Turn rape into love?

[MillieDynamite]

My statistics disturb you? Oh, do pontificate, my endless rambling, asinine fellow. What is it that you have statistics on me about?

There are other disturbing statistics associated with you, but even I have my limits, so I'll spare you.

 

[XerXesXu]

But there are people in this forum who seem to believe that if you enjoy nonconsent stories it means you want to rape people, or that if you like interracial stories you're a racist, or that if you like incest stories you're really a pedophile.

There's no evidence that any of it's true. Zip. Zilch. So why do people believe it?

Just to contextualise, 'no evidence':

Understanding the sexual fantasies of sex offenders and their correlates

'The thought is master to the deed' - Sigmund Freud, for what that's worth.

 

[SimonDoom]

Just to contextualise, 'no evidence':

Understanding the sexual fantasies of sex offenders and their correlates

'The thought is master to the deed' - Sigmund Freud, for what that's worth.

It's evidence, to some degree, but it's not evidence that in any way supports what Tilan says, or what I'm arguing against. What the article indicates is that when one studies sexual offenders they show a high incidence of sexual fantasy, and that the fact that they indulge in sexual fantasy may correlate with a higher likelihood of recidivism or engaging in offending behavior. But this tells us nothing about the population as a whole, or the population of Literotica readers, and it has zero value for making empirical conclusions about what Literotica readers are thinking or are likely to do.

After Ted Bundy was caught for his murders, he admitted that he consumed a lot of violent porn. That doesn't tell us that consuming porn makes one more likely to commit crime, OR that among the population of those who consume porn there's a tendency to want to commit crimes. His admission is not probative of either of those things to any degree. All it may indicate is that among those with a desire to commit crimes there may be a higher incidence than normal of wanting to consume porn. One has to be careful to put the cart and the horse in the right order here.

Those who make sweeping assertions about what Literotica readers "really" think or want bear the burden of proof. In the time I've been participating in this forum (six and a half years), I've seen sweeping assertions often made of this sort, and not once has anyone produced evidence to support the claims. There's simply no more reason to believe these claims than there is to believe that people who go to horror movies want to commit murder. It's exactly that silly and evidence-free.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Land of the freak and home of the sick?

Regrettably, I am currently subject to a travel ban due to an ongoing legal trial (I assure you, I have not engaged in any improper activities with my sheep). If the ban is lifted, I would be delighted to visit your lovely country, despite its reputation for having the highest rate of serial killers in the world.

We've got some problems, but there are some countries with worse metrics than ours. Of course, some countries are better. At least it isn't North Korea. Their "serial killers" are, I'd guess, mostly employed by the State Security Department.

 

[gunhilltrain]

My statistics disturb you? Oh, do pontificate, my endless rambling, asinine fellow. What is it that you have statistics on me about?

He obviously means American statistics. The only personal statistic that bothers me is that I wish I was a bit taller. Five-foot eleven would be about right, but it's never going to happen.

 

[XerXesXu]

It's evidence, to some degree, but it's not evidence that in any way supports what Tilan says, or what I'm arguing against. What the article indicates is that when one studies sexual offenders they show a high incidence of sexual fantasy, and that the fact that they indulge in sexual fantasy may correlate with a higher likelihood of recidivism or engaging in offending behavior. But this tells us nothing about the population as a whole, or the population of Literotica readers, and it has zero value for making empirical conclusions about what Literotica readers are thinking or are likely to do.

It tells us what people who have been convicted of rape fantasise about when they masturbate, and what many people who have not yet been convicted of rape fantasise about when they masturbate. You'll have noted the abysmally low prosecution and conviction rates for rape ~ 5%. We don't yet have analyses of those men who've left the courtroom without a stain on their character.

Here’s a ‘harmless’ rape fantasy of the sort you endorse:

Caught in the Crossfire - NonConsent/Reluctance - Literotica.com

Nazis on Reds – they had it coming.

How comfortable do you feel about the author joining the Wagner Group, going to Ukraine and being given a gun and a prey population? Do you think he would be appaled, or join in the punishment clusterfucks with relish, aroused by the distress of the women and the pleasure of his mates? Reds on Nazis - they had it coming.

