What sexual acts do you consider to be violent?

[Blue_Adept]

There's obviously been a swath of various rape related threads lately, many for good reason and for good discussion, but we've also had a lot of confusion seeping into them from people talking at cross purposes.

The biggest takeaway for me in a lot of them is seeing a lot of people talking about violent sex/porn but not truly defining what they think is violent. Everyone leads different lives, has different experiences and interacts with everyone else differently, especially when it comes to sex. We've also seen studies come up from certain areas where they describe oral sex as either aggressive (to be polite) or violent itself. And other studies claiming 88% of porn online is violent.

But nobody is saying what is violent in porn? I'd love to know, both being a consumer, reviewer and interacting with many in the industry here and abroad. What do folks here consider violent in porn or just plain violent in sex acts themselves?

[loli phabay]

1. non consensual, that its for me, anything else goes if there is consent

[Voice for Peace]

90. another vote for this one.

it is violence, in my opinion, when ANYONE imposes
their will upon me, sexually or otherwise.

[LadyHawkAZ]

114. I'm with you. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

125. Agree!

[Throckmorton]

137. I agree as well

While personal tastes will vary, the basic question of consent trumps all other. No consent=violence, be it physical or emotional.

[maddezmom]

205. Same n/t

[shenmue]

206. I think so too.

Pretty much anything between adults is fine as long as they want it. Anything they don't want, is a problem.

[nomorenomore08]

225. On a practical level, that has to be it. Otherwise you really are butting into people's bedrooms.

NOTE: I am talking about private acts here, not necessarily filmed.

As far as porno goes, I find that there's way too much violent, abusive, all-around unpleasant material out there, whether the violence is technically "real" or not. Not advocating censorship but just more careful consumer choices.

[loli phabay]

230. on a counterpoint, if people want to film what they do in their bedroom and share with others

I treat that the same as if its still in their bedroom as regards to if its none of my business.

[nomorenomore08]

236. I'm with you there, pretty much.

Amateur (true amateur) porn strikes me as being a lot less exploitative than the "professional" stuff tends to be.

[loli phabay]

237. the amateur stuff is getting better, now with interaction on cams etc

I think this will be the way of the future. Especially with the more fetish stuff.

[MrScorpio]

2. I usually apply that term to the non-consensual ones...

It's best if I don't apply my own personal sensibilities to the activities of other freely consenting adults.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Things that cause more pain than pleasure. Of course, that's very subjective.

[backscatter712]

133. Some people find pain pleasurable...

Why do you think the BDSM crowd brings out the riding crops and the cats o'nine tails?

Yes, people willingly let themselves be whipped... because it turns them on. Don't ask me, it's not my kink.

[Comrade Grumpy]

152. Masochist says "Beat me!" Sadist says, "No!"

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Non-consensual acts, but also

any time blood is shed, even if it is consensual, or one partner is struck (slapped, hit, etc.) by the other.

[Blue_Adept]

6. Does that include spanking?

I've seen mixed responses on that elsewhere. There's obviously a few levels to it, from playful to leaving red welts across the posterior.

Slapping is definitely a level up though. I had one girlfriend who, after being together for a bit, admitted that she really liked being slapped across the face at different times during sex. It wasn't something I had ever done or considered before, but we had a good talk about it and worked through it where we found a good level for it to work for both of us. It wasn't a huge turn on for me, but it gave her such pleasure that we made it work well.

[Art_from_Ark]

122. I don't think I could go for slapping

I've never slapped anyone (across the face) in my life, I don't think I could do it even if a lady asked me to...

[JaneyVee]

5. Pedophilia, rape, humiliation, bdsm, etc.

[bobclark86]

67. So, when my ex-gf would...

tie me to the bedpost blindfolded or bite me, that was violence on par with rape and going on Chris Hanson?

Oh my God, let me call the SVU immediately!!! It happened like four to 10 times a week!

Gay porn is naturally violent (I mean, it's unNATURAL to put your wiener in THERE!). Does that mean we can ban that, too?

You see the problem with my statement? It's the same problem as yours.

[seabeyond]

72. "that was violence on par with rape" that would fit the definition of violent if intent was to hurt

or cause pain.

who said on par?

that would be adding a strawman

[bobclark86]

75. The pain is the point of getting bitten or smacked...

You said on par, when asked this question:
"What sexual acts do you consider to be violent?"

And your response:
"Pedophilia, rape, humiliation, bdsm, etc."

You didn't differentiate, nor mention consent.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice it was somebody else responding. Rephrased, Post No 5 said... (insert rest of my post here)

[seabeyond]

76. no. i did not say that. intent to hurt, then violent. consent or not, doesnt matter. and no

throwing out violent act does nto mean all acts are tied into one.

check out the definition of violence to better understand the definition of violence. it may help you to understand what violence ..... means.

edit... i did not say that cause it was not me who posted. i called out your strawman, that simple

[bobclark86]

78. So wait...

if I ask my girlfriend to punch me in the face, because I enjoy getting punched in the face, is that violence?

Coming right down to it, nobody enjoys getting punched in the face because it hurts. But in the throws of passion (you made me use that phrase, I hope you're happie ) a bit of pain helps enhance the pleasure.

So yeah, pain is the intent.

Jesus, I almost sorta-kinda but not really begin to understand how gay people felt under sodomy laws (almost sorta-kinda a in people are throwing a hissy-fit because what I consider fun with a consenting partner, but I recognize it's not the same because few laws are on the books about straight, consenting adults biting, candle dripping and occasionally getting Tazed).

[seabeyond]

79. i do not get why the definition of violence is so hard. intentional hit in face = violence. violence

has nothing to do with consent. wanting it or not has nothing to do with the definition of violence. why is that definition, the concept of violence all of a sudden IMPOSSIBLE to understand?

fuckin educated people here that know how to read a dictionary. not tough.

[bobclark86]

84. So, even if I want it...

I can't have it?

Enjoy your semantics!

[seabeyond]

86. who said you could not have it. if you want violence inflicted on you, go at it haus. STILL

violent. the defintion does not shift and change cause some one wants or not.

wtf is the problem here with people.

you have to totally change a definition of a word to be able to get off on violence? is that how yawl comfort yourself getting off on violence, by saying it is not violence?

embrace the violence. but it is what it is.

it is blurring the line of the very definition of violence. blurring the lines of the very definition of rape that seems to be the huge issue with people getting off on this stuff

who would have thunk.... it is simply a matter of pulling out a dictionary. i thought we were all capable of that thinking.... apparently, that is where i steered wrong in these discussions.

[Voice for Peace]

92. because not everyone has the same concept of what is violence.

to me, violence is when another is violated.

I have experienced violence which was delivered
only verbally.

I have experienced violence which was administered
gently.

[seabeyond]

94. hey. so we throw away the dictionary cause we have to self define in order to do something? really?

wouldnt that be dishonest. and if you are going ot get off on violence, shouldnt you at least be honest about what is up? instead of fabricating and making up a definition that is wrong?

[Voice for Peace]

98. let's not fight about word definitions.

I'm just stating my own opinion. I am not insisting
you agree with me.

And I still have my dictionary, but I keep thinking of
throwing it away because it doesn't include the
word phenomenonymously.

peace http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4095777

[seabeyond]

99. because we choose to blur the definition of words so we can easily swallow something. rape, violence

all of a sudden we change the definition to what? why? why is there a need to change the definition? if you are into sexual violence. do it. doesnt stop you from doing it. but, what would be the purpose of changing definition.

then someone does some violent act that has nothing to do with porn, and all of a sudden we kNOW the definition

what we tell ourselves matter. not only to ourselves. but society as a whole.

you do not get to redefine rape, violence.

[polly7]

100. +1000.

Violence can be divided into three broad categories according to characteristics of those committing the violent act:[2]

self-directed violence
interpersonal violence
collective violence

The nature of violent acts, on the vertical axis, can be:

physical
sexual
psychological
involving deprivation or neglect

The psychological effects of being verbally 'violated' - the screaming and the terror of it from someone in a psychopathic rage still haunt me much more than remembering receiving physical injuries that broke bones.

