Re: Justice Department-regulars in family nudist camps were often (not rarely) pedophiles.
TomBa +<NP-f36>+
news:hc8kd35c4l2elmq54...@4ax.com:
> Family Nudist
> Camps are advocates of desensitizing children to nudity, and in
> addition photography of nude children is commonplace in many resorts
> and gatherings
Since when did children have to be "desensitized to nudity?" In my
experience, kids are natural nudists (they were born that way), and have to
be 'sensitiized' to wearing clothes...
Exploitation is a seperate issue, and should not be condoned. Observation
is not exploitive. Recording an image (either mental or photographic) is
not exploitive. But, using observations or images taken to cause harm to
the subject IS exploitive. The issue is causing HARM, not the observation
or recordings of nudity.
How much HARM do Pamela Anderson or Brooke Shields actually suffer from
having their images observed, traded, or drooled over by anonymous viewers?
If viewing images causes harm, then all images should be banned.
--
TomBa NP-f36
TomBa +<NP-f36>+
> IMO they benefit, but they are adults .
They are adults now, and I agree that they have benefited.
Brooke Shields appeared in 'Pretty Baby' as an 11-12 yr old, and in 'Blue
Lagoon' at the age of 15. Both films contained nude shots...
> The issue is photographing children
What is your definition of a 'child?'
I thought that the issue here was exploiting/abusing children. I don't
believe that a photograph is harmful.
>
>>If viewing images causes harm, then all images should be banned.
>
> That I believe is in fact the strict Muslim view and many cultures
> believed it was "stealing the soul".
I had heard that definition attributed to Native Americans in the 18th-19th
centuries, but not from Muslim cultures.
>
> A more realistic point is that child pornography is not a victimless
> crime and nudist colonies should desist from creating havens for
> pedophiles.
Your 'more realistic point' is off target. Nude pictures (even of children)
are not pornography. Whether or not pornography 'creates' a victim is a
subjective interpretation. If a 'haven for pedophiles' may exist, what does
it matter unless assautive behaviors occur? (If such behaviors occur, they
should be dealt with appropriatly)
>
> You,of course, would perhaps argue that a non-active pedo does no harm
> by just looking at kids in a nudist park. However it's putting
> yourself in the way of temptation and it's best all round for pedos to
> be banned from nudist parks.
>
LOOKING does no harm, be it in a nudist park or a shopping mall. ACTIONS
may cause harm in whatever environment, and it should rightly be
discouraged. There is a distinction between looking (passive) and action
(active), and you can't make a blanket prohibition upon all.
--
TomBa NP-f36
R. Steve Walz
>
> Family Nudist Camps
> Cautions and Criticisms
>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/43367/family_nudist_camps.html
>
> Family Nudist Camps are reportedly against exploitation and
> pornography of any kind. Naturists are encouraged to celebrate the
> human form along with its flaws and teach their children to feel
> comfortable with their bodies. Nudism is often described as a state of
> higher understanding, acceptance au natural, and an enlightened
> fragment of society bent on individual beauty in the Shangri-La of
> artistic nude appreciation. But family nudist camps have become home
> to a shocking trend for which many who seek the simplicity of a family
> nudist camp are unaware. Not everyone is there to promote naturism.
>
> A justice department inquiry recently studied Family Nudism, and they
> discovered that among the regulars in family nudist camps were often
> (not rarely) child pornographers and pedophiles. Why? Family Nudist
> Camps are advocates of desensitizing children to nudity, and in
> addition photography of nude children is commonplace in many resorts
> acceptance, families are often unaware that the pictures made of their
> children and the activities their children are being involved in at
> the Family Nudist Camp might be part of an elaborate child seduction
> plot or perhaps as simple trading fodder for a child pornographer.
-------------------
And so is it that you claim being photographed by parents who think
they're cute versus by pedophiles who are just horny is really any
different? The kids aren't being molested. It isn't evidence of any
crime, not under any of the laws. So what is your complaint, really?
Just that you don't like men fantasizing about young girls?? You
had better ban the Sears Catalog, then, you asswipe! For most of these
guys, ANY pictures of chlldren are porn to them, what are you going to
do about THAT!?? And the Sears Catalog is idle masturbation fodder
for most Normal men as well, men who are not fixated but still find
naked people sexually attractive.
A sane society would find sexually experienced kids willing to give
these guys a chance to outgrow their weird fixation and grow into
Normal sexual lives.
In a sane society there wouldn't BE pedophiles because they would
have been treated for this disorder using that method and would
have become Normal!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:26:47 GMT, "TomBa +<NP-f36>+"
> <nob...@thefort.org> wrote:
>
And you stop thinking right there, as though the meaning of it all
were obviously "evil", which is horseshit.
> >If viewing images causes harm, then all images should be banned.
>
> That I believe is in fact the strict Muslim view and many cultures
> believed it was "stealing the soul".
-------------------------
And you REALLY know where you can jam THAT, dontcha little feller!?
I suppose you support Al Qaeda and the Taliban too? I have always
known that when we finally kill off Islam that we'll have to come
home and kill off all the Fundies and antisex Catholics to make the
world safe for Secular Freedom!
> A more realistic point is that child pornography is not a victimless
> crime and nudist colonies should desist from creating havens for
> pedophiles.
-------------------------
But taking THESE pictures *IS* a victimless crime. You see, you're
dishonestly invoking the shibboleth of "child pornography" when
those pictures are nothing of the kind!
> You,of course, would perhaps argue that a non-active pedo does no harm
> by just looking at kids in a nudist park. However it's putting
> yourself in the way of temptation and it's best all round for pedos to
> be banned from nudist parks.
-------------------------------
Nonsense, you might as well try to ban ALL pornography just because
it might lead someone to rape! The Truth from research is that ALL
forms of Pornography cause the masturbatory SATIATION of the sex
drive, of WHATEVER kind, and that it only serves to make us all SAFER!
The use of porn sublimates the sex drive by redirected satiation.
It says that in every research study quoted in the Meese Report!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Even if they are "passive" nobody wants a dirty old pedophile lurking
> in the bushes masturbating over their infants while they play.
-------------------------
There's NO WAY to stop a pedophile from doing that in a free society.
Why? Because NOBODY KNOWS who's a pedophile and who is not, unless
they have been convicted of molestation, and VERY FEW pedophiles
ever lose control just as few horny heterosexuals become rapists!
> 1. Parents and family nudist organizations should prohibit photography
> of children, or strictly forbid any photography of children without
> their parents.
--------------------------------
MOST molestation is *BY* parents, you ass!
> 2. Lawmakers should pass legislation barring convicted child molesters
> and child pornographers from lens range of any naturist activity or
> family nudist camp.
----------------------
Oh THAT will help alot! We need more horny pedophiles without any
porn to stroke to so they have to go looking for the REAL THING(tm)!!
> 3. Make illegal by law the trade of child naturalist photographs, even
> in an artistic sense, and even when taken at a family nudist camp.
------------------------
Not possible in a free society. SOMEBODY has to know what nude kids
look like, to know what is abnormal! Or do you want all the pedophiles
to go into medicine??
> 4. Hold family nudist facilities and naturist clubs liable for any
> incidents occurring on their property or during one of their sponsored
> activities so they will start taking responsibility for sheltering
> pedophiles.
---------------------------
There's no way to recognize unconvicted pedophiles.
> 5. Educate all nudists and encourage parents to sue anyone who
> exploits their children.
------------------------------
Public photography of others is not illegal.
> "The nudist colonies are the places where pedophiles have
> forever not only been able to get sexual access to children
> and to abuse children, but quite definitely, to take
> photographs that become part of the pedophile's bona fides
> and that are exchanged and that are paid for throughout this
> country and sent to Europe and so forth.
>
> And the pain that that causes those children...
> is, of course, incalculable"
-------------------
Of course it's "incalculable" if there ISN"T any!!
> Judith Reisman
------------------
Oh Gawd, not her, she's the SHIT that tried to slander Kinsey
and has been dismissed as a nutcake!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
----------------------
Everyone reputable who's checked up on her shit.
> Pedophiles and pornographers?
----------------------
No, you shit-fucking liar1
> Certainly not Who's Who.
-----------------------
Actually quite a number among them.
> When you have the ear of world leaders I guess you don't
> lose much sleep over the slander of perverts.
---------------------------
She doesn't. She's a crank. Only cranks support her.
> "The nudist colonies are the places where pedophiles have
> forever
-----------------
There haven't always even BEEN nudist colonies,
we ALL USED to go naked!
> not only been able to get sexual access to children
> and to abuse children, but quite definitely, to take
> photographs that become part of the pedophile's bona fides
> and that are exchanged and that are paid for throughout this
> country and sent to Europe and so forth.
>
> And the pain that that causes those children...
> is, of course, incalculable"
> Judith Reisman
---------------------
Except that there isn't any, and she's a crank.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:54:54 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> And the pain that that causes those children...
> >> >> is, of course, incalculable"
> >> >-------------------
> >> >Of course it's "incalculable" if there ISN"T any!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Judith Reisman
> >> >------------------
> >> >Oh Gawd, not her, she's the SHIT that tried to slander Kinsey
> >> >and has been dismissed as a nutcake!
> >>
> >> Dismissed by whom?
> >----------------------
> >Everyone reputable who's checked up on her shit.
> >
> >
> >> Pedophiles and pornographers?
> >----------------------
> >No, you shit-fucking liar1
>
---------------------------
Everybody should, I'm sure pedophiles hate McDonalds too.
There isn't any NAMBLA. It's a gag!
> >> Certainly not Who's Who.
> >-----------------------
> >Actually quite a number among them.
> >
> >
> >> When you have the ear of world leaders I guess you don't
> >> lose much sleep over the slander of perverts.
> >---------------------------
> >She doesn't. She's a crank. Only cranks support her.
>
> It's easy to see why YOU would think that,however coming from you it's
> a ringing endorsement in the eyes of decent folk,who do NOT wish to
> legalize child/adult sex.
-------------------------------
If I were the ONLY one I can see why you'd say that.
Of course I"M NOT!!!
Steve
Terry J. Wood
> Odd that NAMBLA devotes a page to attacking her then.
There's a ringing endorsement of her research.
Combine that with her Captain Kangaroo days and you've really got
something!
Anna
Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet By Philip Jenkins
http://books.google.com/books?id=9tkKyuii6mgC&pg=PA82
>From pages 81-82
Probably the most common type of soft-core photographs involves nude
young girls in innocent and non-sexual settings: these are the staples
of egroup trade. Many of thse images have been taken in nudist camps
or on nude beaches and they generally picture children in groups or
with their families, playing sports, or using playgrounds. If not for
the context, the scene would seem remarkably wholesome. In the whole
range of images these are the least harmful, since the photographs
were taken without causing any harm to the subjects. The material
does raise sensitive questions, however, about the nudist/naturist
subcultures and its alleged relationship to child pornography.
Particularly in North America, naturalists have long been regarded as
amiable cranks, but various activists and pressure groups have
suggested that the movement has attracted more than its share of
pedophiles and pornographers, and substantial evidence of misbehavior
comes from criminal investigtions and convictions over the years.
Without having to accept extreme charges about mass perversions in the
nudist world, the volume of nudist photography, particularly involving
small children and toddlers, does indicate that the naturist movement
has been exploited for pornographic purposes.
ScottyFLL
The nudist culture and child pornography go together. Nudists
are nothing but glorified flashers. Not the atmosphere to bring
children into.
Anna
> On Sep 4, 12:21?pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is an interesting book.
>
> > Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet By Philip Jenkins
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=9tkKyuii6mgC&pg=PA82
>
> > >From pages 81-82
>
> > Probably the most common type of soft-core photographs involves nude
> > young girls in innocent and non-sexual settings: these are the staples
> > or on nude beaches and they generally picture children in groups or
> > the context, the scene would seem remarkably wholesome. ?In the whole
> > range of images these are the least harmful, since the photographs
> > does raise sensitive questions, however, about the nudist/naturist
> > subcultures and its alleged relationship to child pornography.
> > Particularly in North America, naturalists have long been regarded as
> > amiable cranks, but various activists and pressure groups have
> > suggested that the movement has attracted more than its share of
> > pedophiles and pornographers, and substantial evidence of misbehavior
> > comes from criminal investigtions and convictions over the years.
> > Without having to accept extreme charges about mass perversions in the
> > nudist world, the volume of nudist photography, particularly involving
> > small children and toddlers, does indicate that the naturist movement
> > has been exploited for pornographic purposes.
>
> The nudist culture and child pornography go together. Nudists
> are nothing but glorified flashers. Not the atmosphere to bring
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually for most nudists it isn't about being seen by others nude.
They just like to be naked.
wonderer
"ScottyFLL" <Scott...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1188924006.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
then you are a child molester
R. Steve Walz
And so have National Geographic and the Sears and Monkey-Ward's catalog!
The point being that what you're talking about is INTENT, and you're
NEVER going to be able to criminalize internal mental attitudes, it
is impossible to determine, finally, someone's internal thought
processes and desires, and it is also impossibly invasive, beyond
the pale of all the laws in free nations, so just give it up.
The ONLY reputable evidence ANYWAY, for ANY connection between porn
of EVERY kind and sexual violence is that porn ASSUAGES, or SATES the
motivations of potential assailants, as any porn of any kind might do
for any OTHER sexual activity. In other words, IF you use porn to "get
off" through masturbation (And what then would be the purpose if NOT
masturbation?) then your motivation to offend is diminished for the
period of time masturbation sates your ability to respond sexually,
which for most male humans is a day or two, if not longer.
This principle of human sexual behavior is well born-out by all the
European studies where this has been studied extensively in connection
with the sensible updating of their sexual and social laws, and which
are always, it seems, a little bit in advance of ours in the USA.
The Meese Report commisioned by the republican President at the time,
has cited these as the reason that, in all scientific conscience, and
AS MUCH AS THAT SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO,
that they could NOT find scientific evidence for porn stimulating
sexual violence, but in fact ONLY THE REVERSE, and that a BANNING of
such porn may well actually STIMULATE sexual assaults!!
Now in the case of porn that constitutes evidence of a crime, we might
make exception, but in the case where the crime is consensual and only
statutory, or where it isn't a legal crime at ALL, we might be better
off, in terms of the rate of sexual assault, if would be better for us
to leave such mild "porn", or whatever it is, the hell alone so that it
can do its good work or PREVENTING sexual assault, as it is WELL-KNOWN
to do!!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
And when our human species EVOLVED living naked for the VAST majority
of our existence on this planet, you get this where????? Sounds like
you're ignoring a shit-load of evolution and obvious science just to
please your sick little antisexual superstitious religion.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:21:50 -0700, Anna <annal...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Here is an interesting book.
> >
> >Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet By Philip Jenkins
> >
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=9tkKyuii6mgC&pg=PA82
> >
> >>From pages 81-82
> >
> >Probably the most common type of soft-core photographs involves nude
> >young girls in innocent and non-sexual settings: these are the staples
> >of egroup trade. Many of thse images have been taken in nudist camps
> >or on nude beaches and they generally picture children in groups or
> >with their families, playing sports, or using playgrounds.
>
------------------------------
Lessee, these are legitimate occurrences, but somehow a video record
of them is not? Why is that exactly? Are we to believe that a video
or photograph of the same scene would somehow be "corrupting" but not
the original situation? And how, precisely, do you know THAT, or is
it that you wish to ban all nudity??
> > If not for
> >the context, the scene would seem remarkably wholesome. In the whole
> >range of images these are the least harmful, since the photographs
> >were taken without causing any harm to the subjects. The material
> >does raise sensitive questions, however, about the nudist/naturist
> >subcultures and its alleged relationship to child pornography.
>
> >Particularly in North America, naturalists have long been regarded as
> >amiable cranks, but various activists and pressure groups have
> >suggested that the movement has attracted more than its share of
> >pedophiles and pornographers, and substantial evidence of misbehavior
> >comes from criminal investigtions and convictions over the years.
>
> Apparently that means nothing in rec.nude.
------------------------
And THAT'S because you shit are a bunch of irrational CRANKS!
> If their isn't a peer-reviewed piece of research on an academic
> journal, it doesn't happen .
-----------------------------
And why would people want evidence to be peer-reviewed, I wonder??
Maybe because without that process stupid humans are apt to confuse
their ignorant religious and sexual prejudices with reality??
> That they exist,have exploited children.have been arrested for their
> crimes and gone to prison means nothing.
-------------------------------
Those who go to prison obviously did so because they committed crimes.
Those who did NOT go to prison obviously did so because they did NOT
commit crimes.
Which group is it that you wish to ban. Both, perhaps, and merely
because you're a fucking antisexual Fundie crank??
> >Without having to accept extreme charges about mass perversions in the
> >nudist world, the volume of nudist photography, particularly involving
> >small children and toddlers, does indicate that the naturist movement
> >has been exploited for pornographic purposes.
>
> Now you are confusing them with facts .
> The problem doesn't exist,nothing need be done to address
> it,everything is hunky dory
--------------------------
That is like a bid to ban swimming pools because it allows humans to
see each other half-clothed or less. Why who KNOWS what they might
be thinking secretly!!??
> The organized criminals responsible couldn't hope for better cover
> than they get in rec.nude.
-----------------------------
You're insane and irrational.
Steve
stinso...@hotmail.com
<spam...@nospamme.com> wrote:
>>Probably the most common type of soft-core photographs involves nude
>>young girls in innocent and non-sexual settings: these are the staples
>>of egroup trade. Many of thse images have been taken in nudist camps
>>or on nude beaches and they generally picture children in groups or
>>with their families, playing sports, or using playgrounds.
>
>Exactly
Exactly, what? Exactly?
>> If not for
>>the context, the scene would seem remarkably wholesome. In the whole
>>range of images these are the least harmful, since the photographs
>>were taken without causing any harm to the subjects. The material
>>does raise sensitive questions, however, about the nudist/naturist
>>subcultures and its alleged relationship to child pornography.
>
>>Particularly in North America, naturalists have long been regarded as
>>amiable cranks, but various activists and pressure groups have
>>suggested that the movement has attracted more than its share of
>>pedophiles and pornographers, and substantial evidence of misbehavior
>>comes from criminal investigtions and convictions over the years.
>
>Apparently that means nothing in rec.nude.
Um, Dex? What should the unsubstantiated suggestions that "various
activists and pressure groups have SUGGESTED that the movement has
attracted more than its share of pedophiles and pornographers, and
substantial evidence of misbehavior comes from criminal investigtions
and convictions over the years" mean????? Suggestions are not
evidentiary, neither are accusations.
>If their isn't a peer-reviewed piece of research on an academic
>journal, it doesn't happen .
You're weaseling. Provide the evidence.
>That they exist,have exploited children.have been arrested for their
>crimes and gone to prison means nothing.
So have priests. Let's close all of the churches.
>>Without having to accept extreme charges about mass perversions in the
>>nudist world, the volume of nudist photography, particularly involving
>>small children and toddlers, does indicate that the naturist movement
>>has been exploited for pornographic purposes.
The nudists have been exploited. So have the students, parishoners,
scouts, etc. What's the difference?
>Now you are confusing them with facts .
>The problem doesn't exist,nothing need be done to address
>it,everything is hunky dory
What specific resorts/clubs have you been to?
When?
What problems did you personally witness?
What do you know about any of this first hand?
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>The nudist culture and child pornography go together. Nudists
>are nothing but glorified flashers. Not the atmosphere to bring
>children into.
And you base this on?
-T.
nudist_emy
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:45:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> in their offences.
>
> A study of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and
> 42 per cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography
> played a role in their offenses (2).
>
> 2. Abel, G., in Einsiedel, E.F., Social Science Report. Prepared for
> the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, U.S. Department of
> Justice, Washington, D.C., 1986.
>
> ***Sexual Assault & Pornography: The Links***
>
> http://www.ncf.ca/ip/social.services/rape.crisis/porno.txt
>
> (This is one of six fact sheets on the topic of sexual assault
> prepared by the
> Ontario Women's Directorate, 1992.)
>
> Numerous research studies have highlighted the links between
> pornography and
> sexual assault.
>
> Pornography is defined as sexually explicit material that portrays and
> endorses degrading or abusive sexual behaviour (1).
>
> Sexual assault is defined here as any unwanted act of a sexual nature.
>
> FACTS TO CONSIDER:
>
> A study of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and
> 42 per
> cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography played
> a role
> in their offenses (2).
>
> A study of video pornography ('adult' videos and highly restricted, or
> 'triple-X,' videos) found that 13 per cent of all scenes involved
> sexual
> violence, including rape (53 per cent), sexual harassment (35 per
> cent),
> sadomasochism (17.5 per cent), and sexual mutilation (six per cent).
> This
> study also indicated that 'adult' videos had more portrayals of sexual
> aggression per movie than triple-x videos (3).
>
> A national survey of Canadians' use of pornography indicates that:
> -young people aged 12 to 17 years are the primary consumers of
> pornography
> -35 per cent of these young people expressed an interest in
> watching
> sexually violent scenes (rape, torture, bondage etc.) (4).
>
> ISSUES TO CONSIDER:
>
> Males commit most sexual assaults, and are also the biggest consumers
> of
> pornography (5).
>
> Violent and dehumanizing pornography has been shown to:
> -increase the incidence of rape myths
> -increase the acceptance of violence against women
> -decrease sensitivity to the suffering of rape victims
> -increase sexual callousness
> -increase male willingness to rape (6)
>
> Studies indicate that pornography undermines internal inhibitions
> against rape
> (7). It presents women as objects and perpetuates the myth that women
> enjoy
> rape and find it sexually exciting.
>
> In an experiment on desensitization, researchers showed men 10 hours
> of
> R-rated movies with sexual violence over a five-day period. On the
> last day,
> the men watched a documentary re-enacting a real rape trial. The men
> blamed
> the rape victim more for the rape, rated her as significantly more
> worthless,
> and saw her injury as significantly less severe than did a control
> group of
> men who had not viewed the R-rated movies (9).
>
> Early studies indicate that debriefing participants of such studies,
> in an
> attempt to discount various false messages and myths about rape, can
> in fact
> counteract certain effects of exposure to violent pornography and can
> even
> reduce the acceptance of rape myths.
>
> References:
> 1. Longino, H., "What is Pornography," in Lederere, L., (ed.), Take
> Back the
> Night. New York: William Morrow, 1980, p.44.
>
> 2. Abel, G., in Einsiedel, E.F., Social Science Report. Prepared for
> the
> Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, U.S. Department of
> Justice,
> Washington, D.C., 1986.
>
> 3. Palys, T.S., "Testing the Common Wisdom: The Social Content of
> Video
> Pornography," Canadian Psychology, 27, 1986, pp.22-35.
>
> 4. Check, J., "Curriculum Development Research Needs Assessment:
> Attitudes
> and Behaviour Regarding Pornography and Sexual Coercion in
> Metropolitan
> Toronto High School Students." York University: Department of
> Psychology,
> February 24, 1986.
>
> 5. Finklehor, D., Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Practice. New
> ork:
> Free Press, 1984. Russell, D., Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child
> Sexual Abuse
> and Workplace Harassment. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1984.
>
> 6. Check, J., N. Malamuth, "Pornography and Sexual Aggression: A
> Social
> Learning Analysis," in M.L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook,
> Volume
> 9. Beverly Hill: Sage, 1985. See also: Donnerstein, E.,
> "Pornography: Its
> Effects on Violence Against Women," in N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein
> (Eds.),
> Pornography and Sexual Aggression. New York: Academic Press, 1984,
> and
> Malamuth, N., "Aggression Against Women: Cultural and Individual
> Cases," in
> N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual
> Aggression. New
> York: Academic Press, 1984.
>
> 7. Malamuth, N., "Do Sexually Violent Media Indirectly Contribute to
> Antisocial Behaviour?" Unpublished paper prepared for the Surgeon
> General's
> Workshop on Pornography and Public Health, Arlington, Virginia, 1986.
>
> 8. Russell, D., Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse and
> Workplace
> Harassment, 1984.
>
> 9. Donnerstein, E., and D. Linz, Unpublished paper prepared for the
> Attorney
> General's Commission on Pornography Hearings, Houston, Texas, 1985.
