Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
m.terribile
>> [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)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
m.terribile
> (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.
Adam V. Reed
>>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.
> 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)
Stanley Friesen
>>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: ??
Michael C. Berch
> . . .
> 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: m...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
Phil Stephens
>>>[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: p...@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.}
Oleg Kill the bastards Kiselev
>of what we now know can determine that. This Commission undertook such an
>examination.
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.
SEVENER
> > 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
Karen Christenson
>>> >>...
>>> >>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.
m.terribile
> > 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
> > ... $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)
Adam V. Reed
> 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.
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)
e.c.leeper
> 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!e...@topaz.rutgers.edu
BITNET: mtgzy.uucp!e...@harvard.edu
Love never does fail. The people surrounded by love do.
John Miller
In article <9...@whuts.UUCP> o...@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
m.terribile
> > 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 ...
> 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.
Kee Hinckley
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.
Snoopy the Beagle
My 'n' key is getting tired.
[followups have been directed to net.news.group]
Snoopy
tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy
sno...@doghouse.gwd.tek.com
Stanley Friesen
>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.
Stanley Friesen
>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?
Dave Richards
>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
Adam V. Reed
> 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.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. One of my areas of expertise
is the methodology of psychological research; and so I do participate in
the search, as an inventor of new methods, a peer review referee for
scientific periodicals and funding agencies, and as a consulting editor
of *Behavior Research Methods*. It is true that I do not actively look
for evidence that "pornography" is harmful, but that is because I prefer
to conduct research in areas where there is at least a reasonable
expectation of obtaining meaningful results. On the basis of what I
have seen so far, research into the allegedly harmful effects of erotica
is much like "parapsychology": all the "positive evidence" comes from
inadequately controlled or fallaciously analyzed experiments; and once
adequate controls are performed and valid analyses are done all the
alleged evidence vanishes into thin air.
> .... 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 ....
Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law.
Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the
rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical
foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to
be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable
doubt, of having caused harm to another person. Even clear evidence of
having transgressed a legal prohibition would fail to meet this
criterion, if legal prohibitions are instituted without requiring proof
- beyond a reasonable doubt - that the activity being prohibited is in
fact harmful.
Human sacrifice, judicial torture, slavery, and other traditions many
times more ancient than the prohibition against pornography, were
abandoned when found to conflict with the ethical foundations of our
society. As long as there is no evidence which would prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that pornography is harmful, a legal prohibition
against pornography remains in conflict with those foundations. It is
this conflict which lies at the base of attempts to manufacture the
requisite "evidence" through disregard for fundamental requirements of
methodological integrity.
Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam)
m.terribile
> > > 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.)
m.terribile
up; it may have opened the door some Useful Discussion, and turned the
flames down a bit.
>> 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.
>
>I think you are barking up the wrong tree. One of my areas of expertise
>is the methodology of psychological research; and so I do participate in
>the search, as an inventor of new methods, a peer review referee for
>scientific periodicals and funding agencies, and as a consulting editor
>of *Behavior Research Methods*.
...Ahh. Thank you. It's taken a long time to coax you into admitting that
you have Qualifications. More on this is a little bit.
>... On the basis of what I have seen so far, research into the allegedly
>harmful effects of erotica is much like "parapsychology": all the "positive
>evidence" comes from inadequately controlled or fallaciously analyzed
>experiments; and once adequate controls are performed and valid analyses are
>done all the alleged evidence vanishes into thin air.
I won't dispute your experience, since I am evidently not qualified to do
so. What's more, you might be right, but I think the we have to look at
certain limits that the current studies have, and indeed that all behavioural
research may have. Again, let's hold off on this.
>> .... 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 ....
>
>Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law.
>Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the
>rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical
>foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to
>be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable
>doubt, of having caused harm to another person.
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. 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.
>Even clear evidence of having transgressed a legal prohibition would fail to
>meet this criterion, if legal prohibitions are instituted without requiring
>proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the activity being prohibited is in
>fact harmful.
Here we start to get into a curious split between liberal, conservative,
libretarian, and other viewpoints. (Please excuse my use of simplistic words
like these ...) Where restrictions have been in place for a long time, it does
not seem wise to me (nor apparently to the Supreme Court in some cases) to
discard them without a more thorough examination than the simple experiment of
letting everyone do without them for a fraction of a lifetime. Moreover, if
we look at evidence outside of the social sciences, we do see a connection
(whether causal or otherwise) between a certain class of people who are
convicted in courts of law of causing direct and severe harm to others and
certain types of materials which fall into the range that we might call
``pornographic''. We have testimony of law enforcement officials to this
effect; in other cases where the offense may not have been punished by law, or
may not be punishable by law (in spite of being a harm, or reasonably
considered a harm) we have testimony, often provided at great cost in
personal humiliation, that such things have occurred.
It is my contention that as soon as we see large and unexpected effects in
things that we had taken for granted as a basic part of our society or
environment, we ought to stop making these changes, and even back off a
little, until we either know what is happening, can be sure that it's not
related to the changes, can be sure that it will not alter the effects of our
changes, or can convince ourselves that it's not really harmful.
If you will allow me a little emotional rhetoric, we could say that had
the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant number 4 followed this
course instead of continuing to ``push the envelope'' we probably would
never have heard of Chernobyl.
In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in
the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials
were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
Since that time, they have become far more widespread. In addition, materials
mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims
have indicated are used by the offenders. Indeed, if we believe the testimony,
they are often the means by which the offender either intimidates the victim
or by which he becomes aroused prior to committing his offense. It may be
(and it may not be ...) that this material aids him in establishing the
connection between the coercive, violent, or humiliating effects he will have
and the sexual pleasure he will experience thereby.
What I will argue is that whether or not we believe that ``normal'' individuals
are immune from these effect, until we have a much better understanding of what
is happening, it is our duty to back off on the well-meaning changes.
>Human sacrifice, judicial torture, slavery, and other traditions many
>times more ancient than the prohibition against pornography, were
>abandoned when found to conflict with the ethical foundations of our
>society. As long as there is no evidence which would prove beyond a
>reasonable doubt that pornography is harmful, a legal prohibition
>against pornography remains in conflict with those foundations.
We found that human sacrifice, slavery, et al., were actions which were
in fundamental conflicts with rights that we considered well-established
in other cases. The restrictions (some of which are *not* prohibition, but
zoning laws (the Supreme Court has found that they can be used against
material not legally obscene so long as they don't have the effect of
prohibiting affected establishements *everywhere*), laws against display
for minors, etc) are similar to restrictions used against other things,
some of which are suspected harms. What is more, the Court has held that
people do have a right to be protected from unwanted exposure to material
that is ``patently offensive.'' Some legal sanctions against some pornography
are required to accomplish this protection, and the Court has so held.
In other words, in the absence of further experience, I don't think that we
can view the balance of rights in the case of sanctions against certain
sexually explicit photographs or films the same way we view the balance
of rights in the case of human sacrifice or slavery.
>It is this conflict which lies at the base of attempts to manufacture the
>requisite "evidence" through disregard for fundamental requirements of
>methodological integrity.
To the extent that people who wish to demonstrate harm are doing this, I will
agree that they are going about things the wrong way. Here I am going to
ask you to inform me if one of my perceptions is correct:
The great strength, and great weakness, of the behavioural approach
to human psychology is the basic assumption that the human being is
viewed as a black box with certain inputs and certain outputs and
certain measurable effects. The strengths are obvious.
The weaknesses lie in the fact that a very great part of psychological
and psychiatric understanding has come from what amounts to
introspection, and the individual study of people engaged in
introspection, or in conversation, etc., about intimate feelings,
reactions, and perceptions that effectively allow one (trained)
individual to conduct inquiries that would ordinarily be introspective
within the experience of another individual.
This entire area of study is almost completely closed to statistical
research of the sort that you are familiar with.
What you have called the Psychiatric Fallacy (the tendency to generalize from
people who are in some sense mentally ill to all people) is invariably an
error in behavioral research that depends upon statistical measures. It
is not always an error in the study of the human mind from the inside out.
There one can consider the effect of a mechanism that is ``gone wrong''
without discounting the possibility or probability that that mechanism is
at work in normal individuals, but in normal ways.
To look for the impact of pornographic materials from the ``black box''
view requires that you succeed in finding the effects by looking in likely
places. It allows relatively little consideration of what internal
effects may occur without producing immediate results that can be detected
by relatively simple tests. It does allow relatively simple interactions
such as inhibition, excitation, habituation, etc., to be postulated and
measured.
Please feel free to take issue with this; I will, of course, feel free to
take issue with your response!
I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals:
Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified
victims (many of whom are quite credible), what is the proper role,
if any, of this field in which you are expert? What can or should
behavioral science 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?
Ray Frank
> 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
Adam V. Reed
> >>>> In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and
> >>>> Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features
Adam Reed:
> > > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely ...
> > > > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al)
> > > > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper
> > > > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously
> > > > 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?
> > *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)
Wayne Throop
>> 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
Adam V. Reed
> >Now we get into questions about the ethical foundations of the law.
> >Legal punishment means depriving a person, at least temporarily, of the
> >rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the ethical
> >foundations of western society is the presumption that no one ought to
> >be deprived of these rights without a demonstration, beyond a reasonable
> >doubt, of having caused harm to another person.
> 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.
> 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.
Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
Adam V. Reed
they are answered here because they were raised here, and there is no
net.psych.theory to move the discussion to.
Mark Terribile:
> The great strength, and great weakness, of the behavioural approach
> to human psychology is the basic assumption that the human being is
> viewed as a black box with certain inputs and certain outputs and
> certain measurable effects. The strengths are obvious.
