Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ptsfa!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Message-ID: <1570@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 06:01:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1570
Posted: Wed Sep 24 06:01:18 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 07:48:27 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 674
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:286 net.legal:3675 soc.singles:91

Time for another reply to a whole round of discussion.  Sorry it took so
long, but I guess that everybody has had their chance at me.

>> I have one more question, oriented toward values, purposes, and goals:
>> 	Given the claims of law enforcement officials and self-identified
>> 	victims . . . what is the proper role . . . of [behavioral research]?
>>	What can or should [it] do to try to determine what the cause of these
>> 	criminal acts is, and what link, if any, pornographic (or other
>> 	fantasy-inspiring) materials may have with these acts?
>
>Glad you asked. Two possible contributions have ocurred to me:

>1. Quantify the positive value of fantasy material, ...  Many people,
>including myself, experience the effects of such fantasy, including ...
>sexual arousal, as a positive value. Cognitive scaling methodology ... [could
>provide] input to the cost/benefit analysis of any proposed legislation.

Not answering the question, which was ``what can we do about an apparent
*problem* which is supported at least by the testimony of individuals
involved.''  You have said how you plan to show that there are benefits to a
thing identified as a cause of the problem.  A valid view, but not an answer.

You speak of your experience; I am glad that you would back it up with testing.
But then, you are not unbiased.  (I don't claim that you would test badly,
only that your concerns are too limited.)  More on this in a second.

>2. Determine whose behavior is adversely affected by fantasy materials.
>The existing evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that adverse
>behavioral effects are confined to people suffering from a specific
>cognitive deficit, ...  Behavioral studies might be conducted to evaluate
>this hypothesis empirically. We could also learn how to diagnose this
>(at this point hypothetical) deficit, and how to remediate it (for
>example, by teaching the art of distinguishing between fantasy and
>reality to those affected, if it turns out to be a teachable cognitive
>skill).
>					Adam Reed (mtund!adam)

Yes, at present hypothetical.  My understanding is that at present, work
with offenders to try to teach them to be non-offenders by such means have
been disappointing, at least.  The danger of releasing such people to society
suggests that anyone who would consider ``teaching'' to be a viable solution
for sex offenders had better have some pretty damn good proof that it works.

As far as identifying people *before* they become offenders: how do you propose
to do this?  Mandatory psychological testing seems even more invasive than
mandatory drug testing, and a lot more dangerous from the constitutional
standpoint than either drug testing or the restriction of specific material
depicting specific acts that the *Miller* standard permits.

Oh, I agree that *if* what you propose is possible (unlikely, in light of what
I've read thus far) it could be of great value in ``borderline'' cases that
turn up in marriage counselling and possibly in *some* ``domestic squabble''
cases that come before the courts.  But by and large, I don't see that it will
help the problem.

As far as measuring positive effects: much of the harm attributed by the
Commission and by witnesses before the Commission was harm to people
other than those who exposed themselves to the explicit and/or degrading
materials.  Can we reasonably determine that this harm does not occur
even when it is not obvious?  Can we determine that there are not losses in
positive interpersonal relationships, especially those that are enhanced
by sexuality, caused by the focusing of sexual energies through explicit
materials rather than relationships?

It's a nebulous question, but I think that before we attempt to admit evidence
based upon the subjective awareness of the users of the material, we had better
be able to admit evidence based on the effects upon those who are in contact
with the affected persons, especially since we know that some people do neglect
even spousal relationships for this material. (Me, want *evidence*? Nah ...)

Are those people exceptions, or are they just at one end of a continuum?
The existing evidence is consistant as regards acts that are in some way
offenses.  What about the less obvious losses? Don't you think that we'd
better find out?  Are the only relationships that can be affected those that
are seriously flawed?  Or can those that are imperfect in some small way also
be affected?  And can such exposure interfere with the number and character of
relationships formed?

My opinion, which is only a guess, is that there may be mixed benefits and
losses, but that when the use of erotic *material* instead of social expression
of sexuality (which may or may not include the sex act) becomes predominant,
the harms will also predominate.  See the discussion on the words ``prurient''
and ``obsessive'' below; when use of *materials* becomes predominant, it seems
likely (though not certain) that ordinary materials will cease to satisfy and
materials which are obsessive in their preoccupation with sex and arousal will
be sought.

