pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/17/85)
It is not true that there is no evidence to connect porn with violence.
There is also good reason to to believe that the evidence most often
cited *against* that connection is faulty. I'm referring to the
American Presidential Commission Report on Obscenity and Pornography
published in 1970. That lengthy report, researched over a three
period, is the source most widely appealed to in support of the
notion that the widespread proliferation of porn has no effect upon
a person's character. What many people aren't aware of is that there
were two parts to that report. A *minority* report was published
(with no little opposition. See V.B. Cline, "The Scientists vs.
Pornography: An untold story", *Intellect*, 104 (1976) pp. 574-76)
under the same cover as the majority report. The majority report is
widely quoted as an authority yet the minority report points out serious
problems with the conclusions of the study.
There has also been heavy, an largely ignored, criticism of the reports
conclusions. For examples see *The Longford Report*; as well as
_Pornography: The Sexual Mirage_, by Drakeford and Hamm
_Sex, Violence, and the Media_, by Eysenck and Nias
_Law, Light and Liberty_, by Court
A local chapter of Women Against Rape (WAR) could probably provide more
literature. A woman from that organization had plenty at the community
standards hearing I attended.
The conclusions in the majority report do not always follow logically
from the research data (9 volumes of it) on which it is based. The
report concluded that "extensive empirical investigation both by the
Commission and by others provides no evidence that exposure to or use
of explicitly sexual material plays a significant role in the causation
of social or individual harms such as crime, delinquency, sexual or
non-sexual deviancy or severe emotional disturbances." They ignored
completely a study presented to the Commission which studied exposure
to porn of 365 people from seven different subgroups and concluded that
a positive association between porn and deviant behaviour could be
shown at all ages of exposure. It stated specifically that "one finds
exposure to pornography is the strongest predicator of sexual deviance
among the early ages of exposure subjects." (See "Exposure to Pornography,
Character and Deviance: A Retrospective Survey", Tech. Report of the
Commission on Obscenity and Pornography [U.S Govt. printing office].)
In one labratory study 23 male students were exposed to porn for 90 min.
a day for three weeks. After that time the students showed a decresed
interest in the materials. The Commission's majority report generalised
this result to conclude that greater availability of porn would decrease
the demand for it. They ignored the caution against that conclusion given
by the researchers themselves, saying, "Most exposures to pornography do not
occur under the solitary conditions of social isolation that were part
of the design of the experiment. We do not know what the effects on
response to pornography would be if additional variables of social
interaction with individuals or groups of the same sex, or opposite
sex, were added". (See "Pornography: An Experimental Study of Effects",
Reifler, Howard, Lipton, Liptzin, and Widman). An additional study
was done to confirm the limitations of that study. It made it clear
that the way the earlier experiments was set up was bound to produce
the results it did in the absence of any reinforcing outlet. ( See
Schaefer and Clogan, "The Effect of Pronography on Penile Tumescence
as a function of Reinfordement and Novelty", *Behavior Therapy*, 8 (1977)
pp. 938-46).
V.B. Cline notes in _Where do you Draw the Line?_ (p. 229) that,
although the majority report states that there is no evidence to indicate
that porn is connected with emotional disturbances or criminal behaviour
among youth, it does not mention that " there was not a single,
experimental study, longitudinal study, or clinical case study involving
youth". Data for the Commission's conclusion here simply does not
exist.
The nature of studies done by Kutchinsky in Denmark are preliminary
and should be accepted with caution until thorough replication is
possible. Kutchinsky stated in the last of those studies,
We shall not try to discuss the extent to which these
findings can be generalized to abnormal persons, non-students
non-Danes, exposure in privacy, and completely different
types of pronography. Whether expected or not most of
these findings have in common that they cannot be considered
confirmed in this study. This means, among others that
they are unsuitable as a basis for a serious debate
on the political level. (See "The Effect of Pornography:
A Pilot Experiment on Perception, Behaviour and Attitudes",
_New Social Science Monographs_ (1970) p. 97).
Nevertheless Kutchinsky's studies have been heavily relied on as
the basis for political decisions.
There were conflicting data as to the number of rapes reported
by Copenhagen Police. Reports by Ben-Veniste and Kutchinsky
provide conflicting numbers of these reports. (e.g. See V. Bachy,
"Danish 'Permissiveness' Revisited", *Journal of Communication*, 26
(1975), pp. 40-43)
There were no long term studies considered by the Commission and
the time available to the Commission (2 years) was too short for
any long term studies to be attempted. Thus that data on which
the commission's report is based only reflects the transitory
response to porn, but not the consequent, long-term changes in
values, attitudes and behaviour.
The findings presented in 1970 are badly dated. For example,
the commission considered a study done by P.H. Gebhard and others
to be the most extensive study conducted between the period
of 1961-1968. Yet the publication of that book occurred in 1965,
long after their evidence had been collected. It was based on
interviews with sex offenders conducted in two major periods
between 1941 and 1955. All the evidence was in by 1960.
These men were growing to manhood in the 30's and 40's; they
were typically interviews several years later--long after they
committed their offences. It's not suprising that no connection
was found between their use of porn and their offences. The porn
to which they had access was hardly comparable to that circulating
in the 70's. Yet the study is quoted as being recent by the Commission.
A review of the Commission's report by Eysenk and Nias points
out further methodological faults in the report. (See _Sex, Violence,
and the Media_, p. 114).
Support for porn is invariably drawn from pre-1970 data (Especially
the Commission's majority report). Studies since then have tended
toward undermining that support rather than bolstering it. These
studies, needless to say, are much less publicized.
1) T.P. Meyer, "The Effects of Sexually Arousing and Violent Films
on Agressive Behaviour," *The Journal of Sex Research*, 8 (1972)
Meyer found that male subjects who had veiwed porn were more likely
to administer more severe electrical shocks to people who provoked
them. (The shocks were not real, of course, but the men didn't know
that). Meyer theorized that porn stimulates agression as well as
sexual arousal.
2) D. Zillman, et. al.,
"Emotional Arousal in the Facilitation of Agression through
Communication", _Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (1975)
"Strength and Duration of the effect of Agressive, Violent and
Erotic Communications on Subsequent Agressive Behaviour",
*Comminications Research*, 1 (1974) pp. 286-306
"Female Responses to Provocation after Exposure to Agressive
and Erotic Films", *Communications Research*, 5 (1978) , 4, 395-411.
This series of studies led Zillman to modify the simple arousal theory
in favor of an excitation-transfer theory. It offers an explanation
for increased agression followed by sexual arousal in people who have
previously been angered experimentally. The last study found the model
to be applicable to women who when erotically aroused, were willing
to deliver noxious stimuli to other women.
3) R.A. Baron, "The Aggression Inhibiting Influence of Heightened
Sexual Arousal" *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 30
(1974) pp.318-22.
This study indicated that mildly erotic stimulation may lead to
reduced agression, while more sexually arousing material could
facillitate it. The lesser stimuli may invoke feelings of tenderness
(incompatible with agression) while the stronger forms may remove
inhibitions and lead to expession of agression.
4) S. Feshbach and N. Malamuth, "Sex and Aggression: Proving the Link"
*Psychlogy Today*, Nov. 1978, pp. 111-22
N. Malmuth S. Feshbach and Y. Yaffe, "Sexual Arousal and Aggression:
Recent Experiments and Theoretical Issues", Journal of Social Issues, 33
(1977) pp 110-33
These have built on Baron's model putting forth a "shared taboo" theory.
They also used the "electric shock" setup to measure agression. The
essence of their theory is that sex and agression are subject to shared
taboos. Presentation of either agressive or sexual themes that suggest
that these (shared) taboos no longer apply, will, though generalization,
lower the threshold for expression in both areas. They found that
agressive stimuli tended to facilitate sexual expression and vise-versa.
They particularly note that the fusion sex and violence (becomming more
and more common, I think) makes a particularly dangerous mixture:
We are concerned by the possible impact of pornography in
which sex and violene are fused--as in sado-masochistic en-
counters. For one of the most troubling results of our research
suggets that men who view such materials tend to be more stim-
ulated than others by the idea of rape and less sympathetic to
the victims.
J. H. Court:
It can no longer be argued that the open display of sexuality
will be harmless and that only the glorification of violence
is to be restrained. The interactions between these two taboo
areas are too close. We can argue theoretically about what
the effect would be if the taboos never existed or could be
totally eliminated in the future, but we should not be
distracted from the need for humand social policies in the
world as it is.
I think most people would agree that both the taboos against violence
and recreational sex (the message of porn generalizes sexual attitudes
by deemphasizing *who* the partner is) are healthy for society (witness
the cooling of the "Sexual Revolution". Relationships are back in style
I hear and Playboy is loosing subscribers).
If some are tempted to say "Fine, I'll agree that the hard porn and
violent porn have ill effects, but soft porn (Playboy, etc). Shouldn't
be banned." Then fine. I'll go along with that. I'm not taking
a absolutist stand (some have tried to push me into that pigeon hole.)
But here we are seeing the need to draw a line (with a definition!) somewhere.
Doing absolutely nothing about porn will accomplish just that: nothing.
-----
Here I have highlighted some of the main refereces and paraphrased some of
the reasoning presented in chapter 3 of a book by J. H. Court, entitled
"Pornography: A Christian Critique" ($2.95, InterVarsity Press 1980,
98 pages). I hesitate in just giving the title in this book because I
have observed the general attitude that anything with "Christian" in
the title often receives prima facie dismissal from the "open-minded"
and "enlightened" who vocally dominate the USENET community. This
attititude is present regardless of whether or not the author plays in the
same court as they do on the issues. I believe Court does (no pun intended).
There is no to the Bible as the sole basis for his critique. He documents
his conclusions extensively. He also give a good overview in other
chapters of other aspects of the suport for porn. The books I mentioned
at the beginning of the article should also be of help to those interested.
BTW: Court is a clinical psychologist who, after teaching at the University
of Reading became Professor of the Flinders Univ., Australia. The importance
of his contribution to the porn. controversy was indirectly acknowledged
in (1979) by the (British) Williams Report on Obscenity. This argued
that the sale of porn. should be legalized and in doing so singled our
Court's work for special--and hostile--attention.
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmdmfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/21/85)
Re: Article <4614@cbssc.UUCP>, Social effects of porn Dubuc's impressive citing of sources makes a case for some social effects of exposure to pornography. Lacking immediate rebuttal sources (time to head to the library), I will make one point: Dubuc's literature makes a case for the connection between the aggression that is often mixed with porn and aggressive behavior in those exposed to pornography. This is not necessarily a case against porn, but against the display of violence and aggression. I wonder if there is research on the effects on aggressive behavior of aggression in media, e.g. advertising, movies, books, etc. Does viewing, say, "Dirty Harry" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" *also* increase aggressive tendencies, and if so, by the same amount? This would remove the display of sexuality from the equation. BTW, Playboy's losing subscriber is coupled with an increase in sales for the more "pornographic" (relatively) Penthouse and Hustler. In the latter case especially, this seems to be due to the aggresively lowbrow approach of the magazine more than to its comparative pictorial content. If you remove the photography from Playboy, it is most comparable to magazine like Esquire than to Penthouse. Marcel
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/23/85)
>From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) >Newsgroups: net.books,net.women >Subject: Re: Social Effects of Porn >Message-ID: <210@mhuxr.UUCP> > >Re: Article <4614@cbssc.UUCP>, Social effects of porn > >the display of violence and aggression. I wonder if there is research >on the effects on aggressive behavior of aggression in media, e.g. >advertising, movies, books, etc. Does viewing, say, "Dirty Harry" or >"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" *also* increase aggressive tendencies, >and if so, by the same amount? This would remove the display of >sexuality from the equation. While I don't have precise references at my fingertips, or time to look them up, I can tell you that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of published research papers to the effect that watching violent behavior on television and in movies increases the tendency to violence in the watcher. To my knowledge, there are no published studies showing that watching non-violent sex has a similar effect. Such studies have been done, but the results were not statistically significant with respect to violence. Watching non- violent sex does have some effects, but increased tendency to violence isn't one of them. As I recall, a _decreased_ sex-drive is one of the effects of prolonged exposure to non-violent pornography. P.S.: For those who demand some authority for everything, I acquired the above information while earning a Master's degree in clinical psychology. -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe