Thread

Nutters

Teddy, 06 Mar 2006 02:09:47

Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.

http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf

Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this issue?
What will happen when it turns out that it is not only men who may have an interest in this "aberrant" porn??
How can you compare, in terms of proscription and sentencing, child porn involving real non-consensual child abuse with acted "extreme" porn where no harm or crime has even occured???

It would be nice, maybe for some of our female Backlash supporters, to put a rocket of several megatons payload up the backsides of these nutters!

Best wishes all,

Teddy

Paul C. Dickie, 06 Mar 2006 09:24:00

In message <3915006.1141610794259.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.
>
>http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf
>
>Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this
>issue?

Do you mean to suggest that wimmin (sic) should not have the right to
express how little they know or how less they understand?

>What will happen when it turns out that it is not only men who may have an
>interest in this "aberrant" porn??

They will probably claim that their sisters have been indoctrinated or
coerced into acceptance by some "evil men", or some other tosh to avouid
the otherwise inevitable cognitive dissonance.

Did you see how the silly woman referred to the murder of Jane Longhurst
in an attempt to justify repression? Does she not know that "extreme
pornography" had little or no effect on her murderer and that his
viewing habits merely followed his existing proclivities and activities?
Or does she simply not care, as long as she can use that tale to
substantiate her misguided beliefs in "gender inequalities"?

>How can you compare, in terms of proscription and sentencing, child porn
>involving real non-consensual child abuse with acted "extreme" porn where no
>harm or crime has even occured???

The silly woman plainly believes that no sane and right-thinking woman
would freely consent to such *terrible* things being done to her and,
therefore, the females depicted in "extreme pornography" are either
being exploited against their will, or have been brain-washed into
thinking that they should be exploited in that manner.

It may be futile to argue with such a person; one would be more likely
to convince a member of the Taliban to enter Strictly Come Dancing and
for much the same reason: they are convinced they are always right and,
even when it can be shewn they are not, they *must* have been right all
along.

>It would be nice, maybe for some of our female Backlash supporters, to put a
>rocket of several megatons payload up the backsides of these nutters!

It might be better if that schmendrick could explain why so much of the
"extreme pornography" shewed men as the objects of female domination and
exactly *how* that could be said to depict wimmin (sic) as victims.

But she might have to rethink her core beliefs and she might do herself
an injury thereby. At the very least, she'd have to find the office
Backside Head Extraction Tool and clean the rust off it first...

--
< Paul >

fobix, 06 Mar 2006 09:53:21

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

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.
>
> http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf
>
> Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this issue?
> What will happen when it turns out that it is not only men who may have an interest in this "aberrant" porn??
> How can you compare, in terms of proscription and sentencing, child porn involving real non-consensual child abuse with acted "extreme" porn where no harm or crime has even occured???
>
> It would be nice, maybe for some of our female Backlash supporters, to put a rocket of several megatons payload up the backsides of these nutters!

You're missing the point that the any woman who would watch material
like that is clearly self hating and has simply internalised patriarchal
values. Or so goes the usual response (completely discounting the idea
that the women in question would may have considered the idea that their
tastes and behaviour may have been affected by patriarchal social
values, or for that matter their right to have a say about what they
want as much as any self-professed anti-porn feminist. The debate almost
deserves the coining of an acronym: FINAM - Feminism Is Not A Monolith.

Phoebe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEDAPr1vzgRTK71/IRAqhpAJ9TTAVQ02ewPzSYiAIneNiXqjUuVwCeNqwj
csSCnIYjK2ULBHINWXVI/Iw=
=T9ry
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

zak, 06 Mar 2006 14:35:00

Original Message:
-----------------

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 06 Mar 2006 14:35:00

Roel, 06 Mar 2006 15:10:07

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf

"From a feminist perspective, such materials not only perpetrate gender
inequalities but worsen them"

Such materials perpetrate?

Is it me being not a native speaker, or is it really a Freudian slip of
the keyboard using a word with criminal connotations instead of
"perpetuate"?

Well, at least they didn't write "penetrate".

Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)

SnowdropExplodes, 06 Mar 2006 17:25:07

The interesting thing is that, when they reference a report that disagrees with their prejudices, they simply say, "but we believe that they must be wrong", without giving any scientific basis to such a claim.

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk " wrote: Original Message:
-----------------

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 06 Mar 2006 17:25:07

Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.

http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf

Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this
issue?

No. Like all anti-porn campaigners, they are acting out their own severe
sexual
dysfunctions and incapable of listening to reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4408

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Teddy, 06 Mar 2006 19:28:44

There are quite a few examples of this kind of fatuous nonsense, which can be found on the web; a selection of womens/child-protection/Christian groups. The consultation document was hardly a "tour de force" of reasoned and evidence-based argument, of course. Very disturbing...

Author wrote:
> The interesting thing is that, when they reference a report that disagrees with their prejudices, they simply say, "but we believe that they must be wrong", without giving any scientific basis to such a claim.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk " wrote: Original Message:
> -----------------

: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 06 Mar 2006 19:28:44

> Subject: [backlash] Nutters
> Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.
> http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf
> Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this
> issue?
> No. Like all anti-porn campaigners, they are acting out their own severe
> sexual
> dysfunctions and incapable of listening to reason.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4408
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

SnowdropExplodes, 06 Mar 2006 19:34:33

I've gone through the "pro" responses currently listed on the Backlash site, and tried to analyse what their positions are:

The christian.org document is broader in scope, directly addressing R18 videos.

The Mediawatch document wants R18 included in the scope of the new legislation.

These, I term the "Moral outrage" responses.

Then there are the Feminist responses. These take a line explicitly stated by the Scottish Women's Convention response, that "all pornography is violence against women". The "Women's National Commission"/"Violence Against Women"/"Lilith" response is explicitly sexist in content, saying that all "material involving the domination of women" should be banned, but apparently material involving the domination of men is acceptable.

The "interested bodies" responses all implicitly accept without questioning it, the position of the consultation paper.

The Child Protection Service (NHS Wales) line supports the paper unquestioningly, and explicitly suggests that conviction of simple possession should be made grounds for inclusion on the sex offenders register (in particular the POVA and POCA lists). They do also suggest that research should be done to see if viewing extreme porn can have an effect of reducing the likelihood of offending, but otherwise explicitly state that they agree with the reasoning of the paper.

The NCH/CHIS response is a short letter that makes a short statement that it ties in with their campaigns for better filtering software and other ways of preventing young people from coming into contact with such material. It does not question the proposals, but views it as a natural progression.

The JA-Net response ostensibly responds only to how it affects research: in short, it is there only to argue that there are some circumstances in which possession is justified (for law enforcement reasons and for academic research). They state at first that, "We view these questions to be a matter of personal opinion and therefore not appropriate to a corporate response such as this" - this to "does the challenge posed by the internet require the law to be strengthened", "given the lack of conclusive research...is there some material...that should not be allowed" and "do you agree with the list of material". However, they later implicitly accept that the answers to these questions are yes, no and yes respectively in their answers to other questions, at times directly copying the language of these questions, and explicitly accept that the government's strategy (particularly in seeking international cooperation) is acceptable.

This last response is to my mind the most worrying, since it is the work of academics who ought to have the skills and training to question and challenge the assumptions in any paper presented to them.

All the responses that spend any time examining the assumptions and premises of the consultation document so far appear to be opposed to the proposals on one ground or another. The exception is the case of the Feminist argument, who tend not to examine the paper itself but to expound their own untested assumptions.

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Adenda...here's one pro-response from a "womens rights" group.

http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/pdfs/consultation/PEP_response.pdf

Do these people have the slightest idea what they are talking about on this issue?
What will happen when it turns out that it is not only men who may have an interest in this "aberrant" porn??
How can you compare, in terms of proscription and sentencing, child porn involving real non-consensual child abuse with acted "extreme" porn where no harm or crime has even occured???

It would be nice, maybe for some of our female Backlash supporters, to put a rocket of several megatons payload up the backsides of these nutters!

Best wishes all,

Teddy

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4404

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now
---------------------------------

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Teddy, 06 Mar 2006 22:23:57

Hi,

I would doubt that the JA-net response was penned by academics (and certainly not by those with a detailed knowledge of the subject). JANET is a national umbrella/management group for all the different university networks and some of the shared networking and database creation that goes on between them. They are probably more interested in what it will mean for them, in terms of liability and enforcement, rather than trying to express any views about the rights and wrongs of the legislation.

Teddy

Author wrote:

> The JA-Net response ostensibly responds only to how it affects research: in short, it is there only to argue that there are some circumstances in which possession is justified (for law enforcement reasons and for academic research). They state at first that, "We view these questions to be a matter of personal opinion and therefore not appropriate to a corporate response such as this" - this to "does the challenge posed by the internet require the law to be strengthened", "given the lack of conclusive research...is there some material...that should not be allowed" and "do you agree with the list of material". However, they later implicitly accept that the answers to these questions are yes, no and yes respectively in their answers to other questions, at times directly copying the language of these questions, and explicitly accept that the government's strategy (particularly in seeking international cooperation) is acceptable.
This last response is to my mind the most worrying, since it is the work of academics who ought to have the skills and training to question and challenge the assumptions in any paper presented to them.

fobix, 08 Mar 2006 11:43:44

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

guilty^ wrote:
> Is it me being not a native speaker, or is it really a Freudian slip of
> the keyboard using a word with criminal connotations instead of
> "perpetuate"?

My guess is that it's rhetorical rather than Freudian

Phoebe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEDsDO1vzgRTK71/IRAg2ZAKCG2iZNjdT7g/9PGGlBI18khk2o9gCeP950
xIGJi5BZwGpg7p05Bq8XvzE=
=5d8Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Teddy, 28 Mar 2006 21:58:50

Hi All,

I wrote to JAnet about their reply and got this response. They claim to be neutral on the issues, even though they supported Option 3 and, tacitly, the proposed penalties!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your comments on our submission to the Home Office consultation on extreme pornography. As you note, the submission was very careful not to express any view on whether legislation relating to such material was desirable. Whether legislation is appropriate is a political and social question and not one that UKERNA has, or could have, a view on.

The point of our submission was solely that *if* such legislation were considered desirable, then in the interests of clarity of both interpretation and implementation it should follow as closely as possible the existing provisions for indecent images of children. These have been steadily improved since the original Protection of Children Act 1978, and it would be unfortunate if that process had to be started from scratch for a new type of material.

Kind regards
Peter
JANET Customer Service
---------------------------------------------------------------

Teddy

Author wrote:
> Hi,
> I would doubt that the JA-net response was penned by academics (and certainly not by those with a detailed knowledge of the subject). JANET is a national umbrella/management group for all the different university networks and some of the shared networking and database creation that goes on between them. They are probably more interested in what it will mean for them, in terms of liability and enforcement, rather than trying to express any views about the rights and wrongs of the legislation.
> Teddy
> Author wrote:
> > The JA-Net response ostensibly responds only to how it affects research: in short, it is there only to argue that there are some circumstances in which possession is justified (for law enforcement reasons and for academic research). They state at first that, "We view these questions to be a matter of personal opinion and therefore not appropriate to a corporate response such as this" - this to "does the challenge posed by the internet require the law to be strengthened", "given the lack of conclusive research...is there some material...that should not be allowed" and "do you agree with the list of material". However, they later implicitly accept that the answers to these questions are yes, no and yes respectively in their answers to other questions, at times directly copying the language of these questions, and explicitly accept that the government's strategy (particularly in seeking international cooperation) is acceptable.
> This last response is to my mind the most worrying, since it is the work of academics who ought to have the skills and training to question and challenge the assumptions in any paper presented to them.

Paul C. Dickie, 30 Mar 2006 00:50:05

In message <4563885.1143579300514.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>I wrote to JAnet about their reply and got this response. They claim to be
>neutral on the issues, even though they supported Option 3 and, tacitly, the
>proposed penalties!

From the nonsense quoted below, it would appear that the author has a
unique, personal and idiosyncratic understanding of the concept of
veracity.

The deeply disingenuous Marty Rimm also claimed to be an academic.

>Thank you for your comments on our submission to the Home Office consultation on
>extreme pornography. As you note, the submission was very careful not to express
>any view on whether legislation relating to such material was desirable. Whether
>legislation is appropriate is a political and social question and not one that
>UKERNA has, or could have, a view on.

Phooey!

>The point of our submission was solely that *if* such legislation were
>considered desirable, then in the interests of clarity of both interpretation
>and implementation it should follow as closely as possible the existing
>provisions for indecent images of children. These have been steadily improved
>since the original Protection of Children Act 1978, and it would be unfortunate
>if that process had to be started from scratch for a new type of material.

So the provisions have been "improved", have they?

They have been "improved" to the absurd point where someone has been
convicted for taking pictures of children on a public beach and wearing
bathing costumes.

>Kind regards
>Peter
>JANET Customer Service

Perhaps Peter should be asked if he is now, or has ever been, a member
of the Taliban?

More pertinently, he should be asked how the claimed "neutral" stance
was made by seeming to support such idiocy.

--
< Paul >