To think that the jo yeats jury should have been told about his strangling during sex fetish?

[pippala]

pleased for Joanna's family that he has been found quilty, their ordeal is hardly over though.
Min 20 years, so he will be 53 when he comes out, with still half his life left.
Now it appears he watch porn that involved strangulation, had sex with prostitutes and like choking them!
I have heard about better orgasms when you can't breath, Isn't that how Mike Hutchence died?
I can not understand why this was withheld from the jury.
I was on jury service and put away a pedo for 33years. at sentancing we were told he had done it before to 3 other girls! I can understand that we were not to know as we were hearing only that case but in Tabaks case he hadn't killed before,as far as we know but his personality was not the one portrayed by the defence.

There's no hatred here what an odd thing to say ageless. There's judgement of Tabak, but that's not hatred.

Could you give some examples of the the hatred you see. No one has wished harm on him, we're just glad justice has been done and that he's locked up given the fact he's dangerous.

It's not because he's a man though is it SWC, as ageless is claiming. If hate is something that people feel towards Tabak then there are good reasons for it, like the small fact he murdered a young woman, destroyed the lives of her family and friends, and then lied and lied about it in court to try and get away with what he did.

Having a penis probably comes way down the list of reasons to hate him.

I find it a bit of a puzzle. If a woman is raped, the defence can wheel out all sorts of stuff to blacken her character (she sleeps around, she enjoys pornography, she was unfaithful to her husband), but if a man is on trial for murder, the prosecution can't say anything that might make him look bad because that would prejudice the case. Is that right?

All right, smallwhitecat, so we - the overwhelming bulk of men who don't "use" porn, or hate women, let alone kill them, "examine the attitudes and behaviour" of the swine who do. What are we supposed to do about them? How is that the answer to anything?

You cannot hold my gender collectively responsible for Tabak and the like. Any more than yours is collectively responsible for Myra Hindley, Vanessa what's-her-name, or Rose West.

If a woman is raped, the defence can wheel out all sorts of stuff to blacken her character (she sleeps around, she enjoys pornography, she was unfaithful to her husband)

No they can't, hackmum.

They're not supposed to, but they do (drag rape victims' characters through the mud).

For example, that case of gang rape in Manchester that was dropped before it even got to trial because it emerged that the victim had shared a fantasy about having group sex with strangers online.

Andrewofgg

There's another thread running at the moment where at least one male poster is accusing women of being 'manhaters' for even naming the problem of male violence against women, and especially rape.

We're not talking about a mind bogglingly rare occurence of the Myra Hindley type. We're talking about a common phenomenon whereby 1 in 4 women will be raped or sexually assaulted (by males) in her lifetime, where 2 women a week are killed by (male) partners or ex-partners and so on. This is a common problem and one that is gendered. So yeah, when women dare to talk about it and get accused of manhating then something is wrong. The appropriate response is for men to look at what they can do to not be part of this problem, and to halt the humanitarian crisis that is VAWG the world over.

HTH

Prolesworth What can I or any man do apart from not be violent to women (or at all) except in the unlikely event that we are there at the right moment to intervene?

If I am not violent and don't hate women I am not part of the problem.

You can confront male misogyny whenever you see it.

You can control yourself when you feel yourself kneejerking to "women do it too", bringing out the tiny handful of violent women (who were in fact working in partnership with violent men) and ignoring the fact that male violence is systemic and endemic.

You can also stop using pornography, if you use it, and examine misogynistic attitudes you hold.

Snape - are you saying that the press knew about the porn etc, the inadmissible evidence? Not sure if I understood you correctly.

Snape, did you think "guilty" whilst you were watching him give his testimony?

He had a pretty uphill struggle trying to make people believe that he could accidentally have strangled a woman to death. Why do you think two of the jury members bought his defense?

i agree and i am not a man and not saying that the women chatting are man -haters - this is like chinese whispers

thunder I haven't "used" porn (and that would not be my choice of verb) since as a teenager I bought Mayfair and I don't feel guilty about that!

Do I hold misogynist attitudes? The trouble is that there is no definition of such a thing. There are some which are obvious ("Women are the cause of all the evil in the world") which I don't hold - but beyond that you reach a blurry area. For example: I have on other threads said that where a job involves shift work everyone must take an equal share, whatever the nature of their private lives, and I know some would consider that misogynist: but I don't.

As for male violence being systemic: that is again getting close to collective responsibility.

Cases like Tabak make me embarrassed to be male: but they also make me embarrassed to be human.

smallwhitecat I am not suggesting that you or anybody else should not mention what you want! The only reason I mentioned Hindley was not to say "Yah boo, women do it too" because I know how very rare it is that they do. It was to make the point that nobody is collectively responsible for what others of their gender - or species - do. And I stand by that.

Andrew, like most words misogyny does have a definition. Misogyny is hatred of women, viewing women as less than human. It's also choosing to be blithely unaware of the oppression that women face from men.

Why wouldn't you feel bad about using Mayfair. Women in there were sexually objectified for male pleasure and enjoyment. Pornography is harmful to women.

Thunder I don't hate women and I am not unaware, blithely or otherwise, of the oppression they face. You will have to believe me.

As for Mayfair: I don't feel bad because it was forty years ago and I was young and foolish. None of us should beat ourselves up all our lives over our youthful follies.

And again that word "used". I bought it, I read it, I looked at the pictures. I jsut can't buy "used".

Everybody has elements of misogyny in them. We live in a misogynistic society that brainwashes us into thinking less of women and more of men so we need to reflect on our attitudes and rethink them if necessary.

That's interesting that you feel you can dismiss your youthful sexism as mere folly, because it was such a long time ago. Not so long ago I was thinking about some of the books I read when I was young - Nights with Uncle Remus and Little Black Sambo amongst others. TBH I'm horrified that I read books like that and enjoyed them the same as I enjoyed the other books I read. It feels like I had a racist training which is just utterly grim. So I don't think time or youth is actually much excuse.

The use refers to the fact you'd have used those magazines as a masturbation aids.

I found a link to some research when I was looking for more about this case. It was about men who use prostitutes. It showed that there sexual preferences became more 'extreme' over time - those that started off looking for vaginal sex developed a preference for anal sex. I'd imagine the same can be shown with porn use over time - that those who start out with an interest in one man one woman sex over time seek out multiple penetration.

Not all men are looking at violent porn or strangulation or humiliation, but I do think regular use of any porn has some impact. This isn't page 3 or magazines, it's hard core videos online.

There is a desensitisation effect - over time it takes more for someone to reach the same level of arousal. When you spend your time looking at women being doubly penetrated and having men come in their faces it's hardly likely to improve the way you view women is it?

I'm doing a u-turn on the decision to exclude the evidence as well. I went and read more about the case. I think that it could have been legitimately excluded, but not when the judge allowed the following exchange:

From BBC site

Mr Lickley (prosecution QC) asked Tabak whether his motivation in killing Miss Yeates was sexual.

"What's the difficulty in accepting it is sexual?" he asked.

"Is it because there are other sexual elements to what happened?"

Tabak replied: "There were no other sexual elements."

Mr Lickley asked: "Is the holding of her throat sexual in your mind?

"Did you derive sexual gratification from holding her throat?"

Tabak replied: "Definitely not."

"Were you sexually aroused when you were holding her throat with your hand over her mouth?" Mr Lickley asked.

Again, Tabak replied: "Definitely not."

That, to me, is pretty much signing off on perjury.

their

thunder - Don't disagree that we need to keep our attitudes under review. On this and other matters. I have changed my opinion on many matters over the years and I am sure you have too.

You are not now to blame for having enjoyed Uncle Remus - so did I, as a matter of fact! - or Little Black Sambo, which I don't remember reading. It was another world. I was a sixth-former in a boy's school and was part of the world I was living in.

Goodness only knows what people of your opinions or mine are giving young children which will horrify a later generation.

The last sentence of your last post is mildly offensive and factually incorrect.