Turn rape into love?

[MediocreAuthor]

They're not psychopaths; they're here to help if you want to explore further.

There's a reason why I say in my bio, I don't want to meet my fans.

"All we know about each other is that we both find the idea of nonconsensual sex titillating. How could this possibly work out well for me?"

 

[ChloeTzang]

There's a reason why I say in my bio, I don't want to meet my fans.

"All we know about each other is that we both find the idea of nonconsensual sex titillating. How could this possibly work out well for me?"

LOL. Nailed that one.

 

[XerXesXu]

I don't masturbate to any works of fiction, mainstream, or erotica. So if you masturbate to rape or pedophilic content, it would appear to be your problem. Writers aren't responsible for what you do with what they write any more than a car manufacturer is responsible for someone plowing into a crowd of people, or a grocery store is responsible for you keeping meat for six weeks past its expiration date, then cooking and eating it. You're holding an artist responsible for your response to his work where you don't for others.

Therefore, the flaw is in you, not the writer.

By your reasoning, nine eleven is a direct result of Die Hard.

Very well. Point me to the passages you have in mind and I'll answer you.

 

[XerXesXu]

Not so fast. Let's look closely at the study.

“Not so fast. Let's look closely at the study.”

Don’t panic. No one’s trying to bounce you into anything. Sit back, take a deep breath and consider the arguments.

“1. The study consists of interviews with 20 "Frontline workers," who are people from a variety of professions who deal with sexual offenders.”

Yes, people who by training and experience have expert knowledge in the field. I’m not sure why you object to the insights of such people having any validity or worth.

“2. So this study has nothing to do at all with the impact of pornography on the population as a whole. It's limited to sexual offenders. In fact, this article admits, "the clients discussed are not typical of the general population." This is a group of people who are ALREADY predisposed to commit sexual offenses, for all sorts of reasons, including many that have nothing to do with pornography.”

Again, I have no idea whether this is an objection or not. But you’re correct that experts thought that the population to study to attempt to understand whether/what link there is between pornography and sexually offending would be sexual offenders. This may seem irrational to you, but do you accept that to many rational people it would seem the obvious thing to do?

Can we just disregard your points 1 and 2 as manifestations of your addiction to prolixity?

“3. Pornography is not online written erotica. There's no obvious reason why we should think that the impact of pornography would be the same as written erotica. Literotica does not offer pornography. This study is irrelevant for purposes of determining what kinds of written stories should be allowed.”

Pornography is written and it is online. I know you have a dictionary. Dirty some of the pages with your fingerprints. Lit does offer pornography.

Please offer evidence/advance argument for the assertions in the final sentence.

"4. For statistical purposes, 20 is a very small sample size."

Mmmmm. Now is the sample size, the number of the participants, or the number sex offenders they’ve had contact with professionally? What number of professionals in the field would you say is required to validate such a study? Give us your experience and qualifications in qualitative analysis so we can give appropriate weight to your opinion as opposed to that of United Kingdom - The Behavioural Architects (thebearchitects.com)

"5. The results relating to the relevant population of sexual offenders is being intermediated by the views of the Frontline workers, who may have their own biases. We have no way of knowing from this article."

There’s some substance to this point. There’s always this risk with qualitative analysis. Do you say that there’s an obvious flaw in the methodology they describe? Can you point to examples of how this manifests itself in the study?

"6. One has to ask, regarding second hand reports that clients report that pornography was a contributing factor in influencing their sexual offences, how reliable is that? Is it possible the sexual offenders are trying to deflect responsibility for their conduct by blaming pornography?"

The old ‘Andrew Tate told me to do it’, 'Pornhub told me to do it’, ‘Literotica told me to do it’ evasions. Don’t worry, the professionals charged with mapping the cognitive landscape and ‘conducive context’ of sex offenders are wise to that.

