Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 03:09:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

(actual) Obscene Films

Started by Noodle Lizard, April 02, 2013, 04:53:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hank Venture

Quote from: thenoise on April 11, 2013, 06:45:04 PM
Most people who end up arrested for viewing child pornography have paid for it, haven't they?  If you enter your credit card details then you are helping to fund the makers of this stuff, which makes you partly responsible for the crime.

Surely that depends on whether or not it's produced for sale? If it was produced like 3guys1hammer it's just some sick person doing it for fun, the footage being leaked out after the case has been up in court. I don't think you could use that as a valid defense.

Noodle Lizard

I don't really know.  I can watch as much simulated rape as I'd like (including stuff involving children in 'Mordum' and 'A Serbian Film'), but I'd really never want to see a real rape.  Even Max Hardcore or Meatholes stuff seriously bothers me for that reason.

Zetetic


Danger Man

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on April 11, 2013, 07:13:16 PM
I don't really know.  I can watch as much simulated rape as I'd like (including stuff involving children in 'Mordum' and 'A Serbian Film'), but I'd really never want to see a real rape. 

I can understand this because real rapes (like real anythings) aren't stylised and are rather shabby.

But, on the other hand, being 'real' really piques the morbid curiosity.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: hedgehog90 on April 11, 2013, 10:04:26 AM
Someone mentioned videos of child abuse earlier.
I really don't see how this video of a man having his head pummelled with hammers (?) is BETTER than watching a child being rape.

Better under what terms? Better or worse than what?

QuoteThey're both horiffic, but if I was forced to watch it (a la clockwork orange), I know I would rather see the latter than the former. (ignoring the legallity of it ofcourse)
And my gut feeling is that it's morally worse to watch a graphic video of murder than rape.

What is the moral foundation you are using to say that one is worse than the other?

QuoteIf you are so curious to see these murder videos, what stops you from watching a bit of child porn?

I wouldn't be able to watch that, that's what stops me. For others it might be the same, or it might be law, or both. It depends on what you consider child porn. Some child porn is images of naked children - something you would see on any British beach in the summer.

QuoteI'm not outraged/accusing you or anything. I'm just curious, because I think you could easily use your argument for watching murder videos and use it to defend watching child porn.

I don't know that anyone is really justifying the watching of 'murder videos', rather than responding to the notion that there is something inherently wrong with a person for choosing to watch it.

For the sake of clarity and rationalism, it's probably also useful to note that the majority of 'gore' videos on the internet are not scenes of murder, but rather scenes of non-lethal brutality, or post-mortem. It's getting a bit specific, but I actually do not find the 2guys1hammer video that disturbing, partially because the guy is pretty much unconscious or close to unconscious from the point the video starts. Some of the non-lethal 'torture' videos are far harder to watch, at least for me.

Hank Venture

AM I GOING TO DO A POINT-BY-POINT REPLY TO JOHNNY TOWNMOUSE IN THE IMMINENT FUTURE? WHO KNOWS, STAY TUNED KIDS.

srsly, I've been busy, it's coming.

æøå

Johnny Townmouse

Nah, pithy and brief works fine.

Hank Venture

Hold on, looking up what 'pithy' means.

"pith·y  [pith-ee]  Show IPA
adjective, pith·i·er, pith·i·est.
1.
brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning; terse; forcible: a pithy observation.
2.
of, like, or abounding in pith."

Oh look, advice to keep it brief and meaningful from someone who keeps coming back to the semantics I've already explained how I meant. Thanks!

Johnny Townmouse


Hank Venture

That, and more, when we return!

Noodle Lizard


chocky909

Fuck off Noodle. I love a thread with quotes divided into 10 or more sections.

Famous Mortimer

I DEMAND MORE FISKING

I saw that "guy killing himself to Bjork" video a while back, and I just laughed at it. He made a big point of saying "My last words- Fuck you all" (or something like that) but I laughed at the thought "well, mate, your actual last words were blthterhegrbjhrngngrib as you slumped to the ground". But I just don't want to watch that sort of thing any more.

Clint Hollow

Yeah, that sounds hilarious.

Cohaagen

I also watched the Bjork stalker video diary. It's distinctly non-obscene but does feature possibly the only footage of a dangerously obese Hispanic preparing an acid bomb in the nude while protected only by a heavy plastic apron. The whole thing was tragic rather than disturbing.

