Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,net.singles Subject: Re: Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith Message-ID: <1649@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 13:19:28 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1649 Posted: Thu Sep 11 13:19:28 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 22:47:37 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1506@mtx5a.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 145 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:41 net.legal:3516 net.singles:10205 From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile): >> >A. Abuse of Persons Used in Production >> >> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because people, >> >particularly women and children, are abused in the production of certain >> >pornographic materials ... >> >If these were the only adverse health consequences of >> >pornography the most straightforward remedy would be the regulation of the >> >pornography industry to assure safe and fair labor practices. > >> This answers itself. [Gene Ward Smith] > >Yes, if indeed it were the only case. On the other hand, how do you really >ensure the continued mental health of someone who has sex in front of a >camera, and can find that film turning up anywhere, any time. Even years >later, this film could damage a career or a family. And how do you decide >where to draw the line in the work rules for this material? 1) They are aware at the time that what they are doing is public, and a permanent record is being made. They've made a free and informed choice. 2) They are adults, and have the right to make such decisions for themselves. 3) Mental illness?? Potential later embarrassment is possible, but what makes you think ex-porn stars are more vulnerable to mental illness? As for appropriate work rules, I should think they should follow the current standards for modeling and film acting, with slight modifications. No child actors, for example. >> >B. Injurious Products >> >[possible dangers of accidents with sex toys] > >If only ``a few people'' are reported as being seriously hurt, should the >materials be controlled, or their sale be discouraged by discouraging porn >that depicts their use? I think that we *still* have to balance the harm >and good in each case. OK, but we already have a way of doing that. It's called "product liability". If I buy Dr. Feelgood's Super Strawberry Sex Syrup, and get a painful rash in a very delicate spot, I can sue the guy, just like I could sue a ladder manufacturer if his brand-new ladder breaks under my foot. By the way, I love that word, "discouraging"; sounds *so* much nicer than suppressing or censoring :-). >On the other >hand, consider the mental health implications of presenting material >which incorporates pain, physical restraint, and elements of slavery and >degradation as normal sexual material. Damn, we've been having an argument on >net.singles about just what constitutes rape when one partner isn't sure! What do you mean by "presenting as normal"? The argument is about whether it should be presented at all. Frankly, in a society like ours, which is not even considering the censorship of films like FRIDAY THE 13TH, part (X), the violence issue seems a red herring in the porn debate. Unless someone wishes to argue that cheap slasher films have a redeeming social value not shared by cheap porn flicks? :-) >> >F. Fostering Attitudes with Adverse Health Consequences >> >> > Pornography is a medical and public health problem because it >> >increases the probability that members of the exposed population will acquire >> >attitudes that are detrimental to the physical and mental health of both >> >those exposed and those around them. >> >... Analagous response of exposure to nonsexual media violence have >> >been documented for even longer. >> >> Ditto my response to section E. Does this last sentence mean we should >> ban Rambo? > >On this basis, it's probable that we should. But because of the subtle and >powerful interactions between sex and aggression, it appears that we are >more capable, in general, of seperating fantasy from desirable or acceptable >behavior where sex is not involved. (I do not attempt to support this >statement fully; indirect evidence comes in the ``rape trial'' studies that >are cited and outlined in the Report) Correlation != causation. That's why the evidence is (politely termed) "indirect". I'm always struck by the implied elitism of the censorship supporters in these arguments. Censorship implies censors, people who will read/hear/see *lots* of this stuff, like the commission did. But they're respectable folks, so they're OK. And Mark is no doubt sure it won't corrupt *him* if he should happen to experience it. I'm sure it wouldn't corrupt me, too. How 'bout the rest of you? Any of you think your morals would be corrupted by porn? Or is it always other people's morals? >> instance, one would wish to see why the effect of pornography is so >> different in Japan and Western Europe. ... also ... a comparison to "Friday >> the Thirteenth, Part LXVII -- The Story Degenerates". In other countries, >> they are much more worried about media violence than porn. Does the evidence >> show they are wrong? Dr. Dietz's comments seem to indicate otherwise. > >Recently, one of Sweden's public health officials was quoted as saying >something very like ``pornography is the theory; rape is the practice''. >(I will try to get more info on the health official and what he said.) > >Are those countries wrong? It would be more accurate to say that in their >care to not restrict matters sexual, some have missed violent materials. >In particular, Denmark has been the source of much such material, according to >the Report. Remember also that the countries of Northern Europe *do* differ. What about Japan? There is much more rape, sadomasochism and general violence in Japanese porn than American; yet the Japanese, though perhaps a rather sexist society, have a much lower rate of violent crimes against women than the US. I think that's also true (lower rate of violent crimes against women) of all or almost all West European nations, yet some of those countries have much more liberal porn laws than we do. >Again note that public health considerations often must be balanced against >individual liberties. Our written Constitution may not be the perfect >description of the liberties that inividuals have a right to, but it's not >a bad try, especially for the first of its kind. The fact that it exists and >is still a source of controversy affecting each of us is a reminder of how >well its authors and subsequent defenders did -- and still do -- their jobs. >These questions need to be asked, and the answers need to be found. But the >answers will not all inevitabely be the same. I think the 1st Amendment sets a clear standard for judging books, films, pictures or magazines that are accused of being harmful: innocent until proven guilty. There is just no serious evidence of anyone suffering harm from sexually explicit material. A few rapists have tried to dilute their guilt by saying "porn made me do it", but that's hardly to be credited. Confusing things even further is the lumping together of the effects of vicarious violence and vicarious sex, a confusion that the pro-censorship lobbies seem to delight in furthering. There is more public willingness to censor sex than violence, but the only (limited) evidence of *harm* is against violence, not sex. So they muddy the issue of sexual frankness with that of violence. Where is the *evidence*? Why was the commission unable to back their conclusions with hard data instead of hearsay? Does anyone have evidence that sexual stimulation via porn (*not* violence) is harmful? Innocent until proven guilty. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry