Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!oliveb!prs
From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation
Message-ID: <1172@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 02:17:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.1172
Posted: Tue Sep 23 02:17:35 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 07:46:49 EDT
References: <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <782@mtund.UUCP> <1562@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens)
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 194
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:266 net.legal:3651 soc.singles:73

[By the way, netpeople: shall we adjourn this discussion to one or two
groups such as net.legal, or that plus talk.politics.misc; or shall we
continue to cross-post to 3 or more groups?  Please reply via 'r' or 'R'
rather than 'F', and if I get inundated with replies I will post a
summary.]

In article <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>I wouuld like to thank Adam Reed for the article to which I am following
>up; it may have opened the door some Useful Discussion, and turned the
>flames down a bit.

I also thank AR.  I have already seen some of his replies to parts of this
rather long article, so I'll pick a few other things to reply to myself.

>		Where restrictions have been in place for a long time, it does
>not seem wise to me (nor apparently to the Supreme Court in some cases) to
>discard them without a more thorough examination than the simple experiment of
>letting everyone do without them for a fraction of a lifetime.  Moreover, if

I don't see the reduction of censorship as an experiment, any more than I 
see racial integration as an experiment.  You try to mess with hard-won 
progress, you can expect to get yelled at.

>we look at evidence outside of the social sciences, we do see a connection
>(whether causal or otherwise) between a certain class of people who are
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not a trivial point.

>convicted in courts of law of causing direct and severe harm to others and
>certain types of materials which fall into the range that we might call
>``pornographic''.  We have testimony of law enforcement officials to this
>effect; 

This reminds me of the old "marijuana leads to heroin" argument.  "Most
heroin addicts start with marijuana so marijuana must be at fault!"
Haven't heard that one for the past decade or two, it's so laughable that
anti-druggists find it counter productive to mention, even to teenagers.

But then, most teenagers are probably less gullible than you are when it
comes to believing politicians and government panels.

(Ad hominum?  But you said it was OK sometimes!  ;-)  )

>It is my contention that as soon as we see large and unexpected effects in
					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I still don't see them.  Sorry.  No.  I asked you before, but you haven't
answered me to my satisfaction: what changes other than the increased
availability of porn itself?  More *reported* rape and child-abuse?  I
think we can pretty well see that an increasingly supportive atmosphere
has encouraged victims to speak out, thus higher reporting can be the
result of a *higher ratio of reports to incidences*, rather than an
increase in the number of incidents.  (Sorry I can't prove it).

I even go so far as to hypothesize that the increasing *availability* 
of sexual information, *concurrent with* more liberal attitudes toward 
sexual practices and entertainment, has had a positive contributing 
effect on the compassionate condition of our present society that allows 
these victims to be respected enough to speak out, rather than continuing 
to hide them and shush them and invalidate them.  (Along with, but not 
entirely due to, women's liberation).

With respect to child-abuse, Freud's patients told him all about it way
back in the early part of this century, and porn, child or otherwise, was
not an issue; power was.  Unfortunately, other doctors were so scandalized
by this insult to society that they talked Freud into disbelieving his
patients, resulting in the propriety-salving theory that such abuse was
only a delusion on the part of neurotic/psychotic patients.

We may quite concievably contribute to *increasing* child and spouse
abuse if we roll back the clock: *that* is why I oppose arguments 
for greater repression, because I *am* concerned for the greater
good of both genders and all age groups.

>things that we had taken for granted as a basic part of our society or
>environment, we ought to stop making these changes, and even back off a
>little, until we either know what is happening, can be sure that it's not
>related to the changes, can be sure that it will not alter the effects of our
>changes, or can convince ourselves that it's not really harmful.

What if "backing off a little" actually contributes to what you imagine is
being caused by "these changes"?  That is how *I* see it currently, and
you have not convinced me otherwise with your rhetoric.

>If you will allow me a little emotional rhetoric, we could say that had
>the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant number 4 followed this
>course instead of continuing to ``push the envelope'' we probably would
>never have heard of Chernobyl.

Nice as rhetoric goes, but unrelated to Meesitus *OR* Chernobyl.  And our 
society is *NOT* facing meltdown from this tiny corner of the entertainment
industry.  Your rhetoric reveals your tendency to exagerate... not just
a little, but by orders of magnitude.

>In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in
>the range of sexually explicit material available. 

