Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

Why resisting? Just because the fantasy of something or playing mimicing something is fun or a turn on does not mean reality is. Resisting is saying that they feel that they would want the reality of it at some level. For some people they that may be true. But do you really think that if someone has a fantasy of being raped, and the chance to be raped like in their fantasy they would feel comflicted about avoiding being raped?

This seems patently rediculus to me, but it is just changing the side from a fantasy about being raped to a fantasy about being a rapist.


The point is you are agreeing that someone who has a fantasy of X but wouldn't do X would feel any desire to do X if the personal consequences were removed.

Hello, ponderingturtle. I'm getting a little bit confused with this part of it, I have to admit. I'm not sure what it is that keeps fantasy in the realm of fantasy rather than reality. Offhand, I would say a survival/self-protection instinct...?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hello, ponderingturtle. I'm getting a little bit confused with this part of it, I have to admit. I'm not sure what it is that keeps fantasy in the realm of fantasy rather than reality. Offhand, I would say a survival/self-protection instinct...?

Or that the reality is simply not attractive. Someone might find the concept of some act arrousing but the actual sensations or other things invovled in it not arrousing.

Ethics can be a part, but pure other things might as well.

Something to think about is say non manogamy, it is a very common fantasy, but there are plenty of people that it is not a fantasy that they want to try to achieve in their life. Fantasy can be very very abstract and divorced from the realities that an act would entail.

 

[Belz...]

Er ... if you desire negative emotions and pleasure (i.e. pain), that's objectifying.

Why ?

So exactly how far are you going to take this "I dislike (digust) what John Doe is doing because I dislike doing it myself" attitude? I actually dislike watching opera. Let's pretend you do too (assuming you don't). Do you dislike the idea of somebody else watching opera?

Obviously, since that would include me watching opera, in this case.

Based on a false premise that I felt inclined to highlight to you. You wouldn't happen to be similarly inclined to highlight the punchline by any chance, would you?

What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

 

[JFrankA]

I just want to bring up this point:

I said this:

I've known people who have very extreme fantasies. In fact, I know one who had a murder fantasy. She wanted to feel like she was being murdered. But the reality was that she didn't want to be murdered, (and, I might add, no one wanted to kill her), but she wanted to feel it, but of course, without going through the reality.

To which, SW, you replied:

You cannot validly claim what I've highlighted JFrankA. You cannot possibly know what she wanted and didn't want. All you can validly claim is that she didn't allow herself to be murdered when push came to shove. She drew a line and wasn't prepared to cross it. Some people don't draw a line though, and they go through with it. Why do you think their fantasy is any different from the woman you allude to?

But I feel you glossed over this part:

And her fantasy was achieved a couple of very safe, but very devious ways. There was one time when it got to real for her and the scene was stopped by her, with a discussion as to how to improve it.

(My bolding).

How can her reaction be called "resist the reality"? It was, in fact, a complete turn off or a lack of desire. In your own words, she "drew a line and wasn't prepared to cross it". That's not resisting, that's not desiring.

 

[Rairun]

Why resisting? Just because the fantasy of something or playing mimicing something is fun or a turn on does not mean reality is. Resisting is saying that they feel that they would want the reality of it at some level. For some people they that may be true. But do you really think that if someone has a fantasy of being raped, and the chance to be raped like in their fantasy they would feel comflicted about avoiding being raped?

Under the definition I provided, yes, they would probably feel conflicted. I'm not saying people enjoy being raped, mind you. I'm just saying that if people could "make their fantasies come true exactly as they imagined them", then there would no reason for them not to enjoy them in real life.

My point here is that fantasies have properties that often can't be translated into reality. You can dream about fighting in a war all you want, but your fantasy probably only includes a few selected parts that you find alluring. You may enjoy the precision of firing a rifle, or maybe it's the feeling of being a hero--but your fantasy completely ignores how it feels to be in danger, or to kill an actual person, or to see a real friend die.

There is a greater divide between fantasy and reality than some people acknowledge. Most of the time, it doesn't even make sense to talk about turning such fantasies into reality. War without danger, as it was fantasized, isn't war at all. It's just a dream.

I can't say I've ever fantasized about rape, but I could try to guess why some people enjoy it. It could be the physicality of it, the whole struggle involved, not unlike the thrill of wrestling. If they fantasize about raping a quiet victim... well, to be honest, I can't think of a reason for it, but there's probably one. And if they fantasize about being raped, then it could be something about submission, the loss of control.

My point is that most "rape" fantasies aren't about rape at all. It's not just "fantasy = reality - personal consequences". The whole thing is imagined and only bears a very superficial resemblance to the actual act.

 

[Southwind17]

Strangely enough, Southwind17, I think you and JFrankA are actually on the same page. Maybe if it goes back just one step further, the two of you can reach a better understanding (unless I'm way off).
Ugh. I don't know how else to phrase it, so here goes: what you are saying is, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that, in order for a person to even have a rape fantasy (perpetrator or victim), they had to at some point have been aroused by rape itself. Which really wouldn't be unusual, but it just isn't something people generally admit.
So what *you* are saying, I think, is that the fantasy develops from a reality. Kind of...reality -> interest/arousal-> fantasy -> maybe to reality again, maybe not, depending on the individual.
It isn't at all unusual for people to be secretly aroused by taboo things, or even violence. We just generally don't admit it for fear of being labelled "crazy" or "insane".
Am I getting this right?

I agree with you SugarB in your entire post, but one point SW and I are disagreeing on is this: I think SW is saying, and correct me if I'm wrong SW. Is that the reason most people don't desire the reality is because of a because of consequences of that reality causes a person to resist her/his desire for the reality to happen.
What I'm saying is that the reason most people don't desire the reality is because the consequences doesn't cause one to resist the reality, but actually takes away the desire for that reality.

Ahhhhh ... I think I see the problem now! It's amazing what a couple of hours break and a bite to eat can do!

As is often the case it comes down to different people's meaning of a single word, in this case "desire". It seems very clear now from your post above, JFrankA, that when you use the phrase "desire reality", for example, you essentially mean "wish for reality" in a conscious sense, and that's the key word here "conscious". When I write "desire" I mean in a subconscious sense, by which I mean the desire develops or fixes itself in one's mind automatically. So, if I have a desire to pull off a Heatesque heist it's not because I've consciously stopped and thought: "Ooh ... I'd like to pull off a Heatesque heist", it's because I just ... well ... would like to pull off a Heatesque heist. I don't necessarily know where the desire has come from (the notion certainly came from watching the movie "Heat"), but clearly not everybody who watches "Heat" develops a desire to replicate it, regardless of how weak any such desire may be.

Now, anybody can see why the meaning of desire that I think JFrankA has been adopting provokes a very different reaction from mine. Clearly, any conscious, intentional development of a desire, particularly a negative desire, such as rape, is likely to be viewed critically, to put it mildly.

So, taking a couple of unrelated example of desire, namely a desire to eat chocolate and a desire to become wealthy, they both start in the subconscious. One doesn't consciously bring the desire to mind. One doesn't suddenly think to oneself: "I know ... I think I'll have a desire to eat chocolate", or "I think I'll have a desire to become wealthy". It just happens. One minute you could be sitting perfectly relaxed - the next minute you desire chocolate, or you desire wealth (because you're reading about chocolate, or about the top 100 wealthy people, for example). Clearly, depending on what you then do determines what happens with the desire. You could choose simply to fantasise about eating chocolate or becoming wealthy, and leave it at that (if you're on a diet, or if you're not sufficiently motivated to go seeking wealth, say), or you could act on the desire and actually go and eat chocolate or seek a higher paid job. Alternatively, you could do nothing and hope that the desire simply "goes away", at least out of your conscious mind (until it rears its ugly head again!). Regardless, the desire arises from the subconscious - there's nothing that can be done to stop it. Except, of course, by controlling how the seeds of desire are sewn in the first place. If I had never watched "Heat", for example, then I certainly wouldn't have a desire to pull off a Heatesque heist (I might have a desire to rob a bank, or such like, from other experiences, but certainly not a Heatesque heist, by definition). If I'd never encountered chocolate then I couldn't possibly have a desire to eat chocolate. I might develop a desire to drink apple juice, though! So, by the same token, if I've been exposed to information that could sew a "desire seed" to rape, such as reading about rape or watching a movie about rape, there's a possibility that the "rape desire seed" will germinate. Now, unlike the previous examples, even if the rape desire is there it might not necessarily come into the conscious mind quite in the same way to the extent that I suddenly think: "I've got to rape somebody", but I suspect that it does with some people with a propensity to rape, and who either act on it and rape somebody, or who think better of it and turn to porn instead (this would be those people to whom the alleged porn/rape inverse correlation relates). Of course, they might choose simply to fantasise about it, or they might even just resist the desire until it dissipates. Any option is possible. In the main, though, I'd say that the "rape desire seed", for those people who have it, lays dormant but bubbles close to the surface now and then, possibly prompted by something, such as an erotically presented rape scene, either read or viewed, but maybe just "out of the blue". But when it does surface the beholder, as distinct from the person with a propensity to rape, has limited "choice". He could simply try to "forget about it" (which usually works), or he could fantasise, which, as we know, could extend to acting on it, but only in a pretend fashion.

So, coming back to JFrankA's post above, it's not a question of resisting "desiring the reality", it's simply a case of resisting acting on a desire when it surfaces. And for most people that's very easy - it requires no conscious effort at all (well, not for rape, but not always for chocolate!). Why? Because of the consequences of acting on the desire (not resisting the desire, as you've suggested above JFrankA, but resisting acting on the desire), which serves as a deterrent (and to be clear, by consequences I don't mean the tangible legal consequences, I mean the moral and ethical consequences, which are more than sufficient deterrent for most people).

Turning to your points, sugarb, I don't believe the person with the "rape desire seed", for example, necessarily has to have been aroused by rape for the seed to be sewn. Rather, I think the seed has to be there as a prerequisite for the arousal. But you might be right, especially for, say, pubescents, who may see a rape scene that arouses them because of raw sexual hormones or suchlike, but without appreciating the context. The seed, unfortunately, is sewn. Maybe it will germinate later; maybe it will lie dormant or even float off in the adolescent breeze. But it seems to me that some of these seeds could possibly be genetic; even maybe hereditary. Just guessing.

And as for your point about certain people being aroused by taboo things but not admitting to it, I couldn't agree more. And I think there are some "closet arousees" here in this very thread, who are not only carefully guarding their secrets or are even in permanent denial over them, but worse are trying to paint themselves as the exact opposite. As you probably know, I like to close out my posts on a provocative note where possible. I doubt that this thread would be so lively and persistent did I not!

I tend to agree with JFrankA. If someone has a rape fantasy (or any other fantasy, for that matter), I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that they desire it to become reality. If they had a chance to make their fantasy come true exactly as they imagined it, they might choose not to go through with it for various reasons (they're in a monogamous relationship, etc.), but there would be some resisting involved.

Again, this is an example of the "JFrankA" meaning of "desire" (which, logically, is why Rairun agrees with him (and I'm not suggesting that's a "wrong" meaning at all, just a perfectly valid meaning different from mine, hence the apparent "confusion" and ensuing disagreement)).

The point here is that it's often impossible to "make one's fantasy come through exactly as one imagined it." It's likely that the person who fantasizes about rape wouldn't actually enjoy the full reality of the act. It's so easy to idealize even the most run-of-the-mill sex acts, let alone something one's never done before. I'd be willing give people the benefit of doubt and assume they are aware of that important difference.

