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.

some women use porn too.

Some women willingly act out porn and get paid an awful lot of money for doing so.

But hey let's all believe that women only do it because they are conditioned by men to do so and are not capable of making their own choices because society have conditioned women into doing men's bidding. you're really not crediting women with much inteligence with that argument.

The whole feminist row that has broken out on this thread has IMO completely taken away from the original point.

Of course there is an argument to be made for why strangulation porn is considered normal by some quarters (although I can't imagine knowing anyone who would actually think that it was normal to want to watch that). But that is surely an argument that needs to be made away from this case. Because regardless of one's feelings on strangulation porn, using it is currently not illegal. And it is not the place of the judge in this case to decide how morally abhorrent it is - only whether it was relevant to the case in question.

I don't think women in porn are acting. They are actually being choked/fisted/DPd etc. Or do you mean that they are pretending to enjoy it?

Back to the OP, I could have understood the judge's decision if it were, say, bestiality videos that he had been watching.

And as was noted on the other thread, if he'd been a witness (in law), he'd have perjured himself. As a defendant, he didn't have his "oh, it was an accident and I panicked when she started screaming (the typical irrational woman) and I dunno about anything else" defence challenged with actual evidence. Which has to be a load of bullshit and a great big loophole, regardless of the guilty verdict in this particular case.

"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?"

You can actively seek to raise awareness of how common it is and refuse to accept that it is acceptable, funny or sometimes justified. If someone makes a joke about rape or DV, you can tell them why it's not funny. You can refuse to listen to excuses from any acquaintances you might come across, who might whine about why it's the woman's fault when some men get violent.

You can stand up and be counted.

It's been some years since I have heard a joke like that (other than from that arsehole Clarkson on the box after the Ipswich murderers).

But yes: if I did I would act as you say. I'm no angel but I had a stand-up row with a colleague recently who indulged in a racist joke - in the pub after work, informal gathering, so it could not be called an office event and I could not make an issue of it and complain about her - and I would do the same about a rape/DV joke.

That's a good start.

And if you want to do more, you can inform yourself of why violence against women is so common and so casual and so unpunished.

You mentioned that you think everyone should do their shift at work regardless of their home commitments. What is lacking from that, is an awareness of the fact that the workplace was set up for the needs of people who didn't have domestic commitments, because they had mothers, wives, sisters or daughters to do their caring and domestic work for them. If women had been an intrinsic part of the structure of setting up workplaces, then workplaces would not have been structured the way they are. They would have been designed with the assumption that all the workers there also had caring responsibilities that were just as important. It is because they were excluded from the workplace and pushed into the domestic sphere, that workplaces have proved so incompatible with mothering in too many cases. I would not categorise your attitude as misogynist, I'd just say it was a bog standard view of society which accepts the structures that we've inherited from a misogynist society without questioning them too much.

The same is true of violence against women. Because women were (and still largely are) excluded from the structures and assumptions of the law, the violence against them which goes so unremarked, is not properly dealt with by the law. If any other group in society were being raped at the rate of 1 in 9, raped or sexually assaulted at the rate of 1in 4, regularly beaten by their partners at the rate of 1 in 4, murdered by their partners or exes at the rate of 2 a week, with practically NO real consequences for the perpetrators of that violence except the murderers (it usually has to be murder before anyone acts on it), it would be considered a national crisis. Seriously, if men were beaten up on the scale women are, there would be parliamentary committees, documentaries, green papers, blah di blah. Being aware of the context in which violence against women is being committed, educating yourself about the climate in which women operate, is being part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Am not saying you should sign up to a direct debit to Women's Aid today. How far you want to help, is entirely up to you, of course. [hsmile]

Does anyone know any women who say that the sight of a woman being strangled on their TV screen, excites them so much that they masturbate until they come to it?

Really? What a sheltered life I lead.

Actually Wannabe I think that strangulation pornography might be illegal depending on how severe the strangulation was, but don't let consideration of facts get in the way of making completely unsubstantiated claims. I'd also suggest that you investigate what it's like for women who are used in pornography before you continue any more idiotic claims about willing women making a lot of money from it. Usually it's coerced or exploited women making little or no money.

It's illegal to possess pornography that depicts "acts which threaten a person's life". Strangulation would certainly come under that heading.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an02

That's in response to Wannabe btw, not you andrewf.

Of course some women like porn, our sexuality is influenced by our culture.

I fail to see what on earth that's got to do with the fact that a young woman has been murdered using the same method that her murderer jacked off to, and the law says that it's not relevant evidence.

I think those who are saying that thunderbolts et al are getting annoyed about nothing because after all, there was a guilty verdict, are missing the point.

There will be more Joanna Yates. There will be more women murdered by men who jack off to porn showing women being tortured and strangled and they will want to try it out on women. We still remember Rosemary West and Myra Hindley, precisely because they were so aberrant. Whereas with male murderers of women, they are so common that we forget the last one and only remember the present one. If violent, misogynist porn is seen as so normal and innocent that it is not recognised as a symptom of gender-hatred and therefore not relevant evidence in a trial, then one day, a man who has murdered a woman because he is a misogynist, like this one did, will walk free because that fact about him, is not deemed remotely relevant to the trial. I'm glad Joanna Yates' murderer was found guilty of murder and not manslaughter as he tried; but I'm not at all sure that the next man who tries that trick, won't get away with it. That bothers me.

I didn't say they did. What I said is that some women enjoy watching porn in response to some of the points made on this thread that porn - any porn - is damaging to all women and shows the oppression of women, etc, the inference being that only men enjoy watching it when that is blatantly not the case.

There is a difference between violent porn and more mainstream porn - of course there is. And there is an argument to be had as to why there is not considered to be a difference in terms of legalisation of said porn, i.e. if it's illegal to strangle a woman and tie her up in the boot of a car then it should be illegal to depict that for entertainment unless the conclusion shows the bastard doing the strangling being held to account for doing so.

But that is an argument that is separate from the issue raised in the op which was why this porn was not shown as evidence in this particular case.

Women can be misogynists too. Some women using porn doesn't say anything about whether or not it is harmful to women.

There isn't much of a difference between violent porn and mainstream pornography. Mainstream pornography is incredibly violent now, showing women being hit, spat at, verbally abused, penetrated in multiple orifices. Max Hardcore used to regularly be at the top of porn sales charts. He made videos of women being raped, having their heads flushed down the toilet, choking on penises until they vomit and other horrific acts. This is what average porn consumers enjoy watching.

vincent tabak is an extreme version of certain tendencies which are found amongst many men.

smallwhitecat, That's pretty sick even by MN standards.

Yes I don't understand this distinction made between regular, mainstream porn and violent porn.

If you take the filters off and google "porn" (just porn, not violent, not nasty, just plain old "porn") and click on the first 10 sites that come up, you will find really violent, woman-hating stuff there.

Most pornography now is accessed via the internet. Google is the most popular search engine on the net. Ergo, it's safe to say that the first 10 sites it throws up, can be described as "mainstream".

Try it. It might make you rethink what you believe "mainstream porn" is.

You do realise that mainstream porn is violent porn, don't you?

From The Equality Illusion (which I'd got out to respond to a forgotten point further upthread): "A content analysis of contemporary porn presented at the International Communication Association's 2007 annual meeting .....analysed the most popular rented VHS and DVD pornography titles as compiled from the monthly sales records of online and retail shops across the US. It found that contemporary pornography is incessantly aggressive: 81.9 per cent of scenes contained aggressive acts, with the average scene containing 11.52 acts of verbal or physical aggression (physical being the most common, featuring in 88.2 per cent of all scenes.) Of all aggression in films, 94.4 per cent was directed towards women. The study also found that in pornography women apparently don't mind being abused and many of them apparently liked it: 95.2 per cent of the victims of aggression responded with either neutral or pleasurable expressions."

That some women get off on, or don't care about, watching the abuse women on film is not really something to be defended, is it? If it were dogs or cats, there would be uproar.

Some people hate women so they don't give a shit about them being abused and will use all sorts of denial to pretend the abuse doesn't exist.

They're always ready to pipe up with a "women do it too" argument though.

Oh yes, get all antsy about some men being insulted onagar, on a thread about a murdered woman.

Jesus fucking christ on a bike. Does your entitlement know no end.

There is a woman who will never live the life she would have lived, her family deprived of her presence, her children and grandchildren un-born, because woman-hatred is fucking rife and unchallenged and unnoticed and a man murdered her because he hated women and that is fucking common in our society. And all some men can think about, is that they don't like what some woman said about some men on an interweb site.

There are simply no words.

This is what women are up against. This.

AndrewF if you're still out there, this is something else you can do. Not imagine that any perceived insult to your sex, is more worth discussing, than the reality of women being murdered by men at the rate of 2 a week.

The fact is pretending these connnections don't exist only suits the women-abusers in the end. The existence of pornography, of all kinds, has led to desensitisation about the abuse of women, the sort of desensitisation that the judge displayed when he claimed that women who were being choked and strangled on film weren't being harmed. Maybe he thought they earned lots of money too.

I don't suppose it even occurred to teh judge, to ask women who had been in the porn industry and had now exited and could therefore speak freely, if they'd ever been harmed in the making of porn films.

For some reason, it's not a question many people want to ask.

That, I sincerely hope, will be a subject for the judge in VT's subsequent prosecution for possession of illegal pornography.

Is it illegal, though? If it is, why are there not mass prosecutions? If it isn't, why isn't it? And regardless, why are there people defending mainstream violent porn as if it is a legitimate and understandable masturbatory tool?

Aye, the reason they defend it, is because nobody wants to acknowledge the systematic woman-hatred there is in society. I struggle to think of any other context, where a regular habit of watching a specific, historically oppressed group being subjected to violent, misogynist treatment, could be seen as anything other than a symptom of continuing hatred of that group.

Father Ted aside, I can't see how anyone with a vast collection of nazi memorabilia, Hitler making speeches videos, KuKluxKlan videos, DVD's of black men being lynched, can be seen as anything other than a symptom of sheer racism (unless it's very strictly controlled academic research or something like that). How is it that it's only when it's directed at women, that such clear evidence of hatred and contempt, is so vociferously denied? How much do people have invested in the belief that men whose cocks go hard at the thought of women's pain and humiliation and who come when they watch it on screen, like women really? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, is it.

Wooooooooooooooppity Eloquent and really well written. I agree and can't add to how much I agree with you, as you've said it all so well.

Oh yes, get all antsy about some men being insulted onagar

Wooooooooooooooppity On a thread about a woman murdered you want to support smallwhitecat when she says that men are like that?

You should be ashamed.

I haven't asked for any posts to be deleted because I think people should know what you and smallwhitecat stand for.