richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (09/08/85)
I wondered how long it would take for a pornography debate to start again. Well, now that it has, here are my to scrip. First, I won't agrue with the statistics that link Porn and violence. I admit that there is a noticeable connection, which I abhor personally. Second, I won't try to differentiate between Erotica and Pornography. This differentiation has the potential to cause more trouble than it cures. In too many cases, it is also and artificial distinction, and is unreliable in any case. Does this mean that I support anti-Porn legislation? Not on your life. Beyond the simple fact that such a ban would be uneforceable, as both our own Prohibition period and England's attempts to ban both Pornography and Prostitution at various times have shown. Flesh has been, and will be, a commodity for as long as the human race exists. So how do I justify the existence of Pornography, even though it does, to an extent, cause violence, humiliation, and degradation? Because the connection between Porn and violence is a symptom, not a cause. Pornography does not, in and of itself, cause violent and anti-social behavior towards women. I know this because I can look at jay random current issue of Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, or whatever, and have feelings ranging from "gee, she looks like she'd be fun to go to bed with" to "skin. Wow. I should call the president??? (:-)." Periodically, I'll feel like this or that person could casually disappear with no loss to society, but that is always because their appearance and attitude throughout the pictorial, article, whatever is negative and exploitive (negative connotation intended). No, Pornography does not cause violence in any sane, rational human being. I won't say anything about mature human beings because they don't exist. The problem with Pornography in our society is that there are a large number of individuals who are not rational, and who have no ingrained compunctions against violence. Most Men (and Women, for that matter) have Submission/Domination fantasies, of one variety or another. However, they have an ingrained set of restraints which prevents them from ever acting these out, or at least prevents senseless violence. These tend to fall under the Judeo-Christian-Moslem ethic that "Violence is not an appropriate means to gain self-gratification." This ethic itself relates to all forms of crime. The problem then, divides itself. We have three basic groups of people to deal with: those who have the restraints and live within them; Those who feel that they are doing something wrong but step out of bounds anyway; And those who simply have not had the basic restraints, generally known as "morals" or "ethics", ingrained in them. The first group we can ignore; They do not respond to Porn with violence, and are therefore out of the equation. The second group I would deem to be either non-rational (a curable condition -- This describes the guy who suddenly flips one day and rapes someone), or to be in actuality a member of the third group who is vaguely aware of the restraints, but not to the degree which could control his behavior. The third group is the biggest problem. These are the people who can casually rape, kill, tortue, etc. without feeling that they are doing anything wrong. They may think, or say, "I know I shouldn't have done it," but they don't *feel* it. These are people who have been wronged by society, one the one hand. On the other, they are a group of people which should be kept off the streets at all cost. They have been wronged in the sense that the programming which should have been given to them as children was not, or was given imperfectly, and as a result of this they cannot be allowed to live in society, nor are they psychologically able to function in society. They simply don't have any basis for common understanding with the rest of society. The problem is, how do we identify and deal with this group in a manner that will not abridge our (or their) civil liberties? In terms of identification, I would suggest that we need to become far more versed in the psychological arts, so that situations where "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is a real story, but felons opt for the insanity defense but go free in two years, do not occur. Unfortunately I don't know how to accomplish this. I do know that far to much of the world population is very sick. Much of this has to do with population pressure trying to deal with itself. However, I do know that banning Pornography, or Guns, or Alchohol, or any other nice, simple, obvious solution, will not work. We'll be removing the tumor but leaving the cancer virus that caused it in the first place. And unless we deal with it, at the very least this society is doomed. I just hope that interstellar colonization becomes viable before civilization collapses around our ears. It may be a cop out, but I'm taking the first slow boat out. (Hey all you richardt haters: here's your chance to get rid of me! :-) orstcs!richardt "The Apparition" Richard Threadgill 104 S 20th <-- SnailMail address soon to be changed Philomath Or 97370 "All of them are in tune, the ones who really love you, walk together outside the wall Some hand in hand, Some gathered together in bands; The bleeding hearts, and the artists Make their stand And when they've given you their all, Some stagger and fall After all, it's not easy, Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall" -Pink Floyd, "The "Wall"
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (09/23/85)
In article <10000008@orstcs.UUCP> richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: >does not, in and of itself, cause violent and anti-social behavior towards >women. I know this because I can look at jay random current issue of Playboy, >Hustler, Penthouse, or whatever, and have feelings ranging from "gee, she >looks like she'd be fun to go to bed with" to "skin. Wow. I should call >the president??? (:-)." Periodically, I'll feel like this or that person >could casually disappear with no loss to society, but that is always because >their appearance and attitude throughout the pictorial, article, whatever is >negative and exploitive (negative connotation intended). No, Pornography >does not cause violence in any sane, rational human being. I won't say anything Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically demonstrated. Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- by-neighborhood studies. But, just as doctors have not PROVEN HOW cigarrette smoking causes lung cancer, sociologists have not PROVEN HOW pornography causes rape. So the porn-mongers have a cute, technical excuse to cover up the ill effect they have on society. And the secret bombing of Cambodia was necessary for national security, and nothing was said during those 18.5 minutes of silence on tape, and there are no harmful side-effects of the pill, and Ronnie Rayguns is going to whip the national deficit, and my brother is Santa Claus. The problem is that our whole society is based on prevarication, deep beaurocratic hypocrisy, advertizing hype, the profit motive, and oh, I forgot to mention outright lies. The answer is not censorship, but education -- real education. I had a history teacher once that told us he didn't care whether we learned a single fact all year...as long as we could figure out when we were being lied to. If everyone were able to think for himself, and know a lie when he saw it or heard it or smelled it, censorship would be silly -- nothing false or low would find a market, and thus die a natural death. So I believe that our educational system is at fault, for teaching people to listen, see and believe -- rather than to read, analyze and question. It's not the sellers of porn that are indirectly causing rape, it's the buyers who allow their values to be influenced by pornography. Anyone care to disagree? It's that Cheryl Stewart... She's BACK!!!!
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/25/85)
In article <547@lasspvax.UUCP> cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal >relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically >demonstrated. Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high >statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- >by-neighborhood studies. But, just as doctors have not PROVEN HOW >cigarrette smoking causes lung cancer, sociologists have not PROVEN HOW >pornography causes rape. So the porn-mongers have a cute, technical >excuse to cover up the ill effect they have on society. There are important differences between the (smoking):(lung cancer) evidence and the (porn):(rape) evidence. When something (A) is strongly correlated with something else (B), there are three possible explanations: A causes B, or B causes A, or some third thing (C) causes both A and B. In the case of smoking and cancer, it's ridiculous to suggest that cancer causes smoking (causes are supposed to *precede* effects, right?), and nobody's ever come up with anything that might predispose a person to both smoking and lung cancer. In the case of pornography and rape, it is at least plausible that the feelings that can lead a man to commit rape can also lead him to enjoy pornography, especially rape fantasies. Only if this possibility is shown inadequate to account for whatever correlation exists can you conclude that pornography causes rape. >The problem is that our whole society is based on prevarication, >deep beaurocratic hypocrisy, advertizing hype, the profit motive, >and oh, I forgot to mention outright lies. The answer is not >censorship, but education -- real education. ... > >So I believe that our educational system is at fault, for >teaching people to listen, see and believe -- rather than to >read, analyze and question. It's not the sellers of porn >that are indirectly causing rape, it's the buyers who >allow their values to be influenced by pornography. > >Anyone care to disagree? I'll certainly agree with you about education. Spend twelve years or so being told what to believe, and the lesson you learn most thoroughly is to believe what you're told. This definitely doesn't equip you for recognizing bullshit when it's thrown at you. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/25/85)
> Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal > relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically > demonstrated. Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high > statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- > by-neighborhood studies. References, please! I know of no studies which show that. Plus, your analogy is a little strained. Sociological systems are at least an order of magnitude more complex than biological systems. > So I believe that our educational system is at fault, for > teaching people to listen, see and believe -- rather than to > read, analyze and question. It's not the sellers of porn > that are indirectly causing rape, it's the buyers who > allow their values to be influenced by pornography. > > Anyone care to disagree? No. Although I personally don't find my values so influenced. Jeff Winslow
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/26/85)
> >(Cheryl Stewart) > >Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal > >relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically > >demonstrated. Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high > >statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- > >by-neighborhood studies. But, just as doctors have not PROVEN HOW > >cigarrette smoking causes lung cancer, sociologists have not PROVEN HOW > >pornography causes rape. So the porn-mongers have a cute, technical > >excuse to cover up the ill effect they have on society. ----- > [David Canzi] > There are important differences between the (smoking):(lung cancer) > evidence and the (porn):(rape) evidence. When something (A) is > strongly correlated with something else (B), there are three possible > explanations: A causes B, or B causes A, or some third thing (C) > causes both A and B. > > In the case of smoking and cancer, it's ridiculous to suggest that > cancer causes smoking (causes are supposed to *precede* effects, > right?), and nobody's ever come up with anything that might predispose > a person to both smoking and lung cancer. > > In the case of pornography and rape, it is at least plausible that the > feelings that can lead a man to commit rape can also lead him to enjoy > pornography, especially rape fantasies. Only if this possibility is > shown inadequate to account for whatever correlation exists can you > conclude that pornography causes rape. --------- There are two other flaws in Cheryl Stewart's argument that David Canzi does not touch on. 1) The statistical correlation between rape and pornography has not been conclusively shown, unlike the overwhelming correlation between smoking and lung cancer. David's arguments only become relevant AFTER such a correlation is established. 2) The great variety in pornography, ranging from depictions of non-violent consensual behavior to those of brutal violence. The chemicals in one brand of cigarette, on the other hand, are not very different from those in another brand. Any study showing the effects of pornography on behavior had better study each genre of pornography separately. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/26/85)
From Cheryl Stewart (lasspvax!cheryl): >Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal >relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically >demonstrated. Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high >statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- >by-neighborhood studies. Please expand this statement. I am unaware of these studies. Indeed, the recurring porn discussion has always seemed starved for facts when relationships between porn and violence are asserted. Other than repeated references to the Donnerstein study, this is the first time I've seen anyone mention any actual references. I, and probably others, would be deeply appreciative of more information. >So I believe that our educational system is at fault, for >teaching people to listen, see and believe -- rather than to >read, analyze and question. It's not the sellers of porn >that are indirectly causing rape, it's the buyers who >allow their values to be influenced by pornography. > >Anyone care to disagree? Only a little; couldn't find a word in favor of censorship in your article, so you're OK by me, Cheryl. But I have an observation: if you feel that lack of education is the problem, I think you ought to concentrate more on informing people of the *facts* about the "dangers" of porn, and save the personal opinions for your summation. This is not meant to be a flame at you, but a general plea to all those who assert a link between porn and violence for more evidence. The link is *not* obvious. Does anyone beside me see a parallel between the distaste many modern feminists have for porn, and the support given to the temperance movement by an earlier generation of feminists? The motives seem similar; the feminist argument against liquor was based on the role that liquor plays in such things as family violence, and violence against women, generally. The biggest difference I can see between the anti-porn and anti-liquor movements is that the temperance folk had a much solider case. The connection between excessive alcohol consumption and such crimes as rape and spousal abuse *does* seem obvious to me, while the connection between rape and porn does not. Perhaps there is a point to be made here. Suppose someone *did* document a correlation between porn and sexual violence, similar to the obvious (to me, anyway) correlation between alcohol abuse and violence of all sorts. Would this be sufficient grounds for banning it? If so, should this logic be extended to alcohol? The above questions are not addressed to Ms. Stewart particularly, since she's expressed no desire to ban anything, but to the readership as a whole. Incidentally, I'm not in favor of outlawing liquor. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (09/26/85)
In article <547@lasspvax.UUCP>, cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: > Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high > statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood- > by-neighborhood studies. But, just as doctors have not PROVEN HOW > cigarrette smoking causes lung cancer, sociologists have not PROVEN HOW > pornography causes rape. So the porn-mongers have a cute, technical > excuse to cover up the ill effect they have on society. There's a hell of a difference between correlation and causality. For example, there is a very strong correlation between the incidence of death by drowning and sales of suntan oil -- when one goes up, the other goes up. This doesn't mean that suntan oil causes drowning; it means that boths suntan oil sales and swimming are related to the same cause -- warm weather. *IF* there is a genuine correlation between pornography consumption and rape, a perfectly reasonable theory is that a person who rapes is also likely to buy lots of pornography -- that his underlying mental illness stimulates BOTH responses. > The problem is that our whole society is based on prevarication, > deep beaurocratic hypocrisy, advertizing hype, the profit motive, > and oh, I forgot to mention outright lies. Ah, yes, "The Universe is a gun, and it's pointed at MY HEAD" school of social science. > It's that Cheryl Stewart... She's BACK!!!! "I tell ya, Sheriff, Cheryl's back -- and she brought her terminal with her" -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/01/85)
In article <1306@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >There are two other flaws in Cheryl Stewart's argument that David >Canzi does not touch on. >1) The statistical correlation between >rape and pornography has not been conclusively shown, unlike the >overwhelming correlation between smoking and lung cancer. >David's arguments only become relevant AFTER such a correlation >is established. Mea culpa. I'd heard it *so* often that I thought it *must* be true. However, I insist that what I said is relevant anyway. When somebody advances an alleged proof of something, showing that any step in the supposed proof is wrong is sufficient to show that the proof is wrong. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon