Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Re: The Evidence on Pornography Message-ID: <1579@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 03:51:21 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1579 Posted: Sat Sep 27 03:51:21 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 03:02:52 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <781@mtund.UUCP> <392@cci632.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 116 Xref: linus net.legal:4863 soc.singles:253 > This is definately the case in the Meese commission findings. 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. -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.