Writing and Reading Rape Fantasy Stories - The Ethical Implications

[HistBuff]

There are also people who look for and build controversies where things aren't really as bad as they say. I remember a violent critique of the 2006 movie called "The Hills Have Eyes". The person mostly panned the movie, stated it was too disturbing, immoral, etc., because of a scene where "a 14-year-old girl gets raped". This is the critique's claim and nothing more. When I actually looked up things, I found that Branda (victim) is played by an actress who was 24 and the age of Brenda was never mentioned and she was most likely in her late teens. The Fandom page https://the-hills-have-eyes.fandom.com/ ... r_(remake) lists her age as 19. Another such bozo panned Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones, because Padmé was "barely out of her teens and you could see her tummy". Give Me A Break! Nathalie Portman was 21 then. If that person wanted to pan one of her movies, I would kindly refer him/her to "Léon: The Professional", a 1994 movie where she plays a 12-year-old Mathilda who hits on the grown-up hero and wants to sleep with him (played by Jean Reno).

The most disturbing scene in a movie I ever watched was in "Death Rides A Horse", a 1967 movie I watched when I was only nine and it left me with the strong impression that anything can be shown in a work of art, no matter how immoral it is. I remember my mother being angry at my father for letting me watch it --- My bed time was about mid-way through the movie, but the rape scene happens right at the beginning where the 5-year-old hero watches when his family gets murdered along, this with the rape of his mother and his sister, who looks about 13-14. She was portrayed by actress Vivienne Bocca, whose birthdate I couldn't find; my take is she was no more than 15-16. This was indeed the far-west.

There is no nudity in the entire scene. The disturbing factor comes mostly from the daughter's age and the fact the victims are gunned down after. Back then, I wasn't aware of the Code era yet, and didn't know this movie was made in the sudden feeling of freedom when this Code was lifted. I was exposed to a host of movies produced in this "anything goes" mentality. I remember a western movie where I saw necrophilia being practiced by Indians on the daughters after the farmer and his family were massacred. I was 10 and forgot the title, but it absolutely reinforced in me the principle saying that art can show anything. By the time I was 15, this was the norm for me.

In my early teens, I watched the Friday the 13th movies (there were only four back then, up to The Final Chapter, released in theatres on Friday the 13th of April 1984). I got aroused by some scenes with a pretty girl who was by herself. I was like, "Hey, Jason could have raped her before butchering her!" It never remotely crossed my mind whether the girl was 17 or 20. In any case, she looked old to me since I was 12 when I watched it in VHS. Along with The Night Of The Living Dead (1968), and when the black hero is alone in the house with the girl, I was like, "Hey, he could rape her long and hard on that sofa!" and I was hard as hell! I also greatly enjoyed the assault scene in Death Wish. I was disappointed they didn't rape her all the way, but got hard when they sprayed paint on her butt. She had a lovely butt and looked like 17-19 yo.

In spite of all this, I'm actually more aroused by the implicit I perceive in many old movies, such as is shown in "The Last Command" = inspired directly from a 1955 movie and filled with massive rape scenes, my favourite being Consuelo raped by a platoon on a cannon in the immediate aftermath. The original version (elsewhere) shows a disturbing reality of war = adult soldiers encouraging drummer boys to partake in the rapes like what is seen in third-world armies with boy soldiers, but this is a very minor element. The main theme is Fort Alamo gets overrun and the women in it are gang-raped, and also raped by freed slaves.

There was implied or explicit sexual violence (or the threat of it) in countless novels I read. You can still buy Lolita in any library in Canada. Or Stephen King's IT for that matter (if you haven't read it, there's a sex scene involving a girl and a group of boys, all in their early teens). They are allowed in Canada because their content contribute to art. What strikes me the most was back then (1980s) it wouldn't have crossed my mind that under-18 sex in fiction would one day be seen as more problemating than babies getting their head smashed against a wall. What ticks me off the most is the disregard for artistic merit shown online vs. printed novels.

I think true art will show anything that can physically happen in this world; it will show the naked truth or imply it. This is what I loved about RavishU when I first joined there in 2019. In many of my works, you see morality and pure evil coexisting, and a stronger contrast will generally be better. I never write immorality for the sake of it, but I will if the plot demands it. Rules make this challenging, but not impossible.

[HistBuff]

I find the practice of protecting minors sensible. What consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business, neither is it of society. Consenting is the magical word in that statement.

Protecting minors is indeed sensible. The laws I grew up in didn't harm me personally, but they probably allowed sexual predators to prey on 14-15 year-old youth with impunity. I loved going in these 14-18 discos when I was a teen because I had fairly good chances to get spotted by a pretty girl who would then dance a slow shortly after. But these joints were also hunting grounds for sexual predators with false IDs and prostitution rings who had young "spotters". Bumping up consensual age to 16 in Canada was a sensible decision, especially with our Romeo & Juliet provisions allowing teens to have sex with one another, without having to hide like they do in California.

In the context of written fiction, we keep hearing underage sex must be banned for the sake of protecting minors. Does it really protect minors? We're talking about writing fiction. No teen is being filmed or photographed. No teen is actually harmed in its production. Thus, producing written fiction involving sex with minors does not actually hurt anyone. The only person being harmed could be the writer when he/she stays up at night due to excessive enthrallment in the creative process.

About reading such written content (no pics). The rationale for banning underage sex is like saying "violent media make people more violent". There was a lot of hysteria about this during the 90s. It's been well established that no, violent media does not make people more violent. Then why would reading written fiction with underage sex actually make adults more prone to start harming teenagers or children in real life?

In my opinion, such banning in the context of written fiction has a lot more to do with virtue signaling and ideology. Whatever rules a host has online won't make real-life pedophiles disappear.