Of course, it isn't only physical.

[seabeyond]

101. again, thank you for the back up reinforcing my point. of course violence includes and goes

beyond mere physical violence. but polly, people are having a tough enough time with just the first basic definition of violence. now you want to include the rest of the violence? ok. i am on board. i will stick close and help you out. thanks.

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Of course, it isn't only physical.

[polly7]

102. You were accusing the poster of 'self-defining'.

He/she wasn't stating anything that every adult in the room doesn't already know and probably hasn't experienced at least once.'

[seabeyond]

103. physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

um. changing a definition is changing a definition.

that is all i stated. why would you have a problem with me pointing out the poster is changing the definition? you too are into the definition. i know cause you just went thru the definition in your first post

[Voice for Peace]

104. thanks!

[polly7]

107. You're welcome! I just thought you made a great point. nt.

[Locrian]

126. 4 to 10 time a week?!

Daaaaaaaaamn!!

[backscatter712]

136. I had a different smiley in mind...

[William769]

202. Who the fuck are you to say "Gay porn is naturally violent"?

And how the fuck is it "unNATURAL"

You can take your homophobic tripe and peddle it someplace else!

[bobclark86]

207. Who the fuck is anyone to say some biting or a kickass spanking is unnatural?

Ever see a lion bite a lioness on the ass and she doesn't run away screaming?

Gay sex -- or even just a more-experimental straight relationship -- was illegal in many states until 10 years ago. A lot of people (insert random right-wing fucktard for an example here) have problems with anything not missionary style between two married people for the sole purpose of cranking out new churchgoers/cannon fodder. They will try to block anyone from doing anything outside of their own comfort zone.

But since Lawrence v. Texas, they can't ban the act. But they can try to impede on free speech about the act.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. What does 'we've seen studies come up' mean? What 'studies'? Where? Did they 'come up' or

were they in fact actively brought up? Are you speaking of those cites from that one OP from anti gay, and anti science right wingers? Is that why you hesitate to cite them and instead use passive aggressive methods like claiming these right wing bits of propaganda fell like rain onto DU?
That thread you are touting here made me sick. The cites were from hugely bigoted eliminationists. Do you also want to eliminate gay people?

[dipsydoodle]

8. Anything involving sheep

.

[loli phabay]

10. rofl, thats baaaaaaaad.

[dipsydoodle]

12. Sounds like the old Baaaaaaaaasil Australian joke.

[name not needed]

105. ewe should be ashamed of yourself

[liberal N proud]

9. Anything past NO!

[MrScorpio]

124. Worst yet, anything past a safe word. nt

[The Straight Story]

13. Hmmm....holding the door to the bedroom open for someone might be bad

Hardly violent but it always starts out with simple acts like that.

Now I did dig this up which may help you find your answer:

One in 10 Young Americans Has Committed Sexual Violence


Nearly one in ten young Americans has committed an act of sexual violence, a new study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics reports. Of the 1,058 teenagers and young adults, ages 14 to 21, who participated in the online study, 8 percent reported that they had kissed, touched, or “made someone else do something sexual” when they “knew the person did not want to.” Three percent of teens verbally coerced a victim into sex; 3 percent attempted to physically force them into sex; 2 percent perpetrated a completed rape.

It’s long been apparent that teenagers face an elevated risk for sexual abuse. One 1998 study found that 12 percent of high school girls and 5 percent of boys have been sexually abused; a 1997 study found that girls ages 16 to 19 are “four times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault." But this new report sheds light on the demographics, tactics, and attitudes of young sex offenders. One finding in particular stands out: The prototypical teen sexual abuser is a white male from a higher-income family.

Here’s what else the study found:

Demographics: Most perpetrators committed their first act of sexual violence at age 16. Boys are more likely to coerce or force others into sex than girls are (though girls offend, too). White kids and higher-income kids are slightly more likely to rape than their peers. Eighty percent of victims were girls; 18 percent were boys; 5 percent were transgender.

Pornography use: Teens who had watched porn were more likely to be perpetrators, but the discrepancy was “almost entirely explained by whether the material was violent in nature.” Teens who had seen non-violent pornography were equally likely to have committed sexual violence as teens who had seen none, but those who had watched material that “depicted one person hurting another person while doing something sexual” were more likely to be offenders (the study doesn't address causality).

...

Tactics: Thirty-two percent of perpetrators argued or pressured another person into sex; 63 percent guilted them into it; 5 percent threatened physical force, and 8 percent used it. Fifteen percent employed alcohol.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/08/one_in_10_young_americans_has_committed_sexual_violence_new_study_finds.html

[KitSileya]

17. That's a very interesting article.

Especially this paragraph is very topical considering the rape porn threads on DU

Pornography use: Teens who had watched porn were more likely to be perpetrators, but the discrepancy was “almost entirely explained by whether the material was violent in nature.” Teens who had seen non-violent pornography were equally likely to have committed sexual violence as teens who had seen none, but those who had watched material that “depicted one person hurting another person while doing something sexual” were more likely to be offenders (the study doesn't address causality).

(my bolding)

And while the study doesn't check whether offenders sought out violent porn or whether watching it increased their likelihood of offending, it definitely warrants a pause.

[daybranch]

18. Tactics themselves say loads

about human behavior. The articel being discussed was supposedly about violent sex acts and the attempted linkage between violent porn and rape. Yet the tactics discussed for the most part would not constitute rape for the most part in the minds of most people. arguing or pressuring someone into sex while not unselfish dors not rise to the level of rape or even sexual violence. When you pressure someone into doing something that other party being pressured is not forced but rather makes a trade off between outcomes and chooses to go along. Yes they may not have wanted to make a choice but the victim makes a choice. I am not saying that females should feel pressured into sex but to believe they are the same as rape victims is reaching pretty much too far. Guilting victims into sex is also allowing them to see their options and letting them evaluate their own motives or how others may see them. Again this is not rape under the law. Giving females alcohol is often statutory rape but if females are aware of the debilitating possible effects of alcohol on their willpower and desire those consequences which in some cases they may, it is again hard to call it rape in a courtroom. Neither pressuring, nor guilting, nor causing a female to be inebriated constitutes violent sex and certainly not rape. As far as threatening force or actually using that force you are obviously committing rape and should be punished accordingly whether violence occurs during the rape or not.
It is obvious that we men and women need to tell our sons loudly these behaviors are shameful and to remind our daughters that they must stand up for themselves and make their own decisions and avoid peer pressure or guilting. These conversations must be clear and specific. We must be very, very direct. It is our children and they must understand from these discussions how much they are loved by their parents.

[seabeyond]

21. so, alone in a room with a man, pressuring her, the more she says no, the more pressure, until....

she feels fear. she gives in.

oh, but wait... he didnt beat the shit out of her, or rape her yet. it is her problem. she should have gone to the point where he actually raped her. then..... she could call herself a victim.

not really thinking it thru from a girls perspective, huh?

[Voice for Peace]

95. this is sexual violence.

[KitSileya]

23. Are you seriously saying that a drunk woman can't be raped?

That just because women know that alcohol can make you unconscious, it isn't rape if someone has sex without their consent? Seriously?

[el_bryanto]

26. I think what you are describing is a predatory asshole. You might be right that someone can be a

predatory asshole without technically comitting rape. But I think it would be best if our society condemned clearly the behavior of predatory assholes.

Bryant

[KitSileya]

28. It may not be rape according to the law books,

but the law books are notoriously outdated on this topic (seeing as how wives could not be raped by their husbands until 1993 in some states.) Coercing someone, pressuring someone to have sex is sex without free consents. The perpetrator may not hit or threatened with a knife, but if the victim fears for his or her life, reputation, others, how can it be anything but rape. If the victim is incapacitated, how can it not be rape?

Lack of enthusiastic consent = rape. Sorry, but there you have it. Hopefully those DUers who enjoy BDSM will support me in this, considering how important consent is for them.

[el_bryanto]

60. I don't disagree with you - I think trying to define the exact border between rape and non-rape

is a mugs game in one sense. Of course legally we should strengthen the rape laws to be able to punish people who deserve it. That said I think that where ever we draw the legal line separating rape from non-rape, there will be predatory assholes trying to get as close to that line without crossing it. We need to do away with predatory assholes.

easier said than done, unfortunately.

Bryant

[nomorenomore08]

227. +1

[etherealtruth]

29. Your post appears to be in support of sexual predation ....

... and in the case of "drunkenness" it appears to be in support of rape.

I truly hope the person you are describing is not you

[KitSileya]

33. Not according to a DU jury (gag!)

actics themselves say loads
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4094598

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

Victim blaming - poster is saying that if a woman gets drunk, if anyone rapes her it isn't rape, because she chose to get drunk.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:24 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This argument is repulsive - but doesn't violet the terms of use I don't believe. As such it should be taken apart through discussion rather than hidden. El_bryanto
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the poster was just trying to say people are responsible for their actions and youth need to be educated to be responsible for their actions and to be careful.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: "Neither pressuring, nor guilting, nor causing a female to be inebriated constitutes violent sex and certainly not rape."

Oh great
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster did not say what the alerter stated. that "if a woman gets drunk, if anyone rapes her it isn't rape". In fact, the poster stated that giving females alcohol IS often rape. The posters comments do not appear to rise to the level of appropriate for removal.

Thank you.

Especially juror #6 should be ashamed of themselves - the poster said "Giving females alcohol is often statutory rape but if females are aware of the debilitating possible effects of alcohol on their willpower and desire those consequences which in some cases they may, it is again hard to call it rape in a courtroom. Neither pressuring, nor guilting, nor causing a female to be inebriated constitutes violent sex and certainly not rape."

They'll fit right in with California courts who think that if a guy impersonates your boyfriend and tricks you to have sex with him, it isn't rape.

[etherealtruth]

35. Amazing

[KitSileya]

38. DU has become a very hostile place for women.

Especially rape survivors.

[etherealtruth]

49. Unfortunately this is something many on this board have noticed

the good thing is that most on this board do not feel that way (or post that way) ... the bad news is that there are prolific posters that (to be very kind) have "issues with women" and there are enough indifferent posters posters serving on juries that let garbage stand.

[el_bryanto]

57. I did vote to leave it alone

But mostly because I feel like it's the sort of wrongheaded argument that should be taken apart rather than hidden.

Bryant

[KitSileya]

61. And I think it should be hidden.

This is victim blaming to the nth degree - if women drink, they should know that they can be raped, so if they are raped it isn't really rape? The poster is saying that if you cause a person to be drunk it certainly isn't rape. It's there in black and white. "Neither pressuring, nor guilting, nor causing a female to be inebriated constitutes violent sex and certainly not rape." He or she is basically saying that rape is only if a stranger attacks you, and only of violence is used. Guilted, coerced, drugged "sex", none of that is rape.

Honestly, I think the jurors that voted to leave it should do some soul-searching.

"when you pressure someone into doing something that other party being pressured is not forced but rather makes a trade off between outcomes and chooses to go along." "if females are aware of the debilitating possible effects of alcohol on their willpower" such sex certainly doesn't constitute rape.

That is the poster's own words

Letting such victim blaming stand when statistically, you know a significant number of DU posters, male and female, have been raped while inebriated, is horrible.

[Voice for Peace]

96. There are different types of abuse. Violence is the imposition of one's will upon another.

I think you know this.

Pressure to have sex, unwanted unrelenting pressure,
psychologically manipulative pressure, is sexual
violence. It's harder to identify than violent sex.

And because it's impossible to prosecute and hard
to prove, it can be twice as damaging to the
non-consenting party.

My opinion.

[KitSileya]

119. Copy and paste in case of deletion.

about human behavior. The articel being discussed was supposedly about violent sex acts and the attempted linkage between violent porn and rape. Yet the tactics discussed for the most part would not constitute rape for the most part in the minds of most people. arguing or pressuring someone into sex while not unselfish dors not rise to the level of rape or even sexual violence. When you pressure someone into doing something that other party being pressured is not forced but rather makes a trade off between outcomes and chooses to go along. Yes they may not have wanted to make a choice but the victim makes a choice. I am not saying that females should feel pressured into sex but to believe they are the same as rape victims is reaching pretty much too far. Guilting victims into sex is also allowing them to see their options and letting them evaluate their own motives or how others may see them. Again this is not rape under the law. Giving females alcohol is often statutory rape but if females are aware of the debilitating possible effects of alcohol on their willpower and desire those consequences which in some cases they may, it is again hard to call it rape in a courtroom. Neither pressuring, nor guilting, nor causing a female to be inebriated constitutes violent sex and certainly not rape. As far as threatening force or actually using that force you are obviously committing rape and should be punished accordingly whether violence occurs during the rape or not.
It is obvious that we men and women need to tell our sons loudly these behaviors are shameful and to remind our daughters that they must stand up for themselves and make their own decisions and avoid peer pressure or guilting. These conversations must be clear and specific. We must be very, very direct. It is our children and they must understand from these discussions how much they are loved by their parents.

[chervilant]

128. You are incorrect, and

you need to educate yourself about rape and sexualized violence, especially if you are parenting a child. You might also consider William Ryan's Blaming the Victim, in order to explore your apparent need to analyze victims' choices when faced with verbal coercion tactics by potential rapists.

[bigwillq]

14. non consensual only.

Everything else is cool with me as long as the two people involved consent to it.

[Niceguy1]

121. for many here

That isn't accepted. It appears that they don't think that women are capable of consenting of their own free will.

[Skidmore]

15. Why this sudden zeal on DU to get others to accept violence as acceptable sexual expression?

I don't get it. Violence is unacceptable in any action. People consenting to giving and receiving violence have issues. Period. That is my opinion, and I speak as someone who was raped repeatedly over years as a child. Promoting depiction of violence in media is particpating vicariously in acts of violence.

[hlthe2b]

20. ^^This^^

[seabeyond]

22. yes. this. thank you. nt

[RKP5637]

27. +++ 1,000 +++ n/t

[el_bryanto]

30. There's something tricky about this issue

On the one hand liberals tend to be more accepting of diverging views on sexuality having a wider view of what's acceptable. Generally our attitude is that if it doesn't hurt anybody and is consensual than it's nobodys business. For many that's one of the ways we distinguish ourselves from our friends on the right; they want to tell everybody how and when they can have sex and we don't.

On the other hand we do generally oppose violence - I don't go as far as you do (I watch a fair amount of violent movies and television), but we are generally opposed to violence. There's also the problem of violence or the threat of violence used to control women (sometimes men, but usually women), which happens all over the world and is pretty awful.

I don't know - I guess the whole conversation makes me uncomfortable.

Bryant

[seabeyond]

36. we also oppose the abuse of the lack of voice. with this one issue, we throw them under the bus

for our own wants. no more or less than a republican with greed.

you have two needs fighting each other. the need to protect all those millions without consent, or voice. and the need to do whatever in our sexuality. they oppose one another.

[el_bryanto]

42. That is an interesting statement

Probably correct; but this does steer us back towards a sexual ethics where we are free to tell people that what they are doing is morally wrong in some cases. Our Republican friends have no trouble with this, taking their sexual ethics from the Bible or Tradition or what not - but liberals generally don't like the idea.

But then again seeking sexual gratification at the expense of others is the definition of selfishness as you say. And defending potentially abusive sexual acts, even if you don't participate in them yourself, could also be seen as selfish.

