another new response

Paul Tavener, 11 Dec 2005 19:29:35

An extensive and well researched piece:

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gcvpjf.htm


Alan, 11 Dec 2005 20:07:36

All these responses are heart warming but I don't think that our wunderfool government will take the slightest notice of any of it
Once they get a bee in their collective bonnet God help the rest of us. Think on the prevention of religious hatred bill for instance. What a pile of nasty repressive law that will make. Its only been held at bay by the House of Lords and sooner or later the gov will use the parliament act to get its spitefull way. Then we'll all be in fear of being accused of "perceived" religious hatred any time we crack a joke down the pub

I wanna emmigrate

Todd
Author wrote:
> An extensive and well researched piece:
> http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/gcvpjf.htm


UKR, 12 Dec 2005 17:04:07

We may be pissing into the wind Alan, but ...

“Even dripping water, if it does not stop, can ultimately turn a mulberry orchard into a lake. A flame, if not removed, will ultimately burn a meadow.”

We can speculate, postulate and surmise as much as we like and yes, we are just a handfull of people with no more power than a dripping tap, but as long as we don't turn that tap off we will have done our utmost to defend what is ours and make our small voice heard in the tumult of those who don't understand or are afraid.

We have to cling to the belief that everyone has a right to express their fantasies in a consensual way, no matter how dark they may be. Some of the most remembered and revered of the worlds' artists, writers and fim producers have gone to some very dark places in the creation of their visions. There is a lady on my website who would probably describe herself as vanilla. She has expressed a desire for me to help her be the 'victim' in a real time controlled forced sex fantasy scenario along with a film of it for her to enjoy at her pleasure as part of those snapshot memories that have become such a core of many peoples lives since the invention of the camera. Who has the right to deny her that experience?

You've written your response, sent letters to various members of parliament posted off an 'Outraged of Nether Wollop' letter to your local papers, donated a bit of cash to the cause, told everyone you can think of, posted messages on D/s forums, researched the subject till your eyes are bloodshot, so what's left to do? Apart from keeping morale up, strengthening the lobby group and keeping the message alive till the outcome of the response is decided, there's a lot of waiting to do and that can be the hardest thing.

For those who fancy a little light reading in the meantime, try ... 'Benjamin Hoff isbn 0-416-19526-1... it's a jolly good read and the very last chapter is most pertinent.

Here's a response which I expected to irritate me. To my surprise, I found it for the most part to be so ridiculous as to be amusing. It's from Mediawatch-uk which used to be the organisation backed by Mary Whitehouse. I'm sure you only need one guess as to which side of the fence they've come down on.

http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Violent%20and%20Abusive%20Porn.htm

UKrudegirl

http://www.sfc.org.uk


Teddy, 12 Dec 2005 18:14:30

The mediawatch reply was truly comical; it reminded me of some the websites of those pernicious ultra-right wing religious groups in the USA. I wonder what penalties they would prescribe for REAL criminals??

I truly believe that public opinion is not nearly as strongly behind these proposals as is widely assumed; there is certainly no overwhelming public concern, as Gormless assures us. It is the feral tabloids and self-rightious/gutless politicians who appear to be impelling things forward, which is why it's important to have at least some publicly visible body in opposition. The "vox populi" on discussion boards and forums tends to be maybe 2/10 in favour of "lynching the sick perverts", 4/10 who oppose on (mainly) libertarian grounds and the remainder are unsure on account of the obvious non-workability and contextual contradictions (what about TV/film violence? etc.) involved with bringing in such a law.

Teddy

Author wrote:
> We may be pissing into the wind Alan, but ...
> “Even dripping water, if it does not stop, can ultimately turn a mulberry orchard into a lake. A flame, if not removed, will ultimately burn a meadow.”
> We can speculate, postulate and surmise as much as we like and yes, we are just a handfull of people with no more power than a dripping tap, but as long as we don't turn that tap off we will have done our utmost to defend what is ours and make our small voice heard in the tumult of those who don't understand or are afraid.
> We have to cling to the belief that everyone has a right to express their fantasies in a consensual way, no matter how dark they may be. Some of the most remembered and revered of the worlds' artists, writers and fim producers have gone to some very dark places in the creation of their visions. There is a lady on my website who would probably describe herself as vanilla. She has expressed a desire for me to help her be the 'victim' in a real time controlled forced sex fantasy scenario along with a film of it for her to enjoy at her pleasure as part of those snapshot memories that have become such a core of many peoples lives since the invention of the camera. Who has the right to deny her that experience?
> You've written your response, sent letters to various members of parliament posted off an 'Outraged of Nether Wollop' letter to your local papers, donated a bit of cash to the cause, told everyone you can think of, posted messages on D/s forums, researched the subject till your eyes are bloodshot, so what's left to do? Apart from keeping morale up, strengthening the lobby group and keeping the message alive till the outcome of the response is decided, there's a lot of waiting to do and that can be the hardest thing.
> For those who fancy a little light reading in the meantime, try ... 'Benjamin Hoff isbn 0-416-19526-1... it's a jolly good read and the very last chapter is most pertinent.
> Here's a response which I expected to irritate me. To my surprise, I found it for the most part to be so ridiculous as to be amusing. It's from Mediawatch-uk which used to be the organisation backed by Mary Whitehouse. I'm sure you only need one guess as to which side of the fence they've come down on.
> http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Violent%20and%20Abusive%20Porn.htm
> UKrudegirl
> http://www.sfc.org.uk
>
>


SnowdropExplodes, 12 Dec 2005 20:46:45

ukrudegirl@hotmail.com wrote:

Here's a response which I expected to irritate me. To my surprise, I found it for the most part to be so ridiculous as to be amusing. It's from Mediawatch-uk which used to be the organisation backed by Mary Whitehouse. I'm sure you only need one guess as to which side of the fence they've come down on.

http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Violent%20and%20Abusive%20Porn.htm


*****

Thank you for sharing this, I found it very entertaining!

I laughed at their argument that porn causes teenage pregnancy, despite the fact that Britain has the tightest censorship in Europe (a fact they recognise) and also the highest teenage pregnancy!

Other high points (or low points in terms of intellect): Arguing that R18 material should be included in the list of material to be banned; quoting "Messiah IV" as an example of material that should be banned; listing all the private member's bills that they have supported and that haven't been passed.

There are a couple of points that maybe should be taken more seriously - for instance, their claims regarding Japan and Denmark being false examples of porn not having a bad effect, and the Claudio Violato study that they mention need to be refuted if possible.

However, it is worth noting that mediawatch-uk are the group who thought that an episode of Dr. Who should be shown after the 9 o'clock watershed because it had the terms "canoodle" and "spoons" in the dialogue - that's the sort of nutters who produced this response!

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes



---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Paul C. Dickie, 12 Dec 2005 21:04:03

In message <2872800.1134407032608.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, ukrudegirl@hotmail.com wrote:
>We may be pissing into the wind Alan, but ...
>
>\x{201C}Even dripping water, if it does not stop, can ultimately turn a mulberry
>orchard into a lake. A flame, if not removed, will ultimately burn a meadow.\x{201D}

And does even gormless Goggins have Buddha-nature?

>For those who fancy a little light reading in the meantime, try ... 'Benjamin
>Hoff

As against Goggins and Mediawatch, who remind one of Jerk Hoff...

--
< Paul >
... the answer to the koan is, of course, "Mu!" or a slap in the face


Paul C. Dickie, 12 Dec 2005 21:19:19

In message <4884728.1134411272897.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>The mediawatch reply was truly comical; it reminded me of some the websites of
>those pernicious ultra-right wing religious groups in the USA. I wonder what
>penalties they would prescribe for REAL criminals??

It is also -- predictably -- disingenuous. They cite a speech given by
Der Fuhrer (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8123.asp) but, try as
one might, one cannot find any reference to pornography in it. There
are references to the Organised Crime Act, there are references to
drinking, to "anti-social behaviour" and, of course, "respect for
others". What there isn't is any reference whatever to pornography or
to any "nasty" images which might arouse unwanted penile tumescence in
those few members of MediaWatch who can still recall how their appendage
might have once been used.

(Most of them now use it to poke holes in ring doughnuts...)

>I truly believe that public opinion is not nearly as strongly behind these
>proposals as is widely assumed; there is certainly no overwhelming public
>concern, as Gormless assures us. It is the feral tabloids and self-
>rightious/gutless politicians who appear to be impelling things forward, which
>is why it's important to have at least some publicly visible body in opposition.
>The "vox populi" on discussion boards and forums tends to be maybe 2/10 in
>favour of "lynching the sick perverts",

Including, as one daft red-top tabloid would have it, paediatricians?

(One can almost imagine the comment in the newsroom: "Well, it's a paed-
something, innit, so that means they does things to poor, innocent
little children and that can't be right can it?")

--
< Paul >


Paul C. Dickie, 12 Dec 2005 22:37:47

In message <20051212204429.1294.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
> I laughed at their argument that porn causes teenage pregnancy, despite the
>fact that Britain has the tightest censorship in Europe (a fact they recognise)
>and also the highest teenage pregnancy!

What more PROOF do you need? ;-)

> However, it is worth noting that mediawatch-uk are the group who thought that
>an episode of Dr. Who should be shown after the 9 o'clock watershed because it
>had the terms "canoodle" and "spoons" in the dialogue - that's the sort of
>nutters who produced this response!

See? Even mentioning how to canoodle in front of children (which they
define as persons under the age of 42) and the spoons position is bound
to lead to more under-age pregnancies. If the children (Oh, think of
the children!!) would only stick to playing with their hoops, tops and
skipping ropes and, if they had to have sex, doing it in the missionary
position, there would be no teenage pregnancies at all!

> Other high points (or low points in terms of intellect): Arguing that R18
>material should be included in the list of material to be banned; quoting
>"Messiah IV" as an example of material that should be banned; listing all the
>private member's bills that they have supported and that haven't been passed.

I believe they unwittingly present a convincing case for the provision
of an on-demand service for post-natal abortion.

> There are a couple of points that maybe should be taken more seriously - for
>instance, their claims regarding Japan and Denmark being false examples of porn
>not having a bad effect, and the Claudio Violato study that they mention need to
>be refuted if possible.

Concisely, Violato seems to be an idiot who seems neither to know nor to
care to know much (or anything) about how to conduct a study, just as
long as it produces the results he wants.

Vide http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01sep08e_new_study.htm for a
critique of how he (and others) rigged a 'review' of other studies in an
attempt to reinforce their preconceived notions. The 'study' itself is
at http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/paol.htm

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/Violato.html

The 2002 'study' was much the same. It was claimed to be a 'meta-
analysis' which, translated from gibberish, means that Violato did not
actually run the survey(s) himself nor did he even collect new data, but
merely analysed old data that he thought might be useful. To this
quondam scientist, that seems to be of more than somewhat doubtful
honesty and could almost be calculated to give wonky results.

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?reviewOfTheNews/0208.htm tells
us who paid for the 'study':


Researchers at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education
(NFFRE) in Canada have found that using pornographic materials leads to
several behavioral, psychological and social problems.

The authors of the study concluded that exposure to pornography puts
viewers at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies,
committing sexual offenses, experiencing difficulties in intimate
relationships, and accepting of the rape myth.

"Our findings are very alarming", said Dr. Claudio Violato, a professor
at the University of Calgary and Director of Research at the Foundation.
"This is a very serious social problem since pornography is so
widespread nowadays and easily accessible on the Internet, television,
videos and print materials."

The study, published in March in the scientific journal Mind, Medicine
and Adolescence, was conducted by Dr. Violato and two colleagues at the
Foundation, Dr. Elizabeth Oddone-Paolucci and Dr. Mark Genuis.

"Our study involved more than 12,000 participants and very rigorous
analyses. I can think of no beneficial effects of pornography
whatsoever. As a society we need to move towards eradicating it," Dr.
Violato said.


I'd rather doubt if he has much understanding of non-parametric
statistics. At http://www.cerf.mcmaster.ca/papers/june2000/violato.pdf
he's at it again, this time to condemn nursery schools and other, non-
maternal forms of day-time child care. As elsewhere, the only control
exerted was whether or not to include a set of data; all the data had
been collected by others, who may have been trying to answer quite
different questions. At best, that's lazy; at worst, it's dishonest.

It may be interesting that not even MediaWank ^W MediaWatch cared to
quote another conclusion from the oh-so-learned Dr Violato:


Behavioral problems, according to the study, include fetishes and
excessive or ritualistic masturbation.
(http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/102002e.asp)


And we all *know* that makes one go blind, don't we? One might only be
astounded that he didn't also mention that habitual viewers of
pornography might develop hairy palms...

And that is why I believe Claudio Violato seems to practise a form of
intellectual onanism.

--
< Paul >


UKR, 13 Dec 2005 20:04:04

> < Paul >
> ... the answer to the koan is, of course, "Mu!" or a slap in the face

Aaah ... the old 'one hand clapping' gag ... or possibly not.

UKrudegirl

www.sfc.org.uk


Paul C. Dickie, 16 Dec 2005 03:45:31

In message <2872800.1134407032608.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, ukrudegirl@hotmail.com wrote:
>Here's a response which I expected to irritate me. To my surprise, I found it
>for the most part to be so ridiculous as to be amusing. It's from Mediawatch-uk
>which used to be the organisation backed by Mary Whitehouse. I'm sure you only
>need one guess as to which side of the fence they've come down on.
>
>http://www.mediawatchuk.org/publications/Violent%20and%20Abusive%20Porn.htm

The following article was posted yesterday on the uk.legal newsgroup;
whilst it deals with paedophilia and child abuse, the implication of
"extreme pornography" being inherently harmless is hardly difficult to
see. If even someone trying to find a causal link between child porn
and child abuse states that there is no link at all, how can anyone
seriously suppose there is any link between "extreme pornography" and
rape or other sexual offences?

NewsHound , 16 Dec 2005 03:45:31
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: uk.legal
John Thow, 16 Dec 2005 10:24:00

Good post,

This is another off-topic but related article on violence in video
games- many of the comments with regard to the separation of fantasy and
reality are very pertinent to the violent porn issue

"Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked

Henry Jenkins
MIT Professor


A large gap exists between the public's perception of video games and
what the research actually shows. The following is an attempt to
separate fact from fiction."
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html


JT




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.