Virginia Gun Massacre

[Guybrush]

Ok, but:

1. What makes them would-be rapists if they don't act on their desires?
2. How can you measure their increase in desire for sexual violence?
3. What does it mean to "virtually rape" anyone/thing/thought construct in any case?

What makes you think that asking three incredulous questions is the quickest way to understanding? Use your imagination. (I’m sorry if this sounds peevish, but you know very well that abstract reasonings are a pain in the arse to explain concretely.)

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

That's not right, porn is not to rape what terrorism is to violence, that analogy just doesn't make sense. Someone watching porn is, I dunno, nasty, unpleasant etc but it is clearly going too far to say that it is actually rape and certainly not the ultimate form of rape.

Are you being facetious? Firstly, I did not say that watching porn is rape; I said that porn is rape. Similarly, I did not say that watching terrorism is violence; I said terrorism is violence. You are free, of course, to refute such tautologies.

]But I broadly agree with your wider point, if watching pornography reduces rape in the short-term that doesn't mean that you should stop wondering about what that pornography does to the viewers, "actors" and society in the long term.

Yes, and the principal problem with the report cited/linked to by Guybrush is that it is claiming that there may be a direct, causal relationship between porn on the internet and the incidence of sexual abuse/violence in society: as it concludes, "Nevertheless, the results suggest that, in contrast to previous theories to the contrary, liberalization of pornography access may lead to declines in sexual victimization of women." This contrasts sharply both with previous liberal-based studies, which predominantly claim no such causal connection, and with previous conservative-based research, which invariably claims a direct causal relationship, though in the contrary direction. What's new here is the introduction of reductive (quantitative) causality in such liberal research.

Only if you accept that porn is rape and it has to be "is", not related to or similar to but "is". I don't know anyone who would (except you obviously).

Don't know anyone???? You're joking, right? [And feminist theory doesn't exist either!]

Surely it would have to be virtually (not actually) raping a virtual person. Again, the thing is that most people (not HMLT) would be able to recognise that virtual squared rape while still a bad thing is not the same as actual rape. The second part (about the increase in potential rapists) follows without having to conflate the two though so again I broadly agree.

You're no longer dealing with the topic at hand, porn/rape, but veering off into an ontological determination of what is real/what is virtual/what is fake etc as if such matters were transparently self-evident.

 

[IdleRich]

"Are you being facetious? Firstly, I did not say that watching porn is rape; I said that porn is rape. Similarly, I did not say that watching terrorism is violence; I said terrorism is violence. You are free, of course, to refute such tautologies."

OK, you did not say that watching porn is rape, you said that porn is rape. It's not.
Yes terrorism is violence but I'm pointing out that because porn isn't rape you can't say

"Isn't, instead, terrorism (perceived to be) violence at its most horrific, at its purest? Just as porn is rape/sexual violence at its purest"

Porn isn't rape. You are of course free to refute this correction of your position.

Don't know anyone???? You're joking, right? [And feminist theory doesn't exist either!]

Not anyone real.

"You're no longer dealing with the topic at hand, porn/rape, but veering off into an ontological determination of what is real/what is virtual/what is fake etc as if such matters were transparently self-evident."

Well, I am veering in to that because it's relevant here isn't it? Another way to say what you just said would be that I'm challenging your ontological determination of what is real (as if it was transparently self-evident) which was implicit in your position that porn is rape etc
On the other hand Guybrush said

"I think I see what you mean: the would-be rapists actually are raping someone, even though that someone happens to be a virtual person"

So he seems to be saying that the person watching the porn is the virtual rapist which I guess is not what you said in the first place, or would you agree with him?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

OK, you did not say that watching porn is rape, you said that porn is rape.

Is this an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, or a confirmation that you believe the difference to be trivial?

It's not.

What is it?

Yes terrorism is violence but I'm pointing out that because porn isn't rape you can't say:"Isn't, instead, terrorism (perceived to be) violence at its most horrific, at its purest? Just as porn is rape/sexual violence at its purest."

Of course I can, just as you can say that you claim otherwise. Did I instruct you that you cannot claim that porn is not rape because it is rape? Again, do you know what porn/rape is?

Not anyone real.

Yes, you are being facetious.

You're no longer dealing with the topic at hand, porn/rape, but veering off into an ontological determination of what is real/what is virtual/what is fake etc as if such matters were transparently self-evident."

Well, I am veering in to that because it's relevant here isn't it? Another way to say what you just said would be that I'm challenging your ontological determination of what is real (as if it was transparently self-evident) which was implicit in your position that porn is rape etc

No, it isn't relevant, and you're not challenging my ontological determination, because I didn't make any. But you did make such a determination viz virtual rape vs real rape. Whether a rape is believed to be real or imagined has no bearing on the definition of rape; rape is still rape whatever the ontological plane.

 

[IdleRich]

"Is this an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, or a confirmation that you believe the difference to be trivial?"

It is an acknowledgement that I was mistaken, but although the difference is not trivial your analogy is still incorrect.

It's not.

What is it?

I don't know. Do you have to know what something is to say what it's not?

"Of course I can, just as you can say that you claim otherwise"

That's a somewhat pointless thing to say. Yes, you can say it, but you would be wrong to do so, I take your pedantically literal attack on my choice of words (as opposed to actually arguing with my point) to be an admission of this.

"Did I instruct you that you cannot claim that porn is not rape because it is rape? Again, do you know what porn/rape is?"

No, you didn't instruct me, why are you asking me this? Obviously I don't know what "porn/rape" is because it's two words with different meanings stuck together. Why don't you tell me? I'm trying not to be sarcastic or anything here, I would genuinely like to know your answer to this.

"Yes, you are being facetious."

After the last thing you said I think that's a bit rich.

"No, it isn't relevant, and you're not challenging my ontological determination, because I didn't make any. But you did make such a determination viz virtual rape vs real rape. Whether a rape is believed to be real or imagined has no bearing on the definition of rape; rape is still rape whatever the ontological plane."

What are you saying here? A virtual rape is still a rape (but only a virtual one)?

Anyway, I don't know why I get dragged in to these arguments with you when we both seem to roughly agree. As far as I can tell, we both recognise that although pornography might in the immediate short term reduce the number of sex-attacks, that is not an argument for pornography. I think this because I think that both watching and participating in pornography may have an effect on people and ultimately on society and in the end increase the incidence of rape (and have other effects). You think this because you think that pornography actually is rape so it's pointless to argue that it can prevent rape. Is that right as far as it goes?
I do still want to know why you think that pornography is rape? You said it was tautologous but I can't see that at all, when I asked you again you ignored the question.

 

[vimothy]

Come on folks - porn is not rape, and virtual rape is a nonsensical notion.

 

[Chris]

Are you being facetious? Firstly, I did not say that watching porn is rape; I said that porn is rape.

I'm not going to deny the increasingly demeaning/aggressive tone in porn, but aren't the actresses/actors still virtually "giving themselves" to the viewers so to speak? Or are you defining rape as any sexual act devoid of empathy/acknowledgement of the other person as anything but a sexual object? Wouldn't every consentual but cynical "hook up" that happens in the club/meat-market scene then be rape? ...a two-way rape at that?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm not going to deny the increasingly demeaning/aggressive tone in porn, but aren't the actresses/actors still virtually "giving themselves" to the viewers so to speak? Or are you defining rape as any sexual act devoid of empathy/acknowledgement of the other person as anything but a sexual object? Wouldn't every consentual but cynical "hook up" that happens in the club/meat-market scene then be rape? ...a two-way rape at that?

Quite: by this definition, the female is just as much 'raping' the male as the other way round. A ludicrous concept.

I think what this boils down to is a notion I've heard expressed before that "by offering someone money to do something, you effectively force them to do it" - which, in a society like ours where no-one dies for want of food or other basic necessities, is utter twaddle. Don't like performing degrading acts on camera for cash? Well DON'T DO IT, THEN. And if the amount of cash offered sways you...well, it's obviously not *that* unpleasant to you, is it? Plenty of people dislike their jobs, and fortunately we live in a country where people who don't even have a job aren't automatically subject to destitution (or, indeed, prostitution).

Porn is not rape any more than a boxing match is criminal assault.

