Any activity that is emotionally compelling will have some "chemical" effect, whether it may be playing games, gambling, drinking and drug taking in general. Why is porn singled out as a 'special case'? Addictive personalities can become addicted to many things and, in extreme cases, even irrationally repeating actions, as with Obsessive compulsive disorders.
Graham Coutes may well have been addicted to asphyxiation pornography, but it has been established that both he and the victim had previously indulged in 'breath-play', a dangerous activity in any circumstances. Further, Coutes had been interested in this well before he had access to internet pornography showing an extreme form of this fetish. These facts have been published and would be easy for any researcher to find. There has been no evidence presented that he, or anyone else for that matter, was "made into a perverted sex fiend" by the pornography he accessed.
As for Eldon and those like him, is it the porn that "means he cannot relate to a woman normally" or is it, as is suggested, an existing character flaw and to alleviate his sexless life somewhat, he turned to porn? No doubt the porn does not help, but is it to blame or is this just another cheap shot at an easy target?
Concerning Liz Longhurst, much as we may, and indeed must, sympathise with the victims of violent crimes and their families, the truth is that survivors are experts on the pain of being a victim, not on what caused the perpetrator to act in the first place.
The ban on extreme porn being brought in on the back of Jane Longhursts terrible murder will simply pile tragedy on top of tragedy, as people are prosecuted for sex 'crimes', with all the stigma that carries, for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities. Yes, some of these people may be addictive personalities, but most are not.
It is natural to want to find someone or something to blame for terrible crimes, but the truth is no form of 'entertainment' however violent or distasteful "makes" someone commit a crime. No one has ever presented any credible evidence to say that it does.
Addiction itself is a different thing, people become addicted to many things, though some of these are predictable dangers for addictive personalities, others are not. We do not ban alcohol, because a man killed his wife in a drunken rage, or ban gambling because of a mugger who only takes others money to feed the slots. If such things were of epidemic proportions, then perhaps it would be a reasonable suggestion, but we have seen an explosion in internet pornography, including extreme pornography, with no parallel 'explosion' of a rise in sex crimes or sexual violence.
Let's stop giving the criminals excuses and hold them responsible for their own actions.
This from the police;
"When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."
-Dr.Stuart Kirby, Detective Chief Superintendent with Lancashire Police
- International Investigative Psychology Conference, 12/12/05
There are lots of studies, over decades of research, which come to the same conclusion. The only evidence provided to show otherwise is the very weak, and widely criticised, Rapid Evidence Assessment financed by the Home Office.
In fact there is far stronger, though also inconclusive, evidence that access to pornography actually lowers the rate of sex crimes;
" The evidence.... across.... 50 US states...shows... the Internet has a positive effect or a beneficial effect in that it reduces some crimes, crimes of sexual violence and crimes of prostitution, which are assumed to be linked with the increasing availability of pornography to young males."
-Professor Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, University of Cambridge, and Chair of the Foundation for Information Policy Research in evidence to a Home Affairs Committee:
-A surveillance society? Home Affairs Committee 12/06/07
I'm afraid the tone of the show reminded me very much of the parody film in Futurama's "I Dated A Robot!" - if you watch women On The Internet, you will lose interest in real girls and won't hold down a job!
The programme's scaremongering about how widespread this is provides its own counter-argument: if this really is millions of men, clearly it can't in general be the problem it describes, otherwise the nation would ground to a halt. We'd have mass unemployment, and a huge number of women unable to find a man interested in them.
That they can string out a few anecdotes of sad guys with no life, or the fact that a few people have dysfunctional relationships, does not mean that everyone else is like them. Clearly, porn is a problem for those featured on the show, and it was interesting to watch their battle, but it is misleading to suggest that this is a problem with porn for others. Anything can be addictive - including sex.
Then we have the issue of Internet dating - the important point here is it shows that there are women who like specific sexual acts too, and there should be no problem if consenting adults use the Internet to seek each other out. Instead, the show leaps on the fact that the one guy featured is cheating behind his partner's back.
Then there is the guys placing sexual demands on their girlfriends - well, I have a certain amount of sympathy, but please: tell them no, seek relationship counseling or maybe you could consider breaking up, but don't go on a programme that aims to place anyone who looks at an image of sex in the same category as your hopeless boyfriend.
Most seriously, we have the case of Graham Coutts. Given the political importance of this controversial issue - and that the Government looks almost certain now to criminalise possession of images depicting risk of injury, making the UK the first western nation where possession of consensual adult porn can be a criminal offence - I am very disappointed at the biased stance of this show. Did the show really intend to be a mouthpiece for Government legislation? I don't know if this programme was perhaps made before the political significance was clear, but even so it's bad timing for Channel 4 to be airing this one-sided piece now.
The claim that viewing porn caused Coutts to murder is speculation - in fact, it is known he had these fantasies long before he visited these Internet sites. He'd had "murderous thoughts" about women since he was 15, and even told psychiatrists in 1991 that he feared his thoughts would lead to criminal behaviour ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6756863.stm ). Why was no help or treatment given then?
For those who don't know, the proposed law will criminalise possession of adult porn considered "extreme", but covers depictions of consensual acts; it would cover some S&M imagery. Yet mainstream porn, which is more likely to be that which those featured in the show are addicted to, will remain legal. Large numbers of consenting adults practice activities such as bondage and asphyxiation play, an issue completely ignored by the programme. The law will even criminalise private images that couples take of their own acts in the bedroom - is that porn addiction too?
The show does at least acknowledge that such cases are extremely rare, and that the addictions featured don't affect other people. But I was disappointed that the show took a standpoint giving support for an issue which is now legal and political. The show would have run much better if it focused on the story of people's struggles with porn addiction, and didn't bring in the Longhurst case. Why is Liz Longhurst being given yet another opportunity to push her political campaign, without any chance for those who oppose these plans to respond?
And for the record, I'm not a fan of watching pornography - in fact, I've had girlfriends more into that than me. But if a partner takes a few snaps of me in private, that is no business of Liz Longhurst, the Government, or anyone but ourselves.
Though when it comes to "extreme" porn sites such as those visited by Coutts, we tend to be talking about sites which are staged with actors - so yes, it _is_ harmless, just like any movie.
i see this practice is listed as a mental health disorder, and my personal view is that if i got off on near death experineces - my own or someone else's - i'd seek some psychiatric help.
it may be that these scenes are staged on some sites - after all, it wouldn't do to have your performers drop dead on you - but i doubt that accounts for all such images, or for other extreme pornography.
i am not 'pro' censorship, particularly of more 'ordinary' pornography, and largely becuase i see it as unworkable, however i am concerned at the easy availability of extreme pornography and the attempt to normalise social attitudes towards it.
people 'consent' to all sorts of things that are deeply damaging to themselves or others, either physically or psychologically, but i don't see that as something society should be unconcerned about.
the nadir being when a big brother contestant last year described on air an act she submitted to which required surgical intervention to repair the resulting injuries. sure, she consented, but how damaged to you have to be to consent to something like that?
The opposition to the proposed law does not oppose the banning of images of actual abuse, bestiality or real necrophilia, that is, images which involve acts that are already illegal in the U.K., but it opposes the inclusion in that ban of images of acted scenes and scenes of 'role-play'.
Under British law you cannot be deemed to have given consent to serious injury, Contact sports and cosmetic surgery are exempt, and so the incident you mentioned would be illegal to do.
Having said this, though we constantly here the words 'Snuff movie' bandied about, to date, no one has been able to show that they have found a real snuff movie and the Government has yet to name a single website where real abuse takes place.
This is a major problem with this law, it will convict on what the jury thinks 'appears' to be happening and in some cases this may only 'appear' to be a threat with a weapon.
Most jurors would be like yourself, unfamiliar with what they are viewing and so may misunderstand what is happening.
I have researched this very carefully and in months of searching have been unable to find any sites which show real abuse, there are some which claim to show real abuse and personally I don't like that, but it is clear they do not. We see the same actors in several scenarios, the faces of the perpetrators are clearly shown and they display the USC 2257 compliance. This is a U.S. federal law requiring sites to keep proof that the models are old enough to consent on file for inspection.
You say those who are 'turned on' by scenes of violence should seek psychiatric help.
Well why do people watch murder mysteries or ride rollercoasters and such? Why is so much of our entertainment centred around enjoying tales of death and violence? This is not a modern phenomenon, violence is an integral part of many folk tales and myths.
Being able to experience violence and other things which scare us, in a safe way, is a cathartic exercise a way of handling the fear, and, it has to be said, a pleasurable adrenalin rush too.
For some, the dopamine rush of pain is exciting, is that any different from a sportsperson 'going for the burn'? For others giving themselves over to the control of another is a release, they can escape all the fear and responsibility they feel in their lives and be 'looked after' for a time.
It is important to note that in both S & M and domination the power is not with the dominant, that is an illusion, the power is with the submissive, it's consensual role-play and if they withdraw their consent it stop immediately.
Nancy Friday a practising psychologist states 30% of women and 25% of men have rape fantasies, as both perpetrator and victim, but that does not mean they really want to take part in a rape or be raped.
as i said, i am not in favour of a ban - for me its a question more of values than of legislation.
but any idea that pornography is limited to the glossy production values of the us industry is naive, and it isn't hard for anyone who wants to to find depictions of extreme / illegal acts, consensual or otherwise. easy availability reduces inhibitors
some people watch porn and feel no need to reproduce such acts themselves, but many - especially when it comes to paraphilias - have a dependency on particular acts / ideas, and it is inevitable that this will reflect on their interpersonal relationships. With extreme / violent paraphilias this is going to have some cost to the psychological health of the individuals involved.
you don't really take on the issue of what causes someone to consent to acts that may be psysically or psychologically damaging, perhaps preferring to think that consent is all that matters.
your comments on experiencing fear / adreneline, etc and links to extreme sports etc i recognise as valid, but then there is a point in other arenas of life in which society says something is too dangerous (menatlly or physically), and i see no reason why pornography and human sexual relationships should be exempted from thinking around such issues.
i can't claim to have done six months research into it, but then neither am i some sort of innocent abroad, so please don't assume what i might or might not have seen, or recognised, or indeed, done.
"it isn't hard for anyone who wants to to find depictions of extreme / illegal acts, consensual or otherwise"
I would definitely be interested in seeing any sites you can find that show real, non-consensual, sexual violence, remember you would be doing nothing illegal, the law has not been passed yet. My research has not turned up any, but I'm sure there are those who are better at searching the net than me and it would be very useful to me to know of real sites.
You seem to be saying that some people feel the need to do the things they see in pornography? If you are, could you please tell me what evidence you have that supports that? If not, then could you clarify what you mean for me?
Again; to date no one, in over sixty years of research into this area has found any evidence that viewing leads to doing. Now that does not prove that it doesn't occur, but I would suggest that if so many have looked, so diligently, for so long and not been able to find such evidence then it is unlikely to exist. even the Government admitted in its consultation for this law that it could not show such evidence and again in the more recent Rapid evidence assessment for the Home office, no such evidence was presented.
As for what causes someone to consent to the acts we are talking about, again, to be clear, I'm not talking about acts that cause serious physical damage. By serious, I mean the legal definition of serious injury, which means permanent or debilitating. Most 'injuries' are of the order of sore nipples and red bums, they are made to look more serious and dangerous for effect.
There are a small minority who indulge in so called 'blood-play' which can look very alarming, others indulge in extreme piercings and even branding, but these are relatively few in number. Any which include 'serious' injury would be illegal under U.K. law, so I would not defend them in any case.
Consent is a personal freedom, certainly, if we have cause for concern about an individuals judgement, we should try and find out if they are acting out destructive impulses and we should also look out for coercion, but we do not tell people that they cannot consent to a legal act, simply because we do not like the idea of it.
Originally posted by Mukkinese: I would definitely be interested in seeing any sites you can find that show real, non-consensual, sexual violence,
well operation ore managed to turn up a few. presumably you acknowledge the existence of child pornography on the internet, so i'm not sure why you would think that there is no other illegal or extreme material. try the newsgroups. hollywood it aint. and the issue of consent remains a tricky one.
quote:
You seem to be saying that some people feel the need to do the things they see in pornography? If you are, could you please tell me what evidence you have that supports that? If not, then could you clarify what you mean for me?
no i am not saying looking causes doing, or anything so simplistic. but equally it would be naive to pretend that the media has no impact on behaviour. billions of pounds spent on advertising and endorsement would suggest otherwise. i think - referring again only to extreme and violent material - that you have to be pretty damaged to hook into that stuff in the first place, but i also think the easy accessibility of material that caters to such tastes (whether real or staged)does reinforces behaviours, loosen inhibitors,lowers boundaries, and discourages people from questioning or trying to shift damaging behaviours.
quote:
we do not tell people that they cannot consent to a legal act, simply because we do not like the idea of it.
i wouldn't disagree with this, and i don't see much difference between our views so far as the law is concerned, but that doesn't mean we might not think about meaning. we're discussing extreme pornography but your continued references are to the mainstream and distinctly vanilla end of the market. you surely cannot be unaware of the dark side of porn and the porn industry.
While I fully accept that child porn certainly exists, that is not what the law under discussion concerns, it is entirely about adult pornography, perhaps I should have been clearer in making that distinction. The fact that child porn exists is not a precedent for non-consensual adult porn.
The fundamental difference between ‘Extreme adult porn’ and child porn is that a child cannot give consent for any sexual act, so by definition all photographs of children in sexual situations show real illegal acts. Adults can consent to sex with each other in almost any private, situation and can legally pretend or role-play violent scenarios. Why would a webmaster commit such serious crimes and when there is no need?
I am not claiming real, violent, non-consensual adult porn does not exist online, that would be foolish, but no one, has yet shown me any site that contains it. I would therefore suggest that it is not as widespread or as “easily accessible” as many believe it is. Again, no one who opposes this law is arguing that images of real sexual abuse are acceptable.
Advertising does not ask anyone to do anything that is socially unacceptable. Can you give examples of any media causing any behaviour that is socially unacceptable?
“i think - referring again only to extreme and violent material - that you have to be pretty damaged to hook into that stuff in the first place”. I presume that here you are talking about real violent sexual abuse? As I pointed out in my earlier post, rape fantasies, for instance, are quite common.
Again you claim that this material is easily accessible. Well, I would not argue that fictional material is easily accessible, I have yet to see any real material of this kind. If you can easily find real images of adult non-consensual, sexual violence then please show me. I’m not joking, I am really interested. If there is something I have overlooked I would like to know.
As for the ‘normalising’ argument, well firstly, this is only the case with images that the viewer believes are real, not with clearly ‘staged’ depictions. It is perfectly acceptable to pretend sexual abuse with a consenting partner. Few functioning adults have difficulty in differentiating between fantasy and reality.
This is why I am uneasy with the sites that claim to be real, though again, I have yet to see one that is convincing to me. The potential, however small, is there for confusion and we should be clear, as a matter of principle; in fantasy almost anything goes, in reality you follow the rules.
Secondly, there is still no evidence that suggests viewing even real images will cause anyone to be more likely to commit a crime. Studies with even the most sexually aggressive men have not been able to establish this.
You think I refer to the 'vanilla' end of the market? Can you give me examples of what you would call extreme?
i think we are finding it difficult to find any common ground to discuss, and i decline to spent time repeating myself.
i am aware of what the law under discussion covers. i have already stated in each posted that i am not in favour of legislation.
i gather from your posts you either don't want to discuss, or do not recognise, that there is anything more the the concept of consent other than it can be given.
I understand very well that you are not supporting this law. That does not mean I agree with your points.
The whole argument about reinforcement, lowering boundaries and discouraging questioning of certain behaviour, is just another way of saying viewing leads to doing, maybe not directly, but perhaps facilitating it.
Sorry, you haven't answered my questions at all. What do you consider 'extreme porn', a simple description would suffice. And can you show me sites that contain real adult sexual violence, yes or no? If you know of any, then please tell me, I am serious in this request, I want to know.
I don't get any pleasure from looking at this stuff. I find a lot of it very unpleasant, some frightening and some makes me ill, but I have yet to see any that I believe is real adult, sexual abuse.
Originally posted by Mukkinese: I don't get any pleasure from looking at this stuff. I find a lot of it very unpleasant, some frightening and some makes me ill, but I have yet to see any that I believe is real adult, sexual abuse.
material that is unpleasant, frightening and sickening *is* abusive. that people 'consent' to being abused doesn't make it unproblematic.
i will not be answering your questions any further than i have already done.
I don't understand? If I have upset you, then I apologise, there was no intention to do so.
" material that is unpleasant, frightening and sickening *is* abusive. "
Obviously I don't agree, I find gay porn unpleasant, is that abusive? I find heights scary, are people who parachute consenting to abuse? Prawns make me sick, are those who eat prawns abusing themselves?
We do not all react the same way. As long as no one is being hurt, why should we stop others from taking part in activities we would never even consider?
We should not assume that because we find something distasteful, or frightening, then those who do it must be damaged or damaging themselves.
no, you haven't upset me, however i don't think we really have anywhere else to go with the discussion. i don't think this is an appropriate forum for an explicit discusssion, even if i chose to have one, which i don't.
i think you have a very clear liberal view. i am also a liberal but am perhaps more interested in the difficulties and complexities that liberalism throws up for us as a society.
Mukki, I certainly think you put a good argument, with which I agree.
However, in the middle of it all, you inserted 'as long as nobody is hurt'. That changes things quite a lot. I remember porn star Linda Lovelace on a radio programme saying that while filming the famous Deep Throat (which I think has not been shown in Britain) she was kept a virual prisoner, forced to take part and was on drugs throughout the whole thing. People can be harmed in more ways than being killed in a snuff movie. Psychological harm is just as real as being punched.
In a world where money can be made from getting people to do things for a video it should not come as a great suprise that there will be large numbers of people who do things which harm those who take part, even if most of them don't.
Of course being a liberal myself, I am not suggesting banning things, but I am certainly warning against a nice snug feeling that we can beat the censors and ban freaks of this world by our sensible liberalism and that makes everything fine and dandy. Because it isn't. Freedom has victims and we should be careful to watch and make sure that things do not go further than we with what we are comfortable.
I understand your concerns JohnBee and I share them too. The point I made about no harm is central to my argument and that of most opposed to this law.
I can't with any certainty comment one way or the other about Linda Lovelaces statements. As I have said, it would be foolish to claim that no real abuse goes on, but no one has been able to show that any more abuse occurs in the making of porn, of any kind, than in other walks of life.
The authors of the Governments own Rapid evidence assessment admitted that they could find no evidence of harm to those who take part in the making of this material.
My own Liberalism is based on an attempt to look at each situation rationally and trying to avoid the inevitable appeals to emotions. I keep coming back to the simple rule; unless the Government can show a real and pressing need to infringe basic human rights, then they have no right to interfere.
Yes, I agree we must be vigilant and try to make sure our freedoms are not paid for by the oppression others, but we should also avoid restricting our freedoms simply on the suspicion that others may be suffering for them. We must leave something worthwhile, for those who are really oppressed, to aspire to having.
Like access to any idea/information that does not cause harm, whether others find it distasteful or not.
People do many things that are dangerous; extreme sports for instance, we do not ban this or the viewing of it.
Say, for arguments sake, we successfully denied access to images of sexual asphyxiation? This may limit the dissemination of the idea somewhat and therefore the danger to some, but it will also limit advice and information on safe practices, which would also create a danger.
So what is the point of not allowing access? It is a dangerous thing to do, but not an illegal activity. Advice and information are what is needed, rather than the wagging finger of denial.
Originally posted by Mukkinese: Like access to any idea/information that does not cause harm, whether others find it distasteful or not.
well i don't see extreme porn as a particularly great advert for a free soceirty, nor something the 'oppressed' might 'aspire' to having access to....
you just aren't hearing or acknowledging the harm that pornography might cause. you blithely bat it away under your mantra of 'consent'. i am not interested in making comparisons with extreme sports - its completely mindless to equate sports activities with human sexual relationships.
aren't you the slightest concerned about what it takes to 'consent' to the oeuvre of rocco siffredi, or the mind set of those who get off on women being spat on, verbally and physically abused, and set up for those oh so 'harmlessly' acted rape fantasies that you are so determined to defend. i'd lay bets you're not a parent of any female children. would you be happy for them to join rocco's stable?
i'm personally more concerned about the rape conviction rate of under 5%. and the frequent defence that 'she wanted it'. just like rocco says she did, eh?
