mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/09/86)
>> >>From the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: >> [From Commissioner Dietz' statement] >> >>... >> >>consequences. The person who follows the patterns of social behavior >> >>promoted by pornography is a person for whom love, affection, marriage, >> >>procreation, and responsibility are absolutely irrelevant to sexual >> >>conduct... We do not need research to tell us that such persons on the >> >>average contribute more than other persons to rates of illegitimacy, >> >>teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. > >Interesting what people come up with without research... Perhaps this >report should be classifed as fiction. >-- > Joseph Arceneaux Interesting what people choose to pick on. Note the behavior described: indiscriminant sexual activity without contraception or prophylaxis Note the claim: people who do such things are more prone, per individual, to sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy and more likely to bring about illegitimacy or abortion. Now you may take issue with these claims, but if you do you are taking issue with the whole rationale for compulsatory sex education in the schools. You are also taking issue with the claims of the people who manufacture foams and condoms. In this instance the burden of proof is on those who dispute the statement; the claim is one that we now act on as well-established. If, on the other hand, you are saying that this behavior is not promoted by pornography, or by *some* pornogrpahy, or that *no* pornogrpahy promotes this behavior, we have a topic for discussion. Now, what do you mean by ``promote''? Do you mean bring about, or advertise on behalf of? Or have you some other definition? -- 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) (09/09/86)
> In fact, let's list the major points you and MES seem to have tried to make > (I have tried not to unfairly reword any to look more absurd than they are). > > I would appreciate it if you could edit your own version of this summary, > adding any I missed, dropping any you did not intend as a major point (ie > satire and/or personal insults), and correcting any I have misunderstood. > In addition, of course to replying to anything I have said. Fair enough. Here are the ones that you attribute to me. Most are fair statements, if a little overbrief. > o A drastic change has happened in our society since the 1970 porn commission, > invalidating the previous results. In particular, a drastic change in the type and amount of sexually explicit material, as well as an increase in the amount of research data and the amount of evidence in the form of testimony. In addition, two other national commissions (one Canadian, one British) have asked similar questions and come to conclusions different from those that Nixon's commission came to, one in the mid 70s and one in 1985. The conclusions of the 1970 study may or may not be valid; only an examination of what we now know can determine that. This Commission undertook such an examination. > o In discussing porn in general it is relevant to bring up an isolated > example of one porn film involving an actual rape on camera. Yes. In examining *any* activity, it is relevant to bring up an example, particularly one as extreme and heinous as a rape on film, sold and viewed by millions of people (making them accessories). The question you should ask is whether this incident is representative of the sex industry, or whether it has occurred more than once. The answer to the first is not absolutely resolved by the report, which calls for more study, and involvement of law enforcement experts. On the basis of testimony, the answer to the second is yes. And there is evidence, somewhat weaker, that these are not isolated cases. The evidence is strong enough to urge immediate study, and to urge that measures be taken that will make such abuse more difficult to accomplish, if this can be done without serious infringement of individual liberties, and if this can be done within the framework of the current interpretation of the Constitution. > o "Scientific data is of no import to constitutional law" Not quite what was said (which necessarily responds to the context). Statistical studies are not the only stuff of which constitutional law is made, or even the principle component. Constitutional Law speaks of rights and rules, of legal principles that are not statistical in nature, but absolute or relative to each other. Constitutional law existed long before anyone knew how to write protocols for social and behavioral sciences studies, and it achieved some pretty notable things. Also a few flops, most of which have been fixed. Scientific data is of use in determining fact, not in applying principles, except insofar as those principles rest upon claims which can be examined through such data. > o The results of certain studies are frightening. Yes. Would you like references for the studies and experiments? As I say below, I cannot type them all in. A selection would have to do. > o There exist large numbers of people who could "quite reasonably" be said > to be "victims of pornography and the industry that surrounds it". Depends what you mean by large numbers. If you mean 40 million people, the answer is probably no. If you mean tens of thousands, the answer may be yes. The commission calls for further study. But if the witnesses who testified are representative, we may be talking about numbers in the hundreds of thousands or low millions. If one thousand people a year are degraded, humiliated, and left with a threat of future humiliation of themselves and their loved ones because of what they did on camera to avoid starvation, can we justify it for the erotic stimulation of a few? By few, let us say less than 15 percent of the adult population. > o There is a "real toll in human misery" all around us, which we (who > argue with you) are pointedly ignoring. ``All around''? Does it matter whether it is all around you or concentrated in one area if you are patronizing an industry whose activity that has this result? Yes, the testimony before the Commission, by itself, strongly suggests that such misery has resulted and may result on a regular basis. > o It is an emergency. Wouldn't you consider *any* situation that results in the harms alleged to be an urgent situation? In particular, the sexual abuse of children by people who collect, exchange, and sell photographs of that abuse, and who use such photographs to facilitate the abuse of more children warrants immediate attention. > o (Something about "psychological violence", but not defined well enough > to include here. Please clarify.) Such violence includes the cases documented in testimony of women who were abused physically or psychologically by ``partners'' who sought to have them duplicate the things viewed on film or in photographs. It includes women who have been harassed by men who have filled their traditionally male workplace with images of women in sexually accessible postures. In a less definite but no less damaging way, it includes women who are viewed as objects for the pleasure of men around them. The list of victims includes the men who do these things. To say that they are sick is much like blaming accidents on drivers: guardrails, barriers, and seatbelts help reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The lack of these things need not be the direct cause of the accident. Yes, we *do* need more studies to determine the extent of some of the harms. But this does not mean that some of them are not well documented. And others are offensive simply on egalitarian grounds: ``When your rape is entertainment your worthlessness is absolute'' (Dworkin). Yes, you may disagree with Ms. Dworkin, but *if* the presentation of rape, date rape, etc, *is* entertainment, then the relative esteem in which we hold men and women is certainly in question, especially when the women depicted are shown as ultimately acceeding to the assualt and calling for more. The only questions are if such materials are viewed as entertainment and how large the effect is. Such materials are viewed as entertainment by some; the Commission found that quite a bit was available. Whether it is what *you* like or not is a different question. As to the magnitude of the effect: examine the studies which showed that subjects (college-age males) who viewed such materials were less likely to bring a conviction, or even believe the victim's testimony, in a rape trial. Note that the volunteer subjects are screened to avoid deliberately subjecting anyone with possibly psychotic tendencies to situations which might trigger harmful behavior. > o Studies (which ones, by name, please. And in the context this seemed to > be studies of "psychologically violent" porn, yes?) seem to indicate > (unspecified) damage to users, their spouses, and their children. Some of it has been posted. If your goal is to establish the reliability of what the Commission said or to question my interpretation of it, why not get the $9.95 copy which will soon become available? Then you will not have the possiblity of error in my transcription. But I will transcribe some of the references and conclusions based thereupon if you like. > o It is OK to repeatedly refer to victims, w/o establishing the meaning or > scope of this group. * Over 100 such victims spoke before the Commission. Many others who considered themselves victims were interviewed by the Commission's staff. Given the sense of shame surrounding such victimization, it would appear that these would be a small minority of the actual pool of victims in the cities in which hearings were held. Very few of these were offenders (whose testimony may well be self-serving). Of those sex offenders who testified or provided statements, many testified to having been abused as children in the same way that they abused their victims, and this abuse often involved sexually explicit materials used in the manners that Dr. Deitz outlined. Such repetition, as adults, of abuse received as children is well documented in other areas of child abuse, and it is becoming established in patterns of sexual abuse as well. Indeed, if victims of abuse that is aided by pornogrpahy themselves become offenders because of the damage they suffered, their victims are, in a limited sense, victims of the original material. I believe that the victims that Dr. Deitz wrote of represent reasonably well the categories of non-offender victims that spoke before the Commission. I cannot possibly type in all of the testimony. Nor would the backbone sites appreciate it if I could. > o The commission could not possibly have been "stacked" and still disagreed > so much. It could not have been stacked with people whose agenda was a blanket condemnation of all sexually explicit material. It is possible, given the fact that the Commissioners were unpaid, that they did approach the subject with concerns -- concerns which may very well have been based in harms that they had personally witnessed. In at least one case, this is true. The openmindedness with which the Commission approached its job is, I think, evidenced in their struggles even to define the term ``pornography''. It is evidenced in the fact that, excluding explicitly pedophile material, the Commission voted by a thin margin to recommend the lifting of *all* restrictions against the written word (as opposed to photographic or cinema- tographic depictions) And by the fact that they invited people who might reasonably oppose restrictive laws to appear before them. A few did. Most such individuals who were invited declined to appear. But *every* significant disagreement that arose between the Commissioners argues against the claim that they were merely playing out a fixed agenda. And every such disagreement, every dissenting opinion, every close vote reduces the likelyhood that such agendas, had they been present, would have been the final determining factor in the Commission's findings and recommendations. -- 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) (09/10/86)