Couldn't agree more. I doubt that most if not all women wouldn't enjoy any reality of the act of rape, regardless of what they may "desire" and possibly fantasise about.

 

[Southwind17]

Why ?

Because I say so, that's why.

Obviously, since that would include me watching opera, in this case.

Doh!

What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

You're obviously incapable of following a thread or reading back beyond the current post Belz. Either that or you're simply downright lazy (or both - most likely). Whichever it is, I guess that accounts for your 15,000+ posts. I suspect 5,000 are "Why?", 5,000 "What the blue hell are you talking about?", 5000 "Because!", and the rest "Well put me on ignore if you like, see if I care." (which is exactly where you're going forthwith - take solace in being my first, I like to think of myself as a patient person!) Ciao.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Under the definition I provided, yes, they would probably feel conflicted. I'm not saying people enjoy being raped, mind you. I'm just saying that if people could "make their fantasies come true exactly as they imagined them", then there would no reason for them not to enjoy them in real life.

My point here is that fantasies have properties that often can't be translated into reality. You can dream about fighting in a war all you want, but your fantasy probably only includes a few selected parts that you find alluring. You may enjoy the precision of firing a rifle, or maybe it's the feeling of being a hero--but your fantasy completely ignores how it feels to be in danger, or to kill an actual person, or to see a real friend die.

The thing is that some people might well have achieveable fantasies, that have risk or harm that they would not choose to experiance.

There is a greater divide between fantasy and reality than some people acknowledge. Most of the time, it doesn't even make sense to talk about turning such fantasies into reality. War without danger, as it was fantasized, isn't war at all. It's just a dream.

But it doesn't even have to be something that has negative consequences to have the reality of it be unattractive to someone who enjoys the fantasy.

 

[Rairun]

Southwind17,

Just to make it clear: I don't think your explanation fits what I was trying to say (nor what JFrankA was saying, if I understood him properly). My point was that people's fantasies are often based on a misapprehension of reality. When people fantasize about rape, they do desire to go through the experience they fantasize about, but their idea of what rape actually feels like is completely divorced from reality. Most people realize this. They know that the way they imagine rape is one thing, and that the actual experience of rape is another. If people started fantasizing about rape as it really is, most of them would be turned off and disturbed.

I'm afraid that doesn't have anything to do with the conscious or unconscious nature of desire. If a person who fantasizes about rape decides not to rape, they aren't "resisting acting on a desire". They are only aware that their desire wouldn't be fulfilled by real rape. In fact, real rape would be a turn off. It would be disturbing. Real rape isn't what they fantasize about.

I agree that there are people who fantasize about real rape. Those people would indeed be resisting acting on their desire. I obviously wouldn't consider them criminals until they commited the crime, but they probably lack empathy and such.

 

[Rairun]

The thing is that some people might well have achieveable fantasies, that have risk or harm that they would not choose to experiance.

I think we're arguing semantics here. I was really just making the following distinction:

(1) People who have fantasies they would enjoy in reality, but who choose not to experience them due to risk, harm, morals, etc. Refusing to eat chocolate because you want to lose weight would be an example of this.

(2) People who have fantasies they wouldn't enjoy in reality, because the fantasy doesn't fit reality at all. Example: Refusing to eat your partner's feces because they taste horrible in reality, even if it seemed kind of erotic in your imagination.

My point is that it's entirely possible for rape fantasies to fall under (2).

But it doesn't even have to be something that has negative consequences to have the reality of it be unattractive to someone who enjoys the fantasy.

I agree.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think we're arguing semantics here. I was really just making the following distinction:

(1) People who have fantasies they would enjoy in reality, but who choose not to experience them due to risk, harm, morals, etc. Refusing to eat chocolate because you want to lose weight would be an example of this.

