Wow. That was disturbing. I got through page 3, and I couldn't go on.
Yeah, I found it a fascinating article too. Particularly the point about the role of the internet in making it possible to say or do things one wouldn't say or do in person, and the bit about porn desensitizing people to things (which I think is true, but does that make me Ashcroft's love slave? I hope not). And the bit about whether hiding certain things is a sign of not admitting to one's problems, or whether it is, in fact, desireable--in demonstrating exactly the sense of shame and repression we want people to have around unacceptable desires.
Well, that explains it: I have heard accounts of people watching porn and becoming completely desensitized to gravity.
It's interesting to talk about this in an electronic forum where we all say things we otherwise wouldn't, since the article focuses on the sorts of harms to which the inhibition-overcoming features of the internet can promote.
I'm a bad girl.
Jaysus, but that's creepy.
Oh, for god's sake. No, but you know perfectly well that if you look at enough pictures of, say, someone being fisted then the idea of fisting becomes less exotic and shocking than it once did.
Jeez, people.
you know perfectly well that if you look at enough pictures of, say, someone being fisted then the idea of fisting becomes less exotic and shocking than it once did
I have my doubts about that. That's the line that Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have been peddling against all forms of pornography as actual violence against women. I think the aesthetics probably hinge on the word "idea." It seems to me that the only thing that becomes less shocking is the pictures—the idea itself can become shocking all over again if it's presented in the form of experience.
Uh, I'm not trying to side with child pornography, it's just that I have my doubts as to the gateway effects of photography. The Internet's ability to furnish blind conversation is another thing.
Sorry, just got around to reading the article. One thing really surprised me, another I wish would get more attention. First, that recidivism for child molesters is only around 17%. If you had asked me 30 minutes ago, I would have guessed 80%. Clearly, there's something I don't understand here.
Second, the study in which 28-48% of the subjects showed signs of arousal when presented with pictures of children. Can anything be called "deviant" if up to half the population does it? Something the article can't quite bring itself to just say: wanting to have sex with kids is normal; actually having sex with kids is wrong. It's my suspicion that our denial of the first clause makes people who are aware of their urges more furtive, more subterranean, and more likely to act on those urges, because they already feel themselves to be outcast.
And then there's the problem of how you define "child"...
(I'm not making an anti-porn argument at all; I'm just saying that I think that, both for better and for worse, seeing a lot of porn or anything else makes one get used to and more comfortable with whatever the thing one is seeing is.
Obviously, what I need to see a lot more of is well-written sentences.)