Turn rape into love?

[MillieDynamite]

Double post much? You can delete one, don't you know?

 

[XerXesXu]

Double post much? You can delete one, don't you know?

As you can now see, I did indeed know.

 

[MillieDynamite]

As you can now see, I did indeed know.

Good for you.

 

[Winter_Fare]

#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.

That reference is neither recent nor relevant, nor available via that link without a paywall. But do go on.

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

Billy Jack is a half-Indian/half-white ex-Green Beret who is being drawn more and more toward his Indian side. He hates violence, but can't get away from it in the white man's world. Pitting the good guys, the students of the peace-loving free-arts school in the desert vs. the Democratic bad guys in the near-by town, the movie plays definitive late-60s themes/messages: anti-establishment, make love not war, the senseless slaughter of God's creatures, the rape of society (figuratively and literally), two-sided justice, racial segregation and prejudices.

Now that brings back memories of the innocent days of my youth.

And only another 9 hrs to download. I can't wait.

Just a moment, there's a silver lining. If I watch it download I won't have to go back to attempting to read another 200 pages of The Flame and the Flower. I've discovered I'm not a fan of bodice-rippers.

 

[XerXesXu]

That reference is neither recent nor relevant, nor available via that link without a paywall. But do go on.

I'll assume you mean that the link referred to the link to which I linked is paywalled. Lit isn't paywalled, so far as I'm aware.
Nor is the link, to which I referred in the said linked link, paywalled, so far as I'm aware. It's certainly not paywalled to me.

But, if a paywall defeats you .... Do I detect a new boy?

 

[Winter_Fare]

I'll assume you mean that the link referred to the link to which I linked is paywalled. Lit isn't paywalled, so far as I'm aware.
Nor is the link, to which I referred in the said linked link, paywalled, so far as I'm aware. It's certainly not paywalled to me.

But, if a paywall defeats you .... Do I detect a new boy?

Whut?

 

[Winter_Fare]

The study you linked is abstract only.

 

[XerXesXu]

The study you linked is abstract only.

And does it disclose the existence of an ongoing body of research?

Understanding the sexual fantasies of sex offenders and their correlates​

There's a clue in the title.

 

[MillieDynamite]

And does it disclose the existence of an ongoing body of research?

Understanding the sexual fantasies of sex offenders and their correlates​

There's a clue in the title.

Again, correlation doesn't mean or prove causality.

 

[Winter_Fare]

And does it disclose the existence of an ongoing body of research?

Understanding the sexual fantasies of sex offenders and their correlates​

There's a clue in the title.

You can't comprehend the issue I'd have accepting a source of information without access to enough of it to discern its quality?

 

[Winter_Fare]

Actually, forget it. You've wasted enough of my time.

 

[XerXesXu]

Again, correlation doesn't mean or prove causality.

And on that simple sentence stands another massive body of philosophical, mathematical, and statistical research, which those interested have been developing over - why centuries. 'Fuck your p values ... show me your analysis of variance' and such like, we'd hurl at each other across the student union bar as we immersed ourselves in the culture of the Academy.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Chicken egg and no way to know which. But argue, debate, and philosophize for hours, days, weeks, months, and years with no answer to the question, so no support for your belief. Preventing hundreds of millions of people from reading something because a small majority like it in a way that isn't right isn't the answer.

And on that simple sentence stands another massive body of philosophical, mathematical, and statistical research, which those interested have been developing over - why centuries. 'Fuck your p values ... show me your analysis of variance' and such like, we'd hurl at each other across the student union bar as we immersed ourselves in the culture of the Academy.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Goodbye, Bye, Farewell, Cheers, See You Later, Au Revoir, Adios, Arrivederci/Ciao, Adeus, Kia koa, Yasou, and in honor of my Mum, Ta. I'm out of here until Monday.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I've been criticized for my minimalist turn of rape into love; for some odd reason, a reader couldn't discern the story arc. Perhaps a bit of expansion will help.