 

[dHarry]

Come on folks - porn is not rape,

Well, it depends on your definition of porn and rape, doesn't it? I presume HMLT is referring to Dworkin's concept of sex as rape [edit - Dworkin apparently has explicitly denied ever making this claim] : given a definition of rape as non-consensual sex, and given that women in a patriarchal/mysogynistic society are not equal to men; therefore, like children, indentured slaves or mentally deficient people, women cannot really consent to sex (even though of course we/they act as if we/they do all the time); therefore all sex is rape until our society is equal and women are safe from the threat of rape, sexual violence/discrimination, etc.

It's an extreme position, but a very compelling argument given her presuppositions, despite the inevitable howls of protest from most men and many women (Dworkin was on the receiving end of spousal violence and worked as a prostitute for a time, which may have informed her theory, but shouldn't be used to explain it away). The problem may hinge on whether you think the social construction of gender is overall "ok", even if it could be better, or fundamentally problematic.

virtual rape is a nonsensical notion.

This was conjured up to mean people fantasising while watching porn (and mistakenly atttibuted to HMLT). But as a concept it's only as nonsenical as "rape fantasy", surely?

 

[IdleRich]

"Well, it depends on your definition of porn and rape, doesn't it?"

Obviously.

"I presume HMLT is referring to Dworkin's concept of sex as rape"

I'm not sure, he is attacking pornography not sex. True, if you accept that all sex is rape then it is indeed (as he said) tautolagous to say that all porn involving sex is rape. But is sex necessary for pornography, what about things such as The Story of O or Page 3, are they porn?
Even if that is what he is saying he needs to say so because Dworkin's view is, to say the least, controversial and far from the accepted view.

"It's an extreme position, but a very compelling argument"

I do not find it compelling in the slightest and I've never met anyone who does.

 

[vimothy]

Yes I'm familiar with Dworkin. Did you know that she is Peter Sotos' favourite writer? Personally I don't find her argument very compelling at all, in fact it's a rather disgusting view of something quite beautiful. I don't feel that I've ever raped anyone - and I haven't. Have you? Or are you abstaining until such a time as when male and female relations are on a more even footing?

therefore, like children, indentured slaves or mentally deficient people, women cannot really consent to sex

It's not hard to see what Sotos gets from her, is it? I think that's a charicature - I happen to know plenty of very strong women who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without being so thoroughly patronised, thanks all the same.

This was conjured up to mean people fantasising while watching porn (and mistakenly atttibuted to HMLT). But as a concept it's only as nonsenical as "rape fantasy", surely?

I understand the concept but was merely trying to point out that virtual violence is not violence at all, any more than imagining building work is engineering.

 

[vimothy]

But is sex necessary for pornography, what about things such as The Story of O or Page 3, are they porn?

Also, what about soft-core porn or that Japanese cartoon porn?

 

[IdleRich]

"Japanese cartoon porn?"

I was deliberately trying to avoid mentioning animated or otherwise artificially created pornography because I knew that we would get straight back to the hyper-real, baudrillard etc
But what about gay sex and gay porn? What about pornography where women look at men (it may be less prevalent but it certainly exists)? Is this all still rape or not? If so why?

 

[vimothy]

Is it only rape when it's men on women because women - like Muslims - are always only victims?

 

[dHarry]

Personally I don't find her argument very compelling at all, in fact it's a rather disgusting view of something quite beautiful.

I think she thinks that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting.

I don't feel that I've ever raped anyone - and I haven't. Have you? Or are you abstaining until such a time as when male and female relations are on a more even footing?

therefore, like children, indentured slaves or mentally deficient people, women cannot really consent to sex

It's not hard to see what Sotos gets from her, is it? I think that's a charicature - I happen to know plenty of very strong women who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without being so thoroughly patronised, thanks all the same.