Your argument parallels that of AIDS denialists – ‘No one’s ever isolated or seen the virus, therefore it can’t exist.’ One can draw very strong inferences from indirect evidence. I do.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Huh, that paper is quite a read. There is one specific angle that needs to be considered in regard to Lit ( and all other porn out there, of course) Apparently, research in that paper shows that consuming actual fantasies (which Lit provides) can disinhibit a person with tendencies towards sex crimes, meaning that reading about such fantasies or watching videos or seeing pictures can make such acts seem less abnormal to the potential offender and increase the likelihood of an actual crime being committed.
Of course, that in itself isn't proof that reading some fantasies on Lit has ever made anyone commit a crime, or even helped to steer him towards some sexual crime, but it does raise some concerns. This brings me back to what I wrote here before. Nothing that is considered a serious crime in real life should be allowed to be written as a sexual fantasy, which means underage and non-consensual sex(rape).

 

[SimonDoom]

One can draw very strong inferences from indirect evidence. I do.

Then you're engaged in bad and unwarranted inference-drawing. That's the point. The evidence you cite is NOT evidence for what you suggest. At all. It satisfies no test of science or logic.

People believe what they want to believe, and they choose to look at the evidence in whatever way is necessary to believe what they believe. It's not empirical, and it doesn't satisfy the burden of proof.

As for the story you cited, I scanned it. It's sadistic and unpleasant, but I can't infer from it that people who choose to read it want to rape people or that its presence at Literotica increases the probability that people in the real world are going to be raped. Those are unwarranted inferences.

 

[SimonDoom]

This brings me back to what I wrote here before. Nothing that is considered a serious crime in real life should be allowed to be written as a sexual fantasy, which means underage and non-consensual sex(rape).

Supposing we take your premise seriously, should we ban all books and movies about murder? They may not deal with sexual fantasy, but this gets back to my question, above, how does the fact that it concerns sex make it different in principle? It doesn't. I don't believe you have a principled (or evidence-based) ground for saying people should be allowed to see horror movies where people are murdered but we should criminalize stories that feature criminal sexual behavior.

I don't believe any fiction should be banned, regardless of content. At the same time I think a privately owned site like Literotica is and should be free to set its own rules about what content it wants to host. I respect the rules it has in place now but I wouldn't want to see them get more restrictive.

 

[alohadave]

Here’s a ‘harmless’ rape fantasy of the sort you endorse:

Caught in the Crossfire - NonConsent/Reluctance - Literotica.com

Instead of using it to try to win an argument, you could have reported it for violating the rules. But I took care of that for you.

 

[XerXesXu]

Then you're engaged in bad and unwarranted inference-drawing. That's the point. The evidence you cite is NOT evidence for what you suggest. At all. It satisfies no test of science or logic.

On the contrary. It's the subject matter of scientific investigation. But, you've moved from 'no evidence' to 'some evidence'. You may not be incorrigible, but you've a belief system that's closed to challenge. I shan't be poking your fingers in the wounds. Why you hold such unusual beliefs I wouldn't know.

 

[MillieDynamite]

OH, thank god, we've been waiting for you to be done for some time. And yet, I bet you aren't done at all.

Psycho zealot. ISIS of fiction. I'm done.

 

[SimonDoom]

OH, thank god, we've been waiting for you to be done for some time. And yet, I bet you aren't done at all.

It's an interesting interpretation of what ISIS stands for: people should be free to read and write what they want. That's kind of the opposite of ISIS, isn't it?

 

[XerXesXu]

Instead of using it to try to win an argument, you could have reported it for violating the rules. But I took care of that for you.

Just as I was reading his other stories about rape in the Belgian Congo, now I don't know how they end, I suspect not well for the ladies.

Did you hear the true story about the Irish whisky millionaire who took a trip to the Belgian Congo? His 'interest' was cannibalism. He arranged for a 10-year-old slave girl to be tied to a tree, slaughtered, butchered, cooked and eaten. It was just an 'interest' but he had the opportunity to indulge it.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It's an interesting interpretation of what ISIS stands for: people should be free to read and write what they want. That's kind of the opposite of ISIS, isn't it?

I guess I was only ever so happy that Tilan was done.

 

[SimonDoom]

I guess I was only ever so happy that Tilan was done.

Remember the TV show: "Curb your enthusiasm."

 

[SimonDoom]

Why you hold such unusual beliefs I wouldn't know.

