Are the porn studios so lacking in creativity that they have to go back to the worst of the 1970's for themes? Rape is a violation of personal space and should never be encouraged--gay or str8.

Like it or not, rape in some form or another is a very common fantasy for people of any sexual orientation, and probably always has been. So has violence. Why shouldn't studios cash in on that? Porn is about fantasy. If you don't have rape fantasies, you don't have to watch rape porn. Same goes for violent porn. If you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, you shouldn't be watching porn in the first place but that's probably the least of your problems.

The same goes for all the complaints about plot detracting from the sex. If you don't want plot, then don't watch it. There's no shortage of plotless banging if that's all you're interested in. Some people, however, obviously do want some plot, otherwise studios would have stopped producing it long ago. It's called capitalism.

No one is forcing anyone to buy or watch this movie or any other. Some people do get off on things that others consider taboo, unwholesome, or even sinful. Sound familiar?

Rape fantasies aren't uncommon. Especially for people who aren't entirely comfortable with their desires, they may sort of compartmentalize those desires into a rape fantasy that takes the control away from them. The key is this is still a fantasy, and the person is getting pleasure from it, since it's freeing them from having to fully take responsibility for their desires.

So it's reasonable that this sort of fantasy might be a fixture of some gay men's erotic imagination. You see it a lot in women, too, or anyone else who has felt the need to repress their sexual feelings at some point in their lives.

The question is whether it's responsible to incorporate realistic rape scenes into porn. It's been shown that actions depicted in porn don't "imprint" themselves on people and encourage them to do the same things. That rebuts the common anti-porn crusader argument that (straight) porn dehumanizes women. Still, it is an interesting question, and I would hope that the porn makers consider it carefully and really think about why they are putting out such material. Is it solely for shock value and to push the envelope? If so, maybe they should think better of it.

Rape is very serious... and I think there needs to be a distinction between the actual criminal act and the fantasy.

Also, Christopher Reid might want to start like cock... cause that's all he's going to get for awhile - if not forever - cause he faces life in prison for being convicted of rape.

I agree with Wolf -- Power plays a role in many people's sexual fantasies.

If you don't like it -- don't buy it: Vote with your dollar and let the market decide this.

These are really tricky issues in my opinion. On one hand, many people -- myself included -- have fantasies about being raped. Porn is an area where I think most of us want as many different choices as possible, and as little censorship as possible as well. However, is it true that realistic depictions of rape in porn actually trigger some wonky people to go out and actually commit rape? If it is, I think studios shouldn't turn a blind eye to the effects their products are having on society.

In any event, I think the treatment Wyler received after he reported being raped is just appalling. How jaded are people?

"...which ultimately prompted Mason to publish extensive, and irrefutable proof on his blog.*"

Actually, if you check the extensive discussion of the matter out over on my blog, you guys will see that the issue of Mason Wyler's "rape" is FAR from irrefutable:

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2008/10/tawana-brawley-of-gay-porn.html

The "black eye" photo, in particular, has been refuted to the point of metaphysical certainty that it is in fact a photoshop fake.

And then of course there was the photoshopped fake police reports (that you might have missed while on your internet-free vacation; Mason hastily deleted those once Queerclick exposed those as forgeries):

http://www.queerclick.com/archive/2008/10/mason_wyler_beaten_and_raped.php

It's a free country, you guys can obviously believe what you want to believe...but I must say, my readers and I got quite a hearty chuckle this morning when we saw this post describe Mason's "evidence" as "irrefutable!"

Mason Is a liar!
Take a look at the facts guys!

Frankly, male rape does exist in real life. If we are talking about either a teleplay, screen play, or stage drama in which a portrayal of rape is meant to move the action of the drama, I think it might be allowable because there is an attempt at verisimilitude, to portray an actual event, or to educate the public.

I make a distinction between the protrayal of a rape for a documentary or even drama, especially if public awareness of the violence that is rape is the goal, stated or unstated.

If we are talking gratuituous, near-violent domination and agression, no I am not for its portrayal in adult film because, unfortunately, some individuals would be encouraged to try the imitate the rape in real life. In a nutshell, rape is a violation of the person of another by means of force, coercion, and seduction. I don't believe we should give simulated rape playtime in other situations because someone believes it is the new fetish du jour.

As far as the Wyler matter goes, the most "refutable" aspect of his account is that there were so many of them -- six in all, I believe, with each one differing in many crucial aspects from the previous one. There is just no way for a rational person not to be skeptical. My own view is that something unpleasant probably occurred, but it was nothing like a "rape" as we understand that term. And I do think he milked it for publicity's sake.

For anyone who is interested and has the time, the following very long thread in the JustUsBoys forum is very revealing. It starts out with the majority of posters being very sympathetic to him, but as the obfuscations and lies started to be uncovered, the tide turned very quickly to most posters not believing him.

Wyler also posts in that thread, and simply stonewalls requests by me and others to explain the doctored "black eye" photo. That silence speaks volumes IMHO.

Ahttp://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235184

The correct version of that JustUsBoys link I mentioned above:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235184

Porn is about FANTASY from start to finish with 'beautiful' people engaging in sexual activities at the drop of a hat (or more often some other piece of clothing) using some improbable positions in a variety of (sometimes very strange) locales. Maybe there are some people who can walk into a bar filled exclusively with good-looking hunks and start an orgy within 5 minutes, but I've never seen it happen, nor do I expect to see it happen outside of a porn film/clip.

So when you're talking about 'rape' in porn one has to keep the fantasy element always in mind. So as long as we're talking about 'simulated' rape and murder and not the filming of actual rape or snuff, what's the big deal? RJ Danvers was NOT brutally murdered this summer while making 'To the Last Man' and is now at home, going to school and blogging about a variety of topics, including how much fun it was making the movie. And, as it is pointed out previously, it will be up to consumers to decide whether to buy/rent that movie or support that genre. And if people do support it, I don't think we're in any position to condemn them (or producers for making them), as long as it remains clearly understood that this is simulated-fantasy and has the full consent of the participants from start to finish.

Because I do NOT buy the 'monkey see - monkey do' argument. Rape has been going on long BEFORE the advent of photography and if all the pictures/videos/dvds/etc. of porn involving simulated rape/forced sex were to suddenly disappear tomorrow, there would still be men and women being raped.

As for the failure of people to believe Mason's rape claims, there were no doubt a few who were influenced by his background in porn. The phrase 'you can't rape the willing' is almost always trotted out by someone at some point who is disinclined to believe the victim. But, in Mason's case, the way he broke the story and revised and re-revised the more improbable details as time passed is what, I believe made most people into skeptics. In other words the majority of those who doubted were not saying 'Male rape can't happen' or 'Mason's making it all up' but rather 'there are so many holes and lies and contradictions in Mason's various accounts that one doesn't know when, or if, he's telling the truth'.

In any event, allowing a gun-toting stranger into your house and consenting to him tying you up seems to me to be a on a totally different level of risky/irresponsible behaviour than watching, or even producing, porn with simulated rape scenes...

I just wanted to add a footnote to the Mason Wyler story:

I just discovered today that the fake "black eye" photo we mentioned above, which was posted by Wyler with his original account of the "rape," has only fairly recently been removed from his blog. However, it still accompanies the interview he gave to AVN, in which he was supposedly attempting to set the record straight.

http://www.avn.com/gay/articles/32746.html

I know that there are those who still believe in Mason's story, but I do not. I feel it is unfortunate and insensitive of him to have carried a blog posting into a literal portrayal as he has done. For what it is worth, the "irrefutable evidence" that he has posted consists of paperwork that could easily have been faked. Since, he has faked so many other things in this regard (paperwork and fake photos), I cannot believe anything other than this was a cruel, selfish hoax and I will no longer buy any of his vids. Case closed on a liar.

I agree with Lars,
I do not purchase many porn DVD's,
[cleaning lady always winds up picking them up].
I did purchase "Black and Blue" because of MW.
Now, having paid attention to this man for a brief period of time.
Well, to put it bluntly, he makes me sick!

Why is is so important for people to spend time debunking accounts of rape? Honestly, it makes you seem like the most colossal asshole that ever walked the planet.

It is important to be told the truth, Chriso. I do not wish to harm anyone, but I expect to at least be treated with truth and decency. Mason Wyler has treated all of his fans with contempt and disdain. It is Mason Wyler, the liar, who is an a--hole as you so aptly put it.

chrisso - Tell that to the Houston PD, Ben Taub Hospital, the Dallas PD, Parkland Hospital, Dallas PD Detective Arleen Martinez, the U.S. Army and all of the "troops," MW's cop neighbor who "ignored" his cries for help, etc. These were all real people and institutions slandered by MW if his story is false.

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team while you're at it. And to all REAL victims of rape,

I believe in Mason. Why do queers have to be so judgemental. He has my support. Until you have some real proof that this was a fake you are victimzing the person who just was raped. Mason seems like a real honest person on his blog and I enjoy reading them. Must we cast stones?

what is so "irrefutable" about this "evidence"? He's a liar... his police reports were exposed as forgeries and he's now screening comments so that it looks like the public supports him.

Any real survivor of rape should hate this guy.

You are all a bunch of faggots! WHy don;y you all go to hell, you mother fuking corn holers! Fuk you beches!!

D ULERY

Why the naked photo and commission-paying link for Jack Venice? That looks like you're wanting us, your readers to be titillated by him, and/or to ensure you make money out of reporting him as being a rapist. Or, to put it another way, if Mason's rapist turned out to be a porn actor too, would you want us to buy his videos?

Doesn't really wash well with your apparent concern for rape in gay porn that is reflected in the rest of your post.