Porno Killer, Quest-ce Que C’est?
The Indy seems to have taken up the Guardian’s puritan feminist mantle this week with two articles about the dangers of pornography. One relates to the case where a man killed and ate his lover, the other to a 12 year old boy who raped a 9 year old girl. Both articles in the Indy include ‘porn’ in the headline. In the case of the murder, because the defendant worked as a porn actor. In the case of the rape, because the boy looked at hardcore porn before committing the crime.
In relation to the rape, Harriet Walker claims to be ‘no prude’ BUT:
‘… transplant that cultural stimulant to a more common scenario, to something most of us will inevitably end up doing – like, say, sex – and the results are very different. That a 14-year-old boy appeared in court this week for the assault and rape, two years ago, of a nine-year old girl is a case in point. His reasons for committing this crime? He watched free porn on the internet and wanted to act like a “grown-up”.
So while video games might not be nurturing a future generation of killers, the profusion and preponderance of explicit online pornography may well mean an entire swathe of young boys who reach manhood with little or no understanding of what women and sex are supposed to look or feel like, whose brains and libidos have been so regularly stoved in with images of sordid violence and seedy objectification that they are numb to anything more affectionate or domestic.
That porn leads to rape is a rather linear view, although there are plenty who would agree with it. I don’t go that far, but it’s ridiculously naive and optimistic to think that the generation of teenage boys who have come of age with unfettered access to the sort of sexual imagery that litters the web can remain in any way unaffected by it.’
Two people I know on twitter responded in annoyance at the way these stories were reported, with the papers suggesting that pornography is the problem. Mark Simpson asked about the murder case:
Anna Arrowsmith, who is a feminist porn director said of the rape case:
I find Anna’s response depressing, and typical of ‘sex positive’ feminism. Whilst (mainly) women involved in sex research, the sex industry and sex for pleasure are quick to defend sex and sexuality, they often put the blame on boys and men in general.
The Guardian in particular has spelled out its belief that dangerous masculinity is the cause of all sorts of crimes in the world, including sexual assault and rioting. Pornography is just something in their eyes, that encourages that evil to come out.
It is ironic though, because if feminists didn’t have any bad boys to demonise, blame or pathologise, they wouldn’t have a cause at all. Do they really want to live in a world where everyone is ‘nice’? In that world what would get them up in the morning?
A 12 year old boy raped a girl. A man killed his partner and ate his flesh. These are isolated occurrences but they are being used as symbols of men and masculinity to keep the status quo alive and well.



According to Susie Bright, the guy wasn’t even a ‘porn actor’. She concludes:
We are all hoping that the sensation of these murders will not be exploited by political opportunists and the con-artists of the right.
So far, not so good.
It’s hard to disagree with her on that point.
As for the 12 year old, the journalists are getting all excited based on bugger all evidence of a trend:
This is an example of what we might call the “journalist’s fallacy” – though in this case it’s perpetrated by someone from a profession even more ignorant of statistics than journalists. I mean by this the tendency to draw strong inferences from one or two observations, without asking: are these observations a representative sample? In this example, we have a good reason to suspect not; 12-year-old rapists are rare, whilst internet porn is ubiquitous.
So if the causal link was true – the holy grail of anti-porn feminism (not that proof matters to that movement) – then the jails would be full of 12 year old rapists and men who think they’re an xxx-rated version of Hannibal Lecter…wouldn’t they? As Xander once said in |Buffy: ‘Just looking at linoleum makes me think about sex.’ And nobody is ever able to explain why only heterosexual men are affected in this way when it comes to watching porn.
Moral panics – doncha just love ‘em?
I am glad some others have picked up on it. But as I said in the post, ‘sex positive’ feminists’ responses ring the least true to me. Because they also perpetuate ‘moral panics’ about men and masculinity, and or ignore men as ‘victims’ or even as people.
The wit and wisdom of Harriet Walker:
Yes, men have always been a bit grotty: they have always needed visual stimulation of a sort that women don’t, because they have entirely natural funny urges and have to deal with their own creaking scaffolding.
and:
But porn is every man’s secret shame, and they’ll harrumph in self-defence and mortification until the end of time for their right to some hairy-palmed time alone in the garden shed.
i can’t really think of anything to say to that but…
WTF?
‘WTF?’ is putting it mildly – ‘Mumsy Cupcake Feminism on Crack’ might be a better description (feel free to use that for a blogpost title, QRG)
haha thanks I shall. I don’t know Harriet Walker and I don’t think I want to.
Switch the genders of Harriet’s comments, and the now-Harry would be hauled over the coals and strung up by the… for “sexism”.
Ah, the equality in law…