adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/18/86)
Mark Terribile: > If you believe that the evidence is not yet adequate to base policy on, and > you fail to search for more evidence when the evidence that is there makes > a strong suggestion, then you are showing your bias. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. One of my areas of expertise is the methodology of psychological research; and so I do participate in the search, as an inventor of new methods, a peer review referee for scientific periodicals and funding agencies, and as a consulting editor of *Behavior Research Methods*. It is true that I do not actively look for evidence that "pornography" is harmful, but that is because I prefer to conduct research in areas where there is at least a reasonable expectation of obtaining meaningful results. On the basis of what I have seen so far, research into the allegedly harmful effects of erotica is much like "parapsychology": all the "positive evidence" comes from inadequately controlled or fallaciously analyzed experiments; and once adequate controls are performed and valid analyses are done all the alleged evidence vanishes into thin air. > .... at the very least, the studies show a reason for concern and > for more extensive study. They certainly do not indicate that we should > abandon two centuries of legislative and judicial tradition .... Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law. Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable doubt, of having caused harm to another person. Even clear evidence of having transgressed a legal prohibition would fail to meet this criterion, if legal prohibitions are instituted without requiring proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the activity being prohibited is in fact harmful. Human sacrifice, judicial torture, slavery, and other traditions many times more ancient than the prohibition against pornography, were abandoned when found to conflict with the ethical foundations of our society. As long as there is no evidence which would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that pornography is harmful, a legal prohibition against pornography remains in conflict with those foundations. It is this conflict which lies at the base of attempts to manufacture the requisite "evidence" through disregard for fundamental requirements of methodological integrity. Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam)
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/19/86)
I wouuld like to thank Adam Reed for the article to which I am following up; it may have opened the door some Useful Discussion, and turned the flames down a bit. >> If you believe that the evidence is not yet adequate to base policy on, and >> you fail to search for more evidence when the evidence that is there makes >> a strong suggestion, then you are showing your bias. > >I think you are barking up the wrong tree. One of my areas of expertise >is the methodology of psychological research; and so I do participate in >the search, as an inventor of new methods, a peer review referee for >scientific periodicals and funding agencies, and as a consulting editor >of *Behavior Research Methods*. ...Ahh. Thank you. It's taken a long time to coax you into admitting that you have Qualifications. More on this is a little bit. >... On the basis of what I have seen so far, research into the allegedly >harmful effects of erotica is much like "parapsychology": all the "positive >evidence" comes from inadequately controlled or fallaciously analyzed >experiments; and once adequate controls are performed and valid analyses are >done all the alleged evidence vanishes into thin air. I won't dispute your experience, since I am evidently not qualified to do so. What's more, you might be right, but I think the we have to look at certain limits that the current studies have, and indeed that all behavioural research may have. Again, let's hold off on this. >> .... at the very least, the studies show a reason for concern and >> for more extensive study. They certainly do not indicate that we should >> abandon two centuries of legislative and judicial tradition .... > >Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law. >Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the >rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical >foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to >be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable >doubt, of having caused harm to another person. Not quite true. If there is reason to believe that a harm is likely to result, restrictions related to the magnitude of the harm may be imposed. Drunken driving is a classic example. Also, the reasonable doubt requirement does not hold in the construction of statutes, nor does it hold in limiting the rights guaranteed by the Amendments to our Constitution. There criteria such as ``immediate and overwhelming harm'', ``compelling interest'', etc., come into play. >Even clear evidence of having transgressed a legal prohibition would fail to >meet this criterion, if legal prohibitions are instituted without requiring >proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the activity being prohibited is in >fact harmful. Here we start to get into a curious split between liberal, conservative, libretarian, and other viewpoints. (Please excuse my use of simplistic words like these ...) Where restrictions have been in place for a long time, it does not seem wise to me (nor apparently to the Supreme Court in some cases) to discard them without a more thorough examination than the simple experiment of letting everyone do without them for a fraction of a lifetime. Moreover, if we look at evidence outside of the social sciences, we do see a connection (whether causal or otherwise) between a certain class of people who are convicted in courts of law of causing direct and severe harm to others and certain types of materials which fall into the range that we might call ``pornographic''. We have testimony of law enforcement officials to this effect; in other cases where the offense may not have been punished by law, or may not be punishable by law (in spite of being a harm, or reasonably considered a harm) we have testimony, often provided at great cost in personal humiliation, that such things have occurred. It is my contention that as soon as we see large and unexpected effects in things that we had taken for granted as a basic part of our society or environment, we ought to stop making these changes, and even back off a little, until we either know what is happening, can be sure that it's not related to the changes, can be sure that it will not alter the effects of our changes, or can convince ourselves that it's not really harmful. If you will allow me a little emotional rhetoric, we could say that had the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant number 4 followed this course instead of continuing to ``push the envelope'' we probably would never have heard of Chernobyl. In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. Since that time, they have become far more widespread. In addition, materials mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the ``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims have indicated are used by the offenders. Indeed, if we believe the testimony, they are often the means by which the offender either intimidates the victim or by which he becomes aroused prior to committing his offense. It may be (and it may not be ...) that this material aids him in establishing the connection between the coercive, violent, or humiliating effects he will have and the sexual pleasure he will experience thereby. What I will argue is that whether or not we believe that ``normal'' individuals are immune from these effect, until we have a much better understanding of what is happening, it is our duty to back off on the well-meaning changes. >Human sacrifice, judicial torture, slavery, and other traditions many >times more ancient than the prohibition against pornography, were >abandoned when found to conflict with the ethical foundations of our >society. As long as there is no evidence which would prove beyond a >reasonable doubt that pornography is harmful, a legal prohibition >against pornography remains in conflict with those foundations. We found that human sacrifice, slavery, et al., were actions which were in fundamental conflicts with rights that we considered well-established in other cases. The restrictions (some of which are *not* prohibition, but zoning laws (the Supreme Court has found that they can be used against material not legally obscene so long as they don't have the effect of prohibiting affected establishements *everywhere*), laws against display for minors, etc) are similar to restrictions used against other things, some of which are suspected harms. What is more, the Court has held that people do have a right to be protected from unwanted exposure to material that is ``patently offensive.'' Some legal sanctions against some pornography are required to accomplish this protection, and the Court has so held. In other words, in the absence of further experience, I don't think that we can view the balance of rights in the case of sanctions against certain sexually explicit photographs or films the same way we view the balance of rights in the case of human sacrifice or slavery. >It is this conflict which lies at the base of attempts to manufacture the >requisite "evidence" through disregard for fundamental requirements of >methodological integrity. To the extent that people who wish to demonstrate harm are doing this, I will agree that they are going about things the wrong way. Here I am going to ask you to inform me if one of my perceptions is correct: The great strength, and great weakness, of the behavioural approach to human psychology is the basic assumption that the human being is viewed as a black box with certain inputs and certain outputs and certain measurable effects. The strengths are obvious. The weaknesses lie in the fact that a very great part of psychological and psychiatric understanding has come from what amounts to introspection, and the individual study of people engaged in introspection, or in conversation, etc., about intimate feelings, reactions, and perceptions that effectively allow one (trained) individual to conduct inquiries that would ordinarily be introspective within the experience of another individual. This entire area of study is almost completely closed to statistical research of the sort that you are familiar with. What you have called the Psychiatric Fallacy (the tendency to generalize from people who are in some sense mentally ill to all people) is invariably an error in behavioral research that depends upon statistical measures. It is not always an error in the study of the human mind from the inside out. There one can consider the effect of a mechanism that is ``gone wrong'' without discounting the possibility or probability that that mechanism is at work in normal individuals, but in normal ways. To look for the impact of pornographic materials from the ``black box'' view requires that you succeed in finding the effects by looking in likely places. It allows relatively little consideration of what internal effects may occur without producing immediate results that can be detected by relatively simple tests. It does allow relatively simple interactions such as inhibition, excitation, habituation, etc., to be postulated and measured. Please feel free to take issue with this; I will, of course, feel free to take issue with your response! I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals: Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified victims (many of whom are quite credible), what is the proper role, if any, of this field in which you are expert? What can or should behavioral science do to try to determine what the cause of these criminal acts is, and what link, if any, pornographic (or other fantasy-inspiring) materials may have with these acts? -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/20/86)
Adam Reed: > >Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law. > >Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the > >rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical > >foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to > >be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable > >doubt, of having caused harm to another person. Mark Terribile: > Not quite true. If there is reason to believe that a harm is likely to > result, restrictions related to the magnitude of the harm may be imposed. > Drunken driving is a classic example. When caught, the drunk driver has already harmed the owner of the road, violating the owner's conditions on its use; and impairing the value of the road by making it more dangerous, and therefore less useful to other drivers; and thus less valuable to the owner. The fact that in some countries the "person" owning the roads, and thus harmed by the drunk driver, is the government, does not vitiate the applicability of the above principle. > Also, the reasonable doubt requirement > does not hold in the construction of statutes, nor does it hold in limiting > the rights guaranteed by the Amendments to our Constitution. There criteria > such as ``immediate and overwhelming harm'', ``compelling interest'', etc., > come into play. Those are legal criteria, not ethical principles. The whole point of civilized government is to bring laws into conformity with ethical principles, and not the other way around. Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/20/86)
The following has drifted away from the topics of these newsgroups, and they are answered here because they were raised here, and there is no net.psych.theory to move the discussion to. Mark Terribile: > The great strength, and great weakness, of the behavioural approach > to human psychology is the basic assumption that the human being is > viewed as a black box with certain inputs and certain outputs and > certain measurable effects. The strengths are obvious. > The weaknesses lie in the fact that a very great part of psychological > and psychiatric understanding has come from what amounts to > introspection, and the individual study of people engaged in > introspection, or in conversation, etc., about intimate feelings, > reactions, and perceptions that effectively allow one (trained) > individual to conduct inquiries that would ordinarily be introspective > within the experience of another individual. I agree, which is why I am not now, nor have I ever been, a behaviorist. Neverthless, I insist on distinguishing between hypotheses and evidence; and hold that in psychology, as in any science, the latter can only be obtained through the application of logic and measurement. > This entire area of study is almost completely closed to statistical > research of the sort that you are familiar with. Not true - look in any textbook on cognitive scaling, or psychophysics, to learn how measurements can be performed on data derived from introspection. Most of my own methods are equally applicable to introspective and behavioral data. > What you have called the Psychiatric Fallacy (the tendency to generalize from > people who are in some sense mentally ill to all people) is invariably an > error in behavioral research that depends upon statistical measures. It > is not always an error in the study of the human mind from the inside out. > There one can consider the effect of a mechanism that is ``gone wrong'' > without discounting the possibility or probability that that mechanism is > at work in normal individuals, but in normal ways. Yes. This is a rich source of hypotheses in psychology, and I have used it in my own work. But hypotheses are not evidence. > To look for the impact of pornographic materials from the ``black box'' > view requires that you succeed in finding the effects by looking in likely > places. It allows relatively little consideration of what internal > effects may occur without producing immediate results that can be detected > by relatively simple tests. It does allow relatively simple interactions > such as inhibition, excitation, habituation, etc., to be postulated and > measured. While there is a lot more than behavior to the science of psychology, only behavioral data can be relevant to law and legislation. This is because an internal mental state cannot conceivably do objective harm to another parson; only overt behavior can do that. Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/20/86)
Mark Terribile: > I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals: > Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified > victims (many of whom are quite credible), what is the proper role, > if any, of this field in which you are expert? What can or should > behavioral science do to try to determine what the cause of these > criminal acts is, and what link, if any, pornographic (or other > fantasy-inspiring) materials may have with these acts? Glad you asked. Two possible contributions have ocurred to me: 1. Quantify the positive value of fantasy material, including sexually stimulating ("pornographic") fantasy. Many people, including myself, experience the effects of such fantasy, including mental stimulation, emotional exhilaration, and sexual arousal, as a positive values. Cognitive scaling methodology could be used to quantify the relative benefits of fantasy material for input to the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed legislation. 2. Determine whose behavior is adversely affected by fantasy materials. The existing evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that adverse behavioral effects are confined to people suffering from a specific cognitive deficit, which impairs their ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Behavioral studies might be conducted to evaluate this hypothesis empirically. We could also learn how to diagnose this (at this point hypothetical) deficit, and how to remediate it (for example, by teaching the art of distinguishing between fantasy and reality to those affected, if it turns out to be a teachable cognitive skill). Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (09/21/86)
Mark -- I had stepped out of this discussion, partly because so many people had stepped in it, and partly because Adam Reed seemed so well qualified to continue it. But I have a few questions from this last: In article <1562@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. Pedophilic materials >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. >Since that time, they have become far more widespread. 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? >In addition, materials >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims >have indicated are used by the offenders. 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. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/23/86)
[By the way, netpeople: shall we adjourn this discussion to one or two groups such as net.legal, or that plus talk.politics.misc; or shall we continue to cross-post to 3 or more groups? Please reply via 'r' or 'R' rather than 'F', and if I get inundated with replies I will post a summary.] In article <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >I wouuld like to thank Adam Reed for the article to which I am following >up; it may have opened the door some Useful Discussion, and turned the >flames down a bit. I also thank AR. I have already seen some of his replies to parts of this rather long article, so I'll pick a few other things to reply to myself. > Where restrictions have been in place for a long time, it does >not seem wise to me (nor apparently to the Supreme Court in some cases) to >discard them without a more thorough examination than the simple experiment of >letting everyone do without them for a fraction of a lifetime. Moreover, if I don't see the reduction of censorship as an experiment, any more than I see racial integration as an experiment. You try to mess with hard-won progress, you can expect to get yelled at. >we look at evidence outside of the social sciences, we do see a connection >(whether causal or otherwise) between a certain class of people who are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is not a trivial point. >convicted in courts of law of causing direct and severe harm to others and >certain types of materials which fall into the range that we might call >``pornographic''. We have testimony of law enforcement officials to this >effect; This reminds me of the old "marijuana leads to heroin" argument. "Most heroin addicts start with marijuana so marijuana must be at fault!" Haven't heard that one for the past decade or two, it's so laughable that anti-druggists find it counter productive to mention, even to teenagers. But then, most teenagers are probably less gullible than you are when it comes to believing politicians and government panels. (Ad hominum? But you said it was OK sometimes! ;-) ) >It is my contention that as soon as we see large and unexpected effects in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I still don't see them. Sorry. No. I asked you before, but you haven't answered me to my satisfaction: what changes other than the increased availability of porn itself? More *reported* rape and child-abuse? I think we can pretty well see that an increasingly supportive atmosphere has encouraged victims to speak out, thus higher reporting can be the result of a *higher ratio of reports to incidences*, rather than an increase in the number of incidents. (Sorry I can't prove it). I even go so far as to hypothesize that the increasing *availability* of sexual information, *concurrent with* more liberal attitudes toward sexual practices and entertainment, has had a positive contributing effect on the compassionate condition of our present society that allows these victims to be respected enough to speak out, rather than continuing to hide them and shush them and invalidate them. (Along with, but not entirely due to, women's liberation). With respect to child-abuse, Freud's patients told him all about it way back in the early part of this century, and porn, child or otherwise, was not an issue; power was. Unfortunately, other doctors were so scandalized by this insult to society that they talked Freud into disbelieving his patients, resulting in the propriety-salving theory that such abuse was only a delusion on the part of neurotic/psychotic patients. We may quite concievably contribute to *increasing* child and spouse abuse if we roll back the clock: *that* is why I oppose arguments for greater repression, because I *am* concerned for the greater good of both genders and all age groups. >things that we had taken for granted as a basic part of our society or >environment, we ought to stop making these changes, and even back off a >little, until we either know what is happening, can be sure that it's not >related to the changes, can be sure that it will not alter the effects of our >changes, or can convince ourselves that it's not really harmful. What if "backing off a little" actually contributes to what you imagine is being caused by "these changes"? That is how *I* see it currently, and you have not convinced me otherwise with your rhetoric. >If you will allow me a little emotional rhetoric, we could say that had >the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant number 4 followed this >course instead of continuing to ``push the envelope'' we probably would >never have heard of Chernobyl. Nice as rhetoric goes, but unrelated to Meesitus *OR* Chernobyl. And our society is *NOT* facing meltdown from this tiny corner of the entertainment industry. Your rhetoric reveals your tendency to exagerate... not just a little, but by orders of magnitude. >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in >the range of sexually explicit material available. See my argument above as to why this could be very positive and healthy. With the exception, I'm sure, of the (still fairly rare???) child porn. >the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. >Since that time, they have become far more widespread. In addition, materials I can't argue with this from experience, as I have never seen pedophile materials openly or covertly for sale, ever. As it isn't sold in stores, I don't even consider it in the same catagory with popular porn. >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most ^^^^ I notice you don't say "much more". Could this be because they have less than doubled? Such things were certainly available 15-20 years ago both in California and Washington states; if you don't count videos, it doesn't look like much increase at all to me. (Videos are a technological change. If I were you, I suppose I'd be alarmed by them. But I'm not you, nor alarmed). Point of information: when you speak of "apparent sexual satisfaction of the ``object'' individual", I suppose you are referring to stories in which a stranger is stalked, assaulted, raped, and unbelievably ends up liking it? I agree that I'd hate to have the men who read these stories take it as reinforcement for doing the same, but there are alternatives to censorship which we could at least discuss, such as warning labels/disclaimers/ editorials.... hard to say if these would do any more good than the warning lables on cigarette packs, but education can counter stereotypes better than silence can. Education, and a feeling of consensus that "you don't do that to women, not in real life". This consensus is not as solid yet as we would like, but is actually stronger now than it was when censorship was "rampant". But are you also referring to sincere algolognists (sp?) (a word for "people who transform pain into pleasure", coined to distinguish themselves from lables associated with deSade and Massoch, with whom they say they do not identify), who explicitely state that the submissive partner's pleasure is the dominant's chief concern, and that in the long run the submissive is effectively in charge? And who also frequently refer to "taking turns"? No set dominance roles at all in some of these relationships. Just because they are hard for us to understand does not mean that they are lying about their realities. Nor should they be limited to the printed word in describing their experiences to curious outsiders and to each other. (Not my thing, by the way, but I *am* fascinated by the almost science-fiction alienness of it). I bring this up to point out the difficulty applying black and white absolutist idealisms without recklessly lumping together disparate groups. >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims >have indicated are used by the offenders. Indeed, if we believe the testimony, A big "if", indeed. See below for context of my doubt, which is not of the specific testimony but of the interpretation. >they are often the means by which the offender either intimidates the victim >or by which he becomes aroused prior to committing his offense. It may be >(and it may not be ...) that this material aids him in establishing the >connection between the coercive, violent, or humiliating effects he will have >and the sexual pleasure he will experience thereby. Sounds plausible on the surface, but I am very dubious. See my comments above about marijuana and heroin. I bet lots of rapists drink alcohol, to "bolster their courage" and reduce inhibitions; shall we prohibit that, too? Why, they might even force their victims to drink it! (Sorry if this sounds in the slightest like I am making light of these crimes and their victims' suffering; I only mean to make light of the causal link *from* porn *to* crime). >What I will argue is that whether or not we believe that ``normal'' individuals >are immune from these effect, until we have a much better understanding of what >is happening, it is our duty to back off on the well-meaning changes. Shall we stop the presses *while* we call for more study? If not, what point have you been trying to make, anyway? Just trying to get us to admit that it *might* not be *absolutely* harmless to allow all sorts of porn? I for one will admit that, but have grave reservations about any sort of restrictions (even with reguard to child-porn, which must be defined rather carefully). As I have outlined above, I feel that *you* (plural, including all who favor increased censorship) should "back off on the well-meaning changes." I am not being sarcastic when I say that the climate that would allow significantly more censorship, (and drug testing) is quite likely to lead to *more* abuse of women and children, *not less*. I am quite sincere about this, and feel that the limited information available to me supports this view. I am open to contrary *information*, not rhetoric. > from Mole End Mark Terribile PS: I have asked at Crown books, and they don't know when the report will be available. They have heard rumors, but don't have any official listing yet. I am planning to purchase it when it becomes available there. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Mosquitos suck" - a tee shirt
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/27/86)
> [By the way, netpeople: shall we adjourn this discussion to one or two > groups such as net.legal, or that plus talk.politics.misc; or shall we > continue to cross-post to 3 or more groups? Please reply via 'r' or 'R' > rather than 'F', and if I get inundated with replies I will post a > summary.] The discussion seems to revolve mostly around sexual values, with legal ones a close second. I would like to keep it out of net.politics, and most of the interesting followups seem to have come from net.singles readers ... Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it. The changes in laws and the interpretation thereof regarding obscenity began in 1957 with the *Roth* decision; we are just begining to see some promise of stability with the balanced provisions of the *Miller* decision. It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the first until we get the other stuff straightened out. It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading erotica/porn is the result of technological improvements in the publishing process (both print and video ...). It may be that it really is part of the removal of repression. But when we remove repression, it is not unreasonable to expect all the results to be good. An increase in the amount of material used by sick people to encourage their sickness may occur at the same time as an increase in the willingness of people to report sexual abuse and rape. An increase in the number of parents who can't teach their kids how to integrate sexuality with love and affection may occur at the same time as an increased willingness to express both. (Expressing sexuality does not *have* to include the sex act, does not *have* to include heavy petting. But it may.) It may be that some of the bad things came about *because* of the repression, like a closed and festering wound. Does this mean that we must accept the bad effects without question or attempt to remedy them? Hardly. Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? I certainly accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness, but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse? As regards unusual sexual practices: as you note, in order to work, they require an unusual mindset and an unusual communication between the partners. The problem is that there are some people who do not realize this. Of people who watch films showing fighter pilots operating their beautiful (but also terrible) machines, there are undoubtedly a few who believe that they can do these things without the months of pain, sweat, and doubt that the pilots endure in training. We protect against them by making access to fighter planes difficult. If we could not, if everybody could operate their automobile as though it were a fighter aircraft, we would undoubtedly try to educate people about the consequences. In the absence of an effective way to do that, would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes? The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about sexuality, not about the integration of blossoming sexual feelings with the rest of the personality, including (among other things) the interplay between sexuality and the needs for affection and intimacy. The only way we know of to teach these things is though good example and occasional, some- what intimate guidance. (A father-son chat about how the kid feels about Suzy the ex-tomboy can be a very intimate thing, but not at all physical ... or, if too few fathers are close enough to their adolescent feelings to do that, the older-brother/younger brother chat) Two specifics that I will address: As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if there is. One study, even an objective one, can raise concerns and cast doubts, but it cannot answer the question. A range of studies over several years may. Insofar as the studies may be poorly done and badly reported, the ``investigators'' are doing a real disservice by throwing away time, resources, and credibility that are badly needed. But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the study remains objective and the methods reliable. While the testimony of law enforcement officials cannot substitute for studies, and while the testimony that certain offenders have large collections of certain materials, often material of little interest to the public, cannot demonstrate that self-exposure to these materials *causes* the offenses, when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. (Whew! that was a big sentence to get out ...) -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/29/86)
>[Mark Terribile] on pornography > As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there > is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we > ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if > there is. ----- Mark, unless you provide good evidence that your postings to the net do not cause rotting of the mind, erosion of our freedoms, and bubonic plague, my conservative mindset suggests that we ought to act as though they do. To the gulag with you, while we try to "genuinely" determine if this is so. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (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. Pedophilic materials >> >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. >> >Since that time, they have become far more widespread. >> >> 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. Any numbers? A recent Senate investigation concurrent with The Commission concluded 2000 pedophiles. (As quoted in Playboy, Nov issue). Is that "many" or "very, very rare"??? That's 0.01% of the population, if true. Do you have a larger figure? For hard-core "true" pedophiles, not just people who buy "Family Affairs" to fantasize with but have no inclination toward acting out their fantasies with real children. >Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to >be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no >indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report. Perhaps the problem in 70 was larger than they detected, or perhaps the 86 investigation confused their logic a little. Just because an advertiser assumes there is enough market to justify the cost of advertising does not mean that there is; have these ads been long-lived or ephemeral? And are their customers, if any, "the real thing", or just curious horny individuals? I'm not rebutting what you/they have said, but I *am* questioning it. >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. There are the evidence problems that were written of >earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim. You are straying from the point. According to the Playboy article arrests and convictions have increased. I don't have it with me at work today, but both old and new rates are miniscule compared to, for instance, rape. This is not *neccessarily* indication of low *incidence*, but I have to wonder! >Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an >activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)? Yes, but your motive for bringing it up? Inherant shock value? We should all roll over and spread our legs to your logic because you have brought up a really startling *thought crime*??? That *is* what you are talking about, isn't it, "how *DARE* they show their faces in public? Society must really be going to the dogs if they think they can get away with that!"... is how I interpret your including the above in your answer to "how has society drasticly changed?" Without actually agreeing with Pedophilia (either straight or gay), I can see how some of them might think that what they are doing is not wrong, and a society that is willing to grant some justice to Gay-Rights "ought" to give them a fair shake, too. They are sadly mistaken, of course; I haven't heard what these groups are actually asking for, but I can guarentee it won't get a favorable reception any time soon. Any such relationship is "essentially" incestuous, reguardless of genetic unrelatedness; the age difference causes an inherant dominance relationship, and this coupled with sex is not a good introduction to life for young people. (Just my extrapolation from what I've read about real-life incest, but I imagine its a good one). A healthy society tries to rehabilitate them, not encourage inmates to murder them. And you? The problem isn't new, but compassion for *both* victim and perpetrator is. And still a little shakey. Some of us want to defend the open atmosphere in which it is possible, while others want to bring back the bad old days. Guess which I imagine you to be? > >> >In addition, materials >> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the >> >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most >> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here >> [...] Paraphilias exist with or without pornography. > >In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent >sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition, >the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970 >commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant. ^^^^^^^^^ which, violent or ped? Well, joker, I was of age in 1970, and I did observe such materials(*) in abundance. Not the same in style or quantity, but there for anyone who wanted them. I glanced through some, and was relieved to find them rediculously unbelievable. Have seen some since that are more believable, but still obviously staged emotions and makeup. Just like Hollywood movies became more realistic in their portrayal of monsters and violence. Increase in quantity, not all that much. Got *numbers*? (*) Violent, not pedophile. Still haven't seen any of those, except in news stories!!! Or are you blurring violent with pedophilic?? Your train of thought is hard to follow sometimes! >considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic >become an ``offender.'' Please see the letter by Virginia Masters-Johnson to Playboy, part of which I quoted in a previous followup. You have been listening to the wrong experts, I think. Experts are a wonderful excuse for what you already believe, aren't they! (Could include me too, but at least I'm wary of experts). > from Mole End Mark Terribile - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/30/86)
In article <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a >good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it. [...oops, my deletion makes 1st, law, and 2nd, social, a bit unclear...] >It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and >esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes >that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche >since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing >us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot >be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the >first until we get the other stuff straightened out. You are welcome to argue, but I'm glad you are not in a position to dictate. And I do not understand you saying "slowing and stabilizing", when you *seem* to be implying a need for radical backtracking. Since you haven't clearly stated what you *are* arguing for, it is easy to read into your arguments either what one hopes or fears. In my case the latter: I fear repression such as is happening now in (No. or So.) Carolina. Felony status for "pornography" sale, minimum 3 year sentence, and no-one knows what is legal and what is not! Even the DA's don't know! I hope the law will be thrown out, but in the mean time it is having a definite "chilling effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program last Friday, my sole source of information on this law) on not only video rentals but art galleries and college courses on foreign film. I forget the exact link, but I think that they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission, was responsible for this dubious legislation. Two questions... To the net, incl MT: Does anyone have more precise info on this bill, and/or first-hand observation on how much "chilling effect" is happening? (I'm not sure whether it was No. or So. Carolina, please adjust as needed) (You may want to edit subject line in followups) To MT: Care to clarify whether this (No. or So.) Carolina bill corresponds to what you mean by "slowing and stabilizing"? Or simply use it as a starting point; no need to defend the bill's implementation just because I assume that you approve of its intent.... >It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading [...] >Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to >testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean >that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? I certainly Your phrasing is based on complete negation of the point I had made, to which you had otherwise seemed to be responding quite reasonably. I did not and do not believe that these things (porn) "lead to the abuse". The first half of your sentence does not fit the second half. >accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness, >but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that ^^^^^^^^^ >we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse? I don't claim to know. But I strongly suspect that such abuse (of spouses and children) is fueled more by authoritarianism than by pornography, and I see (radically) increased censorship contributing more to the major cause of abuse than it subtracts from the minor (if even significant!) cause. Being of a "conservative mindset", you probably don't want to think about authoritarianism causing a terrible toll of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited researchers on this issue, if I remember correctly). A case might be made for more moderate censorship, but you have only hinted at whether you (or the dread Commission) support moderate or drastic or draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship is a contradiction in terms. >[...comparison of unusual sex practices to flying jets...] >would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that >encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes? Biker magazines encourage lawlessness, sort of, but I see no persuasive case made that outlawing biker mags would have a good effect. The same can be said of High Times encouraging drug use, sort of. You have not shown that a significant percentage of the (millions of??) people viewing "unusual" practices are insensitive and stupid enough to attempt to inflict them on an unwilling loved one, but even if you did, warning lables might be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative pictures and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as: As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching. And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes! Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example. And I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines... some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices). >The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about I suppose I said something about education instead of prohibition. But I wasn't really talking about "sex education" in the sense of school-board approved classes for adolescents. I had something more universal in mind, like prime time television specials, implicite references during sit-coms, realistic treatment in hollywood movies... no, I don't have a specific program to lobby for, I think it's already happening voluntarily and will continue *if they are not scared off by repressive legislation and hysterical conservative boycotts*. Not that *you* advocate such extreme measures, MT, but some such suggestions *have* been associated with The Commission. Your own moderateness is unclear to me. >As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there >is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we >ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if >there is. Yes, you *would*. (I like Bill T's answer to this paragraph). To you, porn is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just a question of finding a palatable way to prove what you already "know". In the meanwhile, lets ban it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know that's not what you think you are saying, but that's how I hear it). There is much precedence for this, such as asking acused witches to pass a test that no-one could pass. Rigged data. Only we're much more sophisticated about it these days. >But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to >see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- >directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the >study remains objective and the methods reliable. Sorry, I'm not a statistician. Does ".05 level" means 95% certanty and ".005 level" 99.5% certainty? And if so, certainty of *what*? If it is certainty that there is *measurable* effect, it is not neccesarily certainty of *significant* effect, in the sense of significant enough to justify making the materials in question unavailable (except to experimenters). >[... the testimony of law enforcement officials ... >... the testimony that certain offenders have large collections ... >when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the >material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that ^^^^^^ >for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of >the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the ^^^^^^^^^^^ >material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. Investigate is nice harmless word, but you *seem* to want to investigate this possibility by removing an *unspecified* range of materials from everyone's accessibility. Your reference here seems to be to pedophilia, but you have said similar things about violent porn, which you shade together sometimes with so-called "psychologically violent" porn, which may include Playboy, but you call us overreacting if we mention Playboy, 'cause the courts have already ruled it OK... can you begin to see that it might be your responsibility that we are (I am) a little confused about just what you are arguing for???? > from Mole End Mark Terribile However, you must be making *some* sense, or we (I) wouldn't bother answering you. Don't take that as *much* of a compliment, just a small one. You are making enough sense that it would be a shame to give up on you as too vague to respond to. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (10/02/86)
>[Mark Terribile] on pornography > As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there > is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we > ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if > there is. If only we could apply this to tobacco... Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/03/86)
> >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in > >the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials > >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare. > >Since that time, they have become far more widespread. > > 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. Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report. 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. There are the evidence problems that were written of earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim. Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)? > >In addition, materials > >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the > >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most > >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims > >have indicated are used by the offenders. > > 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. In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition, the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970 commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant. It *is* reasonable to assume that the materials are not the prinicple ``first cause'' of the paraphelia. On the other hand, by rewarding it, they may encourage it; in addition, there is testimony that some people, at least, have used it to help them prepare emotionally for acts that may reasonable be considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic become an ``offender.'' -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/10/86)
> > ... > >It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and > >esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes > >[we see most clearly happened] since 1962, ... trying to do both at once > >is preventing us from evaluating ... either. ... the second cannot be > >stopped ... I would argue for a slowing ... of the first ... > > You are welcome to argue, but I'm glad you are not in a position to dictate. > And I do not understand you saying "slowing and stabilizing", when you *seem* > to be implying a need for radical backtracking. Since you haven't clearly > stated what you *are* arguing for, it is easy to read into your arguments > either what one hopes or fears. *VERY* important. This whole subject is terribly laden with values, fears, and personal vendettas, mixed (unfortunately) with some very real harms. Even the dissenting member of the AG's Commission agreed on these harms. I will soon post the dissenting sections, along with an apology for the delay. It is *not* a small file. > ... I fear repression such as is happening now in (No. or So.) Carolina. > Felony status for "pornography" sale, minimum 3 year sentence, and no-one > knows what is legal and what is not! Even the DA's don't know! ... it is > having a definite "chilling effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program > last Friday, ...) on ... art galleries and college courses on foreign film. > ... they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission, was responsible ... I dearly hope that a bunch of good constitutional lawyers get involved here soon. I more dearly hope that it proves to be unnecessary. As far as knowing what is legal: if it doesn't fall within the *Miller* standard, it cannot be banned outright, but if you are worried that some people may sit on the appeal for several tens of weeks, I fear that you may be right. The Chairman of the AG's Commission was Henry E. Hudson. The other Commissioners were Judith Veronica Becker, Diane D. Cusack, Park Elliott Dietz, James C. Dobson, Edward J. Garcia, Ellen Levine, Tex Lezar, Bruce Ritter, Frederick Schauer, and Deanne Tilton -- 11 in all. Alan E. Sears served as the Executive Director. His influence appears to be small indeed on the Commission if this is truly what his position is, since the Commission appears to have repudiated this position. Note, I said ``appears to have''! Clearly the presence of a someone with the views and agendas that you are attributing to him would lead anyone to ask if the Commission was a whitewash. But there is a difference between asking if it was a whitewash and concluding that it was. Now, Alan Sears is a criminal lawyer (government/prosecuting attorney) and he ought to have understood what will and will not stand up in a court of law and under a Constitutional challenge. Practicing trial lawyers, for better or worse, do not make law; legislators do. This causes a great deal of judicial effort to be spent determining ``legislative intent''; it also probably causes more Constitutional challenges than might otherwise occur. These are costly, but in the long run they contribute to the growth (up, not out, we may hope!) of our legal system. I *do* hope that the open issues get resolved. If the law was written by legislators on a hometown bandstand, it should get the shakeup it deserves if/when it comes to a proper challenge. The really unfortunate part is that the challenge will be funded by the commercial money -- the mass market sex industries -- rather than the people who are really concerned with the political, literary, scientific, and educational values that are supposed to be protected. But remember, the state XYZ Carolina has the right to ban certain things, liquor included. And some southern states do have ``dry counties.'' I don't see this as such a bad thing, *so long as it is done within the requirements of the Miller standard* or whatever refinement of it the Supreme Court develops after the next serious challenge, and so long as it really does reflect local mores. My recollection is that the M/N News Hour, while a very good program, does drift to a liberal viewpoint, and this seems to be a subject upon which moderation and reason are difficult. I second your call for solid information. > Two questions... > > To the net, incl MT: Does anyone have more precise info on this bill, and/or > first-hand observation on how much "chilling effect" is happening? (I'm not > sure whether it was No. or So. Carolina, please adjust as needed) > To MT: Care to clarify whether this (No. or So.) Carolina bill corresponds > to what you mean by "slowing and stabilizing"? Or simply use it as a starting > point; no need to defend the bill's implementation just because I assume that > you approve of its intent.... A bill such as you describe probably does not. The combination of ``dry county'' status for material not protected under a standard a little bit looser than *Miller* might be. Again, I second your call for information. Other topic: > >Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to > >testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean > >that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? . . . > > Your phrasing is based on complete negation of the point I had made, to which > you had otherwise seemed to be responding quite reasonably. I did not > and do not believe that these things (porn) "lead to the abuse". The first > half of your sentence does not fit the second half. ``Lead to'' was a poor term. Insofar as there are some offenders who use certain material in patterns of abuse, I think it worthy to consider making it harder to come by that material. Where the material is used innocently by 98% of its users, that may be inappropriate. Where it is used innocently by less than 50%, if such a category exists, we should consider restrictions, if they do not endanger the Bill of Rights. (I think that there was an article in this batch that will lead to a somewhat fuller discussion on this point ...) > >accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased > >openness, but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that > ^^^^^^^^^ > >mean that we should cease [trying to remove encouragement to abuse]? > > I don't claim to know. But I strongly suspect that such abuse (of spouses and > children) is fueled more by authoritarianism than by pornography, and I see > (radically) increased censorship contributing more to the major cause of abuse > than it subtracts from the minor (if even significant!) cause. ... you > probably don't want to think about authoritarianism causing a terrible toll > of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited researchers ... I don't recall the citation. Would you mind posting it again? It is harder for me to see the damage done by authoritarianism as it happens than for me to see the damage done by what appears to be lack of concern for the side effects of one's actions (as opposed to direct effects.) Are we in agreement that there is room for damage at both extrema, and that sometimes damage from the extrema may occur no matter how we try to find a safe center? > A case might be made for more moderate censorship, but you have only hinted > at whether you (or the dread Commission) support moderate or drastic or > draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship > is a contradiction in terms. I picked up the banner on this topic because of the attitude expressed in ``the dread Commission'', although the fact that we are even *talking* about the matter suggests that we've removed some of the taboos. (Does that sound familiar?) As for the Commission, most of the Commissioners expressed regret at not having the time to come to a better consensus. Perhaps as a result, the document can be read as coming from a range of positions, not all of them radical conservative ones (but some of them, no doubt). I suggest that non-authoritarian liquor laws, zoning and public nuisance laws, and decency laws would be a contradiction in terms if the enforcement agencies could not overlook the adult with a beer in a paper bag sitting in a corner of the park out of general sight, if Waldenbooks was zoned as an adult bookstore because it sells ``The Joy of Sex'' and ``Valley of the Dolls'', if you got a fine when the lid fell off your garbage can one morning, or if you were hauled into court when you forgot to close the drapes when taking off your woolen business suit one Friday afternoon. But such excessive zeal is the exception rather than the rule, and in general these laws and their enforcement reflect a something like a common consensus. Thus they are not viewed as authoritarian. > >[...comparison of unusual sex practices to flying jets...] > >would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that > >encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes? > > Biker magazines encourage lawlessness, sort of, but I see no persuasive case > made that outlawing biker mags would have a good effect. ... warning lables > might be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative > pictures and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as: > > As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are > not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on > anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject > to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching. > And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like > mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies > to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes! Why not? ... although there could still be room for restrictions that are both within the *Miller* standard and representative of local mores. This might keep things out of the civil courts; on the other hand where harms *do* occur, it may be easier to get a conviction if the person indicted were to be shown to be using material in clear violation of the manufacturer's recommendations. > Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any > government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers > would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example. And > I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines... > some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to > person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices). Perhaps too reasonable in the current climate. I'm sure that the current worded disclaimers were designed to protect against *civil* suits, since it's much easier to get a civil conviction (``preponderance of evidence'' rather than ``guilt beyond reasonable doubt'') and the civil courts are both used and misused for that reason. > >The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about > > I suppose I said something about education instead of prohibition. But I > wasn't really talking about "sex education" in the sense of school-board > approved classes for adolescents. I had something more universal in mind, > like prime time television specials, implicite references during sit-coms, > realistic treatment in hollywood movies... no, I don't have a specific > program to lobby for, I think it's already happening voluntarily and will > continue *if they are not scared off by repressive legislation and > hysterical conservative boycotts*. Not that *you* advocate such extreme > measures, MT, but some such suggestions *have* been associated with The > Commission. Your own moderateness is unclear to me. As far as TV specials, fine, although Kenn Barry has an idea that I'll reply to later that I really *do* like. As far as sitcoms, etc, I hold out very little hope that our current crop of shows (with a few exceptions) is capable of teaching *anything* positive. Except for the Cosby Show I've seen little (I'm not a regular viewer of *anything*, so caution here) if anything that triggered as much genuine empathy for conflict as -- watch this, folks, you won't believe it -- *Leave It To Beaver* or the occasional good episode of *Hazel*. I'm not really that moderate, but I'd like to think that I *do* listen to reason, and to alternate proposals. And what I heard on this group about the AG C's Report, before this discussion started, looked like posturing. Now it may not have been. But it certainly got *my* dander up. > >As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there > >is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we > >ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if > >there is. > Yes, you *would*. ... porn is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just > a question of finding a palatable way to prove what you already "know". In > the meanwhile, lets ban it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know > that's not what you think you are saying, but that's how I hear it). Maybe I *am* saying it, although I hope it gets a public airing before we do anything on it! I *do* believe that certain uses of certain type of sexually explicit materials are harmful. Some of these are easy to make a case for, although how well that case will stand will indeed depend upon what *good* research with *representative* subjects will turn up, and some will depend upon what I think are collective societal values (mores) and who agrees with me. Other types will probably be impossible to prove in the short term, and we may decide that the effects of trying to prevent them are more damaging than the harms (my hypothetical harm to interpersonal relationships caused by focusing on *material* rather than on people). But we'll never know until we begin to talk frankly and find out what we think and what we know, rather than just what we think the other fellow is trying to do and what we know we would like to watch tonight. > >But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to > >see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- > >directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the > >study remains objective and the methods reliable. > > Sorry, I'm not a statistician. Does ".05 level" means 95% certanty and ".005 > level" 99.5% certainty? And if so, certainty of *what*? If it is certainty > that there is *measurable* effect, it is not neccesarily certainty of > *significant* effect, in the sense of significant enough to justify making > the materials in question unavailable (except to experimenters). Ok. Prob and Stat was not my strong area in school, nor is it my bread and butter, so if Adam (or some other personwho *is* well versed in these things) would be kind enough to correct any error or misconception I present, I would appreciate it. Saying that the result is significant at the .05 level is saying that if the trials in the experiment were replaced by random coin tosses, no more than one full set of trials in 20 such sets (.05 in 1) would show as many (heads/tails) as this experiment did. > > [given certain testimonies ] > >... is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that > ^^^^^^ > >for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of > >the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. > Investigate is nice harmless word, but you *seem* to want to investigate this > possibility by removing an *unspecified* range of materials from everyone's > accessibility. Your reference here seems to be to pedophilia, but you have > said similar things about violent porn, which you shade together sometimes > with so-called "psychologically violent" porn, ... I'm being vague to see if we have a place where we agree. There are some people who can and will use *anything* as an instrument or inspiration to harm, just as there are *some* who will become violent and obnoxious on half- a-can of Bud. On the other hand, many more (though still a small minority in the population) will become obnoxious or violent after two or three shots of whiskey. Is it within the purview of a State Liquor Authority to permit the sales of beer, wine, and ale/stout in many outlets, and to restrict the sale of ``hard'' beverages to a few well-policed outlets? Many states hold that it is. Even the dissenting members of the Commission felt that the ``degrading'' material *might* be involved in harms and that investigation is definately warranted, both to determine what constitutes ``degrading'' material, and to whom, and whether any such material *does* cause harms. > ... which may include Playboy, but you call us overreacting if we mention > Playboy, 'cause the courts have already ruled it OK... can you begin to see > that it might be your responsibility that we are (I am) a little confused > about just what you are arguing for???? Well, I try to respond to what is written! When someone mentions specific anxieties about specific things, even if they seem a little exaggerated for effect, I try to answer them in the current context. In the end, I wholeheartedly agree that what is needed are better public attitudes. In the absence of these, where there is reasonable belief to assume that harms are occurring, we should consider relieving the harms, taking into account the nature of the harms, their severity and the extent to which we can localize them and link them directly to causes, the other harms that may result from the remedies, and a hundred and one other things. In these considerations, there is plenty of room for disagreement, and I think that more than anything we need to start talking, and we need to sift the material we have before deciding that it is worthless. Hell, I posture a lot on a lot of things. I hope that there comes a point where wiser people than me can tell me that the time for posturing is past. > However, you must be making *some* sense, or we (I) wouldn't bother answering > you. Don't take that as *much* of a compliment, just a small one. You are > making enough sense that it would be a shame to give up on you as too vague > to respond to. Actually, given the philosophical gulf between many of the other folk here and me, I think it's a very big compliment. Of course, you are helping! > - Phil -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.