Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,net.singles Subject: Re: The Evidence on Pornography Message-ID: <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 16:55:41 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1547 Posted: Mon Sep 15 16:55:41 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Sep-86 21:34:59 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 101 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:131 net.legal:3574 net.singles:10360 > Meese commission: > > In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and > > Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features > > as part of a campus cinema showing. The films --*Swept Away* and > > *The Getaway*-- represented sexually violent fims wheras control > > subjects viewed a non-violent feature film. Dependent measures were > > obtained after a week in a questionaire presented as a separate > > ... > Me (Adam Reed): > > > darkness, flickering lights, depiction of violence. In the light of > > > what we know about human behavior, pornography was not really > > > necessary to produce the reported result. In all probability, Buggs > > > Bunny cartoons would have worked equally well. The obvious follow up ... > > > Adam Reed (mtund!adam) > Mark Terribile: > > Given the fact that controlled studies *were* done (not by the Commission, > > which had not the wherewithall to fund them), with a reasonable attempt to > > eliminate the effects which you describe, your ``obvious conclusions about > > the scientific motives of the investigators'' may fairly be regarded as > > unsubstantiated and unreliable. > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely controls > differing from the "pornographic" stimuli only in the defining > characteristic of "pornography" - sexual arousal, according to Mark - > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, and the element of > violence is known to be capable of eliciting the reported results *by > itself*, i.e. *even in the absence of sexual arousal*. Moreover, > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously > significant result would be .05. The study described above, according > to the Meese commission summary, involved at least 5 contrasts , so the > probability of at least one spuriously significant result is .23, about > one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies cited by the commission. > Not much to go on, is it now? > Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam) Which of the studies are you referring to? Or are you referring to all of them? I will agree (as if anyone had thought to mention it) that the presence of one name on several different studies may reduce the independence of the studies, but it does not mean that one can be considered when the others are ignored. If you are saying that there has been too little research in this area, you will get no argument from the Commission and no argument from me. If you are saying that there has been *nothing* shown, I think you are pushing a point a little too hard; at the very least, the studies show a reason for concern and for more extensive study. They certainly do not indicate that we should abandon two centuries of legislative and judicial tradition for the sake of a ``sexual revolution'' not yet a quarter of a century old. And that seems to be the question that the net.singles groups revolves around: should over 200 years of law, in which both the legislative and judicial branches have a hand, be discarded on a whim that is just a few years old and that already shows some signs (if not yet conclusive evidence) of causing harm? We have seen how ``progress'' has polluted our air and our water with chemicals and our hearing with noise. After our experiences with these things, oughtn't we go slow when there is enough evidence to show that harm is at least possible, if not entirely unlikely? Especially where the subject is one as personal and private as human sexuality where we are *known* to have vulnerabilities and interconnections, as yet poorly understood, with other behaviour? (I can hear the resounding chorus of *no*!) Given the involvement of new technologies (photography and cinematography/electronic video) doesn't it make sense to take it easy? And given the testimony of individuals who claim to have been harmed, along with both observation by the commission and testimony by law enforcement officials regarding the unhealthy conditions in retail outlets, isn't there reason enough to at least consider bringing the industry under public scrutiny? Given the harms (disputed by a very few) of child pornography, coupled with the existance, well documented by law enforcement, of networks to distribute such materials, isn't there adequate cause to close loopholes in the current interstate commerce laws and bring such activities under the RICO act where they are done for profit? If you believe that the evidence is not yet adequate to base policy on, and you fail to search for more evidence when the evidence that is there makes a strong suggestion, then you are showing your bias. If you take the incompleteness of evidence in one area to mean that evidence in another area may be ignored, you are likewise demonstrating a mixture of prejudice and arrogance. Since you have apparently worked with Malamuth's data before (have you, in fact?), what have you to say on the other studies? Meanwhile, I missed a chance to post some of the references provided in the Report. I should apologize. When I get the time again, I will post them; probably will post every third in the list. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.