>>[From Commissioner Dietz' statement] >>The person who follows the patterns of social behavior >>promoted by pornography is a person for whom love, affection, marriage, >>procreation, and responsibility are absolutely irrelevant to sexual >>conduct... We do not need research to tell us that such persons on the >>average contribute more than other persons to rates of illegitimacy, >>teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Mark Terribile (mtx5b!mat) writes: > If, on the other hand, you are saying that this behavior is not promoted by > pornography, or by *some* pornogrpahy, or that *no* pornogrpahy promotes this > behavior, we have a topic for discussion. What is at issue is the assumption that the omission of certain behaviors from books and films *promotes* attitudes which would lead to the omission of those behaviors in real life. Now this assumption is, in general, demonstrably false. For example, in real life, the requirement that police detectives be accountable for their actions makes for a great deal of tedious paperwork. This paperwork in almost never depicted, and seldom mentioned, in a typical detective story. Does this mean that detective stories promote the attitude that accountability is irrelevant to police work? No: a normal person knows that films and books, like all art, constitute a *selective* re-creation of reality. The fact that police paperwork is not depicted in detective stories does not lead the audience to lessen their expectation that the cops will remain accountable for their actions, and does not lead the cops to omit paperwork from their schedule. Now let us suppose that behaviors required by love, affection, marriage, procreation, and responsibility are indeed routinely omitted from fuck films. Does that mean that normal people, who know that films are a *selective* re-creation of reality, will be led thereby to omit those behaviors from their own sex lives? I see no reason to suppose that anything of the sort could be reasonably expected to happen. Indeed, Dietz's statement would be somewhat puzzling if it were not for the fact that its author spends most of his time studying violent criminals. Now some violent criminals are notorious for their inability to distinguish between reality and fiction; their crimes often resemble verbatim reproductions of behavior read about in books or seen on the screen. Dietz's assumption is an example of what we psychologists call the Psychiatric Fallacy: making generalizations about human behavior on the basis of clinical experience limited to severely disturbed individuals. And it is reasonable to assume that Mark selected the most persuasive excerpt from the commission report, so the rest is likely to be worse. Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/11/86)
In article <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >>Moreover, the existing population-based >>evidence for the United States shows a correlation between circulation >>rates of magazines containing pornography (primarily of a non-violent type) >>and rates of reported rape in the fifty states during that time, even after >>many other factors were statistically controlled. > It is very difficult to make this kind of a case, because of the >difficulty of actually adequately controlling the other factors. Another very important difficulty with this kind of study is that it fails to distinguish cause and effect. Given that two factors, A and B are correlated there are ate least three possible *classes* of reasons. They are: 1) A causes B, either directly or indirectly 2) B causes A 3) some other factor, C, causes both A and B The Meese Commission jumps straight from A and B are correlated to A causes B! There are in fact at least two perfectly good models for C causes both A and B. One is that some environments, such as slums, generally promote mental health problems, which in turn lead to both a large demand for pornography and a larger rate of sexual crimes. Second, since porn is technically illegal everywhere in the US it might be that it is only sold regularly in areas with genrally poor law enforcement, where other kinds of crimes are going to be more common anyway. Actually, I believe a combination of these two is quite likely, and fully explains the correlation. > If Dr. Dietz is interested, what makes ME >violent is loud heavy-metal rock music. I think it should be banned because >of its adverse heath effects (hearing loss) and tendency to promote violence. >Any takers? Unfortunately, yes! --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/11/86)
In article <1518@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > . . . > Note the claim: > > people who do such things are more prone, per individual, to sexually > transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy and more likely to bring > about illegitimacy or abortion. > > Now you may take issue with these claims, but if you do you are taking issue > with the whole rationale for compulsatory sex education in the schools. You > are also taking issue with the claims of the people who manufacture foams and > condoms. Huh? I don't know what your rationale for sex education is, but mine is simply that understanding sex is important to human development and education, and is a subject that should be part of the curriculum, just like math, English, geography, and science... Sex education certainly helps lessen the incidence of STDs and unwanted pregnancy (the latter assumes that contraception is taught), but is no more "the whole rationale" for its inclusion than "keeping up with the Soviets" is for science education. > In this instance the burden of proof is on those who dispute the statement; > the claim is one that we now act on as well-established. No, the burden of proof remains on the proponent, Dr. Dietz. Nowhere in his statement does he attempt to support it. Actually, the incidence of STDs (certainly untreated STDs) and unwanted pregnancy in the pornography industry is quite low in both real terms and adjusted for the rate of sexual conduct. This is rather obvious; sex actors and actresses are VERY AWARE of STDs, how to prevent and treat them, and how to prevent/terminate pregnancy. It's their life and livelihood. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/11/86)
In article <776@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: >>>[From Commissioner Dietz' statement] >Mark Terribile (mtx5b!mat) writes: [The above just to identify which posting I am complimenting] Thank you, Adam, for your articulate posting. I have printed a hardcopy of it to remind me to aim for such standards in future postings! I am especially happy to see someone clearly expressing ideas I had tried (but failed? sort of) to express, particularly: > what we psychologists call the >Psychiatric Fallacy: making generalizations about human behavior on the >basis of clinical experience limited to severely disturbed individuals. >And it is reasonable to assume that Mark selected the most persuasive >excerpt from the commission report, so the rest is likely to be worse. > > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) Meanwhile, MT has written a fairly articulate non-flame response to my attempt to summarize points he and MS have made. I'm thinking of responding, after some contemplation, but I'd rather let someone more articulate have first shot at it. (Hint, hint). An aside: does this really belong in all 3 of the newsgroups net.politics, net.legal, net.singles? I don't mind it myself, and have been following it only in net.singles. If it does get moved, let me know. - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: "Can't stop messin' with the danger zone" -C. Lauper {Gee folks, I'm kinda busy this week. Gonna try to keep my replies terse and selective. Mail is welcome, but I might take my time replying.}
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/12/86)
In article <1519@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >The conclusions of the 1970 study may or may not be valid; only an examination >of what we now know can determine that. This Commission undertook such an >examination. You have previously claimed that the comission mainly made a recommendation of further study and research. That involves obtaining scientific data, something sorely lacking from the present report. I also fail to see how outrageous generalizations, calls for bans and black-listing qualify as valid conclusions of an "unbiased" examination. >Yes. In examining *any* activity, it is relevant to bring up an example, >particularly one as extreme and heinous as a rape on film, sold and viewed >by millions of people (making them accessories). "MILLIONS"? That is an interesting figure. I would like you to site a document that confirms such magnitude. A market study or # of copies made would be adequate. Also, I suggest you check distribution and quantity of copies printed for most "hard core" porn magazines and compare them to the figures for major "soft porn" rags -- I assure you the proportions are not in favour of "hard core" material. And far fewer people read them. Extrapolation of effects on a small segment of population on the population as a whole is not valid in this case. >Scientific data is of use in determining fact, not in applying
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/12/86)
> Mark Terribile (mtx5b!mark) writes: > > Assuming that non-psychotic male college students are representative of > > normal people (a point that no one has yet seen fit to argue, although it's > > a good one) the studies which showed an increased willingness to cause another > > person pain or to disregard the sexual rights of women after the subjects had > > viewed a couple hours of such material suggest that these things may happen, > > and that at the very least we should fund further studies and (where it may be > > done within the limits of scientific ethics) further experiments to find out > > more. (And yes, the Commission recommends this.) $500 000 is just not enough > > to answer these questions properly. > > The study Mark refers to was conducted like this: Some male college > students are given an attitude survey. They are then crowded into a > small, darkened room, and made to view a piece of violent pornography on > a flickering movie projector. They are then given the attitude survey > again, and, presto, they appear more willing to disregard the sexual > rights of women. How come? > > First, the manner in which people fill out surveys depends not only on > their attitudes, but also on their physiological state. In particular, > adrenergic arousal will lead people to appear less tolerant of the > rights of others, even if their attitudes did not in fact change. And > certain stimuli are known to increase adrenergic arousal: crowding, > darkness, flickering lights, depiction of violence. In the light of > what we know about human behavior, pornography was not really > necessary to produce the reported result. In all probability, Buggs > Bunny cartoons would have worked equally well. The obvious follow up > (which would not have cost 5 grand, much less half a million, but which > in fact was never done, leading to certain obvious conclusions about the > scientific motivation of the investigators) is to eliminate crowding, > darkness, and flicker, and then compare the effects of a non-violent > sex video with those of a Buggs Bunny cartoon of equal duration. Anyone > care to bet on the result? > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) Road Runner cartoons are excellent examples of nonviolence.... How about showing them "Rambo" or "Dirty Harry"? tim sevener whuxn!orb
chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) (09/12/86)
>>> [From Commissioner Dietz' statement] >>> >>... >>> >>consequences. The person who follows the patterns of social behavior >>> >>promoted by pornography is a person for whom love, affection, marriage, >>> >>procreation, and responsibility are absolutely irrelevant to sexual >>> >>conduct... We do not need research to tell us that such persons on the >>> >>average contribute more than other persons to rates of illegitimacy, >>> >>teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. >> >>Interesting what people come up with without research... Perhaps this >>report should be classifed as fiction. >>-- >> Joseph Arceneaux > >Interesting what people choose to pick on. Note the behavior described: > indiscriminant sexual activity without contraception or prophylaxis >Note the claim: > people who do such things are more prone, per individual, to sexually > transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy and more likely to bring > about illegitimacy or abortion. I take it, then, that the "patterns of social behavior promoted by pornography" were described in a previous section of the report? Does pornography in fact advocate "indiscriminant" sexual activity? If not, what standards of discrimination does it use? Does pornography promote the abandonment of contraceptive measures? Given the excerpts of the report I've seen (granted, they might be selective, but holes are holes), I'd have a hard time getting a good grade on it from any of my profs. > from Mole End Mark Terribile > (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat > (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! > mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/12/86)
