On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 03:23:39 -0500 "Dana Shilling" dshilling@worldnet.att.net writes:
Ellynne G. said:
Regular consumers of porn show a marked tendency to be more
callous
towards women and to minimize rape as a criminal offense.
Is this cause or effect--i.e., haven't these attitudes been formed before the individual becomes a consumer of pornography?
OK, let's take the whole media thing from the top.
Studies keep showing the same thing - media both teaches and reinforces behavior. Studies of porn in particular show that it can be addictive with users finding they need more for stimulus.
It has been shown frequently to have a key role in the break down
of
inhibitions and restraint in the sexual abuse of juveniles.
Or to substitute for contact with actual juveniles, in which case relating to a pornographic image is clearly better than harming a real child (although children may have been abused to create the image)
See prior statement about _increasing need_. Since child porn is illegal, this is a harder area to study. However, I've read some accounts by one law enforcement official who, in a career of over twenty years, _never_ had a case of child sexual abuse where the perpetrator didn't also have child porn.
100% is a scary stat.
Look, let me cut to the chase here.
There are three things influencing my views on porn. First, my personal ethics which, while an area open for reasonable discussion, obviously have only a limited playing field in making demands in how others act (like not having people throw it in my face when I don't want to see it - in other words, a little common respect). Second, there are ranges of personal experience that are difficult to bring into any online discussion but that, nevertheless, have had a major impact in my attitudes (there are porn junkies in the neighborhood who will spend hours at the local library looking at the stuff on the internet, and a friend was threatened by one). Statistically and scientifically questionable, but personal experiences often are.
Third, however, is that I believe the studies that connect porn with various social problems. I live in the country that accounts for about 75% of the documented serial killers in the world, where stats on crimes against women have gone through the roof. Do you think I'm going to lightly dismiss studies about media's influence on this?
It negatively impacts marriage and family life. Consumers of porn
are
more likely to have distorted views of human sexuality and to view infidelity and multiple partners as acceptable.
What, exactly, is a distorted view of human sexuality?
In this context, we're talking about viewing people as objects. As one recent article on the subject said, those addicted to pornography see other people as nothing more than objects without feelings or emotions - and it is much easier to commit crimes against objects than people.
Twenty years ago, the acting out of certain sexual behaviors by preadolescents was unheard of in cases where the child had not
been
sexually abused. Now, it is proof of a television in the home.
Don't forget the role of increased reporting, which is not the same as an increase in the reported phenomenon.
Reread what I said. We're not talking about increased incidence. We're talking about changes in the environment in which it occurs. If anything, twenty years ago, child sexual abuse was still a taboo subject. Cases were routinely dismissed because children were considered unreliable witnesses (this changed radically and, yes, there was a spurt in false reports and accusations [doubly unfortunate because, besides attacking the innocent, it made it that much easier to dismiss real cases in the aftermath]. We're not talking about that period).
Look, my feelings on this matter are strong and not likely to change. I've stated my reasons, and they're not likely to change, either. I also don't consider myself the world's most persuasive arguer so I'm not expecting a major change in anyone else's opinions based on what I've said.
Besides, I can't think of a single Ob. B7 statement at this point.
Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ellynne G. wrote:
Third, however, is that I believe the studies that connect porn with various social problems. I live in the country that accounts for about 75% of the documented serial killers in the world, where stats on crimes against women have gone through the roof. Do you think I'm going to lightly dismiss studies about media's influence on this?
Many such studies should not be lightly dismissed: the should be thrown aside with great force.
In this context, we're talking about viewing people as objects. As one recent article on the subject said, those addicted to pornography see other people as nothing more than objects without feelings or emotions - and it is much easier to commit crimes against objects than people.
I find this result frankly incredible. Can you direct me to this article?
Look, my feelings on this matter are strong and not likely to change. I've stated my reasons, and they're not likely to change, either.
I'd strongly recommend you check out the following articles by Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/censcrim.html
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/fakesci.html
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm
ObB7: I reckon porn is heavily censored in the Federation. To protect the children, of course.
Iain
Iain said:
Many such studies should not be lightly dismissed: the should be thrown aside with great force.
Hear, hear! Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and there can be bad reporting of well-done studies and bad reporting of poorly-done studies. BTW, I live on the East Coast of the United States, where a good deal of media coverage has centered around a fearsome blizzard that was supposed to arrive on Sunday (when there was half an inch of snow), today (when there was half an inch of snow) or perhaps tomorrow or Wednesday...
In this context, we're talking about viewing people as objects. As one recent article on the subject said, those addicted to pornography see other people as nothing more than objects without feelings or emotions - and it is much easier to commit crimes against objects than people.
I find this result frankly incredible. Can you direct me to this article?
Look, my feelings on this matter are strong and not likely to change. I've stated my reasons, and they're not likely to change, either.
I'd strongly recommend you check out the following articles by Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/censcrim.html
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/fakesci.html
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm
ObB7: I reckon porn is heavily censored in the Federation. To protect the children, of course.
Iain
From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk
I'd strongly recommend you check out the following articles by Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/censcrim.html
And very good reading they are too, with plenty of ammunition to deploy against the moralists. Yet I can't help feeling that these three articles betray biases of their own, by marginalising the existence of genuinely nasty stuff. A statement like 'In contrast, it should be noted that the "kill the bitch" syndrome is never present in pornography' (in the first source cited above) is flat out *wrong*. I've *seen* a short movie called "Beat the Bitch" (shown on a TV documentary years ago) in which a tied-up naked women is subjected to (unconvincing) pummelling from a naked man.
As for 'Even child porn, that favourite bogeyman of police and campaigners, is so rare that many porn researchers as well as porn aficionados say they never saw any child porn even in the 1960s and early 1970s in America, before any anti-child porn laws existed there.' - that is just shoddy argument at its worst. "Is so rare" (ie now) hardly relates to the state of affairs nearly 30 years ago. That's like saying video piracy is a non-issue because nobody had a VCR in 1970.
What disturbs me most about pornography is not so much the content but the mechanics of its production. If consenting adults want to be filmed or photographed, as an act of self-celebration or simply for the money, fine. But how many are genuinely consenting? I've heard it alleged that women in particular are coerced or blackmailed into making porn (there is the famous anecdote of Linda Lovelace being forced to 'perform' with a gun pointed at her head - true story or urban legend?). If so, then there is genuine reason for concern, IMO. But both pro and anti factions of the porn debate operate from their own assumptions. Andrea Dworkin (maligned in the third of the sources cited above) has written from direct first-hand experience of the production of pornography, an irritating fact glossed over by the anti-censorship lobby.
Similarly, there have been recent noises in the media about illegal immigrant women ending up in the sex trade. Genuine concern, scaremongering deterrent, or palliative cloak for xenophobic rhetoric?
At least fan art porn does not, insofar as the mechanics of its production are concerned, threaten or injure anyone (unless the artist sprains her wrist or something while drawing).
That's the obB7 bit, BTW
Neil
----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
At least fan art porn does not, insofar as the mechanics of its production are concerned, threaten or injure anyone (unless the artist sprains her wrist or something while drawing).
I've been trying to stay out of the porn thread, but I would like to take issue with this, Neil. It may not physically injure or threaten anyone, but earlier in the thread a lot of people pointed out that at least some of the actors were uncomfortable, if not upset, at their likenesses being used in this way without their consent or, in some cases, knowledge. Isn't this a kind of emotional violation?
I've also seen some (admittedly only a few, *but*) fan porn stories which I would say excuse, or even romanticise, rape. Which as a woman, if not a feminist, I find somewhat disturbing.
You can argue that this is only the extreme fringe-- but I think this is the fan porn equivalent of the "genuinely nasty stuff" you referred to, Neil, and it's worrying.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
At least fan art porn does not, insofar as the mechanics of its
production
are concerned, threaten or injure anyone (unless the artist sprains her wrist or something while drawing).
I've been trying to stay out of the porn thread, but I would like to take issue with this, Neil. It may not physically injure or threaten anyone,
but
earlier in the thread a lot of people pointed out that at least some of
the
actors were uncomfortable, if not upset, at their likenesses being used in this way without their consent or, in some cases, knowledge. Isn't this a kind of emotional violation?
That's why I said *insofar as the mechanics of its production are concerned* - it's artists drawing illustrations, and the process of drawing is non-injurious to anyone. The consequences of distributing such art are another matter altogether. As someone (Judith) pointed out, it might ultimately threaten an actor's career, a very serious consideration.
I've also seen some (admittedly only a few, *but*) fan porn stories which
I
would say excuse, or even romanticise, rape. Which as a woman, if not a feminist, I find somewhat disturbing.
You can argue that this is only the extreme fringe-- but I think this is
the
fan porn equivalent of the "genuinely nasty stuff" you referred to, Neil, and it's worrying.
I've read a couple (but only a couple) of rape stories,and I wouldn't say they excused or romanticised the act, but of course there may well be other stories out there that do. However, I have been informed that many women do entertain fantasies of something that might be called rape (though bearing little in relation to actual rape). A legitimate subject for fiction, surely.
I have also been told that slashers find gay rape a means of expressing their fears in a fictional context without getting too close to the 'real' thing. This sounds to me like Mary-Sueing the victim. Her again <sigh>
By 'genuinely nasty stuff' I wasn't referring to text or drawings as such, but photographs or films in which real, living people are subjected to very real physical injury, with little or no consent on their own part. The FAC webpages Iain cited gloss over this aspect of pornography, which does exist, though I'm in no position to say how common it actually is.
Neil
Neil said:
As for 'Even child porn, that favourite bogeyman of police and
campaigners,
is so rare that many porn researchers as well as porn aficionados say they never saw any child porn even in the 1960s and early 1970s in America, before any anti-child porn laws existed there.' -
I've read that the child porn industry would not be financially viable without purchases by police and prosecutors. It's probably an urban legend, but I enjoy it--like the similar contention that for many years the FBI was the main financial backer of the U.S. Communist Party, because no one but double agents could ever be arsed to pay their dues.
