Because, like child porn, [fantasy rape porn] portrays and serves to legitimize a most heinous of crimes. Why is it any different from watching movies generally portraying crimes, even heinous crimes? Well, the answer brings us to the necessary clarification. Simple - sexual arousal.And that leads us to reconsider the definition of porn per se. I wouldn't seek to make claim to a fool-proof definition, but for the time being, and the purposes of this debate, I believe part of one that I've previously used in the context of VCP takes us far enough:
Pornography: More or less sexual images intended to sexually arouse.
Put that in the context of rape portrayal and children and I see a reasonably clear line in the sand that puts the vast majority, if not all, of the innocuous material referred to in this thread clearly on the side of acceptability.
So you see, my criterion for wanting something like child porn and rape porn banned has absolutely nothing to do with my personal distaste, but everything to do with it linking illegal acts to sexual arousal, and not only linking, but, more importantly, serving as a catalyst for sexual arousal.
I'm sure most of us here are familiar with the concept of associative behaviour. If not, take a trip down to your local dog training school. Humans are no different. If we associate "Thing-A" with a pleasant experience we subconsciouly look favourably on Thing-A. If we associate Thing-B with an orgasmic (literally) experience we thrive on Thing-B. The very existence and procreation of mankind hinges on sexual arousal. That's why sexual arousal tends to transpose one into a noticeably different mindset - allowing us to think and do things that, in the cold light of day, and on reflection, can not only surprise and shock us, but ruin us, in just about every way possible.
What do you think is the main cause of infidelity, for example, if not the inability to control one's behaviour under the influence of sexual stimulation? Why do we sometimes critically accuse promiscuous men of "thinking with their penises", or even the otherwise model monogamous, fine upstanding family man after a one-off, unexplainable night of infidelity? There's more than a hint of truth in that cliched accusation, I believe. Moreover, what's the most common excuse for infidelity? "I don't know what I was thinking - it meant nothing - I love you, darling". Exactly - it meant nothing - because it had no meaning. It was purely impulsive and couldn't be checked. It causes great harm, certainly emotional and often physical, to otherwise loving ones - wives, husbands, partners, children, parents - but that's not considered at the time is it - in the heat of the moment. Out of sight out of mind.
I believe that our very human existence reflects an evolutionary trait for wanton procreation, no different from any other animal, and whilst humans might have evolved conscience and cognitive abilities, they somehow have a tendency to "disengage" when it comes to sexuality, to varying degrees.
Given the power of raw sexuality I see it as unmitigatingly improbable that associative behaviour linked to pornographic rape portrayal and child pornography (real or virtual) does not, and will continue to not, directly lead to rape and child abuse. Now, if it were to be conclusively shown that pornographic rape portrayal and/or child pornography leads to a net reduction in rape and child abuse respectively I would unflinchingly do a U-turn overnight. Being a firm believer that viewing violent and abusive genres of porn tends towards an insatiable hunger for an increasingly violent sexual "hit", however, I have no doubts that such behaviour will, in many, many cases, eventually spill over from masturbation to actual rape and abuse, and in many of those cases I have no doubt that the threshold is shockingly low.
