I’m not sure if there can be an objective definition of ‘sick’, only a sort of I-know-it-when-I-see-it, which isn’t all that helpful, at least in the middle ground, but I think we could probably find cases at either extreme that the vast majority of sane people would happily classify as ‘really sick’ or ‘not at all sick’ with a degree of certainty.
You say that like it’s a bad thing 
I am skeptical as well. For some reason many people who use the refrain “it hasn’t been proven!” to defend against claims that extreme porn might be harmful don’t hold claims that such porn might be helpful to the same standard. I have never seen any evidence that violent pornography actually works as some sort of stress reliever for people with dangerous, violent sexual desires. Given how often I’ve seen people make that claim that it does you’d think they’d have something to back it up with, but as best as I can tell it’s a completely groundless assertion. I started a thread on the subject myself some time back, and no one could come up with any support for this popular claim.
I suppose it’s possible that violent porn might serve as a safe release for some people with violent sexual urges. I suppose it’s also possible that violent porn might cure cancer. But I’m not going to believe it (especially since it doesn’t seem logical) unless I see some evidence.
Of course, lack of evidence that something is beneficial is not a good enough reason to ban it. But legal issues aside, if for some nightmarish reason I had to ride on an airplane full of people with violent fantasies about committing rape on an airplane, I don’t think I’d feel more comfortable about my situation if the in-flight movie were That Bitch on the Plane Was Asking for It, Part VIII.
Quite frankly I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Looking at porn, violent or otherwise, is not going to trigger someonr to go out on a rape and bondage spree any more than watching an action movie is going to encourage someone to go out on a murder spree.
The problem is that most people are pretty simple. They live dull boring lives driving their caravan full of groceries and 2.4 kids back and forth to school and soccer games in Middle America (or in this case Middle UK). The idea of a horrific crime or horrible accident actually happening somewhere other than on TV is incomprehensible to them. They look for a simplistic answer to why it happened. Things like porn, violent games or movies or music with dark imagery make an easy target because it does not conform to the standard of what “regular” people deem to be “normal”.
IANAPsychiatrist, but I do know that people don’t just wake up one day and decide to murder someone or go on a psychotic rampage because of something they saw on TV or the web.
I agree with msmith537. One does not suddenly become a rapist and killer unless those feelings/urgers were already latent within the individual.
A brilliant observation that neatly avoids the OP’s final question, “Or does the porn encourage the psycho that already exists to do things he would not otherwise have done?”
I don’t think anyone believes that even the most disturbing violent pornography could turn Joe/Jane Normal into a psycho killer. The mystery is whether or not violent pornography encourages Joe/Jane Psycho to act on his/her dangerous urges. If (and it is admittedly a big “if”) exposure to extreme pornography could lead already unbalanced individuals to commit violent acts they would not otherwise have committed, then it would be wrong to say “The porn clearly had nothing to do with it, since those people were nuts to begin with!”
CNN reports that 15 people were tied up today in what authorities describe as a “bondage spree” in Jasper, Illinois. Among the bound were two area librarians, who were given ballgags to promote silence. The suspect remains at large.
I am inclined to agree. A person who has no urges towards violence will not be particularly moved towards it by violent porn, I think… any more than the average guy would be driven to rape children if he were exposed to kiddie porn. The only urge such things inspire in me personally is the urge to forward it to the FBI.
By the same token, though, I am inclined to wonder.
This past week, a guy kidnapped and killed a little girl. I’ve been thinking about that a lot. Why did he do it? I mean, he practically left a trail of evidence with his name and address on it. He wasn’t too bright. Plainly, this was a matter of impulse on his part. I don’t doubt there was SOME premeditation, but I think it was premeditation to act on an impulse (noting the whole time that I could be wrong; I’m no expert on deviant sex maniacs).
So the question remains: could violent porn have influenced him to act upon this impulse of his?
Yes. No. Maybe. All of the above. Hell, at least one guy was influenced to commit murder by psychic messages from his neighbor’s dog.
…which begs the question: should the stuff be banned?
…and the answer: I dunno. I’m against kiddie porn, simply because you have to abuse children to make the stuff. I’m against simulated kiddie porn, simply because I think you have to be at least a little sick to WANT the stuff in the first place.
…but … violent porn? I dunno. Too many variables, too many divisions. There are perfectly ordinary people who get a turn-on from being tied up. Some like spankings. Some get a little kinky. I see no harm in this, as long as it’s between consenting adults… but that depends on how far you take it, too. Sometimes, things going on between consenting adults can get mighty extreme.
Where do you draw the line? And who decides?
Would you feed your body a continuous steady diet of garbage OR
a varied diet of beef, fish, foul, fruits, mutton, nuts, etc?
Why feed your mind with porn, rap, violent computer games, etc. instead of worthwhile educational material, great books, genuine art, and classical music?
At one time the bad stuff was justified as bing art that imitated life.
But children imitate what they see and hear.
No one would argue that the psycho is discouraged but most likely encouraged in anti-social behavior by porn.
Well, yes, there are people who do exactly that. Junk food is not good for you, as a rule. But it tastes good, and some people are less interested in what is good for them than they are in satisfying their desires.
Jeez. Was someone suggesting we let CHILDREN look at weirdo porn? I’d certainly be against THAT…
My 2 cents:
Porn just widens the behavioral repertoire. If a sexual deviant would have raped in a missionary position before viewing porn, he may try other things upon being exposed to porn.
IMO, porn causes nothing. Rapists will rape without having been exposed to porn. Porn just makes them aware of other ways of doing it.
Exactly. Do we then have to outlaw all depictions of sexual violence or rape in any movies, plays, literature, etc.? Where does it end?
I realize that the man was convicted of murder by a jury, but with only what was presented in the story linked from the OP, I wonder if that was a correct verdict.
Ever hear of sexual asphyxiation? Some people get off through such sexual acts, and it is certainly possible that little Miss schoolteacher was involved in a completely consensus sex act that went horribly wrong.
If that were true, perhaps our “sicko” could still have been guilty of negligent manslaughter of something similar. Certainly, though, having failed to report the death, and then to hide and eventually burn the body - wouldn’t have helped his case.
However, looking for links betweens sexual deviancy and Internet porn seems a bit farfetched. Similar scenes have been depicted in recent first-run R rated movies (like Killing Me Softly) and even TV shows.
Kinda like being irritated by the images of sexual violence towards women on the Internet, but then being offended by Janet Jackson’s breast, instead of Justin Timberlake’s tearing off of her “wardrobe”. Strange days, indeed.
One of the things in the papers which jumped out at me about this particular case is that the man involved used internet message boards on these strangulation porn sites he visited.
In the newspapers, it made a point that whereas in real life, such a man would possibly be isolated from the rest of society due to his interest in such hard core sexual actvities, once he was part of a messageboard community, his views were welcomed and he had peer approval and respect.
That struck me as an interesting view - did he decide to go and act out his fantasies because other people on the boards had said that they had one so and it was beyond his wildest fantasies? Did he find encouragement there, among all the other people who shared his sexual proclivities?
I can see how this dynamic and living participation and exchange of views and experiences might spur him on into action.
Moreso, say, than the essentially solitary experience of looking at pictures or fims.
That’s utter speculation, and since murder, rape, and deviance all existed prior to the internet, I would have to say “probably not”.
What makes you so sure they don’t watch porn? My guess is that they do. Probably a lot. I mean, it’s not like they have to show their clergy membership card when they go to Ye Olde Porn Shoppe. They’re forbidden to engage in physical sex acts, but I’ll bet it’s probably a regular pasttime to watch folks gettin’ nekkid on the ol’ VCR. I mean, I guy needs an outlet!
That was more or less exactly the argument presented by the defence, so it is certainly the case that the Jury will have considered it.
Because they are all appealing in their own way. Why limit yourself to such a small subset of the available stimuli, or with such a plebian definition of worthwhile?
on topic From personal experience, porn can provide information. As someone with, hmm, violent tendencies, discovering that BDSM was a legal, legitimate outlet has served me quite well. In my case, it was more of a desire to find people who were into this, rather than ‘Hey I’m gonna go on a bondage spree’. I can easily see, however, that someone with tendencies similar to mine might be greatly inflamed by certain images. Replace the desire to find others like this with the desire to do it on my own, and I could just as easily be standing in that dock.
As for the asphyx angle; it is pretty easy to tell when the person has lost consciousness. In absence of significant perception altering substances, I would go so far as to say any defense based on that is false.