Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: AG's Report: Right problems wrong solutions
Message-ID: <1599@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 06:03:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1599
Posted: Fri Oct 10 06:03:28 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:05:54 EDT
References: <1648@ames.UUCP> <1548@mtx5a.UUCP> <410@cci632.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 294

> >Also, note that the Commission makes distinctions between violent and non-
> >violent.
> 
> And appearantly links any form of porn depicting sexual acts with violence.

Please have a look at the *DISSENTING* opinions that I hope to get posted
shortly (it's typed in.)  What they say is a mixture of agreement (the
evidence isn't there) and disagreement (we better find out *NOW* because of
the very real dangers here) with what you say.

> >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.

The anti-browsing stuff is required to prevent availability to minors, but
the SC has ruled that laws must allow several options, including the
shrink wrap, where the store owner *might* have a reference copy available
for potential purchasers (and, under consumer protection notions, probably
should be required to ...), the blinder racks, which make it necessary to
take the magazine out of the rack, and making the whole area off-limits to
minors.

> >	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.
Assuming that the restrictions are effective.

> >	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'.

Your point.  I'm not sure what P.E.D. meant; I suspect he was being
deliberately vague.

> >	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. ...
> 2) The person reads/views no other material which does promote birth control,
>    disease risks, love, and commitment. ...
> 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. ...
> 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.

Point 6 seems to neglect the difference between material sold to arouse and
material sold to inform.  Here I must concede that ``men's magazines'' that
mix informative articles with their pictures are probably doing a service.

More important, though, is the possiblity, indeed the likelyhood, that for
some individuals, explicit ``don't care'' materials may legitimize the
behavior.  How many such people are there?  Are they clustered in lower-income
groups?  And most importantly, is their number increasing?

Moving on ...
> 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.
> 
>...
> 
> 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.

Sounds like a case for discouraging sex between people who have not reached
the age of responsibility (as opposed to the age of nubility)
 
> 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".

Do you lump all sexually explicit material under the term ``pornographic
literature''?  This was, for too many years, an abuse perpetrated by the
postal inspection system.  It's probably not helpful here.

> >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.

*********** I APPLAUD THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH ***************

> 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.

Very, very good.  I support this wholeheartedly, with the understanding that
not only parents but school boards, church groups, community health
organizations, etc., may provide or assist with the course material.  My only
concern is that the exam should be factual and cover both practice and theory.

> >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.

No that's not what I meant.  I'll get to that in a second.  But you seem to
feel that it is not possible for a normal individual to decide that he/she
will not have sex.  Why not present percentages and other sobering information
in the exam material and let people sort out their values for themselves
There are lots of people who do just what you say is impossible.  As far as
a prescription written for The Pill, as a preventative for a minor who may
not want it, I think that you are going in the wrong direction.  I remind you
that we do not have lifetime data for people who've begun to use The Pill
after they are fully matured.  A 13 year old is not fully matured, no matter
what the state of her reproductive system.

> >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.

Which is why I think that we are not teaching ourselves and our children
how to properly integrate their sexuality.  We (in the media, for example)
keep emphasizing the sexual side of life without ever showing how it dovetails
with needs to receive and give affection, etc.  We, who have what the
understandings that Freud and those who followed, both in agreement and
in disagreement, have given up integrating our sexual nature into a whole
personality that is neither ruled by sex nor needs to suppress it.  (There
is a difference between suppression and restraint, remember!)

> >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.

I don't agree that this belongs in every value system, but to the extent that
few of us escape today's media values, I must sadly agree that it is prudent
course to take.

> >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".

Yes, to the LATE ``Victorian'' era.  It's really unfair to bury the many
virtues prized by that era in the one failing.  Anyhow, I think that the
answer is that we can and we'd better, because of the interplay between sex
and every other part of our personalities.

> > ...
> >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.

Let me point out that even if you don't have kids until you are 30, you
are *still* growing, and you will have a lot more growing to do as a
parent ... unless you were a *very* responsible older sibling.  I think that
we *need* a few third and fourth children, along with only children and
middle siblings and ...

> 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.

I'm not sure I'd go that far.  Have you examined what the Report *says*?

> 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.

Ok.  But then we move sex out of the ``arousal'' mold and into a more
normal part of life.  Within certain limits, I can certainly agree to this,
although I would insist that the sex be simulated and not actual.  I suspect
that for what you have in mind, that would work nicely.

> Prohibiting "No Refund" policies in adult bookstores for material
> in which content is deceptively labled would be another good step.

Great.  Even the conservatives will go for this one.  If a fellow wants to
buy some cheesecake and gets stuck with bondage, a lot of conservatives
will feel that he's been had by ``the bad guys.''  Really, he's been had
by the need to keep the cover presentable to the public on the street.

> Locking doors in working order in arcades would be another good step
> to insure privacy (reduce the incedents of sex in the booth).

Ok.  I think that most of us are in agreement here.

> 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.

In most normal bookstores, you don't get hassled for browsing so long as you
are not overdoing it.

> 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.

I would avoid the word ``liberalization'', especially when what you are
recommending really is pure consumer protection.

> Another possibility would be to change the ratings to reflect the
> content of the show/material more accurately.
>[ proposal follows ]

A nice idea, but I do question the practicality of ``getting it all right''
at once.  Still, if some private organization not too closely tied to either
the ``pro'' or ``con'' side could be drafted, it's worth a try.

> 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.

Hmm.  This might lead to more abuse and not less!  But we could use *something*
to make people aware of the legitimization of violence through the protagonist.
-- 

	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)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.