Presented the opportunity....

[Homburg]

When I watch something like that I find I'm able to switch off from the reality of it and view it in a purely sexual way, with no emotional connection or empathy with the victim.

See, I can do this too. I had a college class where, as part of the curriculum, photographs of a particular gruesome murder scene were shown. I felt bad for the women in an abstract manner, but it did not affect me. This is likely how I would feel about such a thing as well.

The difference is that I dislike that capacity in myself, and do not seek to place myself in situations where it occurs. I am well aware of what I am capable of in such a headspace, and attempting to get into that for recreational reasons is the height of folly.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I wouldn't have guessed that many rapes were filmed. I would guess rapists wouldn't want the evidence around. Maybe they wear masks? If you consider that most rapes go unreported, perhaps it makes sense.

a great deal of rapes are filmed, and as Primalex accurately noted, it is most often the most heinous types of rape...gang rapes and rapes against children. the films are intended for distribution to those of like mind, hence there just aren't too many worries about "evidence." and unfortunately, in this world it takes a whole heck of a lot more than the smiling and horny mug of an unknown rapist getting his jollies off in order to achieve any kind of justice for victims.

 

[Netzach]

See, I can do this too. I had a college class where, as part of the curriculum, photographs of a particular gruesome murder scene were shown. I felt bad for the women in an abstract manner, but it did not affect me. This is likely how I would feel about such a thing as well.

The difference is that I dislike that capacity in myself, and do not seek to place myself in situations where it occurs. I am well aware of what I am capable of in such a headspace, and attempting to get into that for recreational reasons is the height of folly.

My mother spent a year, very late in life, studying to be an OR assistant. This was a woman who couldn't stand to see an IV in my arm. Amazingly, what stopped her from going into the field was not an inability to watch, participate, and look, as entrails are drawn out and resectioned, as eyes are removed, but the reality of 58 year old reflexes and timing. If people in general could not be able to shut off this part of their brains, we'd be in big trouble as a species.

 

[Homburg]

My mother spent a year, very late in life, studying to be an OR assistant. This was a woman who couldn't stand to see an IV in my arm. Amazingly, what stopped her from going into the field was not an inability to watch, participate, and look, as entrails are drawn out and resectioned, as eyes are removed, but the reality of 58 year old reflexes and timing. If people in general could not be able to shut off this part of their brains, we'd be in big trouble as a species.

There's a difference between shutting it off to be functional, and trying to put someone's head through a set of concrete steps because they touched you at the wrong moment, and then feeling no meaningful remorse after the fact. The former is just a coping mechanism. The latter is a symptom of psychopathy. But, regardless of which, neither is something to be casually explored for recreational purposes.

See, I like that I can turn it off when my kid gets hurts and is bleeding, and it is more important that I take care of shit right then and there. It happens automatically, and I get the job done. That is a positive usage. But when someone I love pushes me way too far and I turn off inside, and something bad happens, that is not.

Is the difference more clear?

 

[Netzach]

There's a difference between shutting it off to be functional, and trying to put someone's head through a set of concrete steps because they touched you at the wrong moment, and then feeling no meaningful remorse after the fact. The former is just a coping mechanism. The latter is a symptom of psychopathy. But, regardless of which, neither is something to be casually explored for recreational purposes.

See, I like that I can turn it off when my kid gets hurts and is bleeding, and it is more important that I take care of shit right then and there. It happens automatically, and I get the job done. That is a positive usage. But when someone I love pushes me way too far and I turn off inside, and something bad happens, that is not.

Is the difference more clear?

I'm completely cognizant of the difference, only I see them as different aspects of the same thing, like fighting. To some people all violence is wrong, and to me violence can be justifiable or injustifiable but the difference is context and not the thing itself.

I'm not arguing that there aren't light side and dark side applications to this aspect of human experience and a wide range of examples on a spectrum, but I'm unsure that it morphs according to usage in itself. Does that make sense? To me, just about any aspect of personality can be detrimental at its extreme outlying fringes - the psychopathic version of this is a markedly extreme version, the same way that the cleaning impulse of the obsessive compulsive has a broken off switch.

Additionally *knowing* one's tendencies is the best way to funnel them in an appropriate and ethical manner, rather than covering your ears and going "not I not I not I" when the question of temptation limitations and "if I didn't know better" comes up, IMO.

 

[Homburg]

I'm completely cognizant of the difference, only I see them as different aspects of the same thing, like fighting. To some people all violence is wrong, and to me violence can be justifiable or injustifiable but the difference is context and not the thing itself.

I'm not arguing that there aren't light side and dark side applications to this aspect of human experience and a wide range of examples on a spectrum, but I'm unsure that it morphs according to usage in itself. Does that make sense? To me, just about any aspect of personality can be detrimental at its extreme outlying fringes - the psychopathic version of this is a markedly extreme version, the same way that the cleaning impulse of the obsessive compulsive has a broken off switch.

Well, I'm not discussing it from the lofty environs of theory. I'm going off of personal experience. Trust me when I say that there is a difference, and a stark one, however poorly I am explaining it.

Additionally *knowing* one's tendencies is the best way to funnel them in an appropriate and ethical manner, rather than covering your ears and going "not I not I not I" when the question of temptation limitations and "if I didn't know better" comes up, IMO.

We will have to disagree. There is no need to practice or tempt this sort of headspace, and I can not in any way imagine a positive manner to utilise it.

 

[graceanne]

That's nothing new in comedy. That's as old as comedy itself.

No, that kind of comedy, also known as slap-stick, is not new. But that being the ONLY kind of comedy is.

 

[00Syd]

But the question was not "if you came across a video containing footage of a rape would this become your new favorite secret porn go-to"

it's simply "would you watch it?"

Not would you watch it and condone it, not would you watch it and think it was cool and circulate it, not anything further than "would you watch it?"

Maybe I'm insane or something, but I watch. I look. It's not about my comfort levels, the Vietcong guy getting his brain blown out, the contractor getting his head cut off, the iconic and *necessary* visual evidence of our bloody existence. My reactions to these images fan out in a complicated spectrum, and don't necessarily interfere with my ability to understand the obscenity of the acts that created them. This notion that by looking you become instantly complicit, to me lifts the blame off the people who DID THE ACTS.

Sorry I'm insensitive to the horror and shock over images of degradation, versus what happened. My ancestors are the people you see being bulldozed naked into graves, no one had a second's pause about plastering skeletal, diseased, dehumanized Jews all over the newsreels so the world could sit up and go, no way, no shit! Personally, to me, the outrage stopped with the bullet and the rest is quibbling over details. The outrage should be placed on whatever *allowed those images to exist* not on their existence. However many people insist it didn't happen at this point, how many more would be running around if Germans weren't records pervs?

Without images, reportage, gore - we'd still be fighting the freaking Civil War, if not Vietnam. Images exploit the person in them, but sometimes individual exploitations serve a larger purpose. The diarist baring their fucked up life, the person who donates their stiff to science, realizes this.

*orgasm*

Netz, you are simply the hottest woman on Lit. Hands down.

 

[bridgeburner]

Netz, you are simply the hottest woman on Lit. Hands down.

Agreed.

And as usualy she cuts to the heart of the matter.

 

[minx1]

But the question was not "if you came across a video containing footage of a rape would this become your new favorite secret porn go-to"

it's simply "would you watch it?"

Not would you watch it and condone it, not would you watch it and think it was cool and circulate it, not anything further than "would you watch it?"

Maybe I'm insane or something, but I watch. I look. It's not about my comfort levels, the Vietcong guy getting his brain blown out, the contractor getting his head cut off, the iconic and *necessary* visual evidence of our bloody existence. My reactions to these images fan out in a complicated spectrum, and don't necessarily interfere with my ability to understand the obscenity of the acts that created them. This notion that by looking you become instantly complicit, to me lifts the blame off the people who DID THE ACTS.

Sorry I'm insensitive to the horror and shock over images of degradation, versus what happened. My ancestors are the people you see being bulldozed naked into graves, no one had a second's pause about plastering skeletal, diseased, dehumanized Jews all over the newsreels so the world could sit up and go, no way, no shit! Personally, to me, the outrage stopped with the bullet and the rest is quibbling over details. The outrage should be placed on whatever *allowed those images to exist* not on their existence. However many people insist it didn't happen at this point, how many more would be running around if Germans weren't records pervs?

