Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <117200238@inmet> Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 23:05:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117200238 Posted: Thu Oct 9 23:05:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:30:18 EDT References: <1578@mtx5a.UUCP> Lines: 148 Nf-ID: #R:mtx5a.UUCP:-157800:inmet:117200238:000:7398 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Oct 9 23:05:00 1986 >/* Written 3:19 am Sep 27, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Evidence and Pornography Le" ---------- */ >... >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. Oh, I like this! Shall we stop the development of entertainment media so that we can avoid its possible effects while studying musical excellence? No more CD players, folks! Shall we also restrict the right of access to the media by church figures so that we may evaluate their actions apart from the impact of the media? It's all very fun to talk about... I've another: in the same spirit, let's "slow and stabilize" the progress of women towards equality in our society until we get some other stuff straightened out, ok? Paah! We are *NOT* your experimental animals: go recruit your control groups among mice! >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. If I take this as written, it is untrue (and also inconsistent with what you've been saying). Remove oppression and you can cause economic dislocation: just for example: release the Japanese from the Internment camps after WWII, and you must now compete with them. This doesn't mean we should continue oppression: merely that removal of "repression" is not Pareto-optimal: you always offend somebody who'd prefer the oppression remain. >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. So go find some "sick" people -- and confirm that they really are "encouraging" their sickness. Tell me, Mark: does Aspirin "encourage" a cold? Oh yes -- while you're at it, define "normal" human sexuality and tell us why we should all be encouraged to feel as it dictates. >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.) May, may, may! Let's have some FACTS, at least some ASSERTIONS -- or some silence. >It may be that some of the bad things came about *because* of the repression, >like a closed and festering wound. *MAY*???? Absolutely. *Ulysses* was illegal in this country. Books were banned. Nobody could have put on an "uncut" version of Equus. The Hayes (sp?) office required that movies not show evil triumphant. Too bad if you were a screenwriter, or wanted to show *1984*. >Does this mean that we must accept the bad effects without question or >attempt to remedy them? Hardly. No -- but stop short of tromping on the rights of others, will you? (Or won't you agree to even this?) >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? FIND 'em. DEFINE 'em. Then decide whether you've the RIGHT to reduce 'em. After all, being born leads to crimes, but you've no right to fool with *THAT*. >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? Straw man! And it also seems to assume that porn encourages abuse. Don't assume what you have not and (apparently) cannot prove. >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. A simple way to do this would be to endow the aircraft with human minds and warn them about the dangers of allowing themselves to be abused. The other persons affected by porn already have the brains: feel free to tell them not to allow the abuse. >... >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. Good -- now assume (on firmer ground!) that religious access to the media is more harmful. Get to work on it, will you? And leave PRIVATE individuals alone. (Not that I'm for religious repression! But YOU should be). >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. Like the Meese commission? >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. Fine: get some. THEN start talking. >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. Sorry -- if you have the word of Jerry Falwell HIMSELF that this is so, it doesn't justify a study. The justification of the study (it seems to me) would be that the information is worth knowing to the people who wish to fund the study.