The Passing of "Extreme"

[Pure]

Yes, Billy was saved; because of earlier surgeries, his stomach wall was weakened; there was a separation, massive hemorrhage. The doctors had given up, and the TV was put on to distract the little guy in his final hours.

He began watching a show about faith healing, and, to make the story short, his parents called in. The healer, seen on TV, prayed with Billy and his parents, and in no time Billy was up and around, and back to his videogames. ... But he says he'll never eat margarine again, and is going to 'take out' the guys who manufacture it, if he can find them.

J.

 

[Wills]

Well done Pure,

You're lightening up.

Will's

 

[RenzaJones]

Maybe if this issue is argued and beat and tarred and feathered to death they'll bring back Extreme.


Renza <--- Who's calling a vodoo shaman to see if we can resurrect the issue just for the fun of it.

Now I'm going to need to get some chicken bones and crow feathers to do it proper

 

[damppanties]

Maybe if this issue is argued and beat and tarred and feathered to death they'll bring back Extreme.


Renza <--- Who's calling a vodoo shaman to see if we can resurrect the issue just for the fun of it.

Now I'm going to need to get some chicken bones and crow feathers to do it proper

*contributing chicken bones*

*burp*

erm... excuse me!

 

[bridgeburner]

Svenskaflicka,

There are weirdo's of all kinds.

But why should we give them a forum to express themselves? Do they deserve it?

I dunno, do you deserve it? Do I? Doesn't everyone? Isn't that the whole point of free speech?


-B

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Being the goddess of vice, I deserve everything nice.

Renza, isn't that supposed to be chicken feathers and crow bones?

Svenskaflicka
Wiccanly Challenged

 

[bridgeburner]

DP,

This is a reposting of the quote from the article regarding whether Josh's media choices made him kill his parents:

"Would it have happened if he hadn't had access to [violent media]? I can't say. Did it make it more likely? There's a good chance. But it was in combination with many other very potent variables."

This is a long way of saying "I don't know" or "The evidence is inconclusive." That's not a popular answer these days. Nobody wants to admit that just perhaps violence in music and film has nothing at all to do with violence in real life. Regardless of the lack of proof it is a popular fiction and people disagree with it at their peril. It's becoming another cargo-cult science like subliminal advertising.

"What do you mean by mentally unsound?"

I mean mentally unsound enough to be a potential danger to themselves or others.

"IMO, violence affects people who are even mildly depressed. It increases aggressive behaviour. Maybe not to the extent that they would kill someone, but it does. They'll hit their child, or their wife, or something."

But is this based on your exhaustive scientific research or just on what you feel to be true? The world outside the window does not support your claims -- assuming we're talking about fictional violence rather than real violence

"Long-term exposure to violence, and yes, fictious violence, can and may lead to violence in real life. "

You are making two arguments here one of which is completely unsupportable and the other of which you have so far not given any evidence for.

First: fiction and reality are not equivalent. We can talk about real violence or we can talk about fictional violence but mentioning them in the same sentence does not make them equally important or dangerous.

Second: You have yet to give any empirical evidence that fictitious violence is indeed responsible for real violence. Whatever you may personally feel or believe, you have not shown this to be true. Just because it's a popular belief does not make it a factual belief.

"No, violence does not offend me. I can view it in a completely detached manner and maybe even appreciate the camera angle. "

How is it that you can watch violence or read about it and you don't become a violent person?

"Fantasies of violence, which may lead to violence in real life, which harms others is my problem."

We're back to making rules for everyone according to the lowest common denominator. There are some people who are either unwilling or unable to control their naturally violent impulses. They are the minority. Should the rest of society be censured and restricted in keeping with the extreme element's requirements?

"Which may lead" Is even the possibility enough for you to justify censorship of Tom and Jerry cartoons? Or The Matrix or Pirates of the Carribean or Law and Order or the Sopranos? I mean, we want to get rid of violence, right? How far are you willing to go with this?

"Fantasies of interracial sex, which leads to interracial sex, fine. Do what you want. Incest- okay, it's your family. Psychological and/or physical harm is what I am against, not particular fantasies or values or whatever. Kiddie porn and excessive violence come under this."

Do you honestly believe that everyone out there writing incest stories is engaging in incestuous acts? Do you know how much incest we're talking about here? It's the second largest categorey at Literotica by a significant margin. Are all of these people out having sex with family members? All their readers? Why do you believe that people can write about incest without fucking their siblings but they can't write about violence without promoting or committing acts of violence?