Here I begin to sound like MES; if there is a difference, I am talking about
the extreme situation (I hope!) and I'm trying not to turn it into a slur on
anyone.  (I stand by my apology to Phil, in any case.)

This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of
widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this
material damage the institution we call the family?  Children are reared
in families, at least for the time being, and the family is already ill
(witness the inability of parents to teach their kids about sex; witness
the difficulty many people have of even teaching their children about
affection ...) and anything which will further damage the ability of the
family to rear children in a healthy way is child abuse of the worst and
most pervasive form.  (Yes, still a seperate issue from kiddie porn ...)

Before we embark on any social agenda, especially on any that would require
changing the interpretation, content, or purpose of our Constitution, or the
social mores that the interpretation affirms, we had better know what effects
we are about to have.

By the way, would you educate me on the difference, if any, between
``remidiate'' and ``remedy''?

Adam, one more question: I'm truly sorry to have to ask this, but our newsfiles
do get purged periodicaly.  Did you say that Donnerstein felt that his work
on was misinterpreted by the Commission?  Did you say that Donnerstein's
work was among the worst, or that his work approached acceptability?  I really
*have* lost those files.

Kee:
>I think it would be greatly appreciated . . . if we could limit the
>pornography discussion to the alleged effects . . . of things OTHER THAN:
>
>    o   Depictions of violence (eg. rape, torture, etc.)
>        (Bondage is of course borderline, but let's not fuzzy up
>        the picture with it for now.)*
>
>    o   Depictions of sexual acts with [apparent] minors.
>
>I don't think that there is too much (ie. any more than usual) disagreement
>that those two subjects do not have potentially bad effects.

Does this mean that you have fewer objections to restrictions of these
materials than of other materials?  Can ``degrading'' materials be included in
the first item, if they are degrading enough?  What about paraphelic
materials?  (Paraphelias are ``disorders'' (some might disagree) in which an
individual derives sexual pleasure from things that are not sexual, including
bondage, fecal matter, and a wide variety of other things that may or may not
be offensive to an ordinary individual)

>Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the
>Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses?

Well, there is the testimony of certain individuals that other individuals,
sometimes loved ones, used materials that often fell into the ``degrading''
area as means of abuse, and that the other individuals, after exposing
themselves to the material, became abusive in various ways, which included
demanding sexual acts which were often either painful or humiliating to the
victims.  It seems clear that for some individuals, the attatchment of their
arousal to the ``fantasy material'' led them to ignore their partners as
human beings and to treat them as inferior or subhuman, or as adjuncts to the
material for the purpose of arousal.

The issue, unanswered, is whether these people were truly ``abnormal'',
(Adam believes that they are) or whether their behaviour is just a more
extreme form of an ordinary reaction, one that can harm people other than
the viewers of the material even when the means of the harm and the harm
itself are not apparent.

>There are different kinds of pornography, even the Meese commission saw
>that, although they had a great deal of trouble defining them.  There
>are reliable studies indicating a connection between violent porn and
>violence in viewers.  But the key word is 'violent', not 'porn'.

The reason that violence takes on a special meaning in the sexual context
is the possibility, indeed in some cases the probability, that the violence
becomes part of the means of arousal.  Whether this can be learned by
``ordinary people'' or it is the exposure of a latent tendency is certain
``suceptible'' individuals is, to my knowledge, not clear.  I think that
*this* is an area where properly conducted surveys and studies could help
a lot.  Even if we discover that ``training'' can take place only in the
presence of pervasive attitudes and peer pressure (likely), the understanding
will be valuable; such environments almost certainly exist.  Witness the New
Bedford rape: why didn't the ordinary people stop it or report it?  Most
likely because of subtle social pressures that said ``this is OK, this is
cool, this is alright, don't make a fuss and nobody will get hurt ...''.
We need to know what *kinds* of pressures can lead to attitudes like this,
and how often they occur, and whether they can lead to long-term behavioral
changes.  Given the paucity of funding and (if I understand Adam) good
research, we shouldn't be neglecting the ability of ``ordinary persons'' to
do harm under certain kinds of subtle or overt pressure, or to *learn* harm
in the presence of similar pressure.

We only answered half of that:
>Given the exclusion of those topics, is there any meat to any of the
>Meese Commission's findings, or anyone elses?

Only the fact that throughout all of the human history of which we are aware,
and in every culture which we have had the opportunity to study, there exist
norms of sexual conduct and sexual privacy.  We are proposing to tear down
virtually all such norms in the absence of any non-speculative evidence of
what the impact will be.

That is all.  But given the track record of humanity with respect to the
damage done to the environment by the industrial revolution, the much older
tendency to use arms against each other instead of against the hazards of
nature, and our terribly small regard for each other when we get to thinking
of our own profit/loss statements, that suggests to some of us (conservatives,
if you like) that we ought to go slow.

And once again, Edwin Meese, in whatever esteem you do or do not hold him, did
*not* serve on the Commission.  If you wish to indict the Commission, indict
them.  If you wish to indict Edwin Meese, indict him.  But please serve the
right indictments to the right people.

>I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
>responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
>everyone else's.

Yes, but are they the same people?

>>. . .  We don't need a statistical analysis to determine that a woman was
>>raped before a camera . . .  Anecdotal evidence, . . . verifies *that*.  And
>>. . . if it can . . . live up to the . . . rules of evidence . . . [anecdotal
>> evidence] can . . . imprison a perpetrator for the rest of his life. . . .
>
>	Certainly such evidence has a place. . . .  When it comes to a question
>of *patterns* and *causes* however such evidence is of little value.  Indeed
>it is often highly misleading.  What if a film of an actual rape was made and
>distributed?  That has *nothing* to say about the intrinsic value(or lack of
>it) in erotic entertainment!  Erotic films can be(and are) produced without
>such things happening, . . .  you must provide evidence that such things are
>in fact intrinsic to erotic film production.  And I mean scientifically valid
>evidence not more anecdotes, which just introduce more individual events of
>no proven significance.

We are one step and one half away from agreement.  Would you agree that if
such things are endemic to the industry that produces the material, it would
be a matter for concern, and not only if they are intrinsic?

If so, then we are a half-a-step from agreement, because I believe the even
if they are not ``prevalent'' (my dictinary's definition for ``endemic'')
but only ``not infrequent'', and if any form of strong coercion is applied,
not just outright rape, there is cause for concern, and for action.  That
action might be restriction, or it might be fair labor laws, but these have
their limits when certain acts are being performed before a camera for hire.

To push a point, if an actor in a movie refuses to say a line because he
(or she ...) believes that is anti-Semitic (and not part of the character ...)
the director has a reasonable right to demand that the line be read as written.
If a ``model'' in a pure sex film feels that an act that the script or the
director calls for goes beyond what even a model in such a film should be
doing, the director's demand will inflict a far greater pain and harm upon
the performer.  Of course, one may argue that such is the risk of the business,
but what can one say of a business in which such risks seem inevitable?

>>So?  If you worked to save the lives and psyches of people who could quite
>>reasonably be said to be victims of pornography and the industry that surrounds
>>it, would you feel that you had to be unbiased in determining the real extent
>>of the damage you see every day, and what can be done about it?
>
>	Yes, because if there is no real damage due to the pornography
>per se, then there is nothing to save anyone from! Just because you
>percieve there to be damage dosn't mean there really is. If you have
>already decided ahead of time that pornography *must* be damaging, you
>will of course find it to be so!

I will repreat: if your business is in counselling or providing shelter to
people who have been harmed, physically or psychologically, by their exposure
to sexually explicit materials or by people who used such materials as the
means of harm, what more evidence do *you* need *that people can be harmed*?

Commissioner Tilton-Durfee's career is based in child welfare and child
protective services; her particular concern on the Commission was the *two
way* interaction between adult disorders and exposure of children to
sexually explicit materials and to the ways that this happens in our
society in the presence or *even in the absence* of intent to abuse.

Commissioner Levine's involvement is in behavioral research surrounding
both victims of sex offenders and the offenders.

Commissioner Ritter runs a shelter for minors (yes, child abuse *is* part
of this particular issue) on 42nd Street in New York City.  Many of the
kids who go there are victims of the sex industry that exists in that
neighborhood.  *Some* of the damage comes about simply because of the
illegality of the activities; most of the activities (child prostitution)
would be illegal anyway.  The production of pornographic materials is
awfully difficult to seperate from the other activities when they are
carried out by the same people in the same places, and where the performers
in some of the productions are taken from the ``stable'' of drug-addicted
captive prostitutes that the producers/pimps keep.