Out of context my quote looks like I (and Dworkin) am equating women with children etc. rather than the crucial point - how society has made them second-class citizens. It's not so long ago that women were considered chattel property of their fathers/husbands (and still many of them transfer their names from that of their fathers to that of their husbands - the traditional sign/seal of ownership), were beaten and arrested for fighting for the right to vote... And now roughly one in four women can expect to be sexually assaulted, more seriously by their partners:

* Just under a quarter of women (23%) and three per cent of men reported having experienced sexual assault since the age of 16.
* In the year prior to interview nearly 3% of women and 1% of men had experienced sexual assault.
* Among female victims of intimate violence, less serious sexual assault was most likely to be committed by a stranger (62%). Serious sexual assault was most likely to be committed by a partner (51%).

from http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page60.asp

I'm not accusing you of raping anyone, but I can certainly see how a woman exposed to the ugliest aspects of gender divisions would come to Dworkin's conclusions. I'd prefer to sympathise with that and question my own and society's realities, structures and attitudes than jump to my own defence. I've always found it odd how men tend to say "But I never..." instead of trying to understand or see from another perspective. I remember a (fairly non-sexist) male friend of mine, when I suggested how disgusting it was that a woman out alone at night must feel unsafe and like a potential target immediately said "But I've never attacked a woman; why should any woman be afraid of me late at night; why should she think I'm a rapist...". It's not about you, it's about women living in a society that produces rapists.

 

[Louise]

I've read a lot of bollocks on this forum but DHarry's argument nearly made me fall off my chair!

"given that women in a patriarchal/mysogynistic society are not equal to men; therefore, like children, indentured slaves or mentally deficient people, women cannot really consent to sex (even though of course we/they act as if we/they do all the time....It's an extreme position, but a very compelling argument given her presuppositions "

In what sense is that compelling? Being members of a society in which they are not treated equally does not place women on a par with children and mentally deficient people in terms of not being able to give consent!! The reason children and mentally deficient people are considered not to be capable of consent is because they don't fully understand what they are consenting to, the same argument clearly does not apply to women. Her argument (as you have described it at least) implies that when I think I want to have sex I (as a woman) am wrong. Is this not mysoginist in itself as it is treating women as if they are stupid, not capable even of knowing what they want or deciding anything for themselves?

Also you say

"therefore all sex is rape until our society is equal and women are safe from the threat of rape, sexual violence/discrimination, etc."

Are you not just contradicting yourself here? If all sex is rape then women will never be safe from the threat of rape as long as there is sex.

 

[Louise]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vimothy
Personally I don't find her argument very compelling at all, in fact it's a rather disgusting view of something quite beautiful.

I think she thinks that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting.

OK, that is not what is at issue. I agree that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting. But Dworkin is saying that SEX is disgusting too, (because she is saying that all sex is rape and rape is disgusting). THAT is what we are disputing, and I think Vimothy's comment here is therefore spot on.

 

[vimothy]

I think she thinks that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting.

And that sex = rape, patriarchial inequlaity, sexual violence, etc, therefore that sex is equally disgusting. It's not - of course it can be - sex can be a weapon, and not only of masculine sexual violence, but it doesn't have to be. I love shagging, making love, fucking, whatever, it's beautiful. I don't believe that women and men are incapable of non-violent/exploitative sexual relationships.

Out of context my quote looks like I (and Dworkin) am equating women with children etc. rather than the crucial point - how society has made them second-class citizens....

Yes of course, and those statistics are entirely reprehensible. But they don't mean that sex is rape. It can be, and it can be other things as well.

 

[IdleRich]

Your argument is so badly confused DHarry.

"I think she thinks that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting."

What a weak reply. Without wanting to put words in to his mouth I'm sure that Vimothy finds those things disgusting as well - how is it relevant to him saying that he's had sex and it was beautiful? Unless you think that all sex is rape, in which case you cannot use that as an argument for all sex being rape can you?

"Out of context my quote looks like I (and Dworkin) am equating women with children etc. rather than the crucial point - how society has made them second-class citizens."

Yes, it did look like that. It seemed to recognise that women are second class citizens but not allow any possibility that any one of them could escape that.

"And now roughly one in four women can expect to be sexually assaulted, more seriously by their partners: etc "

That's terrible - it doesn't mean that all sex is rape though does it? Can you tell me how it's relevant to anything in this argument? How can a splurge of statistics about some bad stuff be an argument about what's happening when the bad stuff isn't happening?
I think it's completely counter-productive because it means that those three in four women who aren't sexually assaulted are somehow as much victims as those who are, I don't think that you really want to imply that either do you?

 

[vimothy]

Your argument is so badly confused DHarry.

To say nothing of it being actually rather sexist ...