This is the essential issue for me. Why do you believe that some fantasies are just fantasy, but other fantasies are deliberate wishes or admonitions? What criteria are you using to decide whose fantasy is dangerous to the public at large?

"No, your every act will not provoke others. Some of your acts may."

But how are we to know which acts? I say that we can't know because crazy people are...well, crazy. They don't make rational decisions based on the stimuli they encounter. Any act on my part may contribute to the violent actions of an unsound mind. This is so extreme as to essentially nullify my involvement. Should Jodi Foster have secluded herself from all public life because of her stalker's insanity? Of course not. We have to work from the idea of the common reasonable man. Does viewing pornography make the common reasonable man into a sex offender? No. Does viewing The Godfather make the common reasonable man into a hired killer? No. Does listening to Eminem make the common reasonable man into a gangsta? No. This is a world for the common reasonable man and he should not be restricted because of his uncommonly unreasonable brethren. There are far more important issues to address before we start censoring entertainment.

"And no, of course you are not responsible for someone else going crazy. But you are contributing to it. "

In roughly the same way that the existence of oxygen contributes to it. One is either responsible or not responsible. You can't be not responsible but still guilty which seems to be what you want to argue. Kind of "It's not your fault but you should still feel bad." This is dangerous thinking to my mind. It's the way the Thought Police and the fascist wing of PC get their hooks in you.

"Therefore, you are at least providing an excuse to those mentally unstable people, however misguided their claims may be. "

No. If it weren't me and my writing it would be someone else and their writing or the songbird outside their bedroom window when they got up this morning --- when all stimuli are equally responsible then none is responsible. The solution is not to take away all the possible excuses, but to recognize when excuses are lies and stop giving scientific credence to maniacs. Millions of people watch porn without becoming rapists but because Ted Bundy says porn made him rape and kill we've all of a sudden accepted that as truth. The man is a sociopath and a killer trying to evade punishment and yet we're going to take his word for it that porn kills? I cannot agree.

As you quoted from Wills:

"-----Violence between individuals is always internally driven, that voice inside your head is your voice, any accompanying song and its words only serves to convince your voice that it is taking the 'right' action.-----"

This is justification and rationalization NOT causation.


Whew! Sorry that took so long. Busy day today and I've been back and forth to this post about 30 times praying the computer wouldn't crash in the middle of it.


On to the next!

-B

 

[RenzaJones]

Being the goddess of vice, I deserve everything nice.

Renza, isn't that supposed to be chicken feathers and crow bones?

Svenskaflicka
Wiccanly Challenged

I said voodoo not wicca I've got to roll the bones lol
now before I can tell you anymore you'll need to cross my palm with silver. (silver should be converted to 10 $ us )

 

[bridgeburner]

DP,

"Going over shereads' post,her parental censorship does make sense but there is only so much that they can do. In today's society, the kids do not take kindly to being told what to see and what to avoid on television/ movies/ choice of video games, whatever."

If people cannot control their children the government should step in and treat the entire population like children? Personally, when my 3yo nephew tells me he doesn't want to go to bed I'm not likely to just throw my hands up and say "Well, I guess that's that, then." He is the child. I am the adult. He doesn't get to decide what he will or will not do in such a situation. That's what parents and care-givers are for --- not to just make gentle suggestions and allow children to make their own rules.

I fully believe in giving children as much responsibility as they are able to safely handle. It teaches them decision making which they will need as adults. The point is, however, that they ARE still children and as adults it is OUR experience which decides what is acceptable behavior, entertainment, food, friends, activity for them.

Parents who abdicate their responsiblities to the government because it's just too hard or their kids are just rebellious make me madder than hell. They are irresponsible in the extreme and they create not only problems for their children but for the rest of society who ends up paying for their mistakes - witness the rush to make all entertainment safe for children whose parents can't be bothered to monitor what they have access to.

Sometimes the appropriate answer to a tantrum is "Because I'm the adult and you are not."

"In this type of a scenario, all I'm saying is that the violence out there is too much and has been steadily increasing."

Do you have figures on this? Last I heard violent crime was down by some 7% nationwide in the last 20 years. Michael Moore points out that while crime is down, reportage of crime is up nearly 600%. We're being fed a line of crap by a ratings driven media trying to give us more gore for the buck.

"Do we really need to see all that senseless murdering and those gory details?"

Do we really need to see all that nakedness and lascivious behavior?

Do you see what I'm getting at? It's the old "What I read is sexy but what you read is sick" argument and it's based solely on personal taste. You don't personally find any satisfaction in reading violent material. Plenty of people do --- witness the popularity of action films. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it dangerous or superfluous. Right now there are a million right-wing Christians and radical feminists arguing that your tendency to read pornographic literature is a danger to society and promotes the degradation of women.

The hard thing is to support the expression of ideas that you not only disagree with but that may honestly make you sick. There are a lot of things I wish people didn't believe, but I'm not about to say that they shouldn't be able to write about it. If I believe that I should have a right to read and write flying donkey porn then I have to support another's right to read and write ultra-violent earthworm porn.


--B

 

[Wills]

BB

Just so's you don't feel your posting in the dark, thanks.

I have seriously tried to stay out of this, I could say lots, fortunately you have said it for me.

Will's

 

[Etoile]

There are weirdo's of all kinds.
But why should we give them a forum to express themselves? Do they deserve it?

WHOA. I can't believe this statement. What happened to the first amendment? Of course they deserve the right to express themselves. And people who are interested in reading that kind of thing deserve a place to find what's been written. I really hope you were being sarcastic.

 

[Etoile]

Oh, and the Joshua thing happened about five miles from me.

 

[Gary Chambers]

I originally signed on Lit because I had six stories written that were never going to see the light of day, as the magazine they were written for stopped buying fiction. One of them, not yet submitted, is what I call extreme and I'm wondering if it would fit the old definition of extreme here at Lit.

I was thinking one day about all the restrictions on subject matter: no bestiality, no underage sex, no rape, no violence etc. I decided to write one that existed solely to break a rule. I chose violence. My characters are Latin American revolutionaries who combine hedonism with deadly insurgence. They do things in the midst of battle that certainly mix sex and violence in the same heavy breathing experience. Perhaps I should have called it War And Piece.

My question is, are extreme stories on Lit tales that push the boundaries of the erotica genre, or just ordinary stories with more outrageous sex acts?

 

[Dirt Man]

I originally signed on Lit because I had six stories written that were never going to see the light of day, as the magazine they were written for stopped buying fiction. One of them, not yet submitted, is what I call extreme and I'm wondering if it would fit the old definition of extreme here at Lit.

I was thinking one day about all the restrictions on subject matter: no bestiality, no underage sex, no rape, no violence etc. I decided to write one that existed solely to break a rule. I chose violence. My characters are Latin American revolutionaries who combine hedonism with deadly insurgence. They do things in the midst of battle that certainly mix sex and violence in the same heavy breathing experience. Perhaps I should have called it War And Piece.

My question is, are extreme stories on Lit tales that push the boundaries of the erotica genre, or just ordinary stories with more outrageous sex acts?

Extreme= Kiddy porn, or sex with anyone under 18. Bestiality. And I believe Scatology also. That's it.

The rest is taken in context here at lit. We have a non-consent catagory for rape, and violence for your War & Piece story.

 

[Pure]

Hi Gary Bob,

you said,
//My question is, are extreme stories on Lit tales that push the boundaries of the erotica genre, or just ordinary stories with more outrageous sex acts? //
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dirt Man said:
Extreme= Kiddy porn, or sex with anyone under 18. Bestiality. And I believe Scatology also. That's it.

The rest is taken in context here at lit. We have a non-consent catagory for rape, and violence for your War & Piece story.
-----

GaryB, I don't understand your question. The 'extreme' category (i.e., site or category) does not exist. Most things that were 'extreme' (i.e., acceptable as such) are now simply unacceptable. Are you asking what is currently *unacceptable* at Lit?

I'm not sure how DirtM interprets your question, but IF he's making an attempt to define the 'unacceptable,' it's not that accurate. Nor is most of the nonconsent category, 'rape'. It's compelled or coerced sex--briefly, not desired-- that rapidly turns pleasurable and welcomed(i.e., in five mins) and even orgasmic (in ten minutes).

Looking at the official guidelines, I see,
//3. No sexual activity involving bestiality (you can write stories about supernatural beasts like ghosts, unicorns, werewolves, etc.) or underage persons will be considered. For the purposes of this site, the minimum legal age is 18. //

I interpret this to mean that the amount of violence is negotiable, but extremes of sexual violence, torture and killing, afaik are not acceptable.

GaryB, if you're asking if it's style and imagination and 'form' issues [that kind of pushing the boundary] OR specific sex--and of violent-- acts that *currently* make a story unacceptable, well, it could be either.

But if the story can be followed (isn't a hopeless jumble), and has reasonable mechanical competence (e.g., correct quotation marks, appropriate periods), it will be published if it stays in the presribed range of sex or violent acts --or, better, avoids the proscribed range.

As to your 'war' example, I don't know it, but certain sex/violence combos are acceptable currently, and it probably helps to have them inside a real story (narrative).


J.

 

[damppanties]

BB,

I thought I had made myself clear when I posted earlier, but apparently not. The way you took my remarks is not what I meant them as.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IMO, violence affects people who are even mildly depressed. It increases aggressive behaviour. Maybe not to the extent that they would kill someone, but it does. They'll hit their child, or their wife, or something."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But is this based on your exhaustive scientific research or just on what you feel to be true? The world outside the window does not support your claims -- assuming we're talking about fictional violence rather than real violence

Yes. I was talking about fictional violence. Fictional violence increases aggressive behaviour. I'll quote some scientfic research here. Definitely not exhaustive. I'm sorry I do not have the time for exhaustive scientific research right now. Exams coming up.

Statistics and Excerpts from Selected Research on Media Violence

A collection of research studies on the topic - please scroll down to the area marked 'Research Studies'.

Longitudinal relations between TV-violence viewing at ages 6 to 10 and adult aggressive behavior 15 years later

Report finds repeated early childhood exposure to intense shows, video games causes aggressive behavior.

Media Violence and Aggression: Recent Studies Link Exposure to Violence in the Media and Subsequent Aggression in Teenagers

VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION

The Effects of Media Violence on Society (a .pdf file)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Long-term exposure to violence, and yes, fictious violence, can and may lead to violence in real life. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are making two arguments here one of which is completely unsupportable and the other of which you have so far not given any evidence for.

First: fiction and reality are not equivalent. We can talk about real violence or we can talk about fictional violence but mentioning them in the same sentence does not make them equally important or dangerous.

I was not talking about real life violence. I'm sorry I failed to be clear there.

Second: You have yet to give any empirical evidence that fictitious violence is indeed responsible for real violence. Whatever you may personally feel or believe, you have not shown this to be true. Just because it's a popular belief does not make it a factual belief.

I have tried to get to the evidence part by giving links to scientific studies above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, violence does not offend me. I can view it in a completely detached manner and maybe even appreciate the camera angle. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is it that you can watch violence or read about it and you don't become a violent person?

Because I abhor violence. I cannot watch it on screen. If I go to a movie which does depict extremely violent acts, I will focus on things like the camera angle or something totally unrelated to the stupid thing they are intent on showing me to get my mind off it. It's a defence mechanism.

I do not read books which depict extreme violence so I do not know how it would effect me. Thinking about it, if I read books which talk about violence, the imagination part is up to me unless every action is written down in gory detail.

Here, I'm talking about *ME* = one person.

I'd like to mention that the remark you quoted above was made tongue in cheek, that's why there was a smiley next to it. I'll try to refrain from that kind of a thing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fantasies of violence, which may lead to violence in real life, which harms others is my problem."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're back to making rules for everyone according to the lowest common denominator. There are some people who are either unwilling or unable to control their naturally violent impulses. They are the minority. Should the rest of society be censured and restricted in keeping with the extreme element's requirements?

"Which may lead" Is even the possibility enough for you to justify censorship of Tom and Jerry cartoons? Or The Matrix or Pirates of the Carribean or Law and Order or the Sopranos? I mean, we want to get rid of violence, right? How far are you willing to go with this?

I already said censorship or ban can not be the answer. Yes, I would like to see a ban on violence in the media personally, but it can not be done so there's no use talking about it.

I have stated a problem of mine. It does not mean I know (or am recommending) a solution for it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fantasies of interracial sex, which leads to interracial sex, fine. Do what you want. Incest- okay, it's your family. Psychological and/or physical harm is what I am against, not particular fantasies or values or whatever. Kiddie porn and excessive violence come under this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you honestly believe that everyone out there writing incest stories is engaging in incestuous acts? Do you know how much incest we're talking about here? It's the second largest categorey at Literotica by a significant margin. Are all of these people out having sex with family members? All their readers? Why do you believe that people can write about incest without fucking their siblings but they can't write about violence without promoting or committing acts of violence?

This is the essential issue for me. Why do you believe that some fantasies are just fantasy, but other fantasies are deliberate wishes or admonitions? What criteria are you using to decide whose fantasy is dangerous to the public at large?

Do you really want an answer to the earlier paragraph I quoted in this excerpt? Well, no, I do not think people who write about incest are into an incestuous relationship themselves.

What I tried to say in my words you quoted above was that I have a problem with only those fantasies which are harmful towards others, either psychologically or physically, which are translated to action. Interracial sex isn't harmful. Incest isn't. At least the incest reported on literotica isn't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, your every act will not provoke others. Some of your acts may."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how are we to know which acts? I say that we can't know because crazy people are...well, crazy. They don't make rational decisions based on the stimuli they encounter. Any act on my part may contribute to the violent actions of an unsound mind. This is so extreme as to essentially nullify my involvement. Should Jodi Foster have secluded herself from all public life because of her stalker's insanity? Of course not. We have to work from the idea of the common reasonable man. Does viewing pornography make the common reasonable man into a sex offender? No. Does viewing The Godfather make the common reasonable man into a hired killer? No. Does listening to Eminem make the common reasonable man into a gangsta? No. This is a world for the common reasonable man and he should not be restricted because of his uncommonly unreasonable brethren. There are far more important issues to address before we start censoring entertainment.

Again, censoring entertainment is just not possible. It is very,very subjective. So much so that no consensus can be reached as to what should be censored and what should not.

To answer to one of your questions above. No, viewing the Godfather does not make the common reasonable man into a hired killer. I am talking about watching violence and the effect of it in real life - one effect is increased aggression. This does NOT mean a person watches Godfather and becomes a hired killer. It is not as simple as that.

Whew! Sorry that took so long. Busy day today and I've been back and forth to this post about 30 times praying the computer wouldn't crash in the middle of it.


On to the next!

-B

Hehe... same here.

 

[damppanties]

DP,

If people cannot control their children the government should step in and treat the entire population like children? Personally, when my 3yo nephew tells me he doesn't want to go to bed I'm not likely to just throw my hands up and say "Well, I guess that's that, then." He is the child. I am the adult. He doesn't get to decide what he will or will not do in such a situation. That's what parents and care-givers are for --- not to just make gentle suggestions and allow children to make their own rules.

I fully believe in giving children as much responsibility as they are able to safely handle. It teaches them decision making which they will need as adults. The point is, however, that they ARE still children and as adults it is OUR experience which decides what is acceptable behavior, entertainment, food, friends, activity for them.

Parents who abdicate their responsiblities to the government because it's just too hard or their kids are just rebellious make me madder than hell. They are irresponsible in the extreme and they create not only problems for their children but for the rest of society who ends up paying for their mistakes - witness the rush to make all entertainment safe for children whose parents can't be bothered to monitor what they have access to.

Sometimes the appropriate answer to a tantrum is "Because I'm the adult and you are not."

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said above, without exception. What I meant before was that you can and should the TV viewing/ videogame playing of your child, but sometimes it is just not possible. Children who do not agree to parents' views about what is right for them may get to do it some other way. Being strict with children has other negative effects. I am not getting into that.

Do we really need to see all that nakedness and lascivious behavior?

Do you see what I'm getting at? It's the old "What I read is sexy but what you read is sick" argument and it's based solely on personal taste. You don't personally find any satisfaction in reading violent material. Plenty of people do --- witness the popularity of action films. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it dangerous or superfluous. Right now there are a million right-wing Christians and radical feminists arguing that your tendency to read pornographic literature is a danger to society and promotes the degradation of women.

The hard thing is to support the expression of ideas that you not only disagree with but that may honestly make you sick. There are a lot of things I wish people didn't believe, but I'm not about to say that they shouldn't be able to write about it. If I believe that I should have a right to read and write flying donkey porn then I have to support another's right to read and write ultra-violent earthworm porn.

--B

Violence makes me sick. So does anal sex. I am against the depiction of violence, not anal sex. It is not about what makes me sick.

Freedom of expression is there, true. I like it. I am also in favour of using that freedom with responsibility.

On another note, I loved the last sentence. For that, I like you.

 

[Pure]

Hi Damp Panties,

Thanks for posting the links. You are very conscientious. A couple of the studies seem definitely of high quality, namely Johnson et al 2003 (in Science)and Huesmann et al. 2003 (in Dev'l Psychology).

A couple points are worth noting.

The authors generally speak of correlation and statistical association (between observed TV or TV violence and aggressive acts) and are very cautious about causal statements. Indeed, the first notes that NO causal link can be proven by this 'epidemiological' method.

The first authors reported no significant effect for girls.

The second authors reported no significant effect for adult TV violence viewing and aggression. Iow they are, in their own view, providing evidence that *childhood exposure, particularly extensive, is linked with adult aggression.

One last comment: In conjunction with Literotica, it's worth noting that these studies are of media *violence*.

Afaik, the problem of media *sex* [influencing antisocial sexual behavior] is quite different. There is little evidence in support of an association and good evidence against.

The 'extreme' category at Lit, of course, represented sometimes just (weird)sex, and sometimes sexual or sometimes just 'ordinary' violence.

Thanks again for a quality contribution and good luck on your exams.

 

[damppanties]

You're welcome, Pure. Glad you liked the studies.

Yes, the studies are basically about media violence and its' effect on children. There's one in there which speaks about adolescents too.

I didn't post studies about media sex because I wasn't talking about it - and am not likely to. (BTW, what is antisocial sexual behaviour?)

Thanks for the exam wishes.

 

[bridgeburner]

DP,

"The way you took my remarks is not what I meant them as."

Always correct me if I've mis-stated your position. It's hardly productive if I'm debating a position that you don't hold. I'll try to read more carefully.

"Yes. I was talking about fictional violence. Fictional violence increases aggressive behaviour. I'll quote some scientfic research here. Definitely not exhaustive."

I hate to say this, but of the 23 links provided on that one website almost half of them (12 of 23) are either reprints of the same studies or re-writes by the same individuals OR they're about studies that use the other studies as proof to support their theories. They're very self-referential.

Additionally they are all of them about the study of the effects of media on children, not adults.

I asked how it is that you yourself could watch violence and yet not become a violent person and you responded:

"Because I abhor violence. I cannot watch it on screen. If I go to a movie which does depict extremely violent acts, I will focus on things like the camera angle or something totally unrelated to the stupid thing they are intent on showing me to get my mind off it. It's a defence mechanism."

But if watching violence makes people violent shouldn't you have overcome this abhorance a little bit every time you're exposed? Shouldn't you be getting to the point where even if you don't like it, maybe you don't mind it so much? That's what your argument leads to: That watching violence innures us to such things and eventually encourages us to act out violently.

I'm a bit concerned that the reason you're not violent is simply because you don't like violence. I would hope (and truly believe from what I know of you) that regardless of your personal likes and dislikes or desires that you would not violate the rights of others. Do you see what I'm getting at?

It is possible to like something and have no intention of ever attemtping to engage in it. Possible to understand and believe that something is wrong and still get satisfaction from imagining it or seeing it portrayed in fiction.

"I'd like to mention that the remark you quoted above was made tongue in cheek, that's why there was a smiley next to it. I'll try to refrain from that kind of a thing."

No worries. As I said, I'll try harder to "get it".

"I already said censorship or ban can not be the answer. Yes, I would like to see a ban on violence in the media personally, but it can not be done so there's no use talking about it.

I have stated a problem of mine. It does not mean I know (or am recommending) a solution for it."

But the problem for me is that I'm very aware that it CAN be done. It isn't particularly likely in the near future, but the steady creep of censorship needs to be fought at every step as far as I'm concerned so that we don't look up 50 years from now unable to speak our minds or express our thoughts for fear of breaking the law and being hauled away to the Gulag.

"Do you really want an answer to the earlier paragraph I quoted in this excerpt? Well, no, I do not think people who write about incest are into an incestuous relationship themselves."

Yes, I really did and that is the answer I expected. I'd also like an answer to why you think people who write about incest don't actually engage in or promote incest but people who write about violence do.

"What I tried to say in my words you quoted above was that I have a problem with only those fantasies which are harmful towards others, either psychologically or physically, which are translated to action."

How do you know which stories those are? Could be a different story for each violent person. Could be none of them. What if 3000 people read the same story and none of them does anything mean or hurtful to another person but it turns out that the 3001 reader goes home and beats his wife. Is that the fault of the story? If the story REALLY had that kind of power there wouldn't be 3000 people sitting around not acting on it. The fault lies with the man who beat his wife NOT the story. That guy was going to beat his wife at some point whether or not he ever read the story.

"Interracial sex isn't harmful. Incest isn't."

Incest isn't harmful? Are you kidding? Do you know any victims of incest? Have you read any studies? Incest can be incredibly harmful and the abuse tends to get passed down from generation to generation.

"At least the incest reported on literotica isn't."

How are you qualifying the incest reported on Literotica? What about it makes it not dangerous? If all the other stories here are promoting some kind of action then why aren't the incest guilty as well?

"Again, censoring entertainment is just not possible."

It IS possible. We do it every day. We used to do more of it.

It's not a good idea to hold a position on the off chance that it can't be enforced anyway. You either support censorship or you don't. If you do then fine. I disagree, but that's our right to disagree with one another. If you truly don't support censorship then I would argue that it's dangerous in the extreme to act as if you do trusting in the idea that censorship will never be allowed. Who's going to disallow it if there are peole really not in favor of it who don't speak up? What if it gets to be too late for you to raise your voice in protest?

That's a dangerous gamble to take with your freedom.

"To answer to one of your questions above. No, viewing the Godfather does not make the common reasonable man into a hired killer. I am talking about watching violence and the effect of it in real life - one effect is increased aggression. This does NOT mean a person watches Godfather and becomes a hired killer. It is not as simple as that."

Actually, it is. Fictional violence either encourages violence or it doesn't. Rational people know the difference between fictional entertainment and the real world. The vast number of violent crimes in this country have nothing to do with television or the media. They have to do with people in desperate situations who feel themselves without any other recourse.

I found an incredibly interesting article about the link between Pornography and Sex Crimes in Japan. It's interesting because it deals with nothing but numbers. Japan has some of the most violent entertainment media in the world both pornographic and non-sexual and yet it is one of the safest societies for a woman to live in. With the loosening of restrictions on pornographic material and the huge increase of pornography beginning in the late 80's the decrease in the rate of sex crimes has been nothing short of amazing. Japan's experience with violent and sexually explicit material has been exactly and exponentially opposite to the claims so often made in the U.S.

True to form CBS filed a report on the increase of rape in Japan trying to sway the public toward what it wants to believe already - that porn causes rape. What they failed to mention, however, was that the increase in rape was an increase of incidents that refelcted an increase in the population growth. The percentage of sexual assaults was actually still decreasing.

It's a long article, but very much worth reading. Other countries mentioned who have also had a similar decrease in sexual assaults while increasing the availability of pornography are Denmark, Sweden and West Germany.

Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan


Good luck on your exams!

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

DP,

Ah, so you're into the twisted ultra-violent earthworm porn. I knew you were a pervert deep down!

Seriously, I like you as well. I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and a difference of opinion is never enough to make me dislike someone personally.


-B

 

[Pure]

Hi DP,

you said,

//(BTW, what is antisocial sexual behaviour?)//

Well I'm sure you know, but anyway, it's sex behavior that's forced on someone without their consent, and/or that harms them.

Roughly speaking it's sexual stuff that, if you do it, may land you in jail (that's presuming the laws are good ones, and do not contain among them, 'blue laws', e.g, against adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. )

I use the term, since with sexually explicit stories or pictures, the religious right and pro censorship persons hold *not just that regular sex is increased (Jack, reads porno and, with his friend Jill's consent, fucks her) but that antisocial sexual acts are increased, for example, rape.

Of course there are a number of types of 'sexually explicit' material, e.g., nonviolent and violent; 'underage' and legal age; kinky and 'vanilla'; homosexual and straight.

Pro censorship persons usually hold that one or more categories, as above, if consumed, make one more likely to do an antisocial sexual act (often, of the type depicted).

 

[damppanties]

DP,

Ah, so you're into the twisted ultra-violent earthworm porn. I knew you were a pervert deep down!

Please don't tell anyone!

Seriously, I like you as well. I'm enjoying this conversation immensely and a difference of opinion is never enough to make me dislike someone personally.


-B

Thank you.

I'll get to your other post tomorrow... I'm a zombie right now.


Pure, I'd heard the term for the first time and asked you 'cos I could only think of rape. Wasn't sure if it had anything else under it.

But then my mind is not at the right place nowadays.

 

[Wills]

Anti social sexual behaviour.

Isn't that what she calls it when you fall asleep... or was that a much shorter word?

Will's

PS. I'm enjoying reading the discussion between the three main contibutors, thanks for the links, all most informative.

 

[Pure]

Yes, that counts, Wills, but you see that men wrote the laws, so falling asleep after, or even during are not prosecutable!

J.