Is this typical of all of the people involved in the production of these
films?  Probably not.  But clearly there *is* a potential for harm, the same
way such harms have been seen through at least the last couple of hundred
years.  Remember Bertolt Brecht's Marxist statement about prostitutes?  To
argue that the pattern is unnecessary ignores the fact that it is the way the
thing has been done for a long time.  That makes it seem unlikely to change,
no matter *how* the laws are diddled.

Yes, these people came to the Commission with knowledge of harms attributable
to certain types of sexually explicit materials and the means whereby they
are produced (not might be produced, *are* produced).  Commissioners Levine,
Tilton-Durfee, and Becker also provided a statement which dissented in part
from that of the rest of the Commission; I may post it.  Even in the dissent,
there are common threads with the remainder of the Commission's findings.
And, the dissenters report, even though large amounts of material is sold to
apparently satisfied customers, few, if any, were willing to speak out before
the Commission.  Where was Adam, I wonder?  Oh, never mind.  He wouldn't take
part in such a whitewash ... not even to try to correct it, I suppose?

>	OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching
>Rambo or even The A-Team, with all of its powerful violence in which
>no-one is actually hurt! Or do you think it is OK to think that you
>can go around shooting machine guns because no-one will really get hurt?

But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or
consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which
should *never* be used as an excuse for violence.

>The problem with the Meese report is its tunnel vision in not truly
>considering the whole range of literature types. By excluding purely violent
>material and concentrating on sexually oriented material it becomes impossible
>to properly differentiate what the real cause of any given effect is.

The Commissioners *do* express concern about these films.  They also
note that they were not asked to study them, and that they *were* asked
to study ``pornography'', whatever that is.

From Chapter 5, *The Question of Harm*, Section 5.1.4, *The Problem of
Multiple Causation* (page 510 of the Government Printing Office edition):


	. . . We live in a world of multiple causation, and to identify a
	factor as a *cause* in such a world means only that if this factor
	were eliminated while everything else stayed the same then the
	problem would at least be lessened.  In most cases it is impossible
	to say any more than that, although to say this is to say quite a
	great deal.  But when we identify something as a cause, we do not
	deny that there are other causes, and we do not deny that some of
	these other causes might bear an even *greater* causal connection
	than does some form of pornography.  That is, it may be, for example,
	and there is some evidence that points in this direction, that
	certain magazines focusing on guns, martial arts, and related topics
	bear a closer causal relationship to sexual violence than do some
	magazines that are, in a term we will explain shortly, "degrading."
	If this is true, then the amount of sexual violence would be reduced
	more by eliminating the weaponry magazines and keeping the degrading
	magazines than it would be by eliminating the degrading magazines and
	keeping the weaponry magazines.

So far, I think even critics of the Commission would agree, arguing even,
perhaps, that they have not gone far enough!

		Why, then, do we concentrate on pornography?  For one thing,
	that is our mission, and we have been asked to look at this problem
	rather than every problem in the world.  We do not think that there is
	something less important in what we do merely because some of the
	consequences that concern us here are caused as well, and perhaps to
	a greater extent, by other stimuli.  If the stark implications of the
	problem of multiple causation were followed to the extent of casting
	doubts on efforts relating to anything other than the "largest"
	cause of the largest problem, few of us could justify doing anything
	in our lives that was not directly related to feeding the hungry.
	But the world does not operate this way, and we are comfortable with
	the fact that we have been asked to look at some problems while
	others look at other problems.  And we are equally comfortable with
	the knowledge that to say that something is one of many causes is
	not to say that it is not a cause.  Nor is it to say that the world
	would not be better off if even this one cause was eliminated.

		When faced with multiple causation, cause is likely to be
	attributed to those factors that are within our power to shape.  Often
	we ignore larger causes precisely because of their size.  When a cause
	is pervasive and intractable, we look elsewhere for remedies, and this
	is quite often the rational course.  A careful look at the available
	evidence can give us some idea of where the problems are, what
	different factors are causing them, which remedies directed at which
	causes are feasible, and which remedies directed at which causes are
	futile, unconstitutional, or beyond all available means.  But if we
	are correct with respect to the causes we *have* identified, then we
	can take confidence in the fact that lessening those causes will help
	alleviate the problem, even if lessening other causes might very well
	alleviate the problem to a greater extent.


This also answers another objection that was raised:

>>  In a less definite but no less damaging way, it includes women who are
>>viewed as objects for the pleasure of men around them.
>
>	This is a problem, but it has been around *far* longer than
>pornography has. In fact, if anything, it is *less* prevalent today than it
>was in the past. Check out the accepted attitudes of men towards women, say 40
>years ago, or 100 years ago. I think women were even more degraded then than
>they are now. So, where is the harm? The problem you cite has nothing to do
>with pornography, it comes from old cultural values that have not yet been
>totally eliminated.

Another author:
>>  ``When your rape is entertainment your worthlessness is absolute''
>>(Dworkin).  . . . *if* the presentation of rape, date rape, etc, *is*
>>entertainment, then the relative esteem in which we hold men and women is
>>certainly in question, especially when the women depicted are shown as
>>ultimately acceeding to the assualt and calling for more.  The only questions
>>are if such materials are viewed as entertainment and how large the effect is.
>
>	No, there is another question: Which came first, the low esteem in
>which the men and women are held or the viewing of such things as
>entertainment. It is quite possible, even likely, that it is the low esteem
>that has permitted the perception of violence as entertainment, rather than
>the other way around. If so, the problem is how to re-educate the public so
>that people are viewed in a higher light. Then the desire to watch degrading
>entertainment will go away all by itself, with no need for censorship.

The assertion that this and pronography are irrelevant to each other seems
pretty far-fetched.  If you will grant that this is the problem of the chicken
and the egg, I will quickly agree with you.  But to the extent that some of
the material in question feeds the disease, as well as being a symptom of it,
doesn't it make sense to remove the reinforcement?  Peremptorily changing
everybody's attitude is at least beyond our means, and probably a futile cause.

Adam, again, on the presumption of innocence in lawmaking:
>Mark Terribile:
>> Not quite true.  If there is reason to believe that a harm is likely to
>> result, restrictions related to the magnitude of the harm may be imposed.
>> Drunken driving is a classic example.

>When caught, the drunk driver has already harmed the owner of the road,
>violating the owner's conditions on its use; and impairing the value of the
>road by making it more dangerous, and therefore less useful to other drivers;
>and thus less valuable to the owner. The fact that in some countries the
>"person" owning the roads, and thus harmed by the drunk driver, is the
>government, does not vitiate the applicability of the above principle.

And if some people, by being exposed to certain materials, become more likely
to cause harm, or even predisposed to cause harm, they have made the world more
dangerous and impaired its value to the rest of its owners.

>> Also, the reasonable doubt requirement does not hold in the construction of
>> statutes, nor does it hold in limiting the rights guaranteed by the
>>Amendments to our Constitution.  There criteria  such as ``immediate and
>>overwhelming harm'', ``compelling interest'', etc.,  come into play.

>Those are legal criteria, not ethical principles. The whole point of civilized
>government is to bring laws into conformity with ethical principles, and not
>the other way around.

I would say rather that the whole point is to bring laws into conformity with
the deepest principles and long-term mores of a people.  It is true that within
certain portions of our culture, mores are changing.  But they have not been
changed long enough to be long-term yet, and it is not yet clear that the
``deepest principles'' that were reflected in the First Amendment and its
interpretations across the years have changed in the people taken as a whole.

Another question:
>More seriously, why is sex special?  Many people seem to feel that the first
>ammendment covers everything but sex.  Why should the publication of 
>explicit material be limited to that which the "average" person is not
>offended by?  Why don't we do this for other forms of expression?

Why is sex special?  I never thought that that question would seriously be
asked on *this* newsgroup! ( ;^}/3 here, please)

Remember, that's not the whole of the limitiation.  First, the ``average''
person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interests.  The dictionary at hand defines prurient as:

	o Obsessively interested in matters of a sexual nature, or
	o Characterized by an obsessive interest in sex, or
	o Arousing or appealing to an obsessive interest in sex.

An ordinary interest, it seems, won't do if the Justices were not too far
from the usage described in The American Heritage Dictionary.  The interest
must be obsessive.  (Would this completely exclude ``tasteful nudes'' from the
jurisdiction of the obscenity statutes?  It might just.  The Supreme Court
struck down Georgia laws that considered Playboy obscene, and went further to
state that declaring such a publication obscene could not be constitutional.)