> The weaknesses lie in the fact that a very great part of psychological
> and psychiatric understanding has come from what amounts to
> introspection, and the individual study of people engaged in
> introspection, or in conversation, etc., about intimate feelings,
> reactions, and perceptions that effectively allow one (trained)
> individual to conduct inquiries that would ordinarily be introspective
> within the experience of another individual.
I agree, which is why I am not now, nor have I ever been, a behaviorist.
Neverthless, I insist on distinguishing between hypotheses and evidence;
and hold that in psychology, as in any science, the latter can only be
obtained through the application of logic and measurement.
> This entire area of study is almost completely closed to statistical
> research of the sort that you are familiar with.
Not true - look in any textbook on cognitive scaling, or psychophysics,
to learn how measurements can be performed on data derived from
introspection. Most of my own methods are equally applicable to
introspective and behavioral data.
> What you have called the Psychiatric Fallacy (the tendency to generalize from
> people who are in some sense mentally ill to all people) is invariably an
> error in behavioral research that depends upon statistical measures. It
> is not always an error in the study of the human mind from the inside out.
> There one can consider the effect of a mechanism that is ``gone wrong''
> without discounting the possibility or probability that that mechanism is
> at work in normal individuals, but in normal ways.
Yes. This is a rich source of hypotheses in psychology, and I have used
it in my own work. But hypotheses are not evidence.
> To look for the impact of pornographic materials from the ``black box''
> view requires that you succeed in finding the effects by looking in likely
> places. It allows relatively little consideration of what internal
> effects may occur without producing immediate results that can be detected
> by relatively simple tests. It does allow relatively simple interactions
> such as inhibition, excitation, habituation, etc., to be postulated and
> measured.
While there is a lot more than behavior to the science of psychology,
only behavioral data can be relevant to law and legislation. This is
because an internal mental state cannot conceivably do objective harm to
another parson; only overt behavior can do that.
Adam Reed (mtund!adam)
Adam V. Reed
> I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals:
> Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified
> victims (many of whom are quite credible), what is the proper role,
> if any, of this field in which you are expert? What can or should
> behavioral science 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, including
sexually stimulating ("pornographic") fantasy. Many people, including
myself, experience the effects of such fantasy, including mental
stimulation, emotional exhilaration, and sexual arousal, as a positive
values. Cognitive scaling methodology could be used to quantify the
relative benefits of fantasy material for input to the cost/benefit
analysis of any proposed legislation.
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, which impairs their ability to distinguish between
reality and fantasy. 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)
Joe Arceneaux
> >> [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:
>
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
Gene Ward Smith
Mark -- I had stepped out of this discussion, partly because so many
people had stepped in it, and partly because Adam Reed seemed so well
qualified to continue it. But I have a few questions from this last:
In article <15...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in
>the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials
>were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
>Since that time, they have become far more widespread.
Do you have a reference for this, or did the Commission say it? This
is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been
tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile
material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had
some effect?
>In addition, materials
>mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
>``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
>often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims
>have indicated are used by the offenders.
Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here
is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to
assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be-
cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn-
ography.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet
And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
Diane Nagy
>
>In article <9...@whuts.UUCP> o...@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")
SEVENER
> 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, which impairs their ability to distinguish between
> reality and fantasy. 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)
Do you suppose we could apply these findings to our President?
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Phil Stephens
groups such as net.legal, or that plus talk.politics.misc; or shall we
continue to cross-post to 3 or more groups? Please reply via 'r' or 'R'
rather than 'F', and if I get inundated with replies I will post a
summary.]
In article <15...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>I wouuld like to thank Adam Reed for the article to which I am following
>up; it may have opened the door some Useful Discussion, and turned the
>flames down a bit.
I also thank AR. I have already seen some of his replies to parts of this
rather long article, so I'll pick a few other things to reply to myself.
> Where restrictions have been in place for a long time, it does
>not seem wise to me (nor apparently to the Supreme Court in some cases) to
>discard them without a more thorough examination than the simple experiment of
>letting everyone do without them for a fraction of a lifetime. Moreover, if
I don't see the reduction of censorship as an experiment, any more than I
see racial integration as an experiment. You try to mess with hard-won
progress, you can expect to get yelled at.
>we look at evidence outside of the social sciences, we do see a connection
>(whether causal or otherwise) between a certain class of people who are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not a trivial point.
>convicted in courts of law of causing direct and severe harm to others and
>certain types of materials which fall into the range that we might call
>``pornographic''. We have testimony of law enforcement officials to this
>effect;
This reminds me of the old "marijuana leads to heroin" argument. "Most
heroin addicts start with marijuana so marijuana must be at fault!"
Haven't heard that one for the past decade or two, it's so laughable that
anti-druggists find it counter productive to mention, even to teenagers.
But then, most teenagers are probably less gullible than you are when it
comes to believing politicians and government panels.
(Ad hominum? But you said it was OK sometimes! ;-) )
>It is my contention that as soon as we see large and unexpected effects in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I still don't see them. Sorry. No. I asked you before, but you haven't
answered me to my satisfaction: what changes other than the increased
availability of porn itself? More *reported* rape and child-abuse? I
think we can pretty well see that an increasingly supportive atmosphere
has encouraged victims to speak out, thus higher reporting can be the
result of a *higher ratio of reports to incidences*, rather than an
increase in the number of incidents. (Sorry I can't prove it).
I even go so far as to hypothesize that the increasing *availability*
of sexual information, *concurrent with* more liberal attitudes toward
sexual practices and entertainment, has had a positive contributing
effect on the compassionate condition of our present society that allows
these victims to be respected enough to speak out, rather than continuing
to hide them and shush them and invalidate them. (Along with, but not
entirely due to, women's liberation).
With respect to child-abuse, Freud's patients told him all about it way
back in the early part of this century, and porn, child or otherwise, was
not an issue; power was. Unfortunately, other doctors were so scandalized
by this insult to society that they talked Freud into disbelieving his
patients, resulting in the propriety-salving theory that such abuse was
only a delusion on the part of neurotic/psychotic patients.
We may quite concievably contribute to *increasing* child and spouse
abuse if we roll back the clock: *that* is why I oppose arguments
for greater repression, because I *am* concerned for the greater
good of both genders and all age groups.
>things that we had taken for granted as a basic part of our society or
>environment, we ought to stop making these changes, and even back off a
>little, until we either know what is happening, can be sure that it's not
>related to the changes, can be sure that it will not alter the effects of our
>changes, or can convince ourselves that it's not really harmful.
What if "backing off a little" actually contributes to what you imagine is
being caused by "these changes"? That is how *I* see it currently, and
you have not convinced me otherwise with your rhetoric.
>If you will allow me a little emotional rhetoric, we could say that had
>the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant number 4 followed this
>course instead of continuing to ``push the envelope'' we probably would
>never have heard of Chernobyl.
Nice as rhetoric goes, but unrelated to Meesitus *OR* Chernobyl. And our
society is *NOT* facing meltdown from this tiny corner of the entertainment
industry. Your rhetoric reveals your tendency to exagerate... not just
a little, but by orders of magnitude.
>In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in
>the range of sexually explicit material available.
See my argument above as to why this could be very positive and healthy.
With the exception, I'm sure, of the (still fairly rare???) child porn.
>the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials
>were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
>Since that time, they have become far more widespread. In addition, materials
I can't argue with this from experience, as I have never seen pedophile
materials openly or covertly for sale, ever. As it isn't sold in stores,
I don't even consider it in the same catagory with popular porn.
>mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
>``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
^^^^
I notice you don't say "much more". Could this be because they have less than
doubled? Such things were certainly available 15-20 years ago both in
California and Washington states; if you don't count videos, it doesn't look
like much increase at all to me. (Videos are a technological change. If
I were you, I suppose I'd be alarmed by them. But I'm not you, nor alarmed).
Point of information: when you speak of "apparent sexual satisfaction of the
``object'' individual", I suppose you are referring to stories in which a
stranger is stalked, assaulted, raped, and unbelievably ends up liking it?
I agree that I'd hate to have the men who read these stories take it as
reinforcement for doing the same, but there are alternatives to censorship
which we could at least discuss, such as warning labels/disclaimers/
editorials.... hard to say if these would do any more good than the warning
lables on cigarette packs, but education can counter stereotypes better
than silence can. Education, and a feeling of consensus that "you don't
do that to women, not in real life". This consensus is not as solid yet
as we would like, but is actually stronger now than it was when censorship
was "rampant".
But are you also referring to sincere algolognists (sp?) (a word for
"people who transform pain into pleasure", coined to distinguish
themselves from lables associated with deSade and Massoch, with whom they
say they do not identify), who explicitely state that the submissive partner's
pleasure is the dominant's chief concern, and that in the long run the
submissive is effectively in charge? And who also frequently refer to
"taking turns"? No set dominance roles at all in some of these
relationships. Just because they are hard for us to understand does not
mean that they are lying about their realities. Nor should they be limited
to the printed word in describing their experiences to curious outsiders
and to each other. (Not my thing, by the way, but I *am* fascinated by the
almost science-fiction alienness of it). I bring this up to point out the
difficulty applying black and white absolutist idealisms without recklessly
lumping together disparate groups.
>often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims
>have indicated are used by the offenders. Indeed, if we believe the testimony,
A big "if", indeed. See below for context of my doubt, which is not of the
specific testimony but of the interpretation.
>they are often the means by which the offender either intimidates the victim
>or by which he becomes aroused prior to committing his offense. It may be
>(and it may not be ...) that this material aids him in establishing the
>connection between the coercive, violent, or humiliating effects he will have
>and the sexual pleasure he will experience thereby.