>
> 10. See: Check, J., and N. Malamuth, "Can There Be Positive Effects
> of
> Participation in Pornography Experiments?," Journal of Sex Research,
> 20,
> 1984, pp. 14-31, and Donnerstein, E., and L. Berkovitz, "Victims'
> Reactions in
> Aggressive Erotic Films as a Factor in Violence Against Women,"
> Journal of
> Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1981, pp. 710-724, and
> Malamuth, N.,
> and J. Check, " Debriefing Effectiveness Following Exposure to
> Pornographic
> Rape Depictions, " Journal of Sex Research, 20, 1984, pp. 1-13.
>
> Further Reading
>
> Ontario Women's Directorate, Annotated Bibliography on Sexual Assault
> Literature. Toronto, July 1990.
>
> Russell, D., "Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model," Political
> Psychology,
> Vol. 9, No.1, 1988, pp. 41-73.
>
> Cole, S., Pornography and the Sex Crisis. Toronto: Amanita Press,
> 1989.
its amazing you can pack so much shit in 1 post. why is there no
research into what people that are not convicted molesters or abusers
do with the same material? would it spoil their research?
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:45:17 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> in their offences.
And so you accept a criminal's word which is just his effort to shift
blame????
Why would you think they even KNEW what "caused" their offending??
Obviously they didn't know well enough to prevent it!
All they know is what they wanted, and that was obviously how they
offended. Now, that said, why would you think that porn wasn't just
one more thing they wanted, and not a "cause" of their offense??
> A study
----------------
Oh THAT'S really specifc!!
> of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and
> 42 per cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography
> played a role in their offenses (2).
-------------------------------------
And so you accept a criminal's word which is just his effort to shift
blame????
Why would you think they even KNEW what "caused" their offending??
Obviously they didn't know well enough to prevent it!
All they know is what they wanted, and that was obviously how they
offended. Now, that said, why would you think that porn wasn't just
one more thing they wanted, and not a "cause" of their offense??
> 2. Abel, G., in Einsiedel, E.F., Social Science Report. Prepared for
> the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, U.S. Department of
> Justice, Washington, D.C., 1986.
-------------------------
Better. But still, that isn't scientific, that's what criminals said
THEY thought, when we KNOW that they are NOT ONLY motivated to shift
blame, but they are also mentally disordered!
But now look at the sum total of that report to the President:
The HUGE body of evidence in it says that there is NO evidence that
porn CAUSES assault, actually THE REVERSE, that being sated by
masturbating to porn PREVENTS some number of sexual assaults.
In 1970, the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography
concluded that "there was insufficient evidence that exposure to
explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the causation of
delinquent or criminal behavior."
The scandal behind the later Meese Report was what sank it eventually,
--
'Two feeble attempts were made to provide research that was tailor-made
to support the Commission. The Justice Department
had given antiporn activist Judith Reisman a grant for $734,000 to
study the cartoons in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler.
Reisman is known for attacking Kinsey, whom she says got all his
evidence about child sexuality from a man who molested over
eight hundred children. Her knowledge of child sexuality probably
comes from her experience as a scriptwriter for "Captain
Kangaroo." Her grant was so poorly written and its budget so
inflated that it drew criticism from the Senate Juvenile Justice
Subcommittee. It emerged that Reisman's "peer review" had been
conducted by three vice cops, an FBI agent, and fellow
antiporn activist and beneficiary of Justice Department funding,
Ann Burgess.'
and
--
The Commission hired Canadian sociologist Edna F. Einsiedel to review
and summarize existing studies that might have a bearing on their
findings. She reported, "No evidence currently exists that actually
links fantasies with specific sexual offenses; the relationship at
this point remains an inference." She also noted that pornography has
been of value to some therapists who use it to treat patients. For
writing this report, Einsiedel was placed under a gag order obtained
by Alan Sears, and her summation does not appear in the Commission's
Final Report.'
> ***Sexual Assault & Pornography: The Links***
>
> http://www.ncf.ca/ip/social.services/rape.crisis/porno.txt
>
> (This is one of six fact sheets on the topic of sexual assault
> prepared by the
> Ontario Women's Directorate, 1992.)
---------------------------
Oh THAT sounds like a fair-minded bunch of feminazi's, doesn't it??
> Numerous research studies have highlighted the links between
> pornography and
> sexual assault.
------------------------------
Numerous, as the Meese Report discovered, means DAMNED FEW and NONE
that are peer-reviwed and reputable!
> Pornography is defined as sexually explicit material that portrays and
> endorses degrading or abusive sexual behaviour (1).
------------------------------
In which case very little of it is, unless you confabulate like a
fucking lying Fundie and claim that sex ITSELF is "degrading".
> Sexual assault is defined here as any unwanted act of a sexual nature.
----------------------------------
So consensual sex with minors is fine. I agree! Or is it "unwanted"
meaning that *YOU* don't like it!???
> FACTS TO CONSIDER:
>
> A study of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and
> 42 per
> cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography played
> a role
> in their offenses (2).
---------------------------
Blame-shifting lies by felons. Scientific? Not!!
> A study of video pornography ('adult' videos and highly restricted, or
> 'triple-X,' videos) found that 13 per cent of all scenes involved
> sexual
> violence, including rape (53 per cent), sexual harassment (35 per
> cent),
> sadomasochism (17.5 per cent), and sexual mutilation (six per cent).
> This
> study also indicated that 'adult' videos had more portrayals of sexual
> aggression per movie than triple-x videos (3).
-------------------------------
What is the difference between "triple-X" and "adult"?? There isn't
any such legal or trade-organization distinction. And if you're talking
about soft porn, they have to make it more dramatic because they have
to leave out all the good penetration shots for cable TV, and there's
nothing left to fucking sell it with!!
> A national survey of Canadians' use of pornography indicates that:
> -young people aged 12 to 17 years are the primary consumers of
> pornography
--------------------------------
Gee, I wonder why unmarried people would be more interested in sex??
> -35 per cent of these young people expressed an interest in
> watching
> sexually violent scenes (rape, torture, bondage etc.) (4).
--------------------------------
If you were being deprived of sex, you'd want to hold somebody down
and fuck them too!
> ISSUES TO CONSIDER:
>
> Males commit most sexual assaults, and are also the biggest consumers
> of
> pornography (5).
>
> Violent and dehumanizing pornography has been shown to:
> -increase the incidence of rape myths
---------------------------------
What myths? I don't know of any. That women secretly like it? Lots of
them do, and MOST fantasize about it, it is THE PRE-EMINENT female
fantasy, because the key-word in understanding sex for women in this
sex-oppressive culture is DENIABILITY! Women who don't cum very often
are MORE likely to cum when raped, according to interviews WITH THEM,
is this a myth? No. Do they LIKE it? It depends on who they are talking
to, and why!! If they are talking to someone apt to shame them, they
will never admit it, but if they are half-drunk and talking to a close
girlfriend, they will admit that rape-sex was the hottest sex they
ever had!
Numerous women-friends of mine admitted that when they were raped
when they were young or even as a virgin was the first time they
came REALLY REALLY hard!! They were also terrified and humiliated
but that didn't seem to compete with the degree of their sexual
excitement about it, even decades later!
> -increase the acceptance of violence against women
---------------------------------
Maybe it just reminds men how much women have been holding out on them
in this society and how they'd like to punish them for that!
> -decrease sensitivity to the suffering of rape victims
> -increase sexual callousness
> -increase male willingness to rape (6)
--------------------------------------
No it hasn't, it has merely been shown to be ATTENDANT upon those.
It means that it is SEXUAL NEED that drives BOTH the urge to watch
porn AND the urge to FUCK! It shows onky that SEXUAL NEED causes
BOTH of these, and NOT that porn CAUSES sexual offenses! In fact,
ALL REPUTABLE studies indicate that masturbating to porn SATISFIES
the need for sex and REDUCES the occurence of sexual offenses!
> Studies indicate that pornography undermines internal inhibitions
> against rape
> (7). It presents women as objects and perpetuates the myth that women
> enjoy
> rape and find it sexually exciting.
------------------------
That wasn't a "study", that was an OPINION of someone who hates sex
and porn.
> In an experiment on desensitization, researchers showed men 10 hours
> of
> R-rated movies with sexual violence over a five-day period. On the
> last day,
> the men watched a documentary re-enacting a real rape trial. The men
> blamed
> the rape victim more for the rape, rated her as significantly more
> worthless,
> and saw her injury as significantly less severe than did a control
> group of
> men who had not viewed the R-rated movies (9).
------------------------------
And this proves what? That since they blamed a porn actress/dramatic
character for her rape IN THE STORY that they would go out and offend???
> Early studies indicate that debriefing participants of such studies,
> in an
> attempt to discount various false messages and myths about rape, can
> in fact
> counteract certain effects of exposure to violent pornography and can
> even
> reduce the acceptance of rape myths.
--------------------------
NONE of which have any scientific basis whatsoever, because when you
ask people at large what the effect of this or that is on them, they
typically relate what they THINK YOU WANT TO HEAR IN ORDER TO THINK
WELL OF THEM!! In other words, it takes MUCH more carefully crafted
experiments to get ANYWHERE NEAR the Truth!
> References:
----------------------
ALL of which are OPINION pieces by antisexuals, NONE are peer-reviewed
studies that are reputable and legitimate Science!
Steve
Terry J. Wood
@armory.com:
> The Meese Report commisioned by the republican President at the time,
> has cited these as the reason that, in all scientific conscience, and
> AS MUCH AS THAT SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO,
> that they could NOT find scientific evidence for porn stimulating
> sexual violence, but in fact ONLY THE REVERSE, and that a BANNING of
> such porn may well actually STIMULATE sexual assaults!!
If I remember correctly (and I could easily be wrong) a study in the Nixon
administration did indicate just this. From what I remember the agenda of
the Meese Commission was to counter this prior report under a Republican
president.
I certainly would never site the Meese Commission as proof of anything,
except, perhaps, of how NOT to do a study!
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in news:46DDFC1D.7FA4
> @armory.com:
>
> > The Meese Report commisioned by the republican President at the time,
> > has cited these as the reason that, in all scientific conscience, and
> > AS MUCH AS THAT SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO,
> > that they could NOT find scientific evidence for porn stimulating
> > sexual violence, but in fact ONLY THE REVERSE, and that a BANNING of
> > such porn may well actually STIMULATE sexual assaults!!
>
> If I remember correctly (and I could easily be wrong) a study in the Nixon
> administration did indicate just this. From what I remember the agenda of
> the Meese Commission was to counter this prior report under a Republican
> president.
That's correct, I misspoke, it's been awhile since the '70's!
The hilarious thing was that the final Meese Report declined to allege
specifically that porn caused violent sexual offenses, but Meese was
just about crying big tears at the news conference when he said that
they KNEW there just HAD to BE one, but they JUST COULDN'T FIND IT!!
Priceless!!!
> I certainly would never site the Meese Commission as proof of anything,
> except, perhaps, of how NOT to do a study!
-------------------
Exactly.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:42:07 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >It emerged that Reisman's "peer review" had been
> >conducted by three vice cops, an FBI agent, and fellow
> > antiporn activist and beneficiary of Justice Department funding,
> >Ann Burgess.'
>
> with reviewing it?
---------------------------
She had promised the Commission a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY
for OUR $730,000. She did NOT provide one.
Those aren't "experienced" at finding factual scientific causation.
These are the kind of inexperienced folks that assume that since
heroin addicts chew gum that gum-chewing must cause heroin use.
Good for writing traffic tickets and bullshitting.
And not much else.
> You would prefer some Ivory Tower shut in to judge?
--------------------------
Would you prefer uneducated bigots?
Answer: YOU OBVIOUSLY WOULD!
Steve
ScottyFLL
> "ScottyFLL" <ScottyF...@lycos.com> wrote in message
I have no interest whatsoever in nudity as a lifestyle.
Come back when you have something substantial
to contribute.
bobandcarole
That will be the 12'th of never.......
Stuffed Tiger
1. Family nudist resorts prohibit photography without permission from
the resort.
2. Convicted sex offenders are prohibited from family nudist resorts.
3. Public sexual behaviors and displays are prohibited at family
nudist resorts. Just lots of wholesome, healthy activities.
4. Family nudist facilities and naturist clubs have rules and
activities supporting strong family values. Couples nudist facilities
are romantic and support couples oriented activities, but not explicit
sexual behavior.
5. Nudist parents were the first to prosecute child sexual crimes,
starting over forty years ago when churches and scouts were turning a
blind eye to the problem. Nudist resorts always cooperate closely with
police. Nudist beaches such as Haulover are managed like any other.
6. Nudists are more aware. Just last year they had a person arrested
for trespassing to take videos at one of our resorts. The police
examined that person's home in another State and found illegal videos
taken, without anyone else's knowledge, of non-nudist young girls
changing into and out of their soccer uniforms, for over ten years.
7. Nudist Youth Camps access the same crime files and screening
practices that schools do. Few church or public camps for children are
that thorough. In addition, the low councilor to camper ratio means
there is more supervision and multiple councilors in every activity.
Stuffed Tiger
nonsense being bandied about lately, I will provide a reference to
actual government sources rather than a ghosted article with no
sources by a known ideologue. Here are actual statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
There were over 3,200,000 USA sexual assaults in 1996. Although the
number of crimes has decreased, it is still large. These are serious
sexual assaults such as rape (2/3). None were reported to have
occurred in nudist facilities in that year.
Where did they occur:
... Nearly 5 of every 6 sexual assaults of young juveniles
occurred in a residence. ...
Who were the offenders:
... The offenders of adolescents (victims ages 12 through 17)
were 5 times more likely to be adult family members when
the crime was committed in a residence than when it was
committed elsewhere (table 9). ...
When did the offence occur:
... The temporal pattern of sexual assault shows that unlike
adults, young juveniles are at highest risk of sexual assault
in the hours when meals are served and after school. ...
How mature were the offenders:
... Adults were the offenders in 60% of the sexual assaults of
youth under age 12.
Are children safe with adults they know:
... Rarely were the offenders of young
juvenile victims strangers. Strangers were the offenders in
just 3% of sexual assaults against victims under age 6 and
5% of the sexual assault victimizations of youth ages 6
through 11. ...
Conclusion: children are never safe when they are in private
unsupervised situations isolated with an older child or adult.
JD
You have missed another important point - nudist children are far more
likely to report approaches to their parents or guardians than are children
who have been brought up to be ashamed of their bodies.
JD