Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Re: AG's Report: Right problems wrong solutions Message-ID: <410@cci632.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 21:10:41 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.410 Posted: Thu Sep 25 21:10:41 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 02:34:56 EDT References: <1648@ames.UUCP> <1548@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 316 Summary: Some almost rational thoughts. In article <1548@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> I understand that Donnerstein, whose study of the effect of vicarious >> violence on the behavior of young men is often cited by the anti-porn >> brigades, and who was a witness before the commission, strongly disagrees >> with their conclusions re porn. And his is the only study *I* know of >> that links even vicarious violence with increased aggressive behavior. >> - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry If this is true, then someone should contact the Commonwealth, General Cinema Corp, A.M.C., and Loewe's theater chains and their insurance companies. Many insurance companies actually increase rates for films which depict vicarious violence. Warriors was the most classic example, $2 million in damages the first week for one chain, not including damages to surrounding property. The same data however shows little evidence of even explicit sex causing even as many problems as some "PG" rated movies. Samples including "Emanuel" and even "Mustang" are available. >Actually, Donnerstein is not often cited in the Report. >My greater concern, >actually, is the relatively small number of researchers cited in the >area of aggression and the links between sex and aggression. That is because the data available would indicate a "remote possibility" that even in films depicting mild sexual violence, such as "Story of O", there was LESS evidence of violence, rather than more. >Also, note that the Commission makes distinctions between violent and non- >violent. And appearantly links any form of porn depicting sexual acts with violence. >Note also that it was the *opinion* of a number of the Commissioners that, >apart from simple nudity (which was treated, where possible, as a class >seperate from any depiction involving an *act*) there was very little >material, if any, that was not degrading even if nonviolent. The nature of liturature, fiction, theater, and humor implies that some characters will be "degraded" in some way. In fact, porn tends to be the least degrading of all theater/film forms. Even in films depicting bondage, the "victim" is often shown giving clear indication that he/she is enjoying it. In cases such as "filmed rape" where the victim is not enjoying it, criminal prosecution of the rape charges with appropriate prosecution of accessories, using the film as evidence would be more effective than prosecution of distributors or viewers, who may be ignorant of these facts. >But how many would deny that the effects of material which is degrading >in the eyes of the viewer is one that should be examined? This is a valid point! (finally). The viewer who might feel degraded by such depictions should be protected. This sounds like a case for "truth in labeling" laws, which the F.T.C. has the power to enact already. Deceptive labeling is an extremely common practice in porn. Often pictures shown on the cover of the magazine, film, or book, have nothing to do with the material actually contained. To make matters worse, many adult book stores seal magazines in "shrink wrap" to prevent "browsing" which might otherwise have at least reduced the buyer's risk of actually purchasing degrading material. Being a bit of a fetishist, it is very irritating to see a magazine cover, film advertisement, or video jacket covered with pictures depicting men and women in fashions from "Fredricks of Hollywood" only do discover that these fashions have nothing to do with the product. For example, the film may have a woman in blue jeans and a T-shirt, she strips, showing her cotton shorts for all of 3 seconds, and is naked for the rest of the movie. Definitely false advertising. >Now it may be that this is what the Report advocates. Whether it is or not, it has in fact already led to damages to innocent victims. Playboy has already lost several million dollars because of the "Appearant link" between "Porn" and "Violent Crime". >To answer another author here: > As far as conclusions without evidence: let's follow the train of >argument. I'll agree that there are holes in it, but not where you insist ^^^ let me fill them in. >that there are: > The visual depictions in question show sexual activity that takes > place without regard to love, commitment, risks of pregnancy or > risks of disease. Which depictions are these. There are depictions which do include some or all of these things. They are not common because distribution is restricted to adults. The publisher of "X rated" material is not likely to effect minors either way. The assumption that adults should no better may be wrong, but is often taken. Many magazines do include coverage of these topics in their text area. In fact, this is often a primary source of accurate information for adults. > Such depictions in some sense ``promote'' similar activity. (Note > that the word ``promote'' has many senses, including simply > ``advertise'' or ``give airplay to''.) Wanna bet that parenthetical statement get's lost. Most people feel that promote means 'encourage'. > A person who enganges in this activity in this manner is one who > is not respecting the risks of disease and pregancy. This requires 6 assumptions: 1) The person who views this activity is so sexually ignorant that he will not be aware of the risks of pregnancy and disease. Probably not true, since many people who read/view such acts also read literature (contained in porn) which does cover these topics. 