This must be true, it’s in the ‘paper:
But underneath the veneer of respectability was a sexual deviant who, fuelled by extreme pornography, was driven to ever more depraved actions to slake his desires.
That’ll swiftly become “extreme porn caused his actions”. When, for all the evidence we’ve got, the porn is a substitute for acting out, not a complement. But you just wait to see what gets said about this.
A two day sentencing?
And we laughed at show trials in the Soviet Union…
Plod is now a mix of woke management and violent grunts like Couzens. The former can’t stick to the basics and are hollowing out any respect the public used to have for them. The latter are bored of kowtowing at pink parades and long to break some skulls. Not any skulls of course otherwise managers would sack them – so any wank cause gets a pass (BLM, XR, Insulate Britain etc) whereas those that aren’t part of a “minority” get the shit kicked out of them.
Julia – but it’s FEMICIDE!
Mibbe we need more judicial theatre as the currency of actual justice is debased. If we were a serious country, such as Afghanistan, Wayne Couzens would very soon be hanging from the neck until dead.
I expected a link to yet another story about Prince Andrew.
“the porn is a substitute for acting out, not a complement.”
I’m not so sure, as Dave Lizewski said in ‘Kick Ass’
“Like every serial killer already knew: eventually fantasizing just doesn’t do it for you anymore.”
Hope the sod gets life, but we’ll see.
We’ll also see if, in 6 months time, as much coverage is given to the trial of Koci Selamaj.
Andrew – +69
All the evidence of Current Year (we’re up to our oxters in pornsick middle aged trannies and young people whose twisted sexuality is a bizarre MC Escher painting of gender confusion) suggests that porn addiction works the same way as any other addiction. The dopamine chasing behaviour inevitably becomes more extreme over time unless it’s arrested.
Maybe porn could’ve been a harmless substitute when it was relatively scarce and involved randy lorry drivers rubbing one out to a splendidly pubescent housewife called Sandra in Mayfair, just as there’s a difference between enjoying a glass of wine with your dinner and getting absolutely skullfucked on Thunderbird under a bridge, but we don’t live in the 1980’s anymore.
What if the digital ocean of extreme pornography, delivered in glorious high def, for free, to the device in your pocket, is like giving whisky to the Injuns? Mary Whitehouse may actually have been right, we have no idea what the long term effects of strange and perverse new media might be, and the initial signs are not encouraging.
Steve – that’s exactly what they said about that pernicious new media “the novel”.
Jgh – So? The boy may have cried wolf, but wolves are real.
Irregardless it’s too early to judge the effects of Harry Potter.
Tim often mentions that porn is known to be a substitute for sexual activity, rather than a driver of it, but the last time he wrote this I had a bit of a google and it suggested that is not clear at all. Some studies suggest porn stops people offending but others do not.
There’s a lot of unpleasant stuff out there, even without going into the dark places of the internet. I cannot see how it could be good for people.
I haven’t seen it reported, but based on similar cases I expect that the perpetrator was recently prescribed anti-depressants. For the Walter Mitty types who merely imagine depraved acts, anti-depressants seem to give them the drive to put their plans into action.
If the outcome of all this is a ban on extreme porn, I’m ok with that. No doubt somebody will start reciting Pastor Niemöller’s poem (“First they came … for the extreme porn”), but it’s blindingly obvious that porn is not political speech.
Steve – “like giving whisky to the Injuns” – brilliant.
The studies that get published will be the ones that align with the political views of the editor of the journal doing the publishing.
BiNK
Yes indeed!!!
@jgh:
I remember laughing at that when I first heard about it as a kid. Fifty years later I’ve almost come round to the view that the novel was indeed a dangerous and in some cases corrupting invention.
Nowadays it’s easier to imagine problems with, say, TV dramas. These appear to show humans behaving like humans. But they aren’t: actors behave the way the writer imagined, and some writers are sickos. Normally you only notice unrealistic behaviour when the acting is really bad. Otherwise, it’s believable, and people can end up thinking that action they see on TV somehow reflects normal or understandable or even admirable human behaviour, and don’t necessarily see the problem with accepting it as such.
I’ve long felt that TV soaps perform the function previously handled by the church. Soaps tell stories about the things ordinary people do and what the consequences are. They take a definite line on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. It’s propaganda whether the writer wills it or not.
Fiction is dangerous.
I’ve long felt that TV soaps perform the function previously handled by the church
Sort of, yes. With an important difference: the Church was a pro-social force that was interested in things that would keep the show on the road. Don’t kill your children, don’t cheat on your wife, don’t bear false witness against your neighbour, etc. If sanity is crowdsourced (and it is) Christianity as traditionally practiced is inseparable from normality. Normality isn’t as normal as we once supposed, it takes an enormous collective effort of will to manifest it – entropy never ceases to wrestle against everything we do.
TV, as with other modern institutions, is controlled by university-educated lunatics with an antisocial agenda. It does little except bear false witness about the nature of reality itself. That’s why you’d easily get the idea, from watching British television, that England is some sort of strangely woke African nation that’s also unusually cool with homosexuality.
Is it just me or are the majority of the people in the police force the sort of people who should never be allowed anywhere near a position of authority? Have we reached the point where if you apply to join the police that fact should mark you as totally unsuitable for such a role?
I am increasingly worried by the denizens of this blog. What was a broadly freedom-loving group is turning into Mary Whitehouse’s book (burning) club.
Extreme porn might be unsavoury. But trying to supress it will play into the hands of the social credit tyranny-seeking scum we already have. And a bit planted by Plod will serve the state’s evil very nicely.
And think it through. Extreme porn doesn’t equal brain suppression. Couszen’s must have known he had zero chance of getting away with rape and murder 2 weeks after showing his dick in a McDonalds. His wisest move would have been to have topped himself after the crime. Or shot it out with his fellow costumed thugs. So the bloke is mental.
Folk on here are all ready to be labelled by the scummy state. Don’t be dumb enough to give the scum extra ammo.
Ecksy – either porn is having negative effect on individuals and the society they’re part of, or it isn’t. If the former, either those negative effects are mild enough to safely ignore, or they aren’t.
I dunno that looking at everything with social credit tunnel vision is useful, and I don’t think anyone in this parish is suggesting Something Must Be Done by the man from the Ministry of Golf Mags in any event. But not wanting Something To Be Done by incompetent and/or malicious public sector employees =/= Nothing Must Be Done.
It might be “playing into the hands” of the State to caution people against operating steamrollers while drunk, but we still would prefer inebriated people not to very slowly run us over with heavy machinery while doing Fred Dibnah impressions.
I am actually in favour of pearl-and-twinset fascism tho, not for any particular reason other than it would be funny and annoy the BBC.
“Fiction is dangerous.”
Good job Trainspotting was a documentary then.
“Ecksy – either porn is having negative effect on individuals and the society they’re part of, or it isn’t. If the former, either those negative effects are mild enough to safely ignore, or they aren’t.”
It can do both – there are individuals it has positive and individuals it has negative effects on. There will be some societal positives and some negatives.
The thing is, if your guiding heuristic is, as it should be, the Wiccan Rede, it’s none of your business what genre of gentlemen’s cinema (involving consenting adults) your neighbour whacks off to in private. It really isn’t. You might find all manner of things distasteful, doesn’t mean that banning it is a good idea.