>> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because people, >> >particularly women and children, are abused in the production of certain >> >pornographic materials ... >> >If these were the only adverse health consequences of >> >pornography the most straightforward remedy would be the regulation of the >> >pornography industry to assure safe and fair labor practices.
>> This answers itself. [Gene Ward Smith]
>Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material?
1) They are aware at the time that what they are doing is public, and a permanent record is being made. They've made a free and informed choice. 2) They are adults, and have the right to make such decisions for themselves. 3) Mental illness?? Potential later embarrassment is possible, but what makes you think ex-porn stars are more vulnerable to mental illness?
As for appropriate work rules, I should think they should follow the current standards for modeling and film acting, with slight modifications. No child actors, for example.
>> >B. Injurious Products >> >[possible dangers of accidents with sex toys]
>If only ``a few people'' are reported as being seriously hurt, should the >materials be controlled, or their sale be discouraged by discouraging porn >that depicts their use? I think that we *still* have to balance the harm >and good in each case.
OK, but we already have a way of doing that. It's called "product liability". If I buy Dr. Feelgood's Super Strawberry Sex Syrup, and get a painful rash in a very delicate spot, I can sue the guy, just like I could sue a ladder manufacturer if his brand-new ladder breaks under my foot. By the way, I love that word, "discouraging"; sounds *so* much nicer than suppressing or censoring :-).
>On the other >hand, consider the mental health implications of presenting material >which incorporates pain, physical restraint, and elements of slavery and >degradation as normal sexual material. Damn, we've been having an argument on >net.singles about just what constitutes rape when one partner isn't sure!
What do you mean by "presenting as normal"? The argument is about whether it should be presented at all. Frankly, in a society like ours, which is not even considering the censorship of films like FRIDAY THE 13TH, part (X), the violence issue seems a red herring in the porn debate. Unless someone wishes to argue that cheap slasher films have a redeeming social value not shared by cheap porn flicks? :-)
>> >F. Fostering Attitudes with Adverse Health Consequences
>> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because it >> >increases the probability that members of the exposed population will acquire >> >attitudes that are detrimental to the physical and mental health of both >> >those exposed and those around them. >> >... Analagous response of exposure to nonsexual media violence have >> >been documented for even longer.
>> Ditto my response to section E. Does this last sentence mean we should >> ban Rambo?
>On this basis, it's probable that we should. But because of the subtle and >powerful interactions between sex and aggression, it appears that we are >more capable, in general, of seperating fantasy from desirable or acceptable >behavior where sex is not involved. (I do not attempt to support this >statement fully; indirect evidence comes in the ``rape trial'' studies that >are cited and outlined in the Report)
Correlation != causation. That's why the evidence is (politely termed) "indirect". I'm always struck by the implied elitism of the censorship supporters in these arguments. Censorship implies censors, people who will read/hear/see *lots* of this stuff, like the commission did. But they're respectable folks, so they're OK. And Mark is no doubt sure it won't corrupt *him* if he should happen to experience it. I'm sure it wouldn't corrupt me, too. How 'bout the rest of you? Any of you think your morals would be corrupted by porn? Or is it always other people's morals?
>> instance, one would wish to see why the effect of pornography is so >> different in Japan and Western Europe. ... also ... a comparison to "Friday >> the Thirteenth, Part LXVII -- The Story Degenerates". In other countries, >> they are much more worried about media violence than porn. Does the evidence >> show they are wrong? Dr. Dietz's comments seem to indicate otherwise.
>Recently, one of Sweden's public health officials was quoted as saying >something very like ``pornography is the theory; rape is the practice''. >(I will try to get more info on the health official and what he said.)
>Are those countries wrong? It would be more accurate to say that in their >care to not restrict matters sexual, some have missed violent materials. >In particular, Denmark has been the source of much such material, according to >the Report. Remember also that the countries of Northern Europe *do* differ.
What about Japan? There is much more rape, sadomasochism and general violence in Japanese porn than American; yet the Japanese, though perhaps a rather sexist society, have a much lower rate of violent crimes against women than the US. I think that's also true (lower rate of violent crimes against women) of all or almost all West European nations, yet some of those countries have much more liberal porn laws than we do.
>Again note that public health considerations often must be balanced against >individual liberties. Our written Constitution may not be the perfect >description of the liberties that inividuals have a right to, but it's not >a bad try, especially for the first of its kind. The fact that it exists and >is still a source of controversy affecting each of us is a reminder of how >well its authors and subsequent defenders did -- and still do -- their jobs. >These questions need to be asked, and the answers need to be found. But the >answers will not all inevitabely be the same.
I think the 1st Amendment sets a clear standard for judging books, films, pictures or magazines that are accused of being harmful: innocent until proven guilty. There is just no serious evidence of anyone suffering harm from sexually explicit material. A few rapists have tried to dilute their guilt by saying "porn made me do it", but that's hardly to be credited. Confusing things even further is the lumping together of the effects of vicarious violence and vicarious sex, a confusion that the pro-censorship lobbies seem to delight in furthering. There is more public willingness to censor sex than violence, but the only (limited) evidence of *harm* is against violence, not sex. So they muddy the issue of sexual frankness with that of violence. Where is the *evidence*? Why was the commission unable to back their conclusions with hard data instead of hearsay? Does anyone have evidence that sexual stimulation via porn (*not* violence) is harmful? Innocent until proven guilty.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
> > The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public > > welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth.
> The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the > point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* > except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any > sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that > the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.
> mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter:
sexual arousal
Nothing here about rape, nothing here about violence, nothing here about unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, nope just plain sexual arousal.
Let's ban bikinis!! (they arouse *me*!)
Let's ban Rubens, Rembrandt, the Venus de Milo!!
Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!!
After all if God had wanted us to be sexually aroused......
Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire to repress sexual arousal.
Which is exactly what I have argued is the point of the Meese Commission all along. tim sevener whuxn!orb
> Mark Terribile (mtx5b!mark) writes: > > The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is > > the point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for > > *nothing* except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not > > communication in any sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. > > Or at least it appears that the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.
> Strange. Art, as I would define it, is a selective re-creation of > reality *designed to create an emotional response*.
Just one of many definitions. An artist once told me that art had to do with seeing things in ways that others didn't, and juxtaposing them in ways that others wouldn't. I guess that leaves out Rembrandt and much of Michelangelo and DaVinci ...
> Films designed for *nothing* except the triggering of horror, piety, hatred, > fear, compassion, laughter - any emotion other than sexual arousal - are > constitutionally protected speech. I hold with the late Justice Black > that the Constitution does not endorse such an exception,
And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that bench.
> and I loathe any interference by the state with something as personal as the > emotions, including sexual arousal, engendered by whatever art one > freely decides to experience. And my intuition is that a society which > regards sexual arousal as less desirable than horror or fear, and > forbids works which evoke the former while protecting those which evoke > the latter two, is *sick*.
What about a society that holds these things as so personal and private that the community has the right to say that people shall not gratuitously manipulate the feelings and physical reactions of others?
There is a judgement embedded in this to the effect that most of the works in question do not constitute Art; that we can tell the difference between those that do and those that don't, with a small range that *might*; and that those that do or might are protected. And that the mere manipulation of these personal and private feelings does not of itself constitute Art.
Is this where your disagreement lies? --
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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
In article <1...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>And (PED aside) you and I and the AG's Commission agree this far. (Would you >like chapter and verse ...?). But the Commission is claiming that there is >evidence that certain types of materials, generally cinematic >depictions, which are designed to have certain sexually arousing effects, >may be causing harm.
How does something with "sexually arousing effects" necessarily "cause harm"?
>The Supreme Court of this nation, in the *Miller* case, held that when such >materials do not have any other value for *communication*, they need not be >given the full protection of the First Amendment.
Unfortunate. Who's to decide what "communication" is? For five points, explain how "communication" makes something valid, whereas sexual arousal doesn't.
>> The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public >> welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth.
>The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the >point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* >except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any >sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears >that the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.
Well, just so it's clear, I'll argue that this line cannot be drawn. Why is sexual arousal such a bad thing, Mark? Besides, the Constitution doesn't state or imply anywhere that I can see that free speech is limited to "communication."
>> I think experience has shown us that the open society is to be preferred. >> Hence I am lead to the conclusion that pornography should be regarded as >> innocent until proven guilty -- and where "guilty" must mean shown to >> be a definite and extreme social liability. The sort of arguments Dr. >> Dietz gave do not suffice, in my opinion.
>Ok. At least we are talking about issues and principles. Let me ask you >then about specifics.
OK. Since it's clear that banning pornography in a general sense is ridiculous, let's take some more extreme circumstances and see if we can't generalize from them.
>Given the allegations made about peepshows, *if* the allegations that *some* >of these places are littered with semen, urine, and occasionally feces are >correct, and *if* they are so designed as to allow anonymous sexual contact, >would you support specific public health laws to address this situation by >requiring that the booths be closed to each other and that the occupants be >visible from the outside? (Or pick another remedy of choice ...)
No. If people like anonymous sexual contact, it's better that they do it in these places than out on the street. At least other people habituating these places feel the same way.
Now for a change of subject:
>Given the claim by law enforcement officials, child welfare agencies, and >others that pedophiles photograph children in sexual performances and traffic >in these photographs, and given the fact that large collections of these >photographs are sometimes seized when alleged pedophiles are arrested, would >you support closing the loopholes in evidence requirements under existing >statutes regarding interstate distribution of such materials?
What loopholes? You don't mean the Exclusionary Cause, do you?
>Would you allow a person who is not old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages >to act in films whose sole purpose was sexual arousal of the viewer, or could >the same (or similar) requirements of age be acceptable or appropriate?
Child pornography is quite a different issue. Here I think I would accept restrictions.
>In case you are wondering, the questions *are* specifically loaded.
Now the truth comes out :-) While not
>all peepshows are like the ones described, at least *some* are. Given the >increasing concern about sexually transmitted diseases, the existance of even >a few such places would seem to call for no less regulation than, say, the >restaurant industry.
I'm getting confused. Are we talking about peepshows with cubicals strewn with human excretions, or about kiddie porn?
>Under the current requirements of evidence under the relevant statutes, all >the carrier of kiddie porn has to do when carrying it across state lines is >make a couple of other stops on each side of the line, and the ability to make >the evidence stand up in court is gone. The reason is a peculiarity of >wording in the statute; other interstate commerce statutes do not suffer >from this loophole.
I don't understand. Please explain the law. -- Robert^Z
In article <1...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>> The alternative is Plato's Republic, where the Guardians of the public >> welfare ban certain kinds of music, certain kinds of books, and so forth.
>The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the >point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* >except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any >sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that >the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.
And therein lies a fundamental weakness of any anti-pornography campaign-- trying to come up with a way to ban "Deep Throat" but keep "Last Tango in Paris." Banning a movie based on the intention of its makers seems unenforc- able in the extreme. "Deep Throat" wasn't designed solely for sexual arousal. If it had been "designed for *nothing* except sexual arousal" there wouldn't have been anything in the film which could not cause sexual arousal. For example, the scene where Linda Lovelace visits her doctor ("How would you like it if your balls were in your ears?") is intended for comic relief, to make the audience laugh, not to sexually arouse them. The Playboy Forum often contains questions about cars and stereos. This information is not intended solely for sexual arousal, and so Playboy cannot be banned on this premise either.
--
"I can walk like an ape, I can talk like an ape, I can do what the monkey can do"
Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
> And with William O. Douglas. But not with the other eight Old Men on that > bench.
^^^
Oh, my God, Sandra Day O'Connor retired and I never heard about it! :-)
Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!...@topaz.rutgers.edu BITNET: mtgzy.uucp!...@harvard.edu The future exists first in the imagination, then in the will, then in reality.
Hi, I'm going to reply to the latest flurry of articles, and I'm just going to hit the high points quickly. The netnews traffic on this group must be in the megabyte range by now.
>After reading all this material on pornography I've finally decided to >visit one place and found something interesting. After ignoring the mags >which I'm pretty sure are photographically retouched (I think, hope), >I noticed that a fair number of the magazines were of women trussing >up men for sexual access, beating, and other acts. The number of mags >with women degrading men almost equaled the ones of men degrading women. >My question is: I've heard about the ones on men degrading women, but I >haven't heard anything about the ones on women degrading men. Any reason?
Your statement would seem to be contradicted in part by another poster:
>> What people who are against sexist erotica/porn/whatever should be doing, is >>producing and distributing non-sexist erotica that can take the place of the >>sexist stuff.
>I have seen a good number of magazines start out that way ... but they have >all seemed to be unable to stay that way. They end up resorting to decidedly >male-geared articles, ... stories, cover headlines and all female photography. >... Is is ... that women aren't vocal enough about it? Or, is it only the men >that make this type of venture financially feasible?
I suspect the latter. But anyhow, we've got an apparent contradiction. It should be noted that some men *like* to fantasize (or play out) being dominated. I'm curious: what ratio of male to female *customers* did you observe?
>... I find it >very interesting (though not at all surprising) that many of >the people who so actively support the conclusions and techniques of the Meese
i>report completely reject similar conclusions drawn by even better qualified
>investigators/investigations, regarding violence and its portrayal.
> Yes, these folks will argue that Rambo-ish films, and niceties such as > "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" will not encourage violent behaviour. They > reject out of hand the evidence presented by several investigations. > They claim that to censor violence is an infringement of personal > freedoms. YET, they wish to censor "pornography" based on much more > flimsy evidence, and somehow come to the conclusion that "pornography" > and its alleged concomitant social impact is in some way more devastating > than violence, and tis impact.
I think that you will not find the Commissioners among ``these folks''. You will not find me among them (although I *do* believe that linking sex and violence is likely to result in a greater ``indoctrination'' than violence alone -- my opinion, and *not* what we are really discussing here.) The greatest concern (outside of child pornography) of the Commission was material which mingled violence, coercion, and pain with sex and with apparent sexual gratification and pleasure expressed by the victim of the violence or coercion.
But there is reason for concern when, with the aid of photgraphy and electronic video, we are breaking down social taboos that exist in all cultures that we know of. (See the excerpt from Commissioner Ritter's statement that I posted a while ago.)
I would also like to point out that Edwin Meese, whatever you may think of him, did not sit on the Commission. If you wish to follow the practice of referring to the Commission by its chair member ... no, I *won't* tell you the name of the Commissioner just yet. Research for the interested reader ... Otherwise, please call it The Attorney General's Commission.
The reason for the interest in making some pornographic materials illegal is the fact that it is possible. Because of the special nature of human sexuality, the courts have held that certain materials may be found legally obscene and may be restricted or banned from public distribution and display.
>>But the Commission is claiming that there is evidence that certain types of >>materials, generally cinematic depictions, which are designed to have certain >>sexually arousing effects, may be causing harm.
>How does something with "sexually arousing effects" necessarily "cause harm"?
*NOT* what was said. Certain materials, generally cinematic depictions, one characteristic of which materials is that they are intended to arouse (but *not* necessarily including all materials intended to arouse) may be causing harm, and the means of that harm may include the arousal which they produce.
> As has already been pointed out, to keep a free society free, we must all >tolerate things we don't like. The only way to regulate personal behavior is >with a totalitarian government, be it fascist, communist or whatever. I assume >most of us don't want a totalitarian state running our lives, so we have to >tolerate pornography. The issue of damage done by pornography is only relevant >when considering programs to help it's victims (if any) or to improve sex >eduction or free birth control, or any number of other social programs.
This is drum-beating.
Whatever label you attatch to our society, we are a nation that abides by a written Constitution whose exact interpretation is established by a Supreme Court. That Court has held that there are certain conditions under which the right to Freedom of Speech, as specified in the First Amendment, is *not* absolute. One that we probably would all agree with is the case stated by Justice Holmes: ``The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell `FIRE!' in a crowded theater.''
That Court, the ``Nine Old Men'' (which term even includes Justice O'Conner), has also held that where material is sexually graphic, designed to appeal to the prurient interests, does appeal to the prurient interests, and cannot seriously be defended as having literary, educational, etc., value, the community may restrict the production and public dissemination of such material. It has also held that mere possesion is not and cannot be an offense except where the material depicts children or where there is a clear intent to distribute.
If we are talking about the United States of America (to which not all of our readers and authors belong, I realize ...) we must recognize the laws of the country as political reality.
If you wish to change this, the procedures for amending the Constitution are spelled out in that written Constitution. You are free to pursue them. This is your right, and none will abridge it. (When are you calling the Constitutional Convention?)
Someone recently asked how we may ban ``Deep Throat'' while permitting ``Last Tango in Paris''. Please note also the my use of the phrase ``cannot seriously be defended as having literary, educational, etc.'' interests. Under the current standard, the Court has drawn a line right where you felt it could not be drawn. Because of the requirement that the work be considered as a whole, (except where child pornography is concerned) an obscene work cannot be justified by a few quotes from Voltaire or a simplistic moral; a legitimate work cannot be condemned by a few torid love scenes, or even a few paraphelic depictions.
>Well, just so it's clear, I'll argue that this line cannot be drawn. Why is >sexual arousal such a bad thing, Mark? Besides, the Constitution doesn't >state or imply anywhere that I can see that free speech is limited to >"communication."
Once again, the Constitution is what the Court determines it to be. That Court has held that works lacking any serious {...} merit, intended to arouse, arousing, and depicting certain things which may be spelled out in laws (all but the first criterion considering local standards) are not related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which include allowing political dissent and intellectual freedom. In one form or another, this decision has been with us for almost as long as the Constitution itself.
The Court has not considered the question (to my knowledge) or whether sexual arousal is itself either a good or a bad thing. I think that we could agree that there are circumstances where it may be either. (See the statement by agent CYNTHIA in another posting)
[ ``Is it valid to brng a rape on film into this issue?'' ]
>>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). [ It is also vital to ask
if the event is representative or unique or somewhere in between ... ]
>"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
Testimony of William Kelly (FBI, organized crime unit -- I've got Volume I here but not Volume II so I don't have the full reference). Also testimony of Linda Marchiano (nee Lovelace). Mrs. Marchiano alleges that during the filming she was held prisoner by means including imprisonment and threat of death and bodily harm. She claims that she did not wish to take part in the filming, and was force to, and that the makers of the film, by forcing her to commit these acts, raped her. The film is estimated to have cleared $50 000 000 .00 in *profits*, which surely translate into tens of millions of viewings.
This is the most lurid and widely known incident described in the testimony quoted in the Final Report.
>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.
Are you arguing that ``hard core'' material should not be a factor in making law? Then you are saying that the material you are most likely
...
> > The dividing line, which you are arguing (I think) cannot be drawn, is the > > point at which a photographic or cinematic depiction is designed for *nothing* > > except sexual arousal. Triggering sexual arousal is not communication in any > > sense related to the purposes of the Constitution. Or at least it appears that > > the Supreme Court has held this to be the case.
> AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter: > sexual arousal
> Nothing here about rape, nothing here about violence, nothing here > about unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, nope > just plain sexual arousal. > ... > Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting > *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!! >... > Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated > the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists > trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire
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.
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.
``Orgasms are up two in heavy trading on reports of a major new marketing campaign ...''
(Oh, let me be silly once in a while! Trying to answer all of the silly ways you encapsulate *your* agendas is getting to me!)
Sexual arousal is a means by which people may be manipulated. A woman known as CYNTHIA got intelligence information that turned WWII out of very loyal officers of Vichy France:
I discovered how easy it was to make highly trained, professionally close-mouted patriots give away secrets in bed, and I swore to close my ears to everything of value on our side. The greatest joy is a man and woman together. Making love allows a discharge of all those private innermost thoughts that have accumulated. In this sudden flood, everything is released. Everything. I just never dared to learn our own secrets ...
CYNTHIA, later Elizabeth Amy Thorpe (real name still secret) quoted in ``A Man Called INTREPID''.
Hardly the stuff we want traded on the Mercantile Exchange ... --
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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