It's not unusual at all. It's called classical liberalism, and it's been around for a long time. You're free to do what you want so long as you don't hurt people. Writing stories doesn't hurt people in a cognizable sense. It may offend them. That's not a cognizable injury. It's embodied in the US Constitution, and it pretty much dovetails with the US Supreme Court's current jurisprudence on the First Amendment. It holds that people should be free to read and write and say what they want, with limited restrictions. Those restrictions do NOT include restrictions based upon 1) the mere repugnance some feel for the stories' subject matter (one person's meat is another's poison), or 2) the evidence-free speculation that as a result of the publication of the stories net harm will result in the real world. Given the prevalence of the kinds of stories Tilan doesn't like on the Internet and the fact that they're not prosecuted as being obscene, it's very unlikely that they WOULD be found to be obscene. So, no, my beliefs aren't unusual at all.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Supposing we take your premise seriously, should we ban all books and movies about murder? They may not deal with sexual fantasy, but this gets back to my question, above, how does the fact that it concerns sex make it different in principle? It doesn't. I don't believe you have a principled (or evidence-based) ground for saying people should be allowed to see horror movies where people are murdered but we should criminalize stories that feature criminal sexual behavior.

I don't believe any fiction should be banned, regardless of content. At the same time I think a privately owned site like Literotica is and should be free to set its own rules about what content it wants to host. I respect the rules it has in place now but I wouldn't want to see them get more restrictive.

If there is actual scientific research and hard evidence that all those things influence significantly the number of violent crimes, then yes, maybe we should reconsider having horror movies and books and movies about murder and war. I have never seen such evidence, nor did I ever hear anything about its existence, I am just saying it on principle.
This paper is some scientific evidence. It is not a Holy Bible in the sense that we should just take for granted everything that was stated there of course, but it should make us think at least. I very much dislike any possible restrictions on our freedoms, but maybe some lines should be reconsidered. I am not saying that some immediate action should be taken or anything like that, but papers like this one should at least make us contemplate some more.
Lit's owners are free to set their own rules within the bounds of the law, but once again, they should at least consider enforcing them properly towards the new stories, and even review some of the older stories, as tedious and time-consuming as that could be. Somebody will undoubtedly mention the argument that there are so many new stories each day and that there is only Laurel handling them all, but that argument gets old very quickly.
There are some very disturbing stories I stumbled upon on this website that are in quite obvious breach of Lit's rules. If anyone is curious about some that I've found, they can PM me as I have no intention of reporting them or acting like a police officer or a snitch towards other authors, no matter what they are writing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't believe any fiction should be banned, regardless of content.

I am curious about your stance towards underage stories. I honestly see no reason why rape stories should be allowed while underage stories shouldn't. I mean if EVERYTHING is just harmless fiction, then underage stories are also? That is basically what you implied by that sentence and I am just curious to see if you will have the balls to outright say it.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm done with him. I'll never give up on my favorite pet rat, Nella.

Please find someone else for a pet. It gives me indigestion when you refer to me as a pet. It's like you're making a racist comment disguised as some friendly banter.

 

[SimonDoom]

I am curious about your stance towards underage stories. I honestly see no reason why rape stories should be allowed while underage stories shouldn't. I mean if EVERYTHING is just harmless fiction, then underage stories are also? That is basically what you implied by that sentence and I am just curious to see if you will have the balls to outright say it.

No fiction should be legally banned based on its subject matter. None. That's my position. Snuff, bestiality, underage, rape, you name it. If it cannot be demonstrated convincingly by evidence that speech causes cognizable harm, it should not be criminalized. Everything goes.

The Internet's been around since the mid-1990s. It immediately made porn and erotica of every type vastly more accessible than before. The violent crime rate in the USA has plummeted since then. There's absolutely no broad evidentiary link between the availability of transgressive art and literature and an increase in crime. An argument could be made that the greatest violence against women happens in the countries that are MOST restrictive toward porn and erotica.

Does that seem extreme to you? It shouldn't. That's basically the state of the law and the market in the USA right now. You can find all the things I've just named with a few clicks of your keyboard on the Internet. There are a few rare cases in a few jurisdictions where violent pedophilia has been criminally prosecuted, but those cases are rare, and people pretty much get away with everything right now in the USA. My position isn't weird at all. It's in line with the way things are normally done in the USA as we speak.

That doesn't mean I want to read that material, although at one point or another in the last 25 years I've read literally every type of thing there is. I'm content with Literotica's restrictions.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Then you're engaged in bad and unwarranted inference-drawing. That's the point. The evidence you cite is NOT evidence for what you suggest. At all. It satisfies no test of science or logic.

I think if you were to read the million or so words I've written here, you'd arrive at a pretty fair assessment of EB's world view, and if you were to repeat it back to me, I'd probably say, you're right (unless I'm a complete psychopath and don't know myself at all, but somehow, I doubt that).