> > ... the studies which showed an increased willingness to cause another > > person pain or to disregard the sexual rights of women after the subjects > > had viewed a couple hours of such material suggest that these things may > > happen, and that at the very least we should fund further studies ... > > ... $500 000 is just not enough to answer these questions properly. > > The study Mark refers to was conducted like this: Some male college > students are given an attitude survey. They are then crowded into a > small, darkened room, and made to view a piece of violent pornography on > a flickering movie projector. They are then given the attitude survey > again, and, presto, they appear more willing to disregard the sexual > rights of women. How come? You are saying first that there was one study (actually, experiment) and second that it was not properly controlled, right? You haven't read the Report. From Page 980, Are there differences in effects from exposure to violent versus non-violent sexually explicit material? An early study (Malmuth, Reisin, and Spinner, 1979) had male and female subjects exposed to one of the above stimuli or to a neutral one. The materials presented were pictures from Playboy or Penthouse magazines for the sexual exposures and from National Geographic for the neutral exposure. Sexually violent depictions included pictures of rape or sadomasochism whereas the sexually nonviolent material had no aggressive elements. After viewing the material, subjects filled out a mood checklist. This was followed ten minutes later by an assessment of reactions to rape after the subjects had viewed a videotaped interview with an actual rape victim as well as an assessment several days later in an ostensibly different study. Both types of stimuli were found to reduce the extent to which subjects perceived that pornography may have detrimental effects but neither one affected reactions to rape. So far, so good, but this is a case where the victim was interviewed, and allowed to tell her side without interference. The Report continues: Correlational data, on the other hand, showed that sexual arousal to the sexually violent depictions were significantly related with a self-reported possiblity of engaging in rape. Another study (Malamut, Haber, and Feshbach, 1980) examined the effects of written depictions of a sexual interaction based on a feature from Penthouse magazine and modified to create a violent and nonviolent version for male and female subjects. In this study, males who had been exposed to the sexually violent depiction (sadomasochism) perceived more favorably a rape depiction that was presented to subjects subsequently. Subjects were found to believe that a higher percentage of men would rape if they knew they would not be punished and that many women would enjoy being victmized. Finaly, of the fifty-three male subjects, seventeen percent said they personally would be likely to act as the rapist under similar conditions. Fifty-three percent of these males responded similarly when asked the same question if assured they would not be caught. In order to draw out the various dimensions in the portrayals of sexual violence which might explain the inhibition of sexual responsiveness, Malamuth, Heim, and Feshbach (1980) conducted two experiments on male and female students. The first replicated earlier findings that normal subjects seem to be less aroused by sexual violence than by ``nonviolent erotica.'' A second experiment manipulated reactions of the rape victim with one version showing her as experiencing an involuntary orgams and no pain. The second version had her experiencing an orgasm with pain. Both male and female subjects were aroused to these depictions, with femals subjects more aroused by the orasm with no pain version while the males were more aroused by the orgasm with pain stimulus. The authors postulated in this case that under certani conditions, rape depictions can be arousing, particularly when the rape victim is shown experiencing an orgams during the assault. According to the authors, subjects may have reinterpreted the evens preceding the depiction of the arousal so that the rape is now viewed as one that is less coercive and less guilt-inducing. Three additional studies (Malamuth and Check, 1980a; 1980b; 1983) provide further evidence that victim reactons have a significant impact on sexual arousal and behavioral intentions. Results from one of these studies showed that both make and femal subjects exhibited higher arousal levels when portrayals showed an aroused female, regardless of whether the contect was a rape or mutually consenting situation. The second study (Malamuth and Check, 1980a) similarly showed that male subjects had higher penile tumenescence scores when viewing a victim-aroused rape portrayal compared to a portrayal showing victim abhorrence. Significant correlations were also obtained between the reported possibility of engaging in similar behavior, sexual arousal to rape depictions, and callous attitudes toward rape. The effect of sexually violent on attitudes has also been demonstrated with male and female subjects reporting a greater acceptance of rape myths agter exposure to such material (Malamuth and Check, 1980a; Malamuth, Haber and Feshbach, 1980) In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features as part of a campus cinema showing. The films --*Swept Away* and *The Getaway*-- represented sexually violent fims wheras control subjects viewed a non-violent feature film. Dependent measures were obtained after a week in a questionaire presented as a separate sexual attitudes survey. These measures included rape myth acceptance measures, measures on the sexual beliefs, measures on the acceptance of interpersonal violence as well on adversarial sexual beliefs, measures developed by Burt (1980). Results showed that exposure to sexual violence increased male subjects acceptance of interpersonal violence against women. A similar trend, though statistically nonsignificant, was found for the acceptance of rape myths. There were nonsignificant tendencies for females in the opposite directions. In addition to the advantage of external validity from the field experiment, the problem of demand characteristics in some laboratory situations is quite effectively dealt with in this study. > darkness, flickering lights, depiction of violence. In the light of > what we know about human behavior, pornography was not really > necessary to produce the reported result. In all probability, Buggs > Bunny cartoons would have worked equally well. The obvious follow up ... > which in fact was never done, leading to certain obvious conclusions about > the scientific motivation of the investigators) is to eliminate crowding, > darkness, and flicker, and then compare the effects of a non-violent > sex video with those of a Buggs Bunny cartoon of equal duration. Anyone > care to bet on the result? > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) Given the fact that controlled studies *were* done (not by the Commission, which had not the wherewithall to fund them), with a reasonable attempt to eliminate the effects which you describe, your ``obvious conclusions about the scientific motives of the investigators'' may fairly be regarded as unsubstantiated and unreliable. Whatever motives you ascribe to Edwin Meese, to Ronald Reagan, or to anyone else in or around the current Administrations (which obvious conclusions we may accept or disregard), the people who put together this Report attempted to put together a survey of testimony and research that would at least stand basic examination. If they came into the project with certain experiences in the field of pornography, organized crime, or sexual exploitation, they at least attempted to document what they claimed. Can you do as well? -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/15/86)
> as experiencing an involuntary orgams and no pain. The second version ^^^^^^ > had her experiencing an orgasm with pain. Both male and female > subjects were aroused to these depictions, with femals subjects more > aroused by the orasm with no pain version while the males were more ^^^^^ > aroused by the orgasm with pain stimulus. The authors postulated in ^^^^^^ > this case that under certani conditions, rape depictions can be > arousing, particularly when the rape victim is shown experiencing > an orgams during the assault. According to the authors, subjects may ^^^^^^ > have reinterpreted the evens preceding the depiction of the arousal > so that the rape is now viewed as one that is less coercive and less > guilt-inducing. Sorry to quote so much, but I think people discussing sexual arousal should at least spell "orgasm" correctly! (I'll let the other three misspellings pass.) Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu BITNET: mtgzy.uucp!ecl@harvard.edu Love never does fail. The people surrounded by love do.
johnmill@mmintl.UUCP (John Miller) (09/15/86)
In article <978@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP writes: >Also all ads for contraceptive products are banned from the air totally. Really? By whom? >A local group of right-to-lifers recently appeared at a school board >meeting here where I live in Morris County protesting any sex education >whatsoever. Are you trying to make the same kind of "A is associated with B, therefore A causes B" argument the the Meese commission is so often (perhaps quite rightly) accused of on the net? It seems to me that except where sex education advocates abortion, the two issues are separate. >It becomes quite obvious in all of this that the concerns of Mr. Meese >and some of the fundamentalists in the anti-abortion movement (not ALL!) >have nothing whatsoever with stopping violence (did not President Reagan >sign the recent bill gutting Gun Control?), preventing unwanted pregnancies, >stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, preventing abortions >(in fact sex education preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place >has been shown in a study in Baltimore and in scores of other countries to >prevent abortions than all the bombings of abortion clinics), or >any other avowed aim. The ultimate concern is very simple and narrow- >*preventing sex* period. It becomes quite obvious that your viewpoint is just as narrow as that that you impute to the Meese commission. >Mr. Meese, Ronald Reagan, their pal Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson >are narrowminded prudes who believe that *sex is a SIN* (it says so >in the Bible, tho Solomon, Abraham and other Biblical prophets had many >sexual encounters) and they must impose their view of morality on >everyone else. >It doesn't matter to them whether somebody else's sexuality affects them >whatsoever but it is a *SIN* under their view of God and therefore >that gives them the right to tell everyone else what to do. It isn't so much what you say as how you say it. Read over that little bit of prose above and then read some of the gems from the infamous McCarthy days. The similarity in tone is frightening. >That is why it is simply a waste of time to argue about Meese's Commission: >its purpose has nothing to do with solving anything, and everything to >do with government control of our private lives for fanatical religious >purposes. > tim sevener whuxn!orb As soon as anyone starts to tell me arguing something is a waste of time they are really saying that their minds are closed. Incidentally: At this time I personally believe that it is anyone's right to view any kind of flick their little hearts desire, and for anyone to produce or act in any kind of production they wish, PROVIDED that no exploitation or coercion is employed in that production. I make NO distinction in this regard as to whether the end result is porn or not. It is possible that after reading the Meese report I may change my mind. In the meantime I continue to support the Second Ammendment of the constitution, which ends " .. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED." I suspect I might someday need my little arsenal, not against the well- meaning but misguided souls on the right whom I feared not so many years ago, but against the well-meaning but equally bigoted liberals of the type who are currently posting so much to the net. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." -- generally attributed to Will Rogers -- johnmill
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (09/16/86)
I think it would be greatly appreciated (by me if no one else!) if we
could limit the pornography discussion to the alleged effects (or is
that affects, I can never keep them straigh) of things OTHER THAN:
o Depictions of violence (eg. rape, torture, etc.)
(Bondage is of course borderline, but let's not fuzzy up
the picture with it for now.)*
o Depictions of sexual acts with [apparent] minors.
I don't think that there is too much (ie. any more than usual) disagreement
that those two subjects do not have potentially bad effects.
Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the
Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses?
There are different kinds of pornography, even the Meese commission saw
that, although they had a great deal of trouble defining them. There
are reliable studies indicating a connection between violent porn and
violence in viewers. But the key word is 'violent', not 'porn'.
-kee
* I call bondage borderline because it (as with some S&M) doesn't
imply violence or non-consenting adults. It could be presented
in a way that made it clear that the participants were willingly
involved. I suspect that such a presentation would not have
the same impact that might be found in more violent porn.
--
...{mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul
Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587
or 499B Boston Rd, Groton MA. (617) 448-2863
I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/86)
In article <1480@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >Excuse me. I don't read the results the way you do. And I suspect that you >are discounting *all* testimony given to the commission. I suspect that you >are not admitting any evidence that has not been subjected to a statistical >analysis. We don't need a statistical analysis to determine that a woman was >raped before a camera and the film sold as porn through organized crime >channels. Anecdotal evidence, if properly established, verifies *that*. >And that evidence, if it can be made to live up the extraordinarily strict >rules of evidence that our court system requires, can be adaquate to imprison >a perpatrator for the rest of his life. >Anecdotal evidence has a place, Oleg. Certainly such evidence has a place. And its place is exactly the way it is used in court, as an aid to determining whether some *individual* event occurred, and in what manner it occurred. When it comes to a question of *patterns* and *causes* however such evidence is of little value. Indeed it is often highly misleading. What if a film of an actual rape was made and distributed? That has *nothing* to say about the intrinsic value(or lack of it) in erotic entertainment! Erotic films can be(and are) produced without such things happening, so why should a peripheral incident have any bearing on the legality of such films? Or, if you maintain that the incident was *not* peripheral you must provide evidence that such things are in fact intrinsic to erotic film production. And I mean scientifically valid evidence not more anecdotes, which just introduce more individual events of no proven significance. >> The Meese Comission members have stated that they did NOT base their report >> on "scientific data alone". The dissenting minority (all of 2 scientists on >> the comission) has firmly stated that the comission could not have reached >> ANY conclusions based on the avaliable data(no exhibited relationship between >> porn and violence!). >I'm damn glad that they didn't. First of all, scientific data are of no >import in constitutional law. (End rhetorical device.) Maybe not, but scientific data *are* of import in justifying restrictive laws! At least unless we want a society in which every action that any group considers harmful is banned! We would quickly find most activities banned. >So? If you worked to save the lives and psyches of people who could quite >reasonably be said to be victims of pornography and the industry that surrounds >it, would you feel that you had to be unbiased in determining the real extent >of the damage you see every day, and what can be done about it? Yes, because if there is no real damage due to the pornography per se, then there is nothing to save anyone from! Just because you percieve there to be damage dosn't mean there really is. If you have already decided ahead of time that pornography *must* be damaging, you will of course find it to be so! >Again, what I read in the studies is frightening. Note that the commission >does not deal simply with ``violent'' and ``non-violent'' pornography. Some >attempt, at least, was made to catagorize the material examined for psycho- >logical violence. You may not feel that such violence is present. I do, and >what's more, the way I read the studies they indicate a high likelyhood >that such material *is* damaging, if not to the people who read it, then to >their spouses and possibly to their children. OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching Rambo or even The A-Team, with all of its powerful violence in which no-one is actually hurt! Or do you think it is OK to think that you can go around shooting machine guns because no-one will really get hurt? The problem with the Meese report is its tunnel vision in not truly considering the whole range of literature types. By excluding purely violent material and concentrating on sexually oriented material it becomes impossible to properly differentiate what the real cause of any given effect is. >And there we have a *duty* to be conservative, to err on the side of caution, >just as in supplying disaster relief we must be prepared to provide that relief >without overly detailed examination, to err on the side of caution in providing >the aid on time. There is one difference, disaster aid does not involve coercion! It is simply made available to those who want it. Censorship, in *any* form involves coercion, and coercive laws require, or should require, far more justification than others. --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/86)
In article <2219@milano.UUCP> wex@milano.UUCP writes: >> Pornography is a medical and public health problem because people, >> particularly women and children, are abused in the production of certain >> pornographic materials. > >This paragraph is largely an exercise in anecdotal evidence. That is, >there are no studies indicating how pervasive or frequent this is. Rather, >the commissioners heard "case histories" and "personal stories." Ther is also the more important issue of how closely such incedents are tied to the production of pornography. Even if such things are prevalent in the pornography industry as it exist in the US today, it is *not* clear that they truly result from the production of pornograpy in and of itself. It is in fact more likely that they can occur because the pornography industry is an underground industry, largely beyond the power of government. Thus, to me such anecdotes are actually evidence in *favor* of legalizing pornography! Then the existing labor protection laws could be applied more easily. And many of the other associations between pornography and harmful activities(below) could be reduced. What distributer or retailer is going to risk losing his business license by permitting such things when he is making so much money in a *legal* business? Right now they have little reason to be so careful, they are already breaking the law! >> Pornography is a medical and public health problem because >> pornographic retail outlets of the "adults only" variety sell products >> under the pretext of health and recreation that are the instruments of >> injury, both intentional and unintentional. >> Pornography is a medical and public health problem because >> pornographic retail outlets of the "adults only" variety are the most >> visible service stations of the vice industry. >> Pornography is a medical and public health problem because >> it encourages patterns of social behavior which have adverse health >> consequences. The person who follows the patterns of social behavior >> promoted by pornography is a person for whom love, affection, marriage, >> procreation, and responsibility are absolutely irrelevant to sexual >> conduct. >Here we have a conjunction of two previously-mentioned problems. There is >no evidence for pornography encouraging any sort of behavior. >And it occurs to me that, if there were such persons, what >concern is that of the government? Quite! Especially that last! This is supposed to be a free country, not a theocracy, so what business is it of the government if some citizens chose such a life style. After all it is *their* loss if they lose out on love and affection, not the government's. >> The social science evidence adequately demonstrates that even in >> experimental samples of mentally stable male college students, exposure to >> violent pornography leads to measurable, negative changes in the content of >> sexual fantasies, attitudes toward women... > >What evidence? Here the doctor is clearly failing to separate phenomena. >A violent reaction (or attitude change) could be the result of several things: > 1) the exposure to scenes of violence, > 2) the exposure to pornographic (or erotic) scenes, > 3) the exposure to the combination of 1 & 2, > 4) subject frustration at having to answer stupid questions > when his libido is up and he wants to go out and get laid. Let me add a couple more: 5) subject was reacting out of redirected guilt feelings stemming from childhood indoctrination against sexual feelings. 6) subject was playing a joke on researcher. (probably not important, but such things *do* happen) I believe that #5, or some close variant on it, may well be a major factor in these findings. I am finding as I examine myself that most of the time when I lose my temper it is due to redirected guilt or similar feelings of personal inadequacy. In my case most of this comes from my perfectionism, but it is easy to see that sexual guilt could be just as powerful in this regard. >> ...the existing population-based evidence for the United States shows a >> correlation between circulation rates of magazines containing pornography >> (primarily of a non-violent type) and rates of reported rape in the fifty >> states during that time, even after many other factors were statistically >> controlled. >Second, rates of reported rape are not evenly distributed over the >population. For example, the per capita incidence of all violent crimes >(including rape) is higher in areas of high population density. (Studies >with rats indicate that crowding stress may be a factor.) A higher >population density would tend to increase magazine circulation (through >higher availability and more acceptance). You do not go far enough, the rates of violent crimes also vary substantially from one *neighborhood* to the next! Right now sales of pornographic materials are largely restricted to those areas where the crime rate would be high anyway, due to such sales being itself a crime. I am far from convinced that the cited correlation would hold up if pornography were legalized. As a matter of fact, I looked at one of the studies mentioned. It was one of the worst pieces of statistical garbage I have ever seen! The unit of study was the *state*; not even the city, let alone the neighborhood!?!? And the statistical control of "other factors" was inadequate, to say the least. Only a few, rather naive, alternative models were adjusted for. *Nothing* in the study adjusted for the illegality of pornography and the effect that would have on its distribution. There was no attempt to make time based correlations to seperate cause and effect(i.e. they forgot to find out which came first, the rise in crime rate or the increase in sales of pornography). If that study is typical of the ones the Meese Commision used in the above conclusion, the very correlation is doubtful. --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/86)
In article <1519@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >The question you should ask is whether this incident is representative of the >sex industry, or whether it has occurred more than once. The answer to the >first is not absolutely resolved by the report, which calls for more study, >and involvement of law enforcement experts. On the basis of testimony, the >answer to the second is yes. And there is evidence, somewhat weaker, that >these are not isolated cases. And if the answer to the first question is yes you should ask one more question, that is whether such activity is due to the current illegal status of pornography or to something intrinsic in pornography itself. The optimal solution depends critically on the answer to this last question. >In particular, the sexual abuse of children by people who collect, exchange, >and sell photographs of that abuse, and who use such photographs to facilitate >the abuse of more children warrants immediate attention. Certainly, but I consider this a seperate problem from pornography, I call it child abuse. These people would be abusing children with or without photography! They are just using currently available technology to support their habit. Certainly a crack-down on pornography would not stop them, just drive them further underground. > In a less definite but >no less damaging way, it includes women who are viewed as objects for the >pleasure of men around them. This is a problem, but it has been around *far* longer than pornography has. In fact, if anything, it is *less* prevalent today than it was in the past. Check out the accepted attitudes of men towards women, say 40 years ago, or 100 years ago. I think women were even more degraded then than they are now. So, where is the harm? The problem you cite has nothing to do with pornography, it comes from old cultural values that have not yet been totally eliminated. > ``When your rape is entertainment >your worthlessness is absolute'' (Dworkin). Yes, you may disagree with Ms. >Dworkin, but *if* the presentation of rape, date rape, etc, *is* entertainment, >then the relative esteem in which we hold men and women is certainly in >question, especially when the women depicted are shown as ultimately acceeding >to the assualt and calling for more. The only questions are if such materials >are viewed as entertainment and how large the effect is. No, there is another question: Which came first, the low esteem in which the men and women are held or the viewing of such things as entertainment. It is quite possible, even likely, that it is the low esteem that has permitted the perception of violence as entertainment, rather than the other way around. If so, the problem is how to re-educate the public so that people are viewed in a higher light. Then the desire to watch degrading entertainment will go away all by itself, with no need for censorship. --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/86)
In article <777@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: >The study Mark refers to was conducted like this: Some male college >students are given an attitude survey. They are then crowded into a >small, darkened room, and made to view a piece of violent pornography on >a flickering movie projector. They are then given the attitude survey >again, and, presto, they appear more willing to disregard the sexual >rights of women. How come? Did you say *crowded*?! *Crowded*! Just being in a crowded room, in and of itself, with no other stimulus, is quite capable of making me less concerned about other people! You should see what a traffic jam does to my driving! After a few minutes I will do *anything* to keep moving, no matter what it does to other people. Sheesh! This beats the violent-crime/pornography study I looked at for poor technique! And it got *published*! How? Wasn't it a refereed journal? --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (09/17/86)
In article <1430@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >Second, since porn is technically illegal everywhere in the US it >might be that it is only sold regularly in areas with genrally poor >law enforcement, where other kinds of crimes are going to be more >common anyway. This is news to me! I thought that to be illegal it had to be found to be "obscene" and "of no social value", or somesuch. Of course I still haven't figured out who does the evaluation, and probably neither has the police. So maybe that's why you don't see your local convenience store owner in jail for selling the stuff. Otherwise, a very good article. Dave
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/18/86)
> >> ...the existing population-based evidence for the United States shows a > >> correlation between circulation rates of magazines containing pornography > >> (primarily of a non-violent type) and rates of reported rape in the fifty > >> states during that time, even after many other factors were statistically > >> controlled. > > >Second, rates of reported rape are not evenly distributed over the > >population. For example, the per capita incidence of all violent crimes > >(including rape) is higher in areas of high population density. (Studies > >with rats indicate that crowding stress may be a factor.) A higher > >population density would tend to increase magazine circulation (through > >higher availability and more acceptance). > > You do not go far enough, the rates of violent crimes also > vary substantially from one *neighborhood* to the next! Right now > sales of pornographic materials are largely restricted to those areas > where the crime rate would be high anyway, due to such sales being > itself a crime. I am far from convinced that the cited correlation > would hold up if pornography were legalized. > As a matter of fact, I looked at one of the studies mentioned. > It was one of the worst pieces of statistical garbage I have ever > seen! The unit of study was the *state*; not even the city, let alone > the neighborhood!?!? And the statistical control of "other factors" > was inadequate, to say the least. Only a few, rather naive, alternative > models were adjusted for. *Nothing* in the study adjusted for the > illegality of pornography and the effect that would have on its > distribution. There was no attempt to make time based correlations to > seperate cause and effect(i.e. they forgot to find out which came > first, the rise in crime rate or the increase in sales of pornography). > If that study is typical of the ones the Meese Commision used in the > above conclusion, the very correlation is doubtful. > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > When I looked to data, the rape indicator for Massachusetts and Utah were almost even, and NY was by far not the worst. Among the cities, Tallahasee, FL, was the worst. There seems to be fairly strong correlation between the rape indicator and climate (i.e. Minnesota, Maine, Dakotas the best while Florida and Texas on the other side). I am strongly convinced that this correlations (as applied to states) is much stronger than the correlation witt sales of porn. In particular, I live in a small campus town with porn available on campus (mild, approved variety) and off campus (you can get a little racier). Another campus town, in FL has much higher number of rapes. Is it because a. it is easier to rape during warm southern nights than in the frigid Pennsylvania (summmer is good, but then the nights are short and most of the students are back home), or b. the porno available in FL is so much worse. Now, when you take climate into account, the effects of porno may be noticed: Boston has colder climate, and yet similar rape indicator as Salt Lake City. Where it is easier to see an X-rated movie? Seriously, once we need to factor out the dominant factors (like climate, urbanization etc.), we can get all nice and meaningless correlation. The use of statistic is a powerful weapon. At the beginning of this century, statisticians of Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria and Serbia were involved in so called Balcan wars. Nobody was more bloodthirsty than those guys: they were decimating all hostile nations without mercy (e.g. Macedonia after an 'attack' of Bulgarian statisticians had no Serbs left, very few Greeks and Turks, while after Serbian 'counter- offensive', the number of Serbs was increasing by at least million, as Bulgarians were perishing in equal numbers). Bulgarians, while also no Bulgarians and Serbians wou
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (09/19/86)
In article <1440@psivax.UUCP>, friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > You should see what a > traffic jam does to my driving! After a few minutes I will do > *anything* to keep moving, no matter what it does to other people. Yea, I've seen drivers like you, yech! Me first, me first, me first. ray
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (09/20/86)
In article <1518@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >> >>From the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: > >> [From Commissioner Dietz' statement] > >> >>... > >> >>consequences. The person who follows the patterns of social behavior > >> >>promoted by pornography is a person for whom love, affection, marriage, > >> >>procreation, and responsibility are absolutely irrelevant to sexual > >> >>conduct... We do not need research to tell us that such persons on the > >> >>average contribute more than other persons to rates of illegitimacy, > >> >>teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. > > > >Interesting what people come up with without research... Perhaps this > >report should be classifed as fiction. > >-- > > Joseph Arceneaux > > Interesting what people choose to pick on. Note the behavior described: > > indiscriminant sexual activity without contraception or prophylaxis I do not see this behavior described in the above excerpt. Is that described elsewhere in the report, and defined as the 'social behavior promoted by pornography'? Or is that your personal opinion? I guess it doesn't matter, since even if it's described in the report, it's just *someone else's* personal opinion. > Note the claim: > > people who do such things are more prone, per individual, to sexually > transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy and more likely to bring > about illegitimacy or abortion. Just what are 'such things'? I imagine this also is defined elsewhere in the report. > Now you may take issue with these claims, but if you do you are taking issue > with the whole rationale for compulsatory sex education in the schools. You > are also taking issue with the claims of the people who manufacture foams and > condoms. > ... I would take issue with the contention that the use of erotica implies a lack of sex education, or a penchant for not using contraceptives. Does the report claim such a connection? Are there any statistics on this? ...I guess not since they didn't need research. The problem with this 'report' is that (from what I've seen so far) is that it's merely the concensus opinion of a group of biased individuals, and should be viewed as such. -- Joseph Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
diane@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Diane Nagy) (09/22/86)
In article <1803@mmintl.UUCP> johnmill@mmintl.UUCP (John Miller) writes: > >In article <978@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP writes: > >>Mr. Meese, Ronald Reagan, their pal Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson >>are narrowminded prudes who believe that *sex is a SIN* (it says so >>in the Bible, tho Solomon, Abraham and other Biblical prophets had many >>sexual encounters) and they must impose their view of morality on >>everyone else. I would like to clear up one thing you say here, and that is the phrase, "sex is a sin". I don't want to get into a huge religious debate or any other kind of debate, but I do want to say that if you think the Bible says that "sex is a sin", then you are EXTREMELY mistaken. The Bible teaches only that *sex OUTSIDE of marriage is a sin*. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that *sex within marriage is very, very good*. Please, I'm not condemning ANYBODY, ANYTHING, or ANY LIFESTYLE ... I'm just letting you know the Biblical perspective. I do not want to debate this particular point on the net in public, for that is not why I answered this message. On the other hand...if someone really wants to debate this in public, I'm ready, willing and able. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The views I express do not belong to the real owner of this account. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- bob rench sdcrdcf!wssp!bobr or sdcrdcf!diane (diane stands for "Darn...I'm A Non-Entity")
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/23/86)
In article <5137@dartvax.UUCP> chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) writes: >>>> [From Commissioner Dietz' statement] >> >>Interesting what people choose to pick on. Note the behavior described: >> indiscriminant sexual activity without contraception or prophylaxis >>Note the claim: >> people who do such things are more prone, per individual, to sexually >> transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy and more likely to bring >> about illegitimacy or abortion. > > I take it, then, that the "patterns of social behavior promoted by >pornography" were described in a previous section of the report? Does >pornography in fact advocate "indiscriminant" sexual activity? In the case of "X" rated films, this is often the case. In many cases there is little or no dialogue to even establish characters. In the case of "Soft Porn" magazines and literature, there is more effort made to educate and encourage responsibility. >If not, >what standards of discrimination does it use? Does pornography promote >the abandonment of contraceptive measures? If you consider "withdrawal" a contraceptive measure, no. Most films however do not depict, discuss, or even imply contraception (though occaisionally it is possible to see a diaphragm, if you know how to recognize one). Again "Soft Porn" printed matter is much more prone to include such issues. > Given the excerpts of the report I've seen (granted, they might be >selective, but holes are holes), I'd have a hard time getting a good grade >on it from any of my profs. > >> from Mole End Mark Terribile Agreed. One concern is the possibility that the commission will attempt to create guidelines similar to those used in the film industry for printed matter, using existing precedents as assurances of "first amendment protection". Unfortunately, if "Soft Porn" is only available where "Hard Porn" is sold, most soft porn, and their legitimate contributions will dissappear.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/24/86)
Time for another reply to a whole round of discussion. Sorry it took so long, but I guess that everybody has had their chance at me. >> I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals: >> Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified >> victims . . . what is the proper role . . . of [behavioral research]? >> What can or should [it] 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, ... Many people, >including myself, experience the effects of such fantasy, including ... >sexual arousal, as a positive value. Cognitive scaling methodology ... [could >provide] input to the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed legislation. Not answering the question, which was ``what can we do about an apparent *problem* which is supported at least by the testimony of individuals involved.'' You have said how you plan to show that there are benefits to a thing identified as a cause of the problem. A valid view, but not an answer. You speak of your experience; I am glad that you would back it up with testing. But then, you are not unbiased. (I don't claim that you would test badly, only that your concerns are too limited.) More on this in a second. >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, ... 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) Yes, at present hypothetical. My understanding is that at present, work with offenders to try to teach them to be non-offenders by such means have been disappointing, at least. The danger of releasing such people to society suggests that anyone who would consider ``teaching'' to be a viable solution for sex offenders had better have some pretty damn good proof that it works. As far as identifying people *before* they become offenders: how do you propose to do this? Mandatory psychological testing seems even more invasive than mandatory drug testing, and a lot more dangerous from the constitutional standpoint than either drug testing or the restriction of specific material depicting specific acts that the *Miller* standard permits. Oh, I agree that *if* what you propose is possible (unlikely, in light of what I've read thus far) it could be of great value in ``borderline'' cases that turn up in marriage counselling and possibly in *some* ``domestic squabble'' cases that come before the courts. But by and large, I don't see that it will help the problem. As far as measuring positive effects: much of the harm attributed by the Commission and by witnesses before the Commission was harm to people other than those who exposed themselves to the explicit and/or degrading materials. Can we reasonably determine that this harm does not occur even when it is not obvious? Can we determine that there are not losses in positive interpersonal relationships, especially those that are enhanced by sexuality, caused by the focusing of sexual energies through explicit materials rather than relationships? It's a nebulous question, but I think that before we attempt to admit evidence based upon the subjective awareness of the users of the material, we had better be able to admit evidence based on the effects upon those who are in contact with the affected persons, especially since we know that some people do neglect even spousal relationships for this material. (Me, want *evidence*? Nah ...) Are those people exceptions, or are they just at one end of a continuum? The existing evidence is consistant as regards acts that are in some way offenses. What about the less obvious losses? Don't you think that we'd better find out? Are the only relationships that can be affected those that are seriously flawed? Or can those that are imperfect in some small way also be affected? And can such exposure interfere with the number and character of relationships formed? My opinion, which is only a guess, is that there may be mixed benefits and losses, but that when the use of erotic *material* instead of social expression of sexuality (which may or may not include the sex act) becomes predominant, the harms will also predominate. See the discussion on the words ``prurient'' and ``obsessive'' below; when use of *materials* becomes predominant, it seems likely (though not certain) that ordinary materials will cease to satisfy and materials which are obsessive in their preoccupation with sex and arousal will be sought. Here I begin to sound like MES; if there is a difference, I am talking about the extreme situation (I hope!) and I'm trying not to turn it into a slur on anyone. (I stand by my apology to Phil, in any case.) This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this material damage the institution we call the family? Children are reared in families, at least for the time being, and the family is already ill (witness the inability of parents to teach their kids about sex; witness the difficulty many people have of even teaching their children about affection ...) and anything which will further damage the ability of the family to rear children in a healthy way is child abuse of the worst and most pervasive form. (Yes, still a seperate issue from kiddie porn ...) Before we embark on any social agenda, especially on any that would require changing the interpretation, content, or purpose of our Constitution, or the social mores that the interpretation affirms, we had better know what effects we are about to have. By the way, would you educate me on the difference, if any, between ``remidiate'' and ``remedy''? Adam, one more question: I'm truly sorry to have to ask this, but our newsfiles do get purged periodicaly. Did you say that Donnerstein felt that his work on was misinterpreted by the Commission? Did you say that Donnerstein's work was among the worst, or that his work approached acceptability? I really *have* lost those files. Kee: >I think it would be greatly appreciated . . . if we could limit the >pornography discussion to the alleged effects . . . of things OTHER THAN: > > o Depictions of violence (eg. rape, torture, etc.) > (Bondage is of course borderline, but let's not fuzzy up > the picture with it for now.)* > > o Depictions of sexual acts with [apparent] minors. > >I don't think that there is too much (ie. any more than usual) disagreement >that those two subjects do not have potentially bad effects. Does this mean that you have fewer objections to restrictions of these materials than of other materials? Can ``degrading'' materials be included in the first item, if they are degrading enough? What about paraphelic materials? (Paraphelias are ``disorders'' (some might disagree) in which an individual derives sexual pleasure from things that are not sexual, including bondage, fecal matter, and a wide variety of other things that may or may not be offensive to an ordinary individual) >Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the >Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses? Well, there is the testimony of certain individuals that other individuals, sometimes loved ones, used materials that often fell into the ``degrading'' area as means of abuse, and that the other individuals, after exposing themselves to the material, became abusive in various ways, which included demanding sexual acts which were often either painful or humiliating to the victims. It seems clear that for some individuals, the attatchment of their arousal to the ``fantasy material'' led them to ignore their partners as human beings and to treat them as inferior or subhuman, or as adjuncts to the material for the purpose of arousal. The issue, unanswered, is whether these people were truly ``abnormal'', (Adam believes that they are) or whether their behaviour is just a more extreme form of an ordinary reaction, one that can harm people other than the viewers of the material even when the means of the harm and the harm itself are not apparent. >There are different kinds of pornography, even the Meese commission saw >that, although they had a great deal of trouble defining them. There >are reliable studies indicating a connection between violent porn and >violence in viewers. But the key word is 'violent', not 'porn'. The reason that violence takes on a special meaning in the sexual context is the possibility, indeed in some cases the probability, that the violence becomes part of the means of arousal. Whether this can be learned by ``ordinary people'' or it is the exposure of a latent tendency is certain ``suceptible'' individuals is, to my knowledge, not clear. I think that *this* is an area where properly conducted surveys and studies could help a lot. Even if we discover that ``training'' can take place only in the presence of pervasive attitudes and peer pressure (likely), the understanding will be valuable; such environments almost certainly exist. Witness the New Bedford rape: why didn't the ordinary people stop it or report it? Most likely because of subtle social pressures that said ``this is OK, this is cool, this is alright, don't make a fuss and nobody will get hurt ...''. We need to know what *kinds* of pressures can lead to attitudes like this, and how often they occur, and whether they can lead to long-term behavioral changes. Given the paucity of funding and (if I understand Adam) good research, we shouldn't be neglecting the ability of ``ordinary persons'' to do harm under certain kinds of subtle or overt pressure, or to *learn* harm in the presence of similar pressure. We only answered half of that: >Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the >Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses? Only the fact that throughout all of the human history of which we are aware, and in every culture which we have had the opportunity to study, there exist norms of sexual conduct and sexual privacy. We are proposing to tear down virtually all such norms in the absence of any non-speculative evidence of what the impact will be. That is all. But given the track record of humanity with respect to the damage done to the environment by the industrial revolution, the much older tendency to use arms against each other instead of against the hazards of nature, and our terribly small regard for each other when we get to thinking of our own profit/loss statements, that suggests to some of us (conservatives, if you like) that we ought to go slow. And once again, Edwin Meese, in whatever esteem you do or do not hold him, did *not* serve on the Commission. If you wish to indict the Commission, indict them. If you wish to indict Edwin Meese, indict him. But please serve the right indictments to the right people. >I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept >responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate >everyone else's. Yes, but are they the same people? >>. . . We don't need a statistical analysis to determine that a woman was >>raped before a camera . . . Anecdotal evidence, . . . verifies *that*. And >>. . . if it can . . . live up to the . . . rules of evidence . . . [anecdotal >> evidence] can . . . imprison a perpetrator for the rest of his life. . . . > > Certainly such evidence has a place. . . . When it comes to a question >of *patterns* and *causes* however such evidence is of little value. Indeed >it is often highly misleading. What if a film of an actual rape was made and >distributed? That has *nothing* to say about the intrinsic value(or lack of >it) in erotic entertainment! Erotic films can be(and are) produced without >such things happening, . . . you must provide evidence that such things are >in fact intrinsic to erotic film production. And I mean scientifically valid >evidence not more anecdotes, which just introduce more individual events of >no proven significance. We are one step and one half away from agreement. Would you agree that if such things are endemic to the industry that produces the material, it would be a matter for concern, and not only if they are intrinsic? If so, then we are a half-a-step from agreement, because I believe the even if they are not ``prevalent'' (my dictinary's definition for ``endemic'') but only ``not infrequent'', and if any form of strong coercion is applied, not just outright rape, there is cause for concern, and for action. That action might be restriction, or it might be fair labor laws, but these have their limits when certain acts are being performed before a camera for hire. To push a point, if an actor in a movie refuses to say a line because he (or she ...) believes that is anti-Semitic (and not part of the character ...) the director has a reasonable right to demand that the line be read as written. If a ``model'' in a pure sex film feels that an act that the script or the director calls for goes beyond what even a model in such a film should be doing, the director's demand will inflict a far greater pain and harm upon the performer. Of course, one may argue that such is the risk of the business, but what can one say of a business in which such risks seem inevitable? >>So? If you worked to save the lives and psyches of people who could quite >>reasonably be said to be victims of pornography and the industry that surrounds >>it, would you feel that you had to be unbiased in determining the real extent >>of the damage you see every day, and what can be done about it? > > Yes, because if there is no real damage due to the pornography >per se, then there is nothing to save anyone from! Just because you >percieve there to be damage dosn't mean there really is. If you have >already decided ahead of time that pornography *must* be damaging, you >will of course find it to be so! I will repreat: if your business is in counselling or providing shelter to people who have been harmed, physically or psychologically, by their exposure to sexually explicit materials or by people who used such materials as the means of harm, what more evidence do *you* need *that people can be harmed*? Commissioner Tilton-Durfee's career is based in child welfare and child protective services; her particular concern on the Commission was the *two way* interaction between adult disorders and exposure of children to sexually explicit materials and to the ways that this happens in our society in the presence or *even in the absence* of intent to abuse. Commissioner Levine's involvement is in behavioral research surrounding both victims of sex offenders and the offenders. Commissioner Ritter runs a shelter for minors (yes, child abuse *is* part of this particular issue) on 42nd Street in New York City. Many of the kids who go there are victims of the sex industry that exists in that neighborhood. *Some* of the damage comes about simply because of the illegality of the activities; most of the activities (child prostitution) would be illegal anyway. The production of pornographic materials is awfully difficult to seperate from the other activities when they are carried out by the same people in the same places, and where the performers in some of the productions are taken from the ``stable'' of drug-addicted captive prostitutes that the producers/pimps keep. Is this typical of all of the people involved in the production of these films? Probably not. But clearly there *is* a potential for harm, the same way such harms have been seen through at least the last couple of hundred years. Remember Bertolt Brecht's Marxist statement about prostitutes? To argue that the pattern is unnecessary ignores the fact that it is the way the thing has been done for a long time. That makes it seem unlikely to change, no matter *how* the laws are diddled. Yes, these people came to the Commission with knowledge of harms attributable to certain types of sexually explicit materials and the means whereby they are produced (not might be produced, *are* produced). Commissioners Levine, Tilton-Durfee, and Becker also provided a statement which dissented in part from that of the rest of the Commission; I may post it. Even in the dissent, there are common threads with the remainder of the Commission's findings. And, the dissenters report, even though large amounts of material is sold to apparently satisfied customers, few, if any, were willing to speak out before the Commission. Where was Adam, I wonder? Oh, never mind. He wouldn't take part in such a whitewash ... not even to try to correct it, I suppose? > OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching >Rambo or even The A-Team, with all of its powerful violence in which >no-one is actually hurt! Or do you think it is OK to think that you >can go around shooting machine guns because no-one will really get hurt? But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which should *never* be used as an excuse for violence. >The problem with the Meese report is its tunnel vision in not truly >considering the whole range of literature types. By excluding purely violent >material and concentrating on sexually oriented material it becomes impossible >to properly differentiate what the real cause of any given effect is. The Commissioners *do* express concern about these films. They also note that they were not asked to study them, and that they *were* asked to study ``pornography'', whatever that is. From Chapter 5, *The Question of Harm*, Section 5.1.4, *The Problem of Multiple Causation* (page 510 of the Government Printing Office edition): . . . We live in a world of multiple causation, and to identify a factor as a *cause* in such a world means only that if this factor were eliminated while everything else stayed the same then the problem would at least be lessened. In most cases it is impossible to say any more than that, although to say this is to say quite a great deal. But when we identify something as a cause, we do not deny that there are other causes, and we do not deny that some of these other causes might bear an even *greater* causal connection than does some form of pornography. That is, it may be, for example, and there is some evidence that points in this direction, that certain magazines focusing on guns, martial arts, and related topics bear a closer causal relationship to sexual violence than do some magazines that are, in a term we will explain shortly, "degrading." If this is true, then the amount of sexual violence would be reduced more by eliminating the weaponry magazines and keeping the degrading magazines than it would be by eliminating the degrading magazines and keeping the weaponry magazines. So far, I think even critics of the Commission would agree, arguing even, perhaps, that they have not gone far enough! Why, then, do we concentrate on pornography? For one thing, that is our mission, and we have been asked to look at this problem rather than every problem in the world. We do not think that there is something less important in what we do merely because some of the consequences that concern us here are caused as well, and perhaps to a greater extent, by other stimuli. If the stark implications of the problem of multiple causation were followed to the extent of casting doubts on efforts relating to anything other than the "largest" cause of the largest problem, few of us could justify doing anything in our lives that was not directly related to feeding the hungry. But the world does not operate this way, and we are comfortable with the fact that we have been asked to look at some problems while others look at other problems. And we are equally comfortable with the knowledge that to say that something is one of many causes is not to say that it is not a cause. Nor is it to say that the world would not be better off if even this one cause was eliminated. When faced with multiple causation, cause is likely to be attributed to those factors that are within our power to shape. Often we ignore larger causes precisely because of their size. When a cause is pervasive and intractable, we look elsewhere for remedies, and this is quite often the rational course. A careful look at the available evidence can give us some idea of where the problems are, what different factors are causing them, which remedies directed at which causes are feasible, and which remedies directed at which causes are futile, unconstitutional, or beyond all available means. But if we are correct with respect to the causes we *have* identified, then we can take confidence in the fact that lessening those causes will help alleviate the problem, even if lessening other causes might very well alleviate the problem to a greater extent. This also answers another objection that was raised: >> In a less definite but no less damaging way, it includes women who are >>viewed as objects for the pleasure of men around them. > > This is a problem, but it has been around *far* longer than >pornography has. In fact, if anything, it is *less* prevalent today than it >was in the past. Check out the accepted attitudes of men towards women, say 40 >years ago, or 100 years ago. I think women were even more degraded then than >they are now. So, where is the harm? The problem you cite has nothing to do >with pornography, it comes from old cultural values that have not yet been >totally eliminated. Another author: >> ``When your rape is entertainment your worthlessness is absolute'' >>(Dworkin). . . . *if* the presentation of rape, date rape, etc, *is* >>entertainment, then the relative esteem in which we hold men and women is >>certainly in question, especially when the women depicted are shown as >>ultimately acceeding to the assualt and calling for more. The only questions >>are if such materials are viewed as entertainment and how large the effect is. > > No, there is another question: Which came first, the low esteem in >which the men and women are held or the viewing of such things as >entertainment. It is quite possible, even likely, that it is the low esteem >that has permitted the perception of violence as entertainment, rather than >the other way around. If so, the problem is how to re-educate the public so >that people are viewed in a higher light. Then the desire to watch degrading >entertainment will go away all by itself, with no need for censorship. The assertion that this and pronography are irrelevant to each other seems pretty far-fetched. If you will grant that this is the problem of the chicken and the egg, I will quickly agree with you. But to the extent that some of the material in question feeds the disease, as well as being a symptom of it, doesn't it make sense to remove the reinforcement? Peremptorily changing everybody's attitude is at least beyond our means, and probably a futile cause. Adam, again, on the presumption of innocence in lawmaking: >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. And if some people, by being exposed to certain materials, become more likely to cause harm, or even predisposed to cause harm, they have made the world more dangerous and impaired its value to the rest of its owners. >> 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. I would say rather that the whole point is to bring laws into conformity with the deepest principles and long-term mores of a people. It is true that within certain portions of our culture, mores are changing. But they have not been changed long enough to be long-term yet, and it is not yet clear that the ``deepest principles'' that were reflected in the First Amendment and its interpretations across the years have changed in the people taken as a whole. Another question: >More seriously, why is sex special? Many people seem to feel that the first >ammendment covers everything but sex. Why should the publication of >explicit material be limited to that which the "average" person is not >offended by? Why don't we do this for other forms of expression? Why is sex special? I never thought that that question would seriously be asked on *this* newsgroup! ( ;^}/3 here, please) Remember, that's not the whole of the limitiation. First, the ``average'' person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests. The dictionary at hand defines prurient as: o Obsessively interested in matters of a sexual nature, or o Characterized by an obsessive interest in sex, or o Arousing or appealing to an obsessive interest in sex. An ordinary interest, it seems, won't do if the Justices were not too far from the usage described in The American Heritage Dictionary. The interest must be obsessive. (Would this completely exclude ``tasteful nudes'' from the jurisdiction of the obscenity statutes? It might just. The Supreme Court struck down Georgia laws that considered Playboy obscene, and went further to state that declaring such a publication obscene could not be constitutional.) >(Most obscenity laws refer to the "average person's" notion of obscenity.) >They also refer to "lustful thoughts or desires". Something is obscene >if it incites lustful thoughts. They are trying to legislate what I am allowed >to think. Sounds like thought control to me. Why should the suppression >of ideas be limited to sex? If inciting other thoughts leads to illegal >actions should we suppress them too? Next, the work must contain specific depictions of specific acts that are listed in the applicable laws, which, after all, are passed by legislators who are supposed to represent the people. If you don't want the laws, elect someone who agrees with you or run for office yourself. It's that simple. As far as why it is permitted under the First Amendment to impose some restriction on the open expression of things sexual when it it not permitted to impose some restriction upon discussion of the growing of conifers, I will quote the Commission's report briefly. I realize that this will be a major source of disagreement. (Section 3.1, *The Constraints of the First Amendment* on page 254 in the GPO edition.) ...the foundation of the somewhat more complex but nevertheless fundamentally similar treatment of obscenity by the Supreme Court. This treatment involves two major principles. The first, reiterated repeatedly and explained most thoroughly in *Paris Adult Theatre v. Slayton* [413 US 49 (1973)], is the principle that legal obscenity is treated as being either not speech at all, or at least not the kind of speech that is within the purview of the First Amendment. As a result, logal obscenity may be regulated by the states and by the federal government without having to meet the especially stringent standards of justification, often generalized as "clear and present danger," and occasionally as a "compelling interest," that would be applicable to speech, including a great deal of sexually oriented or sexually explicit speech, that is within the aims and principles of the First Amendment. Instead, legal obscenity may constitutionally be regulated as long as there exists merely a "rational basis" for regulation, a standard undoubtedly drastically less stringent than the standard of "clear and present danger" or "compelling interest." ... ...The second major principle is that the *definition* of what is obscene, as well as the determination of what in particular cases is obscene, is itself a matter of constitutional law. If the under- pinnings of the exclusion of obscenity from the First Amendment are that obscenity is not what the First Amendment is all about, then special care must be taken to ensure that materials, including materials dealing with sex, that *are* within what the First Amendment is all about are not subject to restriction. Although what is on the unprotected side of the line between the legally obscene and constitutionally protected speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the location of the line itself is a constitutional matter. That obscenity may be regulated consistant with the First Amendment does not mean that anything that is perceived by people or legislatures may be so regulated. >Can you imagine what it would be like if every product of man's (or woman's) >creative mind had to be approved by a panel of "average" people? >"I'm sorry Mr. Stravinsky, but that music is just a bunch of random >notes, it has no beat and is difficult to dance to." :-) Third, the work, taken as a whole, must not show serious educational, scientific, etc, value. Here, the view of the average person is *not* the criterion; experts in the field may override any ``average'' notions. With regard to literature, drama, music, etc, any substantial controversy is most probably proof of the serious value of the work. It should be noted that the most serious threat to ``The Rite of Spring'' came from the ballet audiences who boycotted it; my perception is that ballet is a more elitist thing among audiences than ordinary concerts. ``The Rite of Spring'' was an immediate hit among ordinary concert audiences, and has remained popular. Thus here the ``common people'' validated a work which was rejected by the intelligentsia. Yes, the snobs learned quickly enough ... The production of *any* work by an author with an established reputation in the arts would very likely provide some protection against all but the most obsessive and vacuous work, if for no other reason that almost any work of that sort would generate the kind of controversy among ``experts'' that would mark it as having a serious value ... it's hard to argue from Stravinsky. Or from Karlheinz Stockhausen, for that matter (ugh!). > Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity > to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the > moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being > indifferent. > >Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized. Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure that the food we get is wholesome and safe? Ever read Upton Sinclair's *The Jungle*? When the government got around to investigating the claims of how bad the food industry was, it was found that Sinclair had *understated* the problem! Also note the continuing difficulties about wages for farm workers, rising food prices, the morality of using grain as a trading weapon with the USSR, etc. The commoditization has only begun the dilemmas. > How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film > what you do and publish it? Ten thousand, hundred thousand? How about a > million? > > Oops, you're about to be undersold by a couple of starving kids in the ghetto > who'll do it for a hundred-and-fifty. > >There is a price at which I would pick crops, but I am continually >being undersold there, too. Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one of your colleagues sees it. If you are a woman ... once again, the simple ``informed adult decision'' model doesn't hold because our society's real values don't match the abstractions; If you made a film like that to keep from getting evicted, would you like it if your friends, or your colleagues, or your boss were to see it ten years later? I know I'd be pretty humiliated. On the other hand, if someone discovered that I'd picked crops, I'd be proud to be able to say that I'd worked my way up, and not ashamed that I earned an honest living the hard(est) way. Another view on this one: >>Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity >>to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the >>moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being >>indifferent. > > Ever notice how people like to argue generalities when there's few >facts at hand? From a discussion of porn we've moved up the ladder of >abstraction to the "merchandising of sexual arousal". Gosh, Mark, I guess >that'll bring in everyone who's against prostitution on your side, and might >bag a few haters of business and advertising, too :-). Well, actually it was meant to spotlight the well-founded (and popular) cynicisms about business morality. Do you *really* want your sexual pleasure to be provided by that? Or would you rather have your sexuality affirmed and exercised by intimacy with another human being, with whom intimacy of any sort pleases you and {her/him}? > The issue is that specific kind of "merchandising of sexual arousal" >called, colloquially, porn. I would be happy to argue for the legalization of >prostitution, too, but that's better carried on as a separate topic. The >waters have already been muddied enough by the attempted identification of >vicarious sex with vicarious violence by the anti-porn forces. Yes, let's keep that a seperate topic. We should be ready for it about January. ;^) The question is not identification of vicarious sex with vicarious violence by anti-porn forces, but the assertion that at least some people exercise certain facilities vicariously and then attempt to bring other people into their fantasy worlds, in a way that harms the others involved. I've raised the less easily measured question of how the channeling of sexual energies into photographicaly stimulated fantasies may affect those with whom an individual has or might have relationships. That will be tough to answer scientifically. And there is the real question of whether *some* material *encourages* people to attatch sexual arousal to violence, and whether the people who respond to that material seek sexual release through violence (physical or psychological). Even Adam, I think, would agree that there are people who do this. Adam would, I believe, argue that they represent only a small, abnormal subpopulation. I don't trust the available data, especially given the fact that most of the info comes from studies on psych students. Even the dissenters on the Commission felt that the available evidence was untrustworthy for this reason. How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? No, four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. (A.Lincoln) Calling something a non-issue doesn't make it one. >>How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film >>what you do and publish it? Ten thousand, hundred thousand? How about a >>million? > > Haggling over price, are we? What has this to do with the porn debate? Only to try to establish what sex is worth to you. (I did ask you to let me be silly for a moment ...) >>[Mata Hari type spy story -KB] [Also a statement of the value and preeminent importance of sex by someone who ought to know -MAT] >> >>Hardly the stuff we want traded on the Mercantile Exchange ... > > Irrelevant again. Is it just me, or is the "kitchen sink" >argument (little bit of everything, nothing of substance) Values again, values, all is values. I'm really trying to argue that you value something which you think that you don't. I guess that only time will tell, which is why I argue against making further great changes in the values that we express in our laws and in our Constitution and its interpretation. > Well, Mark, I don't have a security clearance, and don't know any secrets >at all; can I have my Playboy back? :-) >- Manipulate me! - Kenn Barry As far as Playboy ... it seems that you are the one dredging up irrelevant emotional issues; the Supreme Court (I posted this last time) overturned state laws declaring Playboy obscene, and making it clear that something on that level simply wasn't a matter for *any* constitutional obscenity law. Actually, I *do* think you are being manipulated by the media and by prevailing social pressures to ignore what I think is the evidence of history ... I'd like to respond to more of the stuff that's come down the pike, but this is way too long as it is. By now I must be the curse of backbone sites! -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (09/26/86)
In article <1570@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: Back to that in a moment, but first: I marked this one to come back to later, and by the time I did I had seen excellant responses by Adam Reed, Ken Barry, Rex Ballard, and Ed Hall. So I decided to give myself some slack and rib MT a bit on two points. Not really flames, but... WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE. IF YOU WANT TO VIEW ONLY SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES, HIT THE N KEY *NOW*! In article <1570@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >Time for another reply to a whole round of discussion. Sorry it took so >long, but I guess that everybody has had their chance at me. Yup. They're doing pretty good, too. Lucky you have a thick skin. > How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? > No, four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. (A.Lincoln) > >Calling something a non-issue doesn't make it one. Calling something an issue doesn't make it an issue, either. >Only to try to establish what sex is worth to you. (I did ask you to let me >be silly for a moment ...) A moment? Only a moment? Are you kidding? When have you not been silly? (The olde English meaning of silly is empty, fairly appropo I'd say.) Ad hominum? Moi? Oh, just on special occaisions, like Fridays. ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> ;-)> - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Quote: Everybody bops. _on blackboard or something in "She Bop" video.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/27/86)
> One concern is the possibility that the commission will attempt to > create guidelines similar to those used in the film industry for > printed matter, using existing precedents as assurances of > "first amendment protection". Unfortunately, if "Soft Porn" is > only available where "Hard Porn" is sold, most soft porn, and their > legitimate contributions will dissappear. The Commission voted (by the slimmest of majorities, it is true) to recommend the removal of *all* restrictions on non-pedophelic ``written word'' material. This does not include magazines whose main interest is photographic, of course. It's more likely that any such guidlines will come from the industry under citizen pressure, just as the Motion Picture industry established its own guidlines. But since existing large-circulation magazines already have their positions well-staked out, it seems unnecessary. As far as the polarization question: please see my reply to 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.