Bryant

[seabeyond]

44. you and others want to shut this conversation down with religion/morally wrong. that is not where

the women from the left is coming from. you NEVER hear us discussing the morality of it.

again. that is not listening to the woman. that is always deciding the direction of the argument. on the porn threads, all we heard was "religious" argument. when we talk about feeding our poor do we shame those that want to do something with the poor by saying, you are being all jesus.... you rw'er?

no. we see it as our social obligation to care for the less advantage in our society. those being hurt.

but.... cause it is mens want, we MUST shift it to morals. we MUST call the women prudes. it HAS to be because the woman hates sex, ugly, frigid.

it cannot be because this is a part of society that needs our voice.

[el_bryanto]

46. I don't want to shut down any conversation - and I apologize if I give off that aura

But how you treat others is a moral issue. It's probably a lot more important than how you get off.

What does the term sexual ethics mean to you?

Bryant

[seabeyond]

50. in ALL my life, my line is never to purposely hurt another. i figure i am pretty safe

with that personal definition. it is not a challenge for me and never has been. and i understand that not all people are me. you asked personally.

that includes my sexual ethics.

[el_bryanto]

53. That's a good line; makes sense to me.

I probably need to go look at that porn thread to see what you are talking about, as far as what others are saying about this issue - i guess from your tone it's pretty unpleasant.

Bryant

[chervilant]

142. Actually, the level of sexism and misogyny on this site

is appalling, given that we're all "democrats" and/or "liberals." That we even have to debate whether rape porn should be allowed in order to avoid infringing on our "first amendment rights" is seriously distressing.

[rrneck]

148. That's because it's a first amendment issue. nt

[chervilant]

214. Oh, yes, of a certainty...

Being allowed to view rape porn is MUCH more important than being able to protect women and children from enslavement to 'perform' in rape porn.

[rrneck]

216. Enslavement is illegal. Fiction is not. ntt

[chervilant]

218. Wow...

I doubt I would ever have understood that distinction were you not magnanimous enough to shower this thread with your blinding insights...

[rrneck]

220. You're welcome.

Now, if you don't like fiction that's fine. Do you have a plan to regulate fictional content?

[chervilant]

221. So,

you're invested in protecting your right to view 'fictional' rape porn. Gotta keep those first amendment rights sacrosanct!

[rrneck]

223. I'm interested in freedom of expression

and I'll ignore your backhanded insult.

[chervilant]

224. And I yours. nt

[MicaelS]

110. So adults who deliberately and willfully engage in activites like ..

B&D, S&M, D&S, Water Sports, all that "fringe" stuff outside "normal" PIV sex are what? Mentally ill? Should be prosecuted for assault? Subject to re-education? Exactly what should happen to them?

[Niceguy1]

123. somehow I think

That only applies to men when they do it.

Knew a girl who liked to bite and choke me.. kind of scary but it was great.

[seabeyond]

131. except someone in the thread already put that up... and i stated yes, that would be violence.

agreeable to the parties, but still defined as violence. so you would be wrong that it applies only with men. violence, the definition of violence, is not gender specific.

[backscatter712]

153. A very good question...

Put on the sex-offender list for visiting a leather club? Sentenced to chemical castration for foreplay involving handcuffs? Labeled as a "rapist" for spanking?

[seabeyond]

157. does the definition of violence = illegal? do you see all violence as criminal behavior?

[backscatter712]

160. That seems to be where you draw the line. nt

[seabeyond]

161. you are wrong. ONE post, where anywhere i have even kinda suggested. you make up bogus fuckin

arguments. repeatedly i have stated the complete fuckin opposite. that is such a bullshit statement back

[backscatter712]

163. Here in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4100833

[seabeyond]

165. it is a definition of the WORD violence. wtf?

[rrneck]

193. Something to think about...

There is no meaningful dispute about the definition of violence or that violence is a part of sexual activity either by consent or not. At issue is not that it is used, but why it is used.

Look around you. If you are in a structure it was built using violence. Driving a nail with a hammer is violence. Building anything involves all kinds of banging, shoving, and slapping to get the job done. Violence directed in such a way is not questioned. The direction of violent construction tools and techniques against a person is another matter.

Attaching the concept of violence to sexual activity doesn't get you anywhere either in support or in condemnation of such practices.

[seabeyond]

197. bullshit. they are absolutely redefining violence. the basis is they do not want

to use the word. that simple.

i am not arguing anything else but the definition of the word and they refuse the word. that simple.

[rrneck]

213. What definition are they attempting to change it to? nt

[seabeyond]

184. do you THINK when i say academia describes invasive surgery as violent on the body i am

suggest all surgery be ILLEGAL. wouldnt that be like so beyond, really.... stupid?

[backscatter712]

146. "People consenting to X have issues"

You sound exactly like Ken Cuccinelli.

Remember when people who were attracted to the same sex "had issues" and were thrown in mental hospitals?

Remember how people, including greats like Alan Turing were arrested, subjected to chemical castration, driven to suicide?

And you want to do that to people engaged in consensual BDSM play.

Consent is where the line is drawn. Period. Why is this hard?

If you want to throw people in prison, put them on the sex-offender list, and force them through a treatment program that's most likely like a George Reker "reparative therapy" hellhole, for consensual sex, it's you who needs to get your head examined.

[nomorenomore08]

228. And how did you get all that from "they have issues"? Seems an enormous leap... n/t

[sibelian]

154. If you don't understand it, you have no business having an opinion about it.

And you need to take it from me - you DON'T understand it. Your opinion is worthless.

[seabeyond]

158. so, porn has freedom of speech but a poster on a discussion board does not?

[Skidmore]

180. Yeah, tell me about it.

How pleasurable it is to be smacked around and humiliated for someone's gratification.

[loli phabay]

231. if its not your kink dont do it, but what you describe is part of a lot of peoples sex life

I always put it as how i feel about furries, personally i dont get it but its not my kink.

[nomorenomore08]

232. I guess for some it really is pleasurable. And I don't feel it's my place to judge.

Note that I'm talking specifically about private acts between people here. Violence in pornography is another matter, and certainly should be discussed.

[HappyMe]

16. Anything past NO.

[KitSileya]

19. The comments on article The Straight Story quoted were illuminating

Very many of them don't see guilting someone into sex, or verbal coercion, as a sexual violence. Nor did many see unwanted kissing or touching (breasts etc) as sexual violence.

It boggles my mind. I'm pretty sure most people in long-term relationships, where one partner nags and nags about sex until the other partner gives in experienced a huge hit in the trust levels in that relationship - at least on one side. They may not call what happened to them rape, but it was sex without freely given consent, and especially if coupled with other abusive or semi-abusive behaviors, is definitely sexual violence. Violence doesn't have to include physical pain.

You may have rape numbers going down, but I am pretty sure coercive "sex" have risen - too many teenagers now think that if you date someone, you're supposed to have sex, whether you want to or not. You're shamed if you have sex, or if you don't have sex (except boys, who mostly are shamed if they don't have sex, and lauded when they do have sex, even if it is rape - 11-year olds who are raped by their teacher or friend's mum are lauded even here on DU.) As a result, a lot of teenagers don't even register what is done to them as sexual violence, they just think that there's something wrong with them for not wanting to do what they're supposed to want.

On the whole, even tho' society claims to have become more "sex positive," I don't think things have changed that much. A lot of "stranger" rapes have turned into "date" rapes - jumping someone from behind a bush is out, and getting people drunk, or guilting them, and having sex with them has become more acceptable.

[seabeyond]

25. so much in your post but addressing this. can always call them prudes, sex negative, shame them....

and these would be girls, inexperienced girls wanting to embrace their sexuality, not grown women that do not let a bunch of .... define their sexuality.

slut shame; prude shame

[xulamaude]

88. ^^All that - right on the money^^ nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

166. I don't know where you live, but...

Rape is down quite remarkably in the past two or three decades, according to the Justice Department.

Date rape is increasingly seen as abhorrent. Getting people drunk to have sex with them is way less acceptable than it was a few decades ago. People actually get prosecuted for that these days.

I don't know about guilting people into sex. I don't know how prevalent that is, and that would seem to be more akin to persuasion than coercion, anyway.

[KitSileya]

204. If indeed the numbers are down, that is wonderful.

It is down in all crimes, so it is strange if it weren't down in reported rapes too. This would correlate to what the Freakonomics guys claim is a result of Roe vs Wade, so it's going to be interesting to see whether it continues. On the other hand, the decrease is contested, one reason for which because it only counts cities, and Washington DC for example, saw a decrease in numbers in the District, but a corresponding increase in suburban jurisdictions. There is also evidence that points towards an increase in gang rapes.

As for guilting someone into sex, I don't see that as persuasion. It is basically blackmailing someone into having sex with you, and I don't think sex should ever be a tit for tat in a relationship. As I've written elsewhere on this thread, I don't see sex as an activity on par with "you do the dishes and I'll clean the bathroom." And if your partner starts pressuring you into sex by stating unless you have sex with them, you don't love them, I'm pretty sure that's one of many red flags in that relationship.

[gulliver]

24. George W. Bush is the classic Republican

He is their North Star. Ruin the country's economy? Check. Start unnecessary wars? Check. Sit for seven and a half minutes while the country is under attack? Check.

Republicanism distilled.

[on point]

31. Anything not agreed to by partner and imposed on them

[gollygee]

32. Certainly criminal acts are violent anyway

like rape.

[get the red out]

34. Something one of the parties doesn't want

That's the generalization that comes to me.

[seabeyond]

39. if a woman says... hit me. and a man hits her. that is not violent?

[get the red out]

43. Sorry to offend

But my age is showing, when I read "sex acts" someone being punched out wasn't one of the numerous things that immediately popped into my head. I apologize for being an old fuddy-duddy.

[seabeyond]

45. sticking a huge dick in the mouth and aggressively pumping causing massive pain. is that violent?

the point here. the definition of violence is not "consent". that was NOT the question. violence is causing pain.

consent.... wtf, sure, regardless of causing pain, is not violence.

and you do not think hitting is part of the porn world? really?

[get the red out]

113. I'm sorry

I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry

I have no fucking idea how you made up all that bull-shit I supposedly think, but I'm sorry for taking the bait. Dear God, I'm somebody who normally gets in trouble on here for wanting violent people to get too much punishment. Edit to add that I also get in trouble on message boards for caring more about women's rights than liberalism.

So once again, I'm attempting to remove the target I accidentally acquired on my back now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

170. Welcome to her world. n/t

[seabeyond]

175. what a prude. you guys can defend this shit 'til cows come home, but cant say it outloud? lmFAO

watch it, get off on it, cheeer it, defend it. but i say it and you are all.... welcome to her world. what a fuckin hoot.

so sex negative grumpy

cant even acknowledge the define word violence though defend it praise it do it.

amazing. i gotta wonder what you are all so fearful of.

[freshwest]

239. I understand you. And it's why I give these threads a wide berth. I'm not down on Sea, but there is

a lot of diversion and old fights being hashed out between posters endlessly from thread to thread. We often forget who said what after a while.

[Agschmid]

240. Your good, that poster is out of control.

[Comrade Grumpy]

174. Wow. Who needs internet rape porn when we've got posters like this?

[nomorenomore08]

233. Sure it's "violent" in the strictest sense of aggressive behavior.

And not something I think I could bring myself to do, even if asked. But if truly desired by the person, is it anyone else's business?

I guess I'm trying to make a distinction here between people's private "kinks" or "fetishes" on the one hand, and what those kinks and fetishes suggest on a larger societal level - which is something most certainly worth discussing.

[MineralMan]

37. Any that don't include complete, enthusiastic consent by both parties.

How's that?

[seabeyond]

40. definition of violence

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

nowhere in that definition does it say, UNLESS there is consent.

this is fuckin unreal.

[rrneck]

64. Interesting

that it took forty posts for someone to produce a definition of violence.

[seabeyond]

65. it took me a while to really get people thought the definition was CONSENT.

[rrneck]

66. It's an important distinction. nt

[BainsBane]

41. rape is one form of violence, but not the only one

Violence involves any physical injury to another person.

[seabeyond]

47. physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

people seems to be really challenged to even understand the definition of violence.

[FreakinDJ]

48. Cheating

Emotional Trauma is the worst

[gollygee]

51. Something can be both violent and consensual

Some people enjoy violent acts. They consent to them, but they're still violent. Everyone knows this, right? Violence is not defined as only acts in the absence of consent. And sexual acts without consent are violent as they are rape or sexual assault, but there are plenty of acts that are done without consent that are not violent.

[seabeyond]

54. many seems to be clueless, amazingly. only with sex acts. ask what consititute violence in films

and you would get all kinds of answers. on du, ask with porn and the answer is consent.

do whatever the fuck you want to the woman. if she is in the film, she consented, it is not violence.

totally floored.

[NuclearDem]

52. Anything your partner doesn't agree to.

[Prism]

55. Suddenly everyone's all fuzzy about consent and choice

Simply because they don't like porn.

Hypocrisy is what it comes down to at the end of the day. It's really as simple as that.

According to this thread, I was the victim of sexual violence last night. I had a long day. Had to do a billion errands, cleaned and scrubbed my whole place, went to gym, worked out, ran six miles, then went out with friends. When I came home, I was totally exhausted.

When I got home, my partner really wanted sex. I really was too tired. He "pressured" me. After an hour, I gave in.

In other words, I'm in a relationship. But the definitions of violence and consent have grown so pointlessly twisted, apparently I should be calling the police this morning.

[seabeyond]

59. suddenly everyone is all fuzzy on the definition of violence, simply because it is

addressing porn

[Prism]

62. When spanking is "violence"

Ya'll have done jumped the shark, taken off your skis, and doubled back to pony ride that fish into the sunset.

It's not sex negativity I see at play here. Most people like sex. It's sexuality negativism that's the problem. Where what one person doesn't enjoy is bad for everyone else, too. Sexuality is narrowed and condemned unless the form of sexuality is approved.

Spanking is violent and wrong? Jesus. That just betrays a lack of sexual experience. And if I want people telling me what is and is not ok, yeah, it should be from people without much experience.

In every instance of spanking I've encountered - every single time - it has been the spankee requesting it. You know how many people like getting spanked and ask for it? A lot.

This is common knowledge among people who have explored sexuality to any degree.

Yet here, it's a frightening and dark mystery and proof of how horrible people are.

I'm embarrassed for people at this point.

[seabeyond]

63. from the very start of the post. you ignore what i posted to you and fabricate an argument

to stand on.

address what i posted. not a made up story to validate you diss.

[BainsBane]

68. Again we see people inventing arguments to hoist on to feminists

That bear no relationship to what they have said. I think it's fine if you want to debate yourself, just don't pretend you are debating Seabeyond.

[Prism]

70. I read the threads!

And please don't say "feminists" as if I'm talking to a monolith. You use that royal we an awful lot. Make no mistake and be under no illusion here:

The authoritarian and sexuality negative attitudes you and a handful of vocal compatriots are espousing is a fringe form of feminist ideology.

I should just call it fringinism, because that is precisely what it is.

[truebrit71]

81. Finally someone said it out loud...

"The authoritarian and sexuality negative attitudes you and a handful of vocal compatriots are espousing is a fringe form of feminist ideology"...

[LittleBlue]

87. Well damn

[seabeyond]

89. ya. giving definition of violence is absolutely sexually negative. or honest anyway. nt

[HappyMe]

97. Uh oh.

[BuddhaGirl]

117. +1

Excellent reply.

[libodem]

167. I think you

Figured out the core issue. You put a name on the phenomenon. It's hard working without a label for what is being addressed. It's like sword fighting blindfolded.

[Old and In the Way]

191. Nailed it. nt

[chervilant]

217. Try to take it a step beyond reading the threads, prism...

Let your critical thinking skills kick in. Please review the definition of violence that has been posted herein above.

Obfuscating what you've 'read' in order to slam those of us who want to end rape porn and sexual violence is rude and unnecessary.

(And, please educate yourself about Feminism before you attempt again to 'define' any 'fringe elements' of a movement about which you have little understanding.)

[msanthrope]

229. Damn straight. nt

[LittleBlue]

77. Agreed

You're spot on in this thread. I compare it to sports. Some of what you see would be considered violent if done by two strangers in the street, but is normal, acceptable behavior in the sport.

Sex is like a sport where the rules are defined by the boundaries both partners set, rather than by universal rules applicable to everyone.

Someone above gave the definition of violence as a cut-and-dried guideline:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

But I don't think they appreciate the word "intended". Sex is unusual in that a little pain can be like spice in a recipe, a small amount can enhance the pleasure by a hugely disproportionate amount. The effect may be pain, but the intention isn't to hurt, but rather to cause pleasure.

[seabeyond]

80. you want to change the definition of violence. bah hahahaha. pathetic. nt

[LittleBlue]

82. You need to understand

that in the bedroom, pain is often used as a way to cause pleasure, not to intentionally hurt someone.

The word "intent" is meaningful in this instance.

[seabeyond]

83. you need to understand one is intentionally hurting for one or both to get off is STILL

violence.

fuck

crazy.....

[nomorenomore08]

234. But should it be condemned simply because it meets the strict definition of "violence"?

I'm not talking about porn here. I'm talking about people's private sex lives. I have no interest whatsoever in defending violent pornography, and those who defend it vehemently kind of creep me out.

[Prism]

69. I addressed it directly

In these threads, hell, even right here in this thread, spanking and BDSM are being categorized as violence.

I addressed it.

And it's not a diss to simply state a plain truth. The lack of knowledge that people derive sexual pleasure and enjoyment from being the subject of physical force does betray a lack of varied sexual experience.

The idea that sexual practices like spanking or any activity that mixes pain and sexual pleasure is unusual and worrisome is telegraphing to the world that you are ignorant of vast swaths of human sexuality.

[seabeyond]

71. no. you did not. the definition of violence is pretty easy to find. that simple. that is the ONLY

thing i addressed in my post .... to you.

the definition of violence.

where would the argument be

in a fuckin definition

no..... you did not

done prism. as baines say, argue with yourself cause whatever it was, it was NOT what i replied to you

[PassingFair]

91. Why bother.

You're responding to a person who doesn't understand the difference
between having sex with their husband when they're tired and rape.

[seabeyond]

93. he is a man. does that help? nt

[Prism]

108. You're arguing against the definition you provided!

"Intended to hurt, damage, or kill"

You provided that definition. As many others have explained, pain during sex isn't intended to hurt or cause damage. It's meant to provide pleasure. People who derive pleasure from pain are not hurting anyone by even the loosest of standards.

At this point, I'm not sure you even know what your argument is. You're just running around refuting yourself. Which is weird, but ok.

[seabeyond]

109. it absolutely is intended to hurt. now, it is done concentually. that pain is wanted. the intent

is to cause pain... for pleasure.

wowsers. lol

[Prism]

111. I'm sorry, you don't get to arbitrarily define this

If someone grabs my nipple during sex, it may cause pain, but it is not hurting me. It is not violence by any rational metric.

No matter how much you insist otherwise.

At this point, I would stop bothering to argue this. The ideological corner you're in is going to require increasingly ridiculous logic to maintain.

I'm not in your bedroom handing out critiques. Maybe you should stay out of everyone else's, hmm?

[seabeyond]

112. no. no arbitrarily involved. hurt intentionally to inflict pain to gain pleasure. simply.

[Old and In the Way]

195. Murdering the English language is a form of violence.

Certainly, a crime against Humanities.

[KitSileya]

74. Yes, if you two haven't previously agreed that he may pressure you to have sex

Then that is consent given under pressure. Consent given under pressure is not freely given. Have you two had a conversation where you have agreed that when you are reluctant to have sex, he may pressure you (always with an underlying safe word that will immediately make him back off if you really don't want sex) then you have given your consent to be pressured.

Unfortunately, many many men and women have not, and have spouses that nag/pressure/guilt them into having sex when they don't really want to. "You don't love me anymore. " "I'm a ____, and a ____ has needs. If you don't provide, I may as well find someone who does." "I did X for you.....&quot even tho' X was done without any agreement for sex as recompense.) Especially if it is coupled with other abusive or near abusive behavior, it can cause trauma in the partner pressured, usually only realized post-relationship.

[Prism]

116. This is why ideology and sex don't mix.

If my partner nags me about caulking the bathroom, it would be similar. Actually, it's worse because caulking involves physical discomfort.

I can fill a book with things my partner may want me to do that I begrudgingly do to please him. Most relationships involve that give and take. I promise you he didn't want to get out of a warm bed to slog to CVS for me, but I needed him to and had to coerce him a bit to do it.

Once sex is mentioned, it becomes an entirely special ideological situation that must be judged, advocated for or against, picked apart, and given all kinds of arbitrary guidelines.

Regular relationships become studied like they're psychiatric disorders. Meh, no thanks.

[KitSileya]

118. I would put sex in a different category from most any other task done in a relationship.

Perhaps you would consider that ideology, but I don't. Intimacy, sexual intimacy, is in a special position for me. Having sex isn't like making dinner, or cleaning the bathroom, or even wiping vomit from your loved one's chin if he's sick. I cannot separate sex from my sense of self that easily.


The culture that we live in agrees with me, even if much of its views on sex is warped - an unemployed person in Nevada isn't denied unemployment benefits if they don't want to work in a brothel after all. They can be put to caulking bathrooms, but not rent out their penis or vagina.

[Xithras]

140. It's amazing how many liberals turn into prudish freepers when the topic turns to sex.

What I and my partners choose to do with our bodies is nobodies business but our own. It's disturbing to see who many liberals who cannot wrap their minds around that concept.

When it comes to sex, the only line that matters is CONSENT. If you disagree with that line, then your sexual politics are differentiated from the right wing prudes only by degree, and not by position.

[seabeyond]

143. it's amazing how many when talking about their sex life cannot even mutter the word violence

per definition even if it is consensual. jsut like a repug to have to redefine a word and bury their heads in the sand. over a word. with a simple definition. with no one telling you what you can or cannot do in your bedroom. the hurtles you have to jump over and the loops to dive thru to avoid a definition. not to mention insults and attacks and misrepresentations you have to make for your argument.

all because of the definition of the word violence.

if consensual violence is good for you, then why cant you even utter the word

[Xithras]

162. Because that's not how we see it.

I'm into BDSM (more "ropes and bondage" than "whips and chains", but it's really a matter of degree). If you saw the kinds of things that I engage in with my spouse and friends, you'd probably call it violent...and according to the dictionary, you would probably be right.

The difference, of course, is that in BDSM the "violence" is initiated by the recipient. Without getting too "TMI", some people get off by being spanked. When someone spanks them, it's NOT because the "spanker" gets off on being violent, or wants to hurt someone, but because the "spankee" enjoys the spanking and the "spanker" wants to please them. These are the power roles in EVERY SINGLE BDSM relationship I've ever seen. I've been doing this stuff for over 20 years, and I have NEVER seen a situation where a couple were into it because ONE partner wanted to abuse the other. BDSM is about pleasing your partner, not harming them. I get that the idea of people ENJOYING pain may seem alien to you, but we don't need your acceptance or approval. We just object STRENUOUSLY when people start talking about "regulating" what we do.

For the curious, this is what I actually do:


And to bring it back around to the topic that started it all... In all my years of doing BDSM, I've met precisely THREE couples who were into the whole "simulated rape" thing. In all three cases, it was initiated by the woman, because some women really DO get off on the entire power loss mindset (it's fundamentally the same reason that some women enjoy the kinbaku rope work that I practice). For them, rape is a fantasy, and their spouses play along. In two of the cases, it meant that the spouses used strong physical force during sex while the woman resisted (having previously consented to it, and with a safe word being present that could end it at any time). In the third case, they'd actually extended it even further so that the husband brought in other men who would "gang rape" her. I personally found the whole thing distasteful and don't understand the appeal, but I DO understand what the motivations were, and believe that they have a right to do that if it's their particular kink.

The problem with the word "violence" is that it conjures assumptions of anger and hate. When one person is "violent" with another, there's an automatic assumption that it's done to humiliate the other, to perpetuate a power imbalance, or simply because someone is depraved and enjoys inflicting pain. While the physical actions of many in the BDSM community may meet some of the technical definitions of "violence", our motivations aren't hatred or anger...we're motivated by love. I bind my wife for the same reason that some men give their wives cunnilingus...it gives me no direct pleasure, but it gives HER pleasure, and I enjoy pleasing her. Calling it "violent" assumes motivations that simply are NOT there. Calling it "violent" is an attempt to shame those who practice it, by perpetuating a perspective that is fundamentally incorrect.

[seabeyond]

169. so what? people get off on it. it is still violence. this is fuckin amazing. nt

[Xithras]

190. Whether it's "violent" is irrelevant. It's the motivations that are important.

Reread that last paragraph, because it's the important one. If you can't understand what I'm saying in that paragraph, then you're simply beyond understanding the motivations of the entire BDSM community.

But, to put it another way:

Two men square off. One punches the other.

In scenario #1, two men enjoy boxing. Both walk into the ring, and one hits the other because that's what the person being struck WANTED.

In scenario #2, one man is holding money that he just pulled from the ATM. The other wants it, so he hits him.

Fundamentally we're talking about the exact same violent action in the two scenarios, but consent and motivation make all the difference between one being "acceptable" and the other being "unacceptable". It is motivation and status of consent, and not the physical action, that is important when deciding whether something is "wrong".

You seem to be hung up on the physical activity itself, which is the worst possible way to judge the actions of others.

[seabeyond]

209. that is the question in the OP. all the rest is irrelevant. nt

[Xithras]

211. My answer may not have been literal, but my meaning wasn't. Consensual sex is never violent.

The word "violence" implies a power dynamic and motivations that aren't present in consensual sexual play. While the physical actions may seem violent when taken out of context, the actions aren't violent as a whole because there are no violent motivations.

Consensual sexual play cannot be violent.

[chervilant]

219. Dude...

Do you feel defensive about your sexual choices? Why so reluctant to call what you do violence? It is, by definition. Just because it's consensual doesn't change that fact.

[sibelian]

156. Isn't it ridiculous?

There doesn't seem to be any understanding of how ordinary communication or responsibility actually works.

[LittleBlue]

56. Hard to define

If the guy is lightly slapping her on the bottom or she's choking from a blowjob, that isn't necessarily violence. Sometimes the female porn star will lightly scratch or nibble on him, or even squeeze down there, and I don't think that's violence either.

It would have to be more than that, those are just common things done during sex. It's hard to draw the line because sex by its very nature causes aggressive feelings and behavior.

[AngryAmish]

58. anything taint related

[mwrguy]

172. tainted love...

Whoa oh oh

Tainted love

[Iggo]

73. ALL OF THEM!!!

Is that what you're looking for?

[joeybee12]

85. As my idol Sue Ann Nivens said, "Sex and violence? I didn't realize they...

...were two different things."

[bluestate10]

106. Any act that simulates rape is violent and should be banned, IMO. nt

[ancianita]

127. Yup."Pretend" porn violence should be banned.If pretend sex is imagined as real, so is the violence.

[ZombieHorde]

115. The Google definition for violent:

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

https://www.google.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=violent+definition&oq=violent+de&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l10.1136.2137.1.4262.7.7.0.0.0.0.139.670.4j3.7.0...0.0...1c.1.12.hp.95gABaV6p0U&pbx=1&biw=1051&bih=461&cad=cbv&sei=YfOUUsFr092gBN_AgvgG

[backscatter712]

150. So is getting a tattoo violent?

That's skin damage.

What about surgery? Is that violent? That involves cutting a person open. Oh, wait, that's done to treat medical condition and usually leaves the patient better off.

[seabeyond]

155. violence toward the body yes and i have even heard academia discuss invasive surgeries as

exactly that.

[ZombieHorde]

173. If we use the Google definition,

then yes, tattoos and surgery are violent. I guess we can view it as sculpting marble, which is both an act of destruction and an act creation.

[backscatter712]

183. That's the trick...

Tattoos and surgery may be violent by the dictionary definition, but people have them done to themselves on purpose, and sign forms beforehand indicating they give full legal consent.

This is why the idea of throwing people in jail for "violence during sex" is problematic, and I'd much rather draw the line at consent.

[seabeyond]

189. no one.... NO ONE said anyone should go into jail with a consented violent act. NO ONE.

the definition of violence does not draw a legal or illegal lline. anywhere. this is totally fabricated in your own mind. totally fabricated. defined? that means you are making this shit up

[backscatter712]

194. A lot of people in the thread about David Cameron's "rape porn" ban supported exactly that.

Since Cameron said his law would make no distinction between real and simulated acts, that means that yes, a lot of people were cheering the jailing of people engaged in consensual acts. IOW, anyone engaged in simulated, as opposed to real violence.

[FarCenter]

120. This? "Praying Mantis eats the head of her mate during sex"

[WinkyDink]

129. Who cannot discern violence or its simulation? Do we have a problem with detecting it in NON-porn?

[seabeyond]

132. just about everyone on this thread, lol. nt

[WinkyDink]

182. Heh.

[jberryhill]

130. Getting the dog off the bed first

She thinks it's a game of some kind

[backscatter712]

134. Hello children, today's secret word of the day is CONSENT!

Can you say it with me? CONSENT. (YAYYY!)

The line is drawn at the point of consent (YAAAAAY!)

If all parties involved are informed, consenting (YAAAAAY!) adults, then they get to do whatever they want, including spanking and whipping and tying people up.

It becomes rape when someone refuses to consent (yay) first.

Some people consent (YAAAAAAY!) to being spanked!

Some people consent (YAAAAAAY!) to having hot wax dripped on them!

Some people take a scene out of Fifty Shades of Gray and consent (yay) to reenacting it!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

135. anything against someone's will. aside from that it's really not my business

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. None of them. If it's violent, it's not sex. n/t

[seabeyond]

144. really? whipping leads to sex or part of the act, but not violent? you explain.

cause i really do not get it. verbally getting in a womans face and aggressively calling her a whole lot of really ugly and humiliating names, even though a supposed turn on is not violent cause he then throws her on the floor and fucks her. but none of that would be violent cause they had sex?

i do not get this. i really do not

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. "Acting" isn't violence either.

Ask her if that's what she wanted to happen. If she says no, then it was rape and not sex. If she says yes, then it was sex and not violence.

I've concluded that I will never, and don't have to, "get it", I only have to respect that different people have different sensibilities.

[seabeyond]

171. when acting you are not really grabbing the hair and yanking, causing pain. if they really do that

they would say that it was a very violent scene to have to act out.

we are not talking aout the definition of rape. that would be about consent. we are talking what consititutes violence. there is nothing in that definition about consent or not

[BuddhaGirl]

222. obviously, it's not YOUR kink, and if you "do not get" it

then don't get in other peoples' faces about it.

But as you've been told many times, other people DO enjoy that particular kink...when all parties CONSENT to it.

What you think about it matters not a whit to them. Live and let live.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

139. Everything Zen

There must be something we can eat
Maybe find another lover
Should I fly to Los Angeles
Find my asshole brother
Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Dave's on sale again
We kissy kiss in the rear view
We're so bored
You're to blame

Try to see it once my way
Everything zen
Everything zen
I don't think so

Raindogs howl for the century
A million dollars a stake
As you search for your demi-god
And you fake with a saint
There's no sex in your violence
There's no sex in your violence

Try to see it once my way
Everything zen
Everything zen
I don't think so

I don't believe that Elvis is dead
I don't believe that Elvis is dead
I don't believe that Elvis is, Elvis is

There's no sex in your violence

[tammywammy]

141. I think consent makes the difference.

Just like with boxing since both participants consent to beat the crap out of each other and there are rules you must abide. What would be considered unacceptable violent behavior without consent is acceptable when everyone agrees to it. Just like if you randomly beat someone up on the street you'd be arrested for assault, but inside the boxing ring it's okay.

I say it's the same in the bedroom. There are things people do consensually with each other that would be unacceptable violent behavior to a stranger on the street (i.e. biting, twisting, pulling hair, whipping/spanking).

YMMV

[seabeyond]

145. unacceptable violence, acceptable violence. with boxing it is violent. but it is acceptable violence

i really do not get why people redefine the word even though it has all the characteristics and meets the definition of violence.

football is violent. it is an acceptable violence. when they break the rules, it is an unacceptable violence and they are penalized. but we often describe football as having violent elements to it.

[backscatter712]

149. So who draws the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable"? Someone like Ken Cuccinelli?

The way he'd run things, even the slightest bit of tame foreplay that involves a girl wanting to be tied up would result in prison terms and a permanent entry on the sex-offender list.

[seabeyond]

151. wtf? a question was ask on what violent sex is. who the fuck cares what that dude is saying?

has nothing to do with anything.

it is clear you bring up who ever that person is to try to prude shame anyone that does not go with you non definition of violent sex. whatever. that has nothing to do with anything.

hitting is considered violent. pulling and yanking on hair would be violent. purposely, with intent to hurt to cause pain is violent. we have a definition. there is nothing in the definition that mention consent.

[backscatter712]

159. I bring him up because it's people like him who will be drawing the line.

You don't know who Ken Cuccinelli is? Interesting...

Ken Cuccinelli's a fundie freak, but he's a fundie freak who's also Virginia's attorney general. He has the power to file criminal charges, put people on trial, and throw them in prison. And he made it very clear that he would do that to anyone who doesn't have sex the way HE likes it. He wants to throw gay people in prison for having anal sex. If people want to get even slightly kinky in the bedroom, he wants to throw them in prison.

And if it's not Cuccinelli himself, it's going to be people like him. There's no shortage of fundamentalist right-wingers who want in your bedroom.

So is spanking violent?

In my experience, there are a lot of people who like being spanked and specifically request to be spanked during foreplay.

I draw the line at CONSENT. Sounds to me like you want to withhold from people the right to make their own decisions on what is and isn't acceptable in the bedroom. And I find that unacceptable.

Why is the concept of consent so difficult? Why is it always "consensual, but..." with you. NO. No buts. If she's giving uncoerced consent, she gets to draw the line. Not you.

[seabeyond]

164. there is NO line. there is a WORD. violence. what is the definition. what are the violent acts

in sex. there are violent acts in sex people do all the fuckin time. the Op was asking what the violent sex acts were. and everyone is redefining the word violence. that simple. that is the ONLY thing i am talking about.

do you ASSume i have never had any act of violence in sex? i have. i clearly knew it was a violent act. it turned me on. i enjoyed it. big fuckin shit. and i also know it was a violent act. so what. i am not so fuckin whatever that i cannot acknowledge it for what it is.

you seem to be the prude, and others, that you cannot even acknowledge the definition of a word.

what are you so fuckin afraid of? what do you have to protect?

[tammywammy]

199. I'm not really sure what you're trying to point out.

Are you upset because I said there's acceptable and unacceptable violence?

What sexual acts do you consider to be violent?

I don't see the OP as a straight black and white. As a society we have acceptable violence like in my example of boxing. I think it's the same regarding sex too. Assault is unacceptable violence.

I'm not redefining the word violence, I'm just adding additional discussion regarding societal usage and nuance of it.

[Blue_Adept]

201. Exactly.

I wanted to see what individuals believe to be violence in sex.

Some see slapping and spanking as violent.

Others don't see gagging as violent.

So on and so forth. There's no accepted basic level of what is violent in sex because it's all over the map, person by person.

[arely staircase]

147. anal dynamiting nt

[Kurovski]

242. *MEEP! MEEP!*

Deeply digitally depressed dental dams.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

177. Anal sex?

This post is chock full of homophobia and judgement.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

181. I'm well aware.

And I'm also well aware of homophobia and judgement when I see it. I'm sorry that what me and my partner choose to do offends you so much. Your whole post sounds just like the bullshit I had to hear from my backwards family. You're a bigot.

[RKP5637]

187. Agree and well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[LittleBlue]

185. More homophobic bull****

And it was imprinted on the freaky deaky person due to some creep (pervy teacher or parent) who beat the child and somehow it was sexually stimulating.

[RKP5637]

188. Definitely was exactly that! It was a homophobic bigoted poster count of 3 passing through. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

179. Oh boy.

And it was imprinted on the freaky deaky person due to some creep (pervy teacher or parent) who beat the child and somehow it was sexually stimulating.

Really? I was never beaten, molested or anything else. But I rather enjoy various aspects of it.

And saying anal sex is violent, well, that explains why a lot of conservatives are against it homosexuality then.

[HockeyMom]

192. Strangulation sex

While both parties may agree to it, there is a real danger that death can occur. Do they know the risks? I am sure they do,but what if it goes wrong? Did the person consenting to that type of sex, also consent to being in a coma, or death?

Has there been cases on this? Would that be considered an accident, or murder?

[loli phabay]

203. death by misadventure i would say.

[BainsBane]

208. You can choose

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

210. Maybe I'd know it when I see it. Umm.

I've been reading the recent "porn war" threads with interest. There are clearly two or more sides, there's obvious disagreement, both (all?) sides seem to be talking past one another, to some extent. The same terms keep coming up, but one gets the sense that different posters intend them in completely different ways. I'm reminded of an old Bloom County cartoon, in which Binkley finds a room full of economists in his Anxiety Closet. He begs them not to discuss the economy, so, of course, they do. They speak in specialized code words, talk past one another, contradict one another, contradict themselves.

I find myself wondering whether mainstream Democrats are as divided by the wedge issues, notably guns and pornography, that seem to divide us so thoroughly on DU. I wonder what would happen if we ever had a major election in which the key issues were guns and porn.

I find myself agreeing with both sides of these DU discussions, to varying degrees. I wish I understood the stances and beliefs behind the arguments a bit better. I think threads like this current one, where we try to define the terms in play, would be a good start to seeking clarification. That idea seems to fall apart rather quickly, though, as this thread immediately became a continuation of the previous arguments, which threads were, themselves, continuations. Somehow I doubt things would be clearer if one could dig back to the oldest ancestor thread in the DU porn wars. I wish someone would explain some of the stances in these threads, clearly and calmly, as though to an outsider. I tried Googling to get to the bottom of things, but that only led me to the same problem. Any discussion of these issues seems to start in the middle somewhere.

To address the real question of the thread... y'know, I'm not sure how to answer. I may not be kidding in my post title. It's the kind of thing I would know when I see it? There are some rotten things out there. This response is probably unhelpful.

[In_The_Wind]

215. Any act that causes bruising, pain or bleeding is going too far.

[nomorenomore08]

238. For me that would certainly be the case. In fact, I'm sure I'd stop long before that point.

I just don't presume to make that decision for any third party. Some folks are into some freaky shit but it's none of my business.

[NaturalHigh]

226. Anything in which either party does not consent.

[flvegan]

235. One who, seeking happiness, harms, oppresses or kills another being commits violence if

through that action, they detract, remove or otherwise take happiness away from that other being.

So anything non-consensual or occurring after the words "no" or "stop" or any like term. I suppose that anything involving regret could fall in here as well, if not also completely consensual.

[Rex]

241. None. I don't think sex and violence go together.

nt.