It's rather old, but I see it around all the time:Ã,Â
(FOR CLARITY, THIS IS A NEWS SEGMENT ABOUT THE EVENT, AND DOES NOT SHOW THE EVENT ITSELF.)
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/04/liferuinedbyteabagging.html
(If the video won't play for you: it's a news segment about a teenager who was forced to the ground by some other kids who proceeded to teabag him, and then attempted to insert a banana into his rectum.)Ã,Â
I don't really have a comment one way or the other about the video, but it is the way this video is PRESENTED on the net that is rather interesting.Ã, It is always presented in a mocking manner, as if to say, "OMFG!!! THIS KID WAS SEXUALLY ASSUALTED AND THAT'S SO F*CKING HILARIOUS!!!11!1!!"
Of course I don't expect any other attitude from websites that proudly feature all kinds of videos of people getting hurt, beatup, and in some instances, killed.Ã,Â
I am, however, wondering what your attitude to the above clip is.Ã, Do you think it's upsetting?Ã, Hilarious?Ã, Don't care?Ã, What if the victim had been a little kid, or a girl?
(THIS IS WHERE THE ARGUMENT SEPARATES INTO A BROADER ISSUE)
What about the myriad of other videos circulating the entertainment sites?Ã, People breaking bones in stupid stunts, tearing each other up, lighting themselves on fire, and just generally behaving badly.
This is become a potential issue in society, as certain news channels and news sites have written articles about these kinds of videos, and how they might be influencing other kids to do the same, thus ushering in discussion of legislation and regulation.Ã, (It was awhile back, but I'll see if I can dig up a URL.Ã, I'm thinking of one news story in particular about some kids who mounted a motorcycle on a playground merry-go-round and got flung off of it.)
So what do you think?Ã, Should these extreme videos be banned?Ã, Does the public have a right to access them?Ã, Still don't care?
Ebaums world is mild compared to other sites i used to visit. There were certain sites i visited that showed people being murdered, dismembered, run over by trains, stuff like that. But after viewing a few times i got very disturbed and haven't gone back to them.
If you see a really sick vid online or even on TV, it may just stick in your mind forever.
I saw a video of a live cat getting set on fire, that is when i realized this shit is not for me, so i just stick to funny vids on various sites.
If people want to view them, let them enjoy. But some people are copycats and when they see a sick animal killing vid, they will do the same. But i hope most people have enough common sense not to.
The first question is "Were kids doing stupid things before the internet?" then the next question is "Are kids doing more stupid things now a days?" and the final question is "Did the kids learn the stupid things from the internet?"
I don't think anyone should really discuss this until they learn the answers to these questions... Though politicians and random internet people still will.
I think alot of people who post these crazy videos are just looking to have some kind of fame, and then they can say hey look at my video online, i did something stupid, but isn't it cool.
Then the word will spread, and it is on every site. Then that person will feel like they did something worthwhile, but instead very stupid.
I guess that is the media power of the Internet.
Quote from: Domino on Thu 26/10/2006 00:58:58
I saw a video of a live cat getting set on fire, that is when i realized this shit is not for me, so i just stick to funny vids on various sites.
Ah, yes. This video is refferred to quite often as NEDM. There's some YTMND stuff about how wrong it is (and one involves the cat coming back and killing the kid)
I had seen a parody Flash animation cartoon of this video in deviantArt.
While I was just searching for something interesting to see, I found that parody cartoon that was one of the most favourited Flash animations in the dA. The comments that deviation got was usually making fun of a boy who was "teabagged" (I didn't know the 2nd meaning of this word), just a few were saying it was wrong to have fun with something like this.
I wondered what that cartoon was about, and watched it.
After learning what really happened; I was really shocked how people would make fun of such a sexual assault.
I think the rape victim females will be shown on TV's just for "OMG SHE WAS ASSAULTED LOL" in the future.
We live in a world where cruel is awarded and the victim is blamed.
Yeah. Some terrible stuff out there.
A certain website has videos with terrorists beheading guys, pigs getting slaughtered, and all sorts of sick stuff.
Of course, the burning cat video is probably the most contraversial video out there. It's nearly impossible to find....(not that I support cat burning, it's just that I've heard a lot about that video and tend to get curious)
I think it is all the reason of Blame The Victim psychology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming ). People want to blame, or at least make fun of someone who was victimised the same way they 'could' be.
When a woman gets kidnapped by a car of men, we want to blame the woman just because she was walking carelessly. We try to forget we usually walk in the streets less careful and pretty open to any threats.
That "humorous" videos are the same thing, IMO.
I think it's all pretty sickening. I don't see anything funny about anyone getting hurt, really, unless it's something incredibly major like your friend stumbles a bit while walking, and somehow it's hilarious. The extremeness should be banned, because of the possibility of young kids accidentally coming across it and being scarred.
As I predicted!
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 26/10/2006 01:00:29I don't think anyone should really discuss this [...] Though [...] random internet people still will.
Mostly SilverTrumpet's post... There appears to be no real though behind it and it's just a kneejerk reaction.
Anyway, Alliance, a burning cat video is more controversial than people being beheaded? Most be some video!
The whole idea of banning anything "shocking" is of course a slippery slope. "Take these videos off the internet!" "Don't show anything that could scare a child on the news!" "These books are shocking! Destroy them!" A little dramatic yes but letting the individual choose what to expose one's self to is usually a better option.
By individual I also mean companies and such. A web service provider says "No porn" and that's totally fine. The government says "No porn" and you've entered dangerous ground. In my opinion.
I'm in agreement with Gord10's post on victim blaming. I think people tend to empathize with the perpetrator/bully instead of the victim, because it's uncomfortable to put yourself in the shoes of the victim, especially if the victim isn't popular to begin with. So you get a reaction like "that's terrible ... but isn't it funny!"
MrColossal, even if the answer is "yes" to all of your questions, I still don't think that's an argument that videos like this should be banned, for the following reasons:
1. How would you even go about banning something on the internet? Plus, individual households/families already have the capability to filter content of their choosing.
2. Who decides what's inappropriate, and how do they decide what's inappropriate? I don't think anybody would disagree on videos like the ones we're specifically talking about, but what about when you get into gray areas like, for example, the classic Tom and Jerry cartoons? Would those also be banned?
3. Removing the videos doesn't solve the root of the problem: a lack of morals in the people perpetrating the acts. The only solution for that is parents taking some part in raising their kids.
--Oh, I just saw your new post. Seems like we're mostly in agreement.
I'm not game to watch the video as the content has been explained and I don't think I need to see it.
It's terrible what some people will post on the internet and hopefully they are just making it easier for themselves to be put in Gaol (jail for the US people)
There was a story this week in the news about a Bunch of kids from a town in Victoria, Australia that were selling a video they made, on the internet where they went around terrorising people and sexually assaulted a teenage girl, urinating on her etc and some have been expelled from school and I'm sure it wont be the last we'll hear about it. I'm not sure what will happen to the boys, but I'm sure there will be court cases.
The innocent victim is the one that will suffer the most, especially as it is probably going around the internet as we speak, so appart from the trauma she went through, she will probably be reminded about it for years to come.
None of this type of filth is funny, it's criminal activity that should be punished.
I think there's a general problem that people somehow see stuff that's done on/for the internet as not "real" somehow. Flirting and cybar online can still ruin a marriage/realtionship just as much as flirting IRL. And committing acts of animal cruelty is no less cruel if you post the video on YouTube. Probably most people can agree with me so far. But here's the contraversial thing... stealing is just as bad if you use a computer to do it as if you broke into someone's house and took their money. Just becuase its easier doesn't make it less wrong. So uninstall eMule, delete those downloaded MP3s and don't be a hypocrite complaining about this stuff if you've got any stolen music on yoru hard drive.
Timosity, I actually know the girl that that happened to, and my girlfriend has been friends with her since they were six. She's mentally impaired which makes it even more messed up. She was always really nice. I saw some of the kids myspace pages and they think what they did wasnt wrong, they also think the media blew it out of proprotion and there will be no consequences. I hope they do head to court. Also, I've heard that many sites are getting that video taken off. This will never completely get rid of it but hopefulyl it means the video will get around less.
NEDM (http://nedminvestigation.ytmnd.com/)
Oh yeah, there was a grounp of dutch kids that set a building on fire and were smart enough to film it and put it on myspace. They were caught withing 6 weeks.
Sometimes controversial video's make people think (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main)
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 26/10/2006 02:56:40
As I predicted!
You didn' t... You saw it in the future and came back to tell it to us.
Sexual rape is illegal. Doing it for with the goal of putting it in the web is automatically as illegal as the previous... This is not "controversial", this is a crime.
Another thing is to put "gross" images filmed unintentially, IMO. I am not sure if it is illegal, but what really is is morbid and... ugly. The other day I saw a video about "Famous death pilots in F1". I thought it was going to be a nice homage with the image of their best performances in races, with the song "can't life" in the background, but it was really about pilots dying... I felt really bad and the disclaimer was not accurate. But I saw the video till the end... I guess that the human being (or at least me, I shouldn' t generalise...) likes to have a good "eeeek" each certain period of time.
I am not proud of me... And I don' t really know which position have I choosed in this debate...Ã, :) But that' s what happened to me. My two cents.
Raggit, I think you've misrepresented a lot of the issues here in your initial post. I think also we're discussing some very seperate issues here in relation to the video you posted. Somehow they've all been mixed together and confused.
First of all, the video posted was a news segment regarding the incident, not an actual video showing the kid held down while teabagged and banana-raped. And it's like you're asking if we should ban the video you posted for fear of encouraging more stupid kids doing the same thing. Okay, but then you've got to ban the original news program the video was from. It doesn't make sense to ban it. There's no reason to. It doesn't encourage kids to go out and teabag.
What's my opinion of the clip? It's from a news program. It doesn't show what actually happened to the kid. It only discusses it.
But, Raggit, you've brought another issue brought into this debate; where users are submitting their own content on the internet of crazy stunts. This is NOT the same thing as the video you posted.
Let's not confuse the two issues. Raggit, the clip you provided is NOT an example of an extreme video that you want us to discuss. It's from a news program. It's not a user-created video of the kid getting teabagged and having a banana put in his rear. Somehow you've linked the video you've posted to user-created explotive video content. They're two different things.
Let's examine this further:
1. The clip you posted is from a legitimate news program and presented by a website that steals content from other people and adds captions like "CLASSIC: Kids life ruined by being tea bagged." (although Mr Bauman labels the video with a "not cool" tag, which shows his perception -- I don't think it's fair in this instance to say eBaum is presenting the video in a mocking manner, Raggit. ). In this instance, you can't ban a video like that. There's nothing that warrants such a banning. It's a clip from a news show. It's legitimately presented.
Is it exploitive? Partially. All news programs (and TV/video in general) are exploitive to some degree. But I'm sure they had permission from the kid and parents to film, otherwise they wouldn't be interviewing them all. This backs up the video's legitimacy.
2. The scenario that you suggest, Raggit -- where websites do present videos in a mocking manner -- isn't a cause to ban the video, nor is it a cause to ban the way the video is presented. Sadly, this is one of the facets of freedom of speech. Unless the video is implictly encouraging such acts against people (say a more extreme example where the KKK has made a video with the implict purpose of encouraging more people to beat up black people), then you can't ban the way they present such a video, even if in mocking. If a site said "BANANA UR FRIENDS' ASSES TODAY" and meant it in a serious manner, then yes, that's inciting rape. But that would be a cause for banning not so much the material but the commentary. But the comment has to have malicious intent. (at least, according to Australian Law, it does)
But I just want to make clear: even if they're only mocking the kid, they're still arseholes for getting off on other people's exploitation.
3. Now let's consider an actual video where the kid is getting teabagged and banana-raped. Yes, that is exploitive and absolutely abhorrent in my view. And if I know my media law correctly, it's also illegal to publish such a video without authorisation from the people involved (unless it's in the public interest to do so, which such a video isn't). The reason is because it unfair exploits someone who is pretty much innocent and undeserving of such actions. This includes everything from the tame, like someone publishing a audio file of a secret conversation where someone else discusses their favourite sexual position, to more extreme examples, like publishing a film of your friends raping someone else.
Here's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).
But in such a case, yes, ban those types of videos on the internet. And I think most content-sharing websites like YouTube have policies on such things and do take steps to delete such content for violating such policies.
4. As for video content of kids doing stupid things, like stupid stunts, to themselves, I say there should be more of them. Anyone dumb enough to do a stupid stunt they see in a video on the internet deserves what they get. If they kill themselves in a stupid skateboarding stunt, good, they're idiots, the world has become lighter. Sucddenly the worldwide IQ has gone up because we lost a moron trying to skate down a hundred stairs. Just Darwinism at work.
I've sepearted what's being discussed here and tried to make things clearer about what we're actually discussing here. That was my main intent with this post. I think it is wrong to misrepresent the video in Raggit's initial post. This is a more complex issue than people are making out.
The video that Timosity talks about -- that's an example of point 3 from my diatribe above. That's the kind of content that should NOT be published. And there are already laws against such non-consentual exploitative media. Like I said, it's an abhorrent exploitation of people.
There are other issues that could be involed too, like defamation laws, but I think this post is long enough. Like I said, this is a very complex issue that I think has been twisted around and confused a little. Let's aim for some clarity.
QuoteHere's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).
Not sure about this Daniel... Video recording a crime (in this way, voluntarilly, I mean) and doing nothing about it (tell the rapists to stop, or call the police, for example) is a crime in my country, since you are denying help (I assume that the "raped" asked for help, or that he shows enough disturbing to being considered as in need of help, no?)
In this special case (if the video is how I imagine it...) you are not being just a witness of a crime (If you record a crime accidentally, sometimes you can be excused to act, if it' s prooven that there is a primal fear acting on you that disables you to act, for example, if you think that the criminal has seen you and could threaten you...), but also you are a collaborator, you knew the rape was going to happen, and you picked up a camera to participate in the exploitation, summing up to the act of rape, the humilliation of being recorded, so, double crime for you.
Makes sense?
I think you're right DG, about the issues being confused here.
I did try, however, to separate them in the original post. Perhaps some did not understand, or read the post thoroughly.
For clarity:
1. The video I posted is a TV news segment ABOUT the kid being teabagged. It, of course, does NOT show the actual event itself, nor is there evidence it was taped.
I was not asking for opinions ON the video, but rather the way it is presented as a "Classic" under the humor section, thus bringing in a discussion about innocent victims being center stage on the funny sites, even in the most extreme of circumstances.
2. Towards the bottom of my post I asked, "What about the myriad of other videos on the entertainment sites..."
I hoped this would help separate the discussion. But all-in-all, I feel that everything has been relevant so far.
But Nacho, is it really illegal to refuse help to someone in distress in Spain?
I am not a lawyer, so, I will try to explain what I believe, considering my not very deep knowleadge in that issue, 2ma2...
It is illegal to be witness of an accident and don't do all the necessary to help (Medical assistance if you are able to, call the ambulance, police...) If you are a doctor and you are prooved to leave the place, you'll even be in serious problems.
I am not sure about if it' s illegal to see a crime and doing nothing... if it envolves human suffering I think it is, as it' s denial of assistence. If you see someone selling drugs, or stealing a wallet, I am not sure... Maybe it is, but no police is going to arrest you for not running to the next police station if you' ve seen someone selling weed...
I am 99% sure about the video issue... Because the "camera man" was there, and was able to do something... One other thing recording crimes accidentally, or without possibility to make anything.
Anyway, if you see that a man is raping the girl in the building in front you live in, and you are bastard enough to sit and take a look in spite of calling the cops, there is like 0.0001 % possibilities to be accussed of something, as the possibilities of someone testifying you were able to do something and you didn' t are minimal. If you are silly enough to record it and putting it in the internet, well... You might have problems if the police finds you.
So, hope it's clear. Yeah, in most of the cases it is illegal to refuse to help people. Have in mind that our code does not ask you to become a hero. You won' t go to jail for not crossing a flooding river to save a girl trapped in a car, without knowing swimming. Doing something is preciselly that, doing something (Call the outhorities, or leave the place looking for a rope to save the girl...)
Is it different in some other countries?
Quote from: Nacho on Thu 26/10/2006 14:36:19
QuoteHere's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).
Not sure about this Daniel... Video recording a crime (in this way, voluntarilly, I mean) and doing nothing about it (tell the rapists to stop, or call the police, for example) is a crime in my country, since you are denying help (I assume that the "raped" asked for help, or that he shows enough disturbing to being considered as in need of help, no?)
In this special case (if the video is how I imagine it...) you are not being just a witness of a crime (If you record a crime accidentally, sometimes you can be excused to act, if it' s prooven that there is a primal fear acting on you that disables you to act, for example, if you think that the criminal has seen you and could threaten you...), but also you are a collaborator, you knew the rape was going to happen, and you picked up a camera to participate in the exploitation, summing up to the act of rape, the humilliation of being recorded, so, double crime for you.
Makes sense?
No, no, you've misunderstood my point. What you're describing has nothing to do with the actual videotaping of the crime. What you describe is the same thing as watching a crime and doing nothing about it. It's a way of condoning a crime and it's known as "being an accomplice" to rape. (Keep in mind, I know very little about this, since I'm not a lawyer. Just a journalist and have studied media law).
What you're talking about is very different to what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is the act of
videotaping without consent.
I re-chekced my media law. It's allowable here in Queensland to use a recording device to record without consent. Likewise, in Victoria and Western Australia. In NSW, it's illegal to do so. The law is different in the various states of my country.
And I don't know how it is for other countries and their states. I do know a lot of states in the US allow people to record without consent.
But since the video Timosity was talking about was recorded in Victoria, it's not illegal to record such a video. However, it is illegal to publish it since the victim obviously wouldn't give her consent. The only way you could allow the publication of such is if the content meets certain criteria, such as if it's in the public's interest (which it isn't).
Like I said, though, this is a completely different to what you're talking about. You're talking about witnessing a rape and not doing anything about it. What I'm talking about relates to the media itself and the publication thereof. It's a different charge.
And like I said, despite the legality of recording such a video, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to record something like that because it can easily be used against you in a court of law.
Oh, I see... The thing is that we should see the video in spite of trying to imagine how it really was.Ã, :)
To add more data to the debate, here it is legal to record everything in the public via, unless you incurr into another crime to do it (for example, entering in a private propperty, or broadcasting images of kids without permission or without censore...)
I am not sure about filming someone inside its property. I think you are allowed while you don't enter inside the propperty, hence the paparazzi with the big lenses.
EDIT: As you have noticed, I was talking about recording, except in the kids case, which I was talking about publication... It's the key difference here, I think. Because you can record everything, no? You can argue it' s been an accident... What you can't really do is publish something by accident.
I'm not too sure because I'm not familiar with Spanish media law. Out of curiousity, could you point me to an English language website on your media law?
Anyway, despite the Spanish law, my comments were made in reference to the video that Timosity was talking about, which was filmed in Victoria, Australia so the media law there applies.
Also, in reference to the kid that got teabagged, it'd also depend on where he lived whether the recording of such was illegal.
However, this is all a very minor issue in this discussion because despite the legality it's still a dumb and terrible thing to do.
No, I can't... I've found unswallowable websites about that, but in Spanish, sorry. :) If I meet with a friend expert in laws I'll ask. :)
DGMacphee, good job in clarifying the issue.
Obviously if a video is illegal, then whether it should be banned or not really isn't an issue. With something as open as the internet, stuff like this may sneak on once in a while, but it's up to the service providers to make sure it gets removed. What might be worth discussing is, how do service providers ensure this happens? Now if you're talking about some of these terrorist groups' websites, who post their propaganda and vidoes of their prisoners being killed and beheaded, I'm sure they're probably hosting their own content, and the only option is don't look at it. (Actually, not looking at something you don't want to would probably solve a lot of problems! :))
Now, the stupid stunt videos? What you said. "The stupid shall suffer," as they say.
And I agree that sites like eBaum, though their viewpoint may be objectionable, should be allowed to express it as long as they're not promoting anything illegal. What's interesting is that a site like this gets people riled up, but the Darwin Awards (http://www.darwinawards.com/) seem to be ok.
Also, let's just be clear about videotaping without consent and publishing without consent. Illegal or not (and I'm not arguing whether or not it should be), I think the first is relatively harmless. If I tape somebody without their knowledge and watch it in the privacy of my own home, am I really harming anybody? I don't know, I guess it could be argued either way. But I think a law like this would be hard to enforce. Now if I go publish it on my web page without censent, certainly now I'm causing harm to somebody. But I think this brings up an interesting issue with sites like Flickr and YouTube. I wonder how much of their content (pictures of girls in short skirts, or videos of well-endowed woman walking down the street, etc.) is technically illegal?
Finally, I think you make a good point about the news. Really, is the clip Raggit posted news? Who needs obscure internet sites when our "responsible" news media makes this stuff headline news? Is it really a surprise to anyone that sexually molesting somebody royally screws up their head? But ultimately it's about ratings, and stuff like this gets the attention it does because people do watch it.
The original ebaums link to this news segment, what was it called? "Banana Rape"? Why would anybody click that in the first place? :-\
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 26/10/2006 21:26:27
The original ebaums link to this news segment, what was it called? "Banana Rape"? Why would anybody click that in the first place? :-\
Because eBaum lovers are stupid. More than half of the media is stolen anyways, and the corrupt people make craploads of money off of banner ads.
So the answer is this: money. Everything revolves around money. If someone claims to have a video of "a man being beheaded", somebody is going to click and watch that, just out of curiosity. Then they'll get distracted by the banner ads, click them, and the site with the video gets paid.
Actually, the link was called "CLASSIC: Kid's life ruined by teabagging"
I think the whole new trend displays a sincere lack of human respect. If there wasn't an interest among people in general to see other human beings being harassed, abused or just made fun of in all possible aspects, these sites wouldn't exist.
In Sweden there was recently a case of a girl murdering the assaulter of her younger brother, after a video of said assault had been published on youtube (the video was then removed after intervention from swedish authorities).
I can't imagine how I would feel watching somebody I know - or myself for that matter - being made entertainment for the cynical public eye.
People have always been perverted in the sense that they've enjoyed watching torture (just think of the middle ages with public executions etc), but civilization has sort of surpressed that tendency. The recent video clip fad has brought us back hundreds of years, in that respect.
I guess that's my problem with such videos: they exploit to the point that they degrade and without consent. Pornography I can understand because, although it's degrading, the people involved have given their consent to appearing in the video. In video showing rape or assault, there is no consent. It degrades a person without respect for their choice to retain dignity. No one should have to go through that.
Oh, you've trodded a gray path there addressing pornography. Sure, I will not deny the fact that there are people of sane minds acting out their freak on infront of cameras, and nothing more, but abusive conditions and drug abuse has lead and will lead loads of unsuspetcing "actors" into a spiral of sex, money and drugs. Illegal? Well, drugs are often illegal, but the rest; no. Unethical? The gray area appears. Consent can be motivated by oh so many things.
You think I'm condoning pornography due to the fact that there's consent? I don't. I just said I understand why exploitation in pornography more acceptable compared to a rape video -- making a comparison. I don't think they're on the same level, and you've got to agree there. Sure, Tiffany Big Tits might do porn to support her smack habbit but that's VERY different to someone being held down and raped while filmed. In the former, there's a choice happening, even if guided by an addiction it's still a choice made. My point is that latter is way degrading to the point of abhorrent because the victim is deprived of a basic human right. A porn actor isn't so much a victim -- you could argue that most porn actors arrived in the industry due to poor choices and thus their own responsibility.
To look at it in terms of ethics, which is what you want to do, let me put it this way: a pornography actor places a value judgement upon what their dignity is worth in terms of a dollar value. It may not be right, but that stretches more into questions of morals than ethics. Meanwhile, a rape victim is deprived of making a value judgement on their dignity because their dignity is unwillingly being exploited. Perpetrators who film rape deprive their victims of keeping their dignity and that's fucking inhumane.
Let me put it this way: do you consider a video of a rape less, more, or equally exploitive as a pornographic film?
I can understand there are grey areas in pornography, but you can't tell me that such grey areas put porn on equal footing with rape videos. No way!
Can you condemn all "legitimate" pornography as exploitative on the grounds that some within the adult industry have been exploited, or corrupted, by unscrupulous individuals? :-\
Isn't that like burning down your house because a turd is floating in your toilet bowl?
Doesn't pornography, at its basic commercial level, exploit the need for the quick, sexual fix that its consumers pay for?
Exploitation, by it's most basic definition, exists in almost every industry. Just in different, and thus, maybe more acceptable forms.
Which makes the term "Exploitation for Profit" too sweeping for my tastes.
Rape is a crime, a sickening manifestation of almost animalistic behaviour that most of humanity rightly finds abhorrent. To present it as entertainment is simply evil. To reduce it to something other than what it is, by comparing it to a medium which, though found morally dubious by some, is manufacted largely by, and for, consenting adults, will only lead us into that same grey area we seem to be trying so hard to avoid.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 27/10/2006 18:54:35
Can you condemn all "legitimate" pornography as exploitative on the grounds that some within the adult industry have been exploited, or corrupted, by unscrupulous individuals? :-\
Isn't that like burning down your house because a turd is floating in your toilet bowl?
Doesn't pornography, at its basic commercial level, exploit the need for the quick, sexual fix that its consumers pay for?
Exploitation, by it's most basic definition, exists in almost every industry. Just in different, and thus, maybe more acceptable forms.
But this is my point: rape videos AREN'T an industry.
My comparsion is thus: despite all the exploitation and corruption and unscrupulous individuals, pornograhy still relies upon people who have given consent. Although a dirty industry, it still relies upon people exercising their right to choice.
People filming rape relies upon people who DO NOT give their consent. No right to choice has been given -- in fact, it has been taken away. Sex has been forced, not chosen.
In regards to the porn industry, you can make critisisms upon moral grounds, but people in the industry can still exercise their human rights. Victims of rape can't.
That's a weird point 2ma2, I think... The greys areas in pronography are simillar to the grey areas in rock and roll, and nobody complains...
Maybe the point were we don' t agree is that you think that people are inducted to pornography for paying a previous addiction. I don' t see the link. Then, any way of making easy money could be considered as "unmorale as it helps addicts to pay the drugs..."
If you know of any case of big fishes of the porn industry inducting young people to become addicts for having a future crew of porn actors/actresses, then I can' t discuss, but that must be a punctual case. And, as many other examples, "if some of the acts for making something is illegal, that does not mean the primal act is compulsory illegal". I mean... going to the park is not illegal. If you go to the park to kill people, then you are incurring into a crime, but going to the park isn' t. Hope my point is clear.
Same for porn, no?
Anyway, I like porn... ^_^ Maybe I am being to deffensive about it because I like it.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, DG. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
My point was the same:
Videotaping an act of rape, and then broadcasting it for profit, is a crime. Anybody who views that tape for sexual gratification is a willing accessory to that crime.
Videotaping a consenting adult performing a sexual act, either alone or with another consenting adult, may be morally dubious, but, as you stated yourself, it's nowhere near the same thing.
What I was objecting to was the bringing of pornography into this discussion at all.
The original tape in the news bulletin covered by ebaums, captures a heinous crime and everybody involed is guilty, whether they actively took part or not. If somebody actively seeks out this tape, for sexual gratification, they are just as guilty.
But the point that sick people exist, who would view this tape as entertainment, doesn't alter its status.
Which is why I objected to 2ma2's comparison of exploitation within the porn industry.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 27/10/2006 21:51:41
What I was objecting to was the bringing of pornography into this discussion at all.
Ah, I understand. I brought porn into the discussion to demonstrate why exploitation of such rape and assult videos are morally bad without question, why the exploitation is so sinister compared to exploitation in other areas.
Perhaps it was a little tasteless to bring pornography into the comparison but I was just trying to show another situation where sexual gratification was being filmed and acceptable in society to draw a conclusion.
Consider a video where a girl is on a substance that she doesn't know what's going on at all - and being gangbanged by a group of willing males.
Rape or porn? These videos do exist and are categorised as porn.
I think you mean webpages publishing videos of "american drunk university parties" where a group of guys intimate with a "drunken girl". The common consense is that the "drink girl" is a porn actress faking her drunkness... It is very suspectous that this guys get a "drunken" girl each week, and no one of this girls goes to the police and sue this webpages for publishing a porn video of her without consent.
If you are talking of another issue... well, it might be catalogued as porn, but it' s still illegal if it commits any illegallity... I agree that it is despicable. I am talking of "legal" porn. I still think that you are extending "grey areas" of an industry to the whole industry. It' s like saying that all the cyclists use drugs or that all the rockstars use heroin, or that all the graphic artists like to "explore the hidden parts of the brain" with LSD... I can agree partially, but I think you are being unfair.
Yeah, I agree with Nacho -- you might find such videos on porn sites but those videos still constitute rape because sex is being forced. Like you said, "she doesn't know what's going on at all" and it's taking advantage of her. Hence, it's rape.
2ma2, I think you know perfectly well what I mean when I say "consentual sex" and "pornography". When I say pornography, I'm talking studio-based pornography, where it's a part of an actual commercial enterprise that utilises proper actors and actresses a la Boogie Nights. Not "hey lets get a chick so drugfucked that she passes out and we film us having sex with her" videos. To me, the video you suggest don't constitute what I'm talking about in terms of willingly giving consent to participate in sex for a film.
My sister goes to college with these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IByf-7KL0
Quote from: Raggit on Sat 28/10/2006 21:19:22
My sister goes to college with these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IByf-7KL0
Now that's some serious husband material right there.
Setting your own nipples on fire?? I've done some stupid things on dares, but that's a bit... apocryphal, really.
"I still think that you are extending "grey areas" of an industry to the whole industry."
But that's what I said when bringing up the discussion in the first place. As spoken; I will not say that all porn is forced sex, but consent can be motivated by a variety of reasons, upon which all ain't that morally justifiable. And the most common factor is drug abuse.
