adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/13/86)
Meese commission: > 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. Me (Adam Reed): > > 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) Mark Terribile: > 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. I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely controls differing from the "pornographic" stimuli only in the defining characteristic of "pornography" - sexual arousal, according to Mark - were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, and the element of violence is known to be capable of eliciting the reported results *by itself*, i.e. *even in the absence of sexual arousal*. Moreover, Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously significant result would be .05. The study described above, according to the Meese commission summary, involved at least 5 contrasts , so the probability of at least one spuriously significant result is .23, about one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies cited by the commission. Not much to go on, is it now? Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam)
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/15/86)
> Meese commission: > > 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 > > ... > Me (Adam Reed): > > > 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 ... > > > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) > Mark Terribile: > > 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. > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely controls > differing from the "pornographic" stimuli only in the defining > characteristic of "pornography" - sexual arousal, according to Mark - > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, and the element of > violence is known to be capable of eliciting the reported results *by > itself*, i.e. *even in the absence of sexual arousal*. Moreover, > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously > significant result would be .05. The study described above, according > to the Meese commission summary, involved at least 5 contrasts , so the > probability of at least one spuriously significant result is .23, about > one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies cited by the commission. > Not much to go on, is it now? > Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam) Which of the studies are you referring to? Or are you referring to all of them? I will agree (as if anyone had thought to mention it) that the presence of one name on several different studies may reduce the independence of the studies, but it does not mean that one can be considered when the others are ignored. If you are saying that there has been too little research in this area, you will get no argument from the Commission and no argument from me. If you are saying that there has been *nothing* shown, I think you are pushing a point a little too hard; at the very least, the studies show a reason for concern and for more extensive study. They certainly do not indicate that we should abandon two centuries of legislative and judicial tradition for the sake of a ``sexual revolution'' not yet a quarter of a century old. And that seems to be the question that the net.singles groups revolves around: should over 200 years of law, in which both the legislative and judicial branches have a hand, be discarded on a whim that is just a few years old and that already shows some signs (if not yet conclusive evidence) of causing harm? We have seen how ``progress'' has polluted our air and our water with chemicals and our hearing with noise. After our experiences with these things, oughtn't we go slow when there is enough evidence to show that harm is at least possible, if not entirely unlikely? Especially where the subject is one as personal and private as human sexuality where we are *known* to have vulnerabilities and interconnections, as yet poorly understood, with other behaviour? (I can hear the resounding chorus of *no*!) Given the involvement of new technologies (photography and cinematography/electronic video) doesn't it make sense to take it easy? And given the testimony of individuals who claim to have been harmed, along with both observation by the commission and testimony by law enforcement officials regarding the unhealthy conditions in retail outlets, isn't there reason enough to at least consider bringing the industry under public scrutiny? Given the harms (disputed by a very few) of child pornography, coupled with the existance, well documented by law enforcement, of networks to distribute such materials, isn't there adequate cause to close loopholes in the current interstate commerce laws and bring such activities under the RICO act where they are done for profit? If you believe that the evidence is not yet adequate to base policy on, and you fail to search for more evidence when the evidence that is there makes a strong suggestion, then you are showing your bias. If you take the incompleteness of evidence in one area to mean that evidence in another area may be ignored, you are likewise demonstrating a mixture of prejudice and arrogance. Since you have apparently worked with Malamuth's data before (have you, in fact?), what have you to say on the other studies? Meanwhile, I missed a chance to post some of the references provided in the Report. I should apologize. When I get the time again, I will post them; probably will post every third in the list. -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy the Beagle) (09/16/86)
Anyone for moving the porno discussion to a temporary group? My 'n' key is getting tired. [followups have been directed to net.news.group] Snoopy tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/18/86)
> > > . . . The study described above, according > > > to the Meese commission summary, involved at least 5 contrasts , so the > > > probability of at least one spuriously significant result is .23, about > > > one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies cited by the commission. > > > Not much to go on, is it now? Adam, you write as one who know something of the matter; I am accepting that you do. In this I am admitting that I could be being bulls**tted. But let me ask you ... and the rest of the net ... this question: If the very *best* of the studies that we have (unless you know of a properly controlled study that attempted to ask these particular questions *after 1976* and using pornographic material *available after 1976*) is hopelessly inadequate, what of the material upon which the 1970 Commission based its results? Surely they did not have anything available which we do not have now? (The biggest problem may be that we have *porn* available now which they did not have available then ...) The Supreme Court, upholding an obscenity judgement against *Deep Throat* wrote that the movie was, in their experience, unique; it was sufficiently devoid of even a pretense of redeeming social value that it could have been found obscene under the *Roth* standard. They had not been asked to examine *any* case under the *Roth* standard that they could find obscene; now under *Miller* they were presented with a case that would have been obscene under *Roth*. (In case you didn't guess, I do not hesitate to argue with those who think they know better, even when they seem to have grounds for their belief.) -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem) (09/18/86)
in message <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) says: > And that seems to be the question that the net.singles groups revolves around: > should over 200 years of law, in which both the legislative and judicial > branches have a hand, be discarded on a whim that is just a few years old and > that already shows some signs (if not yet conclusive evidence) of causing > harm? No, I think we should discard 200 years of meddling with the liberty of the citizens of the United States and get back to the basic principles upon which this country was founded. Namely, personal liberty - the recognition of the rights of the individual. > is one as personal and private as human sexuality where we are *known* to have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Because it is personal and private, I don't want the government to get involved. Saying it is personal and private implies that the only one who can decide for me is ME. > (I can hear the resounding chorus of *no*!) Given the involvement of new > technologies (photography and cinematography/electronic video) doesn't it > make sense to take it easy? And given the testimony of individuals who > claim to have been harmed, along with both observation by the commission > and testimony by law enforcement officials regarding the unhealthy conditions > in retail outlets, isn't there reason enough to at least consider bringing > the industry under public scrutiny? Excuse the sarcasm: How about this new technology which allows people (total strangers!) to communicate over great distances via a computer network? Just think about all of the new technology involved! It pretty much boggles my mind. Have you seen any research on this? What are the effects of long term use of this medium? What about eye-strain, risk of harmful electromagnetic radiation from terminals, etc? Isn't it in our best interest to limit our access to such a potentially addicting and harmful thing? Shouldn't we get the government involved in this? A government agency could regulate the access and distribution of messages on the net. Sort of a general moderator for the whole net. :-) <-- applies to entire previous paragraph. 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? 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." :-) (Most obscenity laws refer to the "average persn'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? > Given the harms (disputed by a very few) of child pornography, coupled with I don't dispute that child pornography is harmful and should be illegal. All of what I say applies to consenting citizens. Children are by definition NOT consenting citizens as of course are people who are forced into doing something. In a case of force the crime is the use of force, and should be prosecuted. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Michael W. Mayer
adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (09/19/86)
> > > > AG's commission: > >>>> 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... Adam Reed: > > > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely ... > > > > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > > > > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, ... Moreover, > > > > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper > > > > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously > > > > significant result would be .05 . ... [the study] involved at least 5 > > > > contrasts , so the probability of at least one spuriously significant > > > > result is .23, about one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies > > > > cited by the commission. Not much to go on, is it now? > > I am referring to the five separate dependent measures administered in > > *one* study, the only one by Malamuth et al which included anything (Thanks for correcting my typo, Mark) vvvvv > > resembling a control condition: Malamuth and Check (1981). Only one of > > those five contrasts yielded a result significant at the .05 level. Mark Terribile: > Yes. Assuming that the trends all had no less than 1 chance in 20 of being > random occurrences (in other words, that all of the trends were *just* barely > within the level of significance) there is about 1 chance in four that one of > the five trends observed was a random event, in the absence of further data. > The likelyhood of all five were flukes, however, would be 1/(3 200 000). No. First of all, only *one* of the five contrasts administered in Malamuth and Check (1981) yielded a result significant at the .05 level. Since the study lacked proper controls, even this one result is not usable. However, even had proper controls been done, multiple contrasts would have brought the likelihood of a spurious result *for that one study* to about one in 4, *not* one in 20 as you seem to assume in your 1/32000 calculation, which I shall assume refers to the *cumulative* evidence from five separately published articles. Now given the lack of *even an attempt to achieve external validity* in the other 4 studies, bringing them in seems disingenuous. But suppose we had some otherwise valid and similarly significant (in the statistical sense only) results. What would they mean? Since each study used several contrasts, the likelihood of producing a spurious result is much higher than the nominal significance level of those contrasts that, unlike the other planned and administered contrasts, happened to yield "significant" results. Let me leave you with the following exercise. Suppose a researcher and his students conduct 20 studies, incorporating five separate contrasts at the .05 significance level per study, for a total of 100 contrasts. 15 of those 20 studies yield no significant results, and are not published. The other five studies yield one significant contrast and 4 non-significant contrasts each. Assuming no other problems in the interpretation of these studies (ha), what is the probability that all 5 results are spurious? Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam)
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/19/86)
> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) >> Meese commission >> The films --*Swept Away* and >> *The Getaway*-- represented sexually violent films wheras control >> subjects viewed a non-violent feature film. [...] >> Results showed that exposure to >> sexual violence increased male subjects acceptance of interpersonal >> violence against women. [as measured by psychological tests] > The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, In fact, they were *primarily* violent. Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, these were both *R* rated pictures, with little or no explicit sexual material. *The* *Getaway* in particular starred Ali McGraw and Steve McQueen, had no explicit sex or nudity to speak of, and had *many* *many* violent scenes. To use these movies as examples of "sexually violent" films is dishonest and misleading in the extreme. And if the study showed that these films should be banned, then similar films which also are primarily violent and have essentially no explicit sex (eg: the Dirty Harry films, the Rambo and Rocky films, Death Wish N, and so on) should also be banned. The key words are "dishonest" and "misleading". If one wants to recommend the banning of violent material, one should do so. If one wants to recommend the banning of sexually explicit material, one should do so. One should *NOT*, (as the Meeseoids are doing), purport to recommend the banning of violent material while actually recommending banning sexually explicit material, by using sleazy bait-and-switch routines. (Look, folks: nothing up my sleeves! Now, *this* type of movie made these men commit Thoughtcrime, so *presto!* let's ban *that* type of movie, because *they* will surely cause other men to commit Sexcrime! At no time did my fingers leave my hands!) -- The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed. --- Robert A. Heinlein (From a non-fiction explanation of the fictional rise of a fundamentalist Christian dictatorship in his story, "If This Goes On...". This is recommended reading if you *really* want to be terrified by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There are points of similarity between today's fact and RAH's fiction that are... well, frightening.) -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/23/86)
In article <781@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: >> > Meese commission: >> > > 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 Boy, is that ever a biased test. Compare the reactions of the "The Getaway" with what? Pete's Dragon? Some Disney Flick? >> > Me (Adam Reed): >> > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely controls >> > differing from the "pornographic" stimuli only in the defining >> > characteristic of "pornography" - sexual arousal, according to Mark - >> > were never done. Also, there was no control group of "violent only", "sex only", "sex and violence", no sex or violence (but emotionally charged situation). >I found that examples of bad >methodology could be most readily found in "studies" motivated by >political axe-grinding. This occurs regardless of whether the >"researchers" appear to have "liberal" or "conservative" aims. If it >is any consolation to those who were hoping for something sounder from >the anti-pornography "studies", the anti-handgun "studies" are worse. > Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam) This is definately the case in the Meese commission findings. There is overwhelming evidence and data available that link effects with certian types of films. The insurance claims and police reports for theaters showing "Warriors" (mostly violence, practically no sex), "Last House on the Left" (very violent, rape), and several other "Gang violence" movies, have led many exibitors to not even bid on such films. Other associations, such as the incedence of VD and pregnancy testing at the "free clinic" located within walking distance of three "porno theaters" and comparing those numbers with the various movies shown, could also have given evidence of the effects of sex/violence on viewers. Unfortunately, the intended target was to prove relationships between sex and bad behaviour or attitudes by viewers. There is even good data to support the claims of negative effects of violent sex (incedents of rape, prostitute assault, bar disturbances, and similar crimes) related to the movies being shown in those districts at that time. Unfortunately, if these reports had been submitted, it would have indicated a need for tighter control of "R" rated movies (the ones teenagers can watch), and looser control of non-violent "X" rated movies (the ones only adults can watch). The film "Coming Home" contained one of the more explicit sexual scenes of non-adult movies, yet there was little adverse effects from this. Many "R" rated movies use sexual themes such as prostitution or partial nudity to market films which contain a great deal of violence and little if any sexual activity, either expressed or implied. There are "X" rated movies which contain extensive amounts of violence, including rape, sadistic exploitation of women, and torture, but they are more of a minority in the adult film world. On the other hand, scenes depicting implied rape, sadistic exploitation of women, and torture, are quite commonplace in the "R" rated catagory. The basic guidlines are simple, as long as you don't show actual sex, everything else is O.K. In fact, so long as acts are simulated rather than actual, from the camera's angle, almost anything is suitable for anyone over 16. Films depicting actual murder, assault, or dismemberment, is illegal, except in the case of journalistic interest. For those of you who have forgotton, such scenes were quite commonplace among film clips of the Vietam War, in fact they were shown on the 5:00 news. Detective magazines showing the actual mutilated bodies of crime victims are often found on the bottom shelf (often in a sexually tittilating cover) within the reach of children, while "Playboy" type magazines are behind the counter, in sealed plastic wrappers, with proof of age required for purchase. Therin lies the real issue. Violence is condoned in films, television, and press, because of the possible need for soldiers who must consider violence a natural part of life. Other countries, such as Britian, tend to take exactly the opposite view from the U.S. They consider sexually arousing scenes to be quite acceptable, while violence is very strictly monitored. Compare shows like Benny Hill, Monty Python, and the like, with American fare. Many movies imported from other countries which would have the equivalent of a "PG-13" rating there, have an "R" or even an "X" rating in this country. On the other side, shows like the "Friday the 13th" series are very restricted and not even allowed in some countries. Seven Eleven has stopped selling Playboy, but you can watch the most violent portions of "Nightmere on Elm Street, Part II" for free, in living color. Is it any great suprise that many of our young people walk around handcuffed together, with pins in their noses, listening to songs describing the "delight of pain", and consider violence a way of expressing affection?
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (09/24/86)
> > > AG's commission: >>>> 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... > > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely ... > > > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > > > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, ... Moreover, > > > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper > > > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously > > > significant result would be .05 . ... [the study] involved at least 5 > > > contrasts , so the probability of at least one spuriously significant > > > result is .23, about one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies > > > cited by the commission. Not much to go on, is it now? > I am referring to the five separate dependent measures administered in > *one* study, the only one by Malamuth et al which included anything > resembling a control condition: Malamuth and Clark (1981). Only one of > those five contrasts yielded a result significant at the .05 level. > > > Since you have apparently worked with Malamuth's data before (have you, in > > fact?), what have you to say on the other studies? > > I can't answer the first question directly without appearing to > violate the confidentiality of the scientific peer review process, so I > won't. As for the second: None of them used *either* appropriate > controls or reliable analyses. ... I found that examples of bad > methodology could be most readily found in "studies" motivated by > political axe-grinding. ... If it is any consolation to those who were > hoping for something sounder from the anti-pornography "studies", the anti- > handgun "studies" are worse. Ok. Let's take this one point at a time. Malamuth and *Clark* or Malamuth and *Check*? Yes. Assuming that the trends all had no less than 1 chance in 20 of being random occurrences (in other words, that all of the trends were *just* barely within the level of significance) there is about 1 chance in four that one of the five trends observed was a random event, in the absence of further data. The likelyhood of all five were flukes, however, would be 1/(3 200 000). By the way, I suspect that the worst methodology can probably be found in the area of ``psi'' ``research'', no? Or is that so far off on another planet as to be unworthy even of ridicule? Have you on hand a full list of the references that the ``social sciences'' section of the report lists? I would be (genuinely) interested in your specific comments about the other studies cited conducted by Malamuth, or Malamuth, et. al., as well as those done by Donnerstein. I would be even more interested to hear what you have to say about the studies cited in which neither Malamuth nor Donnerstein is listed as an author. Naturally, you understand that I will not be *entirely* unbiased but I will try to approach the matter realisticly -- which means to me accepting the realities of statistics, and within *some* limits of subjectivity, the question of what constitutes an appropriate control. Are you aware of any properly controlled studies (by your criteria ...) which attempted to observe what these studies attempted to observe? If so, what did they find? If not, are there any *better* ones than those cited? If not, can the apparent indications that there is *something* to what these ``axe- grinders'' (your term) claim to have shown be ignored entirely? Once again, would you agree that the appropriate action is prompt and properly controlled study? Or do you feel that the entire question can be ignored? (If you answered this question before I must have missed it.) Next, if reports from individuals involved in social work, in law enforcement, in criminal psychiatry, as well as the testimony of victims all indicate an apparent link between behaviour that is either criminal or just short of it (the ``no means yes'' and the ``c'mon honey, look at how they do it in the picture -- it looks like fun'' syndromes), what do you think is the appropriate response from social science research? And (realisticly) do you think that a way can be found to bring investigators whom you would call unbiased into that response? Finally, when the people who are ``offenders'' in the situation of the previous paragraph do not show outward indications of abnormality in the absence of specially designed tests, and if a non-vanishing portion of the population, when given these tests, shows the sam abnormality, does you characterization of the Psychiatric Fantasy still apply? Why? -- 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) (09/27/86)
> This is definately the case in the Meese commission findings. It is the case in the studies that the Commission had available. They did not have the funds to commission studies of their own, beyond a few surveys of what material as available. Once again, Edwin Meese neither served on nor chaired the Commission. Nor did he supress its findings, nor the dissent. > . . . . The insurance claims and police reports for > theaters showing "Warriors" (mostly violence, practically no sex), "Last > House on the Left" (very violent, rape), and several other "Gang violence" > movies, have led many exibitors to not even bid on such films. Answered, by the Commission's acknowledgement of this fact, and the point that ``if the stark implications of causality [were carried to the extreme] few of us could justify doing anything not directly related to feeding the hungry.'' > Other associations, such as the incedence of VD and pregnancy testing > at the "free clinic" located within walking distance of three "porno > theaters" and comparing those numbers with the various movies shown, > could also have given evidence of the effects of sex/violence on viewers. > Unfortunately, the intended target was to prove relationships between > sex and bad behaviour or attitudes by viewers. Hardly. It was to ask what problems were occurring. The difficulty was that, in the absence of paid and truly objective investigators (if there are any such) the volunteers had to be selected from people whose experience that there *were* problems might be reasonably well-founded. If you feel this way, why didn't you speak at a public hearing, or bring these studies (if indeed they exist) to the attention of the investigators? > There is even good data to support the claims of negative effects of violent > sex (incedents of rape, prostitute assault, bar disturbances, and similar > crimes) related to the movies being shown in those districts at that time. Is that because the potential offenders were watching movies? Unfortunately, the catharsis theory isn't well supported, and there is some testimony from offenders (which may be self-serving) that trying to substitute material for people can delay the urge to the offense, but will also strengthen it. > Unfortunately, if these reports had been submitted, it would have indicated > a need for tighter control of "R" rated movies . . . and looser control of > non-violent "X" rated movies . . . [in the R movies] as long as you don't > show actual sex, everything else is O.K. In fact, so long as acts are > simulated rather than actual, from the camera's angle, almost anything is > suitable for anyone over 16. Hey, didn't the Commission agree that the violence may well be a greater problem than the sexual content? > Films depicting actual murder, assault, or dismemberment, is illegal, > except in the case of journalistic interest. But you can't determine whether an actual sex act on camera was consensual or not. This is true of all film making, but it seems to be a problem in certain parts of the sex film industry. (Deep Throat is the familiar and hotly disputed case ...) > Detective magazines showing the actual mutilated bodies of crime victims are > often found on the bottom shelf (often in a sexually tittilating cover) > within the reach of children, while "Playboy" type magazines are behind the > counter, in sealed plastic wrappers, with proof of age required for > purchase. Park Eliott Dietz, whose personal contribution to the Report was the subject of much flammage, *did* submit as a part of the Report, an article that he had co-authored on just this topic. You can't damn him for taking a broad view, and them damn the Report for not taking a broad view! > Therin lies the real issue. Violence is condoned in films, television, > and press, because of the possible need for soldiers who must consider > violence a natural part of life. Hardly for this reason. The training of soldiers does not require that they already condone violence; a large part of basic training is the ``re-education'' (read: indoctrination) to the value system of obedience to the chain of command and violence upon command. It works. And I'm glad. > Other countries, such as Britian, tend to take exactly the opposite view > from the U.S. They consider sexually arousing scenes to be quite acceptable, > while violence is very strictly monitored. Compare shows like Benny Hill, > Monty Python, and the like, with American fare. Our Supreme Court, for better or worse, has held that the maintaining of public decency and the avoidence of ``patently offensive material'' through obscenity law is proper under our Constitution. It has not so held for violence (and given the respect for real dissent, coupled with the history of this nation, it seems unlikely to do so.) > Seven Eleven has stopped selling Playboy ... I can buy Playboy and about six or seven other magazines at the 7-11 up the street, but I have to ask for them, since they are behind the counter with a wrapper hiding the cover. Perhaps I'll buy an issue just to reassure myself and the net ... > Is it any great suprise that many of our young people walk around > handcuffed together, with pins in their noses, listening to songs > describing the "delight of pain", and consider violence a way > of expressing affection? I consider this more likely a result of the fact that our society seems to have lost the ability to teach about real intimacy, affection, and growth, and has substituted sex for sexuality. Don't get me wrong: it's a real problem. But it has occurred *after* the massive changes to societal mores, not before. -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.