a new thought
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2005 16:50:49
I was chatting to a friend about an apocryphal tale about Broadmoor.
and it occurrred to me that if you're a paedophile and you can't get porn, isn't it possible you will wank over nappy ads, mother and baby magazines.
As a strap-on lover who can't find femdom strap-on porn, do you just adapt what porn is out there when you wank?
so isn't the government fighting a losing battle by banning images of sexual violence?
you cannot police what people see only what is shown...so the current consultation paper has got the wrong end of the stick...
do people agree? can we use this argument?
clare, 08 Sep 2005 17:49:06
> so isn't the government fighting a losing battle by banning images of sexual violence?
They are not claiming to ban the images, only the possession. The pictures will still be there. Necrophiles can wank over necrophile pics as much as they like, until they go to prison for doing so.
> you cannot police what people see only what is shown...so the current consultation paper has got the wrong end of the stick...
> do people agree? can we use this argument?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the proposed law against viewing/possessing images is unenforceable/unpoliceable? If so, we talked about that in this mornings thread and thought it was quite easy to police.
They are not even trying to police what is shown, only to punish for looking. The images that are deemed to be abhorrent will remain available. That is why I said this morning that its pointless getting into a speculative debate about whether the images cause harm. That might be a debate worth having if they were intending to actually ban the images (on the grounds that they may cause harm). But they are not intending to ban the images. They are intending to punish people who look at the images. They are intending to so when, by definition, that person has not displayed any of the violent tendencies that they are worried about. If s/he had displayed any of those characteristics they would be able to prosecute for that violent crime.
I therefore think that there is no point debating whether necrophiles might start to use alternative wank material; they don't need to and you can win a speculative debate.
Peter Green, 08 Sep 2005 20:36:26
On 9/8/05, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> As a strap-on lover who can't find femdom strap-on porn, do you just adapt what porn is out there when you wank?
I have no problem admitting that as a pubescent teenager in the 60s,
it may be cliched but my only source of visual stimulation was the
ladies underwear pages from the my mother's mail order catalogue. Porn
is where you find it.
> you cannot police what people see only what is shown...so the current consultation paper has got the wrong end of the stick...
>
> do people agree? can we use this argument?
Hang on, this sounds like what I was suggesting on the phone to you
last week - how can a frame grab of the BBC's Messiah 4 meathooked
lesbians be legal, but an identical, equally-posed image on a porn
site not be? Your contention was that intent (in this case, to create
sexual arousal) was paramount under English law - has that position
changed?
--
Peter
stripey, 08 Sep 2005 23:31:27
In message
<6074654.1126194643048.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
demolitionred@yahoo.com writes
>and it occurrred to me that if you're a paedophile and you can't get
>porn, isn't it possible you will wank over nappy ads, mother and baby
>magazines.
As you'll probably remember, the hysteria over paedophiles reached such
a fever pitch that some schools banned parents taking videos of their
own children at nativity plays because of fears that paedos could obtain
these videos and get their jollies out of them.
Even the likes of the Daily Mail could see the absurdity of that. So
yes, I think this is something that can be used against the other side.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Laurence, 09 Sep 2005 11:07:42
Author wrote:
> I was chatting to a friend about an apocryphal tale about Broadmoor.
> and it occurrred to me that if you're a paedophile and you can't get porn, isn't it possible you will wank over nappy ads, mother and baby magazines.
> As a strap-on lover who can't find femdom strap-on porn, do you just adapt what porn is out there when you wank?
> so isn't the government fighting a losing battle by banning images of sexual violence?
> you cannot police what people see only what is shown...so the current consultation paper has got the wrong end of the stick...
> do people agree? can we use this argument?
I refer you to my post of Sept 5th in which I said:-
"Amongst my many case histories from my 20 years in the criminal justice system I had a number of individuals who, for reasons of situation, were isolated from access to images of their preferred 'sexual' outlet - this did not reduce their interest in the behaviour - it merely caused them to produce their own material by adapting ordinary photographs, making sketches and writing stories."
For many years the most popular masturbatory icons of fixated paedophiles were the pictures of children who carried the title of Miss Pears and were used in the advertising campaign for Pears soap. All soft focus and romanticised.
Although by no means a universal truth the tendancy is for many fixated paedophiles to prefer the 'romantic innocent child image' whereas the regressed paedophile may well seek out images where the child is presented as the 'sexually aware little adult'- ie dressed in clothes that one would normally associate with a much older age group - often wearing make up.
Catalogues that have childrenswear sections are often found amongst the personal possessions of arrested peadophiles - along with cuttings from local papers containing pictures of school swimming teams, travel brochures depicting children playing on the beach, videotapes of the t.v. series Grange Hill - the list goes on and on and the images used as icons are far more likely to be ones considered as 'everyday' than ones 'specifically produced'.
Kind regards
Laurence