Sounds plausible on the surface, but I am very dubious. See my comments above
about marijuana and heroin. I bet lots of rapists drink alcohol, to "bolster
their courage" and reduce inhibitions; shall we prohibit that, too? Why, they
might even force their victims to drink it! (Sorry if this sounds in the
slightest like I am making light of these crimes and their victims' suffering;
I only mean to make light of the causal link *from* porn *to* crime).
>What I will argue is that whether or not we believe that ``normal'' individuals
>are immune from these effect, until we have a much better understanding of what
>is happening, it is our duty to back off on the well-meaning changes.
Shall we stop the presses *while* we call for more study?
If not, what point have you been trying to make, anyway? Just trying to get us
to admit that it *might* not be *absolutely* harmless to allow all sorts of
porn? I for one will admit that, but have grave reservations about any sort
of restrictions (even with reguard to child-porn, which must be defined rather
carefully).
As I have outlined above, I feel that *you* (plural, including all who favor
increased censorship) should "back off on the well-meaning changes." I am
not being sarcastic when I say that the climate that would allow significantly
more censorship, (and drug testing) is quite likely to lead to *more* abuse
of women and children, *not less*. I am quite sincere about this, and feel
that the limited information available to me supports this view. I am open
to contrary *information*, not rhetoric.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
PS: I have asked at Crown books, and they don't know when the report will be
available. They have heard rumors, but don't have any official listing yet.
I am planning to purchase it when it becomes available there.
- Phil
Reply-To: p...@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Quote: "Mosquitos suck" - a tee shirt
Jerry Natowitz
Sure we can, and to the majority of American voters who
are proud to have a president who quotes Rambo and Dirty Harry.
--
Jerry Natowitz (HASA - A division)
Bell Labs HR 2A-214
201-615-5178 (no CORNET)
ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jin
or ihnp4!opus!jin
Isn't it interesting how the beautiful little red flower in the forest
becomes so ugly when you discover it's a candy wrapper.
Rex Ballard
>> > > 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?
Rex Ballard
>>>> [From Commissioner Dietz' statement]
>>
>>Interesting what people choose to pick on. Note the behavior described:
>> indiscriminant sexual activity without contraception or prophylaxis
>> 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.
>
>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.
m.terribile
>>>> In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and
>>>> Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features
> > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely ...
> > > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al)
> > > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper
> > > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously
> > > 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?
m.terribile
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!
m.terribile
>
> 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.
What if it were the case that the production of, say, 65% of some class
of material involved either the kind of exploitation that you have named,
or else the ``it was that or starve'' question? Not knowing whether a
given film was or was not made under these conditions, could you, in
good conscience, view it?
> "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> -- generally attributed to Will Rogers
>
> -- johnmill
I'd like to point out that if I have a heart condition, your right to swing
your fist may well end a good deal further away than that; and if you don't
have good evidence that I don't suffer from a heart condition, you'd better
be prepared to expect that I do, or you might find out in a way that would
probably leave you rather sorry.
Otherwise, your article reeked of common sense ... which means that it probably
shouldn't be posted on this newsgroup ;^)
m.terribile
> groups such as net.legal, or that plus talk.politics.misc; or shall we
> continue to cross-post to 3 or more groups? Please reply via 'r' or 'R'
> rather than 'F', and if I get inundated with replies I will post a
> summary.]
The discussion seems to revolve mostly around sexual values, with legal ones
a close second. I would like to keep it out of net.politics, and most of the
interesting followups seem to have come from net.singles readers ...
Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a
good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it.
The changes in laws and the interpretation thereof regarding obscenity began
in 1957 with the *Roth* decision; we are just begining to see some promise
of stability with the balanced provisions of the *Miller* decision.
It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and
esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes
that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche
since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing
us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot
be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the
first until we get the other stuff straightened out.
It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading
erotica/porn is the result of technological improvements in the publishing
process (both print and video ...). It may be that it really is part of the
removal of repression.
But when we remove repression, it is not unreasonable to expect all the
results to be good. An increase in the amount of material used by sick
people to encourage their sickness may occur at the same time as an increase
in the willingness of people to report sexual abuse and rape. An increase
in the number of parents who can't teach their kids how to integrate sexuality
with love and affection may occur at the same time as an increased willingness
to express both. (Expressing sexuality does not *have* to include the sex
act, does not *have* to include heavy petting. But it may.)
It may be that some of the bad things came about *because* of the repression,
like a closed and festering wound.
Does this mean that we must accept the bad effects without question or
attempt to remedy them? Hardly.
Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to
testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean
that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? I certainly
accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness,
but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that
we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse?
As regards unusual sexual practices: as you note, in order to work, they
require an unusual mindset and an unusual communication between the partners.
The problem is that there are some people who do not realize this. Of people
who watch films showing fighter pilots operating their beautiful (but also
terrible) machines, there are undoubtedly a few who believe that they can
do these things without the months of pain, sweat, and doubt that the pilots
endure in training. We protect against them by making access to fighter planes
difficult. If we could not, if everybody could operate their automobile
as though it were a fighter aircraft, we would undoubtedly try to educate
people about the consequences. In the absence of an effective way to do that,
would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that
encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes?
The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about
sexuality, not about the integration of blossoming sexual feelings with
the rest of the personality, including (among other things) the interplay
between sexuality and the needs for affection and intimacy. The only way
we know of to teach these things is though good example and occasional, some-
what intimate guidance. (A father-son chat about how the kid feels about
Suzy the ex-tomboy can be a very intimate thing, but not at all physical ...
or, if too few fathers are close enough to their adolescent feelings to do
that, the older-brother/younger brother chat)
Two specifics that I will address:
As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there
is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
there is. One study, even an objective one, can raise concerns and cast
doubts, but it cannot answer the question. A range of studies over several
years may. Insofar as the studies may be poorly done and badly reported, the
``investigators'' are doing a real disservice by throwing away time, resources,
and credibility that are badly needed.
But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to
see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re-
directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the
study remains objective and the methods reliable.
While the testimony of law enforcement officials cannot substitute for
studies, and while the testimony that certain offenders have large collections
of certain materials, often material of little interest to the public, cannot
demonstrate that self-exposure to these materials *causes* the offenses,
when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the
material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that
for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of
the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the
material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense.
(Whew! that was a big sentence to get out ...)
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
m.terribile
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.
m.terribile
> 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
Bill Tanenbaum
> As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there
> is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
> ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
> there is.
Mark, unless you provide good evidence that your postings to the net do not
cause rotting of the mind, erosion of our freedoms, and bubonic plague,
my conservative mindset suggests that we ought to act as though they do.
To the gulag with you, while we try to "genuinely" determine if this is so.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
Rex Ballard
>> >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in
>> >the range of sexually explicit material available.
>>
>> This is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been
>> tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile
>> material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had
>> some effect?
>
>enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant.
It is important to note, that the number of convitions based on those siezures
has gone down (not offensive enough).
To minors, the amount of both sexually explicit AND implicit materials
available is actually less than it was in 1970. This is due to "Ratings
systems". Most ratings systems have become stricter with reguard to sex,
but extremely lax with reguard to violence. Full frontal nudity of women
is rarely tolarated, but "top nudity", even in combination with subsequent
explicit violence is tolarated under the "R" ratings. For printed matter,
even less nudity, and even more violence is tolarated.
The "Nixon" committee found that there was no correlation between violence
and violent crime. Subsequent research has shown that this was not a correct
assumption. The Nixon committee also found that there might be a link between
sexually explicit materials and V.D. It has been found that there is such
a link. The risk among readers of sexually explicit materials is lower than
among sexually active people who do not read sexually explict materials.
To adults, the amount of sexually explicit materials has increased. The
variety however has decrease, with the trend leaning toward more explicit
materials, and more "specialized" markets. Nudity, missionary sex, lingerie,
and even oral sex is now a smaller market, while bondage, "split beaver",
homosexual, bisexual, anal, transexualism, and female dominance is now a much
larger industry in terms of competition. The old "marital guides" are almost
a sideline, and much of the material no longer has a retail market outlet.
>As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still
>some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow
>evidence or testimony to come from.
>In many localities, there are no laws
>requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children
>engaged in sex acts.
Actually, where those laws have been passed, state courts and federal courts
have often considered it an invasion of privacy for the finisher to do so.
One particularly difficult problem is that, in order for a print or copy
of the film to be used as evidence, that particular print must be traced
back to the producer. It is not sufficient for the victim to appear in
the film, see the film, and say, "yes, that was me being exploited".
Outtakes cannot be subpoenaed as evidence against the publisher. He is
free to destroy any material left on the cutting room floor. This has
been a problem where coersion or intimidation has actually been caught
by the camera, but taken out of the final copy. Conversely, the defence
may use outtakes showing the victim enjoying him/herself as evidence in
his defense. Quite simply, the producer can use the original film
as a "stacked deck" in his favor.
>> >In addition, materials
>> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
>> >``object'' individual have become more widespread,
Again, much of this is due to the "all or nothing" polarization of the
"ratings" and "zonings" regulations. A more "graduated" approach might
lead to more diversity and abundance of more moderate forms.
>> >and such materials are most
>> >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified
>> >victims have indicated are used by the offenders.
Victims of what? Porn, or rape, violence, coercion,...
>> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here
>> is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to
>> assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be-
>> cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn-
>> ography.
Actually, there is an issue of "refinement" of tastes. A paraphile might
enjoy being tied up. This tendency may have developed as young as two
or three years of age, but the film shows him a variety of different
restraints, positions, and other gear. The transvestite might see
fashions he/she might otherwise not have desired, or see other transvestites
going out in public, seducing women,... "in drag". In some cases, this
has the tharaputic effect of enabling people with such tendancies to
discuss them with their partners, doctors, or therapist. This is not
necessarily a bad thing.
