Boy-lovers, Girl-lovers and others

J Fisher

unread,

Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/19/98

to

T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
: In article <885475...@abaron.demon.co.uk>, Alexander Baron
: <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> writes
: >> T Bruce Tober of CreCon Consulting wrote in uk.legal on Wed, 21 Jan 1998
: >> 19:42:43 +0000:
: >>
: >>
: >> > We just had a case of a 26-year-old woman getting a 22-year prison
: >> > sentence for repeatedly (40 to 50 times) having sex with a boy when he
: >> > was 11 to 12 years old. I'm curious if anyone on the list has heard of
: >> > similar cases in their area, and whether anyone knows of experts in the
: >> > area of sexual abuse of boys by older women.
: >
: >There is probably a lot more of this sort of thing than is reported because
: >boys don't usually complain! When I was a 12 year old I used to dream about
: >this sort of thing, as did most of my classmates!
:
: Bingo! Which may (note I said MAY) explain why it's different when it's
: a boy and woman to when it's a girl and man. Can some of the women
: readers here inform us of whether at that age they and their female
: classmates had such fantasy/desires?

I had definite sexual fantasies about adults at 12/13, but
being gay, my lust objects were men. It's probably
fortunate all round that it never went beyond fantasies.

--
--John

Alexander Baron

unread,

Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/20/98

to

In article <EoMpzM.Jzq.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>

jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk "J Fisher" writes:
> I had definite sexual fantasies about adults at 12/13, but
> being gay, my lust objects were men. It's probably
> fortunate all round that it never went beyond fantasies.

There is no such thing as a "gay" teenager. Lots of kids have crushes
on the same sex - though just for the record I never did. (It's typical
homo innuendo that anyone who attacks their perversion must be a repressed
queer himself). If your fantasies persisted into adult life you should have
sought treatment for them.

--

Alexander Baron,
93c Venner Road,
Sydenham,
London SE26 5HU.
England.
+44 (0)181 659 7713
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK

"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,

Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/20/98

to

In article <887964...@abaron.demon.co.uk>
A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk "Alexander Baron" writes:

> > I had definite sexual fantasies about adults at 12/13, but
> > being gay, my lust objects were men. It's probably
> > fortunate all round that it never went beyond fantasies.
>
> There is no such thing as a "gay" teenager. Lots of kids have crushes
> on the same sex - though just for the record I never did. (It's typical
> homo innuendo that anyone who attacks their perversion must be a repressed
> queer himself). If your fantasies persisted into adult life you should have
> sought treatment for them.
>

Surely logic must show this to be false. If you have a homosexual person
then this person must perforce have been a teenager, are you suggesting
that there is some age at which this person was transformed into a
homosexual?

I see your suggestion that homosexuality is a 'perversion', if it is,
what is it a perversion of? I cannot see that a love for a person of
the same sex can be seen as a perversion as it is common in heterosexual
people ( men love their fathers, women love their mothers). So it must
be the sexual act that you see as a 'perversion'. So, do you see
mutual masturbation as a 'perversion' or anal sex? If anal sex, do
you see male-male anal sex as more wrong than male-female anal sex?
If you do, why? If you don't and see all anal sex as wrong, then what
have you against male homosexuals in particular? Surely your objection
should extend to people who enjoy male-female anal sex.

Why do you see non adult fantasies as being so much more acceptable
than adult ones?

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

Peter Buchwald

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

to

>There is no such thing as a "gay" teenager.

This is the argument the government is using to justify not lowering the age
of consent and I don't think this can be true. I knew I was heterosexual at
the age of five, and I imagine that gay people probably know what their
sexual orientation is from a similarly early age. Society places many more
obstacles to homosexual people than to heterosexuals, so there is always a
push for homosexuals to conform to the "norm".

By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian
couple who were denied a travel card? Apparently in this country it is now
legal to discriminate against homosexuals - I am surprised that there wasn't
an outcry about this.

PAB

Simon Gray

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Down on uk.misc street, the vibe from "Peter H.M. Brooks" is:

~ > There is no such thing as a "gay" teenager. Lots of kids have crushes
~ > on the same sex - though just for the record I never did. (It's typical
~ > homo innuendo that anyone who attacks their perversion must be a repressed
~ > queer himself). If your fantasies persisted into adult life you should have
~ > sought treatment for them.
~ >
~ Surely logic must show this to be false. If you have a homosexual person
~ then this person must perforce have been a teenager, are you suggesting
~ that there is some age at which this person was transformed into a
~ homosexual?

No, he's just a tosser.

--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNO6sUUdRFO5sC2Q6EQJGKACfSCUYQ2vEFpltxGzFtNAMXFB1O2sAoNY3
zj+6QZKXNzJw1eLI/bRPviw9
=fDez
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Support the Campaign for the ReIntroduction of the Second Person Plural
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ Pronoun...

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

to

Spring Flowers <Spr...@Flowers.int> writes
>But in England & Wales the child is prevent by the Law from initiating a
>complaint.

Are you sure?
>
>Sick Brits encourage child sexual abuse ? No wonder there are hundreds of
>cases now coming to the attention of the police. The victims are now adults
>and can complain as of right because they are no longer children.
>
>The English & Welsh system needs drastic reforms including the introduction
>of a new right for all children 12 and over to directly initiate complaints
>of child sexual abuse to the police.

What about children under 12?
--
Joy Hilbert

Alexander Baron

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

to

In article <888013...@psyche.demon.co.uk>

pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk "Peter H.M. Brooks" writes:

> Surely logic must show this to be false. If you have a homosexual person

> then this person must perforce have been a teenager, are you suggesting

> that there is some age at which this person was transformed into a

> homosexual?

I am saying that homosexuality is an act. If you don't practice it
you're not queer.

>
> I see your suggestion that homosexuality is a 'perversion', if it is,
> what is it a perversion of? I cannot see that a love for a person of
> the same sex can be seen as a perversion as it is common in heterosexual
> people ( men love their fathers, women love their mothers).

You're confusing sex with love. People often love their pets but nobody in
his right mind buggers a guinea pig.

> Why do you see non adult fantasies as being so much more acceptable
> than adult ones?
>

Why don't you find yourself a psychiatrist? I don't need one.

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,

Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98

to

In article <888045...@abaron.demon.co.uk>
A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk "Alexander Baron" writes:

> In article <888013...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk "Peter H.M. Brooks" writes:
>
> > Surely logic must show this to be false. If you have a homosexual person
> > then this person must perforce have been a teenager, are you suggesting
> > that there is some age at which this person was transformed into a
> > homosexual?
>
> I am saying that homosexuality is an act. If you don't practice it
> you're not queer.
>

I a see. So, if somebody gets up from a long bout of buggery with another
man, but then stops, he is no longer a homosexual. In fact, when anybody
isn't actually hard at it, they are not homosexuals. This makes a nonsense
of the term (or terms if you count queer, poofda etc). It is a bit like
saying that murder is an act, so somebody is only a murderer if he is
actually in the process of slitting somebodies throat.

> >
> > I see your suggestion that homosexuality is a 'perversion', if it is,
> > what is it a perversion of? I cannot see that a love for a person of
> > the same sex can be seen as a perversion as it is common in heterosexual
> > people ( men love their fathers, women love their mothers).
>
> You're confusing sex with love. People often love their pets but nobody in
> his right mind buggers a guinea pig.
>

No, but quite a few otherwise apparently sane people have sexual relations
(as slick Willie puts it) with larger animals.

>
> > Why do you see non adult fantasies as being so much more acceptable
> > than adult ones?
> >
> Why don't you find yourself a psychiatrist? I don't need one.
>

This is commonly known as projection. I hadn't mentioned anything about
your being mad, I simply provided you with some points to think about.
You seem to find something upsetting about these points, so you suggest
not only that I am mad, but make a particular point about your sanity.

It has been my experience that people who go out of their way to point
out that they are sane are not. Think about it.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

T Bruce Tober

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <34f34d6b...@alpha.ftech.net>, Spring Flowers
<Spr...@Flowers.int> writes
> I am conscious that children can lie and invent falsehoods although
>if you have ever talked to children who were sexually abused by adults
you
>will instinctively realise by what they say they could not possibly
have
>made it up.

Total fiction. You're conveniently forgetting/neglecting false memory
syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
and have made up such stories.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNPAA5TzmzFmU9IJVAQGIlAQAk5lwLqpw8mLTek8bZJYFP/e0XVJgVOqq
G4ldj67iU0nmRJx+CLV4egHLVOk3ysnqhgbuwnEZv/TOrOW8ZT4v2IDsuNCLBY54
7cLkkDJQnVq4gjMtTc5UtDD/SDTtAp4A46mSG5sl8remfeP2W6oBwceUowsSytau
bfT3wNUbp2k=
=Bsh7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tbt -- Sign all messages with non-escrowed keys, don't give in to government
tyrany. Commentary at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/Escrow.htm

--
|Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832|
| Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |
|pgp key ID 0x94F48255. Fingerprint 0907 EBCD 1B37 91F5 D15C 0D2E C617 2671 |
| Website - http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/ |

Simon Gray

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Down on uk.misc street, the vibe from Peter Buchwald is:

~ By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian
~ couple who were denied a travel card? Apparently in this country it is now
~ legal to discriminate against homosexuals - I am surprised that there wasn't
~ an outcry about this.

Actually, on this issue I support the company.

If a company gives out perks to its employees, then it should have the
right to withold perks to employees whom it considers have a lifestyle
it does not (corporately) approve of.

Note that the lesbian involved was still employed by the company
without any discrimination as regards position, salary, etc. The
company merely decided that it wasn't going to give her girlfriend
free rail travel as a perk in the same way that it gives other
employees' husbands/wives free rail travel as a perk.

Now, I might find their attitude misguided & unfair, but I support
their right to hold that attitude.

--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNPBDVEdRFO5sC2Q6EQKjpwCgtryzkNNKrGHozcoukzDNRvDgtiwAmQHu
q3Cd/sEtMm429NKdq7TQZNt0
=MtOw

Simon

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

Iain Lafferty wrote in message
<1998022215...@basement.replay.com>...

>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:05:49 -0000 Peter Buchwald wrote:
>
>
>>By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian

>>couple who were denied a travel card? Apparently in this country it is

>>now legal to discriminate against homosexuals
>
>Crap.
>
>The railway companies originally gave subsidised transport to workers
>and their families. "Families" has *always* been extended to allow for
>common-law wives and husbands but not sex partners.
>
Please define common law Wives and Husbands for me. I am sure there is
infact no such thing

>Why the hell should the fare-paying public have to bear the cost of
>transporting the sex partners of perverts?
>
>There is no discrimination though. A normal person isn't allowed a free
>pass for a friend of the same sex. Happy now?
>
>
>
>

Simon

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

Spring Flowers wrote in message <34f34d6b...@alpha.ftech.net>...
>Joy Hilbert of runesmith wrote in uk.legal on Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:23:32
>+0000:

>
>
>> Spring Flowers <Spr...@Flowers.int> writes
>> >But in England & Wales the child is prevent by the Law from initiating a
>> >complaint.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>

>The last time I checked with the Head of Child Protection, now renamed the
>Family Protection Unit/Squad it was. I was amazed at the revelations.
>Children are expected to complain via an adult.
>
Actually if you would care to check again you will find that children are
fully able to make complaints and at that point an adult, usually a
solicitor or Guardian ad Litum will be appointed to the child.

>> >Sick Brits encourage child sexual abuse ? No wonder there are hundreds
of
>> >cases now coming to the attention of the police. The victims are now
adults
>> >and can complain as of right because they are no longer children.
>> >
>> >The English & Welsh system needs drastic reforms including the
introduction
>> >of a new right for all children 12 and over to directly initiate
complaints
>> >of child sexual abuse to the police.
>
>> What about children under 12?
>

>Lets get 12 and 12+ able to complain first then we will examine the under
>12's. I am conscious that children can lie and invent falsehoods although

>if you have ever talked to children who were sexually abused by adults you
>will instinctively realise by what they say they could not possibly have
>made it up.
>

>Let children have a happy childhood, protect them from adults who want to
>sexually abuse them.
>
>
>
>--
>Spring Flowers © 1998.
>This posting is copyright. It may not be reproduced for commercial
purposes.

Joel Hogarth

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

Simon wrote in message <6cppqd$n6a$2...@heliodor.xara.net>...

>Please define common law Wives and Husbands for me. I am sure there is
>infact no such thing

There _was_ such a thing. It was a marriage created by consent and
subsequent sexual intercourse valid under canon law. It was abolished in
England in 1753, and in Scotland in 1940. The last one in the British Isles
was established retrospectively in 1978 (Shaw v Henderson). It is still
possible to establish in Scotland "by cohabitation with habit and repute"
but rarely (never?) relied upon. It is still lawful in some American States.

Joel

Leo

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

Spr...@Flowers.int (Spring Flowers) writes:

>Mark Wright of Freedom, Vrijheid, Liberte wrote in uk.legal on Fri, 20 Feb
>1998 14:37:55 GMT:

>> For the record and for the purposes of comparison, under Dutch law sex
>> with a child under 16 is officially illegal. However, no action will
>> be taken if the child is at least 12 years old except on receipt of a
>> complaint by the child, the child's parents or guardians or the Child
>> Welfare Board.

It is worth adding that the police will often put some effort into
persuading the parents to complain, even if the child/youth doesn't want
them to.

>Dat kloopt. Bedankt.

>But in England & Wales the child is prevent by the Law from initiating a
>complaint.

Are you sure about this? It sounds extremely unlikely. Besides, in this
country the police can investigate whatever they like, whether there's been
a formal complaint or not.

>Sick Brits encourage child sexual abuse ? No wonder there are hundreds of
>cases now coming to the attention of the police. The victims are now adults
>and can complain as of right because they are no longer children.

I doubt that formal rights to make formal complaints have much to do with
it. In general terms, having grown up and left the tutelage of their
alleged abusers, they now have the confidence and social standing to
complain. Also, once one of them has -so to speak- broken the ice by
getting a complaint taken seriously, it's easier for the rest. Also, the
availability of compensation cannot be ruled out as a factor encouraging
complaints, particularly against local authorities, schools etc. (which is
not to suggest that such complaints are necessarily false, but that it
would be wise to keep in mind the possibility that some of them may be).

>The English & Welsh system needs drastic reforms including the introduction
>of a new right for all children 12 and over to directly initiate complaints
>of child sexual abuse to the police.

Agreed, if it's true they don't have such a right already. I just find that
a bit surprising. And why only those age 12 and over?
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover

"So Cyrus often used to chatter." - Xenophon's Cyropaedia
(As a boy, Cyrus's favourite topics of conversation were politics and law.)

Phil Hunt

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

In article <34f2fd71...@alpha.ftech.net>

Spr...@Flowers.int "Spring Flowers" writes:
> But in England & Wales the child is prevent by the Law from initiating a
> complaint.

There is no law preventing anyone from going into a police station
and complaining about anything.

> The English & Welsh system needs drastic reforms including the introduction
> of a new right for all children 12 and over to directly initiate complaints
> of child sexual abuse to the police.

Why should sexual abuse be treated differently from other
crimes?

--
/* Phil Hunt == ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk */
"Cannot read file because it is Read-Only"
-- MicroSoft Windows error message.

Phil Hunt

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

In article <888045...@abaron.demon.co.uk>
A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk "Alexander Baron" writes:
> You're confusing sex with love. People often love their pets but nobody in
> his right mind buggers a guinea pig.

That's right, they are too small. Far better to use a dog or a sheep.

Phil Hunt

unread,

Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98

to

In article <34ee9...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>

buch...@dircon.co.uk "Peter Buchwald" writes:
> By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian
> couple who were denied a travel card?

I think that the ECHR is wrong and that it amounts to sexual
discrimination, because a male employee is allowed to have a travelcard
of a female partner, but a female employee would not be able to have
a travelcard for the same partner. Since the only thing that has changed
in the two situtations is the sex of the employee, it is sexual
discrimination.

> Apparently in this country it is now
> legal to discriminate against homosexuals

No, the court was merely restating he current position in law.

> - I am surprised that there wasn't

> an outcry about this.

I'm not.

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Peter Buchwald <buch...@dircon.co.uk> writes

>This is the argument the government is using to justify not lowering the age
>of consent and I don't think this can be true. I knew I was heterosexual at
>the age of five, and I imagine that gay people probably know what their
>sexual orientation is from a similarly early age. Society places many more
>obstacles to homosexual people than to heterosexuals, so there is always a
>push for homosexuals to conform to the "norm".

I would imagine that gay people realise their sexual orientation
earlier, simply because they are going against the flow.

>
>By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian

>couple who were denied a travel card? Apparently in this country it is now
>legal to discriminate against homosexuals - I am surprised that there wasn't
>an outcry about this.

It has always been legal to discriminate against homosexuals. There
will not be a serious outcry because the couple took a case on "sex
discrimination" which could be easily disproved by showing that a gay
man working for the same company didn't get these perks for his family
either, ie it was "sexuality discrimination". That is, the law was not
being broken.

I expect the push will come to include sexuality discrimination in law,
rather than focussing on this one case.
--
Joy Hilbert

Axel

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Peter Buchwald (buch...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
: By the way, what do people think about the recent ruling about a lesbian

: couple who were denied a travel card? Apparently in this country it is now
: legal to discriminate against homosexuals - I am surprised that there wasn't
: an outcry about this.

It has never been 'illegal' to discriminate against perverts as such.

There is no reason why I as an employer should be required to give free
benefits to sexual cohorts of my employees. If I choose to give such
benefits to legitimately married companions, that is my privilege and
choice.

Axel

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Joel Hogarth (jr...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Simon wrote in message <6cppqd$n6a$2...@heliodor.xara.net>...

Marriage by habit and repute in Scotland is still relied upon as a form of
irregular marriage - just apply to the Court of Session for a declarator
of marriage. It is usually used either in divorce cases (people have found
themselves married much to their surprise) or after the death of a spouse.

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes

>Total fiction. You're conveniently forgetting/neglecting false memory
>syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
>and have made up such stories.
>

Perhaps he just doesn't believe "syndromes" invented by child molesters
to get them off the hook?
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Iain Lafferty <pn...@uk.misc.com> writes

>The railway companies originally gave subsidised transport to workers
>and their families. "Families" has *always* been extended to allow for
>common-law wives and husbands but not sex partners.

"Always"? Are you sure?

>
>Why the hell should the fare-paying public have to bear the cost of
>transporting the sex partners of perverts?

It shouldn't. The company, if it bears the cost of carrying the
families of hetties, should carry the families of other people too.

How do you know Grant and her partner are "sex partners"? No
heterosexual person has to swear that their partner is a "sex partner"?
Typical heterosexual, always dragging sex into things.

>
>There is no discrimination though. A normal person isn't allowed a free
>pass for a friend of the same sex. Happy now?

Grant's normal, and she wasn't allowed a pass for a same-sex friend, so
you must be wrong there, too.
--
Joy Hilbert

Joel Hogarth

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

T Bruce Tober wrote in message ...

>Total fiction. You're conveniently forgetting/neglecting false memory
>syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
>and have made up such stories.

Those Freudian theories have been discredited a _long_ time ago.

Joel

Leo

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

ma...@giallo.demon.nul (Mark Wright) writes:

>One joyful day (Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:00:02 GMT to be precise),

>l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo) decided that the Usenet community would
>benefit from this remarkable comment:

>>Spr...@Flowers.int (Spring Flowers) writes:

>>>Mark Wright of Freedom, Vrijheid, Liberte wrote in uk.legal on Fri, 20 Feb
>>>1998 14:37:55 GMT:

>>>> For the record and for the purposes of comparison, under Dutch law sex
>>>> with a child under 16 is officially illegal. However, no action will
>>>> be taken if the child is at least 12 years old except on receipt of a
>>>> complaint by the child, the child's parents or guardians or the Child
>>>> Welfare Board.

>>It is worth adding that the police will often put some effort into
>>persuading the parents to complain, even if the child/youth doesn't want
>>them to.

>If neither the child nor the child's parents have complained, how
>would the police even be aware of the act?

Gossip, rumour, overheard coversation, nosy neighbour, disgruntled
ex-spouse. There might not even be any 'act', just a suspicious friendship
and an allegation.

>If you are right, is that just as a result of the Dutroux case? I
>thought the police used to be very liberal about such things if there
>was no talk of force or coercion.

The publicity which accompanied the Dutroux case certainly hasn't helped,
and neither have the understandings which appear to have been entered into
by several governments including the Dutch at the Stockholm conference. But
things were already beginning to go wrong before either of those events.
There just seems to be a swing of the pendulum towards a more assertive
attitude on the part of the more conservative elements in Dutch society
(following the anglo-saxon lead at a distance of about 15 years).

>>>The English & Welsh system needs drastic reforms including the introduction
>>>of a new right for all children 12 and over to directly initiate complaints
>>>of child sexual abuse to the police.

>>Agreed, if it's true they don't have such a right already. I just find that

>>a bit surprising. And why only those age 12 and over?

>Agreed too - for all ages.

>But I'm also of the opinion that children have sexual relationships
>whether you like it or not (I don't think everyone waits until 16) and
>it is best to allow genuinely consensual relationships lest you create
>a feeling of mistrust in the children.

In principle, with the proviso that in the present atmosphere it is folly
for adults to have sex 'across the age barrier', I agree. I think that if
the Dutch law were enforced in the spirit originally intended, it would be
a good solution. It is part and parcel of the same respect for minors that
would accord to them the right to make formal police complaints.

>If a child of 14 wants to have sex and understands the feelings and
>the mechanics but is not sure of the protective aspect, who would
>he/she turn to for help if it involves the disclosure of an intent to
>commit a criminal act? Am I right in thinking that teachers are not
>allowed to give such advice in the UK but that doctors are?

AIUI doctors are obliged to try to persuade someone under 16 to report any
sexual activity to their parents, but if the young person will not do so,
they may advise in confidence. Also, the Brook Advisory Centres exist to
advise young people on just these issues.

Teachers are not bound by confidence and confiding in them is dangerous for
young people. I shouldn't think that many do. Certainly, recalling my own
teachers, fondly though I remember some of them, I certainly wouldn't have
entrusted confidences to many of them. (And least of all to the one with
the post of school counsellor.)

A priest (I write as an atheist) or even a lawyer would be a better choice!

>Incidentally, and I said this not so long ago, Holland has one of the
>lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe - the UK has the highest I
>believe. This may or may not have something to do with the absolute
>criminality of under-16 sex in the UK but I think there's a good
>chance of a link somewhere.

I suggest it's to do with a general attitude of greater openness and less
panic in the Netherlands. I hope that's not coming to an end.

T Bruce Tober

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <V5Q8jTA7...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> writes

>T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes

>>Total fiction. You're conveniently forgetting/neglecting false memory
>>syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
>>and have made up such stories.
>>

>Perhaps he just doesn't believe "syndromes" invented by child molesters
>to get them off the hook?

That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've obviously
not been keeping up.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNPHZ9zzmzFmU9IJVAQEt7gP/aHUFHJPF1H3yUXAxyWQNSrS+ykBs7PWW
O8t3g3CX5Kck2tqBWBYX+lIpwuXzjO3I7G9+wv2X3fDJh9p71xXt6nAN5FFEXjQ1
dGW4zCfi6smlkuEvdeD9DdYvg/CEIHGe9gBsrjEYq7menYew8xyMuM8POh9S3Jcu
KWKj1NZ+UO8=
=AGJR

Nigel Carron

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

In article <06krc6...@mesimarja.white-eagle.co.uk>, Axel
<ax...@dialup.white-eagle.co.uk> writes

>It has never been 'illegal' to discriminate against perverts as such.
>
>There is no reason why I as an employer should be required to give free
>benefits to sexual cohorts of my employees. If I choose to give such
>benefits to legitimately married companions, that is my privilege and
>choice.

Whats a bigoted prat like you doing on a culture newsgroup??

If Jesus was gay (there is proof of this), then why should anyone else
who's sexual preference varies from the 'Normal' be discriminated
against.
--
Nigel Carron

Anthony & Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Axel <ax...@dialup.white-eagle.co.uk> writes

>There is no reason why I as an employer should be required to give free
>benefits to sexual cohorts of my employees. If I choose to give such
>benefits to legitimately married companions, that is my privilege and
>choice.
>

Until the law is changed to make you behave decently
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98

to

Spring Flowers <Spr...@Flowers.int> writes

>The last time I checked with the Head of Child Protection, now renamed the
>Family Protection Unit/Squad it was. I was amazed at the revelations.
>Children are expected to complain via an adult.

Well, they have to complain _to_ an adult, and presumably the trusted
adult will report the matter to the appropriate bodies, at which point
they will be appointed their own representatives.

However, this is different from what you said.
--
Joy Hilbert

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

In article <8yT+kRB8...@prs5rr8t.prestel.co.uk>

octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:

> >>syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
> >>and have made up such stories.
> >>
> >Perhaps he just doesn't believe "syndromes" invented by child molesters
> >to get them off the hook?
>
> That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
> throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've obviously
> not been keeping up.
>

There was also a good series of articles in the BMJ in January about how
the invented memory stuff had been shown to be so dangerous.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

T Bruce Tober

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <34f3135...@alpha.ftech.net>, Spring Flowers
<Spr...@Flowers.int> writes
>T Bruce Tober of CreCon Consulting wrote in uk.legal on Sun, 22 Feb
1998
>10:41:46 +0000:

>
>
>> Total fiction. You're conveniently forgetting/neglecting false memory

>> syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
>> and have made up such stories.
>

>I'm writing about *ordinary* cases of *ordinary* children.

As am I. Suggest you read the studies of childhood memory and lying and
fantasizing. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus specialises in such studies and has
written extensively on the subject.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNPK5VDzmzFmU9IJVAQFT4wP+I/0sGTX0gtx4gGFIu4IN/EED6jtdIwHw
lF+PYE21RsOt8CVde81Lm+ufMOp0hCAvxopiCFeOu3rEscJ0+KS/WdHsuDMHOd55
8QS7jyLIVB5DjrSoEL2L2POXrXMBrSG2bSE3Lo5Be8QYTOFjgoL6NWWEg7EyZGpz
bGI7NCsjs0M=
=WILC

John J Smith

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

In article <6cmhbg$9...@wisp.demon.co.uk>,
<ma...@wisp.demon.co.nospam.uk> wrote:
>In uk.misc Alexander Baron <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <EoMpzM.Jzq.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
>> jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk "J Fisher" writes:
>>> I had definite sexual fantasies about adults at 12/13, but
>>> being gay, my lust objects were men. It's probably
>>> fortunate all round that it never went beyond fantasies.
>
>> There is no such thing as a "gay" teenager.
>
>How do you know?

Because non of them will sleep with him...

Smid

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes

>That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
>throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've obviously
>not been keeping up.
>

Oh, I don't need to keep up. We've been through this cycle 4 times in
the last 150 years:

Someone discovers the prevalence of child sexual abuse
Some powerful men get scared of their molested children speaking out (or
their children do speak out)
Said powerful men start finding reasons why it is not true: either
therapists forcing people to "remember" things that didn't happen or
"children lie".
Subject is dropped for a decade or more.

--
Joy Hilbert

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

Joy Hilbert (hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Oh, I don't need to keep up. We've been through this cycle 4 times in
: the last 150 years:

: Someone discovers the prevalence of child sexual abuse

: etc etc etc

And we've been through your cycle as well...

Group of quasiprofessional zealots seek to increase their power,
So they gain ascendancy over the weak and the vulnerable,
And accuse others of Hideous Sin,
Any denial of which only goes to show how serious the sin is.

Most churches have tried it, and its time for the 20th century's own brand
of religious charlatans, the counsellors, to try it on.

I suppose you'll accuse me of being a child molester for this.

Ian

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

In article <6MonuxAb...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk "Joy Hilbert" writes:

> T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes
> >That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
> >throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've obviously
> >not been keeping up.
> >

> Oh, I don't need to keep up. We've been through this cycle 4 times in
> the last 150 years:
>
> Someone discovers the prevalence of child sexual abuse

> Some powerful men get scared of their molested children speaking out (or
> their children do speak out)
> Said powerful men start finding reasons why it is not true: either
> therapists forcing people to "remember" things that didn't happen or
> "children lie".
> Subject is dropped for a decade or more.
>

It rather sounds as if you have a paranoid attachment to '60's feminist
guff. Why not look up the BMJ, they don't all listen in to your 'phone,
and not all of them are patriarchal men? You will find that barmy
lefty 'therapists' have been implanting false memories into peoples
minds. These evil people have been doing it to satisfy their mad attachment
to 'feminist' ideology that holds that almost all children have been
abused.

Sadly not enough of these chalatans have been locked up.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

Lyle Rooff

unread,

Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98

to

I would recommend the various books and journal articles written by Dr.
Elizabeth Loftus on the topic of memory fabrication. She demonstrates how
and why it occurs, and why all of us are succeptible to it even when there
is no motive or intent to remember anything but the truth.

Eliyahu Rooff

"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<888313...@psyche.demon.co.uk>...

| In article <8yT+kRB8...@prs5rr8t.prestel.co.uk>
| octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
|

| > >>syndrome and related subjects and studies which show that children do
| > >>and have made up such stories.
| > >>

| > >Perhaps he just doesn't believe "syndromes" invented by child
molesters
| > >to get them off the hook?
| >

| > That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
| > throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've
obviously
| > not been keeping up.
| >

T Bruce Tober

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <888355...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, Peter H.M. Brooks
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <6MonuxAb...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
> hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk "Joy Hilbert" writes:
>
>> T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes

>> >That's not what the courts and medical experts in the states and
>> >throughout most of the world are increasingly thinking. You've
obviously
>> >not been keeping up.
>> >

>> Oh, I don't need to keep up. We've been through this cycle 4 times
in
>> the last 150 years:
>>
>> Someone discovers the prevalence of child sexual abuse
>> Some powerful men get scared of their molested children speaking out
(or
>> their children do speak out)
>> Said powerful men start finding reasons why it is not true: either
>> therapists forcing people to "remember" things that didn't happen or
>> "children lie".
>> Subject is dropped for a decade or more.
>>
>It rather sounds as if you have a paranoid attachment to '60's feminist
>guff. Why not look up the BMJ, they don't all listen in to your 'phone,
>and not all of them are patriarchal men?

Which also goes for two of the leading spokespersons/researchers into
the subject in the States - Elizabeht Loftus and Pamela Freyd.

>You will find that barmy
>lefty 'therapists' have been implanting false memories into peoples
>minds.

And insane, right-wing evangelistic, born again nutters.

>Sadly not enough of these chalatans have been locked up.

Agreed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNPNrFDzmzFmU9IJVAQF9swP/dEJdYK5dBpVwuUvnVM47Hj8YHi/r9Mse
MZxO4LoURgT4mKdEHO6TNET7TZCGv+wiR8RZSK0PCv+Sr9IzRNshK0v8QnRfV/t0
OusK86+zdfDgUdYIgLF+6SA3eeeORDzzr/qClRK3MYREsjLDDb5J9RyskPKjq2Sx
TRgm6wbP0o4=
=KLfh

Peter Cassidy

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Iain Lafferty (pn...@uk.misc.com) wrote:

[snip]
: Nobody was being discriminated against. But why should discrimination
: be wrong? It goes on all the time. Look at the system New Labour used
: to make sure women were elected - they simply refused to shortlist men
: in some constituencies. There is now a Minister for Women but no Minister
: for Men. And so on.

Good point.

: Birmingham has funded a homework club for homosexual teenagers. What's the
: chances of them funding one for normal teenagers?

So, are homosexual teenagers 'abnormal', then?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

>Mark Wright of Freedom, Vrijheid, Liberte wrote in uk.legal on Tue, 24 Feb
>1998 21:45:25 GMT:
>

>> Could not such an image allow the person to fantasize without having to
>> Commit the act himself, effectively rendering the image therapeutic?

I'm not sure if I have the right attribution, so if it isn't Mark
Wright who wrote the above comment, my apologies in advance.

I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males to
please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or other girlie
rag mag because they thought the pictures would suppress their desire
for physical contact with wimen. Just a question.

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: These evil people have been doing it to satisfy their mad attachment

: to 'feminist' ideology that holds that almost all children have been
: abused.

Not quite fair. In fact, not fair at all. They do it because they enjoy the
power and the control over other people's lives, and bacause they enjoy
having others dependent on them. Nothing to do with feminism.

Ian

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:

: >You will find that barmy

: >lefty 'therapists' have been implanting false memories into peoples
: >minds.

: And insane, right-wing evangelistic, born again nutters.

How true, how true. There were reports that, just before the Orkney farce,
the social workers there had been on a day course on Satanic Abuse in
Aberdeen organised by a bunch of nutty evos. Still, satanic abuse seems
rather out of fashion these days - perhaps even the therapy business couldn't
cope with the complete lack of evidence?

A survey in the US found that the number of personalities diagnosed for people
with MPD was directly related to the amount of cover their health insurance
provided for mental illness...

Ian

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males to

: please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or other girlie
: rag mag because they thought the pictures would suppress their desire
: for physical contact with wimen. Just a question.

Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the aftereffects
of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask yourself why most
porn is bought?

Ian

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

In article <6d0jrb$bvh$5...@news.ox.ac.uk>
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk "Ian Johnston" writes:

Correction accepted, thank you.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

J Fisher

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Simon Gray (si...@star-one.org.uk) wrote:

: If a company gives out perks to its employees, then it should have the
: right to withold perks to employees whom it considers have a lifestyle
: it does not (corporately) approve of.
:
: Note that the lesbian involved was still employed by the company
: without any discrimination as regards position, salary, etc. The
: company merely decided that it wasn't going to give her girlfriend
: free rail travel as a perk in the same way that it gives other
: employees' husbands/wives free rail travel as a perk.

The company despises the way that lesbians and gay men live
their lives, does not acknowledge that their relationships
have any vailidity; and then presumably requires of its
lesbian and gay employees the same loyalty and commitment as
it does of its other employees.

Obviously it won't get that. I expect, therefore, that a
substantial proportion of its employees will be disaffected
and resentful. This will obviously affect the efficiency
and safety of their trains, and I would suggest that wise
people would avoid travelling on them.

: Now, I might find their attitude misguided & unfair, but I support
: their right to hold that attitude.

Okay. Also the right to make their lesbian and gay
employess wear placards saying "I am an evil pervert", I
suppose? Or "My partner is filth"? Or perhaps they might
have daily rituals of humiliation for them, with the
manager marching up to their work place and ceremonially
spitting on a picture of their partner?

--
--John

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On 25 Feb 1998 08:19:20 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
wrote:

Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?

I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've heard
enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their fantasies.
(Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that
his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
to his fantasies.

So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
claim that it would have the same effect on deviants -- particularly
when we live in a time when pornography is so readily available and
easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the
history of man than the present to prove it. So I have to say that I
have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
the statistics.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 25 Feb 1998 08:19:20 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
: wrote:

: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >
: >: I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males to
: >: please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or other girlie
: >: rag mag because they thought the pictures would suppress their desire
: >: for physical contact with wimen. Just a question.
: >
: >Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the aftereffects
: >of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask yourself why most
: >porn is bought?

: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?

That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.

: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with

: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?

That'd most likely depend on the person.

: I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've heard

: enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their fantasies.

There aren't a lot of people go up before the beak to say "Yes, I dun it
M'lud and I dun it because I'm a very bad person and they should throw
away the key."

Call me a cynic but I suspect that "M'lud, it wos the
drugs/drink/pornography wot dun it and I'm just a poor victim of this
evil trade" is a little more common.

: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that

: his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
: fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
: imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
: to his fantasies.

I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist, there's
not going to be any answer to that one.

: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines

: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants -- particularly
: when we live in a time when pornography is so readily available and
: easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
: to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the
: history of man than the present to prove it.

Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
countries with differing laws as regards pornography.

: So I have to say that I

: have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
: the statistics.

Which statistics?

FoFP

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On 25 Feb 1998 15:14:12 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Distribution:
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: On 25 Feb 1998 08:19:20 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
>: wrote:
>
>: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: >
>: >: I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males to
>: >: please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or other girlie
>: >: rag mag because they thought the pictures would suppress their desire
>: >: for physical contact with wimen. Just a question.
>: >
>: >Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the aftereffects
>: >of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask yourself why most
>: >porn is bought?
>
>: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
>: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
>: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
>
>That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.

Thank you. I suppose then someone with a fierce desire to molest
children would have to rub himself raw for the pornography to have any
beneficial effect to society.

>: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
>: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?
>
>That'd most likely depend on the person.

Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.

>: I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've heard
>: enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their fantasies.
>
>There aren't a lot of people go up before the beak to say "Yes, I dun it
>M'lud and I dun it because I'm a very bad person and they should throw
>away the key."
>
>Call me a cynic but I suspect that "M'lud, it wos the
>drugs/drink/pornography wot dun it and I'm just a poor victim of this
>evil trade" is a little more common.

Not a problem with me. Make strict laws that don't give leniency for
people who use drug/drink/pornography and we can all move forward.

>: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that
>: his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
>: fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
>: imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
>: to his fantasies.
>
>I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist, there's
>not going to be any answer to that one.

I suppose it would be highly impractical to assign criminal
psychologists with every pornographic magazine we sell, wouldn't it?
Shame.

>: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants -- particularly
>: when we live in a time when pornography is so readily available and
>: easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
>: to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the
>: history of man than the present to prove it.
>
>Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
>countries with differing laws as regards pornography.

Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...

>
>: So I have to say that I
>: have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
>: the statistics.
>
>Which statistics?

I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
of resolving.

John Elway Rosenthal

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:15:39 GMT,
Ms_...@ix.netcom.com <Ms_...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 1998 08:19:20 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
>wrote:
>
>>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>: I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males to
>>: please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or other girlie
>>: rag mag because they thought the pictures would suppress their desire
>>: for physical contact with wimen. Just a question.
>>
>>Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the aftereffects
>>of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask yourself why most
>>porn is bought?
>
>Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
>are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
>the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?

>More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
>women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?

Well of course, like all men, I have never actually seen or used
pornography. But if, for example, I happened to find myself 5000
miles from my girlfriend, and If I were to use such means, I'm
sure they would be effective in preventing me from having an
uncontrollable urge to go out to the nearest single's bar to get laid.

--
Colin Rosenthal

Christopher Bruce

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

Mark Wright wrote:
>
> One joyful day (Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:50:04 GMT to be precise),
> Spr...@Flowers.int (Spring Flowers) decided that the Usenet community

> would benefit from this remarkable comment:
>

> ><snip>
> Mark Wright
> - ma...@giallo.demon.nl

Mark,
You have presented a well argued and reasonable case.

I agree almost 100% with your conclusions but the exception is your
suggestion athat all intercourse below the age of 12 should be
considered rape.

Rape and abuse is unacceptable at any age!

Sex and violence are not related and should never be joined together in
the rather strange way that Western societies seemed to have made them
bedfellows! (Sorry about that!)

This is for administrative purposes only.

It will be interesting to hear what Spring Flowers thinks is wrong with
a loving sexual relationship between 10 year olds?

Whereas there is little difficulty in identifying what is wrong with
adult/child sex!

Love and/or sex, at any age is a demonstration of trust. Adult/child sex
is a betrayal of that trust.

Betrayal, taking advantage of, coercing, forcing, raping are all
problems of this age and again are not to be tolerated against any age
group but our children are a very special sub-group.

They are fundamentally trusting and this leaves them open to abuse.

The argument was about the rights of the artist, and you are of course
right!

I also defend the artist's right to his creation but I don't want to see
it!

Regards

Chris

ps
Many civilisations tolerated sex between children of any age, banning it
only as maturity approached and pregnancy could and would result!

pps I have removed soc.cuture.scottish as it is simply not relevant
there!
Pretty harmless actually but in this day and age

--
_/_/ mailto:br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de
_/ mailto:Christop...@compuserve.com
_/ A true friend knows who you are,
_/_/ but likes you anyway

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On 25 Feb 1998 16:38:40 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (John Elway
Rosenthal) wrote:

Okay, Colin. I accept that response for the shortrun. Now let's try
to go full circle and address the pedophile problem. The big question
is, if women were forbidden to you. in other words, sex with them
would never be accepted by society, would you find the pornographic
material suppressing your drive for physical contact or stimulating
it?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:46:12 GMT, ma...@giallo.demon.nul (Mark Wright)
wrote:

>One joyful day (Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:05:52 GMT to be precise),
>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com decided that the Usenet community would benefit
>from this remarkable comment:
>
><Snip>
>>>: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines

>>>: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
>>>: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
>>>

>>>That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.
>>
>>Thank you. I suppose then someone with a fierce desire to molest
>>children would have to rub himself raw for the pornography to have any
>>beneficial effect to society.
>

>Anybody who can masturbate to orgasm every 15 minutes probably already
>does. And he probably gets a fortune for doing it.

Um... see, that's the difference between us. Until now it never
occurred to me that someone would waste their money just to watch
someone else reach orgasm. Is it just orgasms or will they pay to
watch me eat a cheeseburger and fries? I assume they're living
vicariously for health/hygienic reasons.

>Let's be realistic here.
>
>>>: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with

>>>: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?
>>>

>>>That'd most likely depend on the person.
>>
>>Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
>>pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.
>

>Just as it would be wrong to make a general claim it can't be.

Oh, I wouldn't be the one making the claim. T'would be the deviants
that claim it. And yes they have.

>>>: I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've heard
>>>: enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their fantasies.
>>>
>>>There aren't a lot of people go up before the beak to say "Yes, I dun it
>>>M'lud and I dun it because I'm a very bad person and they should throw
>>>away the key."
>>>
>>>Call me a cynic but I suspect that "M'lud, it wos the
>>>drugs/drink/pornography wot dun it and I'm just a poor victim of this
>>>evil trade" is a little more common.
>>
>>Not a problem with me. Make strict laws that don't give leniency for
>>people who use drug/drink/pornography and we can all move forward.
>

>Oh, such compassion. Makes me almost want to cry.

Need a hanky?

>>>: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that
>>>: his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
>>>: fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
>>>: imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
>>>: to his fantasies.
>>>
>>>I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist, there's
>>>not going to be any answer to that one.
>>
>>I suppose it would be highly impractical to assign criminal
>>psychologists with every pornographic magazine we sell, wouldn't it?
>>Shame.
>

>So you sell pornographic magazines then?

"We" as in society. Or does your society forbid the selling of the
material?

>>>: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>>>: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>>>: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants -- particularly
>>>: when we live in a time when pornography is so readily available and
>>>: easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
>>>: to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the
>>>: history of man than the present to prove it.
>>>
>>>Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
>>>countries with differing laws as regards pornography.
>>
>>Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
>>differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...
>

>Wow! A bit of reason creeps into the authoritarian/feminist diatribe.

Ah, I see, the democratic debate only works for you if one agrees with
you. Ooookay.

>>>: So I have to say that I
>>>: have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
>>>: the statistics.
>>>
>>>Which statistics?
>>
>>I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
>>of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
>>material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
>>history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
>>pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
>>of resolving.
>

>Actually, I don't think anybody's ever claimed pornography can resolve
>the problems, just that the vast majority of it is used totally
>harmlessly by a *lot* of average people and in certain cases it can
>help people to control an otherwise uncontrollable sexual drive.

I'm not concerned about the average person. I'm concerned about
irresponsible statements made by pornography proponents who claim that
pornography has therapeutic effects on deviant people.

>Oh, and you also have the burden of proof backwards. As freedom of
>speech is a basic human right, it is for those who wish to curtail
>that right to justify that demand, not for everybody else to justify
>why it should be left alone.

Ahh... but I believe society has already decided that pedophile
pornography is not acceptable. As for other pornography, I'm not
trying to curtail it at all. In fact I plan to use it liberally
during my declining unimaginative years. What I am doing, however, is
stating that you can't protect the right to pedophile pornography on
the grounds that it has any therapeutic effect on the deviant. In
fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."

>We should be asking you what evidence you have that sexual crimes have
>increased as a direct result of pornography. (Not forgetting all those
>tricky things like religion, tradition, etc the effects of which you
>would have to filter out first ...)

But then you would be changing the basis of this argument, wouldn't
you? Does that mean you have realized that you've lost?

Kevin Dekan

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

M Holmes wrote:

> Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> : (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that
> : his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
> : fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
> : imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
> : to his fantasies.
>
> I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist, there's
> not going to be any answer to that one.

Where's Cracker when ye need 'im?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98

to

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:48:08 GMT, ma...@giallo.demon.nul (Mark Wright)
wrote:

>One joyful day (Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:04:59 GMT to be precise),

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com decided that the Usenet community would benefit
>from this remarkable comment:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:46:12 GMT, ma...@giallo.demon.nul (Mark Wright)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>One joyful day (Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:05:52 GMT to be precise),
>>>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com decided that the Usenet community would benefit
>>>from this remarkable comment:
>>>
>>><Snip>
>>>>>: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
>>>>>: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
>>>>>: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
>>>>>
>>>>>That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you. I suppose then someone with a fierce desire to molest
>>>>children would have to rub himself raw for the pornography to have any
>>>>beneficial effect to society.
>>>
>>>Anybody who can masturbate to orgasm every 15 minutes probably already
>>>does. And he probably gets a fortune for doing it.
>>
>>Um... see, that's the difference between us. Until now it never
>>occurred to me that someone would waste their money just to watch
>>someone else reach orgasm.
>

>So you think porno actors work for free? And what about live sex
>shows?

Oh, heck, how would I know what porno actors do? I'm a mother of
young children. I can't wait until they're seventeen so I can
subscribe to HBO, "television for adults."

>> Is it just orgasms or will they pay to
>>watch me eat a cheeseburger and fries? I assume they're living
>>vicariously for health/hygienic reasons.
>>
>>>Let's be realistic here.
>>>
>>>>>: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
>>>>>: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?
>>>>>
>>>>>That'd most likely depend on the person.
>>>>
>>>>Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
>>>>pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.
>>>
>>>Just as it would be wrong to make a general claim it can't be.
>>
>>Oh, I wouldn't be the one making the claim. T'would be the deviants
>>that claim it. And yes they have.
>

>So you are not claiming it can and you are not claiming it can't?

Personally I don't have any other proof than what deviants have said
about what triggered their impulses. Remember, these were men who
were already convicted for their crimes and who had nothing to gain or
lose by expressing their opinions.

I just find it very interesting how society picks a politically
correct theory and runs with it, ignoring all facts that might refute
that theory. That's why I'm neither claiming *on a general basis*
that pornography can or can't be therapeutic. If we accept that we
are a very complicated species, then we can easily see how ludicrous
it would be to paint everyone with a broad brush.

>>>>>: I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've heard
>>>>>: enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their fantasies.
>>>>>
>>>>>There aren't a lot of people go up before the beak to say "Yes, I dun it
>>>>>M'lud and I dun it because I'm a very bad person and they should throw
>>>>>away the key."
>>>>>
>>>>>Call me a cynic but I suspect that "M'lud, it wos the
>>>>>drugs/drink/pornography wot dun it and I'm just a poor victim of this
>>>>>evil trade" is a little more common.
>>>>
>>>>Not a problem with me. Make strict laws that don't give leniency for
>>>>people who use drug/drink/pornography and we can all move forward.
>>>
>>>Oh, such compassion. Makes me almost want to cry.
>>
>>Need a hanky?
>

>Yes please, I appear to have run out for some reason ...

>
>>>>>: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed that
>>>>>: his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part of his
>>>>>: fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his wild
>>>>>: imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to bring life
>>>>>: to his fantasies.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist, there's
>>>>>not going to be any answer to that one.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose it would be highly impractical to assign criminal
>>>>psychologists with every pornographic magazine we sell, wouldn't it?
>>>>Shame.
>>>
>>>So you sell pornographic magazines then?
>>
>>"We" as in society. Or does your society forbid the selling of the
>>material?
>

>Au contraire, my society sells rather a lot of it I believe.

I then bow to your greater knowledge about what porn stars will do for
money.

>>>>>: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>>>>>: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>>>>>: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants -- particularly
>>>>>: when we live in a time when pornography is so readily available and
>>>>>: easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
>>>>>: to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the
>>>>>: history of man than the present to prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
>>>>>countries with differing laws as regards pornography.
>>>>
>>>>Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
>>>>differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...
>>>
>>>Wow! A bit of reason creeps into the authoritarian/feminist diatribe.
>>
>>Ah, I see, the democratic debate only works for you if one agrees with
>>you. Ooookay.
>

>No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational
>argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)

Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?

>>>>>: So I have to say that I
>>>>>: have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
>>>>>: the statistics.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which statistics?
>>>>
>>>>I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
>>>>of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
>>>>material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
>>>>history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
>>>>pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
>>>>of resolving.
>>>
>>>Actually, I don't think anybody's ever claimed pornography can resolve
>>>the problems, just that the vast majority of it is used totally
>>>harmlessly by a *lot* of average people and in certain cases it can
>>>help people to control an otherwise uncontrollable sexual drive.
>>
>>I'm not concerned about the average person. I'm concerned about
>>irresponsible statements made by pornography proponents who claim that
>>pornography has therapeutic effects on deviant people.
>

>In certain cases it does. The United States set up a senate committee
>(or some similar such thing) in the early 1970's which came to just
>the same conclusion. If I can get a hold of "Obscenity" by Geofrey
>Robertson QC (from whence this information came I seem to recall) I
>will tell you which one.

1970? You're using statistics from 1970? I admire that you should
even attempt to dig them up at all in Usenet, but in thirty years
pornography has become not only more prevalent but graphic. I'd like
to see an objective study taken within the last five years. Back in
1970 we still had complete generations that were affected by the
strict mores of the 50s, so I could see where Heffie's soft porn
Playboy may have been beneficial. But since then we've moved on to
some serious S&M, leather and chain magazines and I doubt that a 1970
study would have taken that into account.

>>>Oh, and you also have the burden of proof backwards. As freedom of
>>>speech is a basic human right, it is for those who wish to curtail
>>>that right to justify that demand, not for everybody else to justify
>>>why it should be left alone.
>>
>>Ahh... but I believe society has already decided that pedophile
>>pornography is not acceptable.
>

>I think we're beginning to digress here. What society says it wants
>and what the material can do are two different things.
>
>And even if the curtailment restricted only one person you would still
>have to justify it.

I'm afraid you're beating a dead horse. Child pornography is not
acceptable.

>> As for other pornography, I'm not
>>trying to curtail it at all. In fact I plan to use it liberally
>>during my declining unimaginative years.
>> What I am doing, however, is
>>stating that you can't protect the right to pedophile pornography on
>>the grounds that it has any therapeutic effect on the deviant.
>

>I don't. This thread started as a result of a painting which I opined
>may have beneficial effects for some people. The main thrust of the
>argument though was, and still is, that the artist had the right to
>paint and display said painting.

I don't know anything about the picture you mention. But I've had a
similar discussion about Mapplethorpe's depiction of a young girl
sitting on some steps and the picture clearly showing that she is
without panties. If Mapplethorpe happened to take the picture as he
was walking by, no prodding on his part, the picture would be
considered a documentation. But if he posed the child, intentionally
removing her underwear and/or requesting her to sit with her knees
apart, then it is child pornography. In my opinion, if that child
grew up to feel shame over how that picture was taken, she would have
the right to sue Mapplethorpe for exploitation -- regardless of what
her nimrod parents consented to. It's about individual rights and
freedom, you know.

>I was arguing against somebody who stated that it may cause some
>people to snatch children from the streets and abuse them. I merely
>put forward the opposing notion that it may actually prevent some
>people from doing so.
>
>I do not believe that abusive child pornography should be freely
>available, but I do accept the Dutch government's idea that it can be
>used therapeutically in certain cases, hence the exemption for its
>distribution for such purposes which is written into law here.

And how is this "therapy" distributed responsibly when it's displayed
publicly?

>> In
>>fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
>>is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
>>curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."
>

>Maybe you'd care to expand on that? Which drug and how is it used?
>[Note: We may be getting *way* off-topic for the newsgroups to which
>this thread is being posted with this ...]

Keep your eyes and ears open. I caught it on a whiff on the news.
It's relatively new.

>>>We should be asking you what evidence you have that sexual crimes have
>>>increased as a direct result of pornography. (Not forgetting all those
>>>tricky things like religion, tradition, etc the effects of which you
>>>would have to filter out first ...)
>>
>>But then you would be changing the basis of this argument, wouldn't
>>you?
>

>No. I got the impression you were arguing against all pornography. You
>seemed to suggest that the proponents of pornography should be able to
>show that it has a therapeutic effect.

No. I'm stating that proponents of pornography should not generalize
about its therapeutic effect. To be responsible and rational, you
have to accept responsibilities for the failures as well as taking
credit for the successes.

>I was merely pointing out the contradiction in your argument by
>dismissing one potential system of measurement due to other factors on
>the one hand, and not offering any suggestion as to how they could be
>ruled out of the equation on the other.
>
>Asking you to prove the harm of pornography should have made you run
>headlong into those factors and thus the contradiction.
>
>As it is, I seem to have misinterpreted your objection. It would seem
>we actually agree.

>
>> Does that mean you have realized that you've lost?
>

>What, after an argument lasting less than a day? It takes months of
>argument before I realize I've lost. [Note: Not strictly true. It may
>take a few minutes to realize I've lost but several months to admit
>it.]

Aahhh. I nominate that last sentence for comment of the week. Well
said.

Alex Buell

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 25 Feb 1998, Ian Johnston wrote:

> Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the aftereffects
> of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask yourself why most
> porn is bought?

I think orgasms are addictive and should be banned. <g>

Cheers,
Alex
--
/\_/\ Make the police happy,
( o.o ) Smoke some cannabis today!
> ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk

jack

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

In article <6cvcuk$gnk$8...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Ian Johnston
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Joy Hilbert (hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Oh, I don't need to keep up. We've been through this cycle 4 times in

>: the last 150 years:
>
>: Someone discovers the prevalence of child sexual abuse

>: etc etc etc
>
>And we've been through your cycle as well...
>
>Group of quasiprofessional zealots seek to increase their power,
>So they gain ascendancy over the weak and the vulnerable,
>And accuse others of Hideous Sin,
>Any denial of which only goes to show how serious the sin is.
>
>Most churches have tried it, and its time for the 20th century's own brand
>of religious charlatans, the counsellors, to try it on.
>
>I suppose you'll accuse me of being a child molester for this.
>
>Ian

Yes we have you!

It's not the first time you've done this.

That makes it a ritual.

Therefore you must be Satanic.

Thus you are obviously a Satanic child abuser.

OK everybody start gathering firewood we've some burning to do!
--
jack

paul_m...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> In fact, if pornography did indeed have the ability
> to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no better time in the

> history of man than the present to prove it. So I have to say that I

> have serious doubts about the pornography as therapy theory judging by
> the statistics.

Countries such as Holland and Japan which have high levels of pornography,
have low levels of rape.

P.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Tim Billinge

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

>>>Wow! A bit of reason creeps into the authoritarian/feminist diatribe.
>>
>>Ah, I see, the democratic debate only works for you if one agrees with
>>you. Ooookay.
>

>No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational
>argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)

Why does an otherwise perfectly reasonable discussion have to come to
this? If you honestly thought that it was utter rubbish then I don't
imagine you would have bothered replying to it at all. Obviously you
felt there was something worth responding to (in a reasonable manner),
so why then make a personal attack, which judging from the contents of
the post, seems totally unfounded anyway?

Still, personal abuse sometimes makes amusing reading for everyone else
I guess,

Tim.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 25 Feb 1998 15:14:12 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >Distribution: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: >: On 25 Feb 1998 08:19:20 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
: >: wrote:

: >: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: >: >: I'm putting out an appeal to non-pedophile, heterosexual males
: >: >: to please share with us if they ever purchased a Playboy or
: >: >: other girlie rag mag because they thought the pictures would

: >: >: suppress their desire for physical contact with wimen. Just a
: >: >: question.

: >: >Perhaps you need to learn about the male sexual reponse, the

: >: >aftereffects of orgasm, the concept of masturbation and then ask
: >: >yourself why most porn is bought?

: >: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the

: >: magazines are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my
: >: question. Do the magazines suppress your desire for physical
: >: contact with women?

: >That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.

: Thank you. I suppose then someone with a fierce desire to molest
: children would have to rub himself raw for the pornography to have any
: beneficial effect to society.

The assumption there is that the sexual response of all paedophiles is
similar to that of everyone else except differently targetted. We'd need
someone with expertise in the field to confirm this. There may be
various different sorts of paedophiles.

: >: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact

: >: with women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?

: >That'd most likely depend on the person.

: Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
: pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.

I'd certainly be suspicious of such general statements.

: >: I bring these questions up for two reasons. First, because I've

: >: heard enough rapist/murderers claim that pornography fed their
: >: fantasies.

: >There aren't a lot of people go up before the beak to say "Yes, I dun
: >it M'lud and I dun it because I'm a very bad person and they should
: >throw away the key."

: >Call me a cynic but I suspect that "M'lud, it wos the
: >drugs/drink/pornography wot dun it and I'm just a poor victim of this
: >evil trade" is a little more common.

: Not a problem with me. Make strict laws that don't give leniency for
: people who use drug/drink/pornography and we can all move forward.

I believe that if the person voluntarily got drunk/stoned/read
pornography then the trial should proceed as if the person was sober.
It's up to them to make sure that they don't harm anyone as a result of
their actions. I'd also make all of the above freely available to
adults. Rights and responsibilities. However, if any pornography was
in itself photographic evidence of a crime then I'd advocate that it should
be used to prosecute the criminals.

Making laws for all adults on the basis that some adults will screw up
badly isn't a reasonable way to run a society. Some adults kill
recklessly with cars. Should nobody therefore be permitted to own a car?

: >: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed

: >: that his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part
: >: of his fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his
: >: wild imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to
: >: bring life to his fantasies.

: >I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist,
: >there's not going to be any answer to that one.

: I suppose it would be highly impractical to assign criminal
: psychologists with every pornographic magazine we sell, wouldn't it?

Pornographic magazines aren't the problem. Crimes such as rape are the
problem. Police effort should rightly be targetted towards the problem.

: >: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines

: >: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
: >: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants --
: >: particularly when we live in a time when pornography is so readily

: >: available and easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed

: >: have the ability to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no
: >: better time in the history of man than the present to prove it.

: >Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between

: >countries with differing laws as regards pornography.

: Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
: differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...

If you don't believe it could be done then why make the above statement?

: >: So I have to say that I have serious doubts about the pornography

: >: as therapy theory judging by the statistics.

: >Which statistics?

: I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
: of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
: material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
: history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
: pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
: of resolving.

I note also that we're not all running around school playgrounds raping
children. Perhaps the only difference in a society with a lot of
pornography is that the top shelves of some newsagents look a bit tacky.
reasonable people could probably live with that to safeguard the
principle of liberty.

FoFP
--
" As the world evolves into a skein of villages connected by the
Internet, major governments are turning into theme parks for
comedians."
-- Alan Gore

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

[pornography triggers sex crimes...]

: Personally I don't have any other proof than what deviants have said

: about what triggered their impulses. Remember, these were men who
: were already convicted for their crimes and who had nothing to gain or
: lose by expressing their opinions.

Of course they had something to gain: they could blame something else
rather than themselves. Look it up under "denial".

: I just find it very interesting how society picks a politically

: correct theory and runs with it, ignoring all facts that might refute
: that theory.

UK and US society seems to run the other way in commissioning
pornography studies to "prove" that pornography causes sex crimes and
then politically ignoring them when they come to other conclusions.

: That's why I'm neither claiming *on a general basis*

: that pornography can or can't be therapeutic. If we accept that we
: are a very complicated species, then we can easily see how ludicrous
: it would be to paint everyone with a broad brush.

So why not ignore pornography except where it's evidence of crime and
instead direct police effort towards real harm?

: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational

: >argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)

: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?

Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what bit
might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force against
others or something equally extreme?

: 1970? You're using statistics from 1970? I admire that you should

: even attempt to dig them up at all in Usenet, but in thirty years
: pornography has become not only more prevalent but graphic. I'd like
: to see an objective study taken within the last five years. Back in
: 1970 we still had complete generations that were affected by the
: strict mores of the 50s, so I could see where Heffie's soft porn
: Playboy may have been beneficial. But since then we've moved on to
: some serious S&M, leather and chain magazines and I doubt that a 1970
: study would have taken that into account.

We have? I've never noticed them in my newsagent. Where does she keep them?

: I don't know anything about the picture you mention. But I've had a

: similar discussion about Mapplethorpe's depiction of a young girl
: sitting on some steps and the picture clearly showing that she is
: without panties. If Mapplethorpe happened to take the picture as he
: was walking by, no prodding on his part, the picture would be
: considered a documentation. But if he posed the child, intentionally
: removing her underwear and/or requesting her to sit with her knees
: apart, then it is child pornography. In my opinion, if that child
: grew up to feel shame over how that picture was taken, she would have
: the right to sue Mapplethorpe for exploitation -- regardless of what
: her nimrod parents consented to. It's about individual rights and
: freedom, you know.

I'm glad to see that you regard these as important. We agree on the
rights of this child.

: >> In

: >>fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
: >>is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
: >>curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."
: >
: >Maybe you'd care to expand on that? Which drug and how is it used?
: >[Note: We may be getting *way* off-topic for the newsgroups to which
: >this thread is being posted with this ...]

: Keep your eyes and ears open. I caught it on a whiff on the news.

It can be delivered by television? Now *that's* radical. So, how was it
for you?

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: >One joyful day (Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:05:52 GMT to be precise),
: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com decided that the Usenet community would benefit
: >from this remarkable comment:
: >
: ><Snip>
: >>>: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
: >>>: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
: >>>: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
: >>>
: >>>That was the point: yes, for between 15 and 20 minutes.
: >>
: >>Thank you. I suppose then someone with a fierce desire to molest
: >>children would have to rub himself raw for the pornography to have any
: >>beneficial effect to society.
: >
: >Anybody who can masturbate to orgasm every 15 minutes probably already
: >does. And he probably gets a fortune for doing it.

: Um... see, that's the difference between us. Until now it never
: occurred to me that someone would waste their money just to watch
: someone else reach orgasm.

Eh? What did you suppose the pornography industry was about? You seem to
have led an awfully sheltered life for such definite opinions.

: Is it just orgasms or will they pay to

: watch me eat a cheeseburger and fries?

Yes if you do it in the nude and you're not already fat. If the latter
is the case then it's the "fetish" trade which is like "minority
interest" pornography (an "advantage" of market segmentation).

: I assume they're living
: vicariously for health/hygienic reasons.

Your imagination needs some work. I can think of a few reasons that
people (that's men, women, lesbians, gays and others) use pornography: to
masturbate when their lover is away, when they don't have a lover, to
ease boredom, to stimulate a flagging interest with a lover, to
overstimulate an interest with a lover, as education in sex or in areas
of sex they don't know about, curiousity about what other people look
like nude. There are probably lots of other reasons but it's certainly
true that it is very safe sex. Well unless it involves vacuum cleaners
anyway.

: >Actually, I don't think anybody's ever claimed pornography can resolve

: >the problems, just that the vast majority of it is used totally
: >harmlessly by a *lot* of average people and in certain cases it can
: >help people to control an otherwise uncontrollable sexual drive.

: I'm not concerned about the average person.

So you're not advocating a ban for such people then?

: >Oh, and you also have the burden of proof backwards. As freedom of

: >speech is a basic human right, it is for those who wish to curtail
: >that right to justify that demand, not for everybody else to justify
: >why it should be left alone.

: Ahh... but I believe society has already decided that pedophile
: pornography is not acceptable.

Who's this "society"? Politicians, almost certainly backed by a majority
of people, have outlawed such, and anything that looks like it. Clearly
some people disagree with such a move. Whether such a law will have a
good or bad effect is an open question. Certainly there are reasons to
be suspicious of laws which are made from emotion. The rottwelier and
gun laws being other recent examples.

I believe that on balance it's probably a good thing to outlaw the
selling of paedophile pornography. I'm less certain about laws
concerning possession of it (with the caveat that if it is evidence of
the posessor being guilty of a crime then it should be used in Court as
such), and I'm skeptical of a law similarly outlawing possession of
pictures that look like paedophile material but which are clearly not
photographs and therefore not evidence of any crime having been committed.
Such laws look awfully like they're framed out of a (quite reasonable)
sense of disgust rather than a dispassionate analysis of how to prevent
actual harm. That isn't how law should be made.

: As for other pornography, I'm not

: trying to curtail it at all. In fact I plan to use it liberally
: during my declining unimaginative years. What I am doing, however, is
: stating that you can't protect the right to pedophile pornography on
: the grounds that it has any therapeutic effect on the deviant.

Hmmmmm. So if it were proven, beyond any doubt, that if computer
generated versions of such pornography were made available to those who
wanted it, and then child abuse dramatically declined, you wouldn't feel
tempted to defend it as the lesser of two evils? There are enough people
who say "If pornography causes even one rape then it should be banned"
that were the opposite the case I'd expect demonstrations in support of
it being made compulsory.

: In

: fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
: is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
: curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."

Is there? Is it effective in all cases?

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Organization: Oxford University, England

Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?

Do you know what happens to male sexual desire in almost all cases post
orgasm?

: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?

Are you asking this seriously?

: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants

Before you can go down this line you are going to have to define very
accurately what you mean by a deviant.
Ian

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 12:09:41 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>: That's why I'm neither claiming *on a general basis*

>: that pornography can or can't be therapeutic. If we accept that we
>: are a very complicated species, then we can easily see how ludicrous
>: it would be to paint everyone with a broad brush.
>

>So why not ignore pornography except where it's evidence of crime and
>instead direct police effort towards real harm?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. However, my argument has nothing
to do with curtailing adult pornography. I'm simply trying to keep
pornography proponents honest. For all the good pornography may
provide to average citizens, there is still a big question about the
effects it may have on a certain segment of the population.
Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance between themselves
and the deviants who claim that pornography was a factor in their
crimes. So far, you haven't provided any better proof than they have.
"Oh it's just an excuse like alcohol and drugs." Well, society has a
big problem with crimes committed by alcoholics and drug addicts. Are
you now adding porn addicts to the list?

>: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational

>: >argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)
>
>: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?
>

>Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what bit
>might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force against
>others or something equally extreme?

And this is my point exactly. Name calling in Usenet as an attempt to
discredit your opponent's position is childish. Or perhaps the act of
a desperate man?

>: 1970? You're using statistics from 1970? I admire that you should

>: even attempt to dig them up at all in Usenet, but in thirty years
>: pornography has become not only more prevalent but graphic. I'd like
>: to see an objective study taken within the last five years. Back in
>: 1970 we still had complete generations that were affected by the
>: strict mores of the 50s, so I could see where Heffie's soft porn
>: Playboy may have been beneficial. But since then we've moved on to
>: some serious S&M, leather and chain magazines and I doubt that a 1970
>: study would have taken that into account.
>

>We have? I've never noticed them in my newsagent. Where does she keep them?
>

>: I don't know anything about the picture you mention. But I've had a

>: similar discussion about Mapplethorpe's depiction of a young girl
>: sitting on some steps and the picture clearly showing that she is
>: without panties. If Mapplethorpe happened to take the picture as he
>: was walking by, no prodding on his part, the picture would be
>: considered a documentation. But if he posed the child, intentionally
>: removing her underwear and/or requesting her to sit with her knees
>: apart, then it is child pornography. In my opinion, if that child
>: grew up to feel shame over how that picture was taken, she would have
>: the right to sue Mapplethorpe for exploitation -- regardless of what
>: her nimrod parents consented to. It's about individual rights and
>: freedom, you know.
>

>I'm glad to see that you regard these as important. We agree on the
>rights of this child.

Which of course, would make commercial child pornography obsolete
since it would be a ticking time bomb of liability.

>: >> In

>: >>fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
>: >>is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
>: >>curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."
>: >
>: >Maybe you'd care to expand on that? Which drug and how is it used?
>: >[Note: We may be getting *way* off-topic for the newsgroups to which
>: >this thread is being posted with this ...]
>
>: Keep your eyes and ears open. I caught it on a whiff on the news.
>

>It can be delivered by television? Now *that's* radical. So, how was it
>for you?

Smells a lot like my old boyfriend's breath after a weekend bender.

Siobhan Grier

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Spring Flowers <Spr...@Flowers.int> wrote in article
<34fa5e1d...@alpha.ftech.net>...
> Ms_...@ix.netcom.com of Netcom wrote in uk.legal on Wed, 25 Feb 1998
> 23:41:38 GMT:

>
>
> > Child pornography is not acceptable.
>

> And child pornography includes graphical paintings showing the gang rape
of
> two under 16 year old girls contrary to what Mark Wright thinks.

Agreed - apparently it can't be called child pornography cos it's a
_painting_. So, replace photos in wank mags with paintings of the photo
subjects, and hey presto - no more porn!

How the hell is the medium supposed to negate the subject?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 11:54:10 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
<snipped M Holmes over-reaction to my cheeseburger in paradise humor.
BTW, Holmes, I even know that some men will pay to watch a women
lactate.>

>: I'm not concerned about the average person.
>
>So you're not advocating a ban for such people then?

Please tell me where I have said anything to this effect.

>: >Oh, and you also have the burden of proof backwards. As freedom of
>: >speech is a basic human right, it is for those who wish to curtail
>: >that right to justify that demand, not for everybody else to justify
>: >why it should be left alone.
>
>: Ahh... but I believe society has already decided that pedophile
>: pornography is not acceptable.
>
>Who's this "society"? Politicians, almost certainly backed by a majority
>of people, have outlawed such, and anything that looks like it. Clearly
>some people disagree with such a move. Whether such a law will have a
>good or bad effect is an open question. Certainly there are reasons to
>be suspicious of laws which are made from emotion. The rottwelier and
>gun laws being other recent examples.
>
>I believe that on balance it's probably a good thing to outlaw the
>selling of paedophile pornography.

Well I'm glad you reached that conclusion. My opinion on the subject
is as follows below. I wrote it before I read your statement so don't
take it personally.

With regards to pedophile pornography, the overwhelming majority of
people will vote to protect the right of the child. Only those people
who get caught up in abstract concepts of freedom would callously
debate the right of an adult to see pictures of exploited children.
You do realize, don't you, that a pedophile could park his car a few
yards away from the public showers at the beach and take photographs
of the children as their moms strip away their bathing suits to wash
off the sand. If this man gets caught with those photographs, he will
not be prosecuted as long as he keeps them for his own use and does
not attempt to sell them. That is our compromise in our free society.
We will not give an inch more when it comes to the rights of an
innocent child. I don't need to argue this further because our
democracies have made child pornography illegal. We voted for those
politicians, that is how democracies work. If you wish to start a
movement to make child pornography legal, go ahead. Let's see how far
you can take it. I'd rather put my money on politicians who have
voted the right way, than on a political group that doesn't have a
chance of being elected by the majority. Particularly if they
campaign on a platform to legalize child pornography.

>I'm less certain about laws
>concerning possession of it (with the caveat that if it is evidence of
>the posessor being guilty of a crime then it should be used in Court as
>such), and I'm skeptical of a law similarly outlawing possession of
>pictures that look like paedophile material but which are clearly not
>photographs and therefore not evidence of any crime having been committed.
>Such laws look awfully like they're framed out of a (quite reasonable)
>sense of disgust rather than a dispassionate analysis of how to prevent
>actual harm. That isn't how law should be made.

The laws are very unclear on the matter concerning photographing your
own children as they take their baths. This is true. It really does
depend on where you live and how conservative your photo lab happens
to be. It's a tough call. There was a time when everyone had the
obligatory bottoms-up baby picture in the baby album. But times, they
are a changin.

>: As for other pornography, I'm not
>: trying to curtail it at all. In fact I plan to use it liberally
>: during my declining unimaginative years. What I am doing, however, is
>: stating that you can't protect the right to pedophile pornography on
>: the grounds that it has any therapeutic effect on the deviant.
>
>Hmmmmm. So if it were proven, beyond any doubt, that if computer
>generated versions of such pornography were made available to those who
>wanted it, and then child abuse dramatically declined, you wouldn't feel
>tempted to defend it as the lesser of two evils? There are enough people
>who say "If pornography causes even one rape then it should be banned"
>that were the opposite the case I'd expect demonstrations in support of
>it being made compulsory.

I think you answered your own question. A search of a criminally
active pedophile's home usually uncovers boxes and boxes of
photographs and videotapes so I find it very difficult to see how
you're going to prove your case.

>: In
>: fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
>: is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
>: curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."
>
>Is there? Is it effective in all cases?

Oh, how I LOVE this. You're going to require 100% effective rate on
the drug, but not 100% on child pornography photos. Precious. The
drug is very new. From what I've gathered from the short blurb, it's
being used on a test group. Maybe someone else might have heard about
it?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 11:10:43 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>

>Making laws for all adults on the basis that some adults will screw up
>badly isn't a reasonable way to run a society. Some adults kill
>recklessly with cars. Should nobody therefore be permitted to own a car?

Do you really have to stretch it out that badly to prove your point?
Of course we disagree. It's because you conveniently leave out a few
realistic details. The problem with the adults that kill recklessly
with cars is that they're usually drunk/stoned while they're doing it.
Do you have any idea how many drunk people are on the road every
single day? Why shouldn't they be? Our laws are so weak they have
nothing to lose unless they kill someone. At that is the end of that
because we're way off topic.

>: >: (Ted Bundy being one of them) and because one pedophile claimed
>: >: that his molestation of small children escalated to murder as part
>: >: of his fantasy because each physical act never quite matched his
>: >: wild imagination so he kept committing the acts in an attempt to
>: >: bring life to his fantasies.
>
>: >I suspect that barring intervention of a criminal psychologist,
>: >there's not going to be any answer to that one.
>
>: I suppose it would be highly impractical to assign criminal
>: psychologists with every pornographic magazine we sell, wouldn't it?
>
>Pornographic magazines aren't the problem. Crimes such as rape are the
>problem. Police effort should rightly be targetted towards the problem.

You haven't made the case that pornography is not the problem. That
is what this whole discussion is about. You can't possibly say that
pornography has no bearing on crime unless you were that deviant and
knew personally what it was that motivated you. Obviously pornography
does have some physical effect on men. Obviously the photographs,
when used properly, heighten the fantasy of the observer and the body
responds with an orgasm. But for some men, the photographs may just
be a stepping stone. Like the alcoholic when he takes that first
drink. Once he takes the drink, he can't stop. Why can't it be the
same for some deviants and pornography?

>: >: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>: >: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>: >: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants --
>: >: particularly when we live in a time when pornography is so readily
>: >: available and easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed
>: >: have the ability to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no
>: >: better time in the history of man than the present to prove it.
>
>: >Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
>: >countries with differing laws as regards pornography.
>
>: Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
>: differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...
>
>If you don't believe it could be done then why make the above statement?

Because you're trying to compare apples to oranges. You want to
compare "different" cultures. You can't compare two countries and
examine just one factor. For instance, the islamic penalty for some
of the offenses we're thinking about is probably death. Big
incentive, eh?

>: >: So I have to say that I have serious doubts about the pornography
>: >: as therapy theory judging by the statistics.
>
>: >Which statistics?
>
>: I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
>: of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
>: material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
>: history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
>: pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
>: of resolving.
>
>I note also that we're not all running around school playgrounds raping
>children. Perhaps the only difference in a society with a lot of
>pornography is that the top shelves of some newsagents look a bit tacky.
>reasonable people could probably live with that to safeguard the
>principle of liberty.

One person's liberty is another person's anarchy. I lived with a
libertarian for all of my young life. My father. He believes in open
borders. He believes he lives in a free society and supports
alternative lifestyles though he would have killed us if we had
brought any of those freaks home with us. Over the years I've
discovered his secret to his principles. He lives in a reinforced
town-house with central fire and burglary alarms. Wrought iron on the
windows to prevent anyone from getting through and he never ventures
out after dark. He is a very cerebral man and has convinced himself
that the principle of liberty that exists only in his head is more
important than the liberty to walk freely in his own community.

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 13:11:56 GMT, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
wrote:

>Organization: Oxford University, England

>Distribution:
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>: Thank you, Ian, for responding. I am fully aware that the magazines
>: are used as aids in masturbation. But that wasn't my question. Do
>: the magazines suppress your desire for physical contact with women?
>
>Do you know what happens to male sexual desire in almost all cases post
>orgasm?

Which orgasm? Mine or his? Of course I know what happens to men post
orgasm. They either crave a cigarette or mints.

>: More importantly, if you were forbidden to have physical contact with
>: women, would the magazines serve as an outlet or as a tease?
>
>Are you asking this seriously?

Yes. The topic is child porn. I'm trying to determine if a "normal"
heterosexual would be able to use pornography "therapeutically" on a
long-term basis. Forever, actually.

>: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants
>

>Before you can go down this line you are going to have to define very
>accurately what you mean by a deviant.

Someone who would harm another against their will in order to satisfy
and fulfill their own desires. Or someone who would take advantage of
a child's innocence and trust with the same end in mind.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 12:09:41 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >: That's why I'm neither claiming *on a general basis*

: >: that pornography can or can't be therapeutic. If we accept that we
: >: are a very complicated species, then we can easily see how ludicrous
: >: it would be to paint everyone with a broad brush.
: >

: >So why not ignore pornography except where it's evidence of crime and

: >instead direct police effort towards real harm?

: I'm not sure what you're suggesting. However, my argument has nothing
: to do with curtailing adult pornography. I'm simply trying to keep
: pornography proponents honest. For all the good pornography may
: provide to average citizens, there is still a big question about the
: effects it may have on a certain segment of the population.
: Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance between themselves
: and the deviants who claim that pornography was a factor in their
: crimes.

The distance is put there by the criminals. The distance *is* the fact
that they are criminals while others are not. Therefore it makes sense
to direct the Police to catching criminals as opposed to the wider class
of pornography users the majority of whom are not criminals.

: So far, you haven't provided any better proof than they have.

: "Oh it's just an excuse like alcohol and drugs." Well, society has a
: big problem with crimes committed by alcoholics and drug addicts.

Sure, and the solution is to arrest them when they commit crimes not to
make alcohol or drugs illegal. Where the latter course has been taken,
the results have been to funnel large amounts of money into the hands of
criminals, to waste police time looking for otherwise law abiding
citizens, and to increase crime committed as a result of high black
market prices.

: Are

: you now adding porn addicts to the list?

I don't see porn addicts as any sort of problem. If they commit crimes
then they should be treated as any other criminal.

: >: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational

: >: >argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)
: >
: >: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?
: >

: >Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what bit

: >might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force against
: >others or something equally extreme?

: And this is my point exactly.

What is?

: Name calling in Usenet as an attempt to

: discredit your opponent's position is childish.

Where did I call anyone names? I merely asked for examples of "extreme
libertarian propaganda").

: Or perhaps the act of
: a desperate man?

So if you call someone "desperate" that's an erudite argument rather
than name calling?

: >: 1970? You're using statistics from 1970? I admire that you should

: >: even attempt to dig them up at all in Usenet, but in thirty years
: >: pornography has become not only more prevalent but graphic. I'd like
: >: to see an objective study taken within the last five years. Back in
: >: 1970 we still had complete generations that were affected by the
: >: strict mores of the 50s, so I could see where Heffie's soft porn
: >: Playboy may have been beneficial. But since then we've moved on to
: >: some serious S&M, leather and chain magazines and I doubt that a 1970
: >: study would have taken that into account.

: >
: >We have? I've never noticed them in my newsagent. Where does she keep them?
: >
: >: I don't know anything about the picture you mention. But I've had a

: >: similar discussion about Mapplethorpe's depiction of a young girl
: >: sitting on some steps and the picture clearly showing that she is
: >: without panties. If Mapplethorpe happened to take the picture as he
: >: was walking by, no prodding on his part, the picture would be
: >: considered a documentation. But if he posed the child, intentionally
: >: removing her underwear and/or requesting her to sit with her knees
: >: apart, then it is child pornography. In my opinion, if that child
: >: grew up to feel shame over how that picture was taken, she would have
: >: the right to sue Mapplethorpe for exploitation -- regardless of what
: >: her nimrod parents consented to. It's about individual rights and
: >: freedom, you know.
: >

: >I'm glad to see that you regard these as important. We agree on the
: >rights of this child.

: Which of course, would make commercial child pornography obsolete
: since it would be a ticking time bomb of liability.

We don't disagree as far as such pornography is concerned. I believe
that if it is evidence of a crime then it should be used to prosecute
such a crime. Where it is not, such as if it is computer generated, or
is an example of the sort of "art" quoted at the start of this
discussion, I question whether it should be illegal to possess (I'm more
easily persuaded of the case against sale). That question, as we seem to
have ascertained, hinges on whether such material in and of itself
might cause crime and whether it might also in some cases prevent it.

In this I simply apply the argument that those who wish to censor
behaviour of others should be required to show that such behaviour is,
or causes, compelling harm. Disgust, however understandable, is not
enough.

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 16:09:35 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: On 26 Feb 1998 12:09:41 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
>: wrote:
>
>
>: >: That's why I'm neither claiming *on a general basis*
>: >: that pornography can or can't be therapeutic. If we accept that we
>: >: are a very complicated species, then we can easily see how ludicrous
>: >: it would be to paint everyone with a broad brush.
>: >
>: >So why not ignore pornography except where it's evidence of crime and
>: >instead direct police effort towards real harm?
>
>: I'm not sure what you're suggesting. However, my argument has nothing
>: to do with curtailing adult pornography. I'm simply trying to keep
>: pornography proponents honest. For all the good pornography may
>: provide to average citizens, there is still a big question about the
>: effects it may have on a certain segment of the population.
>: Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance between themselves
>: and the deviants who claim that pornography was a factor in their
>: crimes.
>
>The distance is put there by the criminals.

Very, very disingenuous, Holmes. You don't expect me to buy it do
you? No. Of course not.

>The distance *is* the fact
>that they are criminals while others are not. Therefore it makes sense
>to direct the Police to catching criminals as opposed to the wider class
>of pornography users the majority of whom are not criminals.

No one is trying to touch your precious freedom to adult porn, Holmes.
But you need to stop dismissing facts just so you can sleep better at
night. The world is a very complicated place. Dismissing what
motivates people just to fit your political idealogy isn't going to
make the problem go away.

>
>: So far, you haven't provided any better proof than they have.
>: "Oh it's just an excuse like alcohol and drugs." Well, society has a
>: big problem with crimes committed by alcoholics and drug addicts.
>
>Sure, and the solution is to arrest them when they commit crimes not to
>make alcohol or drugs illegal. Where the latter course has been taken,
>the results have been to funnel large amounts of money into the hands of
>criminals, to waste police time looking for otherwise law abiding
>citizens, and to increase crime committed as a result of high black
>market prices.
>
>
>: Are
>: you now adding porn addicts to the list?
>
>I don't see porn addicts as any sort of problem. If they commit crimes
>then they should be treated as any other criminal.

So as the alcoholic and drug addict would be sent to rehabilitation
centers, so will the porn addict? What do you suggest? A sort of
desensitizing treatment a la Clockwork Orange?

>: >: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of rational
>: >: >argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist diatribe.)
>: >
>: >: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?
>: >
>: >Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what bit
>: >might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force against
>: >others or something equally extreme?
>
>: And this is my point exactly.
>
>What is?

You got defensive over a silly little label.

>: Name calling in Usenet as an attempt to
>: discredit your opponent's position is childish.
>
>Where did I call anyone names? I merely asked for examples of "extreme
>libertarian propaganda").

I'm referring to your friend Mark. I thought it was cute the way he
felt compelled to dismiss my opinion on the basis that I was an
authoritarian feminist. Do you think he feels threaten by me?

>: Or perhaps the act of
>: a desperate man?
>
>So if you call someone "desperate" that's an erudite argument rather
>than name calling?

I call it conjecture.

And since no one on your side appears to bring any current facts to
the table in favor of computer generated child porn as therapy, I
think I'll side with Spring Flower on this point.

>In this I simply apply the argument that those who wish to censor
>behaviour of others should be required to show that such behaviour is,
>or causes, compelling harm. Disgust, however understandable, is not
>enough.

I bring to your attention, again, that when active pedophiles are
caught they are found to own a collection of child pornography
already. It's what the police like to refer to as "evidence."

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 11:54:10 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >
: <snipped M Holmes over-reaction to my cheeseburger in paradise humor.
: BTW, Holmes, I even know that some men will pay to watch a women
: lactate.>

That's disgusting, but whatever turns them on...

: With regards to pedophile pornography, the overwhelming majority of

: people will vote to protect the right of the child.

That's not always true. They'll do so if they inconvenience a minority
whose rights they don't care about. For example the "Let's ban guns to
PROTECT THE CHILDRUUUUN!" certainly catches an emotional current because
nobody gives a damn for the rights of pistol shooters. However, a lot
more kids are killed by cars than in a thousand Dunblanes but you won't
see them backing a ban on cars to protect the rights of children.

Hell, they wouldn't even back a ban on peanuts or swimming pools and
they're known to cause dead kids.

Luckily paedophiles are a small minority and so it's reasonably easy to
get legislation through on an emotional tide of disgust. tempting though
that is though, it's still better to legislate dispassionately in light
of the likely effects of such laws.

: Only those people

: who get caught up in abstract concepts of freedom would callously
: debate the right of an adult to see pictures of exploited children.
: You do realize, don't you, that a pedophile could park his car a few
: yards away from the public showers at the beach and take photographs
: of the children as their moms strip away their bathing suits to wash
: off the sand.

Whereas we callously get caught up in abstract rights of freedom to
travel and accept the risk of him killing a child while driving to the
beach. Tragic innit?

: If this man gets caught with those photographs, he will

: not be prosecuted as long as he keeps them for his own use and does
: not attempt to sell them.

Eh? I'd thought that he could be prosecuted for possessing such
pictures. Am I mistaken?

: We will not give an inch more when it comes to the rights of an
: innocent child.

Except when it's inconvenient, such as in the case of car ownership where
we'll not only give an inch, we'll happily drive six hundred miles.

: I don't need to argue this further because our

: democracies have made child pornography illegal. We voted for those
: politicians, that is how democracies work. If you wish to start a
: movement to make child pornography legal, go ahead.

You're making an argument where we don't disagree This started out with
a move to censor a painting.

: >I'm less certain about laws

: >concerning possession of it (with the caveat that if it is evidence of
: >the posessor being guilty of a crime then it should be used in Court as
: >such), and I'm skeptical of a law similarly outlawing possession of
: >pictures that look like paedophile material but which are clearly not
: >photographs and therefore not evidence of any crime having been committed.
: >Such laws look awfully like they're framed out of a (quite reasonable)
: >sense of disgust rather than a dispassionate analysis of how to prevent
: >actual harm. That isn't how law should be made.

: The laws are very unclear on the matter concerning photographing your
: own children as they take their baths.

Well they are if you happen to be a media celebrity anyway.

: This is true. It really does

: depend on where you live and how conservative your photo lab happens
: to be. It's a tough call. There was a time when everyone had the
: obligatory bottoms-up baby picture in the baby album. But times, they
: are a changin.

Things certainly seem to have got paranoid but perhaps that's a
necessary price in the transition to recognising that child abuse does
happen.

: >: In

: >: fact, I wonder why anybody would want to defend child porn when there
: >: is a promising drug on the market that is showing promise in
: >: curtailing the desire for children in men who have this "condition."
: >
: >Is there? Is it effective in all cases?

: Oh, how I LOVE this. You're going to require 100% effective rate on
: the drug

Eh? No, I was only curious.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 11:10:43 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >Making laws for all adults on the basis that some adults will screw up
: >badly isn't a reasonable way to run a society. Some adults kill
: >recklessly with cars. Should nobody therefore be permitted to own a car?

: Do you really have to stretch it out that badly to prove your point?
: Of course we disagree. It's because you conveniently leave out a few
: realistic details. The problem with the adults that kill recklessly
: with cars is that they're usually drunk/stoned while they're doing it.

To be exact they're often drunk/tired/speeding/stoned (usually on
prescription drugs) or stupid, in that order.

It's hardly a stretch, a lot more kids die that way than through any
other of our activities. If we want to prevent harm to kids by
interfering with adult activities, it's a very good place to start.

Anyway, I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't get incapable (for any of the
above reasons) drivers off the roads. I would argue against banning cars
for everyone so as to get rid of the problem. That's the key difference
between us.

: >Pornographic magazines aren't the problem. Crimes such as rape are the

: >problem. Police effort should rightly be targetted towards the problem.

: You haven't made the case that pornography is not the problem.

I don't need to since it's not me that's advocating interfering with
what other adults do with their own time. Do you have any reason to
suppose that *in and of itself* (as opposed to anything that you might
claim it "causes") pornography is a problem?

: That

: is what this whole discussion is about. You can't possibly say that
: pornography has no bearing on crime

I've never argued that. I've argued only that it isn't itself a harm to
anyone. I've consistently argued that where crimes are committed they
should be prosecuted and where pornography is evidence of harm it should
be used as such to prosecute. I see little reason to go further than
that and you've yet to show me a reason.

: unless you were that deviant

Can this be the same person that upbraided me for "name calling"?

: and

: knew personally what it was that motivated you. Obviously pornography
: does have some physical effect on men. Obviously the photographs,
: when used properly, heighten the fantasy of the observer and the body
: responds with an orgasm.

Given what men *or* women tend to do with pornography, the orgasm woul
happen anyway.

: But for some men, the photographs may just

: be a stepping stone. Like the alcoholic when he takes that first
: drink. Once he takes the drink, he can't stop. Why can't it be the
: same for some deviants and pornography?

It might be. Just as a first underage cigarette might be the first step
towards mugging old ladies for money to buy heroin. However, we ought to
arrest people when they commit crimes, not when they merely indulge in
bahaviour which *might* in *some* people correlate with later commission
of crimes.

: >: >: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines

: >: >: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
: >: >: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants --
: >: >: particularly when we live in a time when pornography is so readily
: >: >: available and easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed
: >: >: have the ability to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no
: >: >: better time in the history of man than the present to prove it.
: >
: >: >Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
: >: >countries with differing laws as regards pornography.
: >
: >: Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
: >: differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...
: >
: >If you don't believe it could be done then why make the above statement?

: Because you're trying to compare apples to oranges. You want to
: compare "different" cultures. You can't compare two countries and
: examine just one factor. For instance, the islamic penalty for some
: of the offenses we're thinking about is probably death. Big
: incentive, eh?

They also have the death penalty for heroin tracking as well as the
largest opium fields in the world. I'd be careful about jumping to
conclusions regarding incentives.

As regards your argument, why claim that society being awash with
pornography allows us to conduct an experiment and then say that the
experiment is impossible? Usually people have the good grace to allow
someone else to take the opposing viewpoint rather than doing so
themselves.

: >: >: So I have to say that I have serious doubts about the pornography

: >: >: as therapy theory judging by the statistics.
: >
: >: >Which statistics?
: >
: >: I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
: >: of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
: >: material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
: >: history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
: >: pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
: >: of resolving.
: >
: >I note also that we're not all running around school playgrounds raping
: >children. Perhaps the only difference in a society with a lot of
: >pornography is that the top shelves of some newsagents look a bit tacky.
: >reasonable people could probably live with that to safeguard the
: >principle of liberty.

: One person's liberty is another person's anarchy.

There's something wrong with anarchy? You'll be taking a pop at the
birds and flowers next.

: I lived with a

: libertarian for all of my young life.

Lucky you.

: My father.

Ah! The penny drops. How touchingly Freudian.

: He believes in open

: borders. He believes he lives in a free society and supports
: alternative lifestyles though he would have killed us if we had
: brought any of those freaks home with us. Over the years I've
: discovered his secret to his principles. He lives in a reinforced
: town-house with central fire and burglary alarms. Wrought iron on the
: windows to prevent anyone from getting through and he never ventures
: out after dark. He is a very cerebral man and has convinced himself
: that the principle of liberty that exists only in his head is more
: important than the liberty to walk freely in his own community.

Do you suppose therefore that all libertarians have burglar alarms and
are afraid to go out after dark?

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 16:31:49 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>: If this man gets caught with those photographs, he will

>: not be prosecuted as long as he keeps them for his own use and does
>: not attempt to sell them.
>

>Eh? I'd thought that he could be prosecuted for possessing such
>pictures. Am I mistaken?

Yes, you're mistaken if we're talking about US law. I'm referring to
an actual case that occurred in Clearwater, FL about five years ago.
The man was a known pedophile and the newspaper clearly stated that
the pictures could not be used against him because they were taken on
a public beach and he was not interfering with the mother or the
children.

The same thing occurred when a young boy came out of a public restroom
and complained to his father that a man videotaped him while he was
using the urinal. The man was mobbed, of course, but the police later
let him go free because they could not prosecute him for taking
pictures in a public area.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 16:09:35 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >: Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance

: >: between themselves and the deviants who claim that pornography was
: >: a factor in their crimes.

: >The distance is put there by the criminals.

: Very, very disingenuous, Holmes. You don't expect me to buy it do
: you?

I merely expected you to understand it, and I'm of course disappointed
that you don't.

: >The distance *is* the fact that they are criminals while others are

: >not. Therefore it makes sense to direct the Police to catching
: >criminals as opposed to the wider class of pornography users the
: >majority of whom are not criminals.

: No one is trying to touch your precious freedom to adult porn, Holmes.

You again (deliberately?) misunderstand, I'm arguing for everyone's
freedom, including yours even if you wait until you're seventy to
exercise it.

: But you need to stop dismissing facts just so you can sleep better at
: night.

Pray tell what facts am I dismissing?

: >: So far, you haven't provided any better proof than they have. "Oh

: >: it's just an excuse like alcohol and drugs." Well, society has a
: >: big problem with crimes committed by alcoholics and drug addicts.

: >Sure, and the solution is to arrest them when they commit crimes not
: >to make alcohol or drugs illegal. Where the latter course has been
: >taken, the results have been to funnel large amounts of money into
: >the hands of criminals, to waste police time looking for otherwise
: >law abiding citizens, and to increase crime committed as a result of
: >high black market prices.

: >: Are you now adding porn addicts to the list?

: >I don't see porn addicts as any sort of problem. If they commit
: >crimes then they should be treated as any other criminal.

: So as the alcoholic and drug addict would be sent to rehabilitation

: centers

If they *want* to. Otherwise just jail 'em with the others who have
committed the same crimes. If they've committed no crimes then just
leave them the hell alone.

: so will the porn addict?

If the *want* to.

: What do you suggest? A sort of

: desensitizing treatment a la Clockwork Orange?

I haven't seen it. I heard it was banned.

: >: >: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of

: >: >: >rational argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist
: >: >: >diatribe.)

: >: >: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?

: >: >Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what
: >: >bit might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force
: >: >against others or something equally extreme?

: >: And this is my point exactly.

: >What is?

: You got defensive over a silly little label.

No just curious about what appeared to be a pretty stupid statement.

: >: Name calling in Usenet as an attempt to discredit your opponent's
: >: position is childish.

: >Where did I call anyone names? I merely asked for examples of
: >"extreme libertarian propaganda").

: I'm referring to your friend Mark.

I have no friends called "Mark".

: I thought it was cute the way he

: felt compelled to dismiss my opinion on the basis that I was an
: authoritarian feminist.

Are you an authoritarian feminist? Do you get a uniform?

: Do you think he feels threaten by me?

I doubt it. You're not very threatening.

: >: Or perhaps the act of a desperate man?

: >So if you call someone "desperate" that's an erudite argument rather
: >than name calling?

: I call it conjecture.

And I call it "hypocrisy".

: >: Which of course, would make commercial child pornography obsolete

: >: since it would be a ticking time bomb of liability.

: >We don't disagree as far as such pornography is concerned. I believe
: >that if it is evidence of a crime then it should be used to prosecute
: >such a crime. Where it is not, such as if it is computer generated,
: >or is an example of the sort of "art" quoted at the start of this
: >discussion, I question whether it should be illegal to possess (I'm
: >more easily persuaded of the case against sale). That question, as
: >we seem to have ascertained, hinges on whether such material in and
: >of itself might cause crime and whether it might also in some cases
: >prevent it.

: And since no one on your side appears to bring any current facts to
: the table in favor of computer generated child porn as therapy

If it were shown to be harmless then that'd be good enough to convince
me. If it were also prophylactic in terms of crime that's make the
argument compelling.

: >In this I simply apply the argument that those who wish to censor

: >behaviour of others should be required to show that such behaviour
: >is, or causes, compelling harm. Disgust, however understandable, is
: >not enough.

: I bring to your attention, again, that when active pedophiles are
: caught they are found to own a collection of child pornography
: already. It's what the police like to refer to as "evidence."

Evidence of what exactly? They probably also all have teapots.

If you could show that everyone who ever sees a painting of a naked
child (or even "most") would cause harm to children then I'd support
your position of censorship. However, if it were that clear cut then
there'd be no need for a debate on the issue so I'm pretty certain that
you can't.

A few deviants quoting the picture after arrest for actual crimes, or
even posessing copies of the picture proves nothing if there are others
who've seen it and committed no crime. Making painting, or seeing, such
a picture illegal on the basis that some who have seen it will become
criminals is tantamount to making car ownership illegal because some who
own cars will in the future kill children. In fact with the latter,
there's at least a provable link.

Simon Gray

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Down on uk.misc street, the vibe from J Fisher is:

~ : Now, I might find their attitude misguided & unfair, but I support
~ : their right to hold that attitude.
~
~ Okay. Also the right to make their lesbian and gay
~ employess wear placards saying "I am an evil pervert", I
~ suppose? Or "My partner is filth"? Or perhaps they might
~ have daily rituals of humiliation for them, with the
~ manager marching up to their work place and ceremonially
~ spitting on a picture of their partner?

No, because that would not involve the company having to subsidise
a lifestyle / sexuality / whatever that it does not approve of.

An action which you describe might reasonably be called `constructive
dismissal', whereas not giving a partner a free train pass clearly
doesn't.

If you can't discuss the issue sensibly, I suggest you don't bother
to discuss it at all. Unless you enjoy making an idiot of yourself
in public, of course.

--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNPWAIUdRFO5sC2Q6EQJO7ACdEl+U/TmLjOiyfja9FPJ48dZg1uMAoLEP
F9TRIdQXpA5y7aHxdgTd+Shw
=8Ork
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Support the Campaign for the Adoption of `Ye' as the Second
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ Person Plural Pronoun...

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 17:33:22 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: On 26 Feb 1998 11:10:43 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
>: wrote:
>
>: >Making laws for all adults on the basis that some adults will screw up
>: >badly isn't a reasonable way to run a society. Some adults kill
>: >recklessly with cars. Should nobody therefore be permitted to own a car?
>
>: Do you really have to stretch it out that badly to prove your point?
>: Of course we disagree. It's because you conveniently leave out a few
>: realistic details. The problem with the adults that kill recklessly
>: with cars is that they're usually drunk/stoned while they're doing it.
>
>To be exact they're often drunk/tired/speeding/stoned (usually on
>prescription drugs) or stupid, in that order.
>
>It's hardly a stretch, a lot more kids die that way than through any
>other of our activities. If we want to prevent harm to kids by
>interfering with adult activities, it's a very good place to start.
>
>Anyway, I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't get incapable (for any of the
>above reasons) drivers off the roads. I would argue against banning cars
>for everyone so as to get rid of the problem. That's the key difference
>between us.

I wonder if this example does any service to our differences because
it appears to be a non sequitur. We both know my answer, in this
case, wouldn't even remotely come close to where you're trying to
force it to go.

>: >Pornographic magazines aren't the problem. Crimes such as rape are the
>: >problem. Police effort should rightly be targetted towards the problem.
>
>: You haven't made the case that pornography is not the problem.
>
>I don't need to since it's not me that's advocating interfering with
>what other adults do with their own time. Do you have any reason to
>suppose that *in and of itself* (as opposed to anything that you might
>claim it "causes") pornography is a problem?

I only claim that deviants have blamed pornography for their runaway
impulses. You are quick to dismiss this explanation. I believe it
should be further studied.

>: That
>: is what this whole discussion is about. You can't possibly say that
>: pornography has no bearing on crime
>
>I've never argued that. I've argued only that it isn't itself a harm to
>anyone. I've consistently argued that where crimes are committed they
>should be prosecuted and where pornography is evidence of harm it should
>be used as such to prosecute. I see little reason to go further than
>that and you've yet to show me a reason.

That's because you don't believe that what a deviant has to say about
pornography matters. You know, not every pedophile has a low IQ.
Some are smarter than you are.

>: unless you were that deviant
>
>Can this be the same person that upbraided me for "name calling"?

Why would you take this personally? How would you know what motivates
a deviant unless you were a deviant yourself?

>: But for some men, the photographs may just
>: be a stepping stone. Like the alcoholic when he takes that first
>: drink. Once he takes the drink, he can't stop. Why can't it be the
>: same for some deviants and pornography?
>
>It might be. Just as a first underage cigarette might be the first step
>towards mugging old ladies for money to buy heroin. However, we ought to
>arrest people when they commit crimes, not when they merely indulge in
>bahaviour which *might* in *some* people correlate with later commission
>of crimes.

I agree that we have yet to make a clear correlation between
pornography and actual crime committed. Right now the evidence seems
to be circumstantial. But I wonder with so much at stake for freedom
of speech defenders if we'll ever have an arena where we'll be able to
objectively determine this one way or another.

>: >: >: So I wonder if "normal" people who are satisfied with the magazines
>: >: >: and wish to go no further than their imagination, have any right to
>: >: >: claim that it would have the same effect on deviants --
>: >: >: particularly when we live in a time when pornography is so readily
>: >: >: available and easy to access. In fact, if pornography did indeed
>: >: >: have the ability to soothe the deviant mind, there would be no
>: >: >: better time in the history of man than the present to prove it.
>: >
>: >: >Sure. A crude measure would be to compare sexual crime rates between
>: >: >countries with differing laws as regards pornography.
>: >
>: >: Still wouldn't help unless you could filter out the other cultural
>: >: differences as well. i.e. religion, tradition...
>: >
>: >If you don't believe it could be done then why make the above statement?
>
>: Because you're trying to compare apples to oranges. You want to
>: compare "different" cultures. You can't compare two countries and
>: examine just one factor. For instance, the islamic penalty for some
>: of the offenses we're thinking about is probably death. Big
>: incentive, eh?
>
>They also have the death penalty for heroin tracking as well as the
>largest opium fields in the world. I'd be careful about jumping to
>conclusions regarding incentives.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. Just giving you fer instances.

>As regards your argument, why claim that society being awash with
>pornography allows us to conduct an experiment and then say that the
>experiment is impossible? Usually people have the good grace to allow
>someone else to take the opposing viewpoint rather than doing so
>themselves.

I'm saying that we don't have to look at other cultures. Let's look
at our own. Before and after pornography excesses. Is there a
difference in crime rates? Just shooting from the hip I'd say it was
either the same or worse. Certainly not better.

>: >: >: So I have to say that I have serious doubts about the pornography
>: >: >: as therapy theory judging by the statistics.
>: >
>: >: >Which statistics?
>: >
>: >: I was hoping someone would ask. I'm referring to the usenet statistic
>: >: of inverse proportions. The fact that there is far more pornographic
>: >: material available today than there has ever been in any other time in
>: >: history, and still we have not resolved any of the problems that
>: >: pornography proponents keep claiming that their magazines are capable
>: >: of resolving.
>: >
>: >I note also that we're not all running around school playgrounds raping
>: >children. Perhaps the only difference in a society with a lot of
>: >pornography is that the top shelves of some newsagents look a bit tacky.
>: >reasonable people could probably live with that to safeguard the
>: >principle of liberty.
>
>: One person's liberty is another person's anarchy.
>
>There's something wrong with anarchy? You'll be taking a pop at the
>birds and flowers next.

There's a very big problem with anarchy. It's because with anarchy,
he with the biggest gun wins.

>: I lived with a
>: libertarian for all of my young life.
>
>Lucky you.
>
>: My father.
>
>Ah! The penny drops. How touchingly Freudian.

Aha! Prove it!

>: He believes in open
>: borders. He believes he lives in a free society and supports
>: alternative lifestyles though he would have killed us if we had
>: brought any of those freaks home with us. Over the years I've
>: discovered his secret to his principles. He lives in a reinforced
>: town-house with central fire and burglary alarms. Wrought iron on the
>: windows to prevent anyone from getting through and he never ventures
>: out after dark. He is a very cerebral man and has convinced himself
>: that the principle of liberty that exists only in his head is more
>: important than the liberty to walk freely in his own community.
>
>Do you suppose therefore that all libertarians have burglar alarms and
>are afraid to go out after dark?

I suspect that libertarians are very cautious people. Maybe overly
cautious about somethings. Which is fine for people who are
compulsive about their behavior. ;)

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 17:50:26 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: On 26 Feb 1998 16:09:35 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
>: wrote:
>
>
>: >: Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance
>: >: between themselves and the deviants who claim that pornography was
>: >: a factor in their crimes.
>
>: >The distance is put there by the criminals.
>
>: Very, very disingenuous, Holmes. You don't expect me to buy it do
>: you?
>
>I merely expected you to understand it, and I'm of course disappointed
>that you don't.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It's just too weak to hold
water.

>: >The distance *is* the fact that they are criminals while others are
>: >not. Therefore it makes sense to direct the Police to catching
>: >criminals as opposed to the wider class of pornography users the
>: >majority of whom are not criminals.
>
>: No one is trying to touch your precious freedom to adult porn, Holmes.
>
>You again (deliberately?) misunderstand, I'm arguing for everyone's
>freedom, including yours even if you wait until you're seventy to
>exercise it.

Don't do that Holmes. Don't even go there. I'm sick and tired of
misguided people fighting for my freedom when in the long run they're
making the quality of life worse for everyone. It's not freedom of
speech that's at stake with pornography, but the right for greed. You
won that right, fair and square. It's yours. Hang your head up high
and accept all that goes with it. My libertarian father even knew
this. He said you must take responsibility for all the choices you
make in life. I assume you believe this also.

>: But you need to stop dismissing facts just so you can sleep better at
>: night.
>
>Pray tell what facts am I dismissing?

That there is a price we all pay in protecting the right to
pornography.

>: What do you suggest? A sort of
>: desensitizing treatment a la Clockwork Orange?
>
>I haven't seen it. I heard it was banned.

Maybe in the UK.

>
>: >: >: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of
>: >: >: >rational argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist
>: >: >: >diatribe.)
>
>: >: >: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?
>
>: >: >Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what
>: >: >bit might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force
>: >: >against others or something equally extreme?
>
>: >: And this is my point exactly.
>
>: >What is?
>
>: You got defensive over a silly little label.
>
>No just curious about what appeared to be a pretty stupid statement.

They both were if you want to be sincere about it.

>: I thought it was cute the way he
>: felt compelled to dismiss my opinion on the basis that I was an
>: authoritarian feminist.
>
>Are you an authoritarian feminist? Do you get a uniform?

You'll have to ask Mark. Today is his day to define me.

>: Do you think he feels threaten by me?
>
>I doubt it. You're not very threatening.

Thank you. I don't think I am either.

>
>: >: Or perhaps the act of a desperate man?
>
>: >So if you call someone "desperate" that's an erudite argument rather
>: >than name calling?
>
>: I call it conjecture.
>
>And I call it "hypocrisy".

I think you're being too defensive.

>: >: Which of course, would make commercial child pornography obsolete
>: >: since it would be a ticking time bomb of liability.
>
>: >We don't disagree as far as such pornography is concerned. I believe
>: >that if it is evidence of a crime then it should be used to prosecute
>: >such a crime. Where it is not, such as if it is computer generated,
>: >or is an example of the sort of "art" quoted at the start of this
>: >discussion, I question whether it should be illegal to possess (I'm
>: >more easily persuaded of the case against sale). That question, as
>: >we seem to have ascertained, hinges on whether such material in and
>: >of itself might cause crime and whether it might also in some cases
>: >prevent it.
>
>: And since no one on your side appears to bring any current facts to
>: the table in favor of computer generated child porn as therapy
>
>If it were shown to be harmless then that'd be good enough to convince
>me. If it were also prophylactic in terms of crime that's make the
>argument compelling.

So are you claiming that current child pedophiles don't have access to
enough child porn? How much would you say they need?

>: >In this I simply apply the argument that those who wish to censor
>: >behaviour of others should be required to show that such behaviour
>: >is, or causes, compelling harm. Disgust, however understandable, is
>: >not enough.
>
>: I bring to your attention, again, that when active pedophiles are
>: caught they are found to own a collection of child pornography
>: already. It's what the police like to refer to as "evidence."
>
>Evidence of what exactly? They probably also all have teapots.

I'm referring to pedophiles who have been turned in by their victims.
That's what I meant by "active" pedophiles. Thus, your argument that
child porn is therapeutic is a red herring.

>
>If you could show that everyone who ever sees a painting of a naked
>child (or even "most") would cause harm to children then I'd support
>your position of censorship. However, if it were that clear cut then
>there'd be no need for a debate on the issue so I'm pretty certain that
>you can't.
>
>A few deviants quoting the picture after arrest for actual crimes, or
>even posessing copies of the picture proves nothing if there are others
>who've seen it and committed no crime. Making painting, or seeing, such
>a picture illegal on the basis that some who have seen it will become
>criminals is tantamount to making car ownership illegal because some who
>own cars will in the future kill children. In fact with the latter,
>there's at least a provable link.

<yawn>

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 17:33:22 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >: On 26 Feb 1998 11:10:43 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: >: wrote:
: >
: >: >Making laws for all adults on the basis that some adults will screw up
: >: >badly isn't a reasonable way to run a society. Some adults kill
: >: >recklessly with cars. Should nobody therefore be permitted to own a car?
: >
: >: Do you really have to stretch it out that badly to prove your point?
: >: Of course we disagree. It's because you conveniently leave out a few
: >: realistic details. The problem with the adults that kill recklessly
: >: with cars is that they're usually drunk/stoned while they're doing it.
: >
: >To be exact they're often drunk/tired/speeding/stoned (usually on
: >prescription drugs) or stupid, in that order.
: >
: >It's hardly a stretch, a lot more kids die that way than through any
: >other of our activities. If we want to prevent harm to kids by
: >interfering with adult activities, it's a very good place to start.
: >
: >Anyway, I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't get incapable (for any of the
: >above reasons) drivers off the roads. I would argue against banning cars
: >for everyone so as to get rid of the problem. That's the key difference
: >between us.

: I wonder if this example does any service to our differences because
: it appears to be a non sequitur. We both know my answer, in this
: case, wouldn't even remotely come close to where you're trying to
: force it to go.

Then why not apply the same logic to pornography? If the user commits
any harm, then prosecute for that harm. Don't prosecute for possession
of something simply because some people who have committed harm also
possessed that object.

: >: >Pornographic magazines aren't the problem. Crimes such as rape are the

: >: >problem. Police effort should rightly be targetted towards the problem.
: >
: >: You haven't made the case that pornography is not the problem.
: >
: >I don't need to since it's not me that's advocating interfering with
: >what other adults do with their own time. Do you have any reason to
: >suppose that *in and of itself* (as opposed to anything that you might
: >claim it "causes") pornography is a problem?

: I only claim that deviants have blamed pornography for their runaway
: impulses. You are quick to dismiss this explanation. I believe it
: should be further studied.

Fine, go ahead and study. If it turns out that all, or even most peopl
who also see such material are caused to commit crime then I'll agree
that compelling harm exists and that there's an argument for a ban.
While it looks like most viewers commit no crime, I think it reasonable
to target enforcement against the crime and leave the law abiding to
their harmless, if dubious, viewing.

How many of these criminals have blamed constructed "art" rather than
actual photographs, for their crimes?

I suppose it'd probably be the case that if you raided the bookshelves
and video libraries of convicted murderers you;d turn up a goodly amount
of fictional murders. Would you therefore argue that any fiction or film
depicting murder should be banned for everyone? Note that there *is*
some evidence that people convicted to violence are made more aggressive
by watching such material whereas control groups are not.

: >: That

: >: is what this whole discussion is about. You can't possibly say that
: >: pornography has no bearing on crime

: >I've never argued that. I've argued only that it isn't itself a harm to
: >anyone. I've consistently argued that where crimes are committed they
: >should be prosecuted and where pornography is evidence of harm it should
: >be used as such to prosecute. I see little reason to go further than
: >that and you've yet to show me a reason.

: That's because you don't believe that what a deviant has to say about
: pornography matters.

I do, but only so far as *deviants* are concerned. You're talking about
a ban for everyone aren't you?

: You know, not every pedophile has a low IQ.

: Some are smarter than you are.

The point being?

: >: unless you were that deviant

: >
: >Can this be the same person that upbraided me for "name calling"?

: Why would you take this personally? How would you know what motivates
: a deviant unless you were a deviant yourself?

You're the one who's using the motivation of deviants to underpin your
argument, what is it that qualifies you in this area?

: >: But for some men, the photographs may just

: >: be a stepping stone. Like the alcoholic when he takes that first
: >: drink. Once he takes the drink, he can't stop. Why can't it be the
: >: same for some deviants and pornography?
: >
: >It might be. Just as a first underage cigarette might be the first step
: >towards mugging old ladies for money to buy heroin. However, we ought to
: >arrest people when they commit crimes, not when they merely indulge in
: >bahaviour which *might* in *some* people correlate with later commission
: >of crimes.

: I agree that we have yet to make a clear correlation between
: pornography and actual crime committed.

Thank you for that, and I agree that should you show such a correlation
in *most* viewers, that an argument for a ban might be sustained, though
I'd probably expect you to also demosntrate causation rather than that
the people who commit such crimes are not simply more likely to show an
interest in pornography.

: Right now the evidence seems
: to be circumstantial.

The evidence right now doesn't even point clearly in that direction.
Most pornography users commit no crimes more serious than unlawful
parking otherwise we'd be shoulder deep in rapists.

: But I wonder with so much at stake for freedom of speech defenders if

: we'll ever have an arena where we'll be able to objectively determine
: this one way or another.

I'm way in favour of objective studies. However I note that in the US,
the Meese Commission. which was specifically directed to find the
evidence that pornography causes sex crime, reported that in studying
available evidence that it could not. In the UK there was a similar
study (Sommerville? Summmerbee? Can't remember the name) with similar
results.

One might also wonder why countries with more libertarian laws on
pornography also don't suffer much more serious sex crime. Perhaps the
Dutch and Swedes are just all round nicer people?

Could I ask a question though? If independent studies were objectively
carried out, and (hypothetically) showed that increased use of
pornography actually reduced rape (perhaps through a cathartic effect),
would you then advocate that it be made compulsory in order to ensure
such an effect was maximised?

[...]

: >As regards your argument, why claim that society being awash with

: >pornography allows us to conduct an experiment and then say that the
: >experiment is impossible? Usually people have the good grace to allow
: >someone else to take the opposing viewpoint rather than doing so
: >themselves.

: I'm saying that we don't have to look at other cultures. Let's look
: at our own. Before and after pornography excesses. Is there a
: difference in crime rates? Just shooting from the hip I'd say it was
: either the same or worse. Certainly not better.

I'd bet that rape was just as prevalent if not more so before the spread
of print media. It'd just be a lot less reported for various reasons.

If you want to cut down rape, you'd have a lot more effect if you
allowed women to carry handguns. In the US, in the 3000 odd counties
where they relegalised such after a ban, rape stats went down between 6
and 13 percent. Now *that's* a definite effect, and a campaign worthy of
your efforts.

: >: One person's liberty is another person's anarchy.

: >There's something wrong with anarchy? You'll be taking a pop at the
: >birds and flowers next.

: There's a very big problem with anarchy. It's because with anarchy,
: he with the biggest gun wins.

In an anarchy everyone may be armed. He who uses his gun unwisely may
not even make it to the end of the street.

: >: I lived with a libertarian for all of my young life.

: >Lucky you.

: >: My father.

: >Ah! The penny drops. How touchingly Freudian.

: Aha! Prove it!

Rebellion in the young is to be expected, not proven.

: >: He believes in open borders. He believes he lives in a free

: >: society and supports alternative lifestyles though he would have
: >: killed us if we had brought any of those freaks home with us. Over
: >: the years I've discovered his secret to his principles. He lives
: >: in a reinforced town-house with central fire and burglary alarms.
: >: Wrought iron on the windows to prevent anyone from getting through
: >: and he never ventures out after dark. He is a very cerebral man
: >: and has convinced himself that the principle of liberty that exists
: >: only in his head is more important than the liberty to walk freely
: >: in his own community.

: >Do you suppose therefore that all libertarians have burglar alarms
: >and are afraid to go out after dark?

: I suspect that libertarians are very cautious people.

I'll bet that some are and some aren't. Personally I'm fairly cautious,
though not about being out after dark.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 17:50:26 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)

: >: >: Pornography proponents wish to put as much distance

: >: >: between themselves and the deviants who claim that pornography was
: >: >: a factor in their crimes.
: >
: >: >The distance is put there by the criminals.
: >
: >: Very, very disingenuous, Holmes. You don't expect me to buy it do
: >: you?
: >
: >I merely expected you to understand it, and I'm of course disappointed
: >that you don't.

: Oh, I understand what you're saying. It's just too weak to hold
: water.

Are you then saying that you see no difference between an otherwise law
abiding viewer of pornography and one who commits a rape?

That would certainly be radical enough to put you up there with
Catherine McKinnon.

: >: >The distance *is* the fact that they are criminals while others are

: >: >not. Therefore it makes sense to direct the Police to catching
: >: >criminals as opposed to the wider class of pornography users the
: >: >majority of whom are not criminals.
: >
: >: No one is trying to touch your precious freedom to adult porn, Holmes.
: >
: >You again (deliberately?) misunderstand, I'm arguing for everyone's
: >freedom, including yours even if you wait until you're seventy to
: >exercise it.

: Don't do that Holmes. Don't even go there. I'm sick and tired of
: misguided people fighting for my freedom when in the long run they're
: making the quality of life worse for everyone.

In what way is your quality of life worse if you have the choice of
whether or not to watch pornography? All you need to do is to decide not
to.

: It's not freedom of

: speech that's at stake with pornography

I'd say that it's freedom of choice, or more importantly, the freedom to
decide what to do rather than have Nanny decide what's best for us.

: but the right for greed. You

: won that right, fair and square. It's yours. Hang your head up high
: and accept all that goes with it.

You'll then be delighted to hear that I'm an anarchocapitalist in my
spare time.

: My libertarian father even knew

: this. He said you must take responsibility for all the choices you
: make in life. I assume you believe this also.

Absolutely and unashamedly, even if I confess I'm a little too hard on
myself when I make mistakes.

: >: But you need to stop dismissing facts just so you can sleep better at

: >: night.
: >
: >Pray tell what facts am I dismissing?

: That there is a price we all pay in protecting the right to
: pornography.

What's the price?

: >: What do you suggest? A sort of

: >: desensitizing treatment a la Clockwork Orange?
: >
: >I haven't seen it. I heard it was banned.

: Maybe in the UK

Touche.

: >: >: >: >No, democratic debate only works if there is some kind of

: >: >: >: >rational argument present (as opposed to authoritarian/feminist
: >: >: >: >diatribe.)
: >
: >: >: >: Or as opposed to extreme libertarian propaganda?
: >
: >: >: >Perhaps you could post examples of such? I'm curious as to what
: >: >: >bit might be. Perhaps posters advocating renunciation of force
: >: >: >against others or something equally extreme?
: >
: >: >: And this is my point exactly.
: >
: >: >What is?
: >
: >: You got defensive over a silly little label.
: >
: >No just curious about what appeared to be a pretty stupid statement.

: They both were if you want to be sincere about it.

So are you going to give me any examples or not?

: >: And since no one on your side appears to bring any current facts to

: >: the table in favor of computer generated child porn as therapy
: >
: >If it were shown to be harmless then that'd be good enough to convince
: >me. If it were also prophylactic in terms of crime that's make the
: >argument compelling.

: So are you claiming that current child pedophiles don't have access to
: enough child porn?

I have no idea how much they have access to. Having heard all about how
the Net is crawling with it and not having seen any in 10 years of using
the Net, I tend to be skeptical of such claims.

: How much would you say they need?

I'm unconcerned. As I said, if it can be shown that it *causes* crime in
the people who view it, I'll support a ban. Until then, I'll support a
ban only when it's created through crime and not when it's created
through artifice such as painting or computer drawing. I'm very much
against harm to others but I'm also against censorship when there's no
evidence of compelling harm.

Perhaps, since you concede such evidence is lacking, you could make your
case for the extension to the ban to artifice such as painting and drawing?
Instinctively I'd rather be in your position since I feel as disgusted
by the whole concept as most other adults but I'm too honest to go down
the route of advocating bans just because I personally dislike something.

The alternative would be my advocating the banning of eggs, most
religion, politicians, game shows and country music.

: >: >In this I simply apply the argument that those who wish to censor

: >: >behaviour of others should be required to show that such behaviour
: >: >is, or causes, compelling harm. Disgust, however understandable, is
: >: >not enough.
: >
: >: I bring to your attention, again, that when active pedophiles are
: >: caught they are found to own a collection of child pornography
: >: already. It's what the police like to refer to as "evidence."
: >
: >Evidence of what exactly? They probably also all have teapots.

: I'm referring to pedophiles who have been turned in by their victims.
: That's what I meant by "active" pedophiles. Thus, your argument that
: child porn is therapeutic is a red herring.

Let me reiterate: I'm not arguing that it's therapeutic, though I
concede that it *may* be in *some* cases prophylactic. However, in order
to ban something such as pornography in art, you should be required to
show that it *causes* sufficient harm to warrant interference with
everyone's opportunity to decide their viewing for themselves. The
reason for this is less that the precious freedoms of paedophiles are
protected, it's that the precious freedoms of *everyone* must be
protected.

Because if the state can limit your viewing "for your own good" in one
thing, it can limit it in another. before you know it you'll be wearing
a veil and chador lest you drive men to uncontrollable lust. Give
politicians some power and there's no end to what they'll do with it.

For example in the UK there was a rigt to bear arms. Politicians decided
to "licence" firearms while promising that this would in no way mean
restricting their availability. Then availability was restricted, but
only for criminals and the mentally feeble, with accompanying promises
that no law abiding mentally competent person should ever have their
rights interfered with. Then suddely you had to have a rason to have a
licence, though with a promise that given a reason, the granting of a
licence wold be automatic. Now we're at the point where olympic pistol
shooters have to practice in France.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take you to another bloody universe. It's
functionally illegal to defend yourself in this country now.

So let's just say I find the idea of politicians getting to decide what
we watch on TV is a little dubious.

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 19:14:05 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>: That's because you don't believe that what a deviant has to say about
>: pornography matters.
>
>I do, but only so far as *deviants* are concerned. You're talking about
>a ban for everyone aren't you?

Show me where I have ever suggested banning pornography. I'm
suggesting that we should stop thinking of pornography as completely
harmless to society. There is a price we all pay for this right.

>You're the one who's using the motivation of deviants to underpin your
>argument, what is it that qualifies you in this area?

Another red herring? I'm telling you to start listening to what
deviants are saying in their group therapy sessions and you're asking
me for my credentials?

>: I agree that we have yet to make a clear correlation between
>: pornography and actual crime committed.
>
>Thank you for that, and I agree that should you show such a correlation
>in *most* viewers, that an argument for a ban might be sustained, though
>I'd probably expect you to also demosntrate causation rather than that
>the people who commit such crimes are not simply more likely to show an
>interest in pornography.

<sigh> You must have a persecution complex. No one is suggesting
that we ban adult pornography. But if we don't start listening to the
men who are trying to tell us what it is that triggered their impulses
we will waste a precious opportunity in rehabilitating them.

>: Right now the evidence seems
>: to be circumstantial.
>
>The evidence right now doesn't even point clearly in that direction.
>Most pornography users commit no crimes more serious than unlawful
>parking otherwise we'd be shoulder deep in rapists.

But we're not talking about most pornography users are we?

>
>: But I wonder with so much at stake for freedom of speech defenders if
>: we'll ever have an arena where we'll be able to objectively determine
>: this one way or another.
>
>I'm way in favour of objective studies. However I note that in the US,
>the Meese Commission. which was specifically directed to find the
>evidence that pornography causes sex crime, reported that in studying
>available evidence that it could not. In the UK there was a similar
>study (Sommerville? Summmerbee? Can't remember the name) with similar
>results.

Meese? Ed Meese? What year was that?

>One might also wonder why countries with more libertarian laws on
>pornography also don't suffer much more serious sex crime. Perhaps the
>Dutch and Swedes are just all round nicer people?

Or maybe they don't report the crimes as much?

>Could I ask a question though? If independent studies were objectively
>carried out, and (hypothetically) showed that increased use of
>pornography actually reduced rape (perhaps through a cathartic effect),
>would you then advocate that it be made compulsory in order to ensure
>such an effect was maximised?

?? Because I'm not suggesting we ban pornography, I'm not sure this
is relevant to anything.

>
>[...]
>
>: >As regards your argument, why claim that society being awash with
>: >pornography allows us to conduct an experiment and then say that the
>: >experiment is impossible? Usually people have the good grace to allow
>: >someone else to take the opposing viewpoint rather than doing so
>: >themselves.
>
>: I'm saying that we don't have to look at other cultures. Let's look
>: at our own. Before and after pornography excesses. Is there a
>: difference in crime rates? Just shooting from the hip I'd say it was
>: either the same or worse. Certainly not better.
>
>I'd bet that rape was just as prevalent if not more so before the spread
>of print media. It'd just be a lot less reported for various reasons.

We'll never know for sure since those crimes were never reported. I'm
giving you a freebie here because the incidents of reported rape have
gone up considerably in thirty years.

>
>If you want to cut down rape, you'd have a lot more effect if you
>allowed women to carry handguns. In the US, in the 3000 odd counties
>where they relegalised such after a ban, rape stats went down between 6
>and 13 percent. Now *that's* a definite effect, and a campaign worthy of
>your efforts.

You're really demented, you know that don't you? If a woman has small
children, the statistics show her family is safer without a gun in the
house. Most children are killed when a sibling or friend find mom or
dad's gun. If you have children you'll understand why it's pointless
to even try hiding it where they can't find it. Also, if it's that
well hidden, how effective will it be if a burglar surprises you?

>: >: One person's liberty is another person's anarchy.
>
>: >There's something wrong with anarchy? You'll be taking a pop at the
>: >birds and flowers next.
>
>: There's a very big problem with anarchy. It's because with anarchy,
>: he with the biggest gun wins.
>
>In an anarchy everyone may be armed. He who uses his gun unwisely may
>not even make it to the end of the street.

What a lovely climate you paint. Drive-by shootings will be so
common.

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 19:41:20 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

> The
>reason for this is less that the precious freedoms of paedophiles are
>protected, it's that the precious freedoms of *everyone* must be
>protected.
>

Sorry, Holmes, I had to snip everything else because it was so
mind-numbing. But this caught my eye. Okay, I'll give you a chance
to protect my rights. Protect my right to have all my loved ones free
from drunk drivers, protect us all from road warriors that bear arms,
protect my male child from pedophiles that may be lurking in the men's
room, or that may be posing as teachers, scout leaders or priest. I
can go on, but I think you've got the idea. You're talking bunk
because the truth of the matter is that you haven't made it easier for
anyone. You haven't protected anyone's freedoms. What you call
liberty is really anarchy. Admit it. You've been hiding behind a
euphemism. So now that we know where you're really headed with your
politics, please explain what an analcapalist or whatsit is. Sounds
like a Republican who doesn't want to be regulated. i.e. child labor.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 19:14:05 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >: That's because you don't believe that what a deviant has to say about
: >: pornography matters.
: >
: >I do, but only so far as *deviants* are concerned. You're talking about
: >a ban for everyone aren't you?

: Show me where I have ever suggested banning pornography. I'm
: suggesting that we should stop thinking of pornography as completely
: harmless to society. There is a price we all pay for this right.

: >You're the one who's using the motivation of deviants to underpin your
: >argument, what is it that qualifies you in this area?

: Another red herring? I'm telling you to start listening to what
: deviants are saying in their group therapy sessions and you're asking
: me for my credentials?

If neither of us has any credentials in criminal psychology then you're
on no stronger ground in arguing that the claims of sex criminals
regarding pornography as a cause for crime should be taken seriously
than I am in arguing that they're just making excuses.

Impasse, except that if you want to argue for a ban on pornography then
the onus is on you to provide a compelling reason for interfering with
other people's viewing decisions.

: >: I agree that we have yet to make a clear correlation between

: >: pornography and actual crime committed.

: >Thank you for that, and I agree that should you show such a correlation
: >in *most* viewers, that an argument for a ban might be sustained, though
: >I'd probably expect you to also demosntrate causation rather than that
: >the people who commit such crimes are not simply more likely to show an
: >interest in pornography.

: <sigh> You must have a persecution complex.

Why *must I have?

: No one is suggesting

: that we ban adult pornography.

OK, you're suggesting that a painting of nude children should be banned
and I'm arguing that without compelling reason, there's no justification
for this.

Don't you suspect that when a quite reasonable ban on pornography whic
is created by the rape of children is extended to painings (or
pornography if you like) which clearly isn't, then it may simply be
paranoia rather than rationality that's operating? It's the sort of
thinking that has people arrested for taking pictures of their babies in
the bath.

: But if we don't start listening to the men who are trying to tell us

: what it is that triggered their impulses we will waste a precious
: opportunity in rehabilitating them.

I'm in favour of them doing whatever it takes to rehabilitate sex
criminals. I'm arguig purely for the rights of normal law abiding adults
here.

: >: Right now the evidence seems to be circumstantial.

: >The evidence right now doesn't even point clearly in that direction.
: >Most pornography users commit no crimes more serious than unlawful
: >parking otherwise we'd be shoulder deep in rapists.

: But we're not talking about most pornography users are we?

As I understand it, we're talking about visitors to a gallery wherein
lies a painting of nude children. The title of this thread would
certainly seem to indicate this.

: >: But I wonder with so much at stake for freedom of speech defenders

: >: if we'll ever have an arena where we'll be able to objectively
: >: determine this one way or another.

: >I'm way in favour of objective studies. However I note that in the
: >US, the Meese Commission. which was specifically directed to find
: >the evidence that pornography causes sex crime, reported that in
: >studying available evidence that it could not. In the UK there was a
: >similar study (Sommerville? Summmerbee? Can't remember the name) with
: >similar results.

: Meese? Ed Meese?

The very one.

: What year was that?

1987 or 1988 at the behest of the Reagan administration due to calls
from the "Moral Majority".

: >One might also wonder why countries with more libertarian laws on

: >pornography also don't suffer much more serious sex crime. Perhaps
: >the Dutch and Swedes are just all round nicer people?

: Or maybe they don't report the crimes as much?

Perhaps. Any evidence?

: >Could I ask a question though? If independent studies were

: >objectively carried out, and (hypothetically) showed that increased
: >use of pornography actually reduced rape (perhaps through a cathartic
: >effect), would you then advocate that it be made compulsory in order
: >to ensure such an effect was maximised?

: ?? Because I'm not suggesting we ban pornography, I'm not sure this
: is relevant to anything.

Why not make it clear what you are suggesting? Would you, or would you
not have the aforementioned painting removed? Would you, or would you
not, advocate a ban on such pictures which are provably not created
through the commission of crimes?

: >[...]

: >I'd bet that rape was just as prevalent if not more so before the

: >spread of print media. It'd just be a lot less reported for various
: >reasons.

: We'll never know for sure since those crimes were never reported. I'm
: giving you a freebie here because the incidents of reported rape have
: gone up considerably in thirty years.

Which even activists concede is because the Police and Courts have
become considerably more sympathetic in handling such cases.

: >If you want to cut down rape, you'd have a lot more effect if you

: >allowed women to carry handguns. In the US, in the 3000 odd counties
: >where they relegalised such after a ban, rape stats went down between
: >6 and 13 percent. Now *that's* a definite effect, and a campaign
: >worthy of your efforts.

: You're really demented, you know that don't you?

I'm sure if it were true, I'd be the last to know. In this case I'm sure
you say this just because you disagree with what I have to offer.

: If a woman has small

: children, the statistics show her family is safer without a gun in the
: house.

Wrong. The same studies show *no* increase in accidental gun deaths in
those 3000+ counties which relegalised concealed carry of handguns.

Of course where there are guns, there may be idiot parents who leave
them where children can get at them. Personally I'd support legal hangun
ownership *only* after a training course in gun safety and use has been
passed and where the trainers accredit the person as mentally fit to own
one. I'd certainly accept people being ruled out on the grounds of
overarching stupidity. In fact I often suspect that the same rules
should apply to computers.

: Most children are killed when a sibling or friend find mom or
: dad's gun.

: If you have children you'll understand why it's pointless
: to even try hiding it where they can't find it. Also, if it's that
: well hidden, how effective will it be if a burglar surprises you?

Any parent with kids in the house would keep guns in a locked unit.
There are units operated by combination button press which will still
allow access fast enough to defeat an intruder.

: >: >: One person's liberty is another person's anarchy.

: >: >There's something wrong with anarchy? You'll be taking a pop at
: >: >the birds and flowers next.

: >: There's a very big problem with anarchy. It's because with
: >: anarchy, he with the biggest gun wins.

: >In an anarchy everyone may be armed. He who uses his gun unwisely
: >may not even make it to the end of the street.

: What a lovely climate you paint. Drive-by shootings will be so
: common.

Interestingly, drive-by shootings have become common in two cases in the
USA:

1) Alcohol prohibition.

2) Drug prohibition.

The common element being of course the illegality of adults imbbibing
something which they can freely trade between themselves. That
illegality of course being "for their own good" rather than because such
imbibing is provably in and of itself of any harm to anyone but
themselves.

To bring things back on topic, it's another reason to oppose pornography
bans. It's just another way to funnel large amounts of money into the
pockets of criminals. I doubt the folks organising the smuggling of
adult porn into the UK are very poor for example.

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 19:41:20 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: > The

: >reason for this is less that the precious freedoms of paedophiles are
: >protected, it's that the precious freedoms of *everyone* must be
: >protected.

: >

: Sorry, Holmes, I had to snip everything else because it was so

: mind-numbing. But this caught my eye. Okay, I'll give you a chance
: to protect my rights.

Can't say fairer than that.

: Protect my right to have all my loved ones free
: from drunk drivers

Sure, just make killing someone with a car the same charge as killing
someone with a gun, and axe, or anything else, with the same penalties.

There shouldn't be a separate class of crime for car drivers and there
shouldn't be a separate class of crime for drunks.

: protect us all from road warriors that bear arms,

You are. Using arms except in self-defence *is* illegal.

: protect my male child from pedophiles that may be lurking in the men's

: room, or that may be posing as teachers, scout leaders or priest. I
: can go on, but I think you've got the idea.

What more would you suggest than making it illegal, and with heavy
penalties, to sexually assault children? Note also that children are
more often assaulted by parents and relatives than strangers in men's
rooms or teachers. Perhaps you'd advocate policemen in the kid's rooms
or even outlawing parenthood?

The Police do what they can within the limits of the practical. The rest
is part of the job you signed up for when you had kids. The state
doesn't exist to do it for you.

: You're talking bunk

: because the truth of the matter is that you haven't made it easier for
: anyone. You haven't protected anyone's freedoms. What you call
: liberty is really anarchy. Admit it. You've been hiding behind a
: euphemism. So now that we know where you're really headed with your
: politics, please explain what an analcapalist or whatsit is. Sounds
: like a Republican who doesn't want to be regulated. i.e. child labor.

You've lost the plot completely.

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

On 26 Feb 1998 20:47:57 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
wrote:

>: Another red herring? I'm telling you to start listening to what
>: deviants are saying in their group therapy sessions and you're asking
>: me for my credentials?
>
>If neither of us has any credentials in criminal psychology then you're
>on no stronger ground in arguing that the claims of sex criminals
>regarding pornography as a cause for crime should be taken seriously
>than I am in arguing that they're just making excuses.

Aha! But now I know you're an anarchist so your position is no longer
viable to me. I'm afraid it's killed the spark a bit, since I know
you're ready to forfeit any safeguard we have in society just on
principle.

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Spring Flowers writes
>Why ? I just think those that fancy children as sexual objects are SICK and
>abnormal should have medical treatment. If they are a risk to children they
>should be locked-up.

But we're not talking about sex, we're talking about an image. Would
you argue that no-one draws images that they don't find sexually
appealing? Wasn't it Velasquez, for example, who painted a picture of a
soldier who'd been beheaded and castrated? Should we take that out of
the art gallery? How about all this Xian art, these crucifixions and
even more distasteful methods of execution?

Don't you believe that images or other works of art ever get created
with the aim of inspiring the viewer to revulsion or disgust? I'm not
much good at remembering who drew what, but here are a few examples from
film:
The Accused
Extremities
The Power of Men is the Patience of Women
Not A Love Story

and literature:
The Iron Dream by Norman Spinrad
Brave New World and Ape & Essence by Aldous Huxley

The artist always puts her/himself at risk of being misinterpreted.
"Iron Dream" for example was indexated in Germany at one time because
the satire was misunderstood and people thought it genuinely glorified
the Nazi period. In the same way, the anti-racist segments of Pink
Floyd's "The Wall" were taken as validation by some of the skinheads who
acted as extras in the film.

A fairly simple example that even you should not be able to misinterpret
is the films made by anti-abortion organisations. These purport to show
abortions, for the purpose of making viewers so disgusted that they will
become anti-abortionists themselves.
>
>British police believe that men who rape children, unrelated to them, are in
>the majority of cases encouraged to do so having been sexually stimulated by
>child porn and other similar material.

As opposed to the normal fathers and uncles who rape children related to
them presumably? Is your argument actually about child abuse, or simply
about protecting a man's right to rape his own children?

--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Stu! writes
>Spr...@Flowers.int (Spring Flowers)
>wrote:
>>Anal intercourse with other men, do you mean ?

Obsession with buggery again, Spring? Couldn't they have fellatio or
mutual masturbation with other men?
>
>Yes, there have been studies in the USA which show that male prisoners
>who follow heterosexual lives on the outside do become homosexual
>while they are incarcerated.

Umm, tell me if I'm definitely wrong, but it was my understanding that
heterosexual men in prison behave just as they do outside: they find a
smaller weaker person to define as "female" and use them for sexual
gratification with the hetero in the active role.

This isn't "becoming homosexual" in any meaningful sense of the term.
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes
>Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
>pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.

Did anyone say it did? Maybe I missed something. If you're referring
to the bit in Dutch law about child pornography for therapeutic
purposes, it's quite likely that that doesn't just mean "to give the
paedophile to wank off with". It could, for example, mean using it as a
tool in counselling sessions to help the offender get over his desires.
Or it could be used in aversion training, assuming anyone still does
that.

BTW, I don't believe you've defined "deviant". It looks like you're
using it to mean "paedophile" or "child molestor", but it would be nice
if you could be more clear.

I mean, I'm a "deviant" - I'm left handed - and I'm sure you're not
talking about me?
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Group of quasiprofessional zealots seek to increase their power,
>So they gain ascendancy over the weak and the vulnerable,
>And accuse others of Hideous Sin,
>Any denial of which only goes to show how serious the sin is.
>
>Most churches have tried it, and its time for the 20th century's own brand
>of religious charlatans, the counsellors, to try it on.
>
>I suppose you'll accuse me of being a child molester for this.
>
No, just an apologist for same.

BTW, does anyone know why "distribution: flowers" keeps coming up on the
"other" section of my header in this thread?

-
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes

>protect my male child from pedophiles that may be lurking in the men's
>room, or that may be posing as teachers, scout leaders or priest.

Do you have no daughters, or do you just not care what happens to them?
BTW, child molesters aren't "posing as": they can be child molestors and
qualified/experienced teachers etc.

> I
>can go on, but I think you've got the idea. You're talking bunk

>because the truth of the matter is that you haven't made it easier for
>anyone. You haven't protected anyone's freedoms.

The problem is, you're both saying "freedoms" but he's meaning "freedom
to" and you're meaning "freedom from". He wants freedom to use
pornography; me, I'd like freedom to walk down the street without being
forced to see pseudo-erotic images.

>What you call
>liberty is really anarchy. Admit it. You've been hiding behind a
>euphemism. So now that we know where you're really headed with your
>politics, please explain what an analcapalist or whatsit is. Sounds
>like a Republican who doesn't want to be regulated. i.e. child labor.

I think the word you want is "anarchocapitalist". It means much what
you said.

Not to be confused with real anarchy which is about co-operation.

--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> rants
>It rather sounds as if you have a paranoid attachment to '60's feminist
>guff. Why not look up the BMJ, they don't all listen in to your 'phone,
>and not all of them are patriarchal men?

And your point is?

>You will find that barmy
>lefty 'therapists' have been implanting false memories into peoples
>minds. These evil people have been doing it to satisfy their mad attachment
>to 'feminist' ideology that holds that almost all children have been
>abused.

Oh, sure, child molesters have realised that calling the opposition
"feminists" is a good way to get them disbelieved. It depends whether
you're thick enough to believe this only goes back to "60s feminism" or
whether you can read enough to know, as I said before, that the cycle
goes back at least 150 years.

--
Joy Hilbert

Sandy Morton

unread,

Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98

to

In article <dx0$DBAhxM...@aireworth.demon.co.uk>,
jack <ja...@freedomforaireworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Yes we have you!

> It's not the first time you've done this.

> That makes it a ritual.

> Therefore you must be Satanic.

> Thus you are obviously a Satanic child abuser.

> OK everybody start gathering firewood we've some burning to do!

Ian Johnston actually sounds like a reasonable and normal person to me -
more than some do on this newsgroup?

--
Sandy Millport
on the bicycle island
in the global village

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

The questions you ask were already covered. I posted the quotes.

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:33:37 +0000, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes
>>Precisely. So it would be wrong to make a general statement that
>>pornography is a form of therapy for deviants.
>
>Did anyone say it did? Maybe I missed something.

>Mark Wright of Freedom, Vrijheid, Liberte wrote in uk.legal on Tue, 24 Feb
>1998 21:45:25 GMT:
>

>> Could not such an image allow the person to fantasize without having to
>> Commit the act himself, effectively rendering the image therapeutic?

>
>BTW, I don't believe you've defined "deviant". It looks like you're
>using it to mean "paedophile" or "child molestor", but it would be nice
>if you could be more clear.
>
>I mean, I'm a "deviant" - I'm left handed - and I'm sure you're not
>talking about me?

See below:

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:06:22 +0000, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes

>>protect my male child from pedophiles that may be lurking in the men's
>>room, or that may be posing as teachers, scout leaders or priest.
>
>Do you have no daughters, or do you just not care what happens to them?

The choices you provide for me suggest that you don't have any
daughters of your own. I usually accompany my daughter into the
public bathroom to make sure she's safe.

>BTW, child molesters aren't "posing as": they can be child molestors and
>qualified/experienced teachers etc.

Actually, they are usually drawn to those careers because it brings
them closer to the children. Once they get convicted, part of their
probation involves them to avoid contact with children. For these two
reasons, I reserve the right to use the word "pose".

>>What you call
>>liberty is really anarchy. Admit it. You've been hiding behind a
>>euphemism. So now that we know where you're really headed with your
>>politics, please explain what an analcapalist or whatsit is. Sounds
>>like a Republican who doesn't want to be regulated. i.e. child labor.
>
>I think the word you want is "anarchocapitalist". It means much what
>you said.

Thank you.

>Not to be confused with real anarchy which is about co-operation.

My dictionary shows the definition for anarchy as follows:

1) the complete absence of government.

2) political disorder and violence; lawlessness

3) disorder in any sphere of activity.

Nope. Not a word about co-operation.

I will say that this thread will probably have a short life because
Holmes and I have finished our discussion. Even I'm bored with it.
If he wishes to send it to e-mail that will be fine.

The Director

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

In article <eklu0GBq...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> writes

>BTW, does anyone know why "distribution: flowers" keeps coming up on the
>"other" section of my header in this thread?

You are not alone. It seems that many posters who have followed-up
Spring's recent contributions have acquired a seasonal bouquet.

I suspect some newsreaders pick-up a post's "Distribution:" attribute in
the same way that the "Newsgroups:" line is cloned.

Nice play on words/themes, though:

(Spring) Flowers/Propagation/Distribution/World

--
The Director
The Commission on Scandals in Justice
mailto:inju...@scandals.demon.co.uk
http://www.scandals.org/

The Director

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

In article <888313...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes

>There was also a good series of articles in the BMJ in January about how
>the invented memory stuff had been shown to be so dangerous.

BMJ No 7130 Volume 316 - http://www.bmj.com/
Editorial Saturday 14 February 1998

Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse
(http://www.bmj.com/bmj/archive/7130/7130e2.htm)

The Royal College of Psychiatrists issues important precautions

Harrison G Pope

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has just issued a set of
recommendations for good practice in treating patients with "recovered
memories" of childhood sexual abuse.(1) The college advises strongly
against persuasive or suggestive psychotherapeutic techniques designed
to unearth sexual abuse of which the patient has no memory and
encourages psychiatrists to voice any doubts which they may have about
the historical accuracy of patients' recovered memories. These
recommendations will figure strongly in the widely publicised current
debate on "recovered memory therapy" and the possibility that such
therapy may encourage so-called false memories.

When false memories occur patients may become convinced that they were
victims of long repressed childhood sexual abuse, often at the hands of
their parents or other trusted figures. These memories may become a
raison d'Írtre for certain patients, diverting them from any other
therapies, alienating them from their families, and often producing
devastating aftershocks in the courtroom. In a recent American case, for
example, a young woman in psychotherapy recovered the memory that at the
age of 13 she was raped by her schoolteacher, became pregnant, and
underwent an abortion. No corroborating evidence existed. In fact, she
apparently did not reach menarche until the age of 15, so the pregnancy
would have been medically impossible. Nevertheless, she filed criminal
charges against the teacher, who was forced to spend his life savings in
a legal defence that spanned several years. His case terminated only
when the New Hampshire supreme court finally ruled that repressed and
recovered memory lacked sufficient scientific foundation to be
admissible.(2)

In another recent case a woman and her two young children were admitted
to hospital in Illinois with diagnoses of multiple personality disorder.
The woman recovered memories of having been a high priestess in a
satanic cult and of having engaged in cannibalism, bestiality, and
numerous bizarre sexual acts.

After years of treatment, and millions of dollars in medical bills, she
retracted all of her memories and sued the therapists and hospital for
malpractice. The case has recently been settled for 10.6 million
dollars.(3)

The recovered memory debate reduces to a central question: can someone
endure a seemingly unforgettable traumatic experience, such as repeated
rape, and then expel the memory completely from conscious awareness for
many years? This process, variously termed repression, dissociative
amnesia, or psychogenic amnesia, is sometimes discussed without
question, as if everyone knew it to be true. But is it? Our forebears
did not seem to think so. I have not found any clear cases of repressed
memory in classical literature, Shakespeare, or any literature before
the romantic writings of the nineteenth century. Only then, in the
novels of James Fenimore Cooper, in Charles Dickens's Dr Manette, and in
the poetry of Emily Dickinson, does repression begin to appear.(4) And
it was still several decades more until Freud(5) and Janet(6)
"discovered" the concept. One must ask therefore whether repression is a
scientifically established phenomenon, or whether it is simply a
romantic notion that has infiltrated our cultural belief system.

And indeed, on critical examination, the scientific evidence for
repression crumbles. Admittedly, various published case reports and
retrospective studies exist, describing individuals who currently
remembered an alleged traumatic experience but reportedly had forgotten
it during a previous period of their lives.(7) But asking individuals if
they "remember whether they forgot" is of dubious validity.(4)(8)
Furthermore, in most retrospective studies corroboration of the
traumatic event was either absent or fell below reasonable scientific
standards.(9) The only convincing test of the repression hypothesis
would be a prospective study, in which victims of a documented trauma
were systematically followed up and asked whether they remembered the
event.

We have recently reviewed the available prospective studies of this
type.(10) Throughout these studies, when subjects were asked directly
about traumatic experiences, all reported memories. Non-reporting
occurred only in those studies where subjects were never asked directly
about the event, leaving open the possibility that these individuals
simply did not disclose events even though they did remember them. This
problem, together with several other methodological limitations,
effectively invalidates the few remaining prospective studies purporting
to show evidence of repression (especially the oft cited study of
Williams(11)) - leaving no prospective data of adequate methodology to
show that individuals can actually repress memories of traumatic
experiences.

Of course, some might still argue that we have not disproved the
possibility that repressed memories might occur. But this objection
turns logic on its head: in the 500 years since William of Ockham first
propounded his principles of parsimony, scientists have acknowledged
that the burden of proof rests with whomever proposes a novel theory of
causation, and not the reverse. Repression may be the stuff of Victorian
novels and Hollywood movies, the darling of television dramas, and an
object of widespread popular belief. But popular belief in repression
does not spare investigators the burden of providing a rigorous,
methodologically convincing demonstration of its existence. Until such a
demonstration is provided, the recommendations of the royal college seem
only prudent.

Harrison G Pope, Jr Associate professor of psychiatry
Harvard Medical School,
Boston,
MA 02115,
USA

References
1 Royal College of Psychiatrists. Reported recovered memories of child
sexual abuse: recommendations for good practice and implications for
training, continuing professional development and research. Psychiatric
Bull 1997;21:663-5.
2 Supreme Court of New Hampshire: the State of New Hampshire v Joel
Hungerford and the State of New Hampshire v John Morahan. Ruling of 1
July, 1997.
3 Belluck P. "Memory" therapy leads to a lawsuit and big settlement. New
York Times 1997; 6 Nov:A1.
4 Pope H G, Jr. Psychology astray: fallacies in studies of "repressed
memory" and childhood trauma. Boca Raton, FL: Upton Books, 1997.
5 Freud S. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud. Strachey J, trans and ed. London: Hogarth Press,
1953-1974 (see vol 14, p16).
6 Janet P. L'automatisme psychologique. Paris: FÍelix Alcan, 1889.
7 Sheflin A W, Brown D: Repressed memory or dissociative amnesia: what
the science says. J Psychiatry Law 1996; Summer: 143-88.
8 Melchert T P, Parker R L. Different forms of childhood abuse and
memory. Child Abuse and Neglect 1997;21:125-35.
9 Andrews B. Forms of memory recovery among adults in therapy:
preliminary results from an in-depth survey. In: Read D, Lindsay S, eds.
Recollections of trauma: scientific research and clinical practice. New
York: Plenum (in press).
10 Pope H G Jr, Hudson J I, Bodkin J A, Oliva P. Questionable validity
of "dissociative amnesia" on trauma victims. Br J Psychiatry (in press).
11 Williams L M. Recall of childhood trauma: a prospective study of
women's memories of child sexual abuse. J Consult Clin Psychology
1994;62:1167-76.

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Joy Hilbert (hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes

: >I suppose you'll accuse me of being a child molester for this.

: >
: No, just an apologist for same.

If you were here and had the guts to say that to my face, I would be very
tempted to clock you one. And, if you were to pulish it I can assure you
that you would receive a letter from my solicitors almost immediately.

I suggest you read "The Crucible" and the history of the House Committee on
UnAmerican Activities: your witch-hunting and smearing of anyone who dares
disagree with you is beyond contempt.

Ian, very very angry indeed.

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Sandy Morton (a...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Ian Johnston actually sounds like a reasonable and normal person to me -

: more than some do on this newsgroup?

Bless you, Sandy! For spotting my normality you can smear me with Nuttella
and whip me with a bunch of nettles while I recite the 23rd Psalm in
Bulgarian.

Ian

PS But seriously, I looking forward to the followups...

Ian Johnston

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Joy Hilbert (hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Oh, sure, child molesters have realised that calling the opposition

: "feminists" is a good way to get them disbelieved.

This from someone who is happy to fling out the term "child molester" at
anyone who disagrees with her?

Ian

M Holmes

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 26 Feb 1998 20:47:57 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
: wrote:

: >: Another red herring? I'm telling you to start listening to what

: >: deviants are saying in their group therapy sessions and you're asking
: >: me for my credentials?
: >
: >If neither of us has any credentials in criminal psychology then you're
: >on no stronger ground in arguing that the claims of sex criminals
: >regarding pornography as a cause for crime should be taken seriously
: >than I am in arguing that they're just making excuses.

: Aha! But now I know you're an anarchist so your position is no longer
: viable to me.

Back to Logic 101 for you. An argument is correct on incorrect
independent of the person making the argument.

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Spackman <gam...@lose.cableinet.co.uk> writes
>Prove it (again)? No wait, let me guess - you can't (again)
>Prove it (again)? No wait, let me guess - you can't (again)
>Doh, it's just another Hilbert fantasy! (again)
>
You again? Are you following me round? You were on uk.glb last time
you recited the above little mantra?
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Ms_Pell writes
>M Holmes
>wrote:
>>Eh? I'd thought that he could be prosecuted for possessing such
>>pictures. Am I mistaken?
>
>Yes, you're mistaken if we're talking about US law. I'm referring to
>an actual case that occurred in Clearwater, FL about five years ago.
>The man was a known pedophile and the newspaper clearly stated that
>the pictures could not be used against him because they were taken on
>a public beach and he was not interfering with the mother or the
>children.

However, there are no specifically usa newsgroups in the newsgroups
line, and some of us are reading this on uk.legal.

In future please clarify which legal system we're talking about. As the
previous poster said, possession of child pornography (defined as what
the police say it is, including pictures of a baby in a bath) is illegal
here.
--
Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes
>Joy Hilbert

> wrote:
>>Ms_...@ix.netcom.com writes
>>>protect my male child from pedophiles that may be lurking in the men's
>>>room, or that may be posing as teachers, scout leaders or priest.
>>
>>Do you have no daughters, or do you just not care what happens to them?
>
>The choices you provide for me suggest that you don't have any
>daughters of your own.

In what way? (Not that you're wrong, sad to say)

>I usually accompany my daughter into the
>public bathroom to make sure she's safe.

Do you also accompany her to school, Brownies and Sunday School? You
did mention teachers, scoutmasters and priests, as well as public
toilets in your previous post? That, as well as the fact that boys
under 7 are allowed in women's toilets, led to my question.

>
>>Not to be confused with real anarchy which is about co-operation.
>
>My dictionary shows the definition for anarchy as follows:
>
>1) the complete absence of government.
>2) political disorder and violence; lawlessness
>3) disorder in any sphere of activity.
>Nope. Not a word about co-operation.

But then your dictionary was written by a statist.

--
Joy Hilbert

Armin Forker

unread,

Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98

to

Stu! (sbr...@netcomuk.co.uk.nospam) wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:22:34 +0000, Joy Hilbert
> <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >Umm, tell me if I'm definitely wrong, but it was my understanding that
> >heterosexual men in prison behave just as they do outside: they find a
> >smaller weaker person to define as "female" and use them for sexual
> >gratification with the hetero in the active role.
> >
> >This isn't "becoming homosexual" in any meaningful sense of the term.

> It is if one takes the literal meaning of a homosexual as a man who
> performs sexual acts on another man.

> I wasn't alluding to a true homosexual,merely pointing out that males
> who ordinarily would not take part in sexual activity with other males
> will do so when incarcerated in a situation which makes normal sex
> impossible.

Note that the social stigmatization of masturbation as 'sick' and
'unnatural' makes this healthy valve of the sexual instinct impossible to
use in such an archaic community as that of prison inmates.

'Wanker' is one of the strongest insults possible for many.

It is a dreadful part of our Christian/Middle East cultural heritage.
It is time to propagate masturbation - let's start with the children!
That dreadful 'no sex and no porn for children' dogma (still widely
accepted despite all civilizatory progress) causes generation after
generation of perverts as it opposes the natural curiousity of the child
as well as its existing but tabooised sexual instincts.

> I agree with you as you say that it is a method of underscoring the
> control of the strong over the weak. In a way, that is the path
> followed by paedophiles. They want to be able to totally dominate
> anoher individual, and feel the easiest way to do that is by using a
> prepubescent.

Yes, pedophiles and rapers most likely only use sex as a vehicle for their
true desire: to subjugate weaker individuals. That's why pornography will
hardly have a negative influence on the number of such crimes. Their
motive is not sex but power.

But: every child that suffers from the sexual taboo will be endangered to
become pervert in a way that he will perceive sex as something dirty,
appropriate to humiliate others with, the more so if his sexual desires
must not be soothed by the 'sinful' and 'wimpy' means of masturbation.

It is the true perversion of our civilization that dominant machos that
break every rule are still the heroes while porn consuming wankers who
harm no-one are considered as scum.

--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://members.xoom.com/AFo/central.htm
........................................................

Boy-lovers, Girl-lovers and others - Was: JACK STRAW

J Fisher

Alexander Baron

Peter H.M. Brooks

Peter Buchwald

Simon Gray

Joy Hilbert

Alexander Baron

Peter H.M. Brooks

T Bruce Tober

Simon Gray

Simon

Simon

Joel Hogarth

Leo

Phil Hunt

Phil Hunt

Phil Hunt

Joy Hilbert

Axel

Axel

Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

Joel Hogarth

Leo

T Bruce Tober

Nigel Carron

Anthony & Joy Hilbert

Joy Hilbert

Peter H.M. Brooks

T Bruce Tober

John J Smith

Joy Hilbert

Ian Johnston

Peter H.M. Brooks

Lyle Rooff

T Bruce Tober

Peter Cassidy

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ian Johnston

Ian Johnston

Ian Johnston

Peter H.M. Brooks

J Fisher

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

John Elway Rosenthal

Christopher Bruce

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Kevin Dekan

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Alex Buell

jack

paul_m...@hotmail.com

Tim Billinge

M Holmes

M Holmes

M Holmes

Ian Johnston

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Siobhan Grier

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes

M Holmes

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes

Simon Gray

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes

M Holmes

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

Ms_...@ix.netcom.com

M Holmes