See my argument above as to why this could be very positive and healthy.
With the exception, I'm sure, of the (still fairly rare???) child porn.

>the range of sexually explicit material available.  Pedophilic materials
>were not considered by that Commission, since they were so exceedingly rare.
>Since that time, they have become far more widespread.  In addition, materials

I can't argue with this from experience, as I have never seen pedophile 
materials openly or covertly for sale, ever.  As it isn't sold in stores,
I don't even consider it in the same catagory with popular porn.

>mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the
>``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most
				   ^^^^
I notice you don't say "much more".  Could this be because they have less than
doubled?  Such things were certainly available 15-20 years ago both in 
California and Washington states; if you don't count videos, it doesn't look 
like much increase at all to me.  (Videos are a technological change.  If
I were you, I suppose I'd be alarmed by them.  But I'm not you, nor alarmed).

Point of information: when you speak of "apparent sexual satisfaction of the
``object'' individual", I suppose you are referring to stories in which a 
stranger is stalked, assaulted, raped, and unbelievably ends up liking it?  
I agree that I'd hate to have the men who read these stories take it as 
reinforcement for doing the same, but there are alternatives to censorship 
which we could at least discuss, such as warning labels/disclaimers/
editorials.... hard to say if these would do any more good than the warning 
lables on cigarette packs, but education can counter stereotypes better 
than silence can.  Education, and a feeling of consensus that "you don't
do that to women, not in real life".  This consensus is not as solid yet
as we would like, but is actually stronger now than it was when censorship
was "rampant".

But are you also referring to sincere algolognists (sp?) (a word for 
"people who transform pain into pleasure", coined to distinguish 
themselves from lables associated with deSade and Massoch, with whom they 
say they do not identify), who explicitely state that the submissive partner's 
pleasure is the dominant's chief concern, and that in the long run the 
submissive is effectively in charge?  And who also frequently refer to 
"taking turns"?  No set dominance roles at all in some of these 
relationships.  Just because they are hard for us to understand does not 
mean that they are lying about their realities.  Nor should they be limited 
to the printed word in describing their experiences to curious outsiders 
and to each other.  (Not my thing, by the way, but I *am* fascinated by the 
almost science-fiction alienness of it).  I bring this up to point out the
difficulty applying black and white absolutist idealisms without recklessly
lumping together disparate groups.

>often the materials that law enforcement officials and self-identified victims
>have indicated are used by the offenders.  Indeed, if we believe the testimony,

A big "if", indeed.  See below for context of my doubt, which is not of the
specific testimony but of the interpretation.

>they are often the means by which the offender either intimidates the victim
>or by which he becomes aroused prior to committing his offense.  It may be
>(and it may not be ...) that this material aids him in establishing the
>connection between the coercive, violent, or humiliating effects he will have
>and the sexual pleasure he will experience thereby.

Sounds plausible on the surface, but I am very dubious.  See my comments above
about marijuana and heroin.  I bet lots of rapists drink alcohol, to "bolster
their courage" and reduce inhibitions; shall we prohibit that, too?  Why, they
might even force their victims to drink it!  (Sorry if this sounds in the
slightest like I am making light of these crimes and their victims' suffering;
I only mean to make light of the causal link *from* porn *to* crime).

>What I will argue is that whether or not we believe that ``normal'' individuals
>are immune from these effect, until we have a much better understanding of what
>is happening, it is our duty to back off on the well-meaning changes.

Shall we stop the presses *while* we call for more study?

If not, what point have you been trying to make, anyway?  Just trying to get us
to admit that it *might* not be *absolutely* harmless to allow all sorts of 
porn?  I for one will admit that, but have grave reservations about any sort
of restrictions (even with reguard to child-porn, which must be defined rather
carefully).

As I have outlined above, I feel that *you* (plural, including all who favor
increased censorship) should "back off on the well-meaning changes."  I am
not being sarcastic when I say that the climate that would allow significantly
more censorship, (and drug testing) is quite likely to lead to *more* abuse
of women and children, *not less*.  I am quite sincere about this, and feel
that the limited information available to me supports this view.  I am open
to contrary *information*, not rhetoric.

>	from Mole End			Mark Terribile


PS: I have asked at Crown books, and they don't know when the report will be
available.  They have heard rumors, but don't have any official listing yet.
I am planning to purchase it when it becomes available there.

						- Phil
Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
Organization not responsible for these opinions: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Quote: "Mosquitos suck" - a tee shirt