The only time I've ever walked out of a film in disgust was during whatever Jackass it was where Chris Pontius drank the horse spunk. It wasn't so much that act itself, but the closeups showing the climax spasms of the animal's gigantic veiny baseball bat-sized cock and accompanying grimace of pleasure. Like "funny" videos of zoohouse apes pissing in their own mouths that kind of imagery can put me off shagging for months because I'm a sexual neurotic and the memory has a tendency to "repeat" on me as I approach the Japanese fighter pilot stage.

Hank Venture

Did you watch Jackass 3? There's a scene in there depicting an erupting anus I found, frankly, distasteful.

The Masked Unit

Honestly Johnny, the mental hoops you're having to contort yourself through to justify your attraction to these films. Just admit you like it, wank yourself stupid while watching it and be honest with yourself.

Johnny Townmouse


The Masked Unit


Johnny Townmouse

Although, of course, it was always about whether people who watch that material have something wrong with them, rather than simply justifying the watching of it.

Cohaagen

Quote from: Hank Venture on April 13, 2013, 02:29:12 PM
Did you watch Jackass 3? There's a scene in there depicting an erupting anus I found, frankly, distasteful.

I can't remember what Jackass it was. I'm not a fan of the series and was dragged along to it by someone who is. I like the stuff with manned homemade rockets, and the ever-present possibility of one of them seriously injuring themselves, but the constant animal cruelty etc. really turns me off. Call me a moralist - call me J Harvey Kellog - but if you drink fresh, still-warm stallion spunk that doesn't make you a meng to be afforded the respect of your peers. On the contrary, you've just handed in your man card and testicles to the big fat black police chief for him to put in his drawer and sigh.

McFlymo

Hold on, child rape being filmed is obviously BAZILLION TIMES more morally corrupt and wrong than watching a video of some man or woman being killed / murdered / dying:

My curiosity to peer into these gruesomely violent videos, as I think someone mentioned before in this thread, is a sort of 'endurance test'.

Asking myself, 'how far can I go with this before I'll wait to run away crying?'

I don't see that as something that makes me a sick or fucked up person. It's something that makes me curious and slightly masochistic, but it plays into the human condition of empathy for other people: 'Can I see someone be murdered and feel nothing?' That's part of that same curiosity ... Then I'll watch whatever nasty it is and 10 seconds later... A thundering moral revulsion within confirms, "NO. Definitely not. And thankfully not. I still have a sense of disgust and despair at seeing this. Phew... But now I also feel quite sad and need to run away from this for a while..."

The difference between the mudered / gruesomely violent real video AND anything fucked up to do with kids is that with the violent stuff: It has happened, there's nothing you can do about it now, it's a recording and it's in the past. With anything sexual happening to kids, that's corruption of a young life, that should never happen, that should never be filmed or shared. To me there's a wide gulf between the two.

I'm not saying it's OK to share men and women being beaten or murdered, but if that stuff exists, then it exists, well fine, bring it on.

If it's children and there's anything sexual going on, burn that, burn anyone who distributed it and continue to find the people who made it and burn them too.

Sorry if that seems morally strange, I don't think it does: Children should never be raped or sexualised and much less filmed or photographed in this way, less again should these images or films be shared anywhere. I don't think it's even remotely similar to the kind of thing seen in 3guys1hammer.

Although I must say, even reading a bit of the description of what that video was on wiki was enough for me to steer well clear.

Johnny Townmouse

I can see why people equate the two, but as with moral debates that descend into mentioning Hitler, it is the go-to subject when discussing the watching of extreme material.

As it turns out, over the last few days billions of people watched gore videos of an event from multiple angles and actively downloaded images of dead or heavily injured people. But it was an act of terrorism in Boston so they were able to contextualise it - and framed it as news, so that it becomes morally acceptable. I personally do not see much difference, and I also don't think those billions of people have anything wrong with them.

I remember as a child seeing footage of the Bradford city stadium fire, or the Heysel stadium disaster. All of the footage was close to as bad as most material you find on gore sites.

phantom_power

Surely the context is everything. If you are viewing those images to better understand what has happened in a recent news event there is some sort of point to it over and above watching grimness for the sake of it, or staring into the void or whatever. I'm not making a moral judgement but there is clearly a difference.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: phantom_power on April 18, 2013, 11:21:45 AM
Surely the context is everything. If you are viewing those images to better understand what has happened in a recent news event there is some sort of point to it over and above watching grimness for the sake of it, or staring into the void or whatever. I'm not making a moral judgement but there is clearly a difference.

I'm not sure that it really matters, and as I noted a few posts up, this isn't about justifying watching the material, so much as making it clear that context does not define whether there is something wrong with the viewer.

What you are talking about concerns the context of why the person is viewing that material, and I would say that people might watch a horrific video like 2guys1hammer with no documentary framing purely for the purposes of educating themselves or interest, whilst conversely it is possible for someone to view the recent Boston footage within a news context purely for the sake of salacious entertainment, or 'perhaps' because there is something mentally wrong with them that draws them to such material. The two are interchangable, but the context of how that material is viewed (on a gore site, or on the news) doesn't define the reason someone is viewing it.

phantom_power

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 18, 2013, 11:36:20 AM
I'm not sure that it really matters, and as I noted a few posts up, this isn't about justifying watching the material, so much as making it clear that context does not define whether there is something wrong with the viewer.

What you are talking about concerns the context of why the person is viewing that material, and I would say that people might watch a horrific video like 2guys1hammer with no documentary framing purely for the purposes of educating themselves or interest, whilst conversely it is possible for someone to view the recent Boston footage within a news context purely for the sake of salacious entertainment, or 'perhaps' because there is something mentally wrong with them that draws them to such material. The two are interchangable, but the context of how that material is viewed (on a gore site, or on the news) doesn't define the reason someone is viewing it.

While that is true I think someone is more likely to seek out footage on its own for prurient reasons and the people viewing the Boston footage are more likely to be doing so for more educational reasons. Obviously you can get both sorts of people in both categories but the way someone has sought this experience can be a good indicator of their reasons

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: phantom_power on April 18, 2013, 11:44:47 AM
While that is true I think someone is more likely to seek out footage on its own for prurient reasons and the people viewing the Boston footage are more likely to be doing so for more educational reasons. Obviously you can get both sorts of people in both categories but the way someone has sought this experience can be a good indicator of their reasons

I think that's absolutely fair enough, and agree for the most part. However, I would also add as a caveat that people who use gore sites and actively seek out material are arguably more psychologically in touch with the reasons they are doing it. It does force you to think about what the fuck you are doing, given how horrid the sitemasters and forum users clearly are. On the other hand, I think some people genuinely believe they are downloading images of a man in Boston with his calves blown off to find out what is happening, whereas conversely they may be subconsciously getting a prurient satisfaction need fulfilled.

I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate on this subject for the sake of it, I think there are some common-sense conclusins to be drawn, such as your post, but I also think it is more complex than some people would like to believe.

As another caveat, for no good reason other than to note it, the image in the disturbing documentaries thread of the girl with her hair cut putting her hands out towards her killer is easily the most disturbing thing I have seen for a few months, excepting the Catching Britain's Paedophiles documentary. That image is burned into my frontal lobe and frankly is fucking me up a bit this week.

phantom_power

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 18, 2013, 12:32:58 PM
I think that's absolutely fair enough, and agree for the most part. However, I would also add as a caveat that people who use gore sites and actively seek out material are arguably more psychologically in touch with the reasons they are doing it. It does force you to think about what the fuck you are doing, given how horrid the sitemasters and forum users clearly are. On the other hand, I think some people genuinely believe they are downloading images of a man in Boston with his calves blown off to find out what is happening, whereas conversely they may be subconsciously getting a prurient satisfaction need fulfilled.

I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate on this subject for the sake of it, I think there are some common-sense conclusins to be drawn, such as your post, but I also think it is more complex than some people would like to believe.

I think that is a very good point. I looked at the photo of the runner missing hi s lower leg and it was only as I was looking at it that I realised I was just rubbernecking. The only difference is that I didn't actively seek it out, which again I think is an important difference.

Also in a similar way to you saying things are more complicated than some people are making out, I think there are probably a lot of people who go to those real life gore sites who are deluding themselves in some way that they are doing it for nobler reasons than they actually are.

but yeah, in the main there is a complex mix of intentions, motives and rationalisations when it comes to all this

thenoise

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 18, 2013, 12:32:58 PMexcepting the Catching Britain's Paedophiles documentary...

The child pornography shown within that documentary is pretty horrendous - obviously carefully censored to avoid both the identification of the innocents and any illegal content, but making it clear what is going on.  I'm still surprised they showed as much as they did, to be honest.