MovieChat Forums > Black Mirror (2011) Discussion > Shut Up and Dance - Conflicted emotions

Shut Up and Dance - Conflicted emotions


any one else feel a bit sorry for the main characters even though your probably not supposed too ?

reply

Yes. He's not responsible for his, well I guess you could call it it sexual proclivity. Only a small percentage of pedophiles actually touch children.

There was nothing to indicate he harmed a child.

reply

He's harming children immeasurably by merely being a consumer of material exploiting them.

reply

That's semantics

reply

Everything here is semantics. What a pointless response. If you think he's doing nothing wrong because he's "only viewing child pornography" then I urge you to reevaluate what the greater implications of that really are.

reply

That's not semantics. Child pornography is not a victimless crime. It is dangerous to suggest otherwise. There are real children behind the pictures and videos. Their lives are destroyed because perverts think there's no harm in just looking.

reply

Do we know he looked at child pornography and not just at children?

reply

where is victim in looking at nudist beach with children? where is victim if he would be looking at my naked photos my mother took decades ago? actually i would propose to set up website where people can voluntarily upload their (naked) childhood photos, i don't mind if summertime will jerk to my decades old naked photo if it saves at least one actual child from being abused

reply

where is victim in looking at nudist beach with children? where is victim if he would be looking at my naked photos my mother took decades ago? actually i would propose to set up website where people can voluntarily upload their (naked) childhood photos, i don't mind if summertime will jerk to my decades old naked photo if it saves at least one actual child from being abused


I agree with your website idea, and thought of a similar one involving paedos (that's how we spell it btw) childhood photos being made available.. but the UK law says if you take a photo from one context (say, someones FB photos of their child at the beach) and download it into a folder called 'sexy kids' then you have made child-porn. Bit weird innit?

reply

But is he though? I suppose if he buys the material from a child predator he would be supporting the exploitation of children. Or if he were consuming the material off of a website that got ad revenue from him visiting he would be contributing to the exploitation of children. But suppose the person actually doing the abusing of children doesn't make money off of the main character viewing the photos- how does his viewing the photos create more abuse for children? Do we really need to pretend that someone who looks at child pornography is just as bad as a child molester?

reply

I wrote a review about this episode (because I had the same conflicted emotions over here), and well -

It depends. What is acceptable in a given culture may be a big no-no in another. I know for instance of several cultures in Africa who are perfectly okay with marrying off 12-year old (or younger) girls and boys because their customs works that way - with the heightened probability that, not only will sex take place at that age with the blessing of the family / village / community but also pregnancy will soon follow, with all the implications this carries of course.

On the other end of the spectrum, homosexuality for instance is still frowned upon / is illegal / is considered a disease / is punishable by jail or death in ultra-conservative cultures.

The truth lies in the middle, I think.

Apart from age of consent being what it is legally (surprise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe in several countries it's not 18 but quite lower than that), I can't view as a crime a 16-year old raised in the age and era of social media jacking off to pictures of say 14-year old kids. Heck, when I was 16 it was hard to find any sort of naked pictures anywhere, and girls in high school seemed more chastise than monastery nuns! Things are not the same today, that's for sure.

Apart from the fact of highly restricted / illegal pictures being hard to get a hold of for good reason, there are several exceptions in laws regarding actual sexual activity with persons within a given age range.

I think the fact that Kenny here was a boy and not a 50-year old man was a central theme to the episode, and myself would be inclined to believe his actions could be well justified, to a degree.

Then again, he might have developed an unhealthy appetite for more tender ages, like 8 year old girls or what have you, in which case the argument is rather moot, unless he was 11, or anyway within a reasonable age bracket to the "offending age". You get the point I believe. I can't blame a kid for being curious about neighboring ages' sexual attributes, sorry.

The story would not nearly be the same if the protagonist was not, in essence, a boy (not a man). Of course in the episode, everybody lost in the end so "it didn't matter" - Kenny in particular ruined his life over the video. But as a debate point, it does matter and was, I think, the driving force behind this episode's concept.

reply

It was heavily implied that Kenny was viewing YOUNG children. Think back to the scenes he interacted with children at his workplace. The little girl was probably about 7 and the crayon drawing he was fawning over couldn't have been colored by a kid over 5.

reply

This changes things, of course, but still, I think this was meant to make people ponder.

Was the protagonist a decent young man who genuinely cared about kids in an affectionate / cute sort of way, or was he a pervert? (I wouldn't say "sexual predator" because his timid character didn't imply something of the sort).

There's no way to know. If a) he was viewing "kiddie porn" of people close to or around his age, this would be normal for some people, including me, but then he'd have to be just a good guy in the kid-involving scenes (little girl, drawing). If b) he was viewing "kiddie porn" of young children, he would automatically be at the very least a pervert (and since the setting of the series is in the UK, a criminal as well), and the interactions with kids would all be suspicious of criminal activity.

We'll never really know whether the case was for a) or b), so I'd call the twist of the episode rather ingenious even for merely fueling discussion and debate on "how on earth could that happen in this episode". Bravo!

reply

it's implied that Kenny and the man he killed are both pedophiles, not hebephiles. Kenny looks about 17, and if he jerked off to teen pics that would be hebephile and not so strange for his age. pedophiles get off only from pre-pubescent children, under 10-11 basically.

child porn exploits children by making sexualized images of them in the first place. that's why I hate the "toddlers and tiaras" type shows, poor kids.

__________
7even days

reply

According to a few articles/reviews I've seen it seems Kenny is 19. He was probably looking at some really young kids.

Why is it our job to save everyone? Haven't we done enough?

reply

[deleted]

Yes, because by consuming it, you create a market for it. Frankly, if you are attracted to children then you are a potential danger to children and from where most parents sit, then you are a danger to children. No one is going to make fine lines of distinction about the kind and type of kiddie porn someone likes to whack off to.

http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=)

reply

No one is going to make fine lines of distinction about the kind and type of kiddie porn someone likes to whack off to.


UK Law does.

reply

Actually legalization of child pornography lowers the rates of child abuse. Just like the legalization of adult pornography lowers the rates of rape.

Legalization of digital (digital meaning animated, with no real people involved) child pornography would be victimless and would probably save endless thousands of kids from being abused since perpetrators would have an alternative.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/02/study-making-pornography-more-accessible-may-curb-child-abuse/

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html

reply

Okay first, you should really cite raw data as a source to back up claims and not articles that fail to actually link the referenced studies in some way and don't get into any of the nitty gritty of the so-called experiments and data collection. Second, half of the Times article talks about how, in the opinion of an expert in the field, that the data in no way makes child pornography condonable. I can't comment further on these claims because I have no way to examine the "facts" presented and how they were obtained.

On the second point, I'm not sure what you mean by digital child pornography.

reply

What a load of nonsense. You do realise that children will still be being abused and harmed so the pornography is made.
It's not a victimless crime. The kids in the videos and photos are real.

reply

Oh I'm sure you'd love videos of your children being raped to be legally distributed so thousands of pedos can jerk off to them against their will. What an absolutely appalling idea. Reading the paragraph you wrote made me feel physically sick. Seriously re-evaluate your life and your use on this planet if you think child porn should be legalized.

reply

I said digital child pornography. Assume legalization of digital child pornography (all animated, no real people involved) lowered the rates of child sexual abuse by 10-20%. That means tens of millions of children who will not be abused.

Pornography provides a substitute for people's sexual urges. That is why when it is legalized the rates of sex crimes drop.

reply

Well a digital image isn't necessarily animated. It could just mean a digital photograph. If you're only talking about animations with no actual children involved then I'm not as disgusted as I thought. It's still gross but no victims in that case.

reply

Wouldn't work. They'd get bored of it and it would just stir up feelings for the real thing.
Pornography makes sexual urges worse.
The only real solution is chemical castration, and that wouldn't really work for female pedophiles.

reply

[deleted]

troll 

reply

[deleted]

you can still take hormones to negate effects of chemical castration

reply

Chemical castration doesn't always work for males either. A lot of them have reported still having the urges despite the fact that they can't get aroused. The thing is that it is possible, POSSIBLE, to treat people who are pedophiles and have never offended. The PROBLEM is that more than likely they will eventually offend because the material only holds them for so long. Though it's interesting you brought up female pedophiles. This show seemed to completely ignore the fact that any person other than a man could be a pervert or unfaithful or whatever which annoyed me.

reply

[deleted]

Child pornography should not be legalised. I think people who advocate for it are just pedophiles themselves and want easy access.

Death lies dormant in each of us and will bloom in time. Odd Thomas

reply

Quite shigui.

reply

While he might have an innate sexual fondness for children that one could argue he was born with and has no control over, what you refer to as a sexual proclivity for children, this 100% does not release him from being responsible for his choice to act upon it. He was looking at pictures of children. Where did those pictures come from? What children are in the pictures, and why were they posted? There are sick, twisted people who cater to pedophiles and physically, emotionally, psychologically harm children in order to supply pedophiles just like Kenny. Kenny's desire to look at pictures of children absolutely harms children. He is absolutely responsible for his actions which directly causes children to be harmed. He doesn't have to touch a child to cause harm. That doesn't mean I didn't sympathize with his plight; he was a sympathetic character- he was meant to be, but he did harm children, and I expect they were young children as was alluded to when he interacted with the young girl in the restaurant, and by the way his mom was freaking out.

reply

What if they were just drawings of children? What if they are a collection of images taken from what some idiots put up of their own children half-naked on the beach or in the bath on Facebook (which I always report). Is a child suffering then? (Not that it's ok to wank over them).

My answer to child porn is that every pedophile that gets caught, they should take their child photos and photoshop them doing all the sex stuff. Then other pedos looking for child porn would find that. I have written to the government with my idea but they have not replied yet.



reply

what's wrong with naked children in Facebook? i guess you report also breastfeeding mothers

i am glad i live in Europe and certainly not in place you live where people are obsessed with pedophilia and anything innocent is blown out of proportions

the reason i don't put photos of my child to Facebook is because it deserves privacy, but it has nothing to do with being naked or not

reply

what's wrong with naked children in Facebook?



They have not consented to be seen, possibly in a sexual light, by loads of people.

I'm against the sharing of any children on FB too, though i don't report it because its not against FB's rules. But i do think those kids haven't consented to have their whole lives shared on the internet and i am very glad my childhood was not broadcast to various friends, relatives and strangers.

reply

well their parents are their legal guardians so they are deciding their consent and they should be aware of consequences of sharing children photos online, it should not be up to anyone else to decide this

reply

Well what I am wondering is what are the laws here? He is clearly underaged. He said hes not old enough to legally drive yet, he just took the test or whatever. So if hes underage, looking at underage porn, how does the law work there? Is it illegal for minors to look at other naked minors?

reply

A minor can get in legal trouble for sending sexts from a minor, for example if a 16 year old girl takes naked pics and sends them to her 16 year old boyfriend she can get in trouble for distributing child pornography and he can get in trouble for viewing it. I think the main character would get in even more trouble then the example above because it is implied that he was looking at much younger minors.

reply

Working in the fast food place means he's at least 16. 16 is our legal age.

At first I was like "a teenage boy waving a wank to internet porn, what's the big deal about that?" I wonder how the big paedophile new he was talking to another of his kind? Maybe in a takes one to know one kind of way.

reply

Was the episode supposed to be in the US? There are several cases of this happening involving 16 year olds in the US. Here's just one example: http://atlantadailyworld.com/2015/09/09/high-school-teen-faces-10-years-in-prison-for-sexting-female-classmate/

reply

Did you not watch it, if you didnt why are you commenting,,,, it was clearly based in England

reply

He didn't say he wasn't old enough to drive he said he was still learning.
He isn't a minor as he's over 16.

reply

He said hes not old enough to legally drive yet

No he didn't, he said: "I'm still learning, I haven't passed my test yet". In the UK you have to be at least 17 to hold a provisional licence and take driving lessons.

reply

I thought he looked younger, but various official sources say Kenny is 19. In the UK, where it was set, he would be guilty as a 50 year old of the crime, and put on the sex offenders register - however sentencing is up to the judge and I imagine a first offence for a 19 year old would mean he was treated as leniently as is reasonable (ignoring the other crimes for a moment). I think it was a deliberate choice to make the protagonist still young, living with his parents etc, and for the severity of the child porn he was looking at it to be unclear, so as for it not to be a black and white 'so he was a pedo? Then they should kill him anyway' type response.


reply

I thought he looked younger, but various official sources say Kenny is 19.
That's interesting. I thought he was around 15 myself. He didn't even have a license, just a permit.

I felt bad for him when I watched it, even at the end. I thought "A 15 year old is probably going to watch porn of someone who is 15." I didn't look at porn until I was in my early 20's, but I preferred it of people in their early 20's.

I didn't really feel sorry for either of the older men.

reply

And? What's him not having a driving licence got to do with it? He was learning and you need to be at least 17 to learn.
A 15 year old shouldn't be watching porn or indeed find porn of kids having sex as that is pedophilia and a 15 year old is a child. What a ridiculous notion.
Even if he had sex at 15 and the girl was 15 he could be done for statutory rape.
He was no better than the other men and (as we saw) he was probably the most depraved as he got the worst ending.
Just because he looked young it doesn't make him any less of a predator. In fact he's worse.

reply

There is no crime of statutory rape in the UK. A 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old may be illegal, but it would not go to court.

I'm not defending a 19 year old who downloads child pornography though. It is only outside of the show, in the plot synopsis etc, we learn he is 19 though - watching the show it is never said, as far as I know, and he looks 15 - that's what I thought) - so maybe they should have made it clearer in the episode how old he was (unless they did and i missed it).


reply

The guy can still be done if it was two 15 year olds in the UK. It may not be as harsh as if he was 16, but he can still be done for it.
There are several clues to show he's way over 16. You cannot work in a place like that below 16 and most places it would be 18 (especially if working in a kitchen) you cannot start driving till 17, and you can't leave school till you're 18 (unless it's an approved apprenticeship)
Despite all of that he looks over 16 years old.

reply

Even if he is 17, which many of those things point to - he's not going to adult prison. That's only for 18 and above. He won't be treated as an adult by the law. He would be dealt with a youth court and not get the same sentencing guidelines as an adult. This may not be important to the story, as it's about his shame and the twist that he was looking at child porn, not simply masturbating as we may have thought. Still the story is unclear as to his age, and there is a big difference as to the consequences of his actions, depending on whether he is 17 or 18.



reply

He's 19 it says in the synopsis. Even so as I stated to work somewhere like that you'd be 18 so he'd be tried as an adult.
They specifically chose someone who looks young to play the role as society puts a massive emphasis on stereotypes to suggest certain "evils" in our society.

reply

He's 19 it says in the synopsis.


Yup I know. But what is in a synopsis should really be in what we see, the episode itself - and that doesn't mention his age. He was working in a chain restaurant - I was working in McDonalds when I was 16. You can work in McDonalds minimum age 14. I agree they chose someone who looks young so we don't think of them as an older, typical child-molester, but if they never establish his age in the actual story, and he looks 16/17, then there is some question as to how much trouble he could get into - ie not being tried as an an adult or going to prison, as the end suggests.

reply

It's not McDonald's and you cannot work in McDonald's in the UK at 14.(you may be able to at 15 depending on where your birthday falls) You can do certain jobs like a paper round but not there. A lot of these places will only employ people at 18 to work the kitchens.
I had no doubts he was over 18 as I'm aware of working ages and school leaving.
He also got the worst end of the stick giving the impression what he was viewing (and maybe doing) was really bad.

reply

It's not McDonald's and you cannot work in McDonald's in the UK at 14.(you may be able to at 15 depending on where your birthday falls) You can do certain jobs like a paper round but not there. A lot of these places will only employ people at 18 to work the kitchens.


I am aware its not McDonalds. I don't think you do know much about UK law and age restrictions - he could be working in a number of places, doing what we see him do, aged 17. That's the point. I'm not suggesting he was 14 or 15. If he mentions he's taking driving lessons he must be 17. That is what the script tells us, and other things suggest he cannot be much older.

A lot of these places will only employ people at 18 to work the kitchens.


So you admit that lots of places don't. There is nothing at all in what we see on screen that means he must be an adult, aged 18 or more, which is the point in question when wondering what is the level of punishment he will be receive by the end of the episode.

reply

No offence but I seem to know more than you considering you believe you can work somewhere like that at 14. You cannot work anywhere like that without a national insurance number and you don't get one till you're 16. You were the one who mentioned 14 year olds working in McDonald's not me FYI.
You have to be 17 to start driving, he was still taking his lessons....He wasn't (as it was made clear his life was pretty much that job) at school and you don't finish school till 18.
I am aware most people were confused to his age but it didn't even cross mine that he was younger than 18. 18 year olds look about 12 to me these days anyway lol.

reply

No. You can't. In the UK you cannot start working in a place like McDonald's till your 16. You cannot do a job like that till you have a national insurance number.
There were so many clues as to his age.

1. He was still learning to drive..Meaning he was over 17. It costs a lot of money to learn in the UK.
2. It seemed like it was his full time job meaning he'd have to be over 18.
3. The manager (who seemed to look in her 20's) seemed to fancy him. So, unless she was fond of 15 year olds he was an adult.
The whole point is that he looks young enough for some people to question his age.

reply

And? What's him not having a driving licence got to do with it? He was learning and you need to be at least 17 to learn.
A 15 year old shouldn't be watching porn or indeed find porn of kids having sex as that is pedophilia and a 15 year old is a child. What a ridiculous notion.
Even if he had sex at 15 and the girl was 15 he could be done for statutory rape.
He was no better than the other men and (as we saw) he was probably the most depraved as he got the worst ending.
Just because he looked young it doesn't make him any less of a predator. In fact he's worse.
I'm not familiar with UK law. You get your permit here at 15, statutory rape isn't possible unless there is like a 3 year difference (otherwise you would both be convicted of it), and most kids have looked at porn by 15.

By your logic, any 15 year old with a sex drive would be a pedophile though. When you were 15, did you never get turned on by kids your age?

reply

Kids should not be watching porn at 15. Its just bad parenting....also I never said that, you said he'd be turned on by PORNOGRAPHY involving 15 year olds. This is illegal and made for pedophiles. Tell me how much pornography did you watch as a 15 year old that involved 15 year olds....
There's a massive difference between jerking off to the girl you fancies fb profile and quite another to be actively looking for pornography involving minors.

reply

so kids 15 years old should not be watching porn, but they can have actual sex? because you know she of consent in most of Europe is 15 so you can legally *beep* whoever you want from 15

also there is nothing illegal about watching porn, it's just illegal to sell it to people younger than 18, but if they obtain it somehow there is nothing illegal about watching it

now watching porn involving under 18 is crime i consider ridiculous and it should depend on circumstances. if 15yo shoot video of sex having with his 15yo gf which is legal then it's crazy that he can be at same time charged with child pornography despite him being one of the actors who performed acts voluntarily

reply

Im not questioning it's legality I question it's influence on young people's minds. Its not healthy.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/10/how-porn-is-damaging-our-childrens-future-sex-lives?client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-lies-trauma/201107/effects-porn-adolescent-boys

https://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/violent-porn-dangers-posed-to-women/

http://www.teendrugrehabs.com/blog/youths-watch-violent-porn-sexually-aggressive/

Personally, I'd love all traces of pornography to be erased from the Internet. Its a disgusting business that uses and abuses people, but it's even more damaging to teens.
I actually have no problem with a 16 year old having sex with their partner a problem. If, both are ready and it's completely consenting

reply

Over the last 15 years we have seen an explosion in the availability of porn to adults and teens. Probably a thousand, maybe tens of thousands times as many people regularly watch porn compared to the 80s. If it was harmful we wold have seen a mass of problems associated with it. If it caused rapes, we would be in the middle of a rape epidemic. Yet we are not. Mass consumption of porn has not caused the problems the anti-porn brigade were convinced it causes.

reply

Yet there's been an increase in domestic violence.....oh and in colleges and universities there's been an increase in assaults
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-rape-numbers-record-high-threat-cuts-victim-support-public-health-issue-1524139

Psychologists have proven it damages kids minds. read the posts. It is a disgusting business that abuses and extorts everyone involved.

reply

From your link

The spike in sex crime is thought to be down to an improvement in crime recording by the police and an increase in the willingness of victims to come forward and report to the police.


Nowhere does it say increased access to porn is a factor. We live in an age where people are much more likely to report rape. Please show any evidence connecting porn to rape.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm


Many people feel offended by pornography. Those who find it odious have every right to their opinion.

But some porn-haters declare that X-rated material does more than just disgust them. They contend that it contributes to significant social harm. In The Porn Trap (2008), psychotherapists Wendy and Larry Maltz assert that it's a significant factor in sexual irresponsibility and divorce.

The late feminist activist, Andrea Dworkin, argued that by depicting women as men's willing sexual playthings, porn contributes to rape. Her disciple, Robert Jensen, writes: "pornography alone doesn't make men rape...[but] it may activate coercive tendencies." And porn critic Diana Russell argues that porn undermines men's inhibitions against rape and spurs some to commit it.

Strong accusations. But are they true? The advent of Internet porn provides surprising answers.

The Internet became a major force in everyday life in the late 1990s. Before then, porn was available in adult stores, through X-rated video rentals, and on some newsstands. But with the arrival of the Internet, porn availability exploded. It was just a click away 24-7 for free in tens of millions of homes and offices. In 1997, 16 percent of American adults used the Internet regularly. By 2005, the figure had quadrupled to 65 percent. The Internet has also made porn much more available to impressionable kids. How many kids, ages 10 to 17, have viewed Internet porn? According to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics, 42 percent.

If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men.

Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn:

* Sexual irresponsibility has declined. Standard measures include rates of abortion and sexually transmitted infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), since 1990, the nation's abortion rate has fallen 41 percent. The syphilis rate has plummeted 74 percent. And the gonorrhea rate has plunged 57 percent.

* Teen sex has declined. The CDC says that since 1991, the proportion of teens who have had intercourse has decreased 7 percent. Teen condom use has increased 16 percent. And the teen birth rate has fallen 33 percent.

* Divorce has declined. Since 1990, the divorce rate has decreased 23 percent.

* Rape has declined. According to the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent.

Why would social ills decline as porn becomes more widely available? No one knows. But the one thing porn really causes is masturbation. Internet porn keeps men at home one-handing it. As a result, they're not out in the world acting irresponsibly-or criminally.

I'm not arguing that porn is utterly harmless. Some men consume it so compulsively that it interferes with their lives. They need therapy. Some women become distraught when they discover that the men in their lives enjoy porn. They might benefit from couple therapy. And to the extent that porn is a sex educator, it teaches lovemaking all wrong. More about this in a future post.

But the evidence clearly shows that from a social welfare perspective, porn causes no measurable harm. In fact, as porn viewing has soared, rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, teen sex, teen births, divorce, and rape have all substantially declined. If Internet porn affects society, oddly enough, it looks beneficial. Perhaps mental health professionals should encourage men to view it.


Show me a report where pornography has led to an increase in domestic violence. And you can factor in the fact that 40% of victims of domestic violence are men

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence



Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.


Is that down to porn?

reply

Im not spending my entire night posting excerts as I have better things to do but if you type it into Google you'll see that violence aagainst women, expectations boys expect off girls, low self esteem, social problems, sexual addiction, use of prostitutes etc etc are all factors of pornography. It's a disgusting business and if you are singing it's praises I suggest you take a good look in the mirror. It's filmed prostitution.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-6.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11376283/Does-watching-porn-really-turn-people-into-violent-criminals.html

reply

Again, from your own link - do you even read them?

in the USA – the world’s biggest consumer of porn – rape figures have consistently fallen since 1990, from 41.2 cases per 100,000 to 25 per 100,000 in 2013, when they fell 10.6 per cent on the previous year.



Internet porn has become massively more widespread since 1990. Women are more likely to report rape than ever. yet rape figures have consistently fallen in quite dramatic numbers (see above) since 1990. The facts are not on your side of the argument, they are on mine.

You don't like porn. So don't watch it.

reply

This isn't just about rape numpty this is about the psychological damage rape does to young minds. That doesn't just mean violence. Though, Statistically one in 5 women will be attacked in some way....And that's good is it? So in the UK alone that's 85,000 women and 12,000 men (reported)
I won't watch porn, neither would I allow a child to watch it.....8 year olds watching sites like ghetto gaggers and facial abuse....yeah, great parenting.
It's abhorrent and in time I hope access to it will become far more difficult than it is now.
Quite frankly it's no better than prostitution and thinking it's perfectly acceptable for a child to watch it is disgusting.

reply

Please show some evidence that the rise in porn availability correlates with a rise in women being attacked.



reply

When did I ever say this to begon with? YOU started this possibly because you read my first post wrong, not saying I don't believe it isn't a major factor for sexual assault though.I said it damages young people's minds and had proof for this.
It is true that college campus attacks have risen, which kinda correlates with the age of the perpetrators and their victims.
It isn't good for teens to be watching porn. It constructs a fantasy in their heads that'll never come true, desensitises the viewer so they want something more graphic to satisfy the urges. Sexual performance is worsened. NOT to mention the effects on the actual performers.
Why go on about one thing when it's a far bigger picture

reply

It isn't good for teens to be watching porn. It constructs a fantasy in their heads that'll never come true, desensitises the viewer so they want something more graphic to satisfy the urges. Sexual performance is worsened


EVIDENCE PLEASE.

reply

Read the posts I have put up or look it up yourself. It's not hard there's new reports constantly in the press in it.
Watch the bbc3 documentary on it with typer drew honey, or the documentary by Stacey Dooley. Read the psychiatric report (which you can download) on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3196809/It-induces-addiction-makes-men-hopeless-bed-discover-porn-affect-BRAIN.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.livescience.com/52469-how-porn-affects-brains.html?client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/watching-pornography-damages-mens-brains/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5450478

This isn't even including the dangers the actual performers are in, or why they are doing it in the 1st place. Watching a documentary like hot girls wanted or Louis Theroux's weird weekends gives an insight into how messed up these people become psychologically and physically.
You seem extremely invested in pornography which leads me to believe you like it. You're better invested in finding yourself a partner than wasting your time on porn.

reply

I have a partner thanks. We both enjoy porn. I have two exes who do porn. Both are very happy in the profession, they are natural exhibitionists. Those who find working in porn problematic should leave and find a different profession.


The Daily Mail is scare-mongering junk and cannot be trusted for any scientific objectivity. And Stacey Dooley is a moron (although one of my exes who do porn, the welsh wheelchair one, was on one of her shows).

From your Telegraph link


For the study, Dr Kuhn and her colleague Jurgen Gallinat from Charite University, also in Berlin, recruited 64 healthy men between the ages of 21 and 45 years and asked them questions about their porn-watching habits.

They also took images of the men’s brains to measure volume and to see how their brains reacted to pornographic pictures.

They found noticeable differences in the men who abstained compared with those who regularly accessed sexual videos or images.

However other researchers claimed that pornography in moderation was probably not damaging.

“Everything is going to be bad in excess and it’s probably not terrible in moderation,” Dr Gregory Tau of the Columbia University



From your LiveScience link

Problem or not?

Is pornography use an unhealthy addiction that ruins men for relationships, or a healthy sexual outlet that both men and women enjoy? How people answer may affect whether they are harmed by porn. A study in the September issue of the journal Psychology of Addictive Behavior found that it was the perception of being "addicted to porn," rather than the intensity of porn use per se, that was tied with psychological distress.

And contrary to the notion that pornography fuels misogyny, men who viewed porn tended to hold more egalitarian views about women than did non-porn-using men. Frequent porn users view powerful women, working women and women who have had abortions more favorably than do other men, a study published in August in the Journal of Sex Research found.


The HuffPo article is about children watching porn. I do not believe children should be watching porn.

Now I have given you several experts who say that porn is not harmful and has not led to a rise in rapes, teenage pregnancies, and a whole host of other problems, and in fact the rise in porn-watching has seen such behaviour fall dramatically - and you have chosen to ignore it all. You have a faith-based belief that porn is bad, and you can't argue with someone who ignores evidence when it contradicts their faith-based belief.

I'll leave you to your certainties.

reply

Now I understand. You are totally biased, you are taking little excepts and using them for your own argument yet not looking at the whole article. I hope you can live with yourself and the knowledge you were in relationships with prostitutes.
P.s get tested as stds are rife in pornography ;) ;)
If Stacey Dooley is a moron. what are you?

http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/28/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-about-the-porn-industry/

reply

[deleted]

What bothered me the most was that some some random "trolls" were the ones meeting out "justice". Thats why we have courts.

As for sympathy, I felt more sympathetic to the guy who played Bron from GOT - all he did was cheat on his spouse. Sure, that isn't an admirable trait but there is a reason that adultery is not punishable by death (at least in Western countries).

reply

i still don't get why he should lose his children because of cheating, yes he will see them less after divorce, but not really losing them or did i miss something why he agreed with this blackmail and rather participated in robbery?

reply

How are you not supposed to feel sorry for the characters? For being so terminally 'judged' by hacker vigilantes? This is what we have laws and courts for. Kenny isn't given a chance to 'fix' his life. He'll be charged with robbery and murder, on top of whatever charges he'll get for watching child porn. He was judged a rotten apple from the hacker/s and just got his life ruined forever.
Perhaps it was the show's intention to make us understand that demonizing anyone and creating in our minds the concept of the two-dimensional evil, sex offender is wrong. I know that the severity of the crime is a red line for a lot of people but this idea is what this episode wants to challenge. Just like the White Bear episode. Is any person worthy of such an intense punishment, one that legal systems today do not give? Did everyone really just sigh in relief at the end saying 'oooooh, thank God, he's just a sick pervert, yeah he got what he deserved'? I don't think so.
And again, just like in 'White Bear' and based on the fact that the hackers targeted the married man for a severely lighter 'transgression' (adultery), I think they're doing it for the sake of trolling. For sick pleasure. Does the viewer really identify with that?

reply

Those laws and courts are there to service to rich and oppress the poor. How do they serve me? I have many examples, when I was five a man attempted to kill me by suffocation, this was after I saw him kick his pregnant girlfriend down the stairs to kill his unborn child. He tried the same thing with my mother and I got involved, he tried to kill me with a pillow over my face...keep in mind we paid to stay there at this run down old mansion in Santa Barbara. The police refused to do anything, they said, and I quote, "we were just a bunch of junkies". I was five, but I was poor, so thats how much I mattered. Thats how much that baby mattered, thats how much my unborn sister matter, my mother, that poor woman who lost her baby...she was really kind to me, gave me my first action figure. Your laws, your justice, your courts, its all BS.

I saw a person shoot another person twice, so I told my mom and we reported it. The cops refused to look where I said it happened and harassed me (then about seven years old) telling me not to lie to police and make up stories.

Later in Jr High some G13 (Mexican gang) started messing with my friends at school, every week there was a gun or bomb threat. Teachers hid, hell one day our sub spent most of class under a desk hiding from gunshots...so they attacked my friend and I got involved just by pointing out what had happened, a huge ordeal. They tracked me down to my house and set my friend on fire on the bus, I saw him burning alive. Cops didn't give a damn. No-one ever got in any trouble.

That was all in California, where I also had a cop plant drugs on me on the freeway, then take us on a high speed chase...our car was broken down, we'd done nothing wrong. Another time my car was vandalized, I reported it, nothing. I went to fix my car, in the parking lot of Wal-Mart my rear-view mirror fell off in my hand, so I was headed to the bank to get money to go across the street to get a new mirror. A cop car shows up and follows me for a few miles, follows me into the bank parking lot and then turns on the lights. Tells me not to resist and that I need to calm down. Sez my shaking is proof that I am high on drugs, I cannot help shaking I explain, I have a disability caused by spinal meningitis. He sez I am lying and that the baseball bat in my backseat is a weapon and why do I have it? He claims that for these reasons he should arrest me, so I'm lucky he's only giving me a ticket, for my car, that was vandalized.

So I go in to pay the traffic ticket he gave me, I ask the woman at the front desk which courtroom I should go into and she tells me. The bailiff won't let me in, sez I'm late (was right there at the time they specified, I even double checked so as not to be late) and that I'm causing a problem for court proceedings, she sez she will not let me in...I'm like, "but I will get into trouble for not showing up", to which she responds, "Thats right, you'll get a bench warrant", at which point I'm like screw it, "Fine, I'm leaving, if I cannot go in whats the point, this is not fair, or legal, and this is why I hate America". I was arrested on the spot. I was taken down to the station, my clothes were stripped, and I was beaten, my money was gone from my wallet when I was finally released. They mocked my last name, its Armenian...and my nose (its kind of Eastern-European looking), and the whole time they were beating me they were telling me to respect woman, officers, and the law you love so much. Now apparently the receptionist described me as a tall, dark, and intimidating male who accosted her by saying, "Hey, you bi-atch, where is the motherf-ing judge" or some such nonsense. I have no problem with cursing but I am not stupid, thats not how you talk to anyone, especially not when you need their help. Quotas, not people; numbers & money.


I was fired from my job when they heard about it, they said my shaking was an obvious sign I was on drugs, just as the cops had said...I was fired for being disabled. I tried to fight it. But I saw America for what it really is; the rich win every time. No lawyer would take my case...why? I said I was innocent, they said I was guilty...I've always tried to be a good and moral person, sure I don't agree with many of the laws but I respect my fellow humans and animals. It didn't matter, nothing I did mattered, they took everything. I would have done better in life if I had known just how stacked reality is against the small guy. What have these laws done for me? They oppress me, they beat me, they ignore me when I need help, and they exploit everything I have, what little I did have.

At the same time my landlord was being a slumlord, the roof fell in on another friend's head, I pointed this out and nothing was done, this was during Winter. I sat there watching all my money go up into the air; heating the outside world. So I called around to find out my legal options as a tenant, then I sent him a letter he had to sign for stating that I would not pay any further rent until it was fixed as was my right. He said he never got the letter and called the police on me, they entered my house repeatedly and illegally. At one point they woke me up and told me to come outside, I said I was coming outside for a smoke so we could talk. I come outside and the cop has his gun aimed at me...I have never owned a gun though I do think people should be allowed to have them, anyways. They came into my house and took lots of my possessions, I never saw them again. They said I had a gun, though a gun was never found nor any evidence. They took my computers and said I was using them to sell drugs...they ruined my life...for what...for your justice? What justice? I was a law abiding citizen. I had an amazing job but not enough time to save up much money yet, I had no reason to be involved in crime because it was counter-intuitive to my personal and moral philosophy. Didn't matter. My family (both sides) has a long history of crime, persecution, and genocide...I did not want to be that person. I'm disabled but I wanted to prove everyone wrong, prove that I was capable, that I could toe the line, hell I sailed the Caribbean at 15 after deciding thats what I wanted to do at 13, I know what I'm capable of. Doesn't matter, not rich enough, not desirable enough, not connected, rebellious ideals, I mean obviously I deserve everything I got right? And still to this day...I have nothing because the powers that be don't want me to have anything. Can you what its like to have nothing, then earn something, then have it all taken away for reasons you have no power over.


Your police are thugs, they dress in black and use intimidation to terrorize the poor, the outside, those that are different, disabled, or otherwise undesirable. You think the laws work because they serve you; the rich, the wealthy, the comfortable.


In Santa Barbara where I grew up for a time I witnessed countless crimes, one of our nations richest cities is too important to care about some wretch like myself; I mean if you are poor you must be a worthless junky right?

But it doesn't end there, in Colorado I've seen rampant child abuse in the schools, cops didn't care, school board didn't care.

In Las Vegas my grandmother was robbed and beaten to the point where her ribs where caved in, cops couldn't be bothered.

In Florida I've seen illegals (from the Caribbean) being snuck into the country in Ft Lauderdale. I saw the whole thing happen many times because I was working and living at a small boatyard where no-one else stayed at night. The Coast Guard were there playing over-watch for the whole situation.

In Hawaii I've seen illegals from Germany selling large amounts of Marijuana to one of our local politicians. I've also seen the police smoke it and Ice (what they call Speed) here as well, on multiple occasions.

What does the law have to say about any of this? It doesn't care, if it doesn't care about the attempted murder of a five year old or the murder of an unborn baby and mother, or my friend being burned alive...well...that law is nothing but hot air.


"This is What You Want... This is What You Get"

reply

That's the whole point of the build up and reveal. Brooker did the same with "White Bear". It's a commentary on how both the media portray these "monsters" and we, the public perceive them. Here Brooker makes us see a person first, then a pedophile second. And it's not to our liking. Actually it's a long running theme from Brooker. Have you seen Brass Eye's "Paedogeddon" episode, which Brooker helped pen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU

reply

Think Chris Morris co-wrote this episode

reply

He did. Some partnership that.

reply

Bloody amazing partnership. Still think brass eye is one of the rawest comedies ever on tv.

reply

Yep... great writing. I love how that "but wait, why would he..." moment before the robbery gets committed and everything falls into place with the last piece of the puzzle.

reply

I never got the impression that the main guy was a Paedo. Releasing a video of him jerking off wouldn't show what stimulus material he was watching and hence I got the feeling that the 'looking at kids' was something that the 'controllers' would have added on to make his shame even greater.

In my mind, he was simply whacking off to some porn but they fed on his insecurities and shame to carry out acts that were far more serious than the trivial (but potentially embarrassing) thing that he had done.


Small moves Ellie, small moves

reply

He was. That's the whole point. I'd rewatch it.

reply

No, I did hear his mom talking about it but just thought it was the 'controllers' adding another layer of cruelty.

However, I concede that given the twists that the show likes to put in, and other people's observations, that he was a paedo.


Small moves Ellie, small moves

reply

Oh he definitely was. It puts the scene with the little girl earlier into a completely different context. I do love how (if you watch it again) its continuously hinted that its more than just flicking one out in front of the camera that's got Kenny rattled. He keeps on saying "it was only some pictures" and when the guy he has to fight mentions "How old were they? Young?" Kenny pulls the gun out to shoot himself. It's brilliantly written. I felt the ending as a punch in the gut but then realised Kenny had been telling us all along.

reply

No, he's wanking off to child porn, 10 years down the line he could be raping your child.

Cut his nuts off, beat him to a pulp and lock him up for life sick paedophile.

Is the OP a paedo????

reply

How would you react if YOUR child grew up into a paedophile btw? Maybe because they had been abused by someone when they were young? You'd want their nuts cut off, beaten to pulp and locked up for life?

reply

While overall, I enjoyed the episode and at first I thought it fell short of the mark as I was left a bit confused about what moralistic and satirical message it was attempting to make. After pondering on it, it finally came to me. It's a cautionary tale about not exploiting the internet for your own immoral and selfish means. Let's face it, there's plenty of it going about. Ultimately it's a tool like any other and with any it can be abused. Excellent episode although not entirely original although none the less relevant. Also, the way it pulled the wool over our eyes in terms of where I sympathies should lie and who we were supposed to root for reminded me of White Bear.

It's also reminiscent of The National Anthem as I see a couple of similar parallels. It has a more contemporary setting that exists within reality and there's the whole angle of someone being coerced in to doing something against their will.

reply