And I think, if you did the same with any other writer, particularly anyone prolific, you could make similar inferences as to what drives them, what motivates them, what makes them tick. What turns them on.

When someone writes something once or twice, it might be perverse, but it's not a worry. Sure, go right ahead, write more. When they write it repeatedly, you can safely say, there's the kink, you're da guy. It's when they write it constantly, and it's dark, violent, misogynist, ugly - doesn't it become a bit of a worry?

It does, in my world - I wouldn't want to know people with such a world view, and I wouldn't want them to raise the swastika next door or to distribute paedophile porn or to act out rapist fantasies.

I think one can draw inferences about people from what they write, and sure, your Constitution allows it (but your Constitution allows a lot of things that others in the world raise an eyebrow at), but that doesn't make those things automatically "acceptable", or "responsible", or "harmless".

The, "but it's only fiction, it's harmless" line overlooks a whole bunch of things, I think.

If our writing reflects the angel within us, doesn't it also reflect the beast?

Your liberalism gets in the way, sometimes, of accepting that some things are truly repugnant to a vast majority of people, and that lines should be drawn. And the American Constitution isn't quite as good as you think it is.

But other than that, you're an okay guy.

Carry on - but you might be in a trench for one, at times.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

No fiction should be legally banned based on its subject matter. None. That's my position. Snuff, bestiality, underage, rape, you name it. If it cannot be demonstrated convincingly by evidence that speech causes cognizable harm, it should not be criminalized. Everything goes.

While I do think that lines need to be drawn somewhere, I do recognize the consistency of your standpoint. That was all I wanted to know.

 

[XerXesXu]

It's embodied in the US Constitution, and it pretty much dovetails with the US Supreme Court's current jurisprudence on the First Amendment. It holds that people should be free to read and write and say what they want, with limited restrictions. Those restrictions do NOT include restrictions based upon 1) the mere repugnance some feel for the stories' subject matter (one person's meat is another's poison), or 2) the evidence-free speculation that as a result of the publication of the stories net harm will result in the real world.

Wrong on both counts. But you're not a lawyer, just as you're not a psychiatrist.

Obscenity - "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." - a matter for the states to enlarge on and a jury to decide.

In relation to the protection of children, the Constitution is even less indulgent. (You’ve probably never been able to understand the reasons for Lit’s age rules.)

‘One state's meat is another state's poison.’

Community Standards | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)

 

[SimonDoom]

When someone writes something once or twice, it might be perverse, but it's not a worry. Sure, go right ahead, write more. When they write it repeatedly, you can safely say, there's the kink, you're da guy. It's when they write it constantly, and it's dark, violent, misogynist, ugly - doesn't it become a bit of a worry?

It depends. I don't worry about Stephen King and all the depraved violent things he writes about (including a famous prepubescent group sex scene in IT). I don't worry about most of the genre detective and thriller novels that feature murder. I don't worry that their authors, or that the readers of these books, are more predisposed to want to murder people than the population at large.

If our writing reflects the angel within us, doesn't it also reflect the beast?

It does, and I think this is, generally speaking, a good thing, not a bad thing. The full gamut of human experience and personality is appropriate fodder for art. Good and terrible. Hasn't it always been that way? Wouldn't our culture have been diminished if it had not?

Your liberalism gets in the way, sometimes, of accepting that some things are truly repugnant to a vast majority of people, and that lines should be drawn.

We disagree here. Whether or not the majority finds something repugnant should be of no consequence for legal purposes. A free society protects the right to express the minority view, however repugnant it is to the majority. Voltaire said it almost 300 years ago: "Though I disagree with what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it." That works for me, especially at a smut story site where the probable adverse consequences in the real world of publishing vile material are vanishingly small.

There are problems with the US Constitution, but not, in my opinion, in its relatively robust protection of free speech. I'd much rather have our system than systems that have absurd things like hate speech laws and blasphemy laws.

Let's keep in mind, I didn't wade into this conversation to contest the idea that SOME people who are attracted to certain kinds of awful stories may have bad motives (some probably do) or to contest the idea that it's possible that SOME people may act out in bad ways on stories they read (we know they do--e.g., John Hinckley trying to kill Ronald Reagan after watching Taxi Driver). I responded to Tilan's overbroad and absurd attempts to paint readers of certain types of stories with a broad brush. It's evidence-free kink-shaming, and there's a disturbing amount of it in this forum.