the stunt in a manner different than it actually was performed.

That's a completely different issue, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is fiction.

Have you ever watched the documentary Free Solo? That's not fiction, that's fact. And yet, you should not try that yourself. And the reason you should not try that yourself has nothing to do with whether or not it's true.

That's a lot of irrelevancies.

Have you watched the movie Brandon Lee was shooting for when he got killed? That movie is fiction, it is a show, it is a performance. Regardless of how Brandon Lee was performing his acting thing, or what happened to him.

You're completely, utterly wrong about this. Let it go.

----------

Separately from that: My post, that you chose to comment on, was part of an ongoing discussion with Poem, going back days, about people --- including children --- recognizing that porn is a performance, fiction, not real, SO THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLATE WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE IN PORN WITH WHAT EVERYDAY REAL LIFE SEX IS.

That is the whole point why Poem and I are even discussing whether porn is a performance, and fiction; as opposed to porn being real. So, whether people should do what they see depicted, becomes central to the discussion.

You're completely wrong about this as well. Let it go. Or, better still, this one's a trivial inconsequential disagreement, so just do the right thing and clearly own up to bring wrong.

 

[theprestige]

That's a lot of irrelevancies.

Have you watched the movie Brandon Lee was shooting for when he got killed? That movie is fiction, it is a show, it is a performance. Regardless of how Brandon Lee was performing his acting thing, or what happened to him.

You're completely, utterly wrong about this. Let it go.

----------

Separately from that: My post, that you chose to comment on, was part of an ongoing discussion with Poem, going back days, about people --- including children --- recognizing that porn is a performance, fiction, not real, SO THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLATE WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE IN PORN WITH WHAT EVERYDAY REAL LIFE SEX IS.

That is the whole point why Poem and I are even discussing whether porn is a performance, and fiction; as opposed to porn being real. So, whether people should do what they see depicted, becomes central to the discussion.

You're completely wrong about this as well. Let it go. Or, better still, this one's a trivial inconsequential disagreement, so just do the right thing and clearly own up to bring wrong.

Phalluses go in orifices. Ejaculate is ejaculated. These things happen for real. Right there on camera.

How are you not getting this?

 

[Chanakya]

Phalluses go in orifices. Ejaculate is ejaculated. These things happen for real. Right there on camera.

How are you not getting this?

Nevertheless the depiction of it is a performance, fiction, a show. Regardless of how, in the analogy you yourself introduced, Brandon Lee performed his fights and stunts, and regardless of what happened to him, THE MOVIE HE WAS SHOOTING FOR, THAT MOVIE WAS A PERFORMANCE, WAS FICTION, WAS A SHOW.

How are you managing to continue to put up the performance of that simple matter not penetrating through to you? How?

*hands over Oscar*

 

[theprestige]

Nevertheless the depiction of it is a performance, fiction, a show. Regardless of how, in the analogy you yourself introduced, Brandon Lee performed his fights and stunts, and regardless of what happened to him, THE MOVIE HE WAS SHOOTING FOR, THAT MOVIE WAS A PERFORMANCE, WAS FICTION, WAS A SHOW.

How are you managing to continue to put up the performance of that simple matter not penetrating through to you? How?

*hands over Oscar*

Already addressed:

Real sex acts in support of a fictitious narrative are real sex acts.

They're not simulations. They're not stunts that give the impression without committing the act itself. They're not fictitious. They're real. They really happen. That's an important distinction to me, regardless of whether the narrative is reality or fiction.

ETA: There are whole categories of porn that are essentially documentaries. Where the whole point is that these are real things really happening to the people involved. Maybe they don't tell you the actor is on viagra, or the actress is only pretending to like it (or pretending to hate it). But they make sure to film it in such a way that it's absolutely clear that it's really happening.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a lot of irrelevancies.

Your entire argument is an irrelevancy.

Have you watched the movie Brandon Lee was shooting for when he got killed? That movie is fiction, it is a show, it is a performance.

These are not synonyms. Juggling is a performance, but it is not a fiction.

And yes, The Crow is fiction. Because you can't actually get resurrected by a crow spirit to get revenge on evil-doers, as portrayed in the movie.

Separately from that: My post, that you chose to comment on, was part of an ongoing discussion with Poem, going back days, about people --- including children --- recognizing that porn is a performance, fiction, not real, SO THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLATE WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE IN PORN WITH WHAT EVERYDAY REAL LIFE SEX IS.