I saw an educational film on the internet yesterday. Won't link though because it's in Finnish so I don't think it'd open to most of you. If someone wants to see it, just ask me. Anyway, it was about these misunderstandings that happen in internet when the users are not quite aware how bad it is what they're doing. So there were two paedophiles meeting each other after a date arrangement in a chat place.
then there was this video of a guy who took a photo of his friend, a girl from this Finnish version to myspace, irc-gallery, and cut the head of it, pasted to a naked picture and printed it. He thought it was funny and sent it to all of his friends, and soon the school walls were full of fake naked pictures of that girl.
Quote from: 2ma2 on Mon 30/10/2006 13:24:39
"I still think that you are extending "grey areas" of an industry to the whole industry."
But that's what I said when bringing up the discussion in the first place. As spoken; I will not say that all porn is forced sex, but consent can be motivated by a variety of reasons, upon which all ain't that morally justifiable. And the most common factor is drug abuse.
Where's your proof that the most common factor is drug abuse? Show me a report that links the two. If you're going to make a claim like that, provide evidence.
I checked the US Meese commission report (http://www.porn-report.com/) on the porn industry, published in 1986. This was just after cocaine usage peaked in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#In_the_United_States).
One of the things that the Meese report says is this (http://www.porn-report.com/402-performers-in-pornography.htm):
QuoteEconomic Circumstances
If it is not possible to speak with certainty about the family backgrounds of the young women and men who become "models," it nevertheless seems clear what chiefly motivates their decision to appear in sexuallyexplicit material: financial need. As one former model put it when asked why most women enter nude modeling:
A lot of women are hurt or crazy women under stress. Yes, most women come in under a lot of stress. They're usually desperate when they first come in-maybe they need money for some emergency, like I did, or they've gone as long as they can doing odds and ends or working at (menial) jobs, and they finally just have to pay their bills. I met a woman whose kid was in the hospital, and I met lots of women who were financially strapped. There were also many illegal aliens there who couldn't work regular jobs even if they had the skills because they didn't have their green cards.... [T]hey certainly know how to get you to do what they want. Some women are so bad off that they just go immediately into hard-core films.[984]
One prominent model recently described her entry into the business in similar though less sympathetic terms.
I had a sugar daddy who was, you know, keeping me. Paying for everything. I didn't need a dime of my own and never had to work. Then I guess his wife found out, and he ran back to her, breaking it off with me. I was out in the cold. Then a friend of his asked me if I was interested in doing some masturbation stuff on video. I needed the money and said okay.[985]
Although not a universal feature of models' accounts,[986] with striking regularity they speak of money and dire financial need as critical factors in their decision to model.[987] In the words of one now famous former model who was "literally starving" when he made an X-rated film: "It was either make that movie or rob someone"[988] As a representative of United States Prostitutes Collective put it: "For women working in the sex industry, prostitution and pornography are about money, not sex "[989] Not surprisingly, Professor Russell found that women who had been asked to appear in pornography were significantly poorer than other women in her sample.[990] From what we have learned about the rigors and risks of sex modeling, it is difficult to imagine any overriding motive other than serious economic need for such a momentous decision.[991]
Consider this: nowhere in that section does it say that drug use is a motivating factor. it's just simply finacial needs: pay the bills, buy food to eat. No where does it mention anything to do with pre-existing drug use as a decision to enter into the industry. And you'd think that something as negative as drugs were a motivating factor, they'd mention it in this section. It is, after all, a Reagan-era government report. And critics have said it's heavily biased towards the anti-porn movement. But no mention of drugs in Economic Circumstances!
Now consider what the same section says about drug use within the industry at the time:
QuoteDrug Use
Along with the insidious threat of infectious disease, models face a more overt challenge to their physical health: drug use, and in particular, use of cocaine. Few aspects of the world of pornographic modeling seem less free from doubt than the dependence of most performers, at one time or another, on cocaine. The view of one prominent model that in her world "everybody goes through a drug stage"[1036] is perhaps overstated; but involvement of a substantial majority of performers in the use of cocaine seems highly probable.[1037] In the opinion of at least one model, drugs are necessary in her work because "you have to hide, you have to keep your feelings and emotions from being completely destroyed. Each day [in the industry] erodes them away."[1038] It is true that Mr. Les Baker, President of the Adult Film Association of America labelled the problem of drug abuse in his industry a "misconception," contending that such abuse "is a universal problem and we of the A.F.A.A. just a small part thereof."[1039] For him drug usage by pornographic models is simply part of an infection spreading through the whole "entertainment industry."[1040] William Margold put it somewhat more positively:
I know that drugs are in my industry. I know that drugs are in almost any form of creative people. Some people seem to need them to do whatever they have to do.[1041]
We of course are in no position to compare the severity of drug abuse in the pornography industry with that in other fields; it is sufficient simply to note that by all accounts such abuse exists and inflicts serious damage on those it touches.[1042]
Notice that: the report doesn't compare drug use in the porn industry to any other industry at the time. Also, while they have individual testimony from porn actors with drug problems, no where does it mention any force of drugs within the industry. It existed, but it pretty much existed in many industries in the US anyway, not just porn!
But to be fair, the report contains a section on organised crime within the industry (http://www.porn-report.com/404-organized-crime-and-pornography.htm), and cocaine distributed to models to "lower their inhibitions and to create a dependency". Funds from films were also used to finance drug smuggling.
But keep in mind, it was the 80s and there's no quantifiable data to show what percentage of the industry were using drugs or how this compares to other creative industries. I mean, how does cocaine usage in the adult film industry compare with the normal film industry? In fact, I think it's fair to say a lot of people, not just in the adult film industry, were jacked up on coke and had a dependency. (And my figure from 1982 is proof of this).
However, I still think it's a myth to say drug use is the most common reason why porn models "give their consent". As the Meese report says, it's mostly financial need and nothing to do with supporting a drug habit. I think if supporting drug habits were a major factor for models to enter the industry, there'd be some mention of it in the Economic Circumstances section.
Now let's look at today. A lot has changed since the 80s in the US. The spread of AIDS in the US lead to the deaths of numerous actors, which shows how intravenous drug use is detrimental to the industry. Now if you're a the owner of porn business, wouldn't you go out of your way to stop intravenous drug use so that you models wouldn't infect each other (occupational hazzard?).
There's now an Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (http://www.aim-med.org/index.html), established in 1998, with a view to decrease the spread of STDs in the industry. While their website doesn't seem to mention any programs to stop drug use, they do offer porn companies industry-standard health checks for all workers. Like I said, STDs like AIDS are detrimental to the industry and if I were the owner of a porn empire I'd make damn sure there'd be nothing to cause a decline within my industry. Porn moguls know that drugs are bad for their business and have admitted so (see the above Meese section on Drug Use). There was already an AIDS scare in 2004 that resulted in four infections and a two month industry-led moratorium on production while they got everyone checked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_James) It's doubtful the industry would support anything that would hurt their business in this way. That's just logical.
But for more proof, consider my home state: Queensland, Australia. We have a legalised sex industry, complete with government regulated standards. This includes health checking for STDs and drug use. The sex workers even have a union, if my memory serves correctly. But the main thing is this: no drugs in the industry. It's legitimate and clean (though some might have moral objections).
I've said it before; porn is exploitive. There are better ways out there to make a living. I don't recommend to anyone to enter the industry because I feel giving up your dignity isn't worth it for that particular industry. That's my choice and my value. However, it is not my right to make decisions for others. If other people choose to enter the industry, that is their decision. However, I think it is a myth to say that people most commonly enter the industry to support drug abuse. And the evidence I've provided demonstrates this. In fact, I've even provided sections from a heavily biased Reagan-era anti-porn report that show there's no proof that people enter the industry because of drugs.
Unless of course, you can provide a report that states the opposite, 2ma2.
And in this case, choosing to do sex films to buy food and pay rent is NOWHERE IN THE SAME LEAGUE OF EVIL as a bunch of people forcing you down, raping you and filming it.
First of all, thank you, DG for posting lucidly and clearly on the subject, without any snarky 'this is the internet!' humour and stuff, for the first time in ages it's been a joy to read one of your posts.
QuoteHowever, I still think it's a myth to say drug use is the most common reason why porn models "give their consent". As the Meese report says, it's mostly financial need and nothing to do with supporting a drug habit. I think if supporting drug habits were a major factor for models to enter the industry, there'd be some mention of it in the Economic Circumstances section.
Now let's look at today. A lot has changed since the 80s in the US. The spread of AIDS in the US lead to the deaths of numerous actors, which shows how intravenous drug use is detrimental to the industry. Now if you're a the owner of porn business, wouldn't you go out of your way to stop intravenous drug use so that you models wouldn't infect each other (occupational hazzard?).
I'd like you to consider two things:
You are providing facts about the american porn industry. In other parts of the world (read: former eastern bloc for example) things aren't as... transparent, industrious and clean as this. A lot of the porn, especially online, is fringe porn (because internet users are sexually problematic, different discussion) so there's a lot of stuff you... wouldn't want to see out there. And it includes drug use, underage participators, non-consentual intercourse and worse. I'm just saying, it pays to remember the US aren't the only ones making porn, but they really are the only country with a prevailing
porn industry, in true american-way fashion.
The other thing:
Besides the pragmatist approach shown in the cited reports -which aren't incorrect as far as I can tell - consider the mental state in which a woman must be to participate in sexual acts, some of them highly specialized or odd, on screen. It might be for money alright, but a lot of people would resort to drugs (I wouldn't say heroin, but coke, even crack is said to be quite hot in the industry still) just so they can do what they do on-screen. I can tell for certain I've seen women stoned the hell out of their minds in porn, and it's no big secret. Whatever gets you through the day, right? They need the money, right?
Having your body invaded is a big deal, it's not a business transaction, and special care should be paid to understanding the psychological situation of the people that find themselves having to do all this.
Interesting topic.
Having only read the first post... I think it's sick that those kids would do that to somebody. That's not even funny.
Quote from: Raggit on Thu 26/10/2006 00:49:00What about the myriad of other videos circulating the entertainment sites? People breaking bones in stupid stunts, tearing each other up, lighting themselves on fire, and just generally behaving badly.
However, in regard to
these videos, where people are intentionally putting themselves in harm's way, with "stupid stunts" and "lighting themselves on fire," I think it's pretty funny. If someone is actually dumb enough to attempt these types of things, I think they deserve whatever they get.
@ Helm. You are probably right about the distinction about porn (female) stars in America and Europe... I remember Nacho Vidal saying in an interview that "American girls want to be 21 to be pornstars... they want it, they get brest implants and they preppair for it, its their dream and they consider theirselves artists... Whereas in Europe it's different, 90% of them are prostitutes"
The truth is that nobody in this forums (I think...) know that world deeply... We just can guess and tell what we think we know about it. That can applied to 90% of the threads in gen gen, hehe, but well... maybe here our lack of knowleadge is bigger. Sex is still a taboo, I guess.
I personally preffer arty genre over gonzo, or B&D and all that twisted genres... I can agree with Linus and Helm that the grey areas in that genres are probably more darker than in the genre I like.
And 2ma2, sorry for saying that you are extending the grey areas to the whole industry when you specifically said you were going to do that in the first place... I missed that line.Ã, :)
Quote from: Helm on Mon 30/10/2006 17:13:46
First of all, thank you, DG for posting lucidly and clearly on the subject, without any snarky 'this is the internet!' humour and stuff, for the first time in ages it's been a joy to read one of your posts.
Firstly, while I'm pleased you thanked me, I find it a little backhanded and condescending. This thread is being well-discussed on a good topic. The other thread, the "debate" about the all-girl game creation group, was a nightmare. I felt I posted appropriately.
Secondly, DICK JOKES!!!1!
QuoteI'd like you to consider two things:
You are providing facts about the american porn industry. In other parts of the world (read: former eastern bloc for example) things aren't as... transparent, industrious and clean as this. A lot of the porn, especially online, is fringe porn (because internet users are sexually problematic, different discussion) so there's a lot of stuff you... wouldn't want to see out there. And it includes drug use, underage participators, non-consentual intercourse and worse. I'm just saying, it pays to remember the US aren't the only ones making porn, but they really are the only country with a prevailing porn industry, in true american-way fashion.
While I agree that my post covers mainly the US porn industry, I still see your post as speculation. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Any reports that show that drug use is directly linked to people entering into non-consentual intercourse for commerical film products?
See, I'm not oblivious. I do agree that it happens. But just not to the degree that you and 2ma2 suggest. However, if you can provide something to back up your position, I would concede to it.
QuoteThe other thing:
Besides the pragmatist approach shown in the cited reports -which aren't incorrect as far as I can tell - consider the mental state in which a woman must be to participate in sexual acts, some of them highly specialized or odd, on screen. It might be for money alright, but a lot of people would resort to drugs (I wouldn't say heroin, but coke, even crack is said to be quite hot in the industry still) just so they can do what they do on-screen. I can tell for certain I've seen women stoned the hell out of their minds in porn, and it's no big secret. Whatever gets you through the day, right? They need the money, right?
Once again, this is speculation. Also, this doesn't demonstrate illicit drugs as a motivating factor for people entering the porn industry. Your view only shows that drugs sustain people who are already participants.
Read you on the condescending thing, I didn't intend it as such. I have a hard time being polite in some ways, I consider much beating-around-the-bush to be hypocritical, really. I ment what you read: I've read a lot of posts by you, not only on the girl game maker thread that made me want to pull my hair out (a lot of pulling) because of the attitude. I'm just glad this isn't at all like this, for whichever reasons, and I'd be happy if it continued like that. That's all. I don't want to make this a discussion about your internet habits, just a sidepoint.
I never said that drug use forces people into the industry. In fact, I'd say that especially heroin drug use would probably destroy the assets a porn uhh.. person would be trying to keep in good condition, as they are their livelihood. What I said is that what you see on screen might not be as 'clean' as it might seem. It's a whole different mood when you think that this person on screen isn't enjoying consensual sex with a partner, but is stoned demolished and thinking about god knows what while 3 people who would never get hard if it werent for miracle blue pills just keep plugging away until a director says cut for lunch. This isn't really much of a point against anything, as I am not so much interested in taking a side and making a stand, it's just about how reality can be interpreted by different people. The porn industry (and non-industry) is such a great model of human behaviour to inspect, for why it came to be, why it endures, for the ones participating in it and the ones debating the relative merits and demerits of it outside the pandora's box.
And of course I'm speculating, as I am just sharing a point of view. I have no data to back up my speculation but I present it because I consider it both likely and interesting for debate.
Quote from: Helm on Tue 31/10/2006 00:54:55
Read you on the condescending thing, I didn't intend it as such. I have a hard time being polite in some ways, I consider much beating-around-the-bush to be hypocritical, really. I ment what you read: I've read a lot of posts by you, not only on the girl game maker thread that made me want to pull my hair out (a lot of pulling) because of the attitude. I'm just glad this isn't at all like this, for whichever reasons, and I'd be happy if it continued like that. That's all. I don't want to make this a discussion about your internet habits, just a sidepoint.
Okay, I get what you're saying. While I don't mean for some of my posts to be hair-pulling (though I can understand how they can be seen that way), I strive more so for a direct honesty, regardless of attitude. If I think something sucks, I'll say it sucks. Much the same way you consider beating-around-the-bush to be hypocritical.
But, upon re-reading your previous post, I do understand there's a genuineness to what you were saying, which I do appreciate. I can't guarantee all my posts won't make you pulling your hair out. But I am glad you can see gentleman within the goofball.
Now on to more serious matters...
QuoteWhat I said is that what you see on screen might not be as 'clean' as it might seem. It's a whole different mood when you think that this person on screen isn't enjoying consensual sex with a partner, but is stoned demolished and thinking about god knows what while 3 people who would never get hard if it werent for miracle blue pills just keep plugging away until a director says cut for lunch.
I do agree that not everything in front of the camera is peachy, but what I'm saying is I think it's not to the extent that is being purported in this thread. That's why I stated that it's more of a myth that porn is driven mostly by drug use. Hence why I had an issue with 2ma2's claim that "the most common factor is drug abuse". I mean, if someone makes a big claim like that you'd think "Okay, where's this statement come from? What makes it true?"
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 31/10/2006 08:33:27
That's why I stated that it's more of a myth that porn is driven mostly by drug use. Hence why I had an issue with 2ma2's claim that "the most common factor is drug abuse". I mean, if someone makes a big claim like that you'd think "Okay, where's this statement come from? What makes it true?"
Obviously 2ma2 runs a porn production company and uses this casting method himself... ;)
www.hornybluecups.com
Forgot this one.
QuoteI do agree that not everything in front of the camera is peachy, but what I'm saying is I think it's not to the extent that is being purported in this thread. That's why I stated that it's more of a myth that porn is driven mostly by drug use. Hence why I had an issue with 2ma2's claim that "the most common factor is drug abuse". I mean, if someone makes a big claim like that you'd think "Okay, where's this statement come from? What makes it true?"
Yes, I agree that it's one of these things that seem rational but might not hold up to factual scrutiny. I don't really point the finger at drug dependency for the growth of sexual exploitation both on-camera and off-camera, I point the finger at uh, human nature I guess. Sexual commerce will never go out of style because there's always going to be demand. On these things as far as state law goes I tend to side with transparency and legality so in the same way I think people should be free to take whatever drugs they want, they can sell their body in whatever way they want, just as long as the processes are clear, regulated, open to public scrutiny and critique, and nobody forces me to like it.
Huge subject I'm opening now, but for many years I've knee-jerked morally to the concept of a state allowing drug use and regulating the profits from such commerce, but in the end I don't have any convincing argument against any of that. I don't see any distinction between cigarettes and heroin besides the utilitarian one -one is more dangerous- so right, it should be monitored closer, but I can't strike the moral hammer down on someone that wants to take heroin or whatever. I think that the pathology of these practises will only be lessened not by being made illegal but by economical and cultural prosperity.
From that point of view, as saddening as the porn industry of america is, it's probably the model that othe european countries and such should probably move towards. Cleaner and safer, organized and regulated rather than underground and god-knows-what.