What disturbs me most about pornography is not so much the content but the mechanics of its production. If consenting adults want to be filmed or photographed, as an act of self-celebration or simply for the money, fine. But how many are genuinely consenting?
Unfortunately, alienated labor exists in the sex industry as well as, e.g., clothing manufacture, and economically marginal people end up producing sexual images as well as designer-label clothing for the profit of others.
But both pro and anti factions of the porn debate operate from their own assumptions.
I think you'd have to rewire human beings to prevent this.
Neil also raised what I think is an important point: the distinction between filmed/photographed images of actual people and writing/drawing that is completely fabricated.
-(Y) No penguins were harmed in the production of this post
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Neil Faulkner wrote:
From: Iain Coleman ijc@bas.ac.uk
I'd strongly recommend you check out the following articles by Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.libertarian.org/LA/censcrim.html
And very good reading they are too, with plenty of ammunition to deploy against the moralists. Yet I can't help feeling that these three articles betray biases of their own, by marginalising the existence of genuinely nasty stuff.
Oh, they're nakedly partisan. I was referencing them as a fairly quick way of indicating some of the problems with 'anti-porn' research, not as the last word on the subject. While I broadly agree with the thrust of the above articles, I certainly wouldn't sign myself up to every sentence.
A statement like 'In contrast, it should be noted that the
"kill the bitch" syndrome is never present in pornography' (in the first source cited above) is flat out *wrong*. I've *seen* a short movie called "Beat the Bitch" (shown on a TV documentary years ago) in which a tied-up naked women is subjected to (unconvincing) pummelling from a naked man.
I think that _any_ statement of the form "X is never present in pornography" is guaranteed to be wrong. There is absolutely nothing you or I or anyone on this list can think of that isn't _somebody's_ number one fantasy.
That said, though, I do think "kill the bitch" fantasies are at least extremely rare in porn. There's probably more penguin porn out there.
As for 'Even child porn, that favourite bogeyman of police and campaigners, is so rare that many porn researchers as well as porn aficionados say they never saw any child porn even in the 1960s and early 1970s in America, before any anti-child porn laws existed there.' - that is just shoddy argument at its worst. "Is so rare" (ie now) hardly relates to the state of affairs nearly 30 years ago. That's like saying video piracy is a non-issue because nobody had a VCR in 1970.
I must say, I do find Carol's attitude to child porn questionable at best.
What disturbs me most about pornography is not so much the content but the mechanics of its production. If consenting adults want to be filmed or photographed, as an act of self-celebration or simply for the money, fine. But how many are genuinely consenting? I've heard it alleged that women in particular are coerced or blackmailed into making porn (there is the famous anecdote of Linda Lovelace being forced to 'perform' with a gun pointed at her head - true story or urban legend?).
I gather that's a UL, though I admit I'd struggle to come up with a citation for you on the spot.
If so, then there is genuine
reason for concern, IMO. But both pro and anti factions of the porn debate operate from their own assumptions. Andrea Dworkin (maligned in the third of the sources cited above) has written from direct first-hand experience of the production of pornography, an irritating fact glossed over by the anti-censorship lobby.
The following statements are both true:
1) Some people in the porn industry are victimised and abused
2) Some people in the porn industry are happily consenting adults.
The question is, what is to be done about abusive and exploitative workplace practices? Censoring the product isn't a particularly effective approach. What does seem to be happening at the moment is that the workers are increasingly seizing the means of production.
Similarly, there have been recent noises in the media about illegal immigrant women ending up in the sex trade. Genuine concern, scaremongering deterrent, or palliative cloak for xenophobic rhetoric?
Probably a bit of all three.
Iain
Ellynne wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 03:23:39 -0500 "Dana Shilling" dshilling@worldnet.att.net writes:
Ellynne G. said:
Regular consumers of porn show a marked tendency to be more callous towards women and to minimize rape as a criminal offense.
Is this cause or effect--i.e., haven't these attitudes been formed before the individual becomes a consumer of pornography?
OK, let's take the whole media thing from the top.
Studies keep showing the same thing - media both teaches and reinforces behavior.
I appreciate that you have very strong opinions on this subject, Ellynne, but I'm not sure that your final statement is entirely correct. David Gauntlett has a very interesting article on the web about this: http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm. This has more to do with violence in the media than pornography.
Others might enjoy the media response to his book 'Moving Experiences', particularly the cuttings from 'The Sun' and 'Private Eye': http://www.theory.org.uk/book1prs.htm.
Others still may enjoy his new Anthony Giddens and Michel Foucault action figures, a spin-off from his hugely successful theory trading cards: http://www.theory.org.uk/. In fact, just have a poke round the whole site, which is great.
Una
-
Dana Shilling -
Ellynne G. -
Fiona Moore -
Iain Coleman -
Neil Faulkner -
Una McCormack