(2) People who have fantasies they wouldn't enjoy in reality, because the fantasy doesn't fit reality at all. Example: Refusing to eat your partner's feces because they taste horrible in reality, even if it seemed kind of erotic in your imagination.

My point is that it's entirely possible for rape fantasies to fall under (2).

There is also the point that your fantasy has you acting in ways that would be difficult for you to act. It could be a situation that you wish you were confortable with but just can't deal with in reality. In a nonsexual case, my girlfriend talked about going to the Halloween parade in NYC, and I would honnestly like to go with her. But I know that I would not be able to deal with the noise and crowds. I would get angry and stressed out and ruin her time as well as hate it.

And I wouldn't say we are agruing semantics, but substantive points when it comes to peoples motivations for not doing acts that they like in fantasy.

I agree.

Good.

 

[Rairun]

There is also the point that your fantasy has you acting in ways that would be difficult for you to act. It could be a situation that you wish you were confortable with but just can't deal with in reality. In a nonsexual case, my girlfriend talked about going to the Halloween parade in NYC, and I would honnestly like to go with her. But I know that I would not be able to deal with the noise and crowds. I would get angry and stressed out and ruin her time as well as hate it.

And I wouldn't say we are agruing semantics, but substantive points when it comes to peoples motivations for not doing acts that they like in fantasy

Wouldn't this kind of fit (2), though? You like thinking about going to the parade with your girlfriend. You like the thought of having a good time with her. But the reality of the parade is such that you wouldn't enjoy it at all. You can remove the unpleasant parts from your fantasy and then wish you felt that way, but you know things would be different if you were actually there with her.

 

[arthwollipot]

Still confused.

 

[fuelair]

Arguing from incredulity. Doubting something does not make it untrue.

Special pleading (amateur pictures are DIFFERENT). Strawman (I wasn't responding to anything you said, therefore your definitions don't matter).

Then there's the fact that you're forming an opinion without having enough information to do so. I didn't say what I was doing when I posed. For all you know, they could have been still pictures of anything on the list you posted earlier. And no, I will not be divulging the content of such pictures here. I do not feel it is appropriate (especially since some people have already objected to use of explicit language in this thread), nor do I feel it would be within the terms of the MA for me to do so.

As to "the context of the OP" -- your moving goalposts around after the original post of the thread is not my problem. Nor does this thread belong to you. Amateur porn is still porn and thus still on topic no matter how hard you try to argue against it.

A thing so many OP posters do not understand.

 

[JFrankA]

Southwind17,

Just to make it clear: I don't think your explanation fits what I was trying to say (nor what JFrankA was saying, if I understood him properly). My point was that people's fantasies are often based on a misapprehension of reality. When people fantasize about rape, they do desire to go through the experience they fantasize about, but their idea of what rape actually feels like is completely divorced from reality. Most people realize this. They know that the way they imagine rape is one thing, and that the actual experience of rape is another. If people started fantasizing about rape as it really is, most of them would be turned off and disturbed.

I'm afraid that doesn't have anything to do with the conscious or unconscious nature of desire. If a person who fantasizes about rape decides not to rape, they aren't "resisting acting on a desire". They are only aware that their desire wouldn't be fulfilled by real rape. In fact, real rape would be a turn off. It would be disturbing. Real rape isn't what they fantasize about.

I agree that there are people who fantasize about real rape. Those people would indeed be resisting acting on their desire. I obviously wouldn't consider them criminals until they commited the crime, but they probably lack empathy and such.

Sorry, SW. Rairun hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I am saying.

 

[Southwind17]

Just to make it clear: I don't think your explanation fits what I was trying to say (nor what JFrankA was saying, if I understood him properly). My point was that people's fantasies are often based on a misapprehension of reality. When people fantasize about rape, they do desire to go through the experience they fantasize about, but their idea of what rape actually feels like is completely divorced from reality. Most people realize this. They know that the way they imagine rape is one thing, and that the actual experience of rape is another. If people started fantasising about rape as it really is, most of them would be turned off and disturbed.

