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!mmtjulian@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!mmtemjej@uokvax.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:dciem:-67600:uokvax:6500006:000:489 uokvax!emjej Feb 15 13:11:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.women / orca!ariels / 6:10 pm Feb 13, 1984 */ .... 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 /* ---------- */ Say again? I'm not sure how this relates to other usages of the word "pornography" that I have seen, nor to those things that I observe people using the word "pornographic" to refer to. James Jones
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!riddlemcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (mcewan ) (02/17/84)
#R:dciem:-67600:uiucdcs:31600034:000:1901
uiucdcs!mcewan Feb 17 00:37:00 1984
A Definition:
Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and
mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form
of sexuality.
-------------
SARCASM
A Definition:
A feminist is a lesbian who violently hates men. Feminists enjoy kidnaping,
torturing and killing men.
Studies have conclusively proven that feminism rots the moral fiber of
our nation, turns our children into perverts and causes tooth decay. Can
anyone question the wisdom of burning all feminists at the stake?
MSACRAS
I really don't think that redefining words to make your case is a legitimate
debating tactic. If you don't know the meaning of the word pornography,
LOOK IT UP! If you want to flame about movies that feature violence against
women, then say "movies that feature violence against women" or find or define
a word that means the same thing. If you want to flame against pornography,
then talk about PORNOGRAPHY.
The usual feminist anti-pornography argument seems to go as follows:
1) Define pornography as above.
2) Point to study concluding that this kind of pornography turns men
into homocidal rapists.
3) Point to non-violent but (by normal definition) porographic movie and
shout LOOK! PORNOGRAPHY! EVIL! DESTROY!
Personally, I think such people are merely trying to justify an irrational
belief with pseudo-rational arguments. I think they should join the Moral
Majority and move their flames to net.religion.
If, one the other hand, people want to talk rationally about depictions of
violence against women or pornography, I'm willing to listen.
Scott McEwan
pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
P.S. I don't mind flames, but before you flame, please re-read this note
and make sure that you understand what I'm trying to say. Except for the
sarcasm block, I believe I used the correct English definitions for all
the words.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!mmtwdoherty@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