Couple gets prison time for Internet obscenity

reply to post by amazed


One last thing before I call it quits with this thread:

the great majority of women with rape fantasies do not want real rape

I don't think any woman actually wants to be raped. But why should they be denied the fantasy if that's what they want?

women with attachment anxiety (neediness) have more sexual fantasies featuring submission. Meaning they have emotional issues.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of emotionally and psychologically healthy women who like to take a submissive role. I've uh...known a few. They weren't emotional trainwrecks, they were normal women who enjoy being dominated. There are also many, many (emotionally and psychologically healthy) men out there who enjoy being dominated by strong women. It seems to me you haven't had a lot of contact with members of the BDSM community. I suggest talking to a few of them before making blanket assumptions about them and suggesting they need psychological help.

Reaction to Trauma - those who have been sexually abused may try to master their trauma by taming those experiences.

If it helps them overcome past traumas, what's the harm?

I will repeat something I said earlier, the studies being done show that the majority of women who do have these fantasies, always need the safety factor ie be in control at all times.

I always assumed that was implicit. It's called 'safe play.'

As well as many women who have these fantasies have a history of sexual abuse, and are somehow trying to work through their history. They need therapy, not porn.

Again, not always, or even usually true (see above). And who are you to deny them access to what they fantasize about? Women have every right to think about and view material concerning what arouses them. Would you deny them that? I'd like to seem some kind of scientific evidence that proves a link between fantasies of submission and sexual abuse.

So, instead of this being used as another way to abuse women, these women should receive the help they need.

Can you prove the women in the material in question were abused? I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't have made the porn if they didn't want to. Even if the only career available to them is being a porn star, there are plenty of people out there producing much more 'soft' types. They couldn have gone to one of them.

And again, you assume that all women with fantasies of being dominated need psychiatric help. This is not the case. Please talk to some women with these types of fantasies before making assumptions about them and suggesting they need help.


TA


[edit on 5-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 5-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

These cases are always tried based on what is offensive to the judge, charges are solely based on personal opinions of what is punishable material, a disturbing step away from a comprehensive justice system, no such rulings should be allowed.

Originally posted by Sundancer
If I felt degraded I'd get a job in the area that I have a degree for, the degree I paid for while I was being degraded NOT.

Very Nice!!

Great Success!!



Seriously, the only thing funnier than the "not" joke is the "not" joke in type...

NOT!!

Oh SNAP!!! see what I did?


Furthermore, I'd like to file charges against Jodi Foster and a pinball machine.

Our country is hemorrhaging money and this trivial nonsense is going on?

Everyone involved from the DOJ to the DA and Judges should die of swine flu.


Edit to eliminate the redundantness of my being redundant ass, get the papers get the papers.

[edit on 7/5/2009 by Sunsetspawn]

reply to post by AshleyD

I do not think such things should be allowed

Then do you propose taking all rape scenes out of films and TV shows? Should violence and the depiction of rape be banned from the media? When you start with that kind of censorship it's hard to know when it will end because if it is solely based on the way a human is degradingly depicted then the same kind of argument could be used against great literature and art. Being against such content is fine with me but stopping others from making it because of your own grievances is a step too far.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Thank you, rapinbatsisaltherage. People get so worked up about how distasteful they consider the material and all the 'what-if' scenarios, that it clouds their better judgment. Without strict parameters and guidelines in the law, these cases can't be tried in any fair, objective manner. Big star for you.


TA

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


Star for you because Sacha Baron Cohen is the man. The post wasn't bad either.


TA

Originally posted by AshleyD
I do not think such things should be allowed and am sick and tired of women being portrayed as victims or sexual objects without feelings. Or worse, individuals getting off on the pain of rape victims, simulated or not.

Hold on, ready?

Like I just said, what about The Accused? It's okay when it's drama, but not when it's sexual?

That's what we call a Chinese man covered in lard.

Call me the thought police or what not. I don't really care. The fact is, if it was any other demographic portrayed in this light as in a dehumanizing manner for the entertainment of others (let's say a simulation of a black man's hanging), even if the participants were on a volunteer basis, I'd be equally disgusted. This stuff has got to stop.

See, again, in the context of drama it's okay. I'm sure someone can give a better example than I, but American History X contains some seriously vile racist imagery, and that's brilliant. However, Don Imus makes a humorous comment about the hair and sexual preferences of some tall, athletic woman, and he's a dirty racist.

One form of Art or Entertainment should not take precedence over another.

I'm telling you, it's a greasy South Korean.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by Sunsetspawn

 

Star for you because Sacha Baron Cohen is the man. The post wasn't bad either.

TA

I try to both make a point, and bring a little humor. Unfortunately I often do neither, but I make the effort.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

if it is solely based on the way a human is degradingly depicted then the same kind of argument could be used against great literature and art. Being against such content is fine with me but stopping others from making it because of your own grievances is a step too far.

Great point. As I previously mentioned, I'm a fan of 'A Clockwork Orange' (both the book by Burgess and the film by Kubrick). Not because of the violence in the works, but because of the message that it is very possible to have an authoritarian regime control our actions, and no matter how horrendous our actions are, free will must be maintained and held as sacred. Had the violence been omitted from either work, the message wouldn't have been nearly as powerful. And without powerful allegorical tales asking the really tough questions, who is going to ask them?


TA



[edit on 5-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by TheAssociate


I'm a fan too, and I'm also a fan of Kubrick's Lolita and the novel it stems from. Both could fall under the "obscenity" category. Both you and Sunsetspawn explain very well how editing or banning such content disrupts important messages.

The difference between porn for sexual gratification, porn for entertainment and porn for objectification is the mind of the viewer. A person's opinion of pornography says more about the opinionator than the directors, actors, distributors and viewers.

I look at pornography as part of my everyday business as an adult webmaster. I have no interest in the porn I view except for the financial return it provides for my publishing efforts. Looking at lots of porn does not desensitize me to real people or to my own notions of right and wrong. I'd say the majority of people who view porn do so for light-hearted entertainment not sexual gratification; and when for sexual gratification it's usually either viewed with a partner as foreplay or to aid the visualization of fantasies. The porn people view has little bearing on their moral compasses.

When I choose to view porn for pleasure then I take pleasure from it; and I believe the majority of society's members also can be trusted to choose the purpose for which they use porn.

I accept some people look to porn for the instruction they ought to be given by society through schooling, parenting and mentoring; but this does not equate to them disregarding right and wrong with regard to non-consensual and extremely violent sexual behavior toward others.

Of course, in addition to what I've written above, people view porn for as many reasons as there are sexualities hence as many reasons as there are people on this planet. A person who will rape will rape whether porn exists or not.

Porn could be banned or more heavily censored, its distributors, actors and viewers prosecuted. Likewise for sexual activities that some consider to be their'n to ban. But those activities portrayed in pornography will not be conducted by non-actors any less than any other form of sexual expression that some would ban: gay people will still be gay and continue to enjoy gay sex (as they always have); ditto for those who enjoy BDSM, Matures, Teens.... You can ban as many activities as you want but you will never ban a person's will and desire; so those activities will never stop but under prohibition will assume the greater luster of taboo.

There are some sexual activities that need to be legislated against. Specifically, those that are non-consensual, those that involve forced consent and those that concern people unable to provide consent due to illness, physical immaturity and mental decline (I've left out mental immaturity because it would cover a third of the world's adult population). Yet, legislating against such things will only ever serve two purposes - one to make clear society's tolerances, and two, to give the state power to act on society's behalf to prosecute for detention and "reform" those who breach such tolerances. To me, the fact we need to legislate suggests the majority of people are incapable of civilized behavior (isn't it strange that we must pay people to enforce the laws we require to protect us from ourselves - how fickle and a sham is the surface of human society?).

We need to remember that we should not call to ban something just because we don't like it. Bans should not be placed out of emotion but for well considered (separated of emotion) reasons. And anyone who shouts: "I don't like it so I think you shouldn't do it, watch it or fantasize about it." despite society's majority's protestations should be prosecuted, detained and reformed for society's good (in my opinion). A third of those who protest certain forms of pornography (or anything else) protest to hide their own feelings for it - feelings that provide them guilt because they're unable to separate their feelings and thoughts long enough to allow them to objectively analyze them and reconcile their own opinion of right and wrong in the face of perceived social taboos. Guilt is vicious to objective thought and is the promoter of repression; and fear feeds it more than anything else I can think of. Further, they feel shame due to the pride they have in their ability to live "normal" lives and think "normal" thoughts as defined by their peers (which these days include TV characters and Internet avatars and all other media for that matter).

Ask yourself this question: do we become desensitized to sex, the human form and sexual expression via watching pornography, or are we sensitized to those same things via nurture?

Perhaps it's a bit of both but it's important to know your base before you decide your opinion.

As for the case that opened this thread, it began 2002, was dismissed 2005 then later restarted on appeal by the Justice Department:

The case has been waged for much of the decade and began when an undercover U.S. Postal Service inspector bought porn videos through Extreme Associates' membership site, ExtremeAssociates.com, in 2002.

A federal grand jury indicted the couple in August 2003 on 10 counts of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., mailing obscene or crime-inducing matters and transporting obscene matter for sale.

A federal judge dismissed the case in January 2005, ruling that the anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional when applied to Extreme Associates because they violated an individual’s right to privacy. But the Justice Department appealed that ruling before the 3rd Circuit, which overruled the judge.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Extreme’s appeal from the 3rd Circuit, sending the case back for trial. Upon learning of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case

XBiz

The case has destroyed a million dollar business, bankrupted and brought to near destitution two once successful people and caused many people to feel guilty and shameful for their natural human desires and curiosities. I don't believe any state should ever have been given such power to yield over its populace. There should be legislation to prevent the state from evoking guilt and shame - the two greatest tools of a manipulator's armory.

Rich23, couple of stars handed out to you.

Edited to correct end quote tag.

[edit on 5/7/09 by Rapacity]

This reminds me of one of my favorite books, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller who was a victim of MacCarthyism and was blacklisted for "being a communist". This is the same exact effing thing and it REALLY p*$$es me off. If that were me and i knew i would go to prison, at the next chance i got, i would do anything to show this off to other people how the 1st Amendment is being outrightly ignored in courts across the nation.


FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PRESS

is exactly what pornography is, and if people are being persecuted for this, then we better throw out lives away and buy shackles because its pretty much the end now.

reply to post by Rapacity


You just hit it out of the ballpark, Rapacity. I don't think the situation could have been summed up more eloquently. Thank you such a logical and well thought-out post and for the additional information on the case in question.


TA

reply to post by scghst1


I have a sickening feeling we're going to see more and more things like this. They're using every excuse they can pull out of their fascist heads to persecute The American People. I guess they couldn't find an excuse to add these people to the DHS watch list, so they decided to try them as purveyors of obscene materials.

The funny thing is, the Marquis de Sade wrote about pretty much the same stuff a couple hundred years ago. He was locked away in an insane asylum for it, but now his works are considered 'classics.'


TA

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Being against such content is fine with me but stopping others from making it because of your own grievances is a step too far.

And that is all I am doing- being personally against it. I am not a part of any campaign or censorship group to stop it. I am simply expressing my opinion on the subject. And in my opinion on this message board, rape porn should not be allowed. However, I'm not an activist or anything.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


I believe there is a huge difference between a story that sends a message like the Accused and gratituous rape scenes to bring about sexual entertainment like rape porn.



With all that said, yes I know I'm coming across as the fuddy duddy and am expressing a very unpopular opinion compared to the majority of members on ATS. Before this gets too far, let me be clear I'm still sticking to my guns though and realize I'm defending a lost cause around here but I'm going to state my opinion anyways. Free speech right?

I personally believe in a civilized society, there are certain standards that should be upheld. As a woman, it is part of my responsibility to say this kind of entertainment is not appropriate. Again, I support free speech but realize there are certain limits. For instance, the 'C' word should not be used on prime time television. And if someone uses that word on, let's say, a live television show, they can rightfully be fined under the obscenity laws.

I think it is a tragic sign of our society that so many would chose rape porn of all things to really bring out their 'passion guns' to defend regarding the free speech issue. Even regular porn, although I have a problem with it as a Christian, I wouldn't infringe upon someone's right to purchase it. However, rape porn that dehumanizes the participants and possibly affects a real victim in the future is too much for me.

We do have obscenity laws for a reason. These people were held responsible under them.

reply to post by AshleyD


Honestly, I was bored with this thread about 20 replies ago. I think I've stated my case and defended my position pretty well.

I defend the First Amendment in all cases, even the most distasteful, and I believe that bringing light to the most distasteful examples of Free Speech and defending these is examples is the best possible way to show support for the First Amendment. Nobody is going to notice if I say that I defend someone's right to say "I love puppy dogs." But they will if I say I support a neo-nazi's right to give a hate speech, or a pornographer's right to make the type of porn in question. By defending the most extreme uses of the Bill of Rights, I am defending all the every-day uses of it. Sometimes you have to ask if it is ever justifiable to infringe upon someone's Constitutional Rights, and that is what I did with this thread. I believe the answer is a very loud and menacing 'NO.' If you believe otherwise, I respect that because I respect your Constitutional Right to Free Speech.

I respect everyone's right to their opinion, though I may respectfully disagree with them. Thank you all for the replies.


TA



[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

Just like the max hardcore case proto brought up in the first page,this is just nonsense.Nothing to do with justice or the rule of law,everything to do with *i dont like that,hence your going to jail* its becoming a serious,VERY serious problem that spans borders and countries.Two conselting adults acting out whatever sexual fantasies they wish should be able to do that without the bloody state popping up and saying it doesn't turn them on so it should be illegal,which is what this comes down to.

reply to post by Solomons


Well stated. Adults have a right to a fantasy life, no matter how objectionable some may find those fantasies.


TA

reply to post by Solomons


The really sad part is that the part *i dont like that,hence your going to jail* in reality is probably *I dont want to admid or to reveal that I secretly like this so you will go to jail*. Sad but probably true.

reply to post by AshleyD

And that is all I am doing- being personally against it. I am not a part of any campaign or censorship group to stop it.

I thought you stated that you would be okay with the content being forcefully removed just because you disagree with the content, yes? Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]