2) The person reads/views no other material which does promote birth control, disease risks, love, and commitment. While it is possible that he could miss material on birth control and disease risks, watching television, listening to the radio, reading "general audience" material, or even family background actually go so far as to teach the other extreme (commitment and love without sex) at nearly saturation levels. 3) That pornography will be the single dominant factor in shaping the viewers attitudes towards sex. This might be true for a small number of viewers. 4) That anyone subjected to sufficient quantities of such material will develop a "pornographic value system" which do not respect disease and pregnancy. Again, there may be a possibility of this, but porn is like any other commodity. The point where the viewer/reader looses interest is likely to happen before the point where he becomes "brainwashed". If you locked someone in a room and forced them to watch enough of any material, they could be "brainwashed" in this manner. 5) That everone who reads porn will eventually reach the "brainwashed" level, and thus engage in irresponsible sex. 6) That everyone who engages in irresponsible sex does so because of excessive pornography. If anything, the majority of those with problems due to irresponsible sex seem to be sexually ignorant, indicating they may not have read enough sexually explicit material. > A person who is sexually active without respecting those risks will > more likely contribute to rates of disease and pregnancy than one > who does not. (``We do not need research'' was the comment at this > point.'') This is real cute. It is true that if one does not "respect" those risks, they will probably have problems. It is also true that those who are "unaware" of how to take proper precautions will also have problems. The issue here is sexual contempt vs. sexual illiteracy. > Given the fact that compulsatory sex education in the schools is > being mandated largely on the basis of the immediate problems of > pregnancy among teenagers and sexually transmitted diseases among > the same group, we are already basing public policy upon this > assumption. To my knowledge, there is no sex education program in the country which properly teaches even such things a the application of a condom in the context of a sexual relationship, let alone forms of birth control which require more involved preparation. Few programs even require aquisition of precautionary materials. > The assumption that a person who does not respect the risks will > be more likely to fall victim to them is considered well-established, > and is in general a reasonable assumption, and the burden of proof > is today upon those who disagree. Care to try for a ratio of contempt/ignorance among unwed parents, and those diagnosed with VD? Why do so many teenagers request birth control information AFTER they think they are pregnant. >One person has disagreed with the notion that compulsatory sex education in >the schools is being established because of the problems of disease and >pregnancy. He feels that it is appropriate solely on the importance of >human sexuality. The issue here is what effect sex education might have, and what issues such programs address. Programs which focus on puberty, feminine hygene, and reproduction while excluding precautionary practices such as condoms (should be required in all non-marital sexual encounters) and birth control (should be required in addition to condoms in all sexual encounters) is left to "the parents". Even with relatively liberal parents, such practices are seldom taught EXCEPT in "pornographic literature". >The problem with teaching this in the public schools is that sexuality is >a value-laden issue for just about everyone. Even for those who do not >consider it a religious issue or an issue of familial obligation, there are >a wide range of values and value systems (as evidenced by many of the >discussions on net.singles.) Because of the wide range of values and value >systems, many of which are rooted in sincere and workable (this group to the >contrary) religious beliefs, it is *not* a subject that we currently know how >to teach in public schools. By simply showing a sample test to parents, and saying "your children will be required to pass this test or attend a class in sexual education, if you wish to teach your children yourself, or have someone other than the school teach this material (perhaps to promote additional sexual values), a course for such tutoring, covering the required material will be available prior to the first test, any child not passing this test will be given a second chance at private tutoring, a child failing the second test will be required to attend the state provided course which will be repeated until the child passes the required test". This gives the parent the opportunity to encourage other values if desired. >Moreover, because of the importance of sexuality (as opposed simply to sex) >and the way that it is intermingled in almost every part of human behavior, >not the least of which is affection, the real lessons *must* be integrated >with