Remember, many of these "Deviant Behaviours" occur in people whose
upbringing is very sexually repressed. Often the result is that
they will find a source of stimulation other than say, nudity.
Watching mommy dress, watching the cowboy get tied up, then get
the girl later, secret agent shows, even fights, might trigger
an initial reaction. Boys actually discover "arousal" at around
age 3, when the diapers are replaced by the more accessable training
pants. Women often don't discover "Sex" until much later. (See Kinsey).
There are several variations of pedophilia. Shaving, diapers, rubber,
and "young looking" adults are a few.
Fetishes mark another common form. Again these preferences were
formed very early.
One survey of men indicated that only about 5% could even tell you about
their true sexual preferences, fantasies, and desires. Those who could
divulge them, often had little "quirks". Many couldn't even tell their
wives or regular sexual partners.
Another study indicated that only a few men were aroused by women who
were simply naked. "Roles" (facial expressions of dominance, fear, anger,
innocence, happiness, or arousal), "costumes" (heels, garter belts, stockings,
corsets, lingerie, socks, shoes, etc), and "Plot" (props, setting, poses,
acts performed by the model,etc) were significantly more important than
appearance, beauty, or anatomy.
A survey of prostitutes indicated that, when budgetary and social
constraints were not a factor, nearly all of their customers had
some form of "deviation" which they could not enact with their
regular partner.
Much of this information comes from surveys reported by various magazines
such as Penthouse. They usually are statistics taken from scientific
journals and condensed into "reader's digest" form.
>In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent
>sexual materials.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Did you read any sort of sexually oriented materials? If so, what types?
Most of the research done indicates that porn has the effect of "bringing
people out of the closet". When this occurs in such a way that the
person "coming out" has conflicting tastes with his sexual partner,
there is a pattern, among some individuals to seek gratification
elsewhere. Often, after expressing these desires to a spouse, they
are emotionally blackmailed into a situation where they can do nothing else.
Perhaps if people "came out of the closet" before they committed to long
term relationships, there would be fewer sexual offenses committed.
Remember, many sexual offenses are committed by very "respectable" people.
The image of some "porno junkie on the street" raping some waitress coming
out of work is more the exception than the rule. In some cases, the most
bizzare sexual crimes have been committed by the most respected people.
Judges, Presidents of Corporations, Governers, and even Preachers have
been linked to sexual crimes.
Many times, those who are repressed sexually, either "still in the closet",
or committed to a partner with conflicting preferences, is more likely
to vent his frustration by trying to repress sexuality in others.
O.K. There are a lot of generalties here, backed up by poorly referenced
research. If you consider yourself an exception to everything above,
feel free to express this. You're one of the lucky 5%.
I would try to look up references, but I've thrown a lot of the reference
material away :-).
Rex B.
Phil Stephens
>> >the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials
>> >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
>> >Since that time, they have become far more widespread.
>>
>> is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been
>> tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile
>> material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had
>> some effect?
>
>``The Commission said it'' based, I believe, on the testimony of law
>enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant.
Any numbers? A recent Senate investigation concurrent with The Commission
concluded 2000 pedophiles. (As quoted in Playboy, Nov issue). Is that "many"
or "very, very rare"??? That's 0.01% of the population, if true. Do you
have a larger figure? For hard-core "true" pedophiles, not just people who
buy "Family Affairs" to fantasize with but have no inclination toward acting
out their fantasies with real children.
>Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to
>be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no
>indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report.
Perhaps the problem in 70 was larger than they detected, or perhaps the 86
investigation confused their logic a little. Just because an advertiser
assumes there is enough market to justify the cost of advertising does not
mean that there is; have these ads been long-lived or ephemeral? And are
their customers, if any, "the real thing", or just curious horny individuals?
I'm not rebutting what you/they have said, but I *am* questioning it.
>As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still
>some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow
>evidence or testimony to come from. In many localities, there are no laws
>requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children
>engaged in sex acts. There are the evidence problems that were written of
>earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim.
You are straying from the point. According to the Playboy article arrests
and convictions have increased. I don't have it with me at work today,
but both old and new rates are miniscule compared to, for instance, rape.
This is not *neccessarily* indication of low *incidence*, but I have to
wonder!
>Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an
>activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)?
Yes, but your motive for bringing it up? Inherant shock value? We should
all roll over and spread our legs to your logic because you have brought up
a really startling *thought crime*??? That *is* what you are talking about,
isn't it, "how *DARE* they show their faces in public? Society must really
be going to the dogs if they think they can get away with that!"... is how
I interpret your including the above in your answer to "how has society
drasticly changed?"
Without actually agreeing with Pedophilia (either straight or gay), I can see
how some of them might think that what they are doing is not wrong, and a
society that is willing to grant some justice to Gay-Rights "ought" to give
them a fair shake, too. They are sadly mistaken, of course; I haven't heard
what these groups are actually asking for, but I can guarentee it won't get
a favorable reception any time soon. Any such relationship is "essentially"
incestuous, reguardless of genetic unrelatedness; the age difference causes
an inherant dominance relationship, and this coupled with sex is not a good
introduction to life for young people. (Just my extrapolation from what I've
read about real-life incest, but I imagine its a good one).
A healthy society tries to rehabilitate them, not encourage inmates to
murder them. And you? The problem isn't new, but compassion for *both*
victim and perpetrator is. And still a little shakey. Some of us want
to defend the open atmosphere in which it is possible, while others want
to bring back the bad old days. Guess which I imagine you to be?
>
>> >In addition, materials
>> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
>> >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
>> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here
>> [...] Paraphilias exist with or without pornography.
>
>In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent
>sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition,
>the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970
>commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant.
^^^^^^^^^ which, violent or ped?
Well, joker, I was of age in 1970, and I did observe such materials(*) in
abundance. Not the same in style or quantity, but there for anyone who
wanted them. I glanced through some, and was relieved to find them
rediculously unbelievable. Have seen some since that are more believable,
but still obviously staged emotions and makeup. Just like Hollywood movies
became more realistic in their portrayal of monsters and violence. Increase
in quantity, not all that much. Got *numbers*?
(*) Violent, not pedophile. Still haven't seen any of those, except in news
stories!!! Or are you blurring violent with pedophilic?? Your train of
thought is hard to follow sometimes!
>considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic
>become an ``offender.''
Please see the letter by Virginia Masters-Johnson to Playboy, part of which I
quoted in a previous followup. You have been listening to the wrong experts,
I think. Experts are a wonderful excuse for what you already believe, aren't
they! (Could include me too, but at least I'm wary of experts).
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Phil Stephens
>
>good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it.
>It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and
>esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes
>that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche
>since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing
>us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot
>be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the
>first until we get the other stuff straightened out.
You are welcome to argue, but I'm glad you are not in a position to dictate.
And I do not understand you saying "slowing and stabilizing", when you *seem*
to be implying a need for radical backtracking. Since you haven't clearly
stated what you *are* arguing for, it is easy to read into your arguments
either what one hopes or fears. In my case the latter: I fear repression
such as is happening now in (No. or So.) Carolina. Felony status for
"pornography" sale, minimum 3 year sentence, and no-one knows what is
legal and what is not! Even the DA's don't know! I hope the law will
be thrown out, but in the mean time it is having a definite "chilling
effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program last Friday, my sole
source of information on this law) on not only video rentals but art
galleries and college courses on foreign film. I forget the exact link,
but I think that they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission,
was responsible for this dubious legislation.
Two questions...
To the net, incl MT: Does anyone have more precise info on this bill, and/or
first-hand observation on how much "chilling effect" is happening? (I'm not
sure whether it was No. or So. Carolina, please adjust as needed)
(You may want to edit subject line in followups)
To MT: Care to clarify whether this (No. or So.) Carolina bill corresponds
to what you mean by "slowing and stabilizing"? Or simply use it as a starting
point; no need to defend the bill's implementation just because I assume that
you approve of its intent....
>It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading
[...]
>Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to
>testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean
>that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? I certainly
Your phrasing is based on complete negation of the point I had made, to which
you had otherwise seemed to be responding quite reasonably. I did not
and do not believe that these things (porn) "lead to the abuse". The first
half of your sentence does not fit the second half.
>accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness,
>but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that
^^^^^^^^^
>we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse?
I don't claim to know. But I strongly suspect that such abuse (of spouses and
children) is fueled more by authoritarianism than by pornography, and I see
(radically) increased censorship contributing more to the major cause of abuse
than it subtracts from the minor (if even significant!) cause. Being of a
"conservative mindset", you probably don't want to think about authoritarianism
causing a terrible toll of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited
researchers on this issue, if I remember correctly).
A case might be made for more moderate censorship, but you have only hinted
at whether you (or the dread Commission) support moderate or drastic or
draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship
is a contradiction in terms.
>[...comparison of unusual sex practices to flying jets...]
>would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that
>encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes?
Biker magazines encourage lawlessness, sort of, but I see no persuasive case
made that outlawing biker mags would have a good effect. The same can
be said of High Times encouraging drug use, sort of. You have not shown
that a significant percentage of the (millions of??) people viewing
"unusual" practices are insensitive and stupid enough to attempt to inflict
them on an unwilling loved one, but even if you did, warning lables might
be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative pictures
and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as:
As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are
not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on
anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject
to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching.
And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like
mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies
to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes!
Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any
government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers
would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example. And
I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines...
some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to
person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices).
>The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about
I suppose I said something about education instead of prohibition. But I
wasn't really talking about "sex education" in the sense of school-board
approved classes for adolescents. I had something more universal in mind,
like prime time television specials, implicite references during sit-coms,
realistic treatment in hollywood movies... no, I don't have a specific
program to lobby for, I think it's already happening voluntarily and will
continue *if they are not scared off by repressive legislation and
hysterical conservative boycotts*. Not that *you* advocate such extreme
measures, MT, but some such suggestions *have* been associated with The
Commission. Your own moderateness is unclear to me.
>As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there
>is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
>ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
>there is.
Yes, you *would*. (I like Bill T's answer to this paragraph). To you, porn
is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just a question of finding a
palatable way to prove what you already "know". In the meanwhile, lets ban
it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know that's not what you
think you are saying, but that's how I hear it).
There is much precedence for this, such as asking acused witches to pass a
test that no-one could pass. Rigged data. Only we're much more sophisticated
about it these days.
>But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to
>see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re-
>directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the
>study remains objective and the methods reliable.
Sorry, I'm not a statistician. Does ".05 level" means 95% certanty and ".005
level" 99.5% certainty? And if so, certainty of *what*? If it is certainty
that there is *measurable* effect, it is not neccesarily certainty of
*significant* effect, in the sense of significant enough to justify making
the materials in question unavailable (except to experimenters).
>[... the testimony of law enforcement officials ...
>... the testimony that certain offenders have large collections ...
>when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the
>material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that
^^^^^^
>for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of
>the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the
^^^^^^^^^^^
>material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense.
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, which may include Playboy, but
you call us overreacting if we mention Playboy, 'cause the courts have
already ruled it OK... can you begin to see that it might be your responsibility
that we are (I am) a little confused about just what you are arguing for????
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
However, you must be making *some* sense, or we (I) wouldn't bother answering
you. Don't take that as *much* of a compliment, just a small one. You are
making enough sense that it would be a shame to give up on you as too vague
to respond to.
Ronald O. Christian
> As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there
> is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
> ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
> there is.
If only we could apply this to tobacco...
Ron
--
--
Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
m.terribile
> >the range of sexually explicit material available. Pedophilic materials
> >were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
> >Since that time, they have become far more widespread.
>
> Do you have a reference for this, or did the Commission say it? This
> is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been
> tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile
> material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had
> some effect?
``The Commission said it'' based, I believe, on the testimony of law
enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant.
Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to
be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no
indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report.
As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still
some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow
evidence or testimony to come from. In many localities, there are no laws
requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children
engaged in sex acts. There are the evidence problems that were written of
earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim.
Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an
activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)?
> >In addition, materials
> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
> >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
> >often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims
> >have indicated are used by the offenders.
>
> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here
> is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to
> assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be-
> cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn-
> ography.
In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent
sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition,
the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970
commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant.
It *is* reasonable to assume that the materials are not the prinicple ``first
cause'' of the paraphelia. On the other hand, by rewarding it, they may
encourage it; in addition, there is testimony that some people, at least, have
used it to help them prepare emotionally for acts that may reasonable be
considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic
become an ``offender.''
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
Rex Ballard
>In article <15...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>>
>>Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a
>>good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it.
This dialogue covers so many points, I thought I'd break off a few subtopics.
>
>You have not shown
>that a significant percentage of the (millions of??) people viewing
>"unusual" practices are insensitive and stupid enough to attempt to inflict
>them on an unwilling loved one, but even if you did, warning lables might
>be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative pictures
>and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as:
>
> As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are
> not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on
> anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject
> to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching.
> And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like
> mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies
> to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes!
>
>Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any
>government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers
>would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example.
On principle supplier of bondage restraints is even more explicit than
that. In their catalogue, certain items are labled in as many as 4
places, "Do not restrain slave in this device for more than one hour".
(extended use can cause accidental dislocation of the shoulders).
Vibrators are often labled with cautions against using it on a person's
feet.
Most "gentle bondage" magazines, which are usually read before more
extreme magazines include such tips as:
Before beginning, agree on one or more signals which the slave can
use to prompt immediate release. Some "password" such as "stawberries"
or something that will not be confused with role playing.
When using gags, or other oral restraints, make sure that the signal
can be used whenever needed.
Remove gags at the first sign of choking, or breathing problems.
Be sure that restraints can be removed quickly in case the slave
has muscle cramps or convulsions.
Progress slowly in punishment or humiliation. The intent is to
arouse, not lose a lover.
If the slave panics, he/she may begin to kick, scream, or show
signs of genuine fear. It's better to let the slave loose, than
to risk further panic.
Never put anything that can stangle the slave around the slave's
neck.
Some of the precautions to the slave:
Start slow. Use caution, especially with a new or beginning partner.
For first sessions, make sure you can "escape" if necessary.
State explicitly what you are willing to try for each session. Initially,
any variations in the program should be verbally at least approved by you.
If your "dominant" releases you because of possible cramps, convulsions, or
other concerns, do not get angry, the first concern is safety and pleasure,
not "acting ability".
Never allow yourself to be restrained completely by a lover you don't trust
entirely.
Always make sure someone besides the dominant knows where you are.
(Most dominatrixes won't even take on a new customer unless he is
escorted by a "regular").
Other general precautions:
When using rope to bind wrists or ankles, gloves and boots prevent
serious injuries as well as prevent unsightly rope burn marks.
Stockings and silk scarves make good restraints, but if pulled too
tight, can literally cut wrists and ankles.
Waterbeds are ok, but don't wear heels, spikes, or sharp objects.
(This is more of a precaution to dominants).
A dominant should not fall asleep while the slave is restrained.
(Some bondage gear catalogues do sell "sleepware" devices which
are safe for "overnight" wear.)
There are several maximum time limits for suspensions, inversions,
elbow cuffs, and other "delightfully uncomfortable" positions. In some
cases, some submissives will sometimes not want to quit.
Some "slaves" are into self-bondage. Again precautions are given, including
some form of guaranteed escape. Precautions against strangulation, restricted
use of blindfolds and hoods, and unrecomended self-bondage techniques.
More than one magazine has warned of the dangers of "self hanging". This
is a practice where the victim tries to achieve orgasm before suffocating.
There are several incidents where police have found people who have
accidently not been able to get the strangling device off in time.
This practice by the way, is most common among men who are often
too ashamed of their "preferences" to experience them in the safer
supervision of a safe dominant partner. Often, bondage porn is NOT
found in the area.
>I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines...
>some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to
>person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices).
It is possible for someone to read "hard core" bondage porn without
getting into the "moderate" rules. If they aren't shocked, they will
probably investigate the more moderate forms first.
Often, there are a number of preconditions that a submissive will require
to enjoy bondage. They vary from forced or voluntary cross-dressing, to
verbal humiliation. These are as necessary to the submissive for bondage
as clothing is for dining in public. Submissives often have some little
fetish, routine, or "role" which the dominant should grant.
Having had a little experience on both sides of the ropes :-),
such instructional porn has made such practices much safer than if we
were left to "experiment" ignorantly.
I might add, I was introduced to both sides before either of us had read
such literature.
I have, in previous articles, cited examples where the "rules" were
not followed. You can guess now, how I know which is which.
And, I prefer the submissive role.
Rex. B.
Rex Ballard
>>Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a
>>is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
>>ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
>>there is.
>
>Yes, you *would*. (I like Bill T's answer to this paragraph). To you, porn
>is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just a question of finding a
>palatable way to prove what you already "know". In the meanwhile, lets ban
>it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know that's not what you
>think you are saying, but that's how I hear it).
There are companies who have taken this approach, reguarding violence.
Warner Brothers, after observing the effects of violence in "Bugs Bunny"
cartoons, has removed so much of the violence, that there almost isn't
a plot. Watch it some Saturday morning.
Disney studios has also cut much of the violence from their productions.
Not because of federal or state intervention, but based on their own studies.
The same research indicates that material with certain types of erotic
content can actually have a positive effect even on children. Variety
shows, chorus girls, and shows which depict romantic interest, actually
have been shown to improve the way children react and interact with
each other. "Pepe Le Pew", for example, had a good effect on children.
The concern over violence did not surface until after parents had pressured
these companies into taking the "mush" off the air.
Due to various pressures, "variety shows" have all but dissappeared from
the airwaves, and given way to more violent shows.
Some animators are actually beginning to re-introduce positive interaction
forms, such as hugging, love, and romance.
It may sound like I'm advocating censorship of violence. This is not
the case. Ideally, it would be better to be able to always have a
choice between sex, violence, neither, or both. These choices should
be available in quality and quantity in print, film, and television
at all times.
Unfortunately, especially in the television and motion picture
industry, there is a tendency to "over-trend". Some violent series
gets good ratings in a certain time slot, and the other networks put
even more violent material in the same slot. If one station shows
sexually suggestive material on sunday night, the others will put the
same type of material in the same time slot. The worst example is
saturday and sunday, when all three networks are showing sports, and
the syndicated stations are showing the cheapest material they can buy,
like re-runs of Gilligan's Island.
One should be able to choose one's own balance, based on what they
view as entertainment.
(yes, I have a VCR)
Rex B.
Rex Ballard
>[Mark T writes]
>>[... the testimony of law enforcement officials ...
>>... the testimony that certain offenders have large collections ...
>>when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the
>>material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that
> ^^^^^^
>>for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of
>>the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense.
The $90 dollar question:
Does the offender already have preferences in the general direction of
his offense? In other words, would he have had those preferences even
without the porn?
It is possible that his tastes are refined and qualified by porn. This
can be good or bad. Perhaps by encouraging the sale of "young look"
magazines featuring the various fetishes and interests but with adult women,
he could become more interested in adults than children. Many men do
find satisfaction with an adult woman who simply wears pigtails, fuzzy
P.J.s and other "little girl" costumes. Not only that, but there are
women who really enjoy acting like little girls in a sexual situation.
For each case cited, there are probably a hundred similar cases where
porn has actually enabled men with repressed preferences to find
constructive means of satisfying them, and enabled them to find partners
with complimentary interests.
Of course, all this implies that men are the only "perverts". Certainly,
there are also women who can find similar benifits by reading appropriate
material.
>> from Mole End Mark Terribile
> - Phil
Rex B.
Rex Ballard
>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, which may include Playboy, but
>you call us overreacting if we mention Playboy, 'cause the courts have
>already ruled it OK... can you begin to see that it might be your responsibility
>that we are (I am) a little confused about just what you are arguing for????
This is a common censorship tactic, though Mark may not be aware he is using
it. "Child buggering" is almost universally not accepted. By creating the
image of exposing a 5-year old to sexual abuse, or to porn, the basis for
a "we need something" opinion is formed. By creating the image of a violent
physically abusive rape being glamourized, filmed, or caused by some form
of porn, the basis of another "let's do something" opinion is formed.
There are hundreds of cases of child molesting, and equally numerable
cases of physically abusive rape. It is so easy to get arguments for
either more or less censorship. It still gets good reviews on the
road though.
Then comes the mandate to "do something" among voters, politicians, and
even scientists. In the process of deciding "what to do", the decision
makers get broader and broader in their definition of "Children", "violence",
and "Pornography". Eventually, a "child" becomes anyone under the age of 21
(because some local governments have legally defined them as such), "violence"
becomes any form of sexually explicit depiction, and pornography becomes
any form of nudity, sexually suggestive attire, or activity not encountered
in normal daily life (This is why a shoestring bikini is rated "G", but
a 4 garter full length corset, seamed stockings and panties is rated "R",
or even "X").
This is the second time I have lived through the "porn crackdown". In the
first one, people were incensed that in "I am curious yellow" 20 seconds
of "Actual SEX" was shown. To heighten the drama, fundamentalists were
taking their 5 year old kids to see it, claiming ignorance.
The famous quote of the day from ratings/censorship advocates was something
like "Parents send their kids to see 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf' thinking
its a nature show", indeed, they had documented evidence of several hundred
cases of this. The whole thing was orchestated by one of the big-time
evangelists of the day, like Billy Graham or Oral Roberts or someone
like that.
The end result. Virginia Wolf is a Shakespearean classic compared to the
language and situations depicted in the avarage "PG" rated movies. "G"
rated movies are mostly re-releases of old Disney films. If there is
any "Actual Sex", the film is automatically rated X. The average "XXX"
rated film (a fictitious rating by the way), now has a whole 20 seconds
of coherant dialogue, a whole 3 minutes where the performers aren't
totally naked, and over twenty minutes of even more explicit "close-ups"
and "zoom-ins" than the scene that caused the censorship movement in
the first place.
About the only facet that still stands today, was the contriversy over
"Myra Breckenridge", the story of a transexual's transition from male
to female, including scenes of the male attractively cross-dressed.
Did you know that "Uncle Miltie" was taken off the air because of
this? Transexualism and transvestite activities are still the
"ultimate taboo" in american televison, film and "general consumption
print". According to one rumor, the North Carolina "porn movement" was
prompted by parents seeing Boy George on MTV!!
Again, the ugly head of censorship, with it's threat of even more
and harsher restricitons, raises it's ugly head. The targets
haven't changed that much. The tactics haven't either. The
result, unfortunately, will probably be as bad, or worse this
time, as they were the last time.
Did you know that Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, and several other presses
sympathetic to the Independence movement were shut down on the basis
of "pornography"? In particular, dirty limericks about loyalists and
King George.
>> from Mole End Mark Terribile
> - Phil
Rex B.
Rex Ballard
>
>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.
>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.
>> . . . . 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.''
And yet, the commission, and several groups supporting it, feel that
due to the implications of causality, certain types of porn should be
subject to certain types of governmental restriction.
>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?
I was rather astonished to see how few of the studies already done,
both on sex related, and violence related materials were not included,
referenced, or even mentioned. I was also surprised to see the inferior
research that was mentioned. Finally, the conclusions drawn from the
research that was cited, had little, if anything to do with the research
itself.
>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.
In some cases, such material is actually used by tharapists to enable
potential offenders to discuss these urges verbally. This same strengthening
can be used in similar beneficial ways outside of tharapy.
>> 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 ...)
There is a problem here. The basic problem is that cartoon characters
enjoy more protections (as trademarks) than human beings. Draw a picture
of Mickey Mouse, and you have to talk to Disney Studios. Take a picture
of Vanessa Williams, and if she has signed the release, she has no further
control, even when she's 80.
>> 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.
The result being the "television code", and some FCC regulations. There
are 7 words that you STILL can't say on television, radio, and probably
even this 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.
I would guess it's more likely a result of things like "Bugs Bunny" violence
(Warner has cleaned this up themselves by the way), a regular diet of
detective shows, car chases, "shoot 'em up" westerns, horror films,
fist fights, and various other forms of subtle violence with a strong
dose of reinforcement in the form of everything from cheers among the
"live audience", to romantic scenes with the heroine.
This by itself wouldn't do it, but when coupled with a decline in
variety shows, intimate situations, erotic costumes, candid conversation
about love, sex, and intimacy, all negatively reinforced by everything
from "whoas and uh-ohs" from the live audience, to verbal, physical,
and emotional abuse of characters depicting other than "good macho"
and asexual mannerisms and dress, could tend to bend one's mind into
confusing violence, sex, and intimacy.
Listen to the "audience track" the next time you watch "Silver Spoons",
or any other show with a "live audience" and an intimate situation.
(I quote "live audience", because although there is a live audience,
they are often prompted to react as they do, and selective amplification
is used to get the "best reaction".
It's pretty sad when "hero kissing girl" gets the same reaction as
"girl announces she's pregnant".
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Rex B.
Balance requested by unbalanced person :-).
m.terribile
> >It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and
> >esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes
> >is preventing us from evaluating ... either. ... the second cannot be
> >stopped ... I would argue for a slowing ... of the first ...
>
> You are welcome to argue, but I'm glad you are not in a position to dictate.
> And I do not understand you saying "slowing and stabilizing", when you *seem*
> to be implying a need for radical backtracking. Since you haven't clearly
> stated what you *are* arguing for, it is easy to read into your arguments
> either what one hopes or fears.
*VERY* important. This whole subject is terribly laden with values, fears,
and personal vendettas, mixed (unfortunately) with some very real harms. Even
the dissenting member of the AG's Commission agreed on these harms. I will
soon post the dissenting sections, along with an apology for the delay. It is
*not* a small file.
> ... I fear repression such as is happening now in (No. or So.) Carolina.
> Felony status for "pornography" sale, minimum 3 year sentence, and no-one
> knows what is legal and what is not! Even the DA's don't know! ... it is
> having a definite "chilling effect" (according to the MacNeil-Lehrer program
> last Friday, ...) on ... art galleries and college courses on foreign film.
> ... they said that Sears, the head of the porn commission, was responsible ...
I dearly hope that a bunch of good constitutional lawyers get involved here
soon. I more dearly hope that it proves to be unnecessary. As far as knowing
what is legal: if it doesn't fall within the *Miller* standard, it cannot be
banned outright, but if you are worried that some people may sit on the appeal
for several tens of weeks, I fear that you may be right.
The Chairman of the AG's Commission was Henry E. Hudson. The
other Commissioners were Judith Veronica Becker, Diane D. Cusack, Park Elliott
Dietz, James C. Dobson, Edward J. Garcia, Ellen Levine, Tex Lezar,
Bruce Ritter, Frederick Schauer, and Deanne Tilton -- 11 in all.
Alan E. Sears served as the Executive Director. His influence appears
to be small indeed on the Commission if this is truly what his position is,
since the Commission appears to have repudiated this position. Note, I said
``appears to have''! Clearly the presence of a someone with the views and
agendas that you are attributing to him would lead anyone to ask if the
Commission was a whitewash. But there is a difference between asking if it
was a whitewash and concluding that it was.
Now, Alan Sears is a criminal lawyer (government/prosecuting attorney)
and he ought to have understood what will and will not stand up in a court of
law and under a Constitutional challenge.
Practicing trial lawyers, for better or worse, do not make law;
legislators do. This causes a great deal of judicial effort to be spent
determining ``legislative intent''; it also probably causes more Constitutional
challenges than might otherwise occur. These are costly, but in the long run
they contribute to the growth (up, not out, we may hope!) of our legal system.
I *do* hope that the open issues get resolved. If the law was written
by legislators on a hometown bandstand, it should get the shakeup it deserves
if/when it comes to a proper challenge.
The really unfortunate part is that the challenge will be funded by
the commercial money -- the mass market sex industries -- rather than the
people who are really concerned with the political, literary, scientific, and
educational values that are supposed to be protected.
But remember, the state XYZ Carolina has the right to ban certain
things, liquor included. And some southern states do have ``dry counties.''
I don't see this as such a bad thing, *so long as it is done within the
requirements of the Miller standard* or whatever refinement of it the Supreme
Court develops after the next serious challenge, and so long as it really
does reflect local mores.
My recollection is that the M/N News Hour, while a very good program,
does drift to a liberal viewpoint, and this seems to be a subject upon which
moderation and reason are difficult. I second your call for solid information.
> Two questions...
>
> To the net, incl MT: Does anyone have more precise info on this bill, and/or
> first-hand observation on how much "chilling effect" is happening? (I'm not
> sure whether it was No. or So. Carolina, please adjust as needed)
> To MT: Care to clarify whether this (No. or So.) Carolina bill corresponds
> to what you mean by "slowing and stabilizing"? Or simply use it as a starting
> point; no need to defend the bill's implementation just because I assume that
> you approve of its intent....
A bill such as you describe probably does not. The combination of ``dry
county'' status for material not protected under a standard a little bit
looser than *Miller* might be. Again, I second your call for information.
Other topic:
> >Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to
> >testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean
> >that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? . . .
>
> Your phrasing is based on complete negation of the point I had made, to which
> you had otherwise seemed to be responding quite reasonably. I did not
> and do not believe that these things (porn) "lead to the abuse". The first
> half of your sentence does not fit the second half.
``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 ...)
> >accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased
> >openness, but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that
> ^^^^^^^^^
> >mean that we should cease [trying to remove encouragement to abuse]?
>
> I don't claim to know. But I strongly suspect that such abuse (of spouses and
> children) is fueled more by authoritarianism than by pornography, and I see
> (radically) increased censorship contributing more to the major cause of abuse
> than it subtracts from the minor (if even significant!) cause. ... you
> probably don't want to think about authoritarianism causing a terrible toll
> of suffering, but *please do*. (I have already cited researchers ...
I don't recall the citation. Would you mind posting it again? It is harder
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.)
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?
> A case might be made for more moderate censorship, but you have only hinted
> at whether you (or the dread Commission) support moderate or drastic or
> draconian measures. However, I suggest that non-authoritarian censorship
> is a contradiction in terms.
I picked up the banner on this topic because of the attitude expressed in
``the dread Commission'', although the fact that we are even *talking* about
the matter suggests that we've removed some of the taboos. (Does that sound
familiar?) As for the Commission, most of the Commissioners expressed regret
at not having the time to come to a better consensus. Perhaps as a result, the
document can be read as coming from a range of positions, not all of them
radical conservative ones (but some of them, no doubt).
I suggest that non-authoritarian liquor laws, zoning and public nuisance
laws, and decency laws would be a contradiction in terms if the enforcement
agencies could not overlook the adult with a beer in a paper bag sitting in a
corner of the park out of general sight, if Waldenbooks was zoned as an adult
bookstore because it sells ``The Joy of Sex'' and ``Valley of the Dolls'', if
you got a fine when the lid fell off your garbage can one morning, or if you
were hauled into court when you forgot to close the drapes when taking off
your woolen business suit one Friday afternoon.
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.
> >[...comparison of unusual sex practices to flying jets...]
> >would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that
> >encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes?
>
> Biker magazines encourage lawlessness, sort of, but I see no persuasive case
> made that outlawing biker mags would have a good effect. ... warning lables
> might be more appropriate; make the *information*, including illustrative
> pictures and video, still available, but label it with a warning such as:
>
> As you no doubt realize, the practices shown in this video are
> not to everyone's liking, and so should not be forced on
> anyone. Obviously. You might use it to bring up the subject
> to a loved one, but beyond that please just enjoy watching.
> And remember, we fake a lot of this dramatic stuff, just like
> mainstream films do. "Don't try this at home, kids" applies
> to some of it, just as it would to car-chase scenes!
Why not? ... although there could still be room for restrictions that are both
within the *Miller* standard and representative of local mores. This might
keep things out of the civil courts; on the other hand where harms *do*
occur, it may be easier to get a conviction if the person indicted were
to be shown to be using material in clear violation of the manufacturer's
recommendations.
> Neither authoritarian nor censorship. And much too reasonable for any
> government body to approve, I suppose. (btw, the actual publishers
> would choose entirely different wording; this is just an example. And
> I've actually seen well-thought-out disclaimers in "specialty" magazines...
> some worded as if by lawyers, some as an editorial, and some a person to
> person plea to be careful with certain potentially dangerous practices).
Perhaps too reasonable in the current climate. I'm sure that the current
worded disclaimers were designed to protect against *civil* suits, since it's
much easier to get a civil conviction (``preponderance of evidence'' rather
than ``guilt beyond reasonable doubt'') and the civil courts are both
used and misused for that reason.
> >The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about
>
> I suppose I said something about education instead of prohibition. But I
> wasn't really talking about "sex education" in the sense of school-board
> approved classes for adolescents. I had something more universal in mind,
> like prime time television specials, implicite references during sit-coms,
> realistic treatment in hollywood movies... no, I don't have a specific
> program to lobby for, I think it's already happening voluntarily and will
> continue *if they are not scared off by repressive legislation and
> hysterical conservative boycotts*. Not that *you* advocate such extreme
> measures, MT, but some such suggestions *have* been associated with The
> Commission. Your own moderateness is unclear to me.
As far as TV specials, fine, although Kenn Barry has an idea that I'll reply
to later that I really *do* like. As far as sitcoms, etc, I hold out very
little hope that our current crop of shows (with a few exceptions) is
capable of teaching *anything* positive. Except for the Cosby Show I've
seen little (I'm not a regular viewer of *anything*, so caution here) if
anything that triggered as much genuine empathy for conflict as -- watch
this, folks, you won't believe it -- *Leave It To Beaver* or the occasional
good episode of *Hazel*.
I'm not really that moderate, but I'd like to think that I *do* listen to
reason, and to alternate proposals. And what I heard on this group about
the AG C's Report, before this discussion started, looked like posturing.
Now it may not have been. But it certainly got *my* dander up.
> >As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there
> >is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we
> >ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if
> >there is.
> Yes, you *would*. ... porn is "guilty until proven innocent", so it's just
> a question of finding a palatable way to prove what you already "know". In
> the meanwhile, lets ban it while we come up with some rigged data.... (I know
> that's not what you think you are saying, but that's how I hear it).
Maybe I *am* saying it, although I hope it gets a public airing before we do
anything on it! I *do* believe that certain uses of certain type of sexually
explicit materials are harmful. Some of these are easy to make a case for,
although how well that case will stand will indeed depend upon what *good*
research with *representative* subjects will turn up, and some will depend upon
what I think are collective societal values (mores) and who agrees with me.
Other types will probably be impossible to prove in the short term, and we
may decide that the effects of trying to prevent them are more damaging than
the harms (my hypothetical harm to interpersonal relationships caused by
focusing on *material* rather than on people).
But we'll never know until we begin to talk frankly and find out what we
think and what we know, rather than just what we think the other fellow
is trying to do and what we know we would like to watch tonight.
> >But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to
> >see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re-
> >directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the
> >study remains objective and the methods reliable.
>
> Sorry, I'm not a statistician. Does ".05 level" means 95% certanty and ".005
> level" 99.5% certainty? And if so, certainty of *what*? If it is certainty
> that there is *measurable* effect, it is not neccesarily certainty of
> *significant* effect, in the sense of significant enough to justify making
> the materials in question unavailable (except to experimenters).
Ok. Prob and Stat was not my strong area in school, nor is it my bread and
butter, so if Adam (or some other personwho *is* well versed in these things)
would be kind enough to correct any error or misconception I present, I would
appreciate it.
Saying that the result is significant at the .05 level is saying that if
the trials in the experiment were replaced by random coin tosses, no more
than one full set of trials in 20 such sets (.05 in 1) would show as many
(heads/tails) as this experiment did.
> > [given certain testimonies ]
> >... is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that
> ^^^^^^
> >for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of
> >the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense.
> 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
people who can and will use *anything* as an instrument or inspiration to
harm, just as there are *some* who will become violent and obnoxious on half-
a-can of Bud. On the other hand, many more (though still a small minority
in the population) will become obnoxious or violent after two or three shots
of whiskey. Is it within the purview of a State Liquor Authority to permit
the sales of beer, wine, and ale/stout in many outlets, and to restrict the
sale of ``hard'' beverages to a few well-policed outlets? Many states hold
that it is.
Even the dissenting members of the Commission felt that the ``degrading''
material *might* be involved in harms and that investigation is definately
warranted, both to determine what constitutes ``degrading'' material, and to
whom, and whether any such material *does* cause harms.
> ... which may include Playboy, but you call us overreacting if we mention
> Playboy, 'cause the courts have already ruled it OK... can you begin to see
> that it might be your responsibility that we are (I am) a little confused
> about just what you are arguing for????
Well, I try to respond to what is written! When someone mentions specific
anxieties about specific things, even if they seem a little exaggerated for
effect, I try to answer them in the current context.
In the end, I wholeheartedly agree that what is needed are better public
attitudes. In the absence of these, where there is reasonable belief to
assume that harms are occurring, we should consider relieving the harms,
taking into account the nature of the harms, their severity and the extent
to which we can localize them and link them directly to causes, the other
harms that may result from the remedies, and a hundred and one other things.
In these considerations, there is plenty of room for disagreement, and I think
that more than anything we need to start talking, and we need to sift the
material we have before deciding that it is worthless.
Hell, I posture a lot on a lot of things. I hope that there comes a point
where wiser people than me can tell me that the time for posturing is past.
> However, you must be making *some* sense, or we (I) wouldn't bother answering
> you. Don't take that as *much* of a compliment, just a small one. You are
> making enough sense that it would be a shame to give up on you as too vague
> to respond to.
Actually, given the philosophical gulf between many of the other folk here and
me, I think it's a very big compliment. Of course, you are helping!
> - Phil
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
m.terribile
> Warner Brothers, after observing the effects of violence in "Bugs Bunny"
> cartoons, has removed so much of the violence, that there almost isn't
> a plot. Watch it some Saturday morning.
>
> Disney studios has also cut much of the violence from their productions.
> Not because of federal or state intervention, but based on their own studies.
>
> The same research indicates that material with certain types of erotic
> content can actually have a positive effect even on children. Variety
> shows, chorus girls, and shows which depict romantic interest, actually
> have been shown to improve the way children react and interact with
> each other. "Pepe Le Pew", for example, had a good effect on children.
> The concern over violence did not surface until after parents had pressured
> these companies into taking the "mush" off the air.
I'm not familer with the example you gave. On the other hand, romantic
interest and affection are not purely sexual. Friendships, affection, etc,
*are* vastly underplayed, and they *do* interact with sex. This does not
necessarily mean that their effect is due to eroticism; I think it more
likely that our society needs the erotic interest to legitimize friendship,
affection, and the like, in its films and shows.
Yes, this is a very sad state of affairs. Of course, the combination of
``mush'', some of which is very difficult for a child to deal with (insert
stereotype of little boy turning away from love scene while little boy's sister
is fascinated) and the general distaste among adults and children for scenes
and situations which really hit home, and you've got a formula for the removal
of love, affection, friendship, and genuine emotional intimacy from almost all
films and TV.
Look at the ``classics'' run at holiday time by some of the syndicated
stations. They can be very difficult, even for a ``mature'' viewer, and
most of the people who really watch them have seen them before.
> Due to various pressures, "variety shows" have all but dissappeared from
> the airwaves, and given way to more violent shows.
>
> Some animators are actually beginning to re-introduce positive interaction
> forms, such as hugging, love, and romance.
Didn't I see a TV Guide cover last week with the question ``Why is Romance
Disappearing from TV''?
> ...
> 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?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
m.terribile
> >> >in the range of sexually explicit material available.
> >>{law enforcement officers testify that more material is available ...]
> It is important to note, that the number of convitions based on those siezures
> has gone down (not offensive enough).
> To minors, the amount of both sexually explicit AND implicit materials
> available is actually less than it was in 1970. ... Most ratings systems
> have become stricter with reguard to sex, but extremely lax with regard to
> violence. Full frontal nudity of women is rarely tolerated, but "top
> nudity", ... with subsequent explicit violence is tolerated under the "R"
> ratings. For printed matter, even less nudity, and even more violence ...
> The "Nixon" committee found that there was no correlation between violence
> and violent crime. Subsequent research has shown that this was not a correct
> assumption. [contrariwise] The risk of VD among readers of sexually explicit
> materials is lower than among sexually active [nonreaders of such material]
> To adults, the amount of sexually explicit materials has increased. The
> variety however has decrease, with the trend leaning toward more explicit
> materials, and more "specialized" markets. Nudity, missionary sex, lingerie,
> and even oral sex is now a smaller market, while bondage, "split beaver",
> homosexual, bisexual, anal, transexualism, and female dominance is now a much
> larger industry in terms of competition. The old "marital guides" are almost
> a sideline, and much of the material no longer has a retail market outlet.
In other words, much less of interest to the ``average adult'' and more of
interest to homosexuals and more of interest to those interested in what
might be called ``degrading'' (by those who do not practice it consensually)
and to parapehlias of various sorts?
> >In many localities, there are no laws requiring photofinishers to report
> >materials processed that show children engaged in sex acts.
>
> Actually, where those laws have been passed, state courts and federal courts
> have often considered it an invasion of privacy for the finisher to do so.
For sexual materials in general, or for the specific case of materials
directed against children? The SC has ruled repeatedly that where children are
involved, some of the protections of the Amendments are outweighed by the
``compelling interest'' of protecting children from exploitation.
> One particularly difficult problem is that, in order for a print or copy
> of the film to be used as evidence, that particular print must be traced
> back to the producer. It is not sufficient for the victim to appear in
> the film, see the film, and say, "yes, that was me being exploited".
>
> Outtakes cannot be subpoenaed as evidence against the publisher. He is
> free to destroy any material left on the cutting room floor. This has
> been a problem where coersion or intimidation has actually been caught
> by the camera, but taken out of the final copy. Conversely, the defence
> may use outtakes showing the victim enjoying him/herself as evidence in
> his defense. Quite simply, the producer can use the original film
> as a "stacked deck" in his favor.
Would you explain why this is? Is it because of the rules of evidence? Are
there changes in laws which could correct this without doing violence to
the protections enjoyed under the Constitution?
> >> >... materials mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual
> >> >satisfaction of the ``object'' individual have become more widespread,
>
> Again, much of this is due to the "all or nothing" polarization of the
> "ratings" and "zonings" regulations. A more "graduated" approach might
> lead to more diversity and abundance of more moderate forms.
It might. Is there evidence to suggest that the market exists for these
things?
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
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.
> >> >and such materials are most often the materials that law enforcement
> >> >officials and ... victims have indicated are used by the offenders.
>
> Victims of what? Porn, or rape, violence, coercion,...
Violence, cercion, and rape.
> >> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here
> >> is the relation of cause to effect. It seems most reasonable to me to
> >> assume that such materials exist because they satisfy a desire, not be-
> >> cuse they have created a desire. Paraphilias exist with or without porn-
> >> ography.
The evidence that I have is limited to testimony of victims and some testimony
from people who have studied offenders. The question, also, is not necessarily
one of *creating* the desire so much as legitimizing it. It's a lot easier
to legitimize a desire or an attitude than to create it.
> Actually, there is an issue of "refinement" of tastes. A paraphile might
> enjoy being tied up. This tendency may have developed as young as two
> or three years of age, but the film shows him a variety of different
> restraints, positions, and other gear. The transvestite might see
> fashions he/she might otherwise not have desired, or see other transvestites
> going out in public, seducing women,... "in drag". In some cases, this
> has the tharaputic effect of enabling people with such tendancies to
> discuss them with their partners, doctors, or therapist. This is not
> necessarily a bad thing.
No, it is not. But where the material portrays the object of the desire
resisting, end eventually acquiescing once the act is underway, it does not
just legitimize the fantasy, but the belief that fantasy can be made real
by force, coercion, etc. And yes, this is the ``violent'' side of the issue.
It clearly *does* have special meaning where it is portrayed with sex as the
means *and* the end.
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.
> Remember, many of these "Deviant Behaviours" occur in people whose
> upbringing is very sexually repressed. Often the result is that
> they will find a source of stimulation other than say, nudity.
> Watching mommy dress, watching the cowboy get tied up, then get
> the girl later, secret agent shows, even fights, might trigger
> an initial reaction. Boys actually discover "arousal" at around
> age 3, when the diapers are replaced by the more accessable training
> pants. Women often don't discover "Sex" until much later. (See Kinsey).
Agreed that sexual repression doesn't make for a healthy upbringing, neither
does sexual obsession. As far as arousal and women ... I met one woman who
could remember being diapered ... and remembered a special pleasure in
having her knees up and spread even then. I don't think that the matter
can be quite as well generalized as that.
>...
> Another study indicated that only a few men were aroused by women who
> were simply naked. "Roles" (facial expressions of dominance, fear, anger,
> innocence, happiness, or arousal), "costumes" (heels, garter belts, stockings,
> corsets, lingerie, socks, shoes, etc), and "Plot" (props, setting, poses,
> acts performed by the model,etc) were significantly more important than
> appearance, beauty, or anatomy.
Which is why ``simple nudity'' is was viewed by the Commission as being less
likely (even unlikely) to cause harms where the ``average individual'' is
concerned. For myself, I find a ``tasteful nude'' to be fun, and to be
arousing only to the extent that I am willing to make the arousal happen.
``Split beaver'' and the (limited) stronger stuff that I've seen and read
is indeed poerfully arousing, but it also seems cheapening. These are my
tastes, seen at the surface. Are they common among ``average'' or even
``average liberal'' adults?
> A survey of prostitutes indicated that, when budgetary and social
> constraints were not a factor, nearly all of their customers had some form
> of "deviation" which they could not enact with their regular partner.
> ...
> Most of the research done indicates that porn has the effect of "bringing
> people out of the closet". When this occurs in such a way that the
> person "coming out" has conflicting tastes with his sexual partner,
> there is a pattern, among some individuals to seek gratification
> elsewhere. Often, after expressing these desires to a spouse, they
> are emotionally blackmailed into a situation where they can do nothing else.
Or else they blackmail the spouse emotionally ...
> Perhaps if people "came out of the closet" before they committed to long
> term relationships, there would be fewer sexual offenses committed.
Perhaps also if the aspects of commitment and love were to take an equal
part with sex:
The individual could accept gratification in fanasy without guilt
over his partner's lack of involvement, while continuing to
meet his partner's desires
The partner could accept the individual's needs to do so, accepting the
individual without a need to resort to emotional blackmail
Both would be motivated to seek therapy of some sort to relieve this
situation, more concerned with their relationship's health
than with its illness.
I will agree that there is too much guilt, and not enough of the emotional
intimacy that might make this possible. It's a lot harder to make guilt into
a positive thing than a negative one, and it takes one hell of a lot of trust
in and valueing of the person you feel that you fell ashamed before.
> Remember, many sexual offenses are committed by very "respectable" people.
>
> The image of some "porno junkie on the street" raping some waitress coming
> out of work is more the exception than the rule. In some cases, the most
> bizzare sexual crimes have been committed by the most respected people.
> Judges, Presidents of Corporations, Governers, and even Preachers have
> been linked to sexual crimes.
Yes. But the fact that the person is a judge, a CEO, a governer of a State,
or even a preacher does not mean that the individual cannot feel legitimized
by outside things, including his own history, the things that he reads, the
things others have done, or the apparent acquiescence of victims.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile