Aberdeenshire Council List of "Research"
deno, 14 May 2006 05:53:52
In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
studied her work.
In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it does
not work"
See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
deno
"According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field: ?the
relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger statistically
than the relationship between smoking and cancer?.
Pornography can be divided into three categories. One, the sexually explicit
and violent. Two, the sexually explicit and non-violent but subordinating
and dehumanizing. Three, the sexually explicit material which is non-violent
and non-subordinating which is based on mutuality and which can be called ?
erotica?. Research consistently shows that the first two result in negative
attitudes and behaviour but the third ? erotica ? is harmless.
Then there is the evidence of sex offenders. In Canadian research a third of
the rapists and half of those who committed child sexual abuse said they
deliberately used pornography in preparation for committing the offence.
Pornography supports distorted belief systems that enable them to rationalize, and
justify, their behaviour. Women who have been raped in the US have reported
being asked to re-enact scenes from pornography.
Recent government inquiries in different parts of the world ? in the US,
Australia, Canada, Aotearora/New Zealand ? all point in the same direction:
dehumanizing and degrading pornography harms women and reinforces sexual
inequality. Only a 1990 UK Home Office review could find ?no causal links? ? a view
that has been vigorously challenged internationally by leading researchers
and women?s organizations.
So what?s the answer? Should there be state censorship of violent and
subordinating pornography? I DON'T THINK SO. Firstly censorship does not work, as
the thriving underground pornography market clearly illustrates. Secondly,
there are other, better ways which give more power to the people and less to the
state."
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 14 May 2006 13:12:37
They are total jokers; add this to their grand list of references relating to child abuse. Their response is basically lip-service...
T.
Author wrote:
>
> In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
> studied her work.
> In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it does
> not work"
> See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
> not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
> deno
> "According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field: ?the
> relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
> aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger statistically
> than the relationship between smoking and cancer?.
> Pornography can be divided into three categories. One, the sexually explicit
> and violent. Two, the sexually explicit and non-violent but subordinating
> and dehumanizing. Three, the sexually explicit material which is non-violent
> and non-subordinating which is based on mutuality and which can be called ?
> erotica?. Research consistently shows that the first two result in negative
> attitudes and behaviour but the third ? erotica ? is harmless.
> Then there is the evidence of sex offenders. In Canadian research a third of
> the rapists and half of those who committed child sexual abuse said they
> deliberately used pornography in preparation for committing the offence.
> Pornography supports distorted belief systems that enable them to rationalize, and
> justify, their behaviour. Women who have been raped in the US have reported
> being asked to re-enact scenes from pornography.
> Recent government inquiries in different parts of the world ? in the US,
> Australia, Canada, Aotearora/New Zealand ? all point in the same direction:
> dehumanizing and degrading pornography harms women and reinforces sexual
> inequality. Only a 1990 UK Home Office review could find ?no causal links? ? a view
> that has been vigorously challenged internationally by leading researchers
> and women?s organizations.
> So what?s the answer? Should there be state censorship of violent and
> subordinating pornography? I DON'T THINK SO. Firstly censorship does not work, as
> the thriving underground pornography market clearly illustrates. Secondly,
> there are other, better ways which give more power to the people and less to the
> state."
deno, 14 May 2006 15:14:13
In a message dated 14/05/2006 14:34:19 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
They are total jokers; add this to their grand list of references relating
to child abuse. Their response is basically lip-service...
T.
Hi Teddy
Yes, I agree that their response is just knee jerk with little or no real
research.
My idea is for our consultants at HO to keep plugging away the obvious (to
us anyway) that there is no connection between BDSM and child abuse. Also no
connection between us and that murder which has created the proposed clamp
down.
It is also a grave injustice for the Consultation paper in it's blind
ignorance to compare us to the child abuse viewers by proposing the same identical
penalties thereby implying that aspects of BDSM will be made a similar
crime. Maybe a lawyer could make a compelling case out of this as it seems like a
revival of old time witch hunts, and completely irrational.
Wonder if we can find a few professionals, legal, medical,etc., who could
give their opinions in support of our case? Maybe we have a some already and
can they join our reps when meeting HO to speak for us as independent experts
will carry more weight.
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Angus Scrimm, 14 May 2006 19:18:15
All that research quoting 'proof of extreme porn - sexual crime links' is just made-up bollocks. They are just a load of propagandists promoting the so called 'correct way to be'. Just like Neo-Darwinists..... but that's a very different story!
Ooh! Got my conspiracy theorist's head on today!
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 14/05/2006 14:34:19 GMT Standard Time,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
> They are total jokers; add this to their grand list of references relating
> to child abuse. Their response is basically lip-service...
> T.
> Hi Teddy
> Yes, I agree that their response is just knee jerk with little or no real
> research.
> My idea is for our consultants at HO to keep plugging away the obvious (to
> us anyway) that there is no connection between BDSM and child abuse. Also no
> connection between us and that murder which has created the proposed clamp
> down.
> It is also a grave injustice for the Consultation paper in it's blind
> ignorance to compare us to the child abuse viewers by proposing the same identical
> penalties thereby implying that aspects of BDSM will be made a similar
> crime. Maybe a lawyer could make a compelling case out of this as it seems like a
> revival of old time witch hunts, and completely irrational.
> Wonder if we can find a few professionals, legal, medical,etc., who could
> give their opinions in support of our case? Maybe we have a some already and
> can they join our reps when meeting HO to speak for us as independent experts
> will carry more weight.
> deno
deno, 15 May 2006 12:51:56
saynotodarwinism
Thanks friend for posting my remarks about consenting adults and I've tried
again with this but so far no result. If you can bear to read until the
final para you can see our views again confirmed by possibly a leading recognised
expert. Maybe we should engage a solicitor to speak for us to the HO as I
feel we have a case for proposed legislation to be either scrapped or strictly
limited to a few defined scenarios. Obviously no comparison with existing
child porn legislation so there should be no penalty for viewing or having
images of consenting adults.
In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
studied her work.
In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it does
not work"
See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
deno
"According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field: ?the
relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger statistically
than the relationship between smoking and cancer?.
Pornography can be divided into three categories. One, the sexually explicit
and violent. Two, the sexually explicit and non-violent but subordinating
and dehumanizing. Three, the sexually explicit material which is non-violent
and non-subordinating which is based on mutuality and which can be called ?
erotica?. Research consistently shows that the first two result in negative
attitudes and behaviour but the third ? erotica ? is harmless.
Then there is the evidence of sex offenders. In Canadian research a third of
the rapists and half of those who committed child sexual abuse said they
deliberately used pornography in preparation for committing the offence.
Pornography supports distorted belief systems that enable them to rationalize, and
justify, their behaviour. Women who have been raped in the US have reported
being asked to re-enact scenes from pornography.
Recent government inquiries in different parts of the world ? in the US,
Australia, Canada, Aotearora/New Zealand ? all point in the same direction:
dehumanizing and degrading pornography harms women and reinforces sexual
inequality. Only a 1990 UK Home Office review could find ?no causal links? ? a view
that has been vigorously challenged internationally by leading researchers
and women?s organizations.
So what?s the answer? Should there be state censorship of violent and
subordinating pornography? I DON'T THINK SO. Firstly censorship does not work, as
the thriving underground pornography market clearly illustrates. Secondly,
there are other, better ways which give more power to the people and less to the
state."
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Angus Scrimm, 16 May 2006 03:03:25
That is the problem with research Deno...
it is all too often a tool which is used by groups to reinforce what beliefs they wish to onto the masses!
When research should just present the masses with the plain facts!
In short, it often gets used to promote prejudices!
Author wrote:
>
> saynotodarwinism
>
> Thanks friend for posting my remarks about consenting adults and I've tried
> again with this but so far no result. If you can bear to read until the
> final para you can see our views again confirmed by possibly a leading recognised
> expert. Maybe we should engage a solicitor to speak for us to the HO as I
> feel we have a case for proposed legislation to be either scrapped or strictly
> limited to a few defined scenarios. Obviously no comparison with existing
> child porn legislation so there should be no penalty for viewing or having
> images of consenting adults.
>
> In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
> studied her work.
> In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it does
> not work"
> See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
> not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
> deno
> "According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field: ?the
> relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
> aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger statistically
> than the relationship between smoking and cancer?.
> Pornography can be divided into three categories. One, the sexually explicit
> and violent. Two, the sexually explicit and non-violent but subordinating
> and dehumanizing. Three, the sexually explicit material which is non-violent
> and non-subordinating which is based on mutuality and which can be called ?
> erotica?. Research consistently shows that the first two result in negative
> attitudes and behaviour but the third ? erotica ? is harmless.
> Then there is the evidence of sex offenders. In Canadian research a third of
> the rapists and half of those who committed child sexual abuse said they
> deliberately used pornography in preparation for committing the offence.
> Pornography supports distorted belief systems that enable them to rationalize, and
> justify, their behaviour. Women who have been raped in the US have reported
> being asked to re-enact scenes from pornography.
> Recent government inquiries in different parts of the world ? in the US,
> Australia, Canada, Aotearora/New Zealand ? all point in the same direction:
> dehumanizing and degrading pornography harms women and reinforces sexual
> inequality. Only a 1990 UK Home Office review could find ?no causal links? ? a view
> that has been vigorously challenged internationally by leading researchers
> and women?s organizations.
> So what?s the answer? Should there be state censorship of violent and
> subordinating pornography? I DON'T THINK SO. Firstly censorship does not work, as
> the thriving underground pornography market clearly illustrates. Secondly,
> there are other, better ways which give more power to the people and less to the
> state."
>
>
deno, 16 May 2006 17:49:31
In a message dated 16/05/2006 04:24:39 GMT Standard Time,
saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com writes:
That is the problem with research Deno...
it is all too often a tool which is used by groups to reinforce what beliefs
they wish to onto the masses!
When research should just present the masses with the plain facts!
In short, it often gets used to promote prejudices
Quite agree
My point was that they had not really done their homework and if we wanted
we could use the "research" against them.
Wonder if we have a list of doctors and professor types which we could quote
to support
our case that the HO are making a big mistake?
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Angus Scrimm, 16 May 2006 22:23:32
Yes indeed, there must be plenty of researchers who would support out there.... have to do a good look around!
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 16/05/2006 04:24:39 GMT Standard Time,
> saynotodarwinism@yahoo.com writes:
> That is the problem with research Deno...
> it is all too often a tool which is used by groups to reinforce what beliefs
> they wish to onto the masses!
> When research should just present the masses with the plain facts!
> In short, it often gets used to promote prejudices
> Quite agree
> My point was that they had not really done their homework and if we wanted
> we could use the "research" against them.
> Wonder if we have a list of doctors and professor types which we could quote
> to support
> our case that the HO are making a big mistake?
> deno
snowflake, 20 May 2006 09:20:50
On 03/05/06, CORODENCO@aol.com wrote:
> See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
I notice this quoted material doesn't contain references. Does the
original contain references? The material is making a number of
statements that are entirely without merit unless it can point to the
research it is using to back-up its claims.
Zoë
In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
studied her work.
In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it
does
not work"
See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
deno
"According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field:
â??the
relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger
statistically
than the relationship between smoking and cancerâ??.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
They are total jokers; add this to their grand list of references relating
to child abuse. Their response is basically lip-service...
T.
Author wrote:
>
> In quoting the name of Professor C. Itzin the Council seem not to have
> studied her work.
> In "LIBERTY - Sex and freedom" She is not advocating censorship as "it
does
> not work"
> See extract below, which confirms our view that proposed legislation will
> not have the intended effect, unless a complete mess is what they intend!
> deno
> "According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the field: ?the
> relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent
> aggression and... callous attitudes towards women is much stronger
statistically
> than the relationship between smoking and cancer?.
> Pornography can be divided into three categories. One, the sexually
explicit
> and violent. Two, the sexually explicit and non-violent but subordinating
> and dehumanizing. Three, the sexually explicit material which is
non-violent
> and non-subordinating which is based on mutuality and which can be
called ?
> erotica?. Research consistently shows that the first two result in
negative
> attitudes and behaviour but the third ? erotica ? is harmless.
> Then there is the evidence of sex offenders. In Canadian research a
third of
> the rapists and half of those who committed child sexual abuse said they
> deliberately used pornography in preparation for committing the offence.
> Pornography supports distorted belief systems that enable them to
rationalize, and
> justify, their behaviour. Women who have been raped in the US have
reported
> being asked to re-enact scenes from pornography.
> Recent government inquiries in different parts of the world ? in the US,
> Australia, Canada, Aotearora/New Zealand ? all point in the same
direction:
> dehumanizing and degrading pornography harms women and reinforces sexual
> inequality. Only a 1990 UK Home Office review could find ?no causal
links? ? a view
> that has been vigorously challenged internationally by leading
researchers
> and women?s organizations.
> So what?s the answer? Should there be state censorship of violent and
> subordinating pornography? I DON'T THINK SO. Firstly censorship does not
work, as
> the thriving underground pornography market clearly illustrates.
Secondly,
> there are other, better ways which give more power to the people and
less to the
> state."
--
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%3D4770
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
deno, 26 May 2006 19:33:33
In a message dated 20/05/2006 09:23:35 GMT Standard Time,
zoe.robinson@gmail.com writes:
I notice this quoted material doesn't contain references. Does the
original contain references? The material is making a number of
statements that are entirely without merit unless it can point to the
research it is using to back-up its claims.
Zoë
Hi Zoe
No, I don't recall any references with the "original" as posted to the web.
I agree with your comment but needed to copy the article to show the context
of her conclusion
My point was to emphasise the final para "I don't think so" regarding
censorship with the idea that maybe we could use that their expert thinks it would
only make that porn more desireable so proposed legislation will be
counterproductive.
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)