"7. Even if we accept that this research convincingly demonstrates that some sexual offenders were influenced by exposure to pornography to commit sexual offences, it fails to delve into the broader picture: what if it's possible that among other groups of people exposure to pornography had other influences, such that there's no NET increase in harmful activity as a result of exposure to pornography? What if for some people it has a cathartic effect? There's significant reason to doubt whether increased exposure to pornography has resulted in a net increase in harmful behavior in part by the fact that, in the USA at least, the rapid increase in the availability of pornography created by the Internet in the mid-1990s coincides with a remarkable drop in the violent crime rate in the USA. The crime rate in the USA today is significantly lower than it was in 1993, when it peaked."

Correct. The paper is what it says it is. Did you look at the second paper?

Can I delicately point out that elsewhere, you’ve eloquently debunked the line that correlation proves causation, as so many have done before you.


“So my conclusion is no, you can't say based on this article that it's knocked the wind out of the sails of those who question the harmful effects of pornography. It doesn't do anything of the sort. And more to the point for our discussion, it has no bearing on written erotica.”

You’re entitled to your conclusion. I disagree. I wouldn’t describe it as having ‘knocked the wind out’ more as ‘put the wind into the sails’ of a hypothesis.

As to your final point, is your belief based on the fact that you’ve not yet been able to locate your dictionary?

 

[MillieDynamite]

Very well. Point me to the passages you have in mind and I'll answer you.

Not my job. I don't believe in censorship. You want to do it, tell us what we can and can't read, what's good enough to publish, then you find the fucking shit yourself. If the supreme court doesn't have a problem with something, why would I? If you want to play king censor, you're on your own. There are plenty of examples out there. Go find it, and make your point. I've made mine. Every writer I listed has had plenty of stuff that wouldn't pass muster here. You can add Anne Rice to that mix too. She had a forever prepubescent child sexualized in Interview with the Vampire. Surely you've read that. Tell us how it's criminal.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Again, a study only says what they read and watch. It doesn't tell you, can't tell you, if the literature and videos spawned the behavior of rape or if their interest in rape spawned their interest in the reading and viewing material. If it is that material causes rape, why don't have one hundred million rapists in America? We should have at least 1/3 of our population committing rape. If minds are so fragile that people can be manipulated that way? We should have as many pedophiles as well. 1/3 of everyone reading a murder mystery must commit murder, then.

Causality isn't shown by the studies, is it. Do they have proof watching a video or reading a story makes them rape, have sex with underaged girls, and kill people?

 

[XerXesXu]

Not my job.

Yes, it is. I've done a quick search on King. Apparently, some library committee has listed 3 of his YA science fiction stories as suitable only for ages 12+. Would it be those materials you reference?

You can add Anne Rice to that mix too. She had a forever prepubescent child sexualized in Interview with the Vampire. Surely you've read that. Tell us how it's criminal.

'Surely I've read it'! Your real world's very different from mine. Why would I read Vampire stories, or even Peter Pan stories? Your literary tastes and assumptions may be different to mine.

 

[XerXesXu]

Again, a study only says what they read and watch. It doesn't tell you, can't tell you, if the literature and videos spawned the behavior of rape or if their interest in rape spawned their interest in the reading and viewing material. If it is that material causes rape, why don't have one hundred million rapists in America? We should have at least 1/3 of our population committing rape. If minds are so fragile that people can be manipulated that way? We should have as many pedophiles as well. 1/3 of everyone reading a murder mystery must commit murder, then.

Causality isn't shown by the studies, is it. Do they have proof watching a video or reading a story makes them rape, have sex with underaged girls, and kill people?

If you don't believe causality is susceptible to scientific investigation in this field, that's fine. I don't care. I do, many others do.

The advertising industry does. It's a billion-dollar online influencing industry. Some people believe it works. Millions tell their doctors they smoke. When asked 'WHY!!!', they say, 'The Marlboro Man made me do it.' It's up to you what incontrovertible beliefs you wish to hold. I know people who believe in God. I don't care, other peoples' religious and similar beliefs don't bother me.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I'm guessing that you want to sensor King, Kuntz, Judy Blume, James Patterson, and any other writer who writes about rapists raping someone or minors having sex in detail.

Point me to the passages to which you masturbate in those authors' works and I'll be happy to answer you.

Translation: If I (XerXesXU) don't approve of it, it shouldn't be allowed to be written.

 

[XerXesXu]

Translation: If I (XerXesXU) don't approve of it, it shouldn't be allowed to be written.

The lady asked my opinion on some passages in some books she knew of. I'm perfectly prepared to give one, for whatever she thinks that's worth, but without knowing to what she refers I can't. I'm an able fellow, but even I can't do the impossible.

Don't worry. I don't think she wanted an opinion, she's had a therapeutic vent and now feels better. I'm glad to have helped her.

 

[MrHereWriting]

The lady asked my opinion on some passages in some books she knew of.

No, she was making a point that you are not sincere in your hate for certain topics.

I spelled out your "If I don't agree with it, it's not appropriate" mentality that Millie brought to the surface.

 

[XerXesXu]

No, she was making a point that you are not sincere in your hate for certain topics.

I spelled out your "If I don't agree with it, it's not appropriate" mentality that Millie brought to the surface.

"No, she was making a point that you are not sincere in your hate for certain topics."

Really. Well I believe she’s able to speak for herself rather better than you can speak for her. I’m absolutely certain she believes I’m sincere in my aversion for certain topics. Why should she believe otherwise? Like many others on AH I’ve openly declared my aversion to male-rapist-fantasies before.

I think she mistakenly believed that I’m averse to any erotic literature including nonsense fables, overeacted, overreached, then changed her mind. But let her speak for herself.


"I spelled out your "If I don't agree with it, it's not appropriate" mentality that Millie brought to the surface."

See above and remind yourself who and what brought whom to the surface.
No, you translated my words: ‘Point me to the passages to which you masturbate in those authors' works and I'll be happy to answer you.’
As:
"Translation: If I (XerXesXU) don't approve of it, it shouldn't be allowed to be written."

Not only have you incorrectly (bizarrely) interpreted her words, but you’ve incorrectly translated mine.

I have two tips for you:

• Practice, practice, practice your English-to-English translation skills.
• If you have something to say, don’t try to put your words into other people’s mouths. Sit down calmly, have a nice cup of tea, think about what it is you want to say, frame it into a succinct and cogent paragraph and post it. No one will think the worse of you posting your own thoughts. As they say about the beer – Probably.

 

[darkride]

Does it happen in real life? I'm sure it does - such as - in the context of arranged marriages (or not even that formal, just marriages encouraged by family), where the male (typically) forces sex on his wife, and due to the social stigma of leaving, "chooses" to stay, and over time essentially evolves into a Stockholm-syndrome type relationship... Is that love?

First thought that came to my mind was Straw Dogs... old movie with Dustin Hoffman... His wife is clearly forced, and yet during the course of the sex scene is shown to experience pleasure from it. Now - it's worth noting that someone who is raped can orgasm, because orgasm is just a physical reaction - males and females can orgasm when being raped... In that particular movie, there is somewhat of an expectation that Dustin's character will seek revenge, but - well, I wont ruin the movie for anyone wanting to go watch it, but - it's a Sam Peckinpah movie, so - don't expect the expected.

If you were going to write some kind of rape into love story... I think it would need some serious crafting and twist of the narrative...

 

[MrHereWriting]

Really. Well I believe....

This is your problem.

You don't answer what people say, but what you've convinced yourself they've said. A twist here, a turn there, and everything you type smells like BS.

 

[Winter_Fare]

XXX's reference to the .gov site really stood out to me among all the noise on this thread.

Take as written that the opinion of professionals involved in people's care is of value. However, their opinion was sought in the following context:

A group called "The Behavioural Architects" received funding from the "Government Equalities Office" to "look at some of the pathways to negative and harmful attitudes and behaviours towards women"

The interview technique used by the marketing company conducting the research involved is described in detail on the website. The interviewer steers the interviewee away from factors that arguably have a far greater impact on criminal behaviour, and directs them to illustrate how the availability of pornography, and attitudes around it shaped their male clients' attitude to women. 15/20 mentioned porn as harmful without prompting, but all 20 were in agreement when it was later added by the interviewer.

