What's your perversion or fetish?

[Trapper John]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

[Guest]

My perversion is being a racist and homophobe and also indulging in the more obscure prejudices. I have to admit I get a thrill from bigotry although it is something I mostly practice anonymously or in the privacy of my own home. Having said that, I do sometimes meet up with a few other like-minded individuals and that gives me the opportunity to test the depth and broadness of my prejudices. Generally, I win.

[HobbitFeet]

fucksake 'guest' you only need to submit it once

[Cleopatra]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

If someone is accessing child porn, they already are paedophiles. The rest is the difference between "entertainment" which is not real and real life threat.

[Trapper John]

My perversion is being a racist and homophobe and also indulging in the more obscure prejudices. I have to admit I get a thrill from bigotry although it is something I mostly practice anonymously or in the privacy of my own home. Having said that, I do sometimes meet up with a few other like-minded individuals and that gives me the opportunity to test the depth and broadness of my prejudices. Generally, I win.

And how do you feel about watching people being eaten alive or having their craniums smashed to a pulp by a baseball bat, complete with sound effects - is that something which gives you a thrill? would you think "hey that looks good, think I'll give it a go myself"

[Trapper John]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

If someone is accessing child porn, they already are paedophiles. The rest is the difference between "entertainment" which is not real and real life threat.

So what are you saying? paedophiles are worse than cannibals? - one is acceptable and one isn't based on your personal preferrence?

[Cleopatra]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

If someone is accessing child porn, they already are paedophiles. The rest is the difference between "entertainment" which is not real and real life threat.

So what are you saying? paedophiles are worse than cannibals? - one is acceptable and one isn't based on your personal preferrence?

One is an ever present, real threat for which children are suffering on a daily basis, the other is as rare as hen's teeth and rooted in psychopathy.

[Trapper John]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

If someone is accessing child porn, they already are paedophiles. The rest is the difference between "entertainment" which is not real and real life threat.

So what are you saying? paedophiles are worse than cannibals? - one is acceptable and one isn't based on your personal preferrence?

One is an ever present, real threat for which children are suffering on a daily basis, the other is as rare as hen's teeth and rooted in psychopathy.

You mean in your little world - I would imagine that across the actual world, acts of every sort of brutality are just as common as acts of paedophilia, both incidently equally abhorrent. Yet you appear to discount one and over emphasise the other.

[Cleopatra]

Just seen a few posts in the random thread and it brought me to thinking of something that often facinates me, society attitudes and I'd like to hear poster's takes?

This particular post was about TV show Hannibal and as we all might expect involves cannibalism, the major 'horror' factor in the TV show, films and books. I have to confess, I've seen 'Silence of the lambs' and prequel 'Red Dragon' I think it's called but I haven't chosen to watch the TV show. Why? - because I have an aversion to seeing people being eaten, especially alive and with 'delectation' it disgusts me - why would anyone want to watch that?

The same goes for action films say, with gratuitous and graphic violence, gore and murder which many people appear to thrive on presumably thinking it makes great viewing.

So going by those couple of examples, there are probably more - does it mean that everyone who enjoys watching them, secretly wants to be a cannibal or a vicious, bloodthirsty murdering psychopath? I suppose that is the real question I'm asking.

I ask this because the usual way our governments work when they want to up their privacy and surveillance invasions of ordinary people is to intermittently tell us that they need to do it because there is an huge increase in people accessing child porn images or terrorist sites and we are to assume that because they do that, they obviously want to be paedophiles or make bombs and blow up or kill innocent people.

So what is the difference between watching someone slicing a piece of brain from a living person, frying it off at the table and eating it in front of the unsuspecting victim and reading an online manual of how terrorists go about their business or images paedophiles feel the urge to look at? - surely they are all outside the normal range of acceptable society behaviour, yet some are illegal and will result in a prison sentence whilst others are sold to us as acceptable entertainment.

Where do our attitudes come from and are they based on anything other than 'Laws in a statute book' which one day can be absolutely taboo the next perfectly acceptable.

If someone is accessing child porn, they already are paedophiles. The rest is the difference between "entertainment" which is not real and real life threat.

So what are you saying? paedophiles are worse than cannibals? - one is acceptable and one isn't based on your personal preferrence?

One is an ever present, real threat for which children are suffering on a daily basis, the other is as rare as hen's teeth and rooted in psychopathy.

You mean in your little world - I would imagine that across the actual world, acts of every sort of brutality are just as common as acts of paedophilia, both incidently equally abhorrent. Yet you appear to discount one and over emphasise the other.

Don't be ridiculous. Both are abhorrent and illegal. Would you prefer us to be lawless? The internet has made illegal acts and crimes easier for criminals, so the law has to evolve to counteract the threats.

[HobbitFeet]

just to add films/literature do exist that hinge around the theme of paedophilia and child abuse, in fact there is a whole genre of true life literature that has a perfectly valid place in mainstream outlets

what they don't seek to do is provide wank fodder, and therein lies the difference

[Jem]

I don't mind watching films about murders because it's not real. I wouldn't watch a real video of someone being murdered. I find humans interesting, especially those who have it in them to take a life. Nothing fetishy about it.

[Trapper John]

You mean in your little world - I would imagine that across the actual world, acts of every sort of brutality are just as common as acts of paedophilia, both incidently equally abhorrent. Yet you appear to discount one and over emphasise the other.

Don't be ridiculous. Both are abhorrent and illegal. Would you prefer us to be lawless? The internet has made illegal acts and crimes easier for criminals, so the law has to evolve to counteract the threats.

Obviously, thats not the point though. The point is why are you more likely to be a terrorist or paedophile if you access either of those subjects in whatever way, than you are not at all likely to want to commit graphic murder in any way, if you look at that?

It's about laws isn't it? - so what makes society view equally abhorrent acts in different ways? - is it about personal preferrence and those having a particular aversion to one thing and not about another? and why does viewing one thing make it subject to a prison sentence and another thing not?

These are all valid questions. What if one day it became illegal to view depictions of graphic violence real or imaginary and the authorities had the heads up on millions of people who watched it before it was - would you say 'good on them' for having the foresight to evolve to counteract the threat?

[Trapper John]

just to add films/literature do exist that hinge around the theme of paedophilia and child abuse, in fact there is a whole genre of true life literature that has a perfectly valid place in mainstream outlets

what they don't seek to do is provide wank fodder, and therein lies the difference

Just as there is in the examples I mentioned and do you know for sure that those who watch graphic violence don't get 'wank fodder' as you put it, from it? - I mean why would you watch it at all if you didn't get some sort of enjoyment from it.

The point is why are some acts generally acceptable by society and why are some not, when they are both equally abhorrent?

[Cleopatra]

You mean in your little world - I would imagine that across the actual world, acts of every sort of brutality are just as common as acts of paedophilia, both incidently equally abhorrent. Yet you appear to discount one and over emphasise the other.

Don't be ridiculous. Both are abhorrent and illegal. Would you prefer us to be lawless? The internet has made illegal acts and crimes easier for criminals, so the law has to evolve to counteract the threats.

Obviously, thats not the point though. The point is why are you more likely to be a terrorist or paedophile if you access either of those subjects in whatever way, than you are not at all likely to want to commit graphic murder in any way, if you look at that?

It's about laws isn't it? - so what makes society view equally abhorrent acts in different ways? - is it about personal preferrence and those having a particular aversion to one thing and not about another? and why does viewing one thing make it subject to a prison sentence and another thing not?

These are all valid questions. What if one day it became illegal to view depictions of graphic violence real or imaginary and the authorities had the heads up on millions of people who watched it before it was - would you say 'good on them' for having the foresight to evolve to counteract the threat?

A person looking up how to make bombs would be on a terrorist watch list, right at the top. As they should be. It is a criminal offence and rightly so. Anyone looking at child porn already is a paedophile and has decided to act on it by accessing images of child porn/real-life abuse. That is illegal, rightly so. If watching real-life violence and "snuff-type" stuff on the internet isn't yet illegal, then it should be.

[Trapper John]

You mean in your little world - I would imagine that across the actual world, acts of every sort of brutality are just as common as acts of paedophilia, both incidently equally abhorrent. Yet you appear to discount one and over emphasise the other.

Don't be ridiculous. Both are abhorrent and illegal. Would you prefer us to be lawless? The internet has made illegal acts and crimes easier for criminals, so the law has to evolve to counteract the threats.

Obviously, thats not the point though. The point is why are you more likely to be a terrorist or paedophile if you access either of those subjects in whatever way, than you are not at all likely to want to commit graphic murder in any way, if you look at that?

It's about laws isn't it? - so what makes society view equally abhorrent acts in different ways? - is it about personal preferrence and those having a particular aversion to one thing and not about another? and why does viewing one thing make it subject to a prison sentence and another thing not?

These are all valid questions. What if one day it became illegal to view depictions of graphic violence real or imaginary and the authorities had the heads up on millions of people who watched it before it was - would you say 'good on them' for having the foresight to evolve to counteract the threat?

A person looking up how to make bombs would be on a terrorist watch list, right at the top. As they should be. It is a criminal offence and rightly so. Anyone looking at child porn already is a paedophile and has decided to act on it by accessing images of child porn/real-life abuse. That is illegal, rightly so. If watching real-life violence and "snuff-type" stuff on the internet isn't yet illegal, then it should be.

I'm guessing it is but I'm not sure. I would imagine it would be the perpetrators though that the authorities would be concentrating on, not the onlookers and rightly so.

Before we had this 'imminent terror threat' created mostly by our governments, it wasn't a problem posting or reading of ways to make home made bombs, most school kids could make an acceptable version with a few kitchen and garden ingredients - should we round them all up and arrest them because of that? The law now says they are dangerous criminals and should be locked away for our safety.

Call me picky but I want people being locked away for doing something or at least being proved they were about to do something, rather than just criminalising people for their fantasies, whatever they might be.