Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tarot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Take for example the freeview x-rated porno

> > sites,fed into every home.

>

> Do you mean the phone line channels? X-rated?

> Good grief. Google 'x-rated' and I suspect you'll

> find a couple of websites that'll make your false

> teeth fall out.

>

> And the porn/rape link theory was trashed years

> ago.



Loz is quite right here. One of the chapters in the book I referred to earlier, Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures, does a pretty extensive overview of the research into a supposed rape/porn connection and the compelling evidence is that the completely opposite state of affairs is the case - the avalability of sexually explicit material is associated with a decrease in crimes of sexual violence.


The governments know that but it doesn't suit their agenda. A very extensive Home Office study was commissioned in the 1980s (think it was the 80s, might have been the 90s) which reviewed all the available evidence, refuted any connection between porn and sexual violence and recommended the legalisation of pornongraph. When presented to the government of the day (who were clearly hoping for an opposite conclusion to justify a populist stance against porn) the report was promptly ignored!


Same with the US. Major scientific study commissioned by the government of the day failed to find a connection. That didnt suit the government so they commissioned a second report that more or less abandoned scientific method and instead focused on various weepy anecdotes from people "destroyed by pornography".


The real, proper, scientific and anthropological evidence is as Loz says it is.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Think you're gonna need to back that Damian H ;-)


The evidence is easily available for anyone who wants to find it - I have no intenio of doing anyone's research for them. The book I mentioned is a good start for anyone who is interesed.

I think if you read my post and my reply to you you will see that I point you clearly in te direction of the evidence. Let me repeat it - 'Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures' by Avadon Carrol and Alison Assister. Whole chapter summarising the research on pornography and sexual violence by, if I recall, Alsion Reid from University of Reading.


Another source would be the website of Feminists Against Censorship. Also search for the Home Office report into pornography - am sure it can be found smewher online.


Am afraid I have not got the time or the nclination to distil decades of research and evidence for the benefit of the readers of this forum.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eh? That was an opinion piece too?

>

> Look, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that

> reference has about as much validity as saying

> 'look what Huguenot said'.


Huguenot, if you are incapable of extracting the research and facts from the opinion that accompanies it, that is not my fault. There is a very considerable amount in there that goes way beyond mere opinion. Re-read it and you will see that the findings and conclusions of a significant number of experts who have been appointed to look at this issue have been reported and directly contravene the populist notion that pornography leads to sexual violence.

But where is your evidence that any of them were murderers because of pornography Tarot? Pornography does not turn someone into a psychopath or serial killer. People with those psychological profiles develope them from an early age long before they ever come into contact with any pornography. Sexual/ violent abuse in childhood is far more likely to be a factor for many sadistic killers but the majority of children that are abused do not develop into sadistic murderers either.

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pornography plays a key role in violent sexual

> crimes,its known that many murderers have been

> "turned on " by their interest in it.

> Peter Sutcliffe.

> Ian Brady

> Myra Hindley

> Rose west

> Fred West

> Ted Bundy,etc etc. where do they fit in all the

> trials.


Do you know what else? They all ate chips inside a one month period before murdering someone. Ban chips, I say.


Or you could maybe just not mistake correlation for causation.

No not everyone turns into sadistic murderers,but people with early signs of personality disorders,ei;cruelty to animals,bullies,disruptive,tendencies come into contact with pornography they can become sexual predators.

The majority of sexually abused children do not go on to be abusers either.

But many children are the victim of a lust filled adult who has looked at porn.

Not enough thought is given to young children,by those who think its ok to corrupt them with lurid images everywhere.

Tarot on this you are I'm afraid talking nonsense. Pornography is about as much a causal factor as eating chips. Use of pronography by deviant criminals is an extention of their deviance not the other way round and as Loz correctly says, the numder of serial killers is just a fraction of the population....so doesn't even really merit an attack on pornography. Far more people drop their crisp packets on the floor instead of putting them in a bin afterwards....so the banning of crisps has far more merit for my money.

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No not everyone turns into sadistic murderers,but

> people with early signs of personality

> disorders,ei;cruelty to

> animals,bullies,disruptive,tendencies come into

> contact with pornography they can become sexual

> predators.

> The majority of sexually abused children do not go

> on to be abusers either.

> But many children are the victim of a lust filled

> adult who has looked at porn.

> Not enough thought is given to young children,by

> those who think its ok to corrupt them with lurid

> images everywhere.



Tarot, you are WAAAAAYYYY off here. You are confusing correlation wth causation which is an A level standard mistake in research terms.


WHat you are talking about (withour knowing it, I imagine)is what is known as a Faciliator in the Minnesota (?) model of psychological crime. The Facilitator is anything that a perpetratr uses to get themselves into the frame of mind to move from fantasising about crime to actually carrying it out. It is true that pornography has been used by some killers and criminals as a Facilitator. Guess what else has? Alcohol, women's magazines, the Chrsitian Bible is a VERY popular one (especially the bok of Revelations) and Geoffrey Dahmer used as his Facilitatr the third Star Wars movie, especialy the scene when the Emperor telekinetically tortures Luke Skywalker.


If you want to ban anything that has been used by such criminals to facilitate their crimes yu had better start with all alcohol, the Bible and all sci-fi fantasy films. Perhaps then you could move onto pornography.


If you look at some of the evidence that is cited in the linksI posted you will actually see that a strong case can be made fr suggesting that pornography REDUCES sexual violence and increases co-operation. Laboratory research suggests this and anthropological evidence shows that in countries where porngraphy is unlawful incidence of sexual violence are very high in cmparison with societies where porngraphy is readily accesible. In the latter societies there are usually also significantly better social conditions and opprtunities for women as a whole.


Sorry, Taro, but from every perspective the case that pornography is a causal factor in rape is simply a non-starter. Even the US and UK government investigations (some of the most extensive ever carried out) came to this cnclusion but were then bried by the respective governments as it didnt suit their social agendas.

Furthermore, your notion of "lurid images" "corrupting" young children hints at a very sex negative attitude. What is "corrupting" about children knowing about sexuality I wold suggest that the best way to "corrupt" children is to convey to them that sex is "lurid" and nasty and dirty.


THAT is what is known as negative sexual socialisation and THAT is what the research finds is one of the most common patterns in the backgrounds of those who go on to become sexual criminals - an upbringing in which the criminal-to-be was taught that sex was bad and dirty and wicked.


If you want to reduce the incidence of sexual violence I suggest you instead encourage a healthy, relaxed and enjoyable attitude to sex and sexuality in the younger generation.

Also in terms of Ted BUndy, bear in mind that Bundy did everything possible to distance himself from personal responsibility for his crimes.


WHen he was confessing to the police he talked of himself in the third person, e.g: "He would then enter the dormitory..."


I don't think that the efforts of an unstable multiple murderer who was attempting to externalise responsibility for his behaviour constitutes very compelling evidence.


And....if we look into Bundy's background what do we find - negative sexual socialisation. Bundy was an illegitimate child who was raised by his grandparents to escape the social "stigma" of the circumstances of his birth. This led to a life-long resentment against his mother that seems to have been extended to many women.


Furthermore, Bundy was a handsome, intelligent and successful person who was considered socially adept and charming. He had no shortage of female company if he simply needed to 'discharge' the urges stimulated by pornography. Bundy's motivation went far, far beyond a mere exposure to pornongraphy.


I believe, however, that he was known to have consumed French Fries so maybe......

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post is,  is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...