The six harmful themes within porn that the twenty workers identified, allegedly unprompted by the interviewer are:

Consent is not required
Male pleasure is all that matters
Women should look like pornstars
Sex is consequence-free
Violence is commonplace during sex and women enjoy this violence
Specific sexual acts are commonplace

(Note, they're not just gunning for non consent, it's about all porn)

There are also questions about how such impact could be minimised. The consensus was, MORE SEX EDUCATION. SAFE SPACES, where normal sexual behaviour can be discussed with young men. CONSENT being taught, unequivocally.

Sex education takes a battering in the press every time the syllabus is beefed up to include normal age appropriate behaviour and consent. But organisations like The Behavioural Architects are happy to emphasise the influence of online materials, it's their bread and butter after all.

https://www.thebearchitects.com/

The funding for the study comes from an organisation seeking to control and police us online:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pornography-review-launched-to-ensure-strongest-safeguards

Linked to the Online Safety Bill, that already got kicked out due to playing fast and loose with people's freedom, and their rights to privacy. In other words, be careful what you wish for.

 

[XerXesXu]

This is your problem.

You don't answer what people say, but what you've convinced yourself they've said. A twist here, a turn there, and everything you type smells like BS.

Let me cut and paste the text unedited, as is customary.

You said:

"No, she was making a point that you are not sincere in your hate for certain topics."

I responded:


“Really. Well I believe she’s able to speak for herself rather better than you can speak for her. I’m absolutely certain she believes I’m sincere in my aversion for certain topics. Why should she believe otherwise? Like many others on AH I’ve openly declared my aversion to male-rapist-fantasies before.”

Please don’t be offended if I substitute my words ‘aversion/distaste’ for your word ‘hate’. I’m also convinced I’m able to express my own feelings in my own words better than you are.

I’ve expressed my aversion/distaste for male-rapists-fantasies on several occasions over years, as have many others, and I can’t understand why you think she, or indeed anyone else, including yourself, should think I’m insincere in expressing my aversion/distaste. I frankly admit it.

If you want me to edit my original response to read: “Really, Well I’m convinced …” I’ll happily do so, because I am really convinced etc. Just say.

But, do you detect a dog chasing its tail, too.

I’m sure you’re trying to say something. If you express it in your own words and I believe it requires a response, I’ll respond.

 

[XerXesXu]

https://www.thebearchitects.com/

The funding for the study comes from an organisation seeking to control and police us online:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pornography-review-launched-to-ensure-strongest-safeguards

Linked to the Online Safety Bill, that already got kicked out due to playing fast and loose with people's freedom, and their rights to privacy. In other words, be careful what you wish for.

Quite. The paper is what it is. Everyone's free to critically evaluate either or both papers.
I had two purposes in posting them. The first was to rebut sweeping assertions along the lines of 'there is no evidence..' that some posters make. There's an ongoing programme of research which incrementally produces evidence and which people are free to gainsay in the context, 'For the following reasons this/that/the other piece of research is flawed/deficient/fails/irrelevant because..' To merely assert that 'There is no evidence ..' is misleading, experts may believe there is evidence. So, not to raise a debate about particular pieces or methods of research, but to raise awareness that it exists.
Secondly, I wanted to raise awareness of the wider context in which we exist, and in which the research is embedded. The words harm/misinformation/social-media/regulation come in close proximity in some context every day. Government departments, legislative committees, NGOs, and pressure groups are in full swing, investigating 'How best to stop the harm.' This is occurring all over the world, and, more likely than not, it's going to come. If one has no knowledge of how harm arises and no knowledge of prevention strategies, and no argument beyond denial, you'll have no voice and no say in that future.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Quite. The paper is what it is. Everyone's free to critically evaluate either or both papers.
I had two purposes in posting them. The first was to rebut sweeping assertions along the lines of 'there is no evidence..' that some posters make. There's an ongoing programme of research which incrementally produces evidence and which people are free to gainsay in the context, 'For the following reasons this/that/the other piece of research is flawed/deficient/fails/irrelevant because..' To merely assert that 'There is no evidence ..' is misleading, experts may believe there is evidence. So, not to raise a debate about particular pieces or methods of research, but to raise awareness that it exists.
Secondly, I wanted to raise awareness of the wider context in which we exist, and in which the research is embedded. The words harm/misinformation/social-media/regulation come in close proximity in some context every day. Government departments, legislative committees, NGOs, and pressure groups are in full swing, investigating 'How best to stop the harm.' This is occurring all over the world, and, more likely than not, it's going to come. If one has no knowledge of how harm arises and no knowledge of prevention strategies, and no argument beyond denial, you'll have no voice and no say in that future.

There are better, more balanced sources if you really are interested in the subject.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918302404
And
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-022-00720-z

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Aside from the serious discussion, the story's been written many times. I'll be of lighter frame of mind and take a minimalist approach to the subject.

RAPE
RAVE
ROVE
LOVE

 

[Winter_Fare]

Aside from the serious discussion, the story's been written many times. I'll be of lighter frame of mind and take a minimalist approach to the subject.

RAPE
RAVE
ROVE
LOVE

Rape
Rapt
Raft
Daft

 

[MrHereWriting]

I’m sure you’re trying to say something. If you express it in your own words and I believe it requires a response, I’ll respond.

You blatantly misinterpreted the first thing I said, end of story.

 

[XerXesXu]

There are better, more balanced sources if you really are interested in the subject.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918302404
And
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-022-00720-z

Yes, a couple more recent literature reviews incrementally increasing evidence and knowledge – or so I expect to see.

They confirm that steam has not yet run out of the research. It's always good practice to include the words ‘further research is necessary..’ which can form the basis of one’s next grant application.

A few brief points to wrap up. Chloe Tzang notes at #225 that all cognitions re not equal, they vary in intensity/frequency. You’ll see that this fact doesn’t go unrecognized. Similarly, SimonDoom asks about masturbation. You’re not either aroused or not, it’s not binary. Degrees of arousal are operationalised and taken into account. Masturbation is the highest degree of arousal and the relevance can be seen in relation to the identification of ‘at risk’/offender clients. Also there’s only one population consisting of 2 subgroups, ‘at risk’/offender clients v the rest. The relevant characteristics of each are analysed by cognition type and degree of arousal and compared and contrasted with the other.

The take home lesson is, research continues and takes into account more factors than you may have imagined.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Yes, a couple more recent literature reviews incrementally increasing evidence and knowledge – or so I expect to see.

They confirm that steam has not yet run out of the research. It's always good practice to include the words ‘further research is necessary..’ which can form the basis of one’s next grant application.

A few brief points to wrap up. Chloe Tzang notes at #225 that all cognitions re not equal, they vary in intensity/frequency. You’ll see that this fact doesn’t go unrecognized. Similarly, SimonDoom asks about masturbation. You’re not either aroused or not, it’s not binary. Degrees of arousal are operationalised and taken into account. Masturbation is the highest degree of arousal and the relevance can be seen in relation to the identification of ‘at risk’/offender clients. Also there’s only one population consisting of 2 subgroups, ‘at risk’/offender clients v the rest. The relevant characteristics of each are analysed by cognition type and degree of arousal and compared and contrasted with the other.

The take home lesson is, research continues and takes into account more factors than you may have imagined.

So, if you are already familiar with the literature, and not just posting the first thing you Google that (appears at face value) to support your point, why not post recent studies that erm... actually support your point?

 

[MillieDynamite]

In the movie Billy Jack, 1971, there is a pretty graphic depiction of rape. It isn't glamorized. No rational person would be turned on during it. YOu don't see cocks and pussies but the faces of the two participants. Later, when Jean Roberts, played by Delores Taylor, tells Billy Jack, played by her real-life husband, Tom Laughlin, she breaks down while telling him so badly that one has trouble watching it. However, to a rapist or would-be rapist, this is fodder for his imagination, masturbation, or could inspire him to action.

So XerXesXu, should all of that have been cut from the film? The rating was the old GP rating, which morphed into our PG.

 

[XerXesXu]

So, if you are already familiar with the literature, and not just posting the first thing you Google that (appears at face value) to support your point, why not post recent studies that erm... actually support your point?

#120
Pay attention you two at the back. Fare and Doom, keep your hands above the desk where I can see them. Write out 100 times, I must contextualise my assertions.