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: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 03:19:04 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1578 Posted: Sat Sep 27 03:19:04 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 19:31:25 EDT References: <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <782@mtund.UUCP> <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> <1172@oliveb.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 110 Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:404 net.legal:5204 soc.singles:208 > [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.] The discussion seems to revolve mostly around sexual values, with legal ones a close second. I would like to keep it out of net.politics, and most of the interesting followups seem to have come from net.singles readers ... Phil's article is just too long to reply to point by point; it is also a good challenge. I will assume that the reader has read it. The changes in laws and the interpretation thereof regarding obscenity began in 1957 with the *Roth* decision; we are just begining to see some promise of stability with the balanced provisions of the *Miller* decision. It is true that a ``sexual revolution'' in attitudes toward the value and esteem of human sexuality began before the turn of the century. The changes that have most touched the average individual have occurred in an avalanche since 1962, +/- 5 years. I argue that trying to do both at once is preventing us from evaluting the impact of either. I also realize that the second cannot be stopped or slowed, so I would argue for a slowing and stabilizing of the first until we get the other stuff straightened out. It may be that the increase in the amount of explicit/violent/degrading erotica/porn is the result of technological improvements in the publishing process (both print and video ...). It may be that it really is part of the removal of repression. But when we remove repression, it is not unreasonable to expect all the results to be good. An increase in the amount of material used by sick people to encourage their sickness may occur at the same time as an increase in the willingness of people to report sexual abuse and rape. An increase in the number of parents who can't teach their kids how to integrate sexuality with love and affection may occur at the same time as an increased willingness to express both. (Expressing sexuality does not *have* to include the sex act, does not *have* to include heavy petting. But it may.) It may be that some of the bad things came about *because* of the repression, like a closed and festering wound. Does this mean that we must accept the bad effects without question or attempt to remedy them? Hardly. Even if the increase in testimony stems from an increased willingness to testify (rather than from an increase in occurrences), does this not mean that we should seek to reduce the things that lead to the abuse? I certainly accept that some of the increase in testimony comes from an increased openness, but I don't believe that all of it does. Do you? And does that mean that we should cease attempting to remove the encouragement so such abuse? As regards unusual sexual practices: as you note, in order to work, they require an unusual mindset and an unusual communication between the partners. The problem is that there are some people who do not realize this. Of people who watch films showing fighter pilots operating their beautiful (but also terrible) machines, there are undoubtedly a few who believe that they can do these things without the months of pain, sweat, and doubt that the pilots endure in training. We protect against them by making access to fighter planes difficult. If we could not, if everybody could operate their automobile as though it were a fighter aircraft, we would undoubtedly try to educate people about the consequences. In the absence of an effective way to do that, would it not be reasonable to restrict the availablility of material that encouraged people to operate their autos as fighter planes? The difficulty with ``sex education'' is that it teaches about sex, not about sexuality, not about the integration of blossoming sexual feelings with the rest of the personality, including (among other things) the interplay between sexuality and the needs for affection and intimacy. The only way we know of to teach these things is though good example and occasional, some- what intimate guidance. (A father-son chat about how the kid feels about Suzy the ex-tomboy can be a very intimate thing, but not at all physical ... or, if too few fathers are close enough to their adolescent feelings to do that, the older-brother/younger brother chat) Two specifics that I will address: As far as ``causal or otherwise'' not being a trivial point ... until there is good evidence of *no* causality, my conservative mindset suggests that we ought to act as though there was, while *genuinely* trying to determine if there is. One study, even an objective one, can raise concerns and cast doubts, but it cannot answer the question. A range of studies over several years may. Insofar as the studies may be poorly done and badly reported, the ``investigators'' are doing a real disservice by throwing away time, resources, and credibility that are badly needed. But it is not axe-grinding, having found significance at the .05 level, to see if either the methods can be refined or the focus of the inquiry re- directed, to get a result significant at the .005 level, so long as the study remains objective and the methods reliable. While the testimony of law enforcement officials cannot substitute for studies, and while the testimony that certain offenders have large collections of certain materials, often material of little interest to the public, cannot demonstrate that self-exposure to these materials *causes* the offenses, when it is coupled with the testimony of victims who report that use of the material is part of the pattern of the offense, there is reason to assume that for this catagory of people, use of the material *is* part of the pattern of the offense, and reason to investigate the possiblity that removing the material will disrupt, to some extent, the pattern of the offense. (Whew! that was a big sentence to get out ...) -- 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) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.