Archbishops morality and abuse

The Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned. He had the opportunity to protect children from abuse but he didn't take it. There may have been other abusers but John Smyth is the most prominent. He was the barrister for Mary Whitehouse (a morality campaigner in the 1970s and 1980s). They were both Christians and Smyth ran Christian summer camps for young boys and men.

In Victoria Smith's book 'Hags' she quotes Helen Joyce and Louise Perry. She believes that older women like Mary Whitehouse protected younger women and children from predators like Jimmy Savile.

Not only did Mary Whitehouse not protect young people and children from abusers like John Smyth and Jimmy Savile (she presented Savile with an award) her type of older woman did great harm to young women. In Ireland they were insisting that pregnant teenage girls were sent to mother and baby homes or Magdalene Laundries. Unmarried pregnant girls weren't welcome in the community because they set a bad example to the others.

It wasn't that bad in England but this type of older woman smothered the happiness of young women in many different ways. They took a dim view of sex education and contraception. They were happy for young women to enter early marriage or work in a menial job as a factory worker, typist or servant.

It's interesting that Victoria Smith doesn't think that pornography causes anal pain in young women. I can't find anything in her book that states young men are demanding anal sex from young women because of pornography. Instead she goes back to the older idea that young women are forced to shave their pubic hair because young men never see it in pornography.

She doesn't state this clearly though. On page 188 there is this: "our aversion to pubic hair". On page 160 there is this: "Female pubic hair was still legal". Anyone who has looked at pornography knows that there is lots of pubic hair there. Despite its supposed ubiquity it seems that so many people haven't even looked at porn. She might not want people to think of her alongside 'conservative housewives, moral majority pearl-clutchers and no-sex-before-marriage fundamentalists'  (page 161) but they are obviously the congregation that she is preaching to.

It was Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols who tried to expose Jimmy Savile. The Punk movement might have favoured promiscuity but they didn't accept abusers. Unlike the Archbishop, Mary Whitehouse and her supporters. Here, that's an idea. Why don't we get John Lydon to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury?

Natasha Walter and Mary Whitehouse

 In my last post I said that I had listened to a radio programme about Mary Whitehouse, the anti-pornography campaigner. Since then I have watched both episodes of a television documentary about her. In the second part the anti-censorship campaigner Nicolas Walter was mentioned. Then his daughter Natasha was interviewed.

She said she now believes that her father was naive. The permissive society was a mistake. I did a post about her in 2013. In her book Living Dolls she writes that the number of sexual assaults increased in Camden Town in London after lap-dancing clubs opened. This is totally false. Dr Brooke Magnanti in two of her books (The Sex Myth and Sex Lies & Statistics) shows how this is false.

So who is the one who is naive? She is naive for believing all of the false statistics. It seems more and more obvious now that the reason why some people want to end prostitution is because it is a form of promiscuity. They hate punters like me because we are promiscuous. They want to roll back the permissive society.

That is the real reason: nothing to do with compassion for prostitutes.

Another thing they don't realise in their naivety that promiscuity is nothing new. It didn't start in the 1960s. You only have to think about the people around Winston Churchill. Women such as Daisy Fellowes and Doris Castlerosse. Or the Prince of Wales with all of his mistresses (the one who became briefly Edward VIII). Rich people have always been promiscuous.

pornography and violence

This blog is not about pornography. However, I came across some recent research about pornography and violence that I would like to share with you. It is Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Can Meta-Analysis Find a Link? The main conclusion is that "evidence did not suggest that nonviolent pornography was associated with sexual aggression". They found a weak link with violent pornography, but didn't know if this is just because violent people select violent pornography. This is especially interesting: "Population studies suggested that increased availability of pornography is associated with reduced sexual aggression at the population level".

So what journalist Libby Purves wrote recently in The Times is untrue. She wrote "Yet research across the world makes it clear that selling sex is not only an immediate risk but reduces the safety of all women. Men who buy it, whether online or physically, are significantly more likely than other men to rape or commit other violence against women." I'm not sure what she means by 'online' as opposed to 'physically', but it seems she is talking about pornography.

She doesn't give a reference for this 'research across the world' but it seems that she means the research done by Melissa Farley. I have dealt with this in a previous post. I am offended by the false allegation that someone like me 'reduces the safety of all women'. It is prudish journalists with their false statistics who endanger the safety of women: you can't have good laws based on fabricated statistics.

I have blogged about Sara Pascoe's book Sex Power Money. What I wrote is that I feel she has been very fair on the subject of pornography but unfair on the subject of prostitution. People might say why are you quoting a comedian, what would she know, but she has looked at the research.

page 198. "Some heartening statistics: if porn encouraged rape, then we'd expect rape rates to rise along with the availability of the internet. The 'Porn Up, Rape Down' study conducted at Northwestern University School of Law found that the incidence of reported rape declined by 85 per cent in the United States after technology made porn freely available."

page 200. "For comparison, twenty-eight thousand people completed the University of Chicago's General Social Survey between 1974 and 2010, and they found no connection between porn and sexism."

page 202. "The truth is that while there are plenty of hairless pussies, there is a rainforest of unshavens and anyone who is watching porn regularly has seen everything. Some interesting evidence against the influence of porn on young people is that all recent surveys have reported that up to 90 per cent of men prefer their partner to have pubic hair."

page 204. "The received wisdom is that porn is becoming alarmingly aggressive because easily bored consumers are demanding it. If this concerns you, the study 'Harder and Harder' published by the Journal of Sex Research in 2018 might put your mind at rest. Sociologists from McGill University in Canada studied the most popular videos on Pornhub, assessed the aggressive content in a random selection and found it wasn't true that viewers preferred aggressive content, or that the content was becoming more aggressive over time. They actually found, when measuring the length of time spent on visible aggression (biting, slapping, choking etc.) in these videos, that violence was a declining trend. And films where the female performer seemed to be enjoying herself were far more popular (in views and 'likes') than any in which women simulated or experienced distress."

page 224. "All I've found in my own research is middle ground. And that's reassuring - there is loads of middle ground, with extremes at either end."

page 227. "Hollywood releases about six hundred films per annum, so if you wanted to find out how many of those are violent (answer: loads) at least you could watch them all."

These are real researchers, not like biased Radical Feminist Melissa Farley. Real journalists (not Libby Purves) would look at real researchers (not Melissa Farley).

Since posting the above I have listened to a radio programme about Mary Whitehouse. Many decades ago she campaigned against pornography. She was a Christian. What she didn't realise was that a fellow campaigner and fellow Christian was a very sick criminal sadist who was a preacher for many years. His name was John Smyth.

It just goes to show that violence can come from sexual repression. Celibacy should not be encouraged as an ideal. This is what worries me about both Christianity and Radical Feminism. Mary Whitehouse was worried about violence but she was looking in the wrong places. She was also a great fan of Jimmy Savile (although you wouldn't know that from reading what Louise Perry has written about Whitehouse and Savile: Whitehouse was an enabler of Savile and Smyth).

In the book Hags by Victoria Smith she repeats what Louise Perry wrote about women like Mary Whitehouse saying no to men like Jimmy Savile. Mary Whitehouse didn't though, she gave him an award.

I couldn't help liking Mary Whitehouse. At least she was honest. Not like the Christians and Radical Feminists now who use false statistics and tell lies about the lives of sex workers. She would not have pretended that she has the interests of sex workers at heart. There was no hidden agenda with her.

Unlike Julie Bindel. She has recently said that Pornhub have a new porn category called 'Ukrainian girls and war rape videos'. Except they haven't. Somebody just made that up. It isn't true.

It looks like the originator of this belief was trafficking activist Tom Farr. He tweeted something that was later put onto a page on the Exodus Cry site. According to Wikipedia "Exodus Cry is a Christian non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs, and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking. It has been described by the New York Daily News, TheWrap, and others as anti-LGBT, with ties to the anti-abortion movement". I have stated many times on this blog that Radical Feminists share false statistics with Evangelical Christians.