The Horrifying World Of Internet Snuff Sites

I can’t profess to be able to write this one any better than the original article that sparked my disgust and horror, by Jezebel’s Jim Haught.

I can only say that I really didn’t know why this exists, or why it’s not illegal already. I’ve lifted excerpts from Jim’s article here and full article is sourced at the bottom if you dare read further. Have a read and see if you’re as horrified as I am that

a- this exists

and

b- why there is not some serious crack down on this with legal back up.

 

Jim – take it away.

Some men get erotic thrills from seeing nude young women shot, stabbed, pierced by spears and arrows, or killed in a variety of other ways. And a remarkably large Internet industry has arisen to serve this craving.

Scores of websites feature thousands of professional-grade videos and pictures of attractive women gunned down in showers, stabbed in knife fights, hanged from rafters, run through in sword duels, strangled in bed, shot by snipers while sunbathing, impaled on stakes, machine-gunned in groups, sacrificed on altars, electrocuted by wires to nipples, harpooned by spear guns, executed by firing squads, bayoneted as POWs — you name it. Computer-generated special effects make the action realistic. Cartoons, sketches and especially digital art scenes augment this “snuff” fantasy.

The woman-killing array is disseminated through sites with names like DeadSkirts, FemmeGore, FemmeFatalities, NecroBabes, Cuddly NecroBabes, Dead Sexy Women, Fatal Fantasies, KillHer Productions, Gladiatrix, Crucified Women, Psycho Thrillers, ChokeChamber, Dark Fetish Network, Drop Dead Gorgeous, Bang Bang Babes, and so forth. Others have generic names like Progressive Art Project, Eyewitness Production, PKF Studios, Alpha 7 Productions and Jafa Entertainment. (If you really want to see this crap, you can Google those names; we’re not going to link.)

DeadSkirts calls itself “Your Fantasy Female Death Fetish Site.” ChokeChamber boasts: “Where her pain is your pleasure.” Dark Fetish advertises: “The best in horror erotic movies — over 18,000 hours of content.” CineDeath is subtitled “Home of Movie and TV Female Demise.” A few sites mix X-rated copulation with the murder, but killing women is the essential point. Most display free samples and previews. Some videos are recopied onto YouTube.

 

 

Anyone else scared this exists? Why do we let this skirt mainstream entertainment sources freely – surely it’s because we were unaware of the existence of this genre let alone the volume… Jim goes on to discuss the actual amount of this in existence and how mainstream it really is becoming

 

 

The volume is amazing. PKF boasts more than 800 digital videos filmed since 2006, plus a backlog of earlier works. Catharsis Video offers 698 short movies plus 746 “photo play” layouts. Gabrielle’s Fighting Girls has 168 videos and 89 photo plays. Both Wicked Works Productions and Annabelle’s Fantasy have 158 films. Stranglenail has 151. Bodybag Necromedia has too many to count. DeadSkirts has 28,000 registered discussion board members, many of whom send each other links to their favorite scenes.

Enormous time, effort and expense are invested in the industry. Great numbers of young female performers “play dead” before cameras. Countless artist-hours are spent creating hundreds of death drawings and computer-generated slaughter scenes. Profits evidently roll in from men who pay to see women killed. There’s even a Snuffie Awards competition, in which 300 different producers enter their best gore for judging in various categories. The trophy, naturally, displays a nude woman with an arrow entering her…


…One producer of these films has been the center of Canada’s longest-running obscenity trial. Donald Smith, who calls himself “Dr. Don,” created death movies of his wife. Then he advertised for models in Winnipeg newspapers. He made many quickie films and posted them for sale on a Web site which said its purpose was “to show beautiful women getting killed.”

Canadian police investigated in 2000. Smith and his wife were charged with obscenity. When the case came to trial in 2002, counts against the wife were dropped. The defense contended that the movies didn’t fit the legal definition of obscenity because no sex occurred in them.

The defense presented an expert witness, film professor Barry Grant of Brock University, who declared that Dr. Don’s videos were little different from horror scenes in modern “slasher” movies shown in theaters and sold in video stores. Dr. Grant testified that grotesque killing has been part of cinema since silent days.
Despite the professor’s testimony, a jury convicted Smith. He was sentenced to probation, banned from the Internet, and fined $100,000.

The sentencing judge, Helen Pierce of Ontario Superior Court of Justice, wrote that Dr. Don’s videos had “the potential to change attitudes toward women, cause psychological harm to anyone who had previously been a victim of sexual violence, and could do serious psychological harm to adolescents.” She said his films imply that an attacker “can silence women with his violence, leave them on sexual display, and walk away without consequence.”

Judge Pierce also noted that Dr. Don made plenty of money from his “poison.” He had no occupation, yet his family lived in a lavish home and enjoyed a yacht. Testimony indicated that 2,000 people (presumably all men) paid $30 each for passwords to his Web site within a 15-month period. Many sites require recurring monthly fees.

Dr. Don appealed the conviction, and a higher court ordered a new trial. He was convicted again in 2008, appealed again, and the interminable case seems to have no end.

Britain’s Parliament also made an attempt to outlaw snuff films. An “extreme pornography” amendment banned depictions of “injury to genitals or breast, or death.” But in the law’s first test in 2011, prosecution of a Staffordshire man who downloaded woman-killing videos from Drop Dead Gorgeous fizzled when a jury ruled him innocent.

Both the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization define “sexual sadism” as a mental disorder, and the Journal of Sexual Aggression publishes specialized research on the topic. But specialists focus almost entirely on violent criminals who attack women and children — not on voyeurs who relish watching make-believe enactments.



Many thanks to Jezebel and Haught who is editor of West Virginia’s largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, and also is a senior editor of Free Inquiry magazine.

Source http://jezebel.com/5863488/the-horrifying-world-of-internet-snuff-sites?utm_source=Jezebel+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f4acdca556-UA-142218-20&utm_medium=email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Crime, Entertainment, Gender issues, People, Politics, Law

Author:Lou

Digital and Comms nerd working in an INGO. PhD researcher (technology / gender / International development / fragile and conflict affected states / South Sudan). Bibliophile. Writer. Musician. Views my own.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

11 Comments on “The Horrifying World Of Internet Snuff Sites”

  1. James Hill
    December 7, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    No doubt this is a pretty disturbing fetish, but like all questionable internet material I’m not sure there’s much any single government can do about it. There’s nothing stopping site administrators moving their servers into Eastern Europe, Zimbabwe or some other country with poor extradition treaties with Australia or the US. They’ll be free to keep serving questionable material regardless of British or Australian law.

    Sexual sadists have existed long before the internet, and while it is a horrible experience to be confronted with their fantasies I’m not sure the existence of this material encourages people without sadistic tendencies to become sadists. The shocking thing for most people about this material is the knowledge that it even exists in the first place. Almost nobody would stumble onto this material by accident.

    • December 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

      Oh but wait, James, for the USA are about to pass a bill called the Protect IP act, which basically gives local governments – and corporations – the right to block content continent-wide. Not sure they’re actually going to be using it for this kind of stuff, though, it’s more driven by Torrent sites: getting people to pay for movies and TV shows, basically. But they’ll be touting these sorts of sites as an example of how the power can be used “for good”, no doubt. An Intentious issue in itself, really.

  2. micro feesh
    December 31, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    Ud be surprised at how many people are into this stuff. My friends all are and I don’t see it as bad. It’s kinda a turn on in the kids today. It’s kinda like a phase things I guess people says whatever gets ya rocks off. Like all our age r into Emo an Alternative so it’s kinda cool. Doesn’t mean we wanna go an actually kill any1. Even some girls we know like it too so it’s cool. It’s only play anyway, so YOU GUYS should grow up lol

    • January 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

      Wow. I’m definitely surprised if that’s the case. Shocked… but, thank you for the honest comment!

  3. February 9, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    The reason the government doesn’t do anything about these sites, Louise, is because of a little thing called the First Amendment? Perhaps you’ve heard of it? You may be appalled by these fetishes, but thankfully we live in a country where people can have strange tastes or desires, and not be prosecuted criminally for it. Nobody has ever proven that death or horror scenes in movies directly cause people to commit violence against women or anyone else. In fact, one could argue there’s a “cathartic” effect. People who may have anger towards women can vicariously experience it in violent films or content, and it prevents them from hurting others. Before you get all outraged, keep in mind, you’re a content provider. Once the government starts censoring things YOU find objectionable, the tide could easily turn. Someone could find what you’re saying offensive, and censor YOU.

    • Anonymous
      February 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

      Pandora obviously sees nothing wrong with the mindless and needless slaughter of animals, no connection to psychosis or mental risk factors and purely treats these as thrilling Hollywood special effects. Perhaps Pandora Jones should go look up the video “Three guys and a hammer” and come back and tell us, again, why this is OK.

    • February 10, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

      Interesting. I wonder, if a website garnered a following that showed videos of how to plan and carry out terrorism in American buildings, would you think that’s also fine because it’s merely a “cathartic” fetish?

  4. February 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    Hi Pandora, Thanks for your comment. I think it’s one thing to read about something and another thing to act upon it, but should we fuel the action by the material? In my opinion, probably not. I’m all for not censoring the life out of the internet, and living in a big brother world, but surely there should be some form of guideance?

    If you have a read of http://intentious.com/2011/12/09/rabbit-crushing-outrage-animal-snuff-film-offends/ you’ll see the example where something living was kiilled for pleasure, not food, not survival, for pleasure. This is past the line for me.

    Using this as an example, we should be passing legislation that protects the living from death, and/or torture for anyone or anything’s pleasure.

    This is not about infringing your rights for expression of belief, passion, fetish, or choice, it is about protecting the innocent from being the route to someone else’s pleasure via harm.

    I agree with you about death or horror scenes not being illegal, but there needs to be some kind of guidance on regulation if it desensitises us to the point of action that harms others.

    If there’s no harm in it, you shouldn’t be afraid of that law in my opinion.

  5. Andrew J
    April 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    To Anonymous, where exactly does Pandora say it’s OK to actually outright kill animals (or people, for that matter) for sadistic pleasure? Do you comprehend the DIFFERENCE between “real” and “fantasy” as she is implying?

    To Andrew, planning and expressing a terrorist act is quite a different thing than FANTASY skits or plays involving certain fetishes, CONSENSUAL fetishes.

    Uptight, are we? Digressing from the argument? The First Amendment is something worth fighting for and upholding.

    • April 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

      From one Andrew to another, I think the sites Louise wants shut down are the ones that are NOT fantasy: they actually physically kill animals. It’s very real, and it’s not consensual for the animal. For some people, fantasy is not enough.

  6. October 2, 2012 at 5:21 am #

    This is a great way to catch serial killers. If these people are sick eough to jerkoff to this stuff then they sick enough to do it. Its like a big mouse trap from future serial killers……I hope it works.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: