mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/07/84)
In today's Globe and Mail there is a report of a "researcher" telling a church group that they must oppose pornography in order to reduce child molestation (among other things). To buttress his case, he showed some pictures that apparently were calculated to shock the audience. It seems a pity that people should be misled by zealots of this kind. One of the most dramatic results of Denmark's complete legalization of pornography was a reduction of 67% in the rate of child molestation. (Other sex crimes were apparently reduced sharply, but perhaps not to as large an extent, whereas rape was hardly affected at all). Some writers have claimed that the reduction in sex crime statistics is the result of a reduction in reporting sex crimes. It seems unlikely that a reduction of 2/3 in child molestation could be attributed to sudden under-reporting. I have sent this to net.women and net.politics because it seems to me to be a political issue, but one that women's groups (in Canada, anyway) have been making their own. Women in particular should be fighting for full legalization of pornography, to reduce the incidence of crimes against women. Instead, the official women's groups seem to be arguing the other way, which I have never understood. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (02/09/84)
Can't speak for the women's groups concerned, but I'd have thought that they (and many other people) are seeking to move us towards a society in which people are much more highly valued intrisically, and in which pornography, AND molestation (of all ages and sexes) becomes rare. Utopia, but if we are told we HAVE to choose between two different evils, maybe the supposed choice needs to be looked at closely, and another route found to avoid both. (OK, I don't have any short answers either...)
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/11/84)
An interesting approach to pornography is being tried in Minneapolis-St. Paul. There, woman are suing the pornography outlets for violation of their civil rights. Given the obvious civil liberties problems with outright banning of pornography, I think that this form of retribution might be particularly effective. In a profit-oriented society, to stop something, just take the profit out of it. Let me add, though, that I think Martin Taylor's attribution of a decrease in child molestation to legalization of pornography in Denmark is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. That a reduction in child molestation followed legalization of pornography says nothing about a cause-effect relationship between the two. Pornography, particularly in its more erotic varieties can serve a purpose. But the violence- and dominance- oriented pornography commonly available is simply anti-social and should be eliminated by any means consistent with civil liberties restraints. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/11/84)
Martin Taylor wonders why women (not only in Canada, Martin, but also in the United States) are not for pornography, but rather are against it. The reason is quite simple. Pornography, which is almost exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as sex objects. One glance at the "split beaver" shots in (say) Hustler would convince you of this. Moreover, much of pornography depicts women as subservient and abused by men. With this in mind, is it any wonder that many women, I'm sure even Phyllis Schlafly, oppose pornography. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (02/11/84)
There was a study recently in Canada (Toronto area, I believe), where a (male, for the record) researcher showed male college students some pornographic films, and then three days later gave them and a control group a survey that covered additudes about women and about violence towards women. The young men who saw the films were 1/3 more likely to condone violence against women, and also, 1/3 more of them said that THEY PERSONALLY might commit violence against women if they knew they wouldn't be caught. The films showed portrayed women as enjoying violent acts against themselves. I wish I could find my reference. It was reported in the Daily Oregonian on Tuesday, Jan 30, 1984. There was more to the article, but this is all I remember clearly enough to paraphrase. Other items dealt with the (as I recall, rather large) portion of the male population of <US? Canada?> that might commit violence aginst women if they knew they wouldn't get caught, and the researcher's problems at being taken seriously ,initially, by the research community. So, there IS research showing that pornography is harmful to women, in that it is harmful to male additudes towards women. Also, don't you think that it may be harmful to growing girls to see that they are supposed to enjoy pain to be attractive? That is, to attract the attention of men and boys that pornographic models seem to attract. A Definition: Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form of sexuality. Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/12/84)