Without images, reportage, gore - we'd still be fighting the freaking Civil War, if not Vietnam. Images exploit the person in them, but sometimes individual exploitations serve a larger purpose. The diarist baring their fucked up life, the person who donates their stiff to science, realizes this.

Yes, I know its simply, would you watch it and that to me implies a choice and a choice that should be made responsibly.

Its not about lifting the blame off the people who carried out the acts, but it is about not giving them any credibility they may gain from knowing people are watching their ''work''. I do believe it is a responsibility. But hey thats just me.

There seem to be various reasons here why people would watch, from finding it hot to plain curiosity. As for images portraying historical events, wars and atrocities I think they are a vitally important part of educating people. I just think that this example is a completely different thing.

 

[minx1]

I want to echo your comments on choice. But add a bit more . . .

My husband and I both have many, many desires that we do not act on. Sometimes because we recognize the potential negative impact on the people involved (including ourselves). Sometimes because we're scared of the legal consequences.

We also have many desires that we act on, and then regret, because the chaos introduced into our lives wasn't worth it.

We've had some fairly outrageous desires that we have acted on, with negative consequences to ourselves, and will nonetheless be glad we had the experience.

And we've also walked the straight and narrow line of acceptable sexual behavior on the kinky end of the scale.

Life is about making choices. In your career, in your relationships, in your parenting, in the journey of your psyche. Not every choice you make will be a good one. And no one will be spared the consequences of the choices they make.

But I like that there's a place where this discussion can take place. Moral outrage among the deviant (on both sides of the argument) opens some interesting cognitive doors.

I completely agree EasternSun and yes its good to be able to have these discussions.

Please dont think I am anti kink.....I am honestly not! Hell I have some extreme desires myself.

I have no problem with consensual acts whatsoever.

Like everyone, I simply have my own moral code and belief system, one that I am discovering every day lol. I am not saying that my particular set of standards is the right one, but I do believe its still a valid one. And part of it would be that watching the rape of someone is not something I would ever voluntarily choose to do. To watch such an intensely personal and violent and potentially life destroying event is way too intrusive for me. And for what justification? Just because I am curious or would find it hot or whatever...... doesnt seem like that, good a reason really.

 

[minx1]

I In some situations in life, you may think you are not supporting a particular negative, but while you stand by and watch and do nothing, supporting is exactly what you are doing...history is littered with stories of people who claimed to not have supported various atrocities, but were happy to benefit from the side benefits, or just stand by and do nothing to stop what was happening. Comes back to the popular 'not my problem' mentality many live by, and why it has been proven you are more likely to be helped by one stranger alone in the street if you are attacked, then when there are several strangers on the street. Doesn't make sense, but is a weakness of the human animal.

Catalina

well said Cat

 

[JMohegan]

would you want to watch a video of an actual rape?

Yes, I would want to watch. However, I would not, because doing so would violate two of my personal principles.

Those being: 'do unto others...,' and 'character is defined by what you do when you believe no one else will ever know.'

I disagree strongly with the notion that a non-paying video watcher becomes complicit in the act itself, and also disagree with the notion that watching gives the rapist credibility. For me, this is simply a matter of asking myself: "If I were the victim, would I want others watching?" and responding with a very strong "no."

 

[androgEros]

A lot of people, in this thread, have commented on how immoral rape is. Rape victims rarely talk about the specific physical actions that took place, however focus is put on the helplessness. People talk all the time, about how rape left permanent emotional scars on the victim. The victim is scarred by the violation of safety and threatening of peace. Rarely does anyone clearly recall the physical effects of a rape. The body doesn't continue to feel a given sensation, once the cause is removed. This infers that people are more afraid of the mental and emotional ramifications of a rape, than the subjection of their body.

rape verb
/reɪp/ v [I or T]
to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behaviour

Rape in not indicative of the act of intercourse. It is defined by the phenomenon of force. In that sense, a person may feel raped when their boss tells them, "do your job now, or your fired!" This is the same exchange of power versus submission that is displayed in a rape.

Why is it okay to have violent intercourse, that can leave a woman OR man bleeding and bruised, as long as it is consensual. But it is not okay to have intercourse if it is non-consensual, even in no bodily damage is done?

Is it truly the fear of being forced, or the fear of the stigma that society puts on a raped person as a "victim", that makes rape a primal taboo? If a person is forced into a corner, wrists and ankles bound, mouth gagged, maybe even blindfolded, and held against his or her will; never penetrated just restrained, they will have the lasting emotional and psychological marks of a rape victim. If a person is beat and mangled with their consent, they are vindicated because they were no ones tool....... (or were they?)

 

[androgEros]

ooops

 

[JMohegan]

Sorry I'm insensitive to the horror and shock over images of degradation, versus what happened. My ancestors are the people you see being bulldozed naked into graves, no one had a second's pause about plastering skeletal, diseased, dehumanized Jews all over the newsreels so the world could sit up and go, no way, no shit! Personally, to me, the outrage stopped with the bullet and the rest is quibbling over details. The outrage should be placed on whatever *allowed those images to exist* not on their existence. However many people insist it didn't happen at this point, how many more would be running around if Germans weren't records pervs?

Let's consider this case.

I agree that outrage should be placed on the rapists and bystanders who "allowed those images to exist." I also agree that the police should retain the cell phone images of the crime, in order to prove in court that it actually happened.

However, assuming that one of those bystanders had sent one or more cell phone images of the crime to friends, who sent them friends, who sent them to more friends, and so on and so on... would you consider that chain of sending to be morally wrong in any sense?

 

[minx1]

A lot of people, in this thread, have commented on how immoral rape is. Rape victims rarely talk about the specific physical actions that took place, however focus is put on the helplessness. People talk all the time, about how rape left permanent emotional scars on the victim. The victim is scarred by the violation of safety and threatening of peace. Rarely does anyone clearly recall the physical effects of a rape. The body doesn't continue to feel a given sensation, once the cause is removed. This infers that people are more afraid of the mental and emotional ramifications of a rape, than the subjection of their body.

rape verb
/reɪp/ v [I or T]
to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behaviour

Rape in not indicative of the act of intercourse. It is defined by the phenomenon of force. In that sense, a person may feel raped when their boss tells them, "do your job now, or your fired!" This is the same exchange of power versus submission that is displayed in a rape.

Why is it okay to have violent intercourse, that can leave a woman OR man bleeding and bruised, as long as it is consensual. But it is not okay to have intercourse if it is non-consensual, even in no bodily damage is done?

Is it truly the fear of being forced, or the fear of the stigma that society puts on a raped person as a "victim", that makes rape a primal taboo? If a person is forced into a corner, wrists and ankles bound, mouth gagged, maybe even blindfolded, and held against his or her will; never penetrated just restrained, they will have the lasting emotional and psychological marks of a rape victim. If a person is beat and mangled with their consent, they are vindicated because they were no ones tool....... (or were they?)

I am slightly confused by a couple of things in your post. You just quoted rape as 'to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling'' but continued to say that its not idicative of the act of intercourse. That it is defined by the phenonenom of force.

Force of course if inherent in the act, as is the sexual assault. The two arent inseparable.

I'll be honest I dont know many rape victims and so am unable to comment about what aspect of the assault they find the most abhorent or leaves the longer lasting scars, or whether they dont recall the physical effects not because the cause is removed but because they blocking it out is a coping mechanism. Who knows. Only them i guess.

And why is rape unacceptable whilst violent consensual sex is? well for that very reason, because its not between consenting parties. And how do you decide if bodily damage is done?? Hasnt damage been done by assaulting someone who has not consented?

Yes, sorry....slightly confused.

 

[androgEros]

I knew I'd confuse someone.
I'm trying to say, that even if a rape isn't violent, i.e. no hitting/no bruises/no blood/no scars/no wounds, it is taboo. Simply because of the element of unwillingness on one part. A person can rape someone that they are in love with. If the sentiment isn't mutual, a crime is committed.

If consent is given by both parties, it is acceptable to beat a person within inches of their life. How can it be less of a crime to beat a person nearly to death, because they gave you permission, than it is to take sex from them without permission?

 

[Cattypuss]

If consent is given by both parties, it is acceptable to beat a person within inches of their life. How can it be less of a crime to beat a person nearly to death, because they gave you permission, than it is to take sex from them without permission?

That's like saying "How can it be be less of a crime to accept a freely-given gift from someone than it is to steal from someone?"

The answer is in the question!

 

[androgEros]

That's like saying "How can it be be less of a crime to accept a freely-given gift from someone than it is to steal from someone?"

The answer is in the question!

Not so. A freely given gift, does no harm.

Beating someone, WITH THEIR WILL, still does harm.

 

[minx1]

I knew I'd confuse someone.
I'm trying to say, that even if a rape isn't violent, i.e. no hitting/no bruises/no blood/no scars/no wounds, it is taboo. Simply because of the element of unwillingness on one part. A person can rape someone that they are in love with. If the sentiment isn't mutual, a crime is committed.

If consent is given by both parties, it is acceptable to beat a person within inches of their life. How can it be less of a crime to beat a person nearly to death, because they gave you permission, than it is to take sex from them without permission?

lol seriously its way past my bed time....it could that I'm not processing information well.

Its ''less of a crime'' because consent is given.
I mean beating up someone might not be something you totally understand...I am not that keen on too much pain myself lol, but i appreciate that many do get pleasure from it and cool...whatever floats their boat.
Because in the senario you described its done between consenting adults, presumably because a sense of satifaction or pleasure is derived from it. It fulfils needs. At least if thats the senario you mean.

 

[Cattypuss]

Not so. A freely given gift, does no harm.

Beating someone, WITH THEIR WILL, still does harm.

You seem to be missing the essential point in all this.

 

[ownedsubgal]

If consent is given by both parties, it is acceptable to beat a person within inches of their life. How can it be less of a crime to beat a person nearly to death, because they gave you permission, than it is to take sex from them without permission?

actually legally they are both crimes, and being beaten to "within an inch of your life" with consent is a much more prosecutable crime than your average rape.

but don't mind my semantic quibbling, i understood what you meant, that the latter is considered unethical, immoral, reprehensible, while the former is not. obviously in your eyes, the beating is more severe. however consent makes all the difference. what makes rape RAPE is the fact that it entirely against one's will, one's personal power has been taken away, your body is no longer your own, it is the ultimate shame and humiliation and rage and despair, all wrapped up in one. it goes so far beyond a simple "fear of being forced," and i can assure you that the last thing on one's mind while they are being raped is the social/cultural stigma it will place upon them. a rape is a spiritual theft, a piece of you is forever wounded and scarred at best, dead and buried at worst. because of the rapes i experienced as a child, there will always be a little piece of me, my soul, my spirit, that my Master can never reach. His love cannot touch it, cannot soothe or heal it. it is just dead, has created this permanent rotten spot within me that prevents any smile, any laughter, any joy, any love received, from ever being 100%. and all i can do is just accept it, and try to go on as best as possible within those limitations. forever.

one just cannot compare that to a consensual act, no matter what that act may be.

 

[Belle966]

Beating someone, WITH THEIR WILL, still does harm.

It does no psychological or emotional harm.

 

[Netzach]

Let's consider this case.

I agree that outrage should be placed on the rapists and bystanders who "allowed those images to exist." I also agree that the police should retain the cell phone images of the crime, in order to prove in court that it actually happened.

However, assuming that one of those bystanders had sent one or more cell phone images of the crime to friends, who sent them friends, who sent them to more friends, and so on and so on... would you consider that chain of sending to be morally wrong in any sense?

Of course.

As morally wrong as what went down, no. But repugnant, morally wrong, sure. But again, not as wrong as what went down, which is where the image should be pointing.

Is showing this in court an outrage a second violation etc. etc. Well, yes, however if it puts these people away, quite worth it. Not a second's pause in my my mind, while being fully aware that it isn't pleasant. If the viewing of images shatters our puppies and kitties sense of reality and makes us wonder how we can respond or change things or do differently, then some disquietude is something we'll have to live with.

If I see something violent, experience arousal at it, and then revulsion with my own arousal, if I'm not a freaking psychopath through and through, I'll stay in touch with what in me can possibly be dangerous. Some people are psychopathic sociopaths and frankly you'll have to lock up all Bibles books and films because they'll find any justification, it doesn't have to be a rape video to send one over the edge.