What should the punishment be for enjoying gore?

[JustMeSee]

By enjoying, I mean purposeful watching for enjoyment.


Being that gore involves either the death of extreme mutilation of an individual anyone who gains any enjoyment from it (sadistic, sexual, or what have you) and thus enjoys (purposefully watches for entertainment) gore creates a demand for such. Shouldn't they be charged with a crime similar to mutilating/murdering a person?

What should the punishment be for enjoying gore?

Anyone found enjoying gore should be slowly tortured, and it should be televised.

 

[Jro]

What should the punishment be for enjoying gore?

Anyone found enjoying gore should be slowly tortured, and it should be televised.

My head hurts.

 

[JustMeSee]

My head hurts.

 

[solarwave]

Off the top of my head:

Watching real child pornography should be illegal because watching it promotes it being made.

Watching real gory videos should be illegal if they promote the act being done to be done again. I'm unsure if it should be illegal if it doesn't promote more of the same kind. It is so sick and horrible, but is it also their free choice to watch it? Then again the real death of another shouldn't be a source of excitement because humans have diginity. I want to say it should be illegal, but I don't know.

Videos which arn't real but are gory I guess should be legal. I assume this applies to some horror films (which I have never watched). I don't see why people would want to get a thrill from seeing another persons pain (even if it isn't real) but I guess it is their choice.

Fake child pornography should be legal if it doesn't lead to an increase of the real kind. If it leads to a decrease then even more so. I would say people can't help their attraction and so giving them an outlet could be helpful.

How far can you dictate morality even when it is sick and horrible to the average person?

 

[wanderingone]

Of course, if there's no sexual intent, there's no problem.

What if there was (sexual intent)? I'd certainly be horrified to find out someone took a pic of my kid running bare tushed down the sand and was masturbating while they fantasized... at the same time.. does the intent make a crime if no contact was made, no manipulation of the situation existed, no attempt to contact my child is carried out? Does distributing similar images equal child porn because the intent is to satisfy such attractions? (Again I'd probably be horrified, and have all the emotions anyone would have if they found their kids image in the hands of a pedophile.. even if that person had never actually touched a child-but how much can I criminalize and have it actually serve to protect the community?)

I'd rather someone who finds children sexually appealing used some sort of CGI than actual photos, and I don't think such things should be illegal no matter how offensive I find them, but I also don't know if I'm inclined to prosecute someone who took actual images regardless of their intent if the images are "innocent" meaning no contact, no interference, no peering through medical exam room windows etc..

 

[Skavau]

In an ideal world, it wouldn't exist (except perhaps for special effects produced stuff, and I agree special effects produce stuff involving no actual harm should be legal).

What about drawings of gore or child pornography?

Likely a result of not having an industry producing fake pornography. Most gore Americans watches is fake, produced by the entertainment industry. If the only gore out there was the real stuff, I would bet there would be a much greater stigma.

Very possibly. As I said, there are some videos out there with gore in that are relatively well known. They're usually found in Liveleak and I bought the two examples from the top of my head that I knew. What of them?

So is this just releasing 'built-up' emotion? What would the use of that be?

Nothing. It is entertainment. You cannot insist that certain forms of entertainment should be illegal or avoided through declaring them pointless. Effectively all fictional entertainment (video games, films, books) can be argued as being a waste of time and yet it adds so much to life.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Off the top of my head:

Watching real child pornography should be illegal because watching it promotes it being made.

Watching real gory videos should be illegal if they promote the act being done to be done again. I'm unsure if it should be illegal if it doesn't promote more of the same kind.

How can you be so sure child pornography promotes more of it's kind but gore doesn't. Obviously, in either case, if you pay for it, it results in more being made, but if you don't?

It is so sick and horrible, but is it also their free choice to watch it? Then again the real death of another shouldn't be a source of excitement because humans have diginity. I want to say it should be illegal, but I don't know.

But you are so sure about child pornography. Why are you so sure about it but not gore? The only difference is that you will have more accidental gore than child pornography (as already pointed out by another), but besides for that I don't see much difference.

Videos which arn't real but are gory I guess should be legal. I assume this applies to some horror films (which I have never watched). I don't see why people would want to get a thrill from seeing another persons pain (even if it isn't real) but I guess it is their choice.

Fake child pornography should be legal if it doesn't lead to an increase of the real kind.

Supply and demand. A person can only consume so much porn, so the more of it that is fake, the less demand there will be for the real stuff. In general, studies have found decrease in sex crime correlate with the legalization of pornography in general, including one study that found a country which legalized child porn had a drop in child sexual abuse at the same time (they have recently made it illegal again so there is more study into if this will result in an increase in child sexual abuse or not). Of course, correlation is not causation, but good luck getting the IRB to approve an experimental study on this issue.

If it leads to a decrease then even more so. I would say people can't help their attraction and so giving them an outlet could be helpful.

How far can you dictate morality even when it is sick and horrible to the average person?

What is sick and horrible is so culturally dependent. I have arachnophobia, so when I saw a video of some other culture eating tarantulas, I got the strongest rush of both fear and disgust. I think I would be less traumatized by watching a video of a 'donkey show'. I've even seen a documentary on cannibal that included them eating a human, and that was less disturbing than the group eating a spider.

In some cultures (namely Western culture in the past), the average person would have found child nudity/erotica (which is labeled child porn these days) quite normal and artistic, but would have been horrified about porn containing adults engaging in homosexuality.

 

[lawtonfogle]

What if there was (sexual intent)? I'd certainly be horrified to find out someone took a pic of my kid running bare tushed down the sand and was masturbating while they fantasized... at the same time.. does the intent make a crime if no contact was made, no manipulation of the situation existed, no attempt to contact my child is carried out? Does distributing similar images equal child porn because the intent is to satisfy such attractions? (Again I'd probably be horrified, and have all the emotions anyone would have if they found their kids image in the hands of a pedophile.. even if that person had never actually touched a child-but how much can I criminalize and have it actually serve to protect the community?)

What if, instead of taking pictures, he just looked and has a good memory? Making the pictures illegal is the first step to making looking illegal, and I have worked with individuals who study eye tracking, which could tell if he was staring at the child or not.

I'd rather someone who finds children sexually appealing used some sort of CGI than actual photos, and I don't think such things should be illegal no matter how offensive I find them, but I also don't know if I'm inclined to prosecute someone who took actual images regardless of their intent if the images are "innocent" meaning no contact, no interference, no peering through medical exam room windows etc..

Isn't the general rule that if you are in public, you have no normal expectation to privacy. Taking someone's picture if they decide to run in a naked marathon is legal. By normal, I mean what the normal individual would see. So if you wear a skirt, it is still illegal for someone to try to take a photo up it, because that is not normal.

 

[lawtonfogle]

What about drawings of gore or child pornography?

I dare say in an ideal world, no one would desire any type of sexual contact except that which is beneficial to all parties involved.

Very possibly. As I said, there are some videos out there with gore in that are relatively well known. They're usually found in Liveleak and I bought the two examples from the top of my head that I knew. What of them?

For consistency's sake (something I value greatly in law), they should be treated just like child pornography/nudity is currently treated. Worse actually, because murder/death is far worse than sexual abuse/nudity (respectively).

Nothing. It is entertainment. You cannot insist that certain forms of entertainment should be illegal or avoided through declaring them pointless. Effectively all fictional entertainment (video games, films, books) can be argued as being a waste of time and yet it adds so much to life.

I was actually aiming more for a "So that they don't release those emotions in a more harmful manner" explanation...

 

[rjc34]

What about special effect generated child pornography which is indistinguishable from the real stuff (by any normal person)... much like on CSI or SAW or any number of movies, you can't tell the real gore from the fake? Yet that is clearly illegal?

Anything that doesn't actually harm a real child should be 100% legal. Studies have proven it drastically cuts down the rate of child abuse anywhere it is available.

And same with real child pornograhy, I believe the law enforcement should only be going after the producers, and not the buyers. I hold the same belief for this imaginary 'real gore' sales model you have (from what I've read you're imagining people committing murder and taping it purely for the use of selling the video?) then again, go after the makers, not the buyers.

This also flows over into the hilariously wasteful and ineffective 'war on drugs' currently going on in the states... Locking up kids for having a couple grams of weed on them is just nuts, and while they're in prison all they do is learn to become better criminals. Leave the end user alone, and attack the supply if anything.

 

[rjc34]

Watching real child pornography should be illegal because watching it promotes it being made.

I half agree. I think if someone is caught with it they should be interrogated to find out where the source is, and they should have it deleted, but I don't think there should be any criminal action against them.

Watching real gory videos should be illegal if they promote the act being done to be done again. I'm unsure if it should be illegal if it doesn't promote more of the same kind. It is so sick and horrible, but is it also their free choice to watch it? Then again the real death of another shouldn't be a source of excitement because humans have diginity. I want to say it should be illegal, but I don't know.

How would this be enforced? I mean if I can just do a 10 second search and come to a site full of gore videos, should I be punished for watching them? These aren't for-profit videos, and are usually taken by third parties. They get put on the net for their shock value, nothing else.

Fake child pornography should be legal if it doesn't lead to an increase of the real kind. If it leads to a decrease then even more so. I would say people can't help their attraction and so giving them an outlet could be helpful.

Studies directly link the legalization of child pornography with a dramatic decrease in the number of child sexual abuse cases. This applies to the fake stuff.

How far can you dictate morality even when it is sick and horrible to the average person?

Personally I don't think morality should be legislated at all in cases that do not directly or indirectly harm anyone else. And thoughtcrime should never be illegal.

 

[Skaloop]

Sort of depends on what exactly counts as gore in this context. Are we talking snuff films, where a person is tortured and/or killed, or are we talking video of someone dying in a tragic accident?

Because the tragic accident stuff, I've watched it; the Faces of Death series back in the '90s, which is partly real footage and partly (mostly) faked with effects. I've watched some things on the internet. Why? Morbid curiosity. I find it interesting. I don't condone it and I don't want bad things to happen to people, but bad things do happen to people. If I choose to observe those bad things in some way, I don't see a problem. Other people may find it objectionable, but I probably find something they are interested in objectionable, too.

That's the accident sorts of things. For snuff films, I'd potentially watch something if I came across it (I don't search it out), but it would be horribly disturbing (maybe that's part of the "attraction"). Unless someone is contracting or organizing it to happen, I don't think it should be illegal to merely observe it.

Frankly, I think the fake murders and killings on TV and in movies, the way it is often glorified and celebrated and sanitized, are far more harmful, in terms of enticing people to do the same, than real-world versions of the same, which show the real gory, disgusting, horrific truth of committing such acts.

 

[GadFly]

What about the gore and violence in sports, taking American football and English soccer as an example. Nothing like a hard but legal collision to thrill the crowd of fans. Boxing, everybody likes knockout punch as compared to a TKO. Is there anything morally here to question and to debate? Were the Roman gladiators really that bad? How about ultimate fighting? Brock Lester seems like a nice fellow to me. Do we have any advice for him and what should it be?

P.S. How about little league football?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Anything that doesn't actually harm a real child should be 100% legal. Studies have proven it drastically cuts down the rate of child abuse anywhere it is available.

To turn that around, anyone for the banning of such material is actually supporting the abuse of real children. They are so interested in protecting the idea of a child that they are willing to sacrifice children. Surprising how many Christians take part in this sacrifice considering that God doesn't like child sacrifice, as a general rule.

And same with real child pornograhy, I believe the law enforcement should only be going after the producers, and not the buyers. I hold the same belief for this imaginary 'real gore' sales model you have (from what I've read you're imagining people committing murder and taping it purely for the use of selling the video?) then again, go after the makers, not the buyers.

This also flows over into the hilariously wasteful and ineffective 'war on drugs' currently going on in the states... Locking up kids for having a couple grams of weed on them is just nuts, and while they're in prison all they do is learn to become better criminals. Leave the end user alone, and attack the supply if anything.

The war on drugs is merely another thing that is going to bankrupt us. Before long, none of these questions will matter because police will be making so little, a bit of money and they'll overlook that bag of weed of folder of illegitimate images, real or fake. Oh, there will be a few good ones who will fight the corruption with all they have... till their child needs a massive operation.

 

[wanderingone]

What if, instead of taking pictures, he just looked and has a good memory? Making the pictures illegal is the first step to making looking illegal, and I have worked with individuals who study eye tracking, which could tell if he was staring at the child or not.

Isn't the general rule that if you are in public, you have no normal expectation to privacy. Taking someone's picture if they decide to run in a naked marathon is legal. By normal, I mean what the normal individual would see. So if you wear a skirt, it is still illegal for someone to try to take a photo up it, because that is not normal.

Yes, I'm really just speculating on the issue of intent. I don't think intent matters if no contact occurs.

In terms of any viewing habits, what I'm not comfortable with shouldn't create the legal consequences, the reality should. I can't say I'm squeamish at the thought of CGI/animated child porn, graphic sexual or other physical violence etc.. but I don't think it should be illegal

 

[Archer93]

Depends if I'm being facetious or not.

Ah- okay. Cool.

Including sexual stress/tension/desire, no? Thus I really question the wisdom of making fake porn images illegal. I'm wondering what do you think the reaction would be if we didn't allow the catharsis of gore/violence related emotions?

Either way, I learned a new word.

Speaking strictly for myself- sometimes I get tense and irritable. I'm in a bad mood and feel like snarling at everyone and everything. I feel like throwing things- or even like I want to rip someone's head off.