>(Most obscenity laws refer to the "average person's" notion of obscenity.)
>They also refer to "lustful thoughts or desires".  Something is obscene
>if it incites lustful thoughts.  They are trying to legislate what I am allowed
>to think.  Sounds like thought control to me.  Why should the suppression
>of ideas be limited to sex?  If inciting other thoughts leads to illegal
>actions should we suppress them too?

Next, the work must contain specific depictions of specific acts that are
listed in the applicable laws, which, after all, are passed by legislators
who are supposed to represent the people.  If you don't want the laws, elect
someone who agrees with you or run for office yourself.  It's that simple.
As far as why it is permitted under the First Amendment to impose some
restriction on the open expression of things sexual when it it not permitted
to impose some restriction upon discussion of the growing of conifers,  I will
quote the Commission's report briefly.  I realize that this will be a major
source of disagreement.  (Section 3.1, *The Constraints of the First Amendment*
on page 254 in the GPO edition.)

	...the foundation of the somewhat more complex but nevertheless
	fundamentally similar treatment of obscenity by the Supreme Court.
	This treatment involves two major principles.  The first, reiterated
	repeatedly and explained most thoroughly in *Paris Adult Theatre v.
	Slayton* [413 US 49 (1973)], is the principle that legal obscenity is
	treated as being either not speech at all, or at least not the kind of
	speech that is within the purview of the First Amendment.  As a result,
	logal obscenity may be regulated by the states and by the federal
	government without having to meet the especially stringent standards of
	justification, often generalized as "clear and present danger," and
	occasionally as a "compelling interest," that would be applicable to
	speech, including a great deal of sexually oriented or sexually
	explicit speech, that is within the aims and principles of the First
	Amendment.  Instead, legal obscenity may constitutionally be regulated
	as long as there exists merely a "rational basis" for regulation, a
	standard undoubtedly drastically less stringent than the standard of
	"clear and present danger" or "compelling interest."
		...
	...The second major principle is that the *definition* of what is
	obscene, as well as the determination of what in particular cases is
	obscene, is itself a matter of constitutional law.  If the under-
	pinnings of the exclusion of obscenity from the First Amendment are
	that obscenity is not what the First Amendment is all about, then
	special care must be taken to ensure that materials, including
	materials dealing with sex, that *are* within what the First Amendment
	is all about are not subject to restriction.  Although what is on the
	unprotected side of the line between the legally obscene and
	constitutionally protected speech is not protected by the First
	Amendment, the location of the line itself is a constitutional matter.
	That obscenity may be regulated consistant with the First Amendment
	does not mean that anything that is perceived by people or legislatures
	may be so regulated.

>Can you imagine what it would be like if every product of man's (or woman's)
>creative mind had to be approved by a panel of "average" people?
>"I'm sorry Mr. Stravinsky, but that music is just a bunch of random
>notes, it has no beat and is difficult to dance to." :-)

Third, the work, taken as a whole, must not show serious educational,
scientific, etc, value.  Here, the view of the average person is *not* the
criterion; experts in the field may override any ``average'' notions.  With
regard to literature, drama, music, etc, any substantial controversy is most
probably proof of the serious value of the work.

It should be noted that the most serious threat to ``The Rite of Spring''
came from the ballet audiences who boycotted it;  my perception is that ballet
is a more elitist thing among audiences than ordinary concerts. ``The Rite of
Spring'' was an immediate hit among ordinary concert audiences, and has
remained popular.  Thus here the ``common people'' validated a work which was
rejected by the intelligentsia.  Yes, the snobs learned quickly enough ...

The production of *any* work by an author with an established reputation in
the arts would very likely provide some protection against all but the most
obsessive and vacuous work, if for no other reason that almost any work of
that sort would generate the kind of controversy among ``experts'' that would
mark it as having a serious value ... it's hard to argue from Stravinsky.  Or
from Karlheinz Stockhausen, for that matter (ugh!).

>   Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity
>   to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the
>   moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being
>   indifferent.
>
>Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized.

Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure
that the food we get is wholesome and safe?  Ever read Upton Sinclair's
*The Jungle*?  When the government got around to investigating the claims of
how bad the food industry was, it was found that Sinclair had *understated*
the problem!  Also note the continuing difficulties about wages for farm
workers, rising food prices, the morality of using grain as a trading weapon
with the USSR, etc.  The commoditization has only begun the dilemmas.

>   How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film
>   what you do and publish it?  Ten thousand, hundred thousand?  How about a
>   million?
>
>   Oops, you're about to be undersold by a couple of starving kids in the ghetto
>   who'll do it for a hundred-and-fifty.
>
>There is a price at which I would pick crops, but I am continually
>being undersold there, too.

Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as
deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you
care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one
of your colleagues sees it.  If you are a woman ... once again, the simple
``informed adult decision'' model doesn't hold because our society's real
values don't match the abstractions;  If you made a film like that to keep
from getting evicted, would you like it if your friends, or your colleagues,
or your boss were to see it ten years later?  I know I'd be pretty humiliated.
On the other hand, if someone discovered that I'd picked crops, I'd be proud
to be able to say that I'd worked my way up, and not ashamed that I earned an
honest living the hard(est) way.

Another view on this one:
>>Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity
>>to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the
>>moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being
>>indifferent.
>
>	Ever notice how people like to argue generalities when there's few
>facts at hand? From a discussion of porn we've moved up the ladder of
>abstraction to the "merchandising of sexual arousal". Gosh, Mark, I guess
>that'll bring in everyone who's against prostitution on your side, and might
>bag a few haters of business and advertising, too :-).

Well, actually it was meant to spotlight the well-founded (and popular)
cynicisms about business morality.  Do you *really* want your sexual pleasure
to be provided by that?  Or would you rather have your sexuality affirmed and
exercised by intimacy with another human being, with whom intimacy of any sort
pleases you and {her/him}?

>	The issue is that specific kind of "merchandising of sexual arousal"
>called, colloquially, porn. I would be happy to argue for the legalization of
>prostitution, too, but that's better carried on as a separate topic. The
>waters have already been muddied enough by the attempted identification of
>vicarious sex with vicarious violence by the anti-porn forces.

Yes, let's keep that a seperate topic.  We should be ready for it about
January. ;^)

The question is not identification of vicarious sex with vicarious violence by
anti-porn forces, but the assertion that at least some people exercise certain
facilities vicariously and then attempt to bring other people into their
fantasy worlds, in a way that harms the others involved.  I've raised the less
easily measured question of how the channeling of sexual energies into
photographicaly stimulated fantasies may affect those with whom an individual
has or might have relationships.  That will be tough to answer scientifically.

And there is the real question of whether *some* material *encourages* people
to attatch sexual arousal to violence, and whether the people who respond to
that material seek sexual release through violence (physical or psychological).
Even Adam, I think, would agree that there are people who do this.  Adam would,
I believe, argue that they represent only a small, abnormal subpopulation.
I don't trust the available data, especially given the fact that most of the
info comes from studies on psych students.  Even the dissenters on the
Commission felt that the available evidence was untrustworthy for this reason.

	How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
	No, four.  Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. (A.Lincoln)

Calling something a non-issue doesn't make it one.

>>How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film
>>what you do and publish it?  Ten thousand, hundred thousand?  How about a
>>million?
>
>	Haggling over price, are we?  What has this to do with the porn debate?

Only to try to establish what sex is worth to you.  (I did ask you to let me
be silly for a moment ...)


>>[Mata Hari type spy story -KB]
	[Also a statement of the value and preeminent importance of sex by
	someone who ought to know -MAT]
>>
>>Hardly the stuff we want traded on the Mercantile Exchange ...
>
>	Irrelevant again. Is it just me, or is the "kitchen sink"
>argument (little bit of everything, nothing of substance)

Values again, values, all is values.  I'm really trying to argue that you
value something which you think that you don't.  I guess that only time will
tell, which is why I argue against making further great changes in the values
that we express in our laws and in our Constitution and its interpretation.

> Well, Mark, I don't have a security clearance, and don't know any secrets
>at all; can I have my Playboy back? :-)

>-  Manipulate me!  -                            Kenn Barry

As far as Playboy ... it seems that you are the one dredging up irrelevant
emotional issues; the Supreme Court (I posted this last time) overturned
state laws declaring Playboy obscene, and making it clear that something on
that level simply wasn't a matter for *any* constitutional obscenity law.

Actually, I *do* think you are being manipulated by the media and by prevailing
social pressures to ignore what I think is the evidence of history ...

I'd like to respond to more of the stuff that's come down the pike, but this
is way too long as it is.  By now I must be the curse of backbone sites!
-- 

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