Let me add, though, that I think Martin Taylor's attribution of a decrease in child molestation to legalization of pornography in Denmark is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. That a reduction in child molestation followed legalization of pornography says nothing about a cause-effect relationship between the two. Pornography, particularly in its more erotic varieties can serve a purpose. But the violence- and dominance- oriented pornography commonly available is simply anti-social and should be eliminated by any means consistent with civil liberties restraints. ================ Logically, you are right. But child molestation was not the only sex-related crime to be dramatically reduced when pornography was legalized. It is logically possible that the simultaneous reductions were all due to some other cause, but rationally unlikely. The only crime sometimes called sex-related that did not decrease much was rape, and many people have argued that rape is not really a sex crime anyway. The second point is about violence in pornography. Why is it apparently increasing in N. American pornography (but not in countries where pornography is legal in Europe)? I have two suspicions about this. One is that the illegality of pornography leaves it in the hands of criminals to whom violence is a natural way of life. They like what they publish, and it sells. Second guess is that it relates to the general US love of violence, as expressed on TV. It sells there, too. I'd be very happy with a campaign to reduce the level of violence in TV, but I suspect that there would remain a generation who think the solution to most problems is to beat someone (some nation) up. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (02/17/84)
I find the more extreme feminist stance against pornography rather hard to swallow. I have no argument with the assertion that much pornography is sexually exploitative, reduces women to the status of objects, and contains a great deal of (sometimes) barely-concealed hatred and violence against women. (I might add that a smaller but significant amount of pornography is equally exploitative of men, but since two wrongs don't make a right, that may be a moot point.) When it comes to arguing on the basis of the above that pornography should be outlawed, however, I couldn't disagree more. I have what some may consider to be a radical view on freedom of the press, namely that the restriction of expression is ultimately much more dangerous to society than the material which we might like to restrict. There is much that appears every day in the newspapers, magazine racks, bookstores, movie theaters and airwaves which I find unpleasant, offensive, or even dangerous; nevertheless, I would prefer to see the crap flow freely than to see any individual or group given the power to decide what is crap and what is not. This applies just as much to pornography as to anything else. The only valid exceptions I see to an absolute right to freedom of expression are slander, libel, false advertising and copyright laws. One obvious problem with the radical feminists' stance on pornography is that one person's smut is another person's beautiful erotica or educational work. When I moved away from Oklahoma six years ago, they were still jailing bookstore owners for selling "The Joy of Sex", and in some parts of the country much worse things have happened since. I don't think that many feminists would call Alex Comfort an oppressor of women, but what the anti-pornographers don't seem to realize is that the power to censor, once established, will not be used according to their criteria of what is wholesome and what is exploitative. Today "Hustler" might disappear from the newsstands; tomorrow Anais Nin and books on birth control will be banned; the next day the feminists may wake up to find their own writings being confiscated, sexual or not. I think that a much healthier response to the whole issue has been made by those feminists who have refused to retreat to a neo-puritanical stand on pornography, instead realizing that the erotic has at least as strong a capacity for beauty as it does for violence and inhumanity. Real progress will be made not by closing theaters and burning magazines but by producing works of art which appeal to the sexual impulses of women and men without pandering to hatred or turning anyone into a faceless object. --- Prentiss Riddle --- ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/18/84)
=========== A Definition: Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form of sexuality. Ariel Shattan =========== Isn't this a re-definition rather than a definition? It is certainly not the definition of what is sold in pornography shops where porn is legal. The whole debate about pornography has been turned around by this emphasis on violence. Violence has no place in pornography, any more than bathtub gin (prohibition-induced) belongs in a wine cellar. Why is there so much violence in N. American pornography that people are beginning to think that violence is a core component of it? Isn't it probable that Prohibition is one cause, and the US penchant for violence in most entertainment another cause? It is quite wrong and misleading to use the fact that exposure to violence desensitizes the viewers as an argument against pornography. It should be used as an argument against the portrayal of violence, a fight that has been going on a long time with no apparent result. I suspect that the sexual nature of pornography is the reason people really want it suppressed, and they use the intrusion of violence as an excuse to legitimate their views. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
wdoherty@bbncca.ARPA (Will Doherty) (02/20/84)
Ariel Shattan cites a study which suggests that pornography does affect male behavior. Many studies indicate that this is not the case as well (although clearly this is harder to prove). I would contend that people have conducted insufficient research to merit a conclusion about a relation between pornography and behavior at this time. Will Doherty decvax!bbncca!wdoherty