Somnophilia definition

[Jeka]

I have absolutely no problem at all with the sites from Rage Cash. They are just fantasy rollplays and therefore should be treated as those and not compared to rape or incest pornography.
You can't say old men fucking "young" teens (18+) is cp neither! All the models and actors make good money of that and they chose to do it.

[Trixie]

Random notes:

*The word is CONSENSUAL, not CONSENTUAL.

*Re: "If you don't want to see it, don't look at it." I am so sick of hearing this "argument". The concern with controversial depictions of nonconsensual sex is that THERE MAY BE CONSEQUENCES THAT IMPACT PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE FOLKS WHO CHOOSE TO WATCH IT. Not looking at it yourself doesn't protect from those consequences. If there are people who confuse fantasy on a porn site with reality, and deduce from it that it's okay to, for example, start fucking a sleeping woman's dry pussy without her consent . . . the woman is going to pay the price for that whether she watched that porn or not. GET IT??

I don't agree with blacklisting or shutting down the sleep site (I'll personally promote it myself), or other controversial porn, but to act as though there are no potential negative consequences, and to not discuss these rationally or try to find ways to limit them, is STUPID.

*Re: "Pornographers criticizing porn are hypocrites". Oh spare me. There are almost as many types of porn and extremes of porn as there are individual fantasies. To pretend it's all the same and not make any differentiation between (just as an example) a softcore foot fetish site and a hardcore double anal site is moronic. This is like certain people who pretend an abortion in the third trimester is just as kosher as one in the first. Everyone shoots themselves in the foot by refusing to acknowledge differences. I am not suggesting that any type of porn filmed with the consent of adults should be illegal . . . but the ethics of porn should be open for discussion. It should be fun and empowering to discuss these things, not something that opens you up for ridicule. Higher level thinking skills? ANYONE?

There are a lot of things being said on this issue that I agree with, but so many more that just smack of sheer unwillingness to go the distance with logical trains of thought that it drives me apeshit.

Another thing: I love me some taboo porn, as I mentioned in this thread, and I believe in people's rights to produce such porn . . . but I also respect that we all are allowed and justified to have our own bad reactions to whatever bothers us. I do get a little sick of male webmasters acting like it's oversensitive for some of us to get pissed when we see 90% of porn depicting women in ways that are unrealistic, degrading, and in cases like this one, BEING RAPED. Yes, it's a fantasy . . . but it's getting a little stale. And if women weren't raped all the time, and if it weren't for 50% of rapes in this country not even leading to an arrest, I might think we were being oversensitive about it. If there were more sites depicting men in these positions, I might think you guys have a leg to stand on, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think the overabundance of porn that degrades women, shows them having sex that is physically harmful/dangerous, shows them being humiliated, dominated, and forced into sex, isn't at least a sign of bigger problems, if not a contributing factor in those problems. It's not being oversensitive to acknowledge that something is fucked up with this picture.

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Trixie

I don't agree with blacklisting or shutting down the sleep site (I'll personally promote it myself), or other controversial porn, but to act as though there are no potential negative consequences, and to not discuss these rationally or try to find ways to limit them, is STUPID.

It is easy to cast dispersions on others. So Trixie, I ask you in what ways do we "limit them"?

--art

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

It is easy to cast dispersions on others. So Trixie, I ask you in what ways do we "limit them"?

--art

Dispersions??????? WTF?

I am talking about limiting NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. And how to do so was discussed in the other thread which I posted a link to earlier; perhaps you did not read it or you wouldn't be jumping to the conclusions.

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Dispersions??????? WTF?

I am talking about limiting NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. And how to do so was discussed in the other thread which I posted a link to earlier; perhaps you did not read it or you wouldn't be jumping to the conclusions.

Hi Trixie,

No, I didn't read your posts on the other thread. Now having read it, I must still disagree.

Government mandated warning on packages of cigarettes don't stop people from smoking. [Yes, smoking is an addiction but sex can be too.] Anyhow, who decides which sites require a warning and what the warning should entail? A warning message on the site in question would not change someone's behavior anyway ["--- and BTW, don't do this at home ... or anywhere else!"]. If a individual webmaster wishes to provide warning on his/her sites than more power to him/her but that is not "us" limiting "them". That is a voluntary control put on by an private individual. Putting limits on individual behavior, via the use of force, is the right of government.

And yes, I would defend the right to create a "site where gangs of women descended on sleeping men's asses and anally raped them with giant dildos" if, as I have stated previously, those involved are adults and they give informed consent. Sexually fantasy is never "politcally correct".

Finally, I have a question for you. If you find the lack of a disclaimer so improper and it enrages you so, why would you consider promoting RageCash? Surely, you would stand on principle and not allow Ragecash to profit from a site for which you are so vehemently opposed?

Regards,

---art

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

Hi Trixie,

No, I didn't read your posts on the other thread. Now having read it, I must still disagree.

Government mandated warning on packages of cigarettes don't stop people from smoking. [Yes, smoking is an addiction but sex can be too.] Anyhow, who decides which sites require a warning and what the warning should entail? A warning message on the site in question would not change someone's behavior anyway ["--- and BTW, don't do this at home ... or anywhere else!"]. If a individual webmaster wishes to provide warning on his/her sites than more power to him/her but that is not "us" limiting "them". That is a voluntary control put on by an private individual. Putting limits on individual behavior, via the use of force, is the right of government.

Where did I say these warnings should be mandated? I never said that, nor did anyone else. Nor did I say there should be some higher power determining how they should be written.

And yes, I would defend the right to create a "site where gangs of women descended on sleeping men's asses and anally raped them with giant dildos" if, as I have stated previously, those involved are adults and they give informed consent. Sexually fantasy is never "politcally correct".

So we agree . . . I never said porn should be politically correct, or that people's fantasies should be sanitized. I myself confessed to enjoying a good incest fantasy along with high fiber and brushing my teeth after every meal. However, I do think posing "what ifs" to the crowd of mostly-men who are unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest danger of a site that depicts sleeping women being violated IS important to do. You may not have a double standard, but many people do.

Finally, I have a question for you. If you find the lack of a disclaimer so improper and it enrages you so, why would you consider promoting RageCash? Surely, you would stand on principle and not allow Ragecash to profit from a site for which you are so vehemently opposed? Regards,

---art

Again, you have plastered my statements with your own preconceptions and assumptions. If you truly want the answer to this, reread what I have said before and subtract all of the layers of personal bullshit blurring your comprehension. I am all for taboo fantasies, I am all for people running their sites the way they want to, I am all for free speech.

Controversial sites are not going to go away if I boycott them, nor do I necessarily want them to even if I am critical of certain aspects of them. I have no problem making money recommending the latest degrading unimaginative ignorant thing on the scene; hell -- I will even masturbate to it. Promoting other people's sites is not the mainstay of my income as I have my own paysites, otherwise maybe it would get to me.

I am not "enraged" by the sleep site or meatholes or little april or really any of the individual sites that have sparked so much discussion over the years. I am frustrated by people's unwillingness or inability to think critically about them, looking at the issues from all perspectives.