It was RAPE when he took her against her will at the RAVE. Afterwards, however, they began to ROVE about together, eventually finding true LOVE in each other's company.

 

[XerXesXu]

Chicken egg and no way to know which. But argue, debate, and philosophize for hours, days, weeks, months, and years with no answer to the question, so no support for your belief. Preventing hundreds of millions of people from reading something because a small majority like it in a way that isn't right isn't the answer.

In most states, even a 'small majority' can make the rules. You've piqued my interest in the constitution of the state of Oklahoma.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

In most states, even a 'small majority' can make the rules. You've piqued my interest in the constitution of the state of Oklahoma.

While any state constitution is important, the most important thing is the laws that are passed. Even so, they must fall in line with the Constitution and amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. And laws of any state can be challenged in Federal Courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States of America. No law to date has outlawed most of what isn't allowed in erotica on commercial sites. What restricts the stories is the banking systems.

Credit card companies refuse to process payments for certain types of erotica.

Yet, if you want to buy a copy of Lolita, you can. You can buy IT, which has group sex by minors, or The Stand, which has Flag rape his new bride (minus any ceremony), but what does Satan's son care about any religious proclamation any who? Or any number of books considered mainstream that have rape, incest, or pedophilia, described in graphic detail but not considered obscene because they are established writers in mainstream horror, mystery, thriller, or romance. Yes, lots of rape in romance. Why? Because it's just so damn romantic for the one who loves you to ravish you against your will, I guess.

As far as I know, you can buy any reading material you want from Amazon, SmashWords, B&N, Kobo, or any other seller of download fiction you want in any state in this Country.

 

[XerXesXu]

While any state constitution is important, the most important thing is the laws that are passed. Even so, they must fall in line with the Constitution and amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. And laws of any state can be challenged in Federal Courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States of America. No law to date has outlawed most of what isn't allowed in erotica on commercial sites. What restricts the stories is the banking systems.

Credit card companies refuse to process payments for certain types of erotica.

Yet, if you want to buy a copy of Lolita, you can. You can buy IT, which has group sex by minors, or The Stand, which has Flag rape his new bride (minus any ceremony), but what does Satan's son care about any religious proclamation any who? Or any number of books considered mainstream that have rape, incest, or pedophilia, described in graphic detail but not considered obscene because they are established writers in mainstream horror, mystery, thriller, or romance. Yes, lots of rape in romance. Why? Because it's just so damn romantic for the one who loves you to ravish you against your will, I guess.

As far as I know, you can buy any reading material you want from Amazon, SmashWords, B&N, Kobo, or any other seller of download fiction you want in any state in this Country.

§1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—

(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or

(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or

(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or



Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.



Which refers S203 enacted under general heading ‘Common Carriers’.

§230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(b) Policy

It is the policy of the United States-

(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,

(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1



There’s the Federal Law. S230 enacts not one, but two protections Lit and Amazon are interactive computer services (hosting platforms). You, me, he, she are publishers. Paypal, banking services etc aid and abet us in downloading ‘(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character’ we care to. We're criminals all, and the policy of the US Government (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,

Not a lot of people know that.

Well fuck the US Government, I’m in the Philippines, your writ don’t run here.

Where do you live? And what about your banking service and Paypal. Can you see why they may be reluctant to aid and abet you?

So why isn’t Lit afraid? Because ‘No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.’ That’s a ‘Safe Harbour immunity’ provision. It’s also given a ‘Good Samaritan immunity’. It can refuse to publish or take down your writings and you can’t sue them for interfering with your freedom of expression or anything else.

However, there’s no conditionality/duty to act as a Good Samaritan and take down, as there is in the classical common carrier model. The Jurists have noted this oddity, ‘Did they really know what they were doing?’ But where the legislature has enacted a comprehensive framework it‘s improper to make good perceived deficiencies through judicial legislation. In respect of copyright, in the DMCA, the legislature did make a ‘notice and take down’ conditional linkage, it could have in respect of obscenity but has chosen not to do so.

Lit is safe. It can remove your obscene material if it wishes, but even if it receives notice that material is obscene and whether or not it believes it’s obscene within the very broad governing definition of obscene (a judgement call) and chooses to leave it up, it remains safe because it has no duty to take it down under its ‘Safe Harbour ‘ protection.

In short, it’s complicated, more complicated than some would lead you to believe and that’s just the Federal Law. When it comes to the States right to legislate and enforce under the police powers reserved to the states, it gets really complicated.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I think the 300-post mark is in sight now. At this rate, we should achieve that by this evening (East Coast time).

 

[SimonDoom]

Lit is safe. It can remove your obscene material if it wishes, but even if it receives notice that material is obscene and whether or not it believes it’s obscene within the very broad governing definition of obscene (a judgement call) and chooses to leave it up, it remains safe because it has no duty to take it down under its ‘Safe Harbour ‘ protection.

In short, it’s complicated, more complicated than some would lead you to believe and that’s just the Federal Law. When it comes to the States right to legislate and enforce under the police powers reserved to the states, it gets really complicated.

I think you're missing the main point. The main point is that obscenity laws are almost never applied to written material in the USA anymore. In the last 20 years I'm aware of a couple of cases in which stories about violent pedophilia were successfully prosecuted. That's about it. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that you are at risk of being prosecuted for the kind of material that Literotica, not to mention many other websites, routinely allow: adult incest, borderline underage, nonconsent, interracial, whatever. Based on the stuff people get away with at other websites with even more lax standards, I'd say you're safe with plenty of more hardcore stuff as well, including bestiality. The simple fact of the matter is that people write and publish this material online in the USA all the time and never get prosecuted for it.

There's no good reason to believe that anything Literotica allows to be published would be deemed to be obscene by courts in the USA in this day and age.

Knowing what the statute is only tells you so much. Of equal and sometimes greater importance is knowing the history of how the statute is applied, and how the courts interpret the statutes. In the USA, obscenity law is, if not quite dead, on life support, and the scope of its application is far smaller than it used to be. If you disagree, cite specific cases in which people have been successfully prosecuted in the USA in recent decades for obscenity for written material involving something other than violent pedophilia. If you cannot do that then you are in no position to opine with any confidence that the material found at Literotica is obscene under US law.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think the 300-post mark is in sight now. At this rate, we should achieve that by this evening (East Coast time).

Yeah, it is amazing how long people can perpetuate what is basically an apples-and-oranges discussion. Some are trying to make this about actual evidence, while the majority of participants are vehement about ignoring that part of the discussion and keep on talking about their own impressions and convictions, and generally offer plenty of platitudes about free speech while ignoring everything else.
More than that, this discussion among us is completely irrelevant as whatever we conclude here, it is Laurel and her stance that matters.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, it is amazing how long people can perpetuate what is basically an apples-and-oranges discussion. Some are trying to make this about actual evidence, while the majority of participants are vehement about ignoring that part of the discussion and keep on talking about their own impressions and convictions, and generally offer plenty of platitudes about free speech while ignoring everything else.
More than that, this discussion among us is completely irrelevant as whatever we conclude here, it is Laurel and her stance that matters.

I have to agree that these debates tend to take a "ships passing in the night" quality, but they're still important, IMO. I passionately believe that a site like this has value beyond being a place people go to for a little late night pleasure. The issues are important. They're worth discussing. And even if some of the participants are more interested in virtue signaling than in engaging, some people have open minds and want to listen to the arguments and evidence.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

§1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—

(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or

(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or

(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or



Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.



Which refers S203 enacted under general heading ‘Common Carriers’.

§230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(b) Policy

It is the policy of the United States-

(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,

(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1



There’s the Federal Law. S230 enacts not one, but two protections Lit and Amazon are interactive computer services (hosting platforms). You, me, he, she are publishers. Paypal, banking services etc aid and abet us in downloading ‘(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character’ we care to. We're criminals all, and the policy of the US Government (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,

Not a lot of people know that.

Well fuck the US Government, I’m in the Philippines, your writ don’t run here.

Where do you live? And what about your banking service and Paypal. Can you see why they may be reluctant to aid and abet you?

So why isn’t Lit afraid? Because ‘No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.’ That’s a ‘Safe Harbour immunity’ provision. It’s also given a ‘Good Samaritan immunity’. It can refuse to publish or take down your writings and you can’t sue them for interfering with your freedom of expression or anything else.

However, there’s no conditionality/duty to act as a Good Samaritan and take down, as there is in the classical common carrier model. The Jurists have noted this oddity, ‘Did they really know what they were doing?’ But where the legislature has enacted a comprehensive framework it‘s improper to make good perceived deficiencies through judicial legislation. In respect of copyright, in the DMCA, the legislature did make a ‘notice and take down’ conditional linkage, it could have in respect of obscenity but has chosen not to do so.

Lit is safe. It can remove your obscene material if it wishes, but even if it receives notice that material is obscene and whether or not it believes it’s obscene within the very broad governing definition of obscene (a judgement call) and chooses to leave it up, it remains safe because it has no duty to take it down under its ‘Safe Harbour ‘ protection.

In short, it’s complicated, more complicated than some would lead you to believe and that’s just the Federal Law. When it comes to the States right to legislate and enforce under the police powers reserved to the states, it gets really complicated.

Then you are saying everyone who wrote, edited, and read the Stand, IT, Lolita, or other mainstream literature, should be in jail?

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

Downloaded and watched.

Not bad. Of its time and warmly nostalgic for me, the hey-day of performance art and agitprop. The sketches lampooning ‘the man’ are very familiar.

It’s possible not every member of AH has seen it, so I’ll outline the plot. It’s a cowboy movie trope. The county borders Indian Territory. The county is in thrall to the Big Boss. He doesn’t have the sheriff under his thumb, but his deputy is. Big Boss, his son (the rapist) and the deputy-sheriff are racist v indigenous peoples.

The deputy-sheriff’s daughter is a 15 year old slag. Whatever else you say about her, she’s no racist. The tensions between father and daughter explode when she tells her father she’s pregnant and hasn’t got a clue by whom because she sleeps around. He brutalises her. She runs away to the hippy/commune in Indian Territory which is policed by our hero. He holds traditional indigenous beliefs, was trained in Kung-Fu by the Green Berets and has a fetish. No, not a paraphilia, a fetish, a little bag of feathers and stones which magically protect him from harm.

The deputy’s daughter is in love with a dark-skinned indigenous person who walks with the aid of crutches. And so on.

The rape scene is brief. It’s a trope scene, intended to establish that one villain is a very bad lad, the type that anyone would kill without it troubling their conscience. The movie isn’t a sex movie, the scene is brief and not eroticised. While the villain does the deed, the camera focuses on the face of one of his companions who’s chewing a mouthful of tough steak.

My personal cognitive rating for the type of sexual fantasy is 0. Absent. My arousal level is also absent.

How similar is it to the fantasies my clients enjoyed. It’s neither similar in type nor arousal level. Do I fall into the group ‘at risk/sex offender’ or ‘the rest’? I’m one of the rest. I don’t know what type of cognitions nor arousal levels it will evoke in members of the ‘at risk/sex offender’group. That’s a proper matter for research.

I don’t fear research to determine what erotic writing causes ‘harm’, as does shouting ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre, because I believe a research and evidence based approach will distinguish between that which causes harm and that which doesn’t.

An evidenced based approach will help protect free speech from those who act maliciously, moralistically or politically.