Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Re: porn report Message-ID: <489@cci632.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 13:39:25 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.489 Posted: Thu Oct 9 13:39:25 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:16:41 EDT References: <1800@well.UUCP> <1566@mtx5a.UUCP> <611@dg_rtp.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 124 Summary: Sex and violence. In article <611@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) >> [...] it >> seems to me that if you have a damaging behavior that is reinforced through >> exposure to something, one way to help cut into that reinforcement is to >> remove the exposure. >But is it the best way? Or even a good way? This is far from obvious. >> And if the damage to even a few is great enough, and if >> those few include victims who did not choose to be exposed to the material >> in question, and were not, you have a sufficient cause for restricting at >> least the most damaging material, especially if it is also of relatively >> little interest to those who are not harmed by it, and are not affected to >> harm someone else by it. >*BUT*!!!!! It is dishonest and misleading to recommend restriction of >sexually explicit materials to a degree greater than that of violent >materials, based on incomplete studies of the effects of violence alone. Are you referring to studies accepted by the commision? There have been much more complete studies of both sex and violence, but they were not solicited, referenced, or even mentioned in the report. >Based on the objective and high-sounding criteria above, and based on >what we now know, I would expect _Rambo_ to be restricted to adults over >21 (effectively rated X), and movies containing only explicit, >nonviolent sex between consenting adults (such as _Urban_Heat_ for >example) to be available to anyone at all. (Well... perhaps rated >effectively PG.) >Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw The problem was the the "Commission on Pornography" was restricted to making reccomendations on sexually explicit material. They simply dismissed concerns about violence without sex. Having been a victim of both rape and robbery/assault, I am much more concerned about violence than sex. We have a media system that subtly reinforces violence of all sorts, yet negatively reinforces sex, or even sexual intimacy of any sort. Sex can be portrayed in a very positive way. Much of the entertainment industry revolves around romance, love, affection, and intimacy, yet is prohibited from associating sexual arousal with these other themes. Conversely, there is a sizable portion of the industry which revolves around violence, exploitation, fear, anger, an horror, and because of the nature of the restrictions, is encouraged to associate these themes with sexually oriented subject matter such as prostitution, rape, and sexual "conquest". A single instance of exposure to this conflict in values might not have serious adverse effects, but when one considers that people are exposed to this value system starting as young as 1 year old, and continuing for the majority of one's lifetime, it could be considered detrimental to be subjected to this sort of "programming". It would appear that the intent of these values and "programming" is to make lust, sexual arousal, sexual intimacy, and sexual gratification a negative experience by associating it with violence. The problem that occurs is that sexual arousal is, by nature, a pleasant experience for most people. By associating the two, there is a better than 50/50 chance that a person subjected to such material at the right point in time could find feelings of fear, anger, or horror sexually arousing. The fact that a some adults find films with themes such as bondage, rape, and paraphilia arousing is not that surprising, since they have been programmed to do so. Such "pornography" is merely a reflection of the results of an experiment in censorship that began over 20 years ago. The message that resulted from this experiment was quite simple. Love, romance, and intimacy are not sexually arousing activities, but fear, anger, and hate are. Even the perported increase in pedophilia may be a result of the association of "innocence" with the feelings of love, romance and intimacy. For someone who has been very repressed sexually, the acceptability of these positive emotions in relationship to the innocence of children may in fact lead them to express their "love" in sexual terms only to those who are "innocent". Pedophilia can be expressed in positive, non-criminal ways. Pajamas nearly identical to those worn by children are available to adult women. There seems to be an increase in the popularity of cotton briefs, flannel sleepware, and "baby-doll" outfits for women. Paraphilia can likewise be expressed in subtle positive ways. Black satin and sheer robes and underwear, black stockings, high heeled shoes, and even corsets are increasing in popularity, possibly reflecting trends toward female acceptance of the dominant role in paraphilic relationships. There are even fashions to reflect asexuality (little or no desire for sex). Blue jeans, bulky shoes, sweat socks, and oversize shirts are a good indication that the wearer is not likely to actively seek a sexual relationship. Such fashions are often worn in situations where the wearer is not expecting to meet romantic prospects. Females interested the dominant role in pedophilic relationships are often able to attract those interested in infantilism by wearing "matronly" fashions. Women interested in the submissive role in a paraphilic relationship can wear chokers, bracelets, neck scarves and other "symbolic restraints". White or pink satin or sheers, and other "sexy virgin" fashions can heighten interest. In fact, women's fashions may be a better reflection of the effects of censorship than any other single single study. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the industry, such positive expressions of these patterns are seldom depicted. Much of this is due to the censorship already in place. Ironically, pornography is one of the few sources of information on the various signals that can be used, not only in fashion, but in behaviour as well. Unfortunately, the uninformed can often give very confusing signals. A woman in pedephilic or asexual fashions might be verbally abusive, which may attract a paraphile in spite of the lack of other supporting signals. A woman in otherwise asexual fashions but wearing a choker can be very confusing. Are there any similar patterns of fashion for men's wear?