the entire experience of a child's upbringing. (Opinion, yes.) If you mean teaching "it's O.K. to say no" I agree. If you mean "you don't need sexual protection materials until after the wedding, I do not agree. It is possible for a man to carry an condom in his wallet from puberty to marriage without ever needing it. It is irresponsible for a man to go into any romantic or potentually sexual situation (even a chaperoned party) without it. The same goes for a woman and "single use" methods such as sponges, capsules or other appropriate spermicides. So much for the "putting my 13 year old daughter on the pill, with all it's cancer risks!!!" argument. >Our current approach in the schools is one of ``well, you're not weeding your >garden, so I'm going to weed it for you'' without knowing or (apparently) >caring what the fellow has planted there. A more appropriate analogy would be the gardener who plants weeds in your garden (few states require grandparents to pay full child support, medical costs,... for sexual complications). Few parents want their children losing their virginity a 13, and the kids know it. This doesn't stop it from happening. >Wouldn't it be better to get that >gardener back on his feet, help him by carrying his tools, ... ? That's why I suggest the "parent classes" and testing as alternatives. Many churches also provide "sex education" courses. If they teach "safe sex" along with chastity, fine. If not, they can do more harm than good. >Can we, at >this late date, put the teaching of values and sexuality back in the family? Only if nearly 5 generations of sexual ignorance and bigotry can be overcome. It is really unfair to blame parents, or even religeous leaders. The culprits really responsible have been dead a long time now. Most of the "chastity at the cost of ignorance" dates to the late "Victorian Era". Prior to this, parents were at least conciencous enough to teach *men* about proper precautions. Those who weren't arranged marriages for their children at the age of 13 to 16, and encouraged them to "have fun and make babies". >If we don't, we are going to have very few people who know how to *be* a >family, and consequently, very few people who go into parenting with the >skills to teach their kids. This is already a problem. Outside of "home economics" courses, there are few such training programs available to men or women. Even these courses have lost the art of budgeting, management, and organization of children and parental activities. >With smaller families, whatever learning effect >might have happened from one child to the next is diminished or lost >completely. Or concentrated. Smaller families allow more parental attention to be focused on fewer children. This can be good or bad, depending on the parents. >Granted that there are assumptions in the previous paragraph, but it looks to >me like a blueprint for disaster. >*Ahem* ... back to the AG's Report and the discussion thereupon. >-- > from Mole End Mark Terribile The AG's report DOES identify some problems. Unfortunately many of the solutions seem to be regulation, restriction of trade, and/or harassment of patrons by private citizens. Since the first ammendment protections are so strong, the only way to influence them effectively is to provide incentives to produce more "literary merit" and less "exploitation". Changing definitions of the rating system for movies, to allow some sex in the "PG-13" and "R" catagories, and even putting certain types of violence in the "X" catagories would be a step in the right direction. Prohibiting "No Refund" policies in adult bookstores for material in which content is deceptively labled would be another good step. Locking doors in working order in arcades would be another good step to insure privacy (reduce the incedents of sex in the booth). Requiring the vendor to allow the customer to examine content of printed materials prior to purchase, would be another good step for both adult and normal bookstores. Such "liberalisation" and "consumer protection measures" in the law would actually do more to reduce the flow of offensive pornography than a nationwide "crackdown". It would also encourage "softer porn", which currently cannot compete with "hard core porn" in adult-only settings. Another possibility would be to change the ratings to reflect the content of the show/material more accurately. G - generel audiences P - offensive language R - Violence X - Sex Just as adult movies use the "XXX" rating, you could combine ratings. PPP - Swears like a sailor but doesn't do anything. PR - Bad language, violence not graphic. (Gremlins). GX - No offensive dialogue, sex but not graphic (Summer of 42). RRRX - Graphic Violence, some sex (Last house on the left) GRXX - Sex, sexual situations, a little violence (Rocky Horror Picture Show) RXXX - Graphic sex, bondage and some discipline. RRRRXXX - The Marquis DeSade would love this. Children under 30 not admitted. PPPXXX - Common XXX rated stuff. PPPRRRRXXXX - Snuff movies, filmed rape, police permission required. RRRRR - Autopsies, Films of concentration camp games, Live action in the emergency ward, execution of criminals. Shown only by police departments. To this add V, which means "Victim gets revenge". This type is the one most likely to cause a violent emotional reaction. If the audience is shouting "Shoot him" when the victim is pointing a gun at the villian, that's one V. If the victim shoots the villian, that's two, and if the victim tortures him before the killing, that's three V's and two R's.