prs@oliveb.UUCP (10/15/86)
(I'm responding to sev'l articles by Mark T, which I appended to a single file over 1000 lines long. Starting with one which directly requested a response, namely where I said I had cited authorities. Oops, I hadn't really. Sorry.) In article <1597@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >``Lead to'' was a poor term. Insofar as there are some offenders who use >certain material in patterns of abuse, I think it worthy to consider making >it harder to come by that material. Where the material is used innocently >by 98% of its users, that may be inappropriate. Where it is used innocently >by less than 50%, if such a category exists, we should consider restrictions, >if they do not endanger the Bill of Rights. (I think that there was an >article in this batch that will lead to a somewhat fuller discussion on this >point ...) "Where it is used innocently by less than 50%, if such a category exists": I find this existance a little far-fetched, but I'm open to new data. >I don't recall the citation. Would you mind posting it again? It is harder Gladly. At least, any I can find in my archived files. Here's one at least *partly* relevant... The Nov. Playboy has a letter on page 42 from Virginia Johnson-Masters, of the Masters and Johnson institute. A partial quote of the letter: "...the literature and our own clinical experience show no link between child sexual abuse and sexually explicite material. While it has been clinically noted that some perpetrators read or view sexually explicite material, many others object to pornography as immoral. In contrast to common belief, a great number of men who turn to their children for sexual purposes are highly religious or morally rigid individuals who feel that this is less of a sin than masturbation or seeking outside sexual liasons." (Actually, not explicitly refering to 'authoritarian' when she says 'morally rigid', I may have unintentionally exaggerated, in memory, how much this supports my point. This is the 'citing' I had in mind, at the time.) I seem to remember a reference specificly to "authoritarian" personality, but that may be from another letter or article in that issue, or even some posting to the net (my memory for sources does get a bit fuzzy after a while.) Meanwhile, Oded has posted part of The Authoritarian Personality, Harper & Bros, NY, 1950, pp92-96. Dated, but relevant (he quoted only the part on anti-semitism, and I haven't seen the rest of the book.) I really should look for some others to post, a little careless of me to have said "I've cited researchers" when I had only quoted one, and that not precisely addressing my point about authoritarianism. Fraid I won't be getting to the library soon, though, as my company is sending me out of the country in a few days, gotta get ready. (So how come I have time to post this? I'm posting it while I wait for a batch job to finish). >for me to see the damage done by authoritarianism as it happens than for me to >see the damage done by what appears to be lack of concern for the side effects >of one's actions (as opposed to direct effects.) I'm sure this sentence is clear to you, but it isn't to me. Are you talking about litterbugs or the criminally psychotic? Side-effects of actions applies to authoritarian types, too, so I don't see your point. >Are we in agreement that there is room for damage at both extrema, and that >sometimes damage from the extrema may occur no matter how we try to find a >safe center? Not sure what you're asking me to agree to here. >> draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship >> is a contradiction in terms. This could have used a bit more elaboration. I was referring to the point that the existance of censorship, in practice, requires that someone *in authority* make value judgements deviding that which is ok for others to read/view from that which is not. Even when men attempt to write laws which mechanize this process, it comes down to authorities dictating to plebes. I do not mean to express an absolute rejection of all censorship or all authority, but I am uncomfortable with more of either than is absolutely neccessary (as sev'l people have aluded to: clear and present danger, etc.) >I suggest that non-authoritarian liquor laws, zoning and public nuisance ... >But such excessive zeal is the exception rather than the rule, and in general >these laws and their enforcement reflect a something like a common consensus. >Thus they are not viewed as authoritarian. Yes, good response to my careless wording. I concede that moderate regulations can be quite justifiable. Perhaps if that were all we were talking about, we could have some agreement. But that does not appear to be all we are talking about. Which leads to my next point... >> Investigate is nice harmless word, but you *seem* to want to investigate this >> possibility by removing an *unspecified* range of materials from everyone's >> accessibility. Your reference here seems to be to pedophilia, but you have >> said similar things about violent porn, which you shade together sometimes >> with so-called "psychologically violent" porn, ... > >I'm being vague to see if we have a place where we agree. There are some But the more vague you are, the more I resist agreeing. I keep feeling like I'm being asked to sign a (rhetorical) blank check. The few times when I feel inclined to agree with you are generally more specific (and like your point about liquor laws, more moderate). (Now on to another article...) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Swinging fists (was AG's Commission ...) Message-ID: <1598@mtx5a.UUCP> > > >(From the Report of the AG's Commission, admittedly more concerned in this > recomendation with the welfare of minors, but possibly applicable here) >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >RECOMENDATION 37: > >CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A STATUTE REQUIRING THE PRODUCERS, RETAILERS OR >DISTRIBUTORS OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT VISUAL DEPICTIONS TO MAINTAIN RECORDS >CONTAINING CONSENT FORMS AND PROOF OF PERFORMER'S AGES. (see original posting for additional details) Now, this I could see as a reasonable requirement. I'm not as upset as you seem to be over the possibility of a (gasp) 17 year old girl performing in such films, but some kind of regulation can be appropriately organized. I would hope that provisions would be made so as not to *absolutely* exclude the filming and/or viewing in this country of films such as "Pretty Baby"; but to require a guardian's permission is clearly reasonable, and further requirements could probably be argued (such as a psychiatrist's clearance that the child is mature enough not to be damaged by the portrayal, especially when the child is much younger than 18, as Brooke Shields was in the film mentioned above.) Of course, I'm not really talking about sex films here, but legalistic distinctions can be tricky. To get back to the point, I feel that in addition to "proof of age" being on file, permission of guardian should be on file *for all films*, not just sexual ones, where minors are employed. Making a sexual distinction is an intent that I do not really argue with, but I disagree with the implementation. (Only slightly, actually). (Re-arrangement of order in following not intended as out of context) >The requirement that the forms be handled by distributors, retailers, etc, >could be accomplished by incorporating the information in extra frames of >film, etc, in the material itself. I assume that "the information" in the material itself refers to... > The name, official title and location of the responsible person or >corporate agent supervising such records would also be listed to avoid use of >corporate shields. ... and not to the information in the release forms themselves. Correct? (Just concerning myself with implementation details. Obviously, the models/actresses might not want their legal names revealed, amoung other things such as addresses; also, the info that I assume the commission intend included is more compact.) Subject: Re: Re: All or Nothing? ) Re: Re^5: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Message-ID: <1596@mtx5a.UUCP> >Remember, where the industry currently operates underground, it will be much >harder to make it respectable than it was to create, say, a diving equipment >rental industry that will not rent you gear unless you have a certifying card. Underground? How much of it still does? Not much in California, I think. Subject: Re: Porn: Causality, self censorship. Message-ID: <1600@mtx5a.UUCP> >> Unfortunately, especially in the television and motion picture >> industry, there is a tendency to "over-trend". > >Might this be related to the tendency toward polarization that Phil noted >a while ago? Did I? I don't recall, but I think others have said more about it than I have. Subject: Re: Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <1597@mtx5a.UUCP> See above, I put this one first. Subject: Re: Porn, Laws and Trends (Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <1604@mtx5a.UUCP> >I will go a little further out on this limb and speculate that for many >regular users of explicit materials simple nudity, lingerie, and pictures >which can be ``faked'' (as opposed to pictures of ejaculating penises, etc), >are of less interests, simply because they have seen such things before. The >thrill-seeker needs to have stronger and stronger material because he quickly Excellant rhetorical device, but how realistic? My own experience was that this 'stronger and stronger material' impulse was a rather short-lived phase I went through the first year I started buying magazines "stronger than playboy". I would really be surprised if this frequently leads to extremes. >gets used to what he's seen before. And such regular users make up a larger >market than the fellow who buys a copy of Playboy once in a while, and maybe >buys a copy of High Society when he really feels adventurous. Larger market? Are you kidding? Are you? I can't believe you would say that. I don't have circulation figures at hand, but I'm sure amoung magazines that Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, High Society, etc (Lots of words, less than 50% of pages pictorial) far outsell the various kinds of all-pictures and specialty magazines combined. Got any statistics to counter my non-factual assertion??? As for movies and videos, mom & pop video rental stores' adult fare, a large fraction of their business but only a fraction, are probably outgrossing the specialty and "super hard core" theatres and adult book stores hands down. Not sure where you draw the line, but the sort of thing the corner video rental stocks in their adult only section (around here) tends to be exemplified by Debbie Does Dallas... harmless fluff with lots of real or simulated sex. Or is "regular users" vs "once in a while" your key point? If so, you imply that they are like junkies, wanting always 'stronger and stronger stuff!'; I doubt that this is any more true of the typical hardcore video renter *or* magazine buyer than it is of chocoholics! Oh, I see what happened. First you refer to the thrill-seeker idea, then you say "such users", leaving it unclear to me whether 'regular user' or 'thrill- seeker' is "such". Of course 'regular users' make up a larger market than occasional impulse buyers, but to imply that regular users are thrill seekers is not legitimate. Do you do 'bait and switch' on purpose, or does it just happen? Well, you *did* say you were speculating out on a limb. *That* was accurate. >This ``acceptance of rape myths'' question is one that needs a long, hard >look, from the social sciences, from the psychiatric profession, and from >law enforcement and lawmakers. Agreed. Not hasty action, but a *very* serious look at effects (and I'm not at all sure there are no such effects. But I'm conservative about allowing censorship w/o *first* establishing the "clear and present danger" quite clearly). >Agreed that sexual repression doesn't make for a healthy upbringing, neither >does sexual obsession. I thought obsession came *from* repression. At least, the more acute cases. Subject: Re: Porn vs. Guns? Message-ID: <1606@mtx5a.UUCP> >> If you were advocating help for the victim, and awareness, I would >> support you. Even keeping certain materials out of the hands of >> prior offenders would make some sense. Protecting the "average person" >> from "possible corruption", I cannot support. > >What if some material is *only* of interest to people with a tendency to >use that material to legitimize behaviour which will make them offenders? >Could this be the ``sawed off shotgun'' scenario? Pretty far-fetched. I'm not even sure it applies to child-porn, nor to violent porn. If it could be established, sure, but I think it's a red herring. Subject: Re: Re: Grey Porn (Long) Message-ID: <1607@mtx5a.UUCP> >> or advisory, rather than compulsory ages, could aid in a more "normal" >> presentation of sex, love, and commitment. > >The problem is that the existing channels (perhaps including the mainstream >``men's magazines'') are wound up with organized crime. Legalizing things Again, are you kidding? I find this hard to believe "perhaps even". BS. Some bookstores, some moviemakers, some distributers; no doubt. But you imply the entire ball of wax is predominantly mafia etc. I really don't think this is factual (or relevant to the 'guidelines' issue). But maybe it's worse back east. >Putting more of the industry under public scrutiny would help, of course. If >you don't feel that buying or renting films or tapes out of the trunk of a >car in a driveway somewhere is normal, you'll be more inclined to make "Trunk of a car"??? You've *got* to be kidding this time! >purchases from a store which can be somewhat more readily policed. Even here, My area has stores, so I purchase from them. Otherwise I would mailorder. >however, law enforcement officers testify that ``adult'' establishments often >keep two sets of books. How is this relevant to the paragraph you were replying to? You seem to be implying something about these not being nice guys and therefore not amenable to his suggestions, but it doesn't fit. >It also echoes the statement of Commissioner Ritter in which he says that the >Commission ``ran for the hills'' in not examining the ethical and moral >consequences of materials which show sex outside of the context of a loving >marital relationship. (Understand that Bruce Ritter is not unbiased: as a >Fransiscan priest, he has certain moral values. But before writing him off, >examine what he *says*): I did, and what he says offends me. > ``..Finding that sexual privacy is pancultural, that it has been a > stable feature of western civilization for as long as we have > knowledge, and that it currently remains highly valued by Americans > in their attitudes, practices, and laws, doesn not ineluctably > require a finding that the taboo of sexual privacy ought to *continue* > to be held in such high esteem. But these findings ... are > nevertheless crucial in assessing where the *burden* of proof ought > to rest. In all fairness ... it should rest on those seeking to > sweep away the taboo. Does current, photographic ponography offend Who is trying to sweep away that taboo? Swing clubs, maybe, but films don't count. This is *really* *offensively* *spurious*, to compare viewing performers on film to dropping in on the neighbors' orgy. (Not that I'm opposed to that either, but I have no experience from which to judge it). > that taboo? And if so, what is the harm? ... The answer to the first > question is obvious ... Nothing is left for the viewer to imagine; no > attempt is made to conceal either the face or the genitals of the Good lord, that's nothing new! Been done in *painting* for thousands of years. What's new is the technology, that we can see the faces and genitals as clearly as the producer chooses, and form greater identification with them than we could with paintings or prints, or with written fiction. But it does not mean that any of the viewers are confused about the reality of that picture being only a picture, not a neighbor-couple. Unless the *subject matter* is directly attacking the taboo, as some does, it is *not* "attacking" the precious taboo at all; but that is clearly not what Ritter was referring to. He clearly is referring just as strongly to depictions of loving monogamous couples as to scenes of orgies. As a seperate issue, I would argue that the taboo in question is not particularly desirable to retain; but I only wish to allow others the option, not promote swinging. I'm sure it can be either harmless or harmful depending on who does it and how; and I'm sure it is not a recent invention. The revolution in sex is in admitting what we've formerly only done on the sly. Humans have *always* been a randy bunch. Part of what distinguishes us from the lower animals, contrary to what some pastors would have us believe. > performers. The consumer of the ``standard'' pornography in the 1980s, > unlike the consumers of the materials generally available at the time > of the 1970 Commission Report, is a full witness to the most intimate, > the most private activity of another human being. Red herring served up on a platter. With tripe on the side. Way out of line, and its anthropology is probably faulty too. (Any experts listening?) >Fair enough, although the ``age of consent'' is a nasty thing. Lowering the >age of consent is one way to dilute the effect of `statutory rape'' laws that Are you for or against diluting the effect? Not clear. >say that if a 17 year old and a 18 year old have sex, the 18 year old is guilty >of rape. Remember that being physically able to have sex, and emotionally able >to deal with the consequences of *normal, loving* sexual encounters does not >necessarily mean that you are able to deal with the emotional consequences of >graphic depictions of one sort or another. So, what's so great about throwing a youngster in jail for having sex with someone a few months younger? Maybe there should be *some* guideline against "robbing the cradle", but I consider this sort of law a travesty. Even where a much older (30's and up) mates with much younger (low teens), this is not universally bad. It has been an honored role in certain cultures to be the adult who lovingly initiates the youngsters of the tribe into sex, giving them a healthy start at it. (This is *not* to be confused with father- daughter incest, or with adults who seduce children in our society out of personal needs). As for being able to handle lovemaking but not depictions of it... sounds pretty fishy to me. >> Pornography may or may not "cause" other sexual crimes. If, however, if it >> enables one to express verbally, in a non-threatening situation, his own >> preferences, before acting on them with an unwilling partner, it may be a >> good thing that porn is available. > >Is there a way to do this without the widespread viewing of material that >offends the sense of decency of a large part of the population? Sure. Adult bookstores. (Ask a silly question...) >> I am not advocating that everyone should go down to the porno shop to >> discover their kink. Just that those who have kinks (not everybody does), >> not "surprise" their partners. Decieving a partner about these preferences >> in the vain hope that they can be "turned around", is the most obscene >> form of deception. > >Hard to argue ... but even here, is there a range, where one fellow might >get a thrill out of ``fashion'', but be able to have loving sex with his >partner without it, while another cannot enjoy *any* sex that does not involve >painful bondage? Of course there's a range. What is your point? That the latter "should not" discover his/her tendancy? If you insist on being vague, I will insist on reading meaning into your words as best I can! > from Mole End Mark Terribile -Phil (out of town for a few weeks, starting a few days from now. Still active until then).