[net.legal] Porn: Chicken or the egg?

rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/07/86)

[Phil writes]
>[Mark T writes]
>>[... 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.

The $90 dollar question:
Does the offender already have preferences in the general direction of
his offense?  In other words, would he have had those preferences even
without the porn?

It is possible that his tastes are refined and qualified by porn.  This
can be good or bad.  Perhaps by encouraging the sale of "young look"
magazines featuring the various fetishes and interests but with adult women,
he could become more interested in adults than children.  Many men do
find satisfaction with an adult woman who simply wears pigtails, fuzzy
P.J.s and other "little girl" costumes.  Not only that, but there are
women who really enjoy acting like little girls in a sexual situation.

For each case cited, there are probably a hundred similar cases where
porn has actually enabled men with repressed preferences to find
constructive means of satisfying them, and enabled them to find partners
with complimentary interests.

Of course, all this implies that men are the only "perverts".  Certainly,
there are also women who can find similar benifits by reading appropriate
material.

>>	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
>						- Phil
	Rex B.