Does the Babeshows deter sexcrimes

NO THE SICK TWISTED FUCKS WILL STILL DO THE DEVILS WORK REGARDLESS.

(24-09-2009 15:02 )mikedafc Wrote:  Was looking in at a debate with one of the girls on the Babeshows mothers saying that the babeshows deter pedos, predators and perverts from going out and committing sexual offences.

Any opinons on this?

Its good to see that "one of the girls on the Babeshows" has such a high opinion of her callers...

It was actually the mother of one of the girls that gave me the comment which I quoted on the first post but it has clouded my judgement of the girl as well.

brummie, why do say "Personally I would be more concerned about the amount of violence people are exposed to in TV, film or video game than any amount of non violent sexual content."? Have you had 'urges' to hurt people after seeing a violent film or playing a violent game? Has such material made you more likely to resort to violence during an argument say?

If the answer is "no" to these questions then why are you personally concerned about it? Let me guess, it's some mysterious 'other people' you fear might be adversely affected e.g. 'the vulnerable', 'impressionable children', 'the mentally unstable' or 'some men'. I don't buy it. I've been watching violent films since I was little and I've never had the urge to do anyone harm. I love action movies yet, the scenes from every war, terror atrocity, riots, police thuggery and so forth still don't fail to disturb me. No, the 'media effects' argument is based on populist scapegoatery. Violent entertainment is the easy target of Governments and moral crusaders who just can't or won't accept that some people in society are animals who will never conform to their insane ideals of 'civilisation'. Of course the history of civilisation is a story of war, oppression, brutal punishments, torture and wholesale slaughter. 'Civilisation' is a lie, a myth.

On the issue of rape/sexual assault, I believe Mister Gummidge is right. However, in most cases (over 95% iirc) the assailent is known to the victim - a jilted boyfriend, divorced husband, a pushy work collegue. Rape is about power and control for sure but (mostly) motivated by revenge. That other 5% or so (probably a bit less) are indeed sexual predators with some underlying psychotic need to overpower and dominate women. Studies on convicted rapists seem to suggest that they find violent porn more appealing than non-violent material - i.e. that they can get-off looking at material which most resembles their fantasies/activities. Vanilla porn seems to do nothing for them - its perhaps like us 'normal' men looking at fully clothed women in that it doesn't usually trigger our sexual pathways.

As for paedophilia, I think we're still too afraid to admit what we probably already know. I have a theory based on the disproportionate concentration of paedophiles in the priesthood. I think it stands to reason that people who don't have normal sexual relationships are very likely to develop abnormal sexualities (indeed, this trend has been stated in many psychological studies of sex offenders since at least the 1950s). It is generally accepted amongst sexual psychologists that "People from strict religious backgrounds are more likely to develop deviant sexualites later in life". A 'celebate' priest is physically sexually mature but likely a psycho-sexually immature virgin. Because they're sexually adult, their body is telling them its ready to reproduce but, their mind is stuck in 'virgin territory' hence, a suitable partner from their perspective is also a psycho-sexually immature virgin - i.e. a child. As I say, it seems absolutely logical to assume people that don't have normal sexual relationships are very likely to develop abnormal sexual desires - and this is borne out by over 50 years worth of studies of sex offenders. Abstinence is not good for people (or 'some men'). Asexual environments (like fuddy duddy no sex please Britain) isn't good for people (or 'some men'). 'Some men' is what the BBFC claim they're saving society from by censoring films of course - odd how the rest of Europe don't seem to see the same need to censor like the BBFC (isn't it!).

So, as I see it, indeed, as the sex psychologists have found it, an uptight, sexually repressive society is just about guranteed to create sexual deviants that rape and kill little kids. "You do it to yourself, you do".

Generally speaking, around 66% of sex offenders claim to have been sexually abused themselves - this is the cycle of abuse people often talk about. I think after the case in Plymouth a few months back we're ready to accept that women are also capable of child abuse. I would suggest then that those sexual predators that feel some psychotic need to abuse women are likely the victims of childhood abuse by women (maybe moms, aunts, sisters or babyminders) and they are thus seeking revenge just like other rapists but are perhaps unaware as to why.

On balance I think acceptance of porn is a sign of a sexually open society. Sex is something wonderful and natural and it shoud be treated as such. Sex should be celebrated not denigrated. Our children especially should be free to explore their human sexuality at a pace that suits them - we all develop at different rates and restricting sexual knowledge and experience to those children that are more advanced can be just as damaging as forcing sexual knowledge and experience on those that are less advanced (again this is all well known and documented in psycho-sexual studies since the 1950s!!). Indeed, a UN report last year (iirc) by WHO or some other UN health committee found that child abuse in undeveloped nations was a fraction of that in developed nations - i.e. those children growing up naked surrounded by naked adults and living in communes where people have sex in full view of everyone else, are less likely to be used and abuse or otherwise psychologically damaged than those children growing up in say Britain with all its social taboos and child protection laws and agencies.

I know one thing, religion ain't natural. Sex is. I think any creature that views its own body as something shameful, offensive, corrupting or obscene is very likely stark raving mad - and I don't give a toss what the prevailing weather is like, if you're not happy being naked with other naked people you're sick in the head. If you can't control violent tendancies, you're sick in the head. If you can't stop yourself sexually abusing men, women or children then, you're sick in the head.

As far as I'm concerned you can watch what the hell you like, it doesn't change who you are or what you're capable of doing or incapable of preventing yourself doing. And it is of course what we do that affects society, not what we enjoy watching.

Great post IanG

(25-09-2009 04:02 )mikedafc Wrote:  It was actually the mother of one of the girls that gave me the comment which I quoted on the first post but it has clouded my judgement of the girl as well.

I think that who ever that Girl is, (who obviously made that comment to her Mother), should seriously reconsider her employment if she truly believes that the viewers and callers of these shows are potential rapists and child abusers.

Having to interact and participate in sexual fantasies with people who she believes are one step way from committing the vilest of crimes must take a real toll on her emotional well-being.

Perhaps the Broadcasters who air these channels and profit from the "paedophiles and potential rapists" should donate a percentage of their profits to charities who aid and assist victims of sexual abuse? (That is if they share the same view as this performer)

(24-09-2009 15:02 )mikedafc Wrote:  Was looking in at a debate with one of the girls on the Babeshows mothers saying that the babeshows deter pedos, predators and perverts from going out and committing sexual offences.

Any opinons on this?

Does this mean that the babes are on the phones enjoying lovely chats with potential rapists & pedos etc?

Sidenote: I haven't killed anyone in years.

I cant believe for one minute that watching or calling the babe channels would discourage the urges that some "sexual predators" have.

There is so much extreme filth available on the internet these days (fantasy rape sites, kidnapping, snuff etc) that I think that any potential rapist etc would find the babeshows way too tame to quench there particular fucked up fantasies.

I disagree that all rape is about power and control. Some men commit rape because they want sex in that moment and lose control.

Hi IanG, just to make my position clear I am as a matter of principle opposed to the idea of censorship, and I don't believe in banning anything without a very good reason (child porn etc.), the need to ban anything usualy represents an admission of failure by society and its moral stance. When I talk about a concern about levels of violence across the media this is merely an observation or opinion. I am not a trained psychologist and I certainly wouldn't present any link with violent behaviour as a fact. Certain violent images indeed serve a positive purpose-the pictures of the girl running along the road in Vietnam after her village has been napalmed remains one of the most potent visual depictions of the barbarity and tragedy of war.So in conclusion while I may have concerns about levels of violence I certainly do not advocate censorship, I think we can agree on that and see censorship as being as much of a problem as a solution, and certainly there is no logical argument for the censorship of non-violent porn at all. The sooner we have a society free from petty restrictions the better.