Now, it's Porn that got Elizabeth kidnapped. She's just a pawn for the church. I guess that's ok if she agrees & is getting compensated (we'll never know).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865660557/Elizabeth-Smart-Pornography-made-living-hell-worse.html

She is asserting that viewing pornography makes a man more likely to rape, or to rape more frequently. I don't believe that there is enough evidence to state that.

She's parroting the church's stance that porn is a public health crisis. She's tying her kidnapping to porn. She's being used. Again.

To say that someone used it to get revved up and rape her more?

Makes perfect sense to me. And though that's not the same as usual use of porn, apparently most people here would rather not feel bad about their porn use than sympathize with a rape victim who's faced trauma they could never know.

In this ONE instance sure, it might have spurred that *particular* man to rape even more. But to make a generalization from that does not follow.

Most people who view porn do not feel bad about viewing it. That is a Mormon thing.

And for you to make the statement that we don't sympathize with Elizabeth's rape is ridiculous. Some of us simply disagree with her that porn in general leads to bad things or is always associated with rape. It doesn't and it isn't. My numerous male friends from college are proof of that. They all turned out just fine.

The man who kidnapped Elizabeth is a very bad man. He would have been a very bad man whether he viewed porn or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2016 12:36PM by summer.

Saying that she is an attention whore or insinuating she wanted the abuse (and almost no one defending her against those claims) because she holds a very understandable view of porn after what she went through is not sympathetic.

Can't help but inquire, I don't see where anyone is saying that ES was an "attention whore" or implying she wanted the abuse. If anyone would say such make such assertions, they are FUBAR, but I don't see it in this thread though.

Nevermind...I didn't read it all closely enough. Thanks for standing up for Elizabeth. I don't her, but there is nothing she would do after her experience that would cause me to criticize her in any way. She gets a free pass for the rest of her life. Bless her heart, I hope she is doing well.

That's exactly what I thought from the Elizabeth smart thing when I saw it in my news feed.... Her particular instance cannot be used to generalize about porn use, although that is what is being implied. She does sound like a pawn for the church. I will not give my opinion on porn use, but, her story is not an anecdote that truly contributes anything to general statistics about porn users.

That is exactly what she said. In addition she specifically said that she didnt know that porn made Mitchell what he was. She said that porn got him excited and he raped her more as a result. We were not there. She was. Some of you need to read the article. She also said it was hardcore stuff,not just naked women.

The nut job who kidnapped and raped her is hardly representative of the millions of men and women who have viewed porn. Her personal experience is just so far from the norm.

A man victimizing a teenage girl for his own sexual enjoyment has far more in common with the founder of the Mormon religion than the average porn video.

One of the commenters says that Smart's abuser was a sex addict using religion to justify his sleeping with multiple women, one of whom was just a kid. His religious beliefs were just cover used to justify his sexual misconduct.

Irony!

Yeah. I tried to reply saying
"Yeah, sounds just like another self proclaimed prophet"

It was denied.

Me too.

I just quoted the idiotic comment and asked if that was a standard Mormons wanted to apply to religious movements and leaders. I was very careful not to add anything other than that question.

Rejected.

There are statistics and articles readily available to support her claims.

There are such studies? By reputable researchers or research groups? I hear Mormons and fundamentalist Christians say that all the time, but they don't cite sources. To the contrary, I'm aware of studies showing that greater availability of pornography in Europe and elsewhere correlates with lower levels of sexual violence and sexual crime.

Also, does your disapproval of pornography apply equally to romance novels and things that pique female passions? Or is it just male sexuality that you think requires containment?

It is quite a stretch to explain the actions of a religious zelot and certified lunatic by reference to something that almost all men and a majority of women engage in from time to time.

Lol. Women watch porn, you know. About half of them watch it as regularly as the average man. So sick of this false dichotomy.

There are statistics and articles readily available to support ANY claim.

SusieQ, every young man I knew in college looked at porn. Every one of them! It did not dominate their lives, but they did indulge on occasion. And pretty much without exception, they all became productive individuals and solid family men. Not a convicted rapist in the bunch.

I'm not a fan of porn, but even I have to admit that it doesn't turn men into monsters. I'm betting the men who *are* monsters would be that way with or without the porn.

With adolescents viewing hard-core, sometimes violent porn on the webs. Without someone to explain the context of the acts they watch, they start to think this is everyday, typical sex. It was even featured as an issue on an episode in Original Sin: Sex recently.

It's not healthy for sexually developing 12 year olds to watch hardcore BDSM, ATM, sexually violent acts, etc... The porn out there is not like sneaking a Playboy or even Penthouse. Those sexual acts are done with specific preparations by actors. People don't see the behind the scenes as to what goes in between the cuts.

The problems caused are a symptom of not sitting down with kids and giving them a full education on sexuality that isn't just one specific bees and birds talk. Parents MUST sit down and go through these issues with the kids even if they feel embarrassed. They need to get over it to protect their children and not just teach them the mechanics and risks, but the concept of consent and relationships.

http://wap.alternet.org/personal-health/youth-and-pornography-addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/sunday-review/does-porn-hurt-children.html?_r=0
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/14/young_men_dont_think_they_need_consent_for_anal_sex/

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking of the milder porn of yesteryear. I agree that a kid would not be able to properly process more violent porn.

summer

I understand your point of view. I am not a fan. I have not been exposed to much porn, never had an interest and only knew a couple of people who did, female and male. But that is not the point.

Realized that this is not a court case, yet. My comments are directed at the possibility of a court case.

The op is about a court case. The parameters of the case will be decided by the judge. (What can come in and what can not be used.) I have directed my comments specifically at the case as it will probably proceed and what can be found to support each side. The only opinions that will have any bearing on the case will be the expert witnesses that will be called to support the claim with the only goal of convincing a jury. (I have not yet read the case as it's filed.)

What we think or feel or opine has no bearing on the case.(That includes me.) This is a specific case, with a specific defendant, and the specific details of the kidnapping, etc.

The defendant is the victim. The kidnapper/s are convicted of the crime.

(Again, what we think may or may not have happened is not a question in the case. The victim and the convicted criminals are not in question, either.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2016 02:56PM by SusieQ#1.

Too bad JS didn't have some porn. Maybe it would have kept him from luring naïve girls for real.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too bad JS didn't have some porn.

Joe did have some porn, of the highest quality, the kind that is portrayed in 3D reality.

Elizabeth has gotten used to making money on her ordeal (which I wouldn't wish on anyone), and she is going to keep on raking it in, probably with a push from her Daddy.

Dude, whoa. That's so screwed up.

Yeah, that is FUBAR son. I usually don't call people out, but holy shit...are you serious? Even if was "making money" as you say, who cares. OMG. My god have a heart.

She can make as much money as she wants off this. If I went through this and someone offered me money for me and my husband and/or family just to share my story, I'd do it and I'd deserve it. Ridiculous victim shaming.

Polygamy was pioneer pornography

Plsin ans simple...how tbms dont see a difference between her abductor prophet and joe blows my mind

Seems to me that THE BIBLE and THE BOOK OF MORMON had more of an influence and effect on that criminal than porn.

Sexual predators often use pornography to groom children and for their own gratification. I think, however, barring some of the modern issues with porn, this was a symptom of his pathology and sexual entitlement, not the cause.

My heart goes out to Elizabeth Smart and all the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. If she wants to express outrage against her abusers and porn, I feel she is exercising her right to freedom of speech. However, with that right will come rebuttal--she has not established causality between her tormentors' disgusting behaviors and casual viewing of porn.

To me, ES (and the Utah crusaders) are going about the fight in the wrong way. Emphasis should be on helping people who do not want to be in the "industry" or on those whose survival depends on the sex trade where no other options are available to have a way out of the entrapment of sex for money. (Especially disgusting is the sexual exploitation of children, including the sexual tourism of children in the developing world.)

Yeah, I know this may sound old fashioned or prudish on my part, but I doubt that any young woman dreams of being an object of "gonzo" sex. There are enough stories of women porn actresses being brutalized and turning to substance abuse because of the objectification that occurs.

Crusaders should stop pontificating about the evils of porn and be willing to go out into the fringes of community to reach out to those who want out. Of course, this involves associating with "sinners." It also means reaching out to another human being in non-judgemental way to say, how can I help you? What resources do you need for a second chance?

A friend's sister helped her and her brother escape polygamy by becoming a streetwalker to provide means of shelter and food. This poor woman deserved the same love and compassion that ES received, but was dismissed as an outcast by polite society. I would support crusaders who really want to help those wanting out, or help prevent the exploitation of young people who may have no other recourse. Simply ranting about porn is about as useful as tilling at a windmill. The Boner.

I agree with this, if crusaders really want to make a difference, they would help those who are trying to leave the industry. They would also get involved with going after sex trafficking and the exploitation of children. Not just in the developing world, but going after groups like the FLDS who further exploit children through "marriages." A big thing would be for TSCC to completely remove and ban section 132 as that's the excuse Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper used to rape her repeatedly.

Great stuff, ithyphallic one.

The truth is the church doesn't really care about sexual exploitation. If it did, it would focus on the supply and demand of sex workers in realistic ways. The demand for sexual services could perhaps be addressed by legalizing and regulating prostitution, maybe imposing limits on what that can entail, requiring STD testing and interrupting the flow of sex slaves. Another step in the right direction would be to stop demonizing human sexuality and stunting people's development so that deviant desires aren't as common. In short, fight against the fundamentalist Christian agenda.

The supply problem could be addressed by devoting more resources to the reduction of poverty, dysfunctional families, and mental and emotional illness, the things which make it more likely that some people will choose employment as sex workers. These things would substantially lower the number of men and women who go into prostitution or pornography under duress.

There are a lot of countries that "do" sex better than the United States and especially the LDS church. Mormonism shows no interest in learning from those places and hence can't be viewed as a religion that really cares about the victims of sexual exploitation.

I totally agree. I have worked with young people who have been sexually exploited. Unfortunately, that exploitation is often manifested in later sexual dysfunction.

If one believes that most human beings are inherently good (a core value of mine) then one is open to the notion that that good people make mistakes or get caught up in things that are harmful that they want to get out of. People deserve respect and empathy when trying to change negative life patterns. Mormonism teaches that it is based on a superior moral truth when, in reality, its policies, doctrines, and practices are hateful and destructive to people.

religion is what got elizabeth kidnapped.

^

So Elizabeth gets to the point where she can no longer satisfy her attention addiction by publicly beating the dead horse of the old news of her very old abduction (RUNAWAY) story, then what is she going to do? She wanted to star as herself in a movie of her abduction / runaway story, but none of the big time mainstream movie studios would buy into that deal. .......but the porn industry studios would probably indulge Elizabeth in her fantasy of being a movie star. Doing porn would be a trifle for a girl with an attention addiction and who was willing to hit the road with a MORmON fundamentalist to see how that adventure would turn out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4s3-fdDFDA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QulUBdmqVA

Its too bad that Gordon BS Hinckley is not still alive so he could be around when Liz Smart finally becomes a porn actress and then he could make his stupid utterances about how MORmONS are not weird.

Wow, Smirk...brutal.

Hey, I am not the one who first referred to Liz Smart as a runaway. That was Liz Smart. Liz referred to herself in the third person as a runaway as she was questioned by the police and she attempted to hide her real identity. That is well beyond the umbrella of Stockholm syndrome. So others are supposed to refrain from referring to Liz as a runaway when it was Liz's preference for herself? I am not the one who told people that it was a good thing that Liz Smart was kidnapped (Ran Away) instead of some one else because other lesser people would not have been able to handle it nearly as well as (the superior) Liz had done. That was Liz Smart. I am not the one who made a big deal about having completely forgiven Brian David Mitchell for what ever he did, and then years later after BDM was finally found fit to go to trial then also had to haul ass down to the court house and throw a HUGE attention grabbing fit to condemn Mitchell, so unlike some one who had completely forgiven Mitchell, AS IF Mitchell would have not been convicted with out that huge attention grabbing display. I am not the one who after more than a decade had gone by and the attention to my abduction /runaway ordeal had died down, then had to make sure that the public knew the tantalizing detail that Mitchell had to avail himself of my feminine charms 4 times a day, even though we were running from the law and living as pan handlers /beggars. That was Liz Smart.

Will Liz Smart get smart enough to shut her Smart mouth?
-Probably not, because she is too addicted to attention/ publicity and apparently to the easy money that her posing as victim brings. Once the attention and money finally dwindles down, then what is Liz going to do? Her debut in Porn is the first thing in her long line of BS that I will consider buying, not to watch it, but to shove a copy into people faces to say I told you so.

Does anyone remember news comments that her father had given Mitchell a key to the house?

While the Smarts are up at the courthouse, they need to change that last name.

I remember the media playing on the irony of the name in the beginning, "not very smart." Mormon naivety, propensity to be easily scammed, a lack of critical thinking, living life based on feelings, and a wanton desire to be "Christ like" - has been the downfall of many Mormons.

does anyone remember the cops killing the wrong suspect ?

If he was watching child porn or violent porn, I don't see how she's incorrect.

The fact is that it is not hard to can find stats and experts to prove their points in a court case. That is what the attorney's do. They are trying to get the jury to believe them.
Also, my money is on her winning the case if there are enough LDS on the jury. Their conclusion is the only one that matters.
Other opinions have no bearing on the case.

I misread the article. I thought this was resulting in a court case. Hmmm, maybe it will.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2016 02:55PM by SusieQ#1.

I feel like some participants in this thread, particularly Anon4this, are confusing issues.

The first issue is whether Smart bears any responsibility for what happened to her. The answer is she does not. Her abductor bears most responsibility, followed by her father. Elizabeth did nothing wrong, her reactions were entirely understandable, and she should be the object of our empathy rather than judgment. Her behavior after the event is also understandable. I don't believe any of us have the right or the knowledge to call her an attention addict or anything else.

But that does not make her qualified to explain what happened to her, which is the second issue. She has actually gone back and forth on this. For a while she said that the "licked cupcake" lessons played a big role in her captivity; now she says pornography.

She is not a psychologist, nor a trained MD. Her opinions are nothing more than that. She encountered two lunatics who, I guess, viewed pornography. Given that virtually all men do that, she can't attribute her experience to that any more than she can attribute it to breathing. All murderers and rapists breath; there is a 100% correlation. Therefore breathing causes murder and rape. Silly.

As for the type of pornography and its effects on men, why not on women? Anon4this calls that reasoning a false dichotomy and yet she is the one who insists on treating the two categories differently: it is Anon4this who is imposing a dichotomy. In addition, isn't child pornography hard to get? Isn't it wrong to assert that college men, or men, have access to that? The argument that child porn and violent porn is readily available, huge numbers of people watch it, and it changes their behavior is not obvious. Are there studies that show that?

I ask that sincerely.

Nowhere did I say that his porn use was the average porn use. I said it was disgusting to call her an attention whore or addict and for few to be defending her.

And she is allowed to speak out against whatever she wants. Are you an MD? Now everyone who holds a political or social opinion has to be a degreed professional in the topic they're discussing? Is everyone on this board one?

You and I agree on Elizabeth's culpability. I did not criticize Smirk's post because it was so appallingly unfair as to require no rebuttal. It discredited itself.

Yes, she can take on any cause she wants. And we can point out why her argument is weak. the church can say that gay kids in Utah kill themselves because of the altitude, but that is silly. Ignoring the elephant in the room, the church's treatment of gay people, is like ignoring Smart's kidnapper's insanity. Occam's razor: if a man is a lunatic zealot, you don't need to reach for an alternative explanation.

There may be an alternative explanation but, yes that would require expert research and analysis to prove. A young RM who was horribly abused can't provide that. She can tell us of her experience--like a gay kid who really was hurt by altitude--but her experience is anecdotal until experts validate it as a general, if counterintuitive, rule.

My pointing out the violation of a logical rule does not require sociological expertise. The establishment of a universal principle based on anecdotes does.

She actually specifically stated that he would have kidnapped her regardless of porn, but the pornofraphy did lead him to rape her more and "made her living hell worse." By making it about college kids watching porn, it seems you're the one twisting her words. Her statements are consistent with research about sex offenders, porn, and recidivism.

Many studies link violent and extreme porn to real life violence.

She also specifically stated that it was violent porn, not softcore, that riled him up and made him rape her more often. Again, consistent with research. I'm not sure what "rule" you're citing but I would look more at what she actually said first. Nothing she said can truly be refuted. The people making it about them or some personal insult of their enjoyment of nudie mags and bikini photos are the ones making generalizations, not this rape survivors.

That would be the use of innuendo and false, or uninformed, insinuation as a logical argument. Which it is not. Sort of like saying you don't like false dichotomies when you really mean false equivalency, then turning around and saying you never meant to say men and women are different.

You are not thinking this through very logically. And personal aspersions are unbecoming as well as poor argumentation.

No, I don't like the false dichotomy of men as sexual beings vs. women as nonsexual/non porn users. Statistically, it's incorrect.

Please give me a single example of when I said men and women were "different." Simply claiming you're using logical reasoning isn't actually using it.

Lol @ "unbecoming." No personal aspersions here. I use porn myself. But it's ok to call a rape survivor an attention whore, apparently.

She actually doesn't make any generalizations. She says he would use violent porn immediately before taping her, and once he got into it, he raped her more often. What's the issue there?

Anon4this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She also specifically stated that it was violent porn, not softcore, that riled him up and made him rape her more often.

Okay, but she doesn't say that she is opposed to "violent porn." This is the exact quote from the article -- “I have gone on to become an advocate for abuse prevention, an advocate against pornography,” Smart said in the video.

That is certainly her privilege, but I am going to assert that not all pornography use has a deleterious effect.

I feel that the stance of the Mormon church that all pornography use is bad is similar to the assertion that all use of alcoholic beverages is bad. Enjoying a drink after work does not make you an alcoholic any more than occasionally viewing nudie pictures makes you a porn addict.

Porn that features violent acts such as choking, slapping, arm twisting, physical and verbal humiliation and brutal penetration ARE readily available and easy to find on any site.

Whether or not it affects behaviour depends on a variety of factors, one of which I explained up thread.

I think it DOES make her qualified, even more than any Ph.D or MD opinion. She is an expert relative to her situation - more than anyone else.

Exmoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it DOES make her qualified, even more than
> any Ph.D or MD opinion. She is an expert relative
> to her situation - more than anyone else.


I agree. Also, this is about one kidnapped pre-teen and her personal experiences of how porn made her life worse because of her kidnappers. Does not apply to porn in general, just this one person.
I misread, I thought this was going to lead to a court case. Maybe it will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2016 02:58PM by SusieQ#1.

Who said women wouldn't be as affected by that kind of porn as men? Certainly not me.

Saying she's not qualified to explain what happened to her is beyond screwed up. So some "expert" who wasn't even there could explain what happened to her 'better?' Everyone on this thread is trying. They weren't there. You weren't. I wasn't. She was.

The effects of violent porn are complicated and depend on a variety of factors. Check out Marlene Goldsmith's work on sex offenders and pornography; she claims neither that there is or isn't a causal link, but does a survey of studies on the subject. What seems to be true is that the majority of people who use porn are not affected by it except in unrealistic expectations of sex, but that sex offenders/rapists are often obsessed with porn, especially violent and/or child porn, and that it does worsen or provoke their crimes. Both can be true.

No Mormon has a problem with the pornographic depiction of God in their scriptures with a full on erection.
No Mormon has a problem with Joseph having what Oliver described as "Dirty,nasty, filthy affairs" with his teenage househelp.
Mormons sing the praises of a man whom they now admit had sex with his follower's wives and called it 'marriage' when it was no such thing. They proudly wear Brigham Young's name on their heads, chests, resumes and mini vans, knowing full well that he had sex with his follower's wives after destroying his follower's lives by sending them off on 8 foreign missions for the church, while screwing their wives, like he did to Henry Jacobs.
If there is a hell, Joseph and Brigham are surely burning there.

It's like blaming Jodie Foster for Reagan getting shot.

Another point: what we mean when we say porn is very different in the 50's (my era) and now days. There was no Internet then. What was viewed as "dirty pictures" in my mothers time (20's) would be silly and laughable now. I think the thing that has always bothered me is the level of violence shown from men toward women, from fiction paper backs to magazines and videos. There is a strange undercurrent that woman are asking for it and want it. Can't figure that one out!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2016 05:16PM by SusieQ#1.

SusieQ, I agree with you. In my college days porn was mainly provocative nudie pictures. Nothing too alarming. It seems that things have changed.

And why do normal, well adjusted TBM teens feel the need to check out porn?

That's a question the mormon church shouldn't have to ask if it was so great.