So I watch something like one of the 'Saw' films, with their high levels of violence and gore, which tap into my own violent mood. They present in a fictionalised form a magnified form of my feelings, and by watching it (and wincing) it burns out my own state. So by the time the end credits roll all my pent-up stress and tension is gone, and I am no longer snappy and irritable or want to throw things.
If I didn't have that means of release, I would remain in my original state, which would not be pleasant for those around me. I wouldn't actually get violent, but I would feel as if I wanted to, and I do not like feeling that way.

I could find other forms of release, of course, but I enjoy this one (I like the 'making of' features as well)- it's efficient and relatively quick.

In general- there seems to be a natural interest in horror among humans. It's been a popular genre throughout history- because in a funny way it's life-affirming. The more horrific the story, the more glad you are that it's not you in it. Plus the andrenaline rush from fear is a serious buzz.

 

[JadeTigress]

I like this topic. I find it quite interesting.

As a gorehound myself (both real and fake stuff), I don't think I should be punished for it. I'm not hurting anyone. And since the only money I'm shelling out is to rent movies (the real stuff is all online for free), which are fake, I'm not responsible for anyone filming snuff. So I don't feel that I'm doing anything wrong.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I like this topic. I find it quite interesting.

As a gorehound myself (both real and fake stuff), I don't think I should be punished for it. I'm not hurting anyone. And since the only money I'm shelling out is to rent movies (the real stuff is all online for free), which are fake, I'm not responsible for anyone filming snuff. So I don't feel that I'm doing anything wrong.

I'm just trying to imagine the reaction if you admitted you were a cphound instead. In some circles I know of, I think admitting you were an adultpornhound would be more stigmatized than what you said. I just think this issue gives a perfect picture of the US's (and other countries) hypocritical stance of violence and sex.

 

[solarwave]

How can you be so sure child pornography promotes more of it's kind but gore doesn't. Obviously, in either case, if you pay for it, it results in more being made, but if you don't?

I assumed the real gory was free on the internet.

But you are so sure about child pornography. Why are you so sure about it but not gore? The only difference is that you will have more accidental gore than child pornography (as already pointed out by another), but besides for that I don't see much difference.

I would say people are more likely to create child porn than kill someone for a video. I could be wrong, but I would say the difference is that if child porn is legal people are more likely to make it, but if gore is legal people are less likely to kill for it.

Supply and demand. A person can only consume so much porn, so the more of it that is fake, the less demand there will be for the real stuff. In general, studies have found decrease in sex crime correlate with the legalization of pornography in general, including one study that found a country which legalized child porn had a drop in child sexual abuse at the same time (they have recently made it illegal again so there is more study into if this will result in an increase in child sexual abuse or not). Of course, correlation is not causation, but good luck getting the IRB to approve an experimental study on this issue.

I've heard other people say this, so if this is true then fake child porn should be legal for the safety of real children. I assume the real this wouldn't happen is because politicians would be too scared to.

What is sick and horrible is so culturally dependent. I have arachnophobia, so when I saw a video of some other culture eating tarantulas, I got the strongest rush of both fear and disgust. I think I would be less traumatized by watching a video of a 'donkey show'. I've even seen a documentary on cannibal that included them eating a human, and that was less disturbing than the group eating a spider.

I don't know what a donkey show is.

In some cultures (namely Western culture in the past), the average person would have found child nudity/erotica (which is labeled child porn these days) quite normal and artistic, but would have been horrified about porn containing adults engaging in homosexuality.

Which is why I'm not saying I'm definitely right. I'm just giving my uninformed opinion.

 

[solarwave]

I half agree. I think if someone is caught with it they should be interrogated to find out where the source is, and they should have it deleted, but I don't think there should be any criminal action against them.

Do you mind me asking why they should delete it but not have a criminal charge? As long as it doesn't harm more children I'm comming to the opinion that people should be free to do what they like.

How would this be enforced? I mean if I can just do a 10 second search and come to a site full of gore videos, should I be punished for watching them? These aren't for-profit videos, and are usually taken by third parties. They get put on the net for their shock value, nothing else.

Isn't it possible to track what people search and say on the internet? If they don't promote more of the same thing I can agree with it being legal.

Studies directly link the legalization of child pornography with a dramatic decrease in the number of child sexual abuse cases. This applies to the fake stuff.

Are you saying real child pornography should be legal because it stops physical abuse to children? Or just the fake stuff?

Personally I don't think morality should be legislated at all in cases that do not directly or indirectly harm anyone else. And thoughtcrime should never be illegal.

I also don't think morality should be legislated and only things which threaten the security and liberty of others should be illegal, or things which threaten the interests of the society in general.