Except, again, IT IS REAL. They are actually having sex. You can frame it as fiction all you want, but Poem is correct on this and you are wrong, it's actual sex.

And god damn it, I'll never forgive you for making me agree with Poem, but that's how bad your argument is. You keep trying to hang your hat on other words liker "performance", and yes, it's a performance. That doesn't make it not real in the ways that matter.

You're completely wrong about this as well. Let it go. Or, better still, this one's a trivial inconsequential disagreement, so just do the right thing and clearly own up to bring wrong.

It's not trivial, and you're the one who's completely wrong on it, not Poem. Poem has gotten so many things wrong in this discussion, but not this point. And the fact that she's wrong on other points isn't going to make me go along with you on this when you're the one who is wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Phalluses go in orifices. Ejaculate is ejaculated. These things happen for real. Right there on camera.

How are you not getting this?

Because he's intent on creating a fiction of his own, which is that porn has no effect on anyone at all because it's just fiction.

 

[Poem]

It's not trivial, and you're the one who's completely wrong on it, not Poem. Poem has gotten so many things wrong in this discussion, but not this point. And the fact that she's wrong on other points isn't going to make me go along with you on this when you're the one who is wrong.

He.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If porn isn't inherently bad then why not just let it all hang out...in public? We 'hide' it. Why?.

Christianity, that's why. Organised religion in general. Make people feel guilty about perfectly normal things, create a monopoly on the way to expiate this "sin", and you can control them.

It's perfectly normal to show a 9 year old a porn gang bang? You are actually getting what you advocate CY - children of that age are seeing such material.
It's astonishing that we have reached this level of depravity.

This is, as Darat has noted, a truly vile post, both dishonest and disgusting.
Let me explain, so you don't give us your phoney 'injured innocence' act again.
You questioned why we 'hide porn', asking why we don't just let it all hang out in public. I responded to this. I responded to the question about why there is a perception that porn is shameful, inherently bad, and gave my explanation for it.
You then did a bait and switch, going from 'is porn inherently bad' to 'oh, so you want to show gang-bangs to 9-year-olds'. That was nasty and dishonest. There was no call for that at all. You offered to apologise, and I think you should.
To explain further: there is a distinction between things that are appropriate only for adults, and things that are appropriate for children. Alcohol is one of them, for example. That we do not allow children legally to drink alcohol does not mean we think there is something shameful in drinking: it just means we don't think that children should do it, because they aren't ready (developed enough) for it. To go on to say that, because I don't think there's anything wrong in drinking wine, it is therefore perfectly normal to give vodka to a 9-year-old, is the same kind of argument you just made. i.e., wrong in all kinds of ways.

 

[3point14]

No the problem is not solved. Society is still showing porn to kids. No responsible adult would have sex such that a child could see and hear them...so why are they shrugging at porn?

The logical conclusion of this seems to be that we, as a society, should comprehensively ban anything we don't want children doing or seeing.

I don't think the gold standard for what should be illegal should be 'do you want your children doing it'.

 

[Poem]

I apologise to you CY - I shouldn't have made that inflammatory reference to you regarding 9 year olds. I will say your post did and does allow for a cynical inference, but there was no need to go as far as I did.

Let me explain, so you don't give us your phoney 'injured innocence' act again.

No one is innocent including me.

You questioned why we 'hide porn', asking why we don't just let it all hang out in public. I responded to this. I responded to the question about why there is a perception that porn is shameful, inherently bad, and gave my explanation for it.

Porn is hidden from general public view - it's viewed behind closed doors, so it begs the question as to what you think should happen to make it 'perfectly normal' without putting it on public display?

You are clearly incensed that anyone, religious or otherwise, would dare to suggest that porn is harmful.

To explain further: there is a distinction between things that are appropriate only for adults, and things that are appropriate for children. Alcohol is one of them, for example. That we do not allow children legally to drink alcohol does not mean we think there is something shameful in drinking: it just means we don't think that children should do it, because they aren't ready (developed enough) for it. To go on to say that, because I don't think there's anything wrong in drinking wine, it is therefore perfectly normal to give vodka to a 9-year-old, is the same kind of argument you just made. i.e., wrong in all kinds of ways.

You fail to deal with the fact that 9 year old are watching porn. Millions of young people will be watching right now. Adult society in general has chosen to satisfy an insatiable appetite at their expense (and we also know that porn is harmful to adults - particularly young men).