So they're not really fantasising about being raped, then, are they. They're fantasising about something similar to rape, but that falls somewhat short of the real thing, or they fantasize about being raped, but retaining the ability to stop the act at will. Whilst that might well be true, that's slightly different from what I'm commenting on. Perhaps what this means is that very few, if any, women actually fantasise about being raped!

I'm afraid that doesn't have anything to do with the conscious or unconscious nature of desire. If a person who fantasizes about rape decides not to rape, they aren't "resisting acting on a desire". They are only aware that their desire wouldn't be fulfilled by real rape. In fact, real rape would be a turn off. It would be disturbing. Real rape isn't what they fantasize about

.
Ah ... and now you've actually stated it. I figured I might be right!

I agree that there are people who fantasize about real rape. Those people would indeed be resisting acting on their desire. I obviously wouldn't consider them criminals until they commited the crime, but they probably lack empathy and such.

And these are those upon which I, and I thought all of us (should I not have?!) were discussing!

Sorry, SW. Rairun hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I am saying.

Well at least we've removed one inconsistency. Seems my tome served at least one key purpose!

 

[MontagK505]

I was pretty sure somebody would pick up on this, which is why I chose my words carefully. I don't think any movies - action, porn or otherwise - specifically set out to "serve to legitimize" what they portray. Porn movies, however, appeal to and target a raw human instinct, and I think that the impact they might have could, as a result, be different.

BTW - that's one of the best movie scenes I've ever seen - good choice. That and the opening scene to "Saving Private Ryan" (not the memorial park scene - the beach landing).

Sorry I have to disagree, I think violence is also part of “raw human instinct”. As a species we've had to fight with nature and each other, etc, as well as reproduce.

I apply this to both genders, although men are better equipped for violence than women.

But, for some reason explicit sex on a movie screen generality produces greater controversy than explicit violence.

BTW I agree that bank robbery in “Heat” is one of the best movie shootouts ever!

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry I have to disagree, I think violence is also part of “raw human instinct”. As a species we've had to fight with nature and each other, etc, as well as reproduce.

I apply this to both genders, although men are better equipped for violence than women.

But, for some reason explicit sex on a movie screen generality produces greater controversy than explicit violence.

BTW I agree that bank robbery in “Heat” is one of the best movie shootouts ever!

I know what you mean here (especially the last sentence (except that it isn't a bank )!). However, there's a key difference. If one watches Heat one doesn't tend to well up a raging desire to go and stage an armed heist. In contrast, if one watches a porn movie, well ... certain involuntary physiological things tend to happen which usually culminate in a physical "reaction", whether alone or otherwise(!) See what I mean? Clearly, porn is a much more effective stimulus for physical reaction than a violence scene is, acknowledging the hugely different consequences too, which is, of course, also a factor.

 

[BTMO]

I tried looking at porn once.

I was bored stiff...

 

[JFrankA]

So they're not really fantasising about being raped, then, are they. They're fantasising about something similar to rape, but that falls somewhat short of the real thing, or they fantasize about being raped, but retaining the ability to stop the act at will. Whilst that might well be true, that's slightly different from what I'm commenting on. Perhaps what this means is that very few, if any, women actually fantasise about being raped!

There you go. Yes, technically it isn't rape. That's why its called "fantasy rape" or "age play" or when the fantasy is occuring its called "sceneing" or "play".

Ah ... and now you've actually stated it. I figured I might be right!

Woo hoo!

And these are those upon which I, and I thought all of us (should I not have?!) were discussing!

We could, but first, I think we had to come to this understanding that there is a difference. I do feel, and my opinion only, that the majority of people fantasize the way I was trying to describe it. I feel that there is a small minority of people who fantasize the way you want to discuss it.

Well at least we've removed one inconsistency. Seems my tome served at least one key purpose!

*Pats you on the back*