rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/30/86)
In article <1575@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in >> >the range of sexually explicit material available. >> >> Do you have a reference for this, or did the Commission say it? >> This is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been >> tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile >> material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had >> some effect? > >``The Commission said it'' based, I believe, on the testimony of law >enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant. It is important to note, that the number of convitions based on those siezures has gone down (not offensive enough). To minors, the amount of both sexually explicit AND implicit materials available is actually less than it was in 1970. This is due to "Ratings systems". Most ratings systems have become stricter with reguard to sex, but extremely lax with reguard to violence. Full frontal nudity of women is rarely tolarated, but "top nudity", even in combination with subsequent explicit violence is tolarated under the "R" ratings. For printed matter, even less nudity, and even more violence is tolarated. The "Nixon" committee found that there was no correlation between violence and violent crime. Subsequent research has shown that this was not a correct assumption. The Nixon committee also found that there might be a link between sexually explicit materials and V.D. It has been found that there is such a link. The risk among readers of sexually explicit materials is lower than among sexually active people who do not read sexually explict materials. To adults, the amount of sexually explicit materials has increased. The variety however has decrease, with the trend leaning toward more explicit materials, and more "specialized" markets. Nudity, missionary sex, lingerie, and even oral sex is now a smaller market, while bondage, "split beaver", homosexual, bisexual, anal, transexualism, and female dominance is now a much larger industry in terms of competition. The old "marital guides" are almost a sideline, and much of the material no longer has a retail market outlet. >As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still >some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow >evidence or testimony to come from. >In many localities, there are no laws >requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children >engaged in sex acts. Actually, where those laws have been passed, state courts and federal courts have often considered it an invasion of privacy for the finisher to do so. One particularly difficult problem is that, in order for a print or copy of the film to be used as evidence, that particular print must be traced back to the producer. It is not sufficient for the victim to appear in the film, see the film, and say, "yes, that was me being exploited". Outtakes cannot be subpoenaed as evidence against the publisher. He is free to destroy any material left on the cutting room floor. This has been a problem where coersion or intimidation has actually been caught by the camera, but taken out of the final copy. Conversely, the defence may use outtakes showing the victim enjoying him/herself as evidence in his defense. Quite simply, the producer can use the original film as a "stacked deck" in his favor. >> >In addition, materials >> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the >> >``object'' individual have become more widespread, Again, much of this is due to the "all or nothing" polarization of the "ratings" and "zonings" regulations. A more "graduated" approach might lead to more diversity and abundance of more moderate forms. >> >and such materials are most >> >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified >> >victims have indicated are used by the offenders. Victims of what? Porn, or rape, violence, coercion,... >> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here >> is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to >> assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be- >> cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn- >> ography. Actually, there is an issue of "refinement" of tastes. A paraphile might enjoy being tied up. This tendency may have developed as young as two or three years of age, but the film shows him a variety of different restraints, positions, and other gear. The transvestite might see fashions he/she might otherwise not have desired, or see other transvestites going out in public, seducing women,... "in drag". In some cases, this has the tharaputic effect of enabling people with such tendancies to discuss them with their partners, doctors, or therapist. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Remember, many of these "Deviant Behaviours" occur in people whose upbringing is very sexually repressed. Often the result is that they will find a source of stimulation other than say, nudity. Watching mommy dress, watching the cowboy get tied up, then get the girl later, secret agent shows, even fights, might trigger an initial reaction. Boys actually discover "arousal" at around age 3, when the diapers are replaced by the more accessable training pants. Women often don't discover "Sex" until much later. (See Kinsey). There are several variations of pedophilia. Shaving, diapers, rubber, and "young looking" adults are a few. Fetishes mark another common form. Again these preferences were formed very early. One survey of men indicated that only about 5% could even tell you about their true sexual preferences, fantasies, and desires. Those who could divulge them, often had little "quirks". Many couldn't even tell their wives or regular sexual partners. Another study indicated that only a few men were aroused by women who were simply naked. "Roles" (facial expressions of dominance, fear, anger, innocence, happiness, or arousal), "costumes" (heels, garter belts, stockings, corsets, lingerie, socks, shoes, etc), and "Plot" (props, setting, poses, acts performed by the model,etc) were significantly more important than appearance, beauty, or anatomy. A survey of prostitutes indicated that, when budgetary and social constraints were not a factor, nearly all of their customers had some form of "deviation" which they could not enact with their regular partner. Much of this information comes from surveys reported by various magazines such as Penthouse. They usually are statistics taken from scientific journals and condensed into "reader's digest" form. >In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent >sexual materials. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Did you read any sort of sexually oriented materials? If so, what types? Most of the research done indicates that porn has the effect of "bringing people out of the closet". When this occurs in such a way that the person "coming out" has conflicting tastes with his sexual partner, there is a pattern, among some individuals to seek gratification elsewhere. Often, after expressing these desires to a spouse, they are emotionally blackmailed into a situation where they can do nothing else. Perhaps if people "came out of the closet" before they committed to long term relationships, there would be fewer sexual offenses committed. Remember, many sexual offenses are committed by very "respectable" people. The image of some "porno junkie on the street" raping some waitress coming out of work is more the exception than the rule. In some cases, the most bizzare sexual crimes have been committed by the most respected people. Judges, Presidents of Corporations, Governers, and even Preachers have been linked to sexual crimes. Many times, those who are repressed sexually, either "still in the closet", or committed to a partner with conflicting preferences, is more likely to vent his frustration by trying to repress sexuality in others. O.K. There are a lot of generalties here, backed up by poorly referenced research. If you consider yourself an exception to everything above, feel free to express this. You're one of the lucky 5%. I would try to look up references, but I've thrown a lot of the reference material away :-). Rex B.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/13/86)
> >> >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase > >> >in the range of sexually explicit material available. > >> This is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have > >> been tightend since 1970; ... > >>{law enforcement officers testify that more material is available ...] > It is important to note, that the number of convitions based on those siezures > has gone down (not offensive enough). > To minors, the amount of both sexually explicit AND implicit materials > available is actually less than it was in 1970. ... Most ratings systems > have become stricter with reguard to sex, but extremely lax with regard to > violence. Full frontal nudity of women is rarely tolerated, but "top > nudity", ... with subsequent explicit violence is tolerated under the "R" > ratings. For printed matter, even less nudity, and even more violence ... > The "Nixon" committee found that there was no correlation between violence > and violent crime. Subsequent research has shown that this was not a correct > assumption. [contrariwise] The risk of VD among readers of sexually explicit > materials is lower than among sexually active [nonreaders of such material] > To adults, the amount of sexually explicit materials has increased. The > variety however has decrease, with the trend leaning toward more explicit > materials, and more "specialized" markets. Nudity, missionary sex, lingerie, > and even oral sex is now a smaller market, while bondage, "split beaver", > homosexual, bisexual, anal, transexualism, and female dominance is now a much > larger industry in terms of competition. The old "marital guides" are almost > a sideline, and much of the material no longer has a retail market outlet. In other words, much less of interest to the ``average adult'' and more of interest to homosexuals and more of interest to those interested in what might be called ``degrading'' (by those who do not practice it consensually) and to parapehlias of various sorts? > >In many localities, there are no laws requiring photofinishers to report > >materials processed that show children engaged in sex acts. > > Actually, where those laws have been passed, state courts and federal courts > have often considered it an invasion of privacy for the finisher to do so. For sexual materials in general, or for the specific case of materials directed against children? The SC has ruled repeatedly that where children are involved, some of the protections of the Amendments are outweighed by the ``compelling interest'' of protecting children from exploitation. > One particularly difficult problem is that, in order for a print or copy > of the film to be used as evidence, that particular print must be traced > back to the producer. It is not sufficient for the victim to appear in > the film, see the film, and say, "yes, that was me being exploited". > > Outtakes cannot be subpoenaed as evidence against the publisher. He is > free to destroy any material left on the cutting room floor. This has > been a problem where coersion or intimidation has actually been caught > by the camera, but taken out of the final copy. Conversely, the defence > may use outtakes showing the victim enjoying him/herself as evidence in > his defense. Quite simply, the producer can use the original film > as a "stacked deck" in his favor. Would you explain why this is? Is it because of the rules of evidence? Are there changes in laws which could correct this without doing violence to the protections enjoyed under the Constitution? > >> >... materials mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual > >> >satisfaction of the ``object'' individual have become more widespread, > > Again, much of this is due to the "all or nothing" polarization of the > "ratings" and "zonings" regulations. A more "graduated" approach might > lead to more diversity and abundance of more moderate forms. It might. Is there evidence to suggest that the market exists for these things? I will go a little further out on this limb and speculate that for many regular users of explicit materials simple nudity, lingerie, and pictures which can be ``faked'' (as opposed to pictures of ejaculating penises, etc), are of less interests, simply because they have seen such things before. The thrill-seeker needs to have stronger and stronger material because he quickly gets used to what he's seen before. And such regular users make up a larger market than the fellow who buys a copy of Playboy once in a while, and maybe buys a copy of High Society when he really feels adventurous. > >> >and such materials are most often the materials that law enforcement > >> >officials and ... victims have indicated are used by the offenders. > > Victims of what? Porn, or rape, violence, coercion,... Violence, cercion, and rape. > >> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here > >> is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to > >> assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be- > >> cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn- > >> ography. The evidence that I have is limited to testimony of victims and some testimony from people who have studied offenders. The question, also, is not necessarily one of *creating* the desire so much as legitimizing it. It's a lot easier to legitimize a desire or an attitude than to create it. > Actually, there is an issue of "refinement" of tastes. A paraphile might > enjoy being tied up. This tendency may have developed as young as two > or three years of age, but the film shows him a variety of different > restraints, positions, and other gear. The transvestite might see > fashions he/she might otherwise not have desired, or see other transvestites > going out in public, seducing women,... "in drag". In some cases, this > has the tharaputic effect of enabling people with such tendancies to > discuss them with their partners, doctors, or therapist. This is not > necessarily a bad thing. No, it is not. But where the material portrays the object of the desire resisting, end eventually acquiescing once the act is underway, it does not just legitimize the fantasy, but the belief that fantasy can be made real by force, coercion, etc. And yes, this is the ``violent'' side of the issue. It clearly *does* have special meaning where it is portrayed with sex as the means *and* the end. This ``acceptance of rape myths'' question is one that needs a long, hard look, from the social sciences, from the psychiatric profession, and from law enforcement and lawmakers. > Remember, many of these "Deviant Behaviours" occur in people whose > upbringing is very sexually repressed. Often the result is that > they will find a source of stimulation other than say, nudity. > Watching mommy dress, watching the cowboy get tied up, then get > the girl later, secret agent shows, even fights, might trigger > an initial reaction. Boys actually discover "arousal" at around > age 3, when the diapers are replaced by the more accessable training > pants. Women often don't discover "Sex" until much later. (See Kinsey). Agreed that sexual repression doesn't make for a healthy upbringing, neither does sexual obsession. As far as arousal and women ... I met one woman who could remember being diapered ... and remembered a special pleasure in having her knees up and spread even then. I don't think that the matter can be quite as well generalized as that. >... > Another study indicated that only a few men were aroused by women who > were simply naked. "Roles" (facial expressions of dominance, fear, anger, > innocence, happiness, or arousal), "costumes" (heels, garter belts, stockings, > corsets, lingerie, socks, shoes, etc), and "Plot" (props, setting, poses, > acts performed by the model,etc) were significantly more important than > appearance, beauty, or anatomy. Which is why ``simple nudity'' is was viewed by the Commission as being less likely (even unlikely) to cause harms where the ``average individual'' is concerned. For myself, I find a ``tasteful nude'' to be fun, and to be arousing only to the extent that I am willing to make the arousal happen. ``Split beaver'' and the (limited) stronger stuff that I've seen and read is indeed poerfully arousing, but it also seems cheapening. These are my tastes, seen at the surface. Are they common among ``average'' or even ``average liberal'' adults? > A survey of prostitutes indicated that, when budgetary and social > constraints were not a factor, nearly all of their customers had some form > of "deviation" which they could not enact with their regular partner. > ... > Most of the research done indicates that porn has the effect of "bringing > people out of the closet". When this occurs in such a way that the > person "coming out" has conflicting tastes with his sexual partner, > there is a pattern, among some individuals to seek gratification > elsewhere. Often, after expressing these desires to a spouse, they > are emotionally blackmailed into a situation where they can do nothing else. Or else they blackmail the spouse emotionally ... > Perhaps if people "came out of the closet" before they committed to long > term relationships, there would be fewer sexual offenses committed. Perhaps also if the aspects of commitment and love were to take an equal part with sex: The individual could accept gratification in fanasy without guilt over his partner's lack of involvement, while continuing to meet his partner's desires The partner could accept the individual's needs to do so, accepting the individual without a need to resort to emotional blackmail Both would be motivated to seek therapy of some sort to relieve this situation, more concerned with their relationship's health than with its illness. I will agree that there is too much guilt, and not enough of the emotional intimacy that might make this possible. It's a lot harder to make guilt into a positive thing than a negative one, and it takes one hell of a lot of trust in and valueing of the person you feel that you fell ashamed before. > Remember, many sexual offenses are committed by very "respectable" people. > > The image of some "porno junkie on the street" raping some waitress coming > out of work is more the exception than the rule. In some cases, the most > bizzare sexual crimes have been committed by the most respected people. > Judges, Presidents of Corporations, Governers, and even Preachers have > been linked to sexual crimes. Yes. But the fact that the person is a judge, a CEO, a governer of a State, or even a preacher does not mean that the individual cannot feel legitimized by outside things, including his own history, the things that he reads, the things others have done, or the apparent acquiescence of victims. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.