Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

by **Homeless Halo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:44 pm

I wasn't commenting on obviously unknown statistics, such as RA. However, one would assume some sort of overall correllation betweem one sort of sex crime and another, from a societal standpoint. As for me, I spent my youth mostly in alliance with conservative elements which would like to see all expressions of sexuality removed from the public sphere. Even after having abandoned said conservatives, my attitude towards the sex industry remained somewhat unchanged until appealed to by others. One of these was a female who self-identifies as "individualist feminist" that is, the "anarchist" type. It was this female's "guru" whom I've quoted above. <a href="http://www.wendymcelroy.com">www.wendymcelroy.com</a> I didn't know such people existed. I wasn't a porn watcher, so the dialectic didn't ever come close to my home. The way my brain operates doesn't allow visual stimulus to affect my first cue responses, so I am an "outsider". so to speak, in this case. Don't own any porn, but I've seen some, and didn't see anything particularly threatening when I did. I should note that in my case, it was the female who owned/watched/enjoyed the pornography. I am not at liberty, I should suppose, to discuss this in detail, but can say that "feminists" in general do not all agree with your assessment of the porn industry and its correllations to such disparate things as sexual abuse, whether ritualized, of children, or towards adult females. Since my interaction with the above mentioned female, I've been given loads to read on the subject (no pictures), and my attitude has changed. I know, for example, that per capita, the Japanese people have more pornographers and self-identifying "watchers". I know that per capita they tend to focus on the XXX hardcore variety, which one would expect, if abuse/coercion is heavily involved, you'd see it most at this level. The Japanese also have higher rates of sexual activity among young people. Per Capita, their reported sex crimes are in the "nil" area as compared to those of Americans. Based on this, and similar data from other places in the civilized world, one could posit the theory that it is the lack of open sexual discussion in america, the underground nature of this, that leads to our staggeringly high rates of sexual deviance, as these numbers go down as the sex industry numbers go up, almost universally. Male victimization is not my primary concern, although our own numbers suggest they are under represented in almost all forms of abuse, per capita. (for every 100 women abused in america, there are 64 men abused, most by women) I find it to be somewhat annoying, from my point of view, that someone who should identify themselves as "feminist" would denigrate the ability of any female to make healthy/informed choices regarding the uses of their own physical forms. I also know that most Americans really don't know anything about the statistics, and that most of their information probably comes more from rhetoric than from peer-reviewed studies. I'd think you might be lacking in information, but you are entirely permitted your own opinion, I'd expect no less. Don't take my rhetoric too seriously. I don't. I don't harbor grudges, as I don't normally feel angry. I try to fake it though. And as far as "all volunteer" military goes, you are right and wrong. I'd say it has less to do with economic issues, in the second generation, and more to do with cultural pressures. My family has been involved in military service in a continuous line that is older than this country, and it has little to do with economics by the time of my own generation. Although, to a lesser extent it is true that many join because of the added benefit of paid college tuition, but this is not neccessarily the case for the majority. I find that people tend to judge others based on what they think others' reasons are for doing things, often without actually asking. I spent the first half of my life on military bases, so in general I have more experience in dealing with the attitudes of soldiers than your average beatnik does. For some of us, it is more like going into the family business, for my part, I was even discouraged from this line by my ancestors who served, so no "direct" cultural pressures here, although I've known many kids who followed their parents right to the front lines. I'd mention that the sex industry has lower turnover rates than say, Walmart, meaning that when someone who works in it no longer "needs" to, a lot choose to remain. In fact, most of today's pornography is produced by former "actors". This isn't true in most fields of work. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't presume to judge the preferences of the majority based on your own morals. Also that as pornography has become more open and available, it has been less and less associated with violence (as it was in the 1950s when it was illegal), and misogyny, and that per capita, it is only "just" mostly men that buy it. Should keep this in mind.

by **hmm** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:33 pm

not everyone seems to have caught on how to see things through your eyes. i have been admiring the Point of View though.. hope you keep on doing what you keep on doing..

by **proldic** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:43 pm

Lapin dit: Boue toutt, mange toutt, pas dit doutt

by **Homeless Halo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:49 pm

My point isn't that all porn watchers are innocent. One should assume, that like with serial killers, that child abusers wade into the area, probably from the more extreme places in the mainstream. But to assume that the mainstream itself is responsible is to allow the sort of shoddy thinking that blames marijuana for crackheads. There is a difference between a healthy interest in sexuality and participation in deviant activities. This difference is a matter of psychological health, as a person with normal sexual urges shouldn't be capable of being "led" into such dark places as child abuse and/or RA and/or sex abuse of adults...it simply wouldn't be "normal" from a psychological standpoint. Like blaming violent imagery for violence. American youth today are bombarded with more violent imagery than any generation in recorded history, but somehow this same generation commits less violent crime than the generation of flower children. The fact that youth crime reporting has increased has nothing to do with how many young people actually commit crimes. In light of the actual numbers, one could argue that the violent imagery is GOOD for young people, if one is inclined to see cause/effect relationships between entertainment and activity, which, we should note, have not and cannot be demonstrated at our present level of technology. What I AM saying is that all our statistics that are known seem to contradict the view that viewing smut leads to smut like activity. In fact, they appear to indicate the opposite. So in view of statistics, if you want to decrease abuse, you should sell porn. That is, if you personally believe there is a connection. (I don't, even though it would help my side of this discussion if I did)

by **hmm** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:11 pm

i'm someone who abstractly believes that any consentual act between adults who have mutual respect for eachother, and hopefully love, is ok but that doesnt lead me to the conclusion that porn is harmless and that "sex workers" are "free" and unharmed.Porn could be harmless if people could be.. Many of those involved in the trade are damaged souls,many are in the trade because they are damaged,some become damaged... so porn without mutual respect is harmful in my eyes,as is porn based on coercion (i dont mean sm as such as much as coercion of the worker). Can you try to picture the state your mind would have to be in to consentually allow multiple strangers to penetrate you in one day in exchange for money? Its not wrong to in a abstract way to argue the points you make but it ignores some facts on the ground. Most "sex workers" are not mentally stable empowered happy women. Quite a few will often pretend they are?

by **Homeless Halo** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:45 pm

What I'm saying is that for you to make assertions such as the following: --------- Can you try to picture the state your mind would have to be in to consentually allow multiple strangers to penetrate you in one day in exchange for money? Its not wrong to in a abstract way to argue the points you make but it ignores some facts on the ground. Most "sex workers" are not mentally stable empowered happy women. Quite a few will often pretend they are? --------- That you fail to realize that there a huge number of people who would particiapate in such activities for no money. How do you know that most sex workers aren't mentally stable? Do you have statistics for this, or is this judgement based on YOUR idea of mental stability and happiness? You can call them "facts" all you want, but they remain rhetoric unless you can back them up. I'm telling you that the data suggests you are wrong, and that your opinion remains mere rhetoric unless you stop making assertions and show some evidence for your statements, which, as of yet, you have not done. Your opinion is based on your idea of what is "metally stable" as opposed to the reality of mental stability, and an actual assessment of those involved in the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've not seen you put forward anything other than YOUR opinion. Please don't call your opinion "facts on the ground" unless you can demonstrate the reality of such. You make blanket assessments of the mental states of several million people based on your limited conceptions of morality/decency. Not everyone shares your views, including, it must be said, the majority of those involved in pornographic practice. Like I said before, do some research on the "mental states" of these people, and you'll likely find you've been misled. Anti-pornography legislation is another issue entirely, but historically it has led to a decrease in women's rights (normally involving access to birth control/information). A lot of modern radical feminisms venom towards pornography is based on their views as to what would be best for "women as a class" as opposed to thinking of taking individual women seriously. As long as you fail to take into account the opinions of the majority of women in this industry, who are, on the whole, considered "more" mentally stable than the mainstream, you will be in the dark and merely reiterating your own biased opinions ad infinitum. I used to be on your side, but have reevaluated my own opinion based on the statistical assessment of the "mental stability" of pornographers and the lack of evidence showing correllations between pornography and bad "mental states" and/or violence towards women. Feel free to ignore the evidence if you so choose, but do not tout your opinion as a "fact", because it is nothing of the sort.

by **hmm** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That you fail to realize that there a huge number of people who would particiapate in such activities for no money. <hr></blockquote> maybe i should of said,two or more consenting adults acting with mutual respect. i will try to move on from your presumptions about me to the issue of statistics and mental stability. There are statistics on sexual abuse and child abuse,they do vary,i could look them up but then we would argue percentages.However you argue the statistics on abuse they are not some small statistical anomaly. I have yet to hear of any statistics that "prove" the majority of "sex workers" are happy empowered mentally stable women freely entering into a contract with however many strangers chose to pay for it that day and that it makes them feel good. This is not some abstract point and has nothing to do with morality or decency. it was about doing something you normally wouldnt with someone you normally wouldnt do it with,for money...repeatedly.

by **AnGlO HoMiE** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:21 am

You either do the terrible things available to be done or you do not. As for motivation, it always comes down to one simple reason... ...control; either lack of it or complete desire for it. Labels are used on the external never the internal; for the observers benefit. ~Anglo

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:57 am

The first place I can think of to check would be with COYOTE. Organization for the rights of prostitutes, and a wellspring of information on these and related practices. Also the only large organization I could find with this purpose that had prostitutes as members. As far as pornographer's go, the website I posted above mentioned several sources for their own information, not quite APA format, but I found them there myself. Although, I was given her book, originally, there are better authors on the subject, but she gives a decent summary of the "individualist feminist" perspective and its sources. So, click on the link up there for some of them, and I'm sure that could point you in the right direction as far as looking for numbers goes. Last I remember there were several articles on pornography specifically there, most cite some form of references for their information.

by **israelirealities** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:28 am

The discimination of women, on economic grounds, is universal. Cultures deal with it differently. In a mostly "pious"/conservative culture, prostitution was also a way women chose to rebel against the conformity. In fact, it turned out that the prostitutes in lower classes of conservative communities were generally more intelligent, independent and "feminist" in their own way. But this is only when the "dignified" ruled are also a form of "prostitution" (marriage, has been mostly a legalized form of ownership, in many cultures men can have more than one wife, OR they can have concubines Or they can divorce at will without any form of sharing the fortunes. In these societies, a woman who happened to be a widow, or had a bad husband, was doomed to live in the margins of society, dependent on charity etc. so prostitution gave more control of assets). I think that culturally we should strive for economic equality (or equal opportunity) so that the choices of women are not either being "dignified" and dependent on less than satisfactory arrangements, OR prostitution. The frictions within the feminist community, with regards to pros and porn are part of a larger dispute on how to deal with the basic inequality, and what would lead to less inequality in resource allocation. I read somewhere that at present 95% of the world's money is held by men. Seeing where western society is going, many in our region are taking a different route, and prefer to stay within the confines/protection of religion (Moslem and Jewish) with their obvious discriminations, rather than move out to the cold and harsh realities. Within religion, they are trying to work on revisions and move women more into public sphere. You can see this in the Iranian revolution (women wearing those "modest" clothes BUT moving up the political ladder) and same goes in the ORthodox community here.). THird world feminism critiques the Western American feminism as one promising privileges for the FEW bourgeois women, at the expense of the poor whose situation gets worse without the protections of older institutions. Its a complex issue. Personally, I'd move against legalization of porn and for the legalization of prostitution (to get the pimps out of business). But this works within my culture, which is different. Here, women do not have prima facie eqaul rights to start with. We still have religious laws governmning marriage and divorce etc.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:27 pm

I don't dispute the existence of economic inequality, I'm just stating that it isn't neccessarily the primary reason for prostitution/pornography in industrialized countries and that the "mental instability" idea being touted against these people leads to greater inequality, as it forces their contracting abilities into question. At present, women in America are a "protected" class, and as such, really aren't taken as seriously as if they were not "protected", especially in grayer areas like the semi-legal porn industry(as big as the oil industry). While it is true that "men" own 95% of the money, 90% of the money is held by roughly 10,000 (mostly white)men worldwide, meaning that the vast majority of even white males are in the "economic inequality" boat as well, with, statistically not much better chance(per capita) of claiming more than what they started with. I'm saying that radical feminism regards "men" as the establishers of patriarchical society, when nowadays this societal establishment is as harmful to the majority of men as it is to the majority of women. We, the remainder of white males, females, and any minorities, collectively own 10% of everything. Therefore by these numbers, the majority of males own roughly half of what isn't owned by the 10,000 richest people(who don't give us a bonus for being male) So, "we" aren't doing that much better than "you" and there isn't much pie for us to fight over. Just something to think about. Cheers. -SHCR

by **israelirealities** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:49 pm

Well, not really HH. Cause this applies only to western societies. We, the rest of the world, have different realities, I know this matters little to Americans, but it does to us. When you compare rates of sex crimes in the USA to Japan you are leaving out too much cultural data for this comparisson to be of any value. (you only considre sex crime rate/porn use our a larger array of gender stuff out there. same applies to our region. sex crimes are close to zero in fundementalist religious neighborhoods/towns, not because of porn use, but because if someone rapes a woman here, he will be executed the next day by her brothers and family. I suspect same goes for Japan in some respects, its a very traditional society and women there are not "free" as in Los Angeles. The "protection" granted by patriarchy is good to prevent vile street rape and all those things you have plenty in the west, but it has a HUGE price in terms of women's other rights, and certainly the Christian culture is not going to move to that direction at all). I totally and wholeheartedly agree that males suffer from male domination as much as women, even those 10,ooo lucky bastards so to speak are suffering from their own bondage to being masters. There is no freedom in having to dominate others. But, still this is no real comfort...-)

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:21 pm

I don't deny a multitude of cultural factors in any given set of numbers, I chose the numbers and/or situations I did because those were the ones used as a basis for the anti-pornographic diatribe in previous posts. There are any numbers of reasons that crime rates in general are lower in Japan than they are here, most of them cultural. I was intending to point out, specifically, that there isn't a "cause/effect" relationship between the two(you'll note I said as much above). You have demonstrated that point. I think, though, in general, that pornography, per se, isn't the CAUSE of any of these issues, and a narrow focus on it or assumptions about the mental states of the practicioners are of nil value in a discussion attempting to draw focus towards the methods of alleviating the issue. I think there is insufficient data, on a worldwide scale to show any causal relationships between such things as disparate as entertainment and activity, and that it gets used as an excuse(scapegoat) when it is allowed. Further, I should allow that while the trends may be different worldwide, that in America, and in most westernized nations, the semi-legal porn practicioners are considered to be of normal mental capacity and health, by our standards of testing such, so no statement towards their overall mental health that contradicts this could be made without creating different definitions of "mental health". I am of the opinion, that the radicalist feminist diatribe is leading in this direction, especially in regards to its frontal assault on pornography and that this will lead to the further subversion/subjugation of the female as a subclass, as it has in the past. The "feminists" will inevitably cause the definition of "mental stability" to be different for the female than the male, and since as I have noted, these "practicioners" are of normal mental health by our current standards, that some women are in danger of making themselves qualify as "mentally unstable" in their own mainstream. I find it odd that no one has ever called it "abnormal" for males to wish to copulate with as many partners as possible, but for the female many would wish us to consider such behavior an indication of "mental instability". This is dangerous ground to tread. The radical feminists, as opposed to creating equality will create seperate definitions of mental health for males and females, allowing us males to, for example, have our spouses committed for infidelity, because the feminists have demonstrated that it isn't normal behaviour and the courts agree. I get scared whenever I see "feminists" on the same side as "conservatives", here in America. I think a lot of you have been tricked by faulty reasoning into supporting your own future subjugation, as in many other areas of life and with several other kinds of "subclasses" of people(i.e. minorities in America).

by **israelirealities** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:06 pm

Well I beg to differ again, i think that pornography in general reifies and excerbates the already existing discrimination of women. Or, to be more precise it is sexualizing it. One would really want to at least dream or envision a society without yucky sexual objectifying of persons, but mostly women who are by definition weaker so far. Since we don't succeed yet, there are numerous political tactics on how to improve the situation. SOmetimes they are resressive, or appear reactionary> one has to be responsible, in dealing with suffering, and I say better be a bit reactionary than create a lot more suffering. As for why it is acceptable for men to have sex with many anonymous people (and not for women) I think I am striving to the reality of people, in general, being more connected to their hearts and not commodifying sex. REligion tried to regulate sexual conduct, at the expense of women's freedoms, we are trying to do something "bigger", and obviously not there yet, the laws, now, are in a process of structuring the new values within the sexual realm. People are also animals (and men a bit more so) and so if you leave matters totally unchecked you'll have the strong eating the weaker, sexually and otherwise. How to regulate without stifling life or at the expense of ONE sector, that's hard. I am not a philosopher, wouldn't know. I just know that porn sucks. Since I don't come from a western culture, I have to admit that i felt better, more empowered as a female in North America than any time in my life here in Israel. However, I am also aware of the fact that this freedom is good for the brougeois, and not for the poor women. So, it is freedom disrtibuted less equally among women, in the Western world, I suppose.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:18 pm

I don't intend to continue arguing in circles, because I like you people, and it is obvious that while we are likely in agreement on basic strategic imperitives, that there are certain philosophical differences to our approaches. As an amoralist I have no opinion as to what is "decent" behavior or what should be considered "right". I only know what is considered "normal", "harmful", and in my line of study "mentally stable". I really do not care about objections based upon one's feelings of rightness or wrongness, but regard attempts to classify entire segments of society as insane as being very dangerous, and more importantly wrong. I am aware of individuals' right to consider something repugnant or demeaning, but I wish to discourage people from assuming that those whose morality does not fall within their own guidelines are "damaged" "pretending" or some other such thing. Do not confuse your own ideas of repugnancy for universal clinical facts. I do not condone any sexual activity that can be regarded as "criminal" from a clinical standpoint. Nor do I wish to support, indirectly such activity. This is the reason why I wish to see this and related industries fully legalized and regulated, and to see the inaccurrate stigma attached to its practicioners ("well there MUST be SOMETHING wrong with someone who would do THAT..." etc) removed so as not to denigrate (as is the present case) the legal status of a practicioner's contract. If the contracts are treated fairly, as legally binding, as opposed to semi-legally binding as they are now, it would make it much easier to prosecute violators of "normalcy", the abusers and coercers who invariable always exist in shadows. Steps should be taken to enforce the legal nature of such contracts on both the national and international levels. Attempts to "shut down" the porn industry tend to only derail those who are least in danger(because they are visible) and push the dangerous ones farther from the watchdogs. This is what I wish to avoid. I don't think of it as a "feminist" issue, but as a legal contract issue that applies to any "protected" group, and could endanger the future of all such subgroups if handled in an irrational manner. Your "reactionary" approach, while it may have immediatist semi-positive effects in the visible world, reducing the "crime" of "objectifying parts of women" (no one would accuse me of this if I ONLY talked about a female's verbal/language skills, even though it would be equally true), but the abusers, the illegals would continue despite your prohibition as they always have, now divorced even farther from daylight. Of course, to the "women as object" objectors to this form of "explotation" I can only say that women are objects, as are men, and cows, and bathtubs. And that if "sex" is the subject of the entertainment in question, it should be obvious that the attention of the camera would focus on body parts(penises are in porn too, and you never see the men's faces). If this offends you, do not watch porn, but do not tell other people that they should be offended by the concept of genitalia on a screen. Not all of us are "despisers of the body". My problem isn't with people who would like to protect endangered females, but with those who would do so by limiting all of our freedoms. A reduction in freedom is never the answer when one is seeking security. I thought you'd know that by now.

Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

hhm

Re: Can't you see?

Re: Can't you see?

so

Re: hmm,porn is ok if you are ok

okay...

Re: okay...

it's simple

as far as stats go:

Re: levels of analysis

indeed

Re: indeed

of course

Re: of course

ir

Who is online