Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!intelca!oliveb!prs From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Legislation Message-ID: <36@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 23:18:10 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.36 Posted: Mon Sep 29 23:18:10 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 02:20:15 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <782@mtund.UUCP> <1562@mtx5a.UUCP> <15739@ucbvax.BERKELEY.30 Sep 86 03:18:10 GMT Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) Distribution: net Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 114 Xref: watmath talk.politics.misc:421 net.legal:5213 soc.singles:236 In article <1575@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> >In the years since the 1970 Commission, there has been a great increase in >> >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. >> >> Do you have a reference for this, or did the Commission say it? This >> is the opposite of what I had thought to be the case: the laws have been >> tightend since 1970; and I thought it was alleged that back then pedophile >> material was easy to obtain. Presumably the harsher laws should have had >> some effect? > >``The Commission said it'' based, I believe, on the testimony of law >enforcement officials, and upon the amount of material seized under warrant. Any numbers? A recent Senate investigation concurrent with The Commission concluded 2000 pedophiles. (As quoted in Playboy, Nov issue). Is that "many" or "very, very rare"??? That's 0.01% of the population, if true. Do you have a larger figure? For hard-core "true" pedophiles, not just people who buy "Family Affairs" to fantasize with but have no inclination toward acting out their fantasies with real children. >Also, a number of the materials which they surveyed contained what appeared to >be thinly veiled ads for pedophilic materials; there was apparently no >indication that such material had been seen in the 1970 report. Perhaps the problem in 70 was larger than they detected, or perhaps the 86 investigation confused their logic a little. Just because an advertiser assumes there is enough market to justify the cost of advertising does not mean that there is; have these ads been long-lived or ephemeral? And are their customers, if any, "the real thing", or just curious horny individuals? I'm not rebutting what you/they have said, but I *am* questioning it. >As far as harsher laws: do you mean *stricter* laws? If so, there are still >some loopholes in what the laws allow prosecuted and where they will allow >evidence or testimony to come from. In many localities, there are no laws >requiring photofinishers to report materials processed that show children >engaged in sex acts. There are the evidence problems that were written of >earlier, as well as the personal humiliation suffered by the victim. You are straying from the point. According to the Playboy article arrests and convictions have increased. I don't have it with me at work today, but both old and new rates are miniscule compared to, for instance, rape. This is not *neccessarily* indication of low *incidence*, but I have to wonder! >Finally, prior to the mid-70's, who among us had heard of pedophilia as an >activity with active lobbies (NAMBLA, Rene Guyon Society ...)? Yes, but your motive for bringing it up? Inherant shock value? We should all roll over and spread our legs to your logic because you have brought up a really startling *thought crime*??? That *is* what you are talking about, isn't it, "how *DARE* they show their faces in public? Society must really be going to the dogs if they think they can get away with that!"... is how I interpret your including the above in your answer to "how has society drasticly changed?" Without actually agreeing with Pedophilia (either straight or gay), I can see how some of them might think that what they are doing is not wrong, and a society that is willing to grant some justice to Gay-Rights "ought" to give them a fair shake, too. They are sadly mistaken, of course; I haven't heard what these groups are actually asking for, but I can guarentee it won't get a favorable reception any time soon. Any such relationship is "essentially" incestuous, reguardless of genetic unrelatedness; the age difference causes an inherant dominance relationship, and this coupled with sex is not a good introduction to life for young people. (Just my extrapolation from what I've read about real-life incest, but I imagine its a good one). A healthy society tries to rehabilitate them, not encourage inmates to murder them. And you? The problem isn't new, but compassion for *both* victim and perpetrator is. And still a little shakey. Some of us want to defend the open atmosphere in which it is possible, while others want to bring back the bad old days. Guess which I imagine you to be? > >> >In addition, materials >> >mixing pain, violence, and coercion with apparent sexual satisfaction of the >> >``object'' individual have become more widespread, and such materials are most >> Once again, is this hearsay, or have you evidence? Another point here >> [...] Paraphilias exist with or without pornography. > >In 1970 I was 14 years old, and not in the business of surveying violent >sexual materials. There was testimony before the Commission; in addition, >the Commission found a considerable amount of material available. The 1970 >commission found the amount of material of this sort to be insignificant. ^^^^^^^^^ which, violent or ped? Well, joker, I was of age in 1970, and I did observe such materials(*) in abundance. Not the same in style or quantity, but there for anyone who wanted them. I glanced through some, and was relieved to find them rediculously unbelievable. Have seen some since that are more believable, but still obviously staged emotions and makeup. Just like Hollywood movies became more realistic in their portrayal of monsters and violence. Increase in quantity, not all that much. Got *numbers*? (*) Violent, not pedophile. Still haven't seen any of those, except in news stories!!! Or are you blurring violent with pedophilic?? Your train of thought is hard to follow sometimes! >considered harmful. Here the effect of the material is to help the paraphelic >become an ``offender.'' Please see the letter by Virginia Masters-Johnson to Playboy, part of which I quoted in a previous followup. You have been listening to the wrong experts, I think. Experts are a wonderful excuse for what you already believe, aren't they! (Could include me too, but at least I'm wary of experts). > from Mole End Mark Terribile - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)