Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: The Evidence on Pornography Message-ID: <392@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 12:47:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.392 Posted: Tue Sep 23 12:47:21 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 22:55:44 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <781@mtund.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 102 Summary: The overwhelming evidence ignored. Xref: mnetor net.legal:3656 soc.singles:77 In article <781@mtund.UUCP> adam@mtund.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: >> > Meese commission: >> > > In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and >> > > Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features >> > > as part of a campus cinema showing. The films --*Swept Away* and >> > > *The Getaway*-- represented sexually violent fims wheras control >> > > subjects viewed a non-violent feature film. Dependent measures were >> > > obtained after a week in a questionaire presented as a separate Boy, is that ever a biased test. Compare the reactions of the "The Getaway" with what? Pete's Dragon? Some Disney Flick? >> > Me (Adam Reed): >> > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely controls >> > differing from the "pornographic" stimuli only in the defining >> > characteristic of "pornography" - sexual arousal, according to Mark - >> > were never done. Also, there was no control group of "violent only", "sex only", "sex and violence", no sex or violence (but emotionally charged situation). >I found that examples of bad >methodology could be most readily found in "studies" motivated by >political axe-grinding. This occurs regardless of whether the >"researchers" appear to have "liberal" or "conservative" aims. If it >is any consolation to those who were hoping for something sounder from >the anti-pornography "studies", the anti-handgun "studies" are worse. > Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtund!adam) This is definately the case in the Meese commission findings. There is overwhelming evidence and data available that link effects with certian types of films. 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. 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. 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. Unfortunately, if these reports had been submitted, it would have indicated a need for tighter control of "R" rated movies (the ones teenagers can watch), and looser control of non-violent "X" rated movies (the ones only adults can watch). The film "Coming Home" contained one of the more explicit sexual scenes of non-adult movies, yet there was little adverse effects from this. Many "R" rated movies use sexual themes such as prostitution or partial nudity to market films which contain a great deal of violence and little if any sexual activity, either expressed or implied. There are "X" rated movies which contain extensive amounts of violence, including rape, sadistic exploitation of women, and torture, but they are more of a minority in the adult film world. On the other hand, scenes depicting implied rape, sadistic exploitation of women, and torture, are quite commonplace in the "R" rated catagory. The basic guidlines are simple, 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. Films depicting actual murder, assault, or dismemberment, is illegal, except in the case of journalistic interest. For those of you who have forgotton, such scenes were quite commonplace among film clips of the Vietam War, in fact they were shown on the 5:00 news. 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. 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. 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. Many movies imported from other countries which would have the equivalent of a "PG-13" rating there, have an "R" or even an "X" rating in this country. On the other side, shows like the "Friday the 13th" series are very restricted and not even allowed in some countries. Seven Eleven has stopped selling Playboy, but you can watch the most violent portions of "Nightmere on Elm Street, Part II" for free, in living color. 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?