Illuminating and disturbing view from a psychologist

[beastlyslumber]

meghanmurphy.substack.com/p/how-do-you-become-a-psychopath-jon#details

Wondered if anyone else has listened to this? I thought his comments about the seriousness and significance of pornography were spot on and something that should be brought up more often.

Ah, thank you. Hare is the guy who developed the diagnostic checklist and isn't a psychopath as far as I know!

I fully comprehend the idea being drawn into further deviance through porn but wouldn't you need to have the capacity to be a psychopath (or already be one)?

I don't know the answer to this, but I think his argument is that once you hit a certain point of deviancy through using porn, you are then on a straightforward path towards actually personally abusing others. At which point you are basically psychopathic otherwise you wouldn't be able to do it.

I may be misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he actually says, though! That was how I understood his logic but I was listening on a beach, whilst chasing after my dog, so I may have missed some of the nuances.

Interested to hear what you think when you've listened.

Wow, what a bunch of weirdo(s?) on the earlier pages of this thread. (Not you, OP!)

I assume something this man is saying has touched a major nerve. Probably by being absolutely 100% dead on the money about the sort of person who likes to pull the wool over people’s eyes, so I’ll be sure to listen to it.

to be fair, having listened to the first half, and done a little bit of research on Jon Uhler, I don't think he's someone I'm very comfortable treating as an authority on anything. I'm also 100% certain he's no feminist

he's banned from twitter at the moment, but this thread has screen shots of some of his tweets which paint a picture of a man who seems to think that Biden might literally be in league with the devil

twitter.com/againstkookery/status/1329790453261078528?lang=en

I don't know if he addresses this later in the podcast, but correlation is not causation. the fact that 100% of convicted paedophiles have images of child sex abuse, does not mean 100% of people who have images of child sex abuse physically commit it themselves. it's a bit of a glaring hole in what I've listened to so far.

And while I don't love furries or drag queens, he's very happy throwing around words like 'deviant' when talking about them without backing that up. I think he may genuinely think that anyone who breaks gender or social norms is deviant

in short I think he lives squarely in the 'conservatism / religion' sector of the venn diagram we often use

Sounds like a spot-on analysis, Bernard.

Yes I think you are probably right about where he is coming from and he seems to be pretty upfront about his views so it was clear from the beginning that he is religious and conservative.

I don't think it discredits his views on his experience with abusers. I don't need him to be a feminist or to align with me ideologically in order to find his views of interest and relevance.

I don't know whether he is right in his claim that porn use leads inevitably to what he calls deviance. I do agree that it is a hugely significant part of the story when it comes to trans and Queer issues, and should be talked about and understood a lot more than it is. I agree with him fully that men dressing up as women are doing it for a sexual kick and that some men pretend to be trans in order to access women and children. I am also extremely disturbed and repulsed and frightened by pornography so I'm more likely to believe him on some of the horrors he describes.

I think that only a certain type of person at the moment is in a position to address these issues in such a blunt way or even to confront them at all. I'm grateful for the discussion and think it's great that Meghan Murphy had him on her podcast. She is fantastic for these kinds of conversations.

100%

I guess I just didn’t see the rigour I would want to reassure me that his conclusions are driven by the evidence rather than his religious and social views. And given that I’m pretty sure that I strongly disagree with many of his views, that’s quite a big deal to me

and as an aside, he rang my ‘dodgy’ alarm quite strongly. There was forced teaming with MM (‘good people like us’), and anyone who goes to the trouble of declaring themselves to be good needs close watching in my experience

I do agree however that porn must definitely be in the mix of the rise of queer theory. But is it that people use porn and then suddenly want to treat others like objects and destroy their boundaries, or that people who like to do those things will also use porn if it’s available?

either way, Uhler does not make a compelling case for his view, which is that it’s the former case if I understand him correctly

With regard to this

I'm grateful for the discussion and think it's great that Meghan Murphy had him on her podcast. She is fantastic for these kinds of conversations.

I agree that a plurality of opinion is important and I’m glad you posted this. It’s good to talk about people coming from a variety of positions

I guess I just didn’t see the rigour I would want to reassure me that his conclusions are driven by the evidence rather than his religious and social views. And given that I’m pretty sure that I strongly disagree with many of his views, that’s quite a big deal to me

That's fair enough. I was listening to it as someone's individual views and experiences as a psychologist working with a specific population. I know this conversation has focused a lot on the issue he raised that watching porn creates what he calls deviancy or psychopathy. But that wasn't the part of the discussion that struck me the most. To me, it was the point that 100% of the abusers he's worked with have used progressively more extreme pornography. And the other part was how this pornography use may be driving 'queer identities'. Those were the bits I found most illuminating and disturbing, and I think there is quite some research to support the idea that porn is playing this significant role.

correlation is not causation. the fact that 100% of convicted paedophiles have images of child sex abuse, does not mean 100% of people who have images of child sex abuse physically commit it themselves.

Posted too soon - that was a quote. They may not physically abuse children but if they weren't an audience for it they wouldn't be driving the demand for it and maybe fewer children would be abused. I don't think that's much of a defence for paedophilic porn-watching.

Luckily it wasn’t a defence, so that’s ok

It's shocking isn't it. And if he was Bill with no social standing he'd have got 10 years!

I find him a fascinating case, I know people who still had him as a doctor right up until he was arrested and he hadn't changed from when I'd known him.

But he had definitely gone through the stages of porm to the point where he felt compelled to act on it for real. So in tharespect the guy in the interview in the OP was correct. At the very least I'd say. Dr Bland was a narcissist, wether he could be diagnosed as sociopath or psychopath we'll never know.

Oh he definitely knows it's not the only route.

But I think some people may listen to him and think that is what he is saying, but he is only really interested in his captive research target, and saying that all the ones who end up in prison to a man has gone through all the stages of porn and have or would move onto the real thing next. So in that respect he is of the opinion that porn turns people into sex offenders and child abusers.

However, his research is limited because there will be lots of men who don't get caught, don't move through all the stages because their conscience gets the better of them.

So you end up back at does the porn make the predator? Or does the predator escalate faster than he would without the porn?

I do think he shouldn't extrapolate his findings and assume anything from them as his research is to limited to one population.

Today there is too much in the way of these predators safeguarding, criminal checks etc. They still get through. I think porn is easy to access for them to get hold of to satisfy them so it starts somewhere. Before safeguarding, they could do what they wanted in slavery and brothels. In the UK mothers and babies were separated. The film Oliver is a fantasy what really went on was horrific abuse.

So you end up back at does the porn make the predator? Or does the predator escalate faster than he would without the porn?

and both ways round, the answer would seem to be to take away the porn

i may be wrong, but my impression is that we take possession of images of CSA very seriously indeed in this country. But maybe more action is needed there

i guess most people here would agree that images of violence against women are not taken seriously enough at all

Hmm the case above of my GP over 17 000 child sexual abuse images including bestiality . Yet basically a slap on the wrist. His biggest punishment was to his reputation.

It doesnt seem a fitting punishment.

All people found with more than considered accidental (someone could for many innocent reasons end up with 1 or 2 images that they are unaware of). But when it's hundreds, thousands. There should be a minimum had to be served, not suspended sentence.

And yes take away the porn. It's not needed to survive. It should not be used for entertainment. Therefore what's it's purpose. It's not a good one.

I wish we could completely eradicate pornography of all kinds. Even the tame stuff seems to quickly escalate. I don't even know if there's any "tame" porn anymore. Everything seems insanely sexualised and sexuality is totally objectified. Love Island seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't have dreamed of seeing on television when I was growing up. No wonder kids are suffering with anxiety and don't want to grow up.

Then there's, going back to the interview, the link between porn and some elements of the trans community/ umbrella. We accept its very much part of heterosexual men's life. We accept its part of the LG and B and yet the part that is T+ are we supposed to assume they've never looked at porn in their life? Because it seems like every time someone tried to discuss this part of porn it's shut down. You only have to do a cursory search and you are at sissy porn and trans babies getting their nappy changed.

Yes. I think it's all porn-driven, if I'm honest.