Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Article 2291 of talk.rape:
From: gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....)
Subject: Re: pornography (long)
Date: 5 Apr 91 19:38:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr5.014810.3645@nmt.edu>> <Abz2biC00aw743m1gj@andrew.cmu.edu> <1991Apr5.162101.21240@yenta.alb.nm.us>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 670
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com alt.sex:42491 talk.rape:2291


	Sounds like this is needed to be posted again.

	Clogging the net again...


Pornography, erotica, and attitudes toward women: 
	The effects of repeated exposure.
Padgett,-Vernon-R.; Brislin-Slutz,-Jo-A.; Neal,-James-A.
Rio Hondo Coll, Whittier, CA, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1989 Nov Vol 26(4) 479-491
PY: 1989
AB: Assessed the relationship between pornography and attitudes
 toward women in 2 correlational studies, and tested the effect
 of nonviolent erotica on attitudes toward women with 184
 psychology students and 20 patrons at an "adult" theater. Hours
 of viewing pornography was not a reliable predictor of attitudes
 toward women in either sample. Patrons of the adult theater, who
 viewed more pornography, had more favorable attitudes toward
 women than male or female Ss. 

Pornography and sexual offences.
Langevin,-Ron; Lang,-Reuben-A.; Wright,-Percy; Handy,-Lorraine; et-al
Clarke Inst of Psychiatry, Toronto, ON, Canada
Annals-of-Sex-Research; 1988 Vol 1(3) 335-362
LA: English
PY: 1988
AB: Examined whether erotica is harmful and incites sexual crimes
 by interviewing 227 male sex offenders and 50 control Ss from
 the community in Canada about purchase of erotic magazines and
 videos and attendance at erotic movies. Erotica use was not a
 pertinent factor in offenders' sex offenses nor to their legal
 situation. Results do not support the conclusion of the Meese
 Commission (1986) that there is a causal association of sexual
 violence and use of violent pornography. 

Physiological desensitization and judgments about female victims of violence.
Linz,-Daniel; Donnerstein,-Edward; Adams,-Steven-M.
U California, Santa Barbara, US
Human-Communication-Research; 1989 Sum Vol 15(4) 509-522
AB: 29 male undergraduates viewed a control film (nonviolent with
 explicit sexual content) and 34 male undergraduates viewed an
 experimental film (violent with explicit sexual content). All Ss
 were then exposed to 2 brief clips of violence perpetrated by a
 man against a woman while their heart rates were monitored.
 Results indicate that heart rates for Ss exposed to the violent
 videotape were lower during the final 90 sec of each violent
 dependent measure film clip than controls. Although the
 violence-viewing Ss experienced no change in moods, control Ss
 experienced significant increases in hostility, anxiety, and
 depression during the dependent measure clips. Ss in the
 violence-viewing condition attributed less injury to the victims
 but greater responsibility to the perpetrators in the dependent
 measure clips, compared to control Ss. 

Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?
Knudsen,-Dean-D.
Purdue U, West Lafayette, IN, US
Journal-of-Family-Violence; 1988 Dec Vol 3(4) 253-267
AB: A review of official reports and other research indicates
 that the circumstances surrounding sexual abuse are inadequately
 specified to allow specific causal interpretations. The role of
 pornography in contributing to such abuse is explored by
 reviewing laboratory studies and the circumstances of child
 sexual abuse. An assessment of the research literature suggests
 that pornography is a minor and indirect influence on child
 sexual maltreatment. 

Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes toward rape: 
	A comparison of study results.
Linz,-Daniel
U California Communication Studies Program, Santa Barbara, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1989 Feb Vol 26(1) 50-84
AB: Reviews experimental studies conducted since the 1970
 pornography commission that have tested the effects of exposure
 to sexually explicit materials on attitudes and perceptions
 about rape. Studies of short-term exposure to nonaggressive
 sexually explicit communications have yielded mixed results.
 When effects do exist for this material, they are both fewer and
 weaker than antisocial effects from sexually violent material.
 Studies of the effects of long-term exposure to nonviolent
 pornography have also yielded mixed results: Some experiments
 find increases in negative attitudes about rape, and others show
 no effects. Studies that have included violent film conditions
 have consistently found less sensitivity toward rape victims
 after exposure to these materials. 

A preliminary examination of the pornography experience of sex offenders,
	paraphiliacs, sexual dysfunction patients and controls based on 
	Meese Commission recommendations.
Condron,-Mary-K.; Nutter,-David-E.
Sexual Behavior Ctr, Lancaster, PA, US
Journal-of-Sex-and-Marital-Therapy; 1988 Win Vol 14(4) 285-298
AB: The Meese Commission Report (1986) claims that exposure to
 pornography leads to sex offenses and states that it is
 important to examine the developmental patterns of offenders.
 The present study found that the frequency of use of pornography, age of
 exposure to pornography, age of 1st masturbation experience and use of 
 pornography during 1st masturbation experience for 62 male sex offenders, 
 paraphiliacs, sexual dysfunction patients, and controls were not significantly
 different.

Pornography and rape: A causal model.
Russell,-Diana-E.
Mills Coll, Oakland, CA, US
Political-Psychology; 1988 Mar Vol 9(1) 41-73
AB: Contends that in order for rape to occur, a man must not only
 be predisposed to rape, but his internal and social inhibitions
 against acting out rape desires must be undermined. It is
 theorized that pornography (1) predisposes some men to want to
 rape women or intensifies the predisposition in other men
 already so predisposed; (2) undermines some men's internal
 inhibitions against acting out their rape desires; and (3)
 undermines some men's social inhibitions against the acting out.
 Research substantiating this theory is presented and discussed,
 and suggestions are made for further research. 

Rape rates and the circulation rates of adult magazines.
Scott,-Joseph-E.; Schwalm,-Loretta-A.
Ohio State U, Columbus, US
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1988 Vol 24 241-250
AB: Examination of reported rape rates and the sale of 10 popular
 adult magazines by states for 1982 revealed a significant
 relationship. Although the assumption was that the more sexually
 explicit magazines and those containing the most violent sexual
 depictions would have higher correlations with rape rates,
 correlations for individual magazines indicate the opposite.

The censorship of pornography: Catharsis or learning?
McCormack,-Thelma
York U, Toronto, ON, Canada
American-Journal-of-Orthopsychiatry; 1988 Oct Vol 58(4) 493-504
AB: Asserts that contemporary research on pornography reveals an
 impasse between the models of catharsis and learning. It is
 suggested that preference for the latter by a recent government
 report (US Department of Justice, 1986) is based on ideological
 rather than scientific considerations. The breakdown in the
 liberal tradition, current pornography research based on
 behaviorism, and 2 major theoretical problems are discussed. An
 alternative approach is suggested that uses knowledge of
 sexuality, gender inequality, and institutional oppression, and
 the meaning of texts to better understand pornography. It is
 argued that censorship may obstruct research and fail to advance
 feminist goals. (

Beitrag zur Beziehung von Video-Filmkonsum und Kriminalitat in der Adoleszenz. / Relationship between viewing of video films and criminality in adolescents.
Klosinski,-G.
U Bern, Jugendpsychiatrischen Klinik und Poliklinik, Switzerland
Praxis-der-Kinderpsychologie-und-Kinderpsychiatrie; 1987 Feb-Mar Vol 36(2) 66-71
AB: Presents 3 forensic-psychiatric case reports in which
 criminal acts perpetrated by adolescent males were associated
 with previously viewed horror or pornographic videos. In each
 case, the videos served to precipitate and legitimize a neurotic
 solution to existing conflicts. It is suggested that in
 exceptionally unusual, ludicrous, or cruel offenses by
 adolescents, the possibility of video-induced criminality should
 be considered. 

Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually
 degrading depictions of women.
Linz,-Daniel-G.; Donnerstein,-Edward; Penrod,-Steven
U California, Communication Studies Program, Santa Barbara, US
Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology; 1988 Nov Vol 55(5) 758-768
AB: Investigated the effects of emotional desensitization to
 films of violence against women and the effects of sexually
 degrading explicit and nonexplicit films on beliefs about rape
 and the sexual objectification of women. Males viewed either 2
 or 5 R-rated violent "slasher," X-rated nonviolent
 "pornographic," or R-rated nonviolent teenage-oriented ("teen
 sex") films. Affective reactions and cognitive perceptions were
 measured after each exposure. Later, these men and no-exposure
 control Ss completed a voir dire questionnaire, viewed a
 reenacted acquaintance or nonacquaintance sexual assault trial,
 and judged the defendant and alleged rape victim. Ss in the
 violent condition became less anxious and depressed and showed
 declines in negative affective responses. They were also less
 sympathetic to the victim and less empathetic toward rape
 victims in general. However, longer film exposure was necessary
 to affect general empathy. There were no differences in response
 between the R-rated teen sex film and the X-rated, sexually
 explicit, nonviolent film, and the no-exposure control
 conditions on the objectification or the rape trial variables. A
 model of desensitization to media violence and the carryover to
 decision making about victims is proposed. (

Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression.
Demare,-Dano; Briere,-John; Lips,-Hilary-M.
U Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Journal-of-Research-in-Personality; 1988 Jun Vol 22(2) 140-153
AB: 222 undergraduate males were administered an attitudes survey
 examining pornography use, attitudes, and self-reported
 likelihood of rape (LR) or using sexual force (LF). Nonviolent
 pornography was used by 81% of Ss within the previous year,
 whereas 41% and 35% had used violent and sexually violent
 pornography, respectively. 27% of Ss indicated some hypothetical
 LR or LF. Discriminant function analysis revealed that use of
 sexually violent pornography and acceptance of interpersonal
 violence against women were uniquely associated with LF and LR.
 It is hypothesized that the specific fusion of sex and violence
 in some pornographic stimuli and in certain belief systems may
 produce a propensity to engage in sexually aggressive behavior.

An empirical investigation of the role of pornography in the
 verbal and physical abuse of women.
Sommers,-Evelyn-K.; Check,-James-V.
York U, Toronto, ON, Canada
Violence-and-Victims; 1987 Fal Vol 2(3) 189-209
AB: Studied the presence of pornography and both sexual and
 nonsexual violence in the lives of 44 battered women drawn from
 shelters and counseling groups, and a comparison group of 32
 women from a mature university population. It was found that the
 partners of the battered Ss read or viewed significantly greater
 amounts of pornographic materials than did the partners of the
 comparison group. In addition, 39% of the battered Ss (in
 contrast to 3% of the comparison group) responded in the
 affirmative to the question, "Has your partner ever upset you by
 trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures,
 movies, or books?" It was also found that battered Ss
 experienced significantly more sexual aggression at the hands of
 their partners than did the Ss in the comparison group. 

Four theories of rape: A macrosociological analysis.
 International Congress on Rape (1986, Tel Aviv, Israel).
Baron,-Larry; Straus,-Murray-A.
U California Ctr for the Study of Women, Los Angeles, US
Social-Problems; 1987 Dec Vol 34(5) 467-489
AB: Presents a theoretical model that integrates 4
 macrosociological theories of gender inequality, proliferation
 of pornographic materials, cultural spillover of violence to
 other social contexts, and social disorganization as mechanisms
 promoting rape. The theoretical model was tested, using 1980
-1982 data on rapes known to the police in the 50 states in the
 US. The results show that gender inequality, social
 disorganization, percent residing in standard metropolitan
 statistical areas, the circulation of pornography, economic
 inequality, and percent unemployed had direct effects on the
 incidence of rape. 

The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child molesters
    and nonoffenders.
Marshall,-W.-L.
Queen's U, Kingston, ON, Canada
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1988 May Vol 25(2) 267-288
AB: 89 male sex offenders (voluntary outpatients) and 24 male
 nonoffenders were asked to retrospectively recall their use of
 sexually explicit materials during pubescence, and currently. 23
 rapists and 51 men who molested children other than their own
 (i.e., child molesters) reported significantly greater use of
 materials than was indicated by either incest offenders or
 nonoffender controls. Rapists and child molesters reported
 frequent use of these materials while preparing themselves to
 commit an offense. Current use was significantly related to the
 chronicity of their sexual offending (as revealed by number of
 victims) among the child molesters and to laboratory-assessed
 sexual preferences for children in the heterosexual child molesters.

The pornography/aggression linkage: Results from a field study.
Smith,-M.-Dwayne; Hand,-Carl
Tulane U, New Orleans, LA, US
Deviant-Behavior; 1987 Vol 8(4) 389-399
AB: Assessed the impact of presenting a pornographic movie on a
 college campus in a longitudinal, self-report study of 230 women
 students to determine effects of the film's showing on the Ss'
 experiences with aggression from males. Compared with the weeks
 prior to and following the movie's showing, no significant
 difference in reported aggression was found. Those Ss reporting
 association with males attending the movie reported no
 significantly different levels of experienced aggression from
 those Ss whose companions did not view the film. PO: Human

Use of pornography in the criminal and developmental histories 
     of sexual offenders.
Carter,-Daniel-L.; Prentky,-Robert-A.; Knight,-Raymond-A.; Vanderveer,-Penny-L.; et-al
Massachusetts Treatment Ctr, Research Dept, Bridgewater, US
Journal-of-Interpersonal-Violence; 1987 Jun Vol 2(2) 196-211
AB: Investigated exposure to and use of pornography in the
 familial, developmental, and criminal histories of 64
 incarcerated male volunteers (38 rapists and 26 child
 molesters). Data were gathered using a paper-and-pencil self
-report questionnaire. Results show that while both groups
 reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during
 development, child molesters indicated significantly more
 exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more
 likely both to use such materials prior to and during the
 offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act
 out. Findings are discussed with regard to the catharsis
 hypothesis and to the role of pornography in the commission of
 sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child
 molesters. 

"Stranger" child--murder: Issues relating to causes and controls.
Wilson,-Paul-R.
Australian Inst of Criminology, Canberra, ACT, Australia
International-Journal-of-Offender-Therapy-and-Comparative-Criminology; 1987 Vol 31(1) 49-59
AB: Discusses the causes and control of serial killings of
 children. Despite the tendency to view such killers as
 psychiatrically ill, studies suggesting that these offenders do
 not differ psychologically from nonoffenders are cited. It is
 suggested that subcultural and other sociological perspectives
 stressing social disadvantage have low levels of explanatory
 power. While evidence concerning the effects of media on sexual
 and violent crime is inconclusive, case studies indicate that
 pornography and even popular music may increase the propensity
 of some individuals to commit atrocities. It is concluded that
 countermeasures to control stranger killing of children lie in
 more sophisticated law enforcement, long periods of
 incarceration, and more sophisticated crime analysis. 

The findings and recommendations of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography: Do the psychological "facts" fit the political fury?
Linz,-Daniel; Donnerstein,-Edward; Penrod,-Steven
U California, Los Angeles
American-Psychologist; 1987 Oct Vol 42(10) 946-953
AB: The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography has
 concluded that there is a causal relationship between exposure
 to many forms of pornography and several antisocial effects,
 including increased levels of violence against women. As a
 result of these findings, the commission has called for more
 strict enforcement of existing obscenity laws and serious
 consideration of additional legal measures not traditionally
 handled under obscenity law. The authors question whether the
 social science data relied on by the commission justifies either
 the commission's conclusions about harm or the call for more
 stringent law enforcement. Although some of the commission's
 findings appear to be sound extrapolations from the empirical
 studies, the authors find several of the commission's findings
 and recommendations incongruent with available research data.
 Instead of advocating stricter legal controls the authors
 reiterate their call for educational programs to mitigate the
 effects of sexual violence in the media. 

Exposure to pornography and attitudes about women and rape: 
     A correlational study.
Garcia,-Luis-T.
Rutgers U, Camden Coll
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1986 Aug Vol 22(3) 378-385
AB: Investigated the relationship between exposure to sexually
 explicit material and attitudes toward rape in 115 male
 undergraduates. Data provide mixed support for the hypothesis
 that exposure to pornographic materials would be correlated with
 less liberal attitudes toward women: Only exposure to coercive
 or violent sexual themes was related to more traditional
 attitudes about women. Contrary to predictions, Ss having
 greater exposure to sexual materials were found to express more
 liberal attitudes toward women in the area of sexual behavior.

Pornography and sex-related crime: A sociological
 perspective. Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial
 aspects of pornography (1986, Hong Kong).
Sharp,-Imogen
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 73-81
AB: Suggests that the incidence of reported rape is lower in
 areas in which there are more liberal attitudes toward
 pornography. Women may choose to not report a rape because of
 fear, threat of further victimization, or powerlessness and
 helplessness. In a society that has a liberal tolerance for
 pornography and in which rape is often presented as a normal
 part of male-female relations, a woman may assume that rape
 would not be viewed as a serious offense by authorities.

Pornography as cause or pornographic experience as constituted? 
Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial aspects of pornography 
(1986, Hong Kong).
Tsang,-Adolf
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 29-32
AB: Suggests that pornography should not be viewed as the cause
 of certain behaviors but as the material constituent of a
 pornographic experience. Experiments that attempt to assess the
 effects of pornography on behavior ignore the element of choice
 in the real-life pornographic situation, since the experimental
 Ss are presented with pornography while it must be actively
 sought out in real life. It is also suggested that determining
 what constitutes pornography may depend on an individual's
 personal experience. 

Fifteen years of pornography research: Does exposure to pornography have
 any effects? Hong Kong Psychological Society: Psychosocial aspects of 
 pornography (1986, Hong Kong).
Hui,-C.-Harry
U Hong Kong
Bulletin-of-the-Hong-Kong-Psychological-Society; 1986 Jan-Jul No 16-17 41-62
AB: Reviews 35 studies published between 1972 and 1985 on whether
 exposure to pornography (EP) has any effects on behavior. One
 study examined the effects of EP on prosocial behavior (none was
 found); 20 studies assessed the effects of EP on antisocial
 behavior and found general support for a causal link between EP
 and aggression; 3 studies found some evidence of a link between
 EP and rape; and 11 studies examined the relationship between EP
 and moral values and attitudes and found some evidence relating
 EP to a greater acceptance by men of the victimization of women.
 Overall, the studies indicate that pornography does have
 psychosocial effects on users, contrary to the 1970 report by
 the US Congress's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.

The question of pornography.
Donnerstein,-Edward-I.; Linz,-Daniel-G.
U California, Santa Barbara
Psychology-Today; 1986 Dec Vol 20(12) 56-59
AB: Questions the conclusions of the 1986 US Attorney General's
 Commission on Pornography and argues that the most important
 problem in the media is not pornography but violence. Research
 is summarized that suggests that the amount of violence depicted
 in pornography has not increased, that the aggression-evoking
 effects of exposure to sexually violent material may be
 temporary, that materials depicting women "enjoying" rape have
 especially damaging effects on male attitudes, and that violence
 against women need not occur in a sexual context to have a
 negative effect on viewer attitudes and behavior. 

Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: Current theory and research.
Donnerstein,-Edward-I.; Linz,-Daniel-G.
U Wisconsin, Ctr for Communication Research, Madison
American-Behavioral-Scientist; 1986 May-Jun Vol 29(5) 601-618
AB: Reviews research on aggressive pornography and research that
 examines nonpornographic media images of violence against women.
 The question of whether pornography influences behaviors and
 attitudes toward women is considered. There is no evidence for
 any "harm"-related effects from sexually explicit materials. But
 research may support potential harmful effects from aggressive
 materials. Although messages about violence and the sexualized
 nature of violence may be part of some forms of pornography,
 they are also pervasive in media messages in general, from
 prime-time TV to popular films. It is concluded that the media
 is just one of many influences in society that contribute to
 men's callous attitudes about rape and sexual aggression.

Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of 
raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women.
Malamuth,-Neil-M.; Ceniti,-Joseph
U California, Los Angeles
Aggressive-Behavior; 1986 Vol 12(2) 129-137
AB: Examined the long-term effects of repeated exposure to
 violent and nonviolent pornography on males' laboratory
 aggression against women and their self-reported likelihood of
 raping. 42 university students were randomly assigned to the
 sexually violent, sexually nonviolent, or control exposure
 conditions. Those assigned to the sexually violent or sexually
 nonviolent conditions were exposed over a 4-wk period to 10
 stimuli including feature-length films and written and pictorial
 depictions, whereas controls were not exposed to any stimuli.
 Following the end of the exposure phase, Ss participated in what
 they believed to be a totally unrelated experiment in which
 aggression was assessed within a Buss paradigm. Exposure to the
 violent or nonviolent pornographic stimuli did not affect
 laboratory aggression, but likelihood of raping ratings
 predicted laboratory aggression. 

"Prudes" and "pornographiles": Effects of subject and audience attitudes 
on the viewing and rating of pornographic materials.
Yuen,-Kenneth; Ickes,-William
U Wisconsin
Journal-of-Social-and-Clinical-Psychology; 1984 Fal Vol 2(3) 215-229
AB: Examined stereotyped conceptions of the prude and the pornographile 
by testing the responses of 72 male undergraduates with anti- or 
propornography attitudes to pornographic stimuli presented in varying 
social contexts. Specifically, both types of Ss were allowed to view 
and rate a series of pornographic slides in 1 of 3 conditions: alone 
(control) or in the presence of a peer whose expressed attitude toward 
pornography was either favorable or unfavorable. For measures of viewing 
time and rated pornographic value, the antipornography Ss were more 
susceptible to the influence of the peer audience's expressed attitude 
than were the propornography Ss. In general, the stereotyped images of 
the prude and the pornographile were supported. However, it remains to 
be determined to what degree the observed differences were due to 
personality, social comparison, and arousal-attribution processes. 

Self-regulated exposure to erotica, recall errors, and 
The relief of sexual problems through pornography.
Court,-John-H.
Australian-Journal-of-Sex,-Marriage-and-Family; 1984 May Vol 5(2) 97-106
AB: Examines the scientific foundations for claimed efficacy of sexually
 explicit materials for use in sex therapy. The term   pornography   is
 examined to establish important distinctions between different 
 materials, and the case for pornography, as advanced by W. C. Wilson 
 (1978), is examined critically. While acknowledging that many therapists
 are finding sexually explicit materials educationally valuable in the
 treatment of sexual disorders, it is concluded that the evidence is 
 insufficient for the therapeutic use of what most people mean by 
 pornography. (28 ref) 

Pornography and sexual abuse of women.
Silbert,-Mimi-H.; Pines,-Ayala-M.
Delancey Street Foundation, San Francisco, CA
Sex-Roles; 1984 Jun Vol 10(11-12) 857-868
AB: Interviewed 200 juvenile and adult, current and former, female 
 street prostitutes, aged 10-46 yrs, to investigate the sexual abuse of
 street prostitutes. 70% of the Ss were less than 21 yrs old; 60% were
 less than 17 yrs old. 69% of the Ss were White and 18% were Black. 68%
 were single and never married. 42% described themselves as very poor.
 The Ss were administered a sexual assault experience questionnaire
 consisting of questions on background information, forms of assault
 experienced, history of juvenile sexual exploitation, and self-concept.
 Many of the descriptions of sexual assaults made reference to the role
 played by pornography; these references were unsolicited by the
 interviewers. A detailed content analysis of 193 cases of rape and of
 178 cases of juvenile sexual abuse revealed a clear relationship
 between violent pornography and sexual abuse in the experience of
 street prostitutes. Results can neither confirm nor reject the
 catharsis model of pornography; however, they lend considerable weight
 to the imitation model. 

The effects of erotica and pornography on attitudes and behavior: 
A review.
Masterson,-John
U Dublin, Trinity Coll, Ireland
Bulletin-of-the-British-Psychological-Society; 1984 Aug Vol 37 249-252
AB: Reviews the literature on the effects of erotica (ER) and
 pornography (PN) on attitudes and behavior, noting that researching
 these topics poses difficult experimental problems. The reliability of
 data on availability and use of PN is questionable. It is asserted that
 the context in which PN thrives needs to be reexamined. Of particular
 interest is the degree of acceptance of coercion in sexual relations
 by "normal" males and females. Findings on ER vs PN are discussed, and
 decisions concerning the effects of PN and ER by the US National
 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the Committee on Obscenity
 and Film Censorship (UK) are reviewed. Current concern centers around
 violent sexual material. Research has shown that exposure to sexually
 violent material can lead to antisocial attitudes and behavior. It has
 been argued that the enjoyment of PN by individuals will decline when
 such individuals begin to accord women their status as fully human. It
 is concluded that PN can be viewed as a useful indicator of the state
 of male-female relations in society

Debriefing effectiveness following exposure to pornographic rape 
depictions.
Malamuth,-Neil-M.; Check,-James-V.
U California, Los Angeles
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1984 Feb Vol 20(1) 1-13
AB: Examined the ethics of exposing undergraduate students to
 pornographic rape portrayals followed by a debriefing designed to
 dispel a number of rape myths. 150 Ss were randomly assigned to read
 pornographic stories. Some of these depicted a rape, whereas others
 depicted mutually consenting intercourse. Afterwards, those exposed to
 the rape version were given a debriefing that included statements
 concerning the true horror of rape and the existence of rape myths.
 About 10 days later, a survey ostensibly conducted by a local committee
 of citizens was given to Ss in their classes. As part of the survey, Ss
 indicated their reactions to a rape article and their opinions about the
 general causes of rape. Results indicate that those exposed to the rape
 depictions followed by a debriefing were less accepting of certain rape
 myths than Ss exposed to mutually consenting intercourse depictions.
 Implications are discussed both in terms of work focusing on the
 potential antisocial impact of violent pornography and of research
 specifically designed to identify the conditions most likely to change
 acceptance of rape myths. 

Can there be positive effects of participation in pornography experiments?
Check,-James-V.; Malamuth,-Neil-M.
York U, Downsview, Canada
Journal-of-Sex-Research; 1984 Feb Vol 20(1) 14-31
AB: Conducted a 2-phase experiment in response to recent ethical concerns
 about the possible antisocial effects of exposing research Ss to
 pornographic rape portrayals. In Phase 1, 64 male and 94 female
 undergraduates were randomly assigned to read either an "acquaintance"
 or a "stranger" rape depiction, or to read control materials. Ss who
 read the rape depictions were then given a rape debriefing that included
 a communication about the undesirable desensitizing effects of pairing
 sexual violence with other highly explicit and pleasing sexual stimuli.
 Half of the Ss who read the control materials were also given the rape
 debriefing. In Phase 2, Ss were presented with a number of newspaper
 articles in which a newspaper report of a rape was embedded and asked
 to give their opinions. Results indicate that the rape debriefing
 generally increased Ss' perceptions of pornography as a cause of rape.
 Ss in the rape debriefing conditions also gave the rapist in the
 newspaper report a higher sentence and saw the rape victim as less
 responsible than did Ss in the control conditions. This latter effect,
 however, occurred only under conditions where Ss had earlier been
 exposed to an example of a rape depiction that was relevant to both
 the rape myths discussed in the rape debriefing and the newspaper report
 of the rape. (24 ref) (PsycLIT Database Copyright 1985 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserve

Pornography and social science research:  . . .higher moralities.
Zillmann,-Dolf; Bryant,-Jennings, Indiana U
Journal-of-Communication; 1983 Fal Vol 33(4) 111-114
AB: Responds to comments by L. Gross (see PA, Vol 71:23017)
 concerning the present authors' (see PA, Vol 70:1038) study on
 pornography, which found that massive exposure to pornography
 results in a loss of compassion for female rape victims and
 women in general. The present authors provide sources for
 information on their debriefing procedures and address the
 issues of possible damage to research Ss and the contamination
 of results because Ss may have talked about their experience in
 the study with others. 

Pornography and social science research: Serious questions. . . .
Gross,-Larry, U Pennsylvania
Journal-of-Communication; 1983 Fal Vol 33(4) 107-111
AB: Contends that D. Zillmann and J. Bryant's (see PA, Vol 
70:1038) study on pornography, which found that massive exposure to 
 pornography resulted in a loss of compassion toward women as rape
 victims and toward women in general, cannot be taken at face value
 because information on how the research was conducted is lacking. In
 addition, according to the present author, the research raises serious
 questions of ethics concerning experimental procedures and conditions
 and "damage" to the Ss that the researchers did not address.

Exposure to pornography, permissive and nonpermissive cues, and male aggression
    toward females.
Leonard,-Kenneth-E.; Taylor,-Stuart-P.
U Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Inst & Clinic
Motivation-and-Emotion; 1983 Sep Vol 7(3) 291-299
AB: 40 male undergraduates viewed either neutral slides with a silent
 female or erotic slides with a female who made permissive,
 nonpermissive, or no comments about the slides. Ss rated the slides and
 subsequently rated the female confederate. Ss were then given an
 opportunity to administer their choice of several intensities of
 shock to the female in a competitive RT task. Ss in the permissive cues
 condition rated the erotic slides as more arousing, saw the female as
 more reasonable and accepting, and selected more intense shocks for the
 female than did Ss in the other conditions. One explanation of these
 results is that permissive cues in the presence of erotica led the S
 to believe that other normally inappropriate behaviors would be
 tolerated. 

Pornography, sexual callousness, and the trivialization of rape.
Zillmann,-Dolf; Bryant,-Jennings
Indiana U, Inst for Communication Research, Bloomington
Journal-of-Communication; 1982 Fal Vol 32(4) 10-21
AB: Studied the effect of pornography on perceptions of sexuality and
 behavioral dispositions toward sex and gender. 160 male and female
 undergraduates were assigned to 1 of 4 conditions in which exposure to
 pornography was massive, intermediate, or nil. Ss were tested for
 habituation effects, perceptions of sexuality, and dispositions
 concerning sex and gender. A control group was tested with no prior
 exposure to pornographic materials. Results show that numerous
 persisting perceptual and dispositional changes concerning sexuality,
 especially female sexuality, were recorded during the 3rd wk after the
 exposure treatment. Findings show that massive exposure to standard
 pornography resulted in a loss of compassion toward women as rape
 victims and toward women in general. 

Effects of erotica on retaliatory behavior as a function of level of prior provocation.
Ramirez,-John; Bryant,-Jennings; Zillmann,-Dolf
Indiana U, Inst for Communication Research, Bloomington
Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology; 1982 Nov Vol 43(5) 971-978
AB: 72 male undergraduates were mildly or severely provoked by the
 experiments; exposed to nonerotic, suggestive, or explicitly erotic
 stimuli; and then provided with an opportunity to treat their provoker
 in a hostile manner. The effect of exposure to suggestive erotica
 interacted with degree of provocation. Exposure to such erotica
 significantly reduced hostile behavior under conditions of mild
 provocation, but it had no appreciable effect under conditions of
 severe provocation. In contrast, exposure to explicit erotica
 significantly increased hostile behavior, and this effect did not
 reliably interact with degree of provocation. There was some indication,
 however, that the hostility-enhancing effect of exposure to explicit
 erotica was strongest under conditions of severe provocation. (

Exposure to pornography and aggression toward women: The case of the
 angry male.
Gray,-Susan-H.
Fordham U, Lincoln Ctr Campus
Social-Problems; 1982 Apr Vol 29(4) 387-398
AB: Reviews research since 1970 on the effects of pornography on men's
 treatment of and underlying attitudes toward women. There is little
 evidence that exposure to hard-core pornography produces aggressive
 behavior in men. However, levels of aggression in already angered men
 are increased by exposure to hard-core materials. Research on the
 long-term effects of exposure to pornography and the difference between
 laboratory-induced anger and deeper anger that is a product of
 psychosexual development are discussed. It is concluded that anger is a
 greater social problem than pornography, particularly in men who are
 unable to resolve it or distinguish it from sexual arousal and control
 over women. 

-- 
-----
Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie and art nerd

    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    45 - pornography
    442 - stop pornography at MACWORLD
    
    Womannotes-V2
    544 - pornography: who cares?
    755 - pornography, bookstores, and women
    
    Womannotes-V3 (this file)
    157 - pornography
    
    Mennotes
    461 - pornography
    
    -Jody
    

I haven't read through the abstracts of all the studies in the previous
note (there are a lot of them!) but glancing at them, I noticed a trend...

survey/correlational type studies tended to find a relationship between
agression/violence and pornography usage.   Experimental studies tended
*not* to find a relationship.

I find this interesting.  The cardinal rule of experimentation is that
*only* an experimental study (ie: one in which two groups are studied, and
the only variable between the control group and the experimental group
is the one being studied) can be used to establish causation.  That is,
a survey which finds a link between agression and pornography could as
easily be use to support the claim that aggresive people are more likely
to read pornography as that pornography causes agression, or that agression
and pornography usage are both caused by some third variable.  An experiment,
on the other hand, is not ambiguous as to the nature of the causal 
relationship.

If this is really a trend (as I say, I haven't read the entire previous
note) then it seems to me that a good area of study would be to identify
the nature of the causal relationship between agression and pornography.

D!

    Is there any foundation to Truman Capote's statement that pornography
    acts as a milltown for the libido?
    
    Richard

    
    What's a milltown?

    
    Would it be stretching things to suggest a possible parallel between
    the effectiveness of advertising in selling products, and the
    effectiveness of pornography in selling rape?
    
    P - r - o - b - a - b - l - y.  ;-}
    
    D.

    re.5 milltown = stimulant

    
    Re .6
    Dorian...
    I agree that pornography "sells" whatever it is "advertising".
    
    I believe that it "advertises" a view of women that is, to
    say the least, not *opposed* to the sterotype "victim" role.
    
    I suspect that only certain categories of porn *directly*
    advertise rape, but for me the similarities between the "model" role 
    and the "victim" role are enough for me to be very uncomfortable
    with pornography AS I DEFINE IT.
    
    But this begs the question - what exactly is pornography?
    Until we get an agreed definition, I don't believe we'll be able
    to take action on it that both protects women and allows for
    individual choice in what we choose to look at. Right now I
    can't see a middle path through these two options.
    
    Who was it that said "Pornography is material read with one hand?"
    
    'gail                                             

    Re: A few back -- 
    
    No, Miltown was the trade name for a tranquilizer that was very popular
    in the late 60s.
    
    Based on the quote, Capote's contention was that pornography dulled the
    libido, rather than stimulating it.
    
    					andrew

    
    
    pornography:  Written or pictorial matter intended to arouse sexual
    		  feelings.
    
    		  (American Heritage Dictionary)

    pornography: Explicit presentation of sexual activity in
                 literature, films etc., to stimulate erotic
                 not aesthetic feelings
    
    The Pocket Oxford Dictionary

Please keep in mind that *pornography* is not a living breathing entity.

*PEOPLE* *CHOOSE* to buy it or view it. *IF* they make that choice they may
already have the propensity for violence or anti-social behavior. Porn
doesn't leap-out and grab anyone. there are many folks who have 
read/watched something that might be considered porn and walkjed away
saying "who cares". just as there are alcohol abusers, and drug
abusers maybe there are porn abusers. those that enjoy looking at
pictures of (let's be delicate here ;-}) semi-clothed people performing
explicit acts may, as in some of the control or study groups, have no
reaction. but everyone has the responsibility for their own actions/reactions
as to *HOW* they act. I am sure there are case histories that will
_prove_ either side.

We do not ban alcohol because it is abused, yet drunk drivers kill
40,000 people every year and aggressive behavior under the influence is
a well-known truth.
WE, society, hold the abuser at fault. that is the only way we can treat
those who rape and abuse women. as one of the studies concluded, longer
jail times, swifter trials, higher rate of arrest, and IMO less
blame on the victim, will end the rapes. banning so-called porn
is only another band-aid approach.

Amos-who-rarely-is-willing-to-spend-the-exorbitant-price-even-for-playboy

    Which is another way of saying that pornography doesn't rape women,
    rapers rape women.  
    
    Mike

    
    re .14:
    
    Again, someone trying to derail a topic on pornography with
    the "censorship" issue.  Please, folks, let's not fall for it!
    

    I view explicit sexual books, photographs and films in three
    categories.
    
        Erotica - Great, not enough of it.  Some of it is explicit and
        others like Georgia O'Keefe's flowers are hidden.  Every home 
        should have some erotica, it was decided, in a conversation I
        had with my daughter the other night.  A tribute to our sexuality!
        And if anyone is looking for a gift...I would like a print of 
        Mapplethorpe' business man!  I dragged liesl and Lorna from one
        end of the MFA to the other looking for a large, full front
        portrait of a nude man painted by Sargeant...it must be at the
        Met.
     
        Pornography - Like a Class B movie, fun when it first starts out
        but tedious as it drones on and on and on...
    
        Bad Taste - Unrealistic and unusual behaviors, for me and what I 
        consider a bad influence on folks that can't handle themselves well.  
        I would like this stuff removed from the face of the earth...but I
        can't figure out how to determine that something falls in this 
        category or who I would want to judge a film, book or photo.  I
        feel that this form of pornography is many times a tool of rape. 
                                                                        

RE:.16
I am not trying to derail a discussion, that was not my intent.
someone said let's try to define porn in this string.
I am saying that voluntary/consenting acts should not be judged or
defined. Involuntary/forced is another matter.
I will re-iterate though, use of any stimulant or depressive
wether it be alcohol,drugs,porn,coffee are personal choice. the
abuse-where-it-affects-others-adversely is where society should step in.
it's presence in the market place does not equate automatically
to abuse of it.
Amos

    
    What I'd like is a little equality. How come 99% per cent of the time
    it's the women who're displayed with their clothes off? I think at the
    very least, it would be nice if, given that half the people are being
    shown in the altogether, the other half were too.
    
    Funny thing, tho' -- whenever I go into Out ot Town News, e.g. and turn a
    half circle away from the cash register, I see *slews* of women with
    their clothes off, on the mag. rack, and nary a man with his clothes
    off in sight...
    
    Must be an oversight somewhere,  ;-)
    
    D.
                                                                   

    
    It's true that abuse of drugs (including alcohol) involves some
    personal choice, but it's also true that rates of alcoholism vary
    across cultures.  That suggests to me that societal attitudes toward
    alcohol influence personal behavior.  I believe the same is true of
    violence and violence against women.  I think that some pornography
    creates an environment where objectification of women (for the sole
    purpose of gratifying men) is ok.  And when objectification is ok,
    violence can easily follow.  Perhaps there is a personality trait 
    (or even something biological) that makes some of us more likely to commit
    violence than others, but I believe that the social climate must
    also permit it, even encourage it, in order for it to flourish.  
    
    Some might say that rape is the act of "sick" men.  Others believe that 
    rape is the logical and expected outcome of a culture that supports a
    continuum of violence against women -- with subtle verbal abuse (jokes,
    unwanted sexual comments?) on one end and violent rape and murder on the 
    other end.  When folks want to understand violence, they seem to spend a 
    lot of time looking at the agents of violence, the ones who commit it.  
    But there is another important factor to consider --- that women are so 
    often the victims of it and almost never the perpetrators of it.  Why?  
    Sure, let's talk about size, hormones, etc.  But let's not leave out social
    conditioning.  I consider pornography -- both hard core and perhaps
    more importantly (because it is so pervasive) the "tamer" stuff you see 
    in everyday life (billboards, magazine ads, song lyrics, TV, etc.) -- 
    to be part of that conditioning.
    
    Justine
                     

I agree that society's attitude towards women makes them more frequent targets
of violence. However, pornography (IMHO) is a symptom, not a cause. From the
dictionary definitions given I am a reader of pornograhpy. And I enjoy it. I
suspect many of you would not care for my tastes but I'm not *sick* in the
sense that what I read will make me commit a violent act. However, if I was that
sort of person then there are many things that might set me off. Explain the
"helter-skelter" reasons of Charles Manson. How could we possibly control enough
of what is out there to stop him from making bizzare connections? 

I suspect that if our society changed our pornography would change also. I bet
it wouldn't go away though. liesl

Miltown is the trade name for Methyl-meprobmate, a very popular mild
tranquilizer in the pre-valium days.

I view and enjoy what many (most) of you would consider pornography.

	-- Charles

    re .1 Jody - the cheryl tiegs note in v1 was about soft porn, too; it 
    had a pretty substantial (heated) discussion.
    
    Lee

    yes, I thought that was the MACWORLD one...but on further seeking
    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    181 - Cheryl Tiegs - where's Robert Redford
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    
    RE: .19 
    
    >How come 99% per cent of the time it's the women who're displayed 
    >with their clothes off? 
    
    I'm unsure what you're talking about here....  Are you talking about
    skin mags only, or just nudity in general?
    
    I don't find nudity, in general, to be pornographic at all.  There are
    many "mature audience" films that I've seen where nudity (especially
    female nudity) was very prevalent.....yet, the intent was not to be
    pornographic.
    
    Are you scoping your comments to refer to just "skin mags"?
    
    kath

    re:      <<< Note 782.11 by YUPPY::DAVIESA "Be bold and fear not" >>>
    
    >Rapers are *sick* people (am I too general?).
    
    Amen to that.
    
    Well, depending on the definition of cause, I still think they are
    sick. (is my english/US vocabulary a limit here? Is _abnormal_ a 
    better word?).
    
    
    
    >	They need medical help. 
    >	.....and perhaps a couple of porn magasines will be part of the
    >	cure.
 
    Could you expand further on that, PerS?
    
    This has been discussed on several occations, in the papers here.
    Pornmag has been used as part of the cure/concelling.
    Some rapers has been found as extremely shy persons, who not even
    have dared to go shopping pornmag at all. They have been helped getting
    to some degree, over that shyness. (implicit, reading the mags, might
    help the them). I also read that in some cases they have been "learned
    what to do" when reading the mags!!! They didn't know, or felt as
    loosers if they had to.., they didn't get cooled off.
     
    
    
    PerS

    I think you might easly find definition(s) to _pronography_, allthough
    they may vary from where're your looking, they probably basically
    contains the same.
    To me, this is not the problem.
    
    To me, reading the different notesfile on this subject, some people
    try to define _the line_.
    
    Between *good* and *bad*?
    Between *normal* and *abnormal*?
    Between *allowed* and *unallowed*?
    
    I don't know.
    
    It is, however, impossible to draw/define that line for anybody but
    yourself.
    This is on what i based my expression _it's all in your mind_, or as
    someone else mentioned, _in the eyes of the beholder_.
    
    Of cause there's a link between pornogrpfy and rapers.
    
    There's a link between pronography and.....
    
    	criminals
    	bankers
    	Digital sales persons
    	....
    	....
    
    I'm afraid we have to dig deeper, to find _what creates rapers_.
    I havn't got *the answer*. I'm conviced, howerver, they are *sick*,
    and they will be around even if you removed the whole porn industry.
    
    PerS,
    
    

    I have stopped myself from putting my oar in up til now because topics
    like this make me react emotionally and it makes it difficult for me to
    put a rational sentence together. I'm going to try.
    
    PerS says "we have to dig deeper, to find _what creates rapers_." I
    believe this is true; that rapists are not born, they are made. I don't
    believe that pornography alone makes rapists, so I agree that even if
    all porn was wiped off the streets, the crime of rape would still
    exist. However, I do not think that rapists are *sick* and in need of
    medical help. I have not heard of any evidence that men who rape have
    any condition, mental or physical, in common that is not existent in
    men who do not rape. I have heard this many times and it would appear
    to be a commonly held belief. But to me it seems to suggest sympathy
    for men who have committed a most heinous crime. They are not invalids
    who need to be treated and then given time to convalesce. I think that
    education is the only way. Rapists have denied their victims dignity,
    individual integrity, identity and freedom. From what I've seen, they
    do not understand what they have done. They understand that they have
    broken the law, but they do not understand the suffering they have
    caused. I have two examples of this:
    
    Some years ago I saw a televised American experiment which brought
    together an equal number - I think it was 10 - of rapists and rape
    victims in an effort to try to get the offenders to understand the
    heinous nature of what they had done. The victims (all women) broke
    down, described how they had been made to feel and how they had
    suffered. During the confrontation, the offenders, to varying degrees,
    showed some remorse. Yet afterwards, 9 out of 10 said that if they
    thought they would get away with it they would rape again. Why? Because
    they enjoyed it.
    
    In a more recent British TV programme, a child rapist stood in front of
    the camera and a large group of offenders and psycho-therapists and
    declared that he understood that he had broken the law but did not
    believe he had done anything *morally* wrong.
    
    These men are not sick - they are extremists. But where have they got
    the message that it is, for them, morally OK to rape? 
    
    I have some ideas. Throughout history, women and children have been
    regarded as the property of men without any individual rights of their
    own. Women have fought for equal rights, but legislation cannot change
    attitudes overnight. In England, the judicial system is still, with a
    few exceptions, dominated by white privileged males. These men have
    little or no experience of life outside their port and cigar dining
    rooms. The result is that in this country, rapists frequently walk free
    after three years in prison to rape again. Child molesters here are 
    rarely one-off offenders. In the documentary I mentioned earlier, all
    the child-sex offenders admitted between 100 and 300 offences. They had 
    all served prison sentences of 2 or 3 years and then been released to
    offend again. 
    
    Pornography is just another message to some men that women are objects
    who are always available for sex, who always want sex and are always
    willing to satisfy men's sexual desires. 
    
    I don't think it is just the rapists that need to be educated. I have
    frequently seen rape portrayed in films and novels in a way which is
    obviously intended to titillate rather than provoke thought or even
    sympathy for the victim. I have seen a trailer for a film which showed
    a small snippet from a gang-rape scene and used this as a marketing
    ploy to encourage people to watch the film. I have seen scenes from films 
    which show very long protracted rape scenes that make me feel sick to
    the stomach.
    
    But does the victim's suffering and torment dominate the images? No -
    the dominant images are of the rapists' enjoyment. And, naturally
    enough, the film industry is dominated by male directors.
    
    As Germaine Greer says, most women are unaware of how much men hate
    them.    
                                                            

    Per,
    
    *Many* studies have been done on convicted rapists.  Not one of them
    found any way (personal history, biochemical balance, psychological
    makeup, etc.) in which these men differed from other men.
    
    Thus, you may call them "sick", but you haven't really said anything
    about them.
    
    						Ann B.

    re:.32
    
    No differences at all, not even in the type and frequency of use of
    pornography?
    
    Maybe I'll go back and reread those notes.

    re: 
        <<< Note 782.32 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
                           -< Then are all men ...? >-

    >Per,
    
    >*Many* studies have been done on convicted rapists.  Not one of them
    >found any way (personal history, biochemical balance, psychological
    >makeup, etc.) in which these men differed from other men.
    
    My logic tells me then that either
    
    1) All men are rapists
    
    or
    
    2) All the *many* studies hasn't defined the criteria well enough.
    
    I tend to belive 2).
    
    
    >Thus, you may call them "sick", but you haven't really said anything
    >about them.
    
    Well, I guess a lot of you think I said enough already ;-).
    But your right, I haven't. (said anything). I might have the same 
    problem as those  doing the *many* studies. This ain't easy. 
    I'm not claiming to have the answer.
    I'm just waring that we might fall into the trap (IMO) to blame
    pornography. It's too easy. Even as a partial blame. Again IMO.
    
    I'd like to have the aswer to a statistic somewhat like this:
    
    ....% of the male poulation are rapists.
    ....% of ------- " -------- reads pornography.
    
    ....% of the female population are rapists.
    ....% of -------- " ---------- reads pornography
    
    Would there be any obvious links?
    
    
    PerS,
    

    
    I think there may be some link between who reads some kinds of
    pornography and some rapes.  But I think the more pervasive (though
    perhaps more subtle) pornography that we see ALL THE TIME is much more
    instrumental in creating an environment where women are seen as
    available to any man who wants them.  I'm talking about images of
    women in popular culture -- women are objectified (in my opinion) in
    the peep shows and hard core porno flicks, but I doubt that every or
    even most rapists have seen those, but women are also objectified
    in the mainstream media, and everyone is touched by that.
    
    I think that we live in a world where every man is a potential rapist.
    What's amazing to me is that given the level of hatred and fear of women
    that is expressed everyday and in so many settings, some men are able to 
    emerge from that indoctrination and truly learn to love and honor women.
    Some days it feels like that number (of men who love women) is growing.
    Other days I don't know.
    
    Justine                  

    <*Many* studies have been done on convicted rapists.  Not one of them
    <found any way (personal history, biochemical balance, psychological
    <makeup, etc.) in which these men differed from other men.
    
    I am unaware of any absolute way of predicting with certainty almost
    any kind of complex human behavior based on past history.
    So, if your statement intended to be saying 'differed UNIQUELY', then I
    quite agree with you. (although one wonders what the added value of
    such a statement is)
    
    However, if you mean something other than that, (see footnote)* then I
    have trouble understanding what my conclusion should be.
    
    * footnote
    like, perhaps you are intending to assert...
    
    there would be no significant positive correlations between a sample of
    men who have raped and a sample of men who by reasonable estimates have
    themself be subjected to substantial abuse, however slippery such an
    objective definition may be.

    Sixty Minutes prevented a study that indicated that many rapists do not
    rape when on the drug Depo-Provera.  I have referred to that program 
    several times in notes...but it has been awhile and my facts are not
    clear.  The study found a higher level of either a hormone or a neuro
    chemical in the rapist and the Depo-Provera controlled this condition.
    
    Pornographic films were used in the study to determine if the drug was
    in fact 'working'.
    
    A judge in California allowed a rapist to go free with the agreement
    that he remain medicated.
    
    A prisoner, who was in for rape, was interviewed by 60 Minutes.  He
    told of how much better he felt not to have the thoughts that possessed
    him in the past.  But he added, he felt that he deserved his punishment
    because he acted on his thoughts.  He did not feel he should be set
    free even though he was taking the medication.
    
    

    
    
    
    I'd like to see a study conducted to find out how many of convicted
    rapists were brought up abused/neglected, spoiled (getting anything
    they wanted), with a low opinion of women, etc.
    
    I find it humourous and saddening all at the same time that we say Rape
    is about VIOLENCE and POWER, not sex, yet we turn around and blame
    sexually explicit material for causing it.
    
    I think the motivational factor has NOTHING to do with the appearance
    of a female body....it has to do with domination, power, advocation of
    violence as an "okay" thing to do, etc.
    
    kath

>    >*Many* studies have been done on convicted rapists.  Not one of them
>    >found any way (personal history, biochemical balance, psychological
>    >makeup, etc.) in which these men differed from other men.
>    
>    My logic tells me then that either
>    
>    1) All men are rapists
>    
>    or
>    
>    2) All the *many* studies hasn't defined the criteria well enough.
>    
>    I tend to belive 2).


	I think there's an implied "...except for having raped one or 
	more persons" at the end of Ann's statement, which would make
	your #1 "All men are *potential* rapists."

	Also, why must they be exclusive?  I think both (the reworded)#1 
	& #2 are probably true.  At any rate, neither one is disproveable.



>    I'd like to have the aswer to a statistic somewhat like this:
>    
>    ....% of the male poulation are rapists.
>    ....% of ------- " -------- reads pornography.
>    
>    ....% of the female population are rapists.
>    ....% of -------- " ---------- reads pornography
>    
>    Would there be any obvious links?

	As has been mentioned before, even if the percentage of rapists of
	a certain gender was close to or identical to the percentage of 
	readers of pornography of the same gender, that doesn't show 
	causality, only correlation.


	-Andy

    Maybe w're looking for _the_ reason men rape when we should be
    looking for reasons ?
                      =
    
    

    
    
    Maybe, Dana.
    
    
    I think that maybe trying to link Pornography to Rape is perhaps trying
    to link a SIDE EFFECT to a RESULT, instead of linking the CAUSE to the
    RESULT.
    
    We say over and over again how Rape is not about Sex.  Yet, at the same
    time, we try and say that it's because of something that is sexually
    stimulating.
    
    Many men I know find porn to be erotic and stimulating, yet they don't
    become rapists.....What is the ROOT cause, though?
    
    I'm just rambling here....
    
    kath
    
    

Back when I was social worker I did pre-trial evaluations of sex offenders, 
often testifying in court as an expert witness. The most frequent common 
denominator was a history of childhood sexual abuse -- 60 to 75 percent of 
all sex offenders had such histories.

This is not only my personal opinion, but was borne out by the literature and
scientific studies at the time. I left this field more than 10 years ago, and 
haven't kept up with it, so I don't know what current studies show, but I
doubt very much if things have changed since then.  

Bruce

    
    
    So, then I guess what I'm saying is this...
    
    "is the pornography the problem or is the childhood sexual abuse"
    
    if it's the latter, why is so much emphasis but on squelching the
    former?
    
    kath

One can make plausible arguments that the widespread availability of
pornography either increases or decreases the frequency of rape and other sex
offenses in our society.  You could plausibly argue that it increases the
frequency because it arouses people, shapes their attitudes, and provides
concrete ideas that lead to reenactments.  Or, you could argue that it provides
potential sex offenders with an alternative outlet which allows them to be
satisfied with a fantasy world and not have to strike out from accumulated
repression.  It likely has both effects and it's difficult to tell which
predominates.

How would one conduct a scientific investigation to determine whether
pornography is harmful?  Studies have shown that sex offenders viewed more
pornography than did a random sampling of society.  But that is consistent with
either theory above.  Experiments have shown that pornography does desensitize
its viewers to sex offenses as measured by pencil and paper tests, but this is
not particularly surprising or suggestive.  Sex offenders make up such a small
fraction of society (at least those that get caught) that it would be almost
inconceivable to conduct a controlled experiment where one group was
intentionally exposed to pornography, another was somehow shielded from it, and
the subsequent conviction rates were monitored.  The closest we have to such an
experiment was when Denmark legalized pornography.  In that case, sex offenses
fell substantially.  I find that evidence the most strongly suggestive
available, though it is far from conclusive.

Personally, I would like to believe that pornography is harmless.  If it were
proven to be significantly harmful, a good case could be made for censorship. 
I am deathly afraid of censorship for reasons unrelated to pornography.  The
book "1984" is a beautiful example of an essay that was primarily political but
which contained images that a censor could label as pornographic and justify
its banning.  And a censor would have every motivation to do so.  I would
oppose censorship even if I believed that pornography had significant harmful
effects.

And herein comes the politics.  People care about whether pornography is
harmful because they care about censorship.  I have a certain idle curiosity as
to whether it's harmful, but given my opposition to censorship, there's an
answer to the question that I'd like to believe.  A lot of people favor
censorship, not because it increases sex offenses but because it is disgusting
and they would prefer to live in a world where it did not exist.  There's a
different answer to the question that they would like to believe.

Given that there is no easy scientific way to get definitive answers, people
will continue to believe what they prefer to believe.  The truth will never be
known.  Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, it's probably not all that
important.

As has been said by several folks here, viewing pornography does not turn a 
person into a rapist or any other kind of sexual abuser. At least 9 out of 
10 men have viewed pornography during their lives. If pornography lead to sex 
crimes, more than 90% of all men would be criminals.

I wish research would find out why some men who were sexually abused as 
children turn into sexual offenders, while others, by far the majority, do not.

Bruce

<The most frequent common 
<denominator was a history of childhood sexual abuse -- 60 to 75 percent of 
<all sex offenders had such histories.
    
    
    Which, of course, is not the same as saying that 60-75 % of rapists (of
    adult women) had such histories. Because being a sex offender is not
    the same as being a rapist (of adult women).
    Not sure you were trying to say that (particularly in view of .45).
    But feel that the point is worth making.

    The following is taken from Note 457.7 in Womannotes-V2.  (Press
    Keypad "7", or the "Select" key to add that conference to your
    notebook.)
    
April 4
Gail Dines
The Male Lust For Violence

She felt that a definite causal relationship could be drawn from pornography
to rape, because of several situations involving significant quantities
of people.  First, when pornography was made legal in Denmark, it was
recorded that sex crimes went down.  In fact, most sex crimes had been
taken off the books at the same time.  However, cases of rape skyrocketed.

    Bruce:
    
    Do you have any figures on what percentage of rapists (of adult women)
    had been sexually abused as children?
    
    by the way, Bruce, i'm going to have to try to verify this but i am
    sort of drifting toward the feeling that in this conference at least
    some of the most ardent voices in opposition to rape (of adult
    females), aren't really very interested in other kinds rape (e.g. of
    female -and male- children). Which of course is everyone's right. 
    
    
    
    
    				(isn't it?)
    
    
    

Herb, I've probably read the same notes as you (most of the conference)
and I have a slightly different take on it.  I think people here aren't 
interested in other kinds of rape (of children of either sex, or of men) 
when they're already amidst a discussion of the rape of women.  When 
discussing the latter and its effects upon women, I find it distracting 
and interruptive to have to consider the different cases involved in the 
former. That people react to the distraction is only human.  Perhaps a 
little more care in respecting boundaries, ie, keeping those topics 
separated when the current conversation is clearly upon one or the other, 
would reduce the amount of friction I think you've observed.  I am also
of the opinion that this is partially an agenda-setting issue, that folks
here object strongly when male noters steer topics around.

DougO

    valid points

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB100:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 39.124                       Quotable Men                        124 of 124
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      26 lines  25-APR-1991 08:50
                     -< Jeffrey Masson, fantasy, & Freud >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pornography, in my opinion, is a form of sexual abuse. It is no more a 
fantasy than physical sexual abuse is a fantasy. For pornography is a prime 
example of male oppression of women, and we are surely under no obligation 
to tolerate its persistence. Pornography is an act, one that abuses women..."

Masson is certainly entitled to his opinions, but who is being sexually abused 
when someone is quietly reading pornography be themselves?

Bruce

    And what woman is being abused when a gay male is enjoying pornography?
    
    Mary

If the KKK want to hold a meeting in private, that is their right. I may 
not approve, but it's none of my business. If a person wants to read pornography
in private, that is their right, also, and none of my business.

When the KKK starts holding rallies in public, disturbing and possibly inciting
others, it then becomes a concern of the public. And when someone start acting
out their pornographic fantasies in public (or inflicting on unwilling others)
it becomes a concern of the public.

Bruce

>    They all are.  In the same way that the KKK debases and degrades
>    blacks, pornography debases and degrades women.  Each individual woman
>    is abused because her right to fair and equal treatment by men is
>    diminished by the promulgation of the sex-object stereotype.


	Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that everyday
	product advertisments are a much stronger force in perpetuating
	sex-object stereotypes than "pornography" is.  And I bet that
	every rapist has been exposed to advertising...



	-Andy

    
    Re Andy Lee (.56) - I agree.  I think the everyday sexism in the media is
    much more influential.

    About pornography vs erotica
    
    I doubt that it would be possible for us to agree on where the line would 
    go between pornography and erotica, but I bet we could reach some agreement
    on some examples that would belong on either side.
    
    For example, I enjoy reading (should this go in "true confessions?") the
    steamy love scenes in Katherine V. Forrest's books, and I think the kiss
    at the lake in the movie, "Desert Hearts" is very exciting.  I don't think
    I'm exploiting anyone by enjoying those things, nor do I feel suddenly 
    more capable of violence because of those things.  But what about this 
    cartoon (in Penthouse or Playboy -- mainstream, in my view, magazines, 
    not legally seen as "pornographic"):  A man is walking along carrying 2 
    women's legs -- one under each arm.  The legs are dripping with blood, 
    obviously recently severed.  He sees a friend on the street and offers 
    him one.  The friend says, "I'm a breast man, myself."  This is not funny. 
    It makes me sick.  This cartoon trivializes and sexualizes extreme 
    brutality against women: she is there to be consumed -- in whatever way 
    the man wishes.  

    In one of those same 2 magazines, there was a story (fantasy.)  A large 
    (one is meant to assume, "well-hung") black man is a school busdriver for 
    an all girl junior or senior highschool.  The girls  tell him to stop the 
    bus.  He obeys.  They lead him off the bus and start undressing themselves 
    and him.  They all kiss him.  (He is powerless to stop them.)  He gets 
    excited and starts "sc*ewing"  them, one at a time, I guess.  "I had to be 
    inside.  She was screaming for me to stop.  I heard what I thought was 
    bones crunching, but I had to be inside."  -- loosely quoted from memory, 
    but what I remember is that he was hurting one of the girls, but his 
    attitude was that she/they asked for it, and it was too late to stop now.  
    I think this is a very dangerous kind of mythology.  Men are powerless 
    against women's (even young women/girls) more powerful sexuality.  She 
    made me do it.  I had to.  I had a right to hurt her because she made me.  
    It was her idea.  This story is also extrememly racist and fuels the myth 
    about white women needing protection from black men (who are also too 
    sexual).  Who is that story for?
    
    These are just 2 examples, and they're available at your local convenience
    store.  You don't have to go into a "bad neighborhood" to get this kind of
    pornography (I call it pornography).  It may provide sexual entertainment 
    for some, but it does so at the expense of women's bodily integrity.  
    Certainly, in the cartoon, the woman is an unwilling victim.  And in the 
    second, the young women are portrayed as the sexual predators, but.. who 
    really had the power in that "fantasy?"  In the end, one of the women, was
    physically hurt, and she wanted him to stop.  Tough.
    
    I think about men reading that kind of story and being excited by it.  
    And it is written to be exciting - great detail about the seduction, 
    meant to arouse.  But in the end, even in that "tame," readily available 
    story, the sexuality turns to violence.  The woman asked for it.  She is 
    his to use, abuse, injure.  Will this one story turn a lovely young man 
    into a rapist?  No, I don't think so.  But what does it mean that a 
    multi-million dollar magazine thought that men would laugh at a woman's
    bloody, severed leg?  Or that men would be turned on by the rape of
    school girls?  A good writer can find the sexuality in almost any scene
    and write it in a "steamy" way -- but what does it mean that so
    much of it is tinged with violence?  Why did the US military show the
    fighter pilots pornographic films just before their bombing missions in
    the Persian Gulf?  Do they know something that feminists only suspect?

    Justine

                                -< hypothesis >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A lot has been said about rape being an expression of the need to
    control. This need is not, in itself, bad. We all need to feel a sense
    of efficacy, a sense that we have some control over our life, our
    surroundings, our relationships, etc. Maybe rape, as an act of control, 
    is a symptom of a defficiency in this area. The rapist may feel he has 
    no control, no efficacy, and seeks to obtain it in this way. The role 
    of pornography? Merely to add to an already high level of frustration.
    Not a primary cause, but perhaps a catalyst.
    
    Dana

    Re .51 et al.  
               
    I think that Masson has it right, more or less.  The act of producing 
    pornography and the act of consuming pornography are both, of 
    themselves, acts of oppression.  
             
    I don't think this is so for all pornography, however, depending on what
    you mean by pornography.  Many people suggest a distinction between
    erotica and pornography, while others use the term pornography for all
    sexually explicit material.  I agree with the distinction, and I 
    suggest that the sort of material which is oppressive is material which
    associates the sexual act with violence, which suggests that 'no'
    means 'yes', and which is demeaning and dehumanising.  The distinction
    is *definitely* not the same as that between hard-core and soft-core.
    I agree with several comments which suggest that many of the images
    of soft porn are demeaning and damaging. 
                                   
    I heard recently of a plea to 'eroticise equality'.  I would support
    efforts in this direction.  I think too many of the images of 
    sexuality in modern society are based on inequality and on 
    domination. 
                                                    
    The main issue raised in this note is on the causal relationship 
    between pornography and rape.  It was pointed out that a correlation
    does not demonstrate causality.  A high correlation is compatible
    with the idea that porn causes rape and with the idea that potential
    rapists are attracted to porn.  Perhaps we should not expect a simple 
    causal relationship.  In my opinion porn reinforces ideas and 
    attitudes about the value we place on other people, attitudes which 
    are part of what makes a rapist.
        
    
    Liam

How do you distinguish between the erotic and the pornographic? Societies and 
cultures throughout history have never been able to agree. Material we consider
art today was at one time thought to be pure porn, and vice-versa. And the 
standards themselves are in flux, continually changing. Even individuals don't 
agree.

So how do you draw the line? How can we possibly know it when we see it?

Bruce   

    re.62 >How do you distinguish between the erotic and the pornographic?
    
    Simple - if it makes me horny, it's erotic. If it makes someone I don't
    like horny, it's pornographic ;-)

    
    If it's pornographic, it exploits women.
    
    If it's erotic, it exploits women.
    
    D.
    

    
    re :-1
    
    	Does that mean you've never seen male pornograpy?
    
    bonnie

    To me erotic is in good taste, with good photography and/or filming and
    a general professional treatment of the subject.  Erotic is a display
    of the sexual part of our being either visually, or through the
    written or spoken word.

    that is rude
    that is insulting
    that is narrow minded
    that is unfair

    
    at least it scans.
    

.64 -

Let me rephrase that:

If it's pornography, it's exploitive of women.

If it's erotica, it's exploitative of women.

If it's rape, it's exploitatative of women.

-- yeah, that's it!  ;-)

D.

     

    
    
    RE: .62
    
    Bruce......Is "pornography" a 'bad' thing?  Why should there be a
    'line' drawn between erotic and pornographic?
    
    I don't understand.  FWIW, I think the line between the two is drawn at
    the fact that pornography is for the express purpose of creating a
    sexual response....with eroticism, that's not necessarily the goal, but
    rather a "by-product."
    
    
    What is inherently wrong with wishing to invoke a sexual response?
    
    kath

    
    
    > If it's pornographic, it exploits women.
    > If it's erotic, it exploits women.
    
    How?
    
    Is sex or is nudity a 'bad' thing?
    
    How is someone being exploited if they willingly expose their bodies to
    a camera?
    
    Could be me a little more specific?  Thanx.
    
    kath

    	I always liked the quote by William Shakespeare, 

    	"Nothing is neither GOOD nor BAD, THINKING makes it so."


    -b-

Kath, I think there's a word missing in what you said:

>What is inherently wrong with wishing to invoke an appropriate sexual response?
						    ^^^^^^^^^^^

of course the problem is to define appropriate.  I feel sure that virtually
everyone reading this would agree that if children are used to evoke that
sexual response, it is inappropriate exploitation (to say the least).

Dorian apparantly feels that all use of women to evoke that response is
inappropriate exploitation.

There are many folk whose opinion falls between these two points.  And because
what is "appropriate" is a thing of such subjective and personal judgement, it
is hard to construct a definition that holds true for even a wide range of
opinion.
    

    
    
    RE: .73
    
    "appropriate" is definitely a good word to insert there.
    
    I guess I should have qualified my statement a little more.  
    
    
    (I can't said what Dorian apparently feels, since I'm not Dorian. 
    That's why I asked for some clarification).
    
    I feel that if a person feels uncomfortable with eroticism or
    pornography, then they shouldn't view it.  However, I feel it's also
    wrong to restrict others from viewing it if they DO feel comfortable
    with it.
    
    I wonder if Dorian is upset more about erotic/pornographic stuff
    inherently, or rather the resultant actions?
    
    kath

    
    And what about the examples I gave?  The cartoon showing a woman's
    severed legs and the man's response, "I'm a breast man, myself."
    And the fantasy/story about the adult male busdriver who is seduced by
    junior high/young senior high school women, at least one of whom he
    injures during intercourse?
    
    I'm not asking would/should it be censored?  I'm asking for folks'
    opinions and emotional response to it.  It makes me sick to think that
    someone spent time, energy, and money producing, printing, distributing
    and reading/looking at that.  And those are 2 things I found when I
    picked up 2 magazines!  I didn't go looking for particularly awful
    stuff - it was easy to find.  Perhaps I'll go buy (hate to give them
    my money, but) 5 or 10 copies and make a collage of images to make my
    point clearer.
    
    The depiction of consensual sexual activity between 2 adults does
    not bother me or seem wrong to me.  The use of women's bodies as
    objects and the depiction of violence against women and/or humiliation
    of women enrage and frighten me!  I'm not sure I really understand
    S&M, but if it is consensual, then it falls into my first definition
    (consensual sexual activity).  As long as there is a market for
    degradation (and worse, e.g. "Snuff films") of women, there will be
    women available for use in those films, and in my opinion, that is
    still victimization.
    
    Justine

Re: .70 and on

kath,

I do not think pornography is a bad thing. I was just raising the question.

I don't think it is possible to draw any line between erotic and pornographic.
It *always* comes down to personal taste. Look at the flap about Mapplethorpe:
some folks think his photos (the "disputed" ones) are masterpieces, some think
they are disgusting porno. But the majority is probably in-between, feeling
that they may not want to view, but those who do are entitled to view it.

How do you tell when art (yes -- let's call it "art" instead of porno or erotic)
becomes exploitive? Is gay male bondage or domination exploitive? If so, 
who is exploiting who? 

The reaction of the viewer may be totally different from what the creator
felt, or expected the viewer to feel. (Like some of the notes we write %-}
How do you account for that? Is the artist responsible because the art 
stimulates the viewer to commit acts the artist did not expect?
   
Bruce

RE: .75

Justine,
 
The examples you gave are, to me, disgusting and reprehensible. They aren't 
sexual, erotic, or pornographic: they are pure violence with sex thrown in as an
aside. 

[But how in the hell can you draw the line.....?]

I think it is an interesting and frightening commentary on U.S. culture that
it is much more acceptable to show violence, murder, and mayhem in the media,
but sex for the most part is still taboo and forbidden. Statistics show
that children watch zillions of murders, rapes, and crimes of violence on TV 
before they get through jr. high. That doesn't seem to disturb many folks.
But a little sex usually brings an uproar. I expect my kids to have a sex life,
(they already have one) but I hope they don't have a life of violence. 

Bruce
 

    
    I can't really add anything beyond what I already said in .58.
    
    D.

	re: 782.75 (Justine Sullivan)

>  Perhaps I'll go buy (hate to give them my money, but) 5 or 10 copies 
>  and make a collage of images to make my point clearer.
    
	Ugh.  In the 3'rd week or so of my group counseling session
	(for rape survivors), we made collages.

	One woman my age did just what you described, Justine.  
	I glanced at it and felt ill.
						nancy b.

    I was amazed by the media wall that MESA had put together with 750
    articles from JUST the city of Boston, JUST what appeared in the city
    newspapers in JUST one year.  The stories were made larger (textwise)
    and put on a folding wall that they can take wherever they ned to make
    the impact.  I looked at a few stories and had to look away.  I was
    utterly nauseated.
    
    It waas stories from papers (with pictures if they were in the paper)
    of violence against women.
    
    -Jody
    

    Dorian,

    I don't agree with you that erotica exploits women. At least
    not the written sort. I find, as a woman, that there are times
    when it enhances my sexuality.

    Bonnie

Let me try to summarize the last few. Several people seem to be saying that 
the erotic becomes pornograpic under either of these 2 conditions:
  
  1. The pornography is created through forced coercion of another person. 

  2. When the feelings aroused in the viewer are those of exploitation toward
another (instead of love).

I agree 100% with #1, and would add, "or if the person is a minor or is unable 
to give consent." I'm not so sure about #2, however. Maybe I'm misinterpreting 
what has been said. You can certainly feel erotic without feeling love per se. 

Bruce

  I believe it is simpler than all this stuff about coercion and exploitation.
  I've asked to be exploited and had that wish granted, and it was great fun.
  And as far as coercion goes, that is a crime by itself and it is very
  difficult to trace a crime back from the finished product.  If a painting
  is done with stolen paints, does that make it bad art?

  The point is that there has been some evidence that pornography is a 
  causative factor in rape _to_ _the_ _extent_ that it depicts violence 
  toward, and degradation of, women.  Therefore I believe that it is
  this sort of depiction that must be addressed and not the wider area
  we call pornography (but still can't define).

  I'm beginning to suspect that the erotic aspects of pornography have very 
  little to do with anything, here in an American society that believes 
  the female  breast is an obscene sight but depictions of violent rape 
  and death  are not.

  I forced myself to watch "Death Wish II" last night (I still haven't
  decided whether I can force myself to watch "The Accused" so I taped
  that).  This movie is a vehicle for scenes of rape and violent death --
  nothing more and nothing less.  I don't think it was pornography but
  I do think it should have been kept off the airwaves.

  JP

    
    .83
    
    Bonnie,
    
    I know what you're saying. I spoke somewhat wryly; I've seen stuff
    labeled 'erotica' that seemed to me to exploit women just as much as
    most porn does. So I'm suspicious of using that as a label; it's like
    we're being told, here, *this* is *erotica*. It can't exploit anybody,
    by definition!
    
    Also, what's been happening to me is, even the stuff that truly doesn't
    exploit anybody and is, as you put it, sexually enhancing, has become
    tainted for me by all the stuff that does exploit. 
    
    D.

	Is there a 'safety valve' aspect of pornography? I've heard it
	argued that it induces masturbation which arguably releases
	libido pressures and relieves one of the necessity of actually
	committing the fantasized act. Perhaps the assumption is that
	fantasies are somewhat akin to dreams in that their indulgence
	somehow resolves tensions in the psyche...I don't know and am
	just speculating here.

	One of my casual observations in this life is that sexual maps 
	are very prone to aggression or anger related cross wiring: the 
	harder core porn stores have whole areas catering to the inclinations
	of the S and M crowd. Interestingly enough there usually is an equal
	amount of female dominating male rags as the counterpart. Considered
	within the changing sexual role definitions sweeping our culture this
	aspect of popular porn surprises me not....there's a lot of people, male
	and female, who have great quantities of stored anger resulting
	from these great societal changes or who are sexually sensitized to 
	the 'power' levels inherent in sexual roles.

	If  pornography allows some people to negate the worst effects of this
	kind of angry cross wiring then perhaps something socially beneficial
	is accomplished.

	I anticipate that some would argue that indulging these fantasies
	actually causes rather than defuses the worst effects of this twisted
	sexual anger. Again, I'm not sure; but I suspect that in most cases
	it's a negating force...while perhaps in a few cases it is not.

	A little bit of an aside: One of the interesting things about Porn 
	shops is how their sectioning reflects the changes sweeping the culture.

	MAC	

    Re: -.1
    
    You're being too rational.  Its my opinion that there is a significant
    part of the populace that views these acts, by which I mean hard-core
    "pornography", who don't "get it out of their system."  Instead they
    become desensitized to the acts and may even start to see those acts
    as a viable reality.  If society trains and conditions us to become who
    we are, then when you don't have moderating influences like =wn ;^) how
    are you to know that most women/men don't like having X done to them?
    
    I have real difficulty with this conversation because it appears to
    me to be a black/white discussion.  Either its erotica or its
    pornography.  And I don't have a clue what the distinction is.  In
    fact, I think that you could grade porn into several categories, some
    of which could be considered harmless and gender-neutral (very tough to
    find, I think), and then the more extreme types where "uninformed"
    people could get wrong ideas.
    
    Jim

The debate is futher clouded by the fact that some people like certain things
done to them that others find offensive. I don't have to go as far as S&M to
think of examples. Isn't oral sex illegal in some states? Some people think it
is degrading. Others find it a joy. 

I can think of 2 poems by Baudelaire that are erotic but also depict violence
towards women. The writing and imagery are beautiful but reading that he wants 
to hurt someone because they are innocent is scary. But it's still Art and that
leaves me confused. How can it be so grand and ugly at the same time? liesl

p.s. for those who care, I'm thinking of "To her who is too gay" and "A 
martyred woman". I might also add "Damned women" to the list. 

    Generally speaking, I'd define porn as presenting a picture which
    implies violence (physical or emotional) and erotica as presenting a 
    pleasant, non-violent image.  Obviously, where that line is drawn is 
    highly subjective; there are people who feel that the Sports Illustrated
    swimsuit issue exhibits a cultural violence against women, and on the
    other hand there are plenty of people who find whips and chains
    titillating.  For me, there's also an "uncomfortable zone" between
    erotica and porn that I couldn't really class as either.

    I also think it's easier to see the violence if you identify with the
    "victim".  I know very few men who are anti-porn, and scores of women
    who are, and I suspect that's why.  If you hit somebody, you don't feel
    the pain.  You might see it as wrong, but "wrong" is an abstraction.
    Pain is concrete.  If you identify more with someone who is beating another
    person than with the victim of the beating, it's easier to remain 
    detatched from the situation; it's wrong, but you know it's not you.  
    If you identify with the one being beaten, it's hard to watch.  You can 
    control what you perpetrate, but ultimately, you cannot control what is 
    done to you.  They are in pain.  It could be you.  That's a more concrete
    message.

    I think the problems come in when people start seeing an overlap between
    porn and erotica - when they start seeing the violence itself as erotic.
    My hunch is that this isn't a result of viewing the porn itself.  I
    think the real problem comes primarily from the larger cultural context,
    in which *women* are often the ones conveying the messages that violence
    is in some cases an expected response to visual stimuli:  "what was
    she doing out there alone at that hour of the night?"  "She should
    know better than to wear that stuff".  I keep thinking about what one
    of the defendants in the Central Park jogger rape trial said (this is as
    close to the original but probably not exact):  "she was out there all 
    alone, didn't have no man, didn't have no mace".  Not "I saw a violent
    rape scene in a magazine and it looked like fun".

        Sharon

Consensual sexual violence is not pornographic. I realize that there are people
who believe that consensual sexual violence is an oxymoron. The key is the
consent. I believe it can be given (I can give it) some people believe that
such consent is inherently impossible.

Pornography and violence are orthogonal.

	-- Charles

Charles,

I suppose I was defining violence as non-consensual.  My dictionary defines
violence as "physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury".
To me, this puts "consensual sexual violence" (which I'm assuming equals
S&M) in a different category, since the primary objective is not damage,
abuse, or injury but pain/pleasure.

And now I'm going to play tourist: what do you mean by "pornography and
violence are orthogonal"?  I'm visualizing a couple of perpendicular lines,
but it's not helping me here.

    Sharon

> And now I'm going to play tourist: what do you mean by "pornography and
> violence are orthogonal"?  I'm visualizing a couple of perpendicular lines,
> but it's not helping me here.

Ummm. Explaining what I meant is going to be tricky. Part of the problem was
I was using a definition of pornography that isn't mine, but was intuited from
the previous string. I believe that the commonly accepted definition of
pornography here has been sexually explicit exploitative literature, film,
video, or photography. There has been some implication that pornography intends
to titillate or appeal to prurient interest as well. My claim was that
violence and exploitation are independent. That you can have either one without
the other, and in particular violence is not always exploitative.

I want to tread very very carefully here, because I want to be sensitive to
people who have suffered sexual violence. I in no way want to appear as though
I'm attempting to diminish their real pain and suffering, nor to invalidate
or trivialize their experiences. However, I also believe that consensual
sexual violence (and it IS violent and it DOES cause pain) is independent of
pornography.

If people who are participating in such things take pictures of each other, with
their consent, for the purpose of their own sexual gratification, is that
"pornography?" A purely objective description of such photos or videos would be
that they are violent pornography. I claim they are not. Intent and consent are
paramount, but the problem is that they are impossible to judge from the
materials themselves.

I'm sensitive also to arguments about usage. If the majority of people are
using, let's call it "soma," to subjugate and kill other people, does it matter
that I produce and use soma for my own personal quiet meditation? Does society,
or the state, have a right or obligation to regulate it?

	-- Charles

>If it's erotic, it makes me want to make love with the person I see.

>If it's pornographic, it makes me want to use the person I see.
    
    Ah, finally, a firm definition of pornography -- all we have to do is
    send it to Mr. Binder c/o DEC, and he will review it and report back
    whether it makes him feel like a "lover" or a "user". Very good.
    
    The latter, of course, is "evil" and therefore should be immediately
    eradicated.
    
    I, for one, have never ever seen any pictorial or video representations
    of strangers that made me want to make love to OR use those strangers. 
    Ick.  Good pornography/erotica makes me want to make love to myself or
    to my lover or to a fantasy person who doesn't exist.  Poor
    pornography/erotica makes me want to find something else to read.  Ugly
    pornography/erotica makes me want to be sick.
    
    -------------
    
    I see some circular reasoning going on in this string.  If you *define*
    pornography to mean "the intersection of violence and sex" then by
    definition all pornography will contain violence; a tautology.  I see
    people here saying "pornography means sex and violence; therefore all
    pornography is violent; therefore all pornography is bad."  But I can
    tell from context that the "pornography" they make reference to in the
    third statement is not the same one they defined in the first statement
    or used in the second.
    
    ----------
    
    Violence exists in all sorts of media through-out our culture.  TV,
    movies, posters, billboards, erotica.  It is highly prevalant, and
    violence against women is *particularly* prevalent.  I find its
    prevalence disgusting.
    
    Why does the fact that violence sometimes exists in erotica (or
    pornography, if you will) make erotica/pornography inherently bad?  Are
    movies bad because of the existence of Rambo?  Is TV bad because of the
    existence of GI Joe cartoons?  Are books bad because of the existence
    of American Psycho?  No?  Then why should erotica/pornography be bad
    because of the existence of Hustler? (I am taking an educated guess that
    the cartoons Justine mentions were found in Hustler - they are in their
    style.)
    
    As Charles said, violence and pornography/erotica are orthogonal - they
    have nothing to do with eachother.  Violence is no more or less
    prevalent in erotica/pornography (erotography?) than it is in any other
    media in existence in our culture.  I think we should concentrate on
    the *violence*, not on the erotography.
    
    D!

    I don't think most people would agree that the cartoon Jody cites is
    "pornography".  You could find similarly blatant misogynistic images in
    any magazine which is aimed at a het male audience and which doesn't
    market itself through tasteful restraint.  "National Lampoon", for
    example, or some of my underground comix. 
    
    I'm not much interested in the "eroticism" distinction.  To treat sex
    honestly usually involves treating it explicitly at some level, and the
    resulting work, even if not marketed as porn, will always find someone
    who will label it porn (as happened with Baudelaire, for example). 
    
    So, defining porn as sexually explicit material (which is probably the
    way mom and dad would define it), I encounter three main types of
    consumer:
    
      1) People looking for sexual excitation of various sorts
      2) Feminists looking for shocking images of sexism
      3) People interested in sex as a subject
    
    The three corresponding reactions to a work are not equivalent (I doubt
    that anyone out there is masturbating to Mapplethorpe's famous bullwhip
    tribute), nor are they mutually exclusive (Samuel R. Delany's
    excursions into porn push all three to extremes).  I've been part of
    the first two groups on occasion, but neither approach is important
    enough personally to me to cause me to get worked up over the issue. 
    (I can understand how they might be that important to others, though.) 
    The third probably represents the smallest audience, but it's why I'm
    here. 
    
    There are several ways that porn makes a rich target for feminist
    analysis:
    
    	- As a largely male-controlled industry, almost exclusively
    targetting het or gay males, which is largely dependent on images of 
    women -- thus, as an extreme example of economic exploitation.
    	- Given the "stag" history of porn, as a rare glimpse (_pace_
    Hemingway) into exclusively-male views, with no hypocritical veiling
    for "the sake of the ladies".  Thus the ease with which violent
    misogyny can be found.  "Lack of inhibition" is a selling point of all
    porn (although the apparently uninhibited surface often covers even
    uglier repressiveness); it's amazing what not-particularly-sexual
    information may show up as a result.
    	- As documentation of the relationship between sexual
    attitudes and other social behavior -- in particular, of the peculiar
    expressions of sexist repression when brought down to the physical
    level.
    
    (Note that none of these are intrinsic to porn as I have defined it,
    and that it's become much easier to find alternative erotic material
    since censorship was relaxed.)
    
    And there are ways that porn can produce a gutlevel negative
    reaction which, it seems to me, are only peripherally related to
    feminism:
    
    	- Many people find sexually explicit material shocking, in and of
    itself, through lack of familiarity if for no other reason.	
    	- The porn industry, like any industry on the fringes of legality, 
    has a grisly history of extortion, exploitation, and abuse.	
    	- Many people who have been through traumatic sex-related 
    experiences find blatant images of sexuality (particularly when
    involvingage differences or violence) disturbing or threatening.
    Given the fact that most such people have been abused by men, the
    overwhelming presence of porn marketed to men exacerbates the problem.
    
    I am very interested in analysis of porn.  I am vehemently against
    attacks on porn.  Such attacks gain fuel from these gutlevel negative
    reactions but cannot relieve any of the problems I've mentioned other
    than the last one.  Sexist images and examples of objectification are
    all around us; to concentrate exclusively on the ones which include
    sexual explicitness seems the worst sort of red herring. 
    
    By pushing sexually explicit material further into the underground, we
    can only increase the ugliness resulting from its traditionally
    targeted audience and illegal status.  The fringe audience which
    currently supports the glimmers of something better would be the first
    to be cut off by such a push. 
    
    Ray

    Oh, Ray, thanks for the terrific note!!!
    
    I thought I was the only person who viewed pornography, etc, from your
    third point of view - ie: an interest in the subject of sex, as opposed
    to titillation or shock.  Glad to know someone else feels the same way.
    
    I have read and viewed a vast amount of pornography.  About 5% arouses
    me.  About 10% horrifies/shocks me.  (Interestingly, there is quite an
    overlap in that 5 and 10%...hmmm...)  the remaining, oh, 88% I read out
    of an interest in the subject.
    
    My interest in sex is not confined to erotica.  I also read a lot of
    books about the psychology of sex ("Human Sexual Response", "The Hite
    Report"), self-help and pop psych books ("The Joy of Sex", "My Secret
    Garden"), sex colunists ("Xavier's Super Sex", "Susie Sexperts Lesbian
    Sex World"), the politics of sexuality ("Caught Looking", "A Women's
    History of Sex"), etc.
    
    D!

    I believe that most sexual abusive behavior, rape included, happens
    due a lack of appropriate education on the subject.
    
    People that aquired the wrong idea of what normal healphy sexual behavior
    is. For example someone who was abused as a child, may not like it, but
    can get the idea that this is what sex is about. And can't wait until they
    are on the other side of the coin (the abusers instead of the abused).
    
    Or simply people who got no education at all, good or bad, on the
    subject. May abuse because that is the only way that they know how to go
    about it.
    
    Yet others, because they don't know what to do. Don't do nothing at all
    about it. And as a result, may not be abusers, but go tru life lonelly
    as hell.
    
    I am not saying that these people should be excused for their wrongs.
    But that a lot of grief for everybody, could be avoided if everyone,
    the above people included learned how to properlly express their sexual
    drives and needs.
    
    Parents would be the logical people to do this, but parents very often
    leave it to someone or something else to do it. Peers, films, magazines,
    jokes, ... wich aren't very consistent or trustwordy at all.
    
    I say that if parents don't do it, then schools should try to. Sexual
    education in school should not only encompass the physical part of it,
    but the behavioral part as well. At all school levels from the bottom up.
    
    Gil

    <I believe that most sexual abusive behavior, rape included, happens
    <due a lack of appropriate education on the subject.
    Yup!
    <For example someone who was abused as a child, may not like it, but
    <can get the idea that this is what sex is about. 
    Yup!
    <But that a lot of grief for everybody, could be avoided if everyone,
    <the above people included learned how to properlly express their sexual
    <drives and needs.
    <Parents would be the logical people to do this

    You're right of course (in theory)
    In practice however, it is typically the parents who taught them how to
    express their sexual drives INAPPROPRIATELY in the first place. By
    abusing them! It is extremely difficult for any public school
    education to neutralize the on-going impact that one's parents are having.
    
    				herb

    
    Anyone have details on the bill being discussed in the senate
    that would hold publishers of pornography liable in rape cases ?
    
    One example of the link between pornography and rape cited
    was someplace where they shut down 156 adult book/video stores
    and the incidence of rape decrease by 25%.
    
    Rich

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A proposal to allow victims of sex crimes to sue
those who make or sell obscene material if the material incited the
assault drew strong support Tuesday from pornography foes. But it was
denounced by mainstream book, magazine and video distributors as an
attack on the First Amendment.
	The legislation, introduced by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would
permit victims of sexual assault to seek civil damages against producers
and distributors of obscenity and child pornography if the victim proves
that the material in question was a substantial cause of the sexual
offense.
	``Pornography is fueling violence in this country and it is time
pornographers were held accountable for the harm they cause,'' McConnell
said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, citing studies that
claim a correlation, but not necessarily a causal link, between violent
pornography and sexual assaults.
	``If we are to protect women and children from sexual predators, we
must recognize that sex crimes do not occur in a cultural vacuum. It is
time to hold accountable those who are getting rich off of veritable
how-to manuals and films for rapists and child abusers.''
	McConnell said the measure is intended to stop pornography.
	``Are we trying to get people to quit producing and selling this kind
of material?'' McConnell said. ``My answer is, you bet. That's precisely
what this is designed to do.''
	But groups representing book, magazine and video distributors warned
the committee that the legislation could have serious side-effects and
would trample First Amendment rights of free speech and press.
	Joyce Meskis, president of the American Booksellers Association,
representing 4,500 booksellers nationwide, said the measure ``will
produce the most pervasive censorship the United States has ever
experienced.'' It would force distributors to withhold racy, yet non-
obscene, books in the fear that they could suffer huge dollar losses if
the materials were later judged obscene, Meskis added.
	Meskis also questioned holding makers and distributors of certain
materials responsible for a crime if the attacker claims his action was
triggered by the material.
	``(The legislation) makes me liable for the brutalizing of a woman or
child based on nothing more than the testimony of the criminal who has
committed the outrage and now seeks to mitigate his guilt by blaming
something he read or watched,'' Meskis said.
	Added Judith Krug of the American Library Association: ``The First
Amendment was not designed to protect only speech which is benign to
psychopaths.''
	Richard Abt of the Video Software Dealers Association, representing
the home video retail and distributing industry, said, ``Because the
standards of determining obscenity are inherently elusive and
subjective, retailers would be deterred from carrying many non-obscene
movies that contained very explicit sex scenes.''
	But the legislation drew enthusiastic support from some women's
groups.
	Page Mellish, president of Feminists Fighting Pornography, said the
legislation ``not only is the first anti-pornography bill to enjoy the
support of both feminists and conservatives, it is also the first bill
in Congress to act on the real harm of pornography: it's proximate cause
to violence against women.''
	``While it is true that the persons most likely to commit violence
against women after viewing sexually oriented, violent materials are
those already predisposed toward violence, we are still left with two
undeniable facts: First, that such materials are likely to trigger
violent impulses already possessed by many men; and, second, that even
men who are not predisposed toward violence will demonstrate increased
callousness toward women as a result of viewing the materials,'' added
Deborah Daniels, U.S. attorney for southern Indiana.
	McConnell's legislation, introduced Monday, differs from similar
legislation he has sponsored for two years. The new version is more
narrowly tailored, attacking only material already not protected by the
Constitution -- material found by a jury to be obscene or child
pornography -- rather than any ``sexually explicit'' content.

    I wonder about this guy (Sen. McConnell, R-Ky)'s language, and the
    attitudes it conveys.  To wit:

> "If we are to protect women and children from sexual predators, we
> must recognize that sex crimes do not occur in a cultural vacuum."

    Note that the motive is to "protect women and children", not to
    stop, disable, or discourage sexually predatory behavior.

        Sharon

    Why do I doubt that this bill would be used against, say, "Total
    Recall"?
    
    Ray

This is atrocious.

And doesn't make any sense, unless we can also sue producers of "romance
novels" for broken hearts, advertisers with pictures of skinny women for
anorexia, GI Joe for sons killed in war, Friday the 13th for serial
murders and Weekly World News for stupidity.

People are responsible for their own actions...including murders and rapists.



>   there are some truly *VILE* mags that
>    specialize in depicting rapes and women being mutilated [...]
> Their purpose is to
>    pander to people who find that exciting -- how far a step then is it to
>    actually doing it?

A pretty big step.  I've thought about all sorts of things without doing it.
I've even read about lots of things without doing it.  If the step between
fiction and reality is so small, then science fiction would be a lot more
effective at changing the world, don't you think?

>I tend to
>    naturally distrust most of the "anti-porn" people, but there is some
>    stuff out there that makes me nervous and turns my stomach.

Ah, you are nervous and queasy - well *that* is certainly a good reason
to make something illegal.

Shall I begin the list of things that make me nervous and queasy so 
they can be illegalized?  The list starts with people with poor hygeine;
men who invade my personal space; horror movies; raw eggs; Operation
Rescue; fundamentalist preachers...

D!

Do murder mysteries create murderers?  

Do hot rod movies create reckless drivers?

If so, we've sure got a lot more laws to pass! 

Bruce

  The beauty of this scheme is that you get censorship without any
  identifiable censors to point your finger at.

  "Where's Playboy/Cosmo?"

  "Oh, the publishers decided to stop publishing it for fear of
  getting sued under that new law."

                                   Atlant

	re .103,
        
>    Why do I doubt that this bill would be used against, say, "Total
>    Recall"?
        
        You doubt it because you read the last paragraph of .101
        and you know that "Total Recall" does not fall into
        either category:
        
>	McConnell's legislation, introduced Monday, differs from similar
>legislation he has sponsored for two years. The new version is more
>narrowly tailored, attacking only material already not protected by the
>Constitution -- material found by a jury to be obscene or child
>pornography -- rather than any ``sexually explicit'' content.

        Dan

Dan:

  Some people might find any depiction of the intentional death or
  injury of a human obscene.

                                   Atlant

    
    
    
    my $.02 - 
    
    This bill is a step in the right direction - to recognize that crimes
    are not committed in a vacuum.... that there IS A effect to the casual
    portrayal of women (and children) as easy, if not willing, marks for 
    predation.
    
    I don't like government intervention, but at least hir mind is working. 
    
    Jamd
    
    
    
    Also, porn shops *use* government to protect their operations.  Since
    government is already involved, it seems to me to make sense. 
     
                                                                  

    Also, porn shops *use* government to protect their operations.

Eh?  Come again?

Why is a "porn shop's" business refered to as an "operation", as if it
is something sneaky and illegal?  Pornography is legal, so is selling it,
so is running a store to sell it.

I seldom hear 7-11's refered to as "operations"...or Kmarts, or Sears,
or CVS...

D!

    er, it was pointed out to me that I missed quite a few points to take
    into consideration in my earlier notes...I deleted them because I
    inadvertantly left the potential for some major offense.
    
    sorry 'bout that.
    
    \D/

    
    If someone took a can of spray paint and sprayed anti-woman and
    anti-lesbian phrases all over my house and car, and they were caught,
    they could probably be prosecuted under some kind of "hate crime" law,
    and I might be able to sue the perpetrators, charging that my civil 
    rights had been violated.  I think that some women's rights activists 
    have approached some porn in the same way, that it's hateful to woman,
    causes women harm (just like the grafiti on my house or on the local
    synagogue).  When I first heard of these kinds of civil suits that
    were happing in Minneapolis, I thought it might be a good approach.
    But now I'm not so sure.  
    
    I am so worried about the rights of free speech (for everyone) that I'm 
    afraid of encroaching on those -- just this one time -- because obviously, 
    it's dangerous when you have to start making judgements about what is 
    protected speech and what is a violation of someone else's rights.  If 
    someone defaces my home or my community's church, that feels like a clear 
    violation -- they can say, think, and write what they like about me -- but 
    not on my or public property.  But the films/magazines/books are not my 
    property, and while I firmly believe that some porn is *part* of what 
    causes some violence against women (in that it perpetuates hatred of
    women and actually suggests some techniques for torture and murder - 
    that is my opinion), I think that involving the state (even in civil suits)
    in matters concerning the expression of ideas (even evil, cruel ideas) 
    will not solve the problem (as I see it) and will probably create more 
    problems.  We'll have as much violence against women as we've ever had,
    but you won't be able to find a gay newpaper.
    
    No, I don't think that free speech is more important than women's
    lives, but you can't stop someone from thinking of terrible things
    to do to women or from finding people who will do them/experience
    them for money (or under duress) by telling them to stop.
    
    I support boycotts, civil disobedience, public political actions.
    March through the Combat Zone.  Boycott businesses that advertise
    in rags that (you think) promote violence against women.  If something
    is profitable, someone will probably do it.  The only thing to do, it
    seems, is to make it less profitable to exploit women.  I think the
    civil suits are aimed, really, at the profitability, but I think we
    can't involve the state in our protest.  
    
    Justine

    RE.114 - last point first - we need to involve *more* than the 
    state, we need to involve the whole *culture*. Much slower than 
    the politically expedient 'pass another law.' Much more difficult, 
    too. You can only change the culture one mind at a time. 
    
    re. the paint can - unfortunately, attacking porn directly is too
    close to prosecuting the _paint manufacturer_ because of the
    misuse of his product. Lots of people use porn to enhance their
    sexual enjoyment. Some few misuse it to somehow justify atrocity. 
    The liability ploy is a two-edged sword. It can cut where unintended.
    

    I find myself concerned about this legislation on two levels.
    
    The first is that it provides an easy avenue for those who commit
    criminal acts to continue to duck and evade their personal
    responsibility for the mayhem they commit.  I believe that our society
    is far, far too ready to find others at fault when an individual does
    something stupid, immoral, or illegal.  Just as a gun doesn't kill, the
    individual pulling the trigger does, so pornography, no matter how
    violent, doesn't cause abuse, the abuser does.
    
    The second level is that of the "slippery slope", the "camel's nose" on
    1st Amendment freedom of speech, religion and the press.  Others are
    already eloquently expressing this level.
    
    Alison

    
    
    I disagree, Dana.  I don't think that a film that shows the brutal
    torture of a woman can be used properly.  In my mind, the damage
    is done in the creating, distributing, AND viewing of the torture of
    someone else.  I feel comfortable with the way in which I personally
    assess the blame.  What I'm not comfortable with is that my assessment
    of blame (or anyone's) be used by the state.  If the state will act
    based on my opinion why not based on the opinions of Jessie Helms?
    I think holding a peaceful protest in front of a theatre that shows films 
    that depict nonconsensual acts of violence against women is LIKE writing 
    a letter to the editor or like boycotting a newspaper that accepts 
    advertisements from stores that sell fur (for example) --- I don't think 
    it's like blaming manfacturers of spray paint for grafiti.
    
    
    Justine

    
    well, what about that movie which depicts nonconsensual violence
    against men? 
    
    that's ok by by you, yet if the victim is female, then its a hate
    crime?
    
    pretty inconsistent if you ask me.
    
    anyway, all the demagouge crusading against "porn", "hate speech",
    or "inflammatory remarks" are all branches of the same rotten tree
    of censorship and government interference in our private lives..
    
    accepting any part of this means you qualify the BoR...
    

    re.118 Justine, unfortunately, once you start banning _some_
    porn you've already accepted the principle of banning it. 
    Then the risk becomes a)throwing out the 'acceptable' with the 
    'unacceptable' and b)creating some authority, minimally accountable
    to the public, to safeguard us from pornography. That authority 
    will inevitably abuse that power. 
    
    Dana

    nevada::rah (sorry, don't know your given name)
    
    please show where anyone said that violence in movies against men is
    ok.  please note the name of this file, and that it is _primarily_ a
    woman-focused file.  This does not mean that violence against men, or
    against children, or racial injustice, or any of the hundreds of other
    horrors of our world, is endorsed or acceptable to any or all of the
    readership.  It just means that *here*, the consensus is to focus on
    women's issues.
    
    you don't discuss police brutality at a business meeting, do you?  or
    business issues while playing tennis?  why do you expect womannotes to
    focus on men's issues?
    
    Sara

    
    Dana,  I think we're close to agreement here.  I have said that I'm not
    comfortable with the idea of banning anything -- for exactly the
    reasons that you (and I) have stated -- that it's too risky.  Where do you
    draw the line?  Why should I (or anyone else) get to draw it?  However,
    I am completely comfortable exercising my rights of free speech and
    saying that I find torture of rape and women despicable and definitely
    not entertaining, AND I am personally offended that there are people
    who produce and watch it, and I'm willing to say so (with my time, with
    letters, with my money, etc.)  Dana, I think you read where I said that
    I hated this stuff and then didn't read where I said that I don't want
    the state to be involved in suppressing anyone's free expression.
    
    Justine
                                           

    re.119
    
    Boycotting something I find offensive is not censorship.  It is an
    exercise of my own rights.
    
    Telling others that I find something offensive and urging them to
    join me in my boycott is not censorship.  It is a free exchange of
    ideas that leaves the others free to exercise their own rights
    according to their own individual consciences.
    
    Denying others access to what I find offensive is censorship as it
    curtails the rights of others by compelling them to live by my choices.
    
    
    As to your contention that a protest against a 'movie which depicts
    nonconsensual violence against women' would mean that nonconsensual
    violence against men is "ok by [me]" ...
    
    ... it makes about as much sense as inferring that I condone the
    slaughter of chinchillas to make coats because I am protesting in
    front of a mink ranch.
    
      Annie

    re.122 Yes, I think we _are_ in agreement. You're right, I missed
    the part about you not wanting the state involved. Now, without
    resorting to government action, how do we stop what offends *us*?
    
    Dana

    re. 124 - Dana
    
    How?  It depends upon what you mean by 'stop.'
    
    I tend to work on the 'demand side' -- that is I try to get at the
    causes and I try to raise awareness.
    
    So long as a demand exists, regardless of legislation and rules
    concerning the supply side, the need will be met.
    
    Boycotts and demonstrations [non-obstructive ones] are among the few
    supply-side actions in which I engage.
    
    It's minds we need to change, not laws.
    
      Annie
    
    

    
    Re 112: 
    
    D! Sorry about the word "operations"...I've been writing too many
    proposals lately and neglected to take my 'anti-jargon junky' pills
    
    I guess the opinion I wanted to express was that I am very frustrated the
    government implicitly supports and condones the mindset that keeps this
    places in business, and yet the same avenue can't be used to close
    them.  When I was in elementary school, the first amendment was
    explained to me that I had the right to swing my fist around as much as 
    I wanted, until the point when it would run into someone else's nose. 
    This seems tofall intothe same camp.
    
    By way of apology, though, thanks for pointing out the "camel's nose"
    fallacy of my thinking.
    
     
    For the record, I personally believe - strongly -
    that there is a causual link between violent crimes and hard core porn. 
    
    
    Jamd

    For the record, I personally believe - strongly -
    that there is a causual link between violent crimes and hard core porn. 

Why?

D!

Robert, an interesting observation.  Yet lets leave aside the government
intervention issue while we discuss the content issue, for I agree that
government has no part in this control.

I presume that you were talking about Thelma and Louise when you mentioned
"that movie which depicts nonconsensual violence against men".  I wonder...

Do you put that movie in the same category as other movies, which depict
violence against women?  I have trouble with this.  I find movies which
depict violence against women to do it gratuitously; the violence is random,
unmotivated, and/or intended to titillate male audiences with fantasies
of power-over-others.  I can't begin to unravel the cause-and-effect chain,
but the result of the depiction of violence is male eroticism, in some men.
To the contrary, in Thelma and Louise, the violence depicted against men
was always strongly motivated, and usually accompanied by a feeling of
justice done; dirty, maybe, or vigilante, but justice.  I cannot equate
the two sorts of depictions.  I doubt that women get an erotic thrill out
of seeing a woman shoot a man who had just attempted to rape her friend.

DougO

    G'Day,
    
    	I'm afraid I can't agree that there is a link between porn and any
    form of sexual assault.  People constantly try to use the argument that
    when the police went to the rapists house they found piles of videos
    and magazines.  So what?  They'd find the same if they came to my
    place.  The way I read it is that the person obviously has a desire for
    sexual material, be it physical or just visual.  They therefore buy all
    the porn etc to fulfill that desire.  I don't believe that watching/
    reading it is what actually causes them to go out and commit a crime.
    
    David.
    

    Well, there *have* been studies linking, not sex, but violence, to
    *violent* pornography. I believe the results noted that the key was
    the violence, not the sex.
    
    --DE
    

    
    actually I was referring to the movie where a woman hold a man 
    prisoner / sex slave by periodic crippling...
    
    all the usual NPR arts-and-croissants mavens were going gaga over
    what a deep and meaningful flick this seeming piece of trash was..
    
    who sez two wrongs don't make a right?

Not having seen the movie in question (what's the title, anyway) I dunno
why it is praised or shouldn't be.  so, its kinda hard to continue discussing
it, sorry.

DougO

	Possibly "Misery"?  (I didn't see it, only the trailers)


	As far as the correlation between rape and violent porn goes,
	if there were a causal link (which, to my knowledge, has *not*
	been established) between the two, I think it'd be more likely
	that rapists become buyers of violent porn then the converse.


	*A*

In re: film violence against women, there exists a very small subgenre
of such films, referred to as "snuff flicks."  These films are made to
depict sickening brutality, physical and sexual, against young women,
with the victims invariably dying before the end of the film.  Now that
might not seem so unusual in the grand scheme of filmmaking, were it not
for the fact that in a snuff flick, the young female is *always* an
unknown actress in her first film.  It's also her last, because these
young women are -- quite seriously -- *really* killed.  For obvious
reasons, snuff flicks are made in really out-of-the-way places...

Tell me again how there is *no* causal link between violence in film and
violence against real women.

-d

    It is interesting to travel out of the country and have an opportunity
    to read what kinds of news stories other countries print about the U.S.
    
    I was in Bermuda just before the Gulf War started and in one of the
    Bermuda newspapers there was a tiny little blurb (in one of the news
    blurb columns about news from around the world) that reported that the
    pilots of the fighter planes were being shown pornographic films prior
    to them taking off for missions in their aircrafts.
    
    You want to place bets that it was very violent pornography too...
    
    It often amazes me how every woman on this planet manages not to spend
    every minute of her day in total despair.
    
    Read that news blurb in the Sunday morning paper during my vacation
    presented me with a personal moment of despair.
    
    Laura
    

If I were feeling cynical, I'd say that they were showing them the porno to 
remind them what they were fighting for.

On the other hand, why should they *not* look at porn? The rest of the country
has that right and privilege. 

Bruce 

    
    I've talked about this a lot before, so to summarize:
    
    I think that when violence (and I include the idea of nonconsent in my
    definition of violence) against women is portrayed for its
    entertainment value (whether it's in snuff films, mainstream
    advertising, record covers, or "cartoons" in Penthouse Magazine), it
    creates and perpetuates an environment where violence against women is
    seen as acceptable, manly, sexy.  And I believe that this is what is
    dangerous for women.   There have been incidents now where LITTLE BOYS
    (6 and under) have raped little girls (or attacked them sexually). 
    Where did they get this idea?!  Clearly, it's not a frustrated sex
    drive at that age.  I doubt that it has anything to do with sex at that
    age.  Maybe they learned it at home, but I bet many of them learned it
    from what they see all around them.  Maybe not all men/boys who are
    exposed to these degrading images of women will rape, but... maybe
    those "nice" men will be less likely to believe a woman when she says
    she's been raped (I doubt that all the men who doubt a woman's story have
    read the story of Joseph - who was supposedly framed for rape by some 
    king's wife, whose feelings were hurt when he refused her - the
    ultimate rape fantasy) -- where does the idea of "she asked for it" come 
    from?!!!)  Violence against women is bad.  Showing it as a form of 
    entertainment makes it acceptable, and so I think that's bad, too.  You 
    wanna watch a bunch of adults having fun sex, that's fine with me, but 
    when one or more of the parties are degraded and violated, that feels 
    wrong to me.
    
    Can I prove this link between violence and violent porn?  No, I don't 
    have the degree or the research grant.  All I can do is explain why I 
    believe what I do.
    
    Justine              

        re .136
        
>On the other hand, why should they *not* look at porn? The rest of the country
>has that right and privilege. 
        
        Not in the country they were in at the time.
        
        Dan

    re .136:
    
>On the other hand, why should they *not* look at porn? The rest of the country
>has that right and privilege. 

    Wake up, Bruce.  Laura was talking about watching VIOLENT porn,
    not ordinary porn without the violence.
    
    And remember, when you're talking about violent porn like snuff
    movies (as -d discussed a few replies back), one can very safely
    assume a FELONY has been committed.  Something HIGHLY ILLEGAL has
    taken place in order to bring that violent porn to you (or whomever).
    
    So I think that we can reasonably ask: should *viewing* snuff movies
    be legal?  Should they be banned?  It could be considered accomplice
    to a felony - afterall, if there were no market for this kind of stuff
    there would be no snuff movies and felonies of this sort committed for
    this purpose.
    

Laura surmised it was violent porn. She had no evidence one way or the other.

Snuff movies, by definition, are murder.  

But you don't have to watch porn to see violent movies. Virtually anyone with 
the price of admission who is tall enough to reach the counter can OD daily
on violence. I am far more concerned with kids (and others) watching violence 
than watching sex.

Bruce

    Er, um, excuse me, but to insert a little *reality* into this
    conversation...
    
    "Violent porn", whatever your definition of violent, does not generally
    refer to *snuff films*.
    
    The mere existence of snuff films is a matter of some contention.  (I
    have never met a person who has seen one *personally* - it's always a
    friend of a friend...which sets of "urban legend" bells in my head.)
    
    Even if they do exist, they are extremely rare, extremely illegal, and
    not at all in the "mainstream violent porn."  And you can damn well bet
    that the films they showed to the pilots during the Gulf War, whether
    it was violent or not, was NOT snuff films.
    
    Ellen, snuff films *are* illegal.  Just like child pornography, they
    are illegal to make, illegal to sell, illegal to own, illegal to trade,
    and illegal to watch.  And, just like *real* child pornography (by
    which I mean films portraying adults having sex with *children*, not
    Traci-Lords-type situations where the female is an almost-woman who
    lied about her age...you know, 5 years olds and the like) it is rare,
    is not sold in "adult bookstores", is not produced by bona fide porn
    vid producers, and is not mainstream...
    
    D!

    (BTW, the *point* of the previous note was that talking about the
    effect of snuff films on potential rapists does not seem like a useful
    use of disk space, and it seems to be derailing the topic, just like
    cries of "false accusation" derail the topic of rape - yeah, maybe it
    happens, but it isn't the focus, nor should it be.  I find this
    violence-pornography discussion very interesting - aspects like, is
    there a link? Should it be illegalized? etc.  Since snuff films are
    already illegal, since I doubt many rapists have access to snuff films
    even if they wanted them and since they are so rare - let's talk about
    useful stuff like whether regular so-called violent porn is harmful or
    helpful or neither.)
    
    D!

re.140
    
>But you don't have to watch porn to see violent movies. Virtually anyone with 
>the price of admission who is tall enough to reach the counter can OD daily
>on violence. I am far more concerned with kids (and others) watching violence 
>than watching sex.

>Bruce

    Bruce, the real problem (IMO) is those movies which portray 
    violence _AS_ sex.

For the record, D!...

It's not always a friend of a friend.  I didn't believe in snuff flicks
until I was offered the opportunity to see one by several friends who
had indeed seen it with their own eyes.  At first, I thought the film
they were describing was just another back-alley stag film, but when
they told me about some of the scenes in it, I knew otherwise.  FWIW, I
declined to go, so I cannot profess to have actually seen a snuff film.

-d

    I hate being ignorant.
    
    Can anybody tell me what was contained in the original Snuff film? I
    mean storyline and actions, etc. I know nothing about it except there
    was a supposedly genuine killing in it.
    
    alice

>FWIW, I
>declined to go, so I cannot profess to have actually seen a snuff film.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it is still in a "friend of a friend" 
category.  In all my travels I have never met anyone who has actually
seen it.

If offered the opportunity to see a snuff film, you can damn well bet
I'd do it, just to prove they exist. I'm *still* sceptical.

D!

    The point I was trying to make is that I found it very distressing that
    men were being "pumped up" to fly off into the war, to drop bombs, to
    kill, by showing them pornography.  
    
    I am appalled that the U.S. government is providing pornographic movies 
    to fighter pilots as combat adrenaline boosters.
    
    

    
    
    Uhm, I don't know how much truth there is to that fighter-pilot/porn
    story.  
    
    And, before somebody flames-on, I will admit that I don't know if it's
    true or false.
    
    But, a fighter pilot who is simply "pumped by agressive, violent
    adrenaline" wouldn't last very long.
    
    Aerial combat involves a quick, professional, technical mind.  A combat
    pilot processes the information on his heads up display, he receives
    information from his AWACS controller, and he deploys a weapon, usually
    in a standoff position.
    
    It's not like a hockey fight, where you "drop the gloves" and go at it.
    
    And, you can rest assured that the pilots do not NEED the pronography
    to do their jobs, iff the story is true.
    
    
    Nick
    

This is being posted anonymously for a member of our community.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thoroughly disgusted by violence.

I like porn.  I've seen lots and lots of it.  Never have I, or anyone I'm 
acquainted with, been moved to do violence in response to pornography exposure.

I just don't make the connection between sexually explicit(*) imagery and one's
inclination to do violence.  It's also my experience that the "link" between the
two is usually argued by people whose exposure to porn has been limited and 
their response to that exposure one of discomfort (for whatever reason(s)).

In fact, an hour's worth of prime time TV, in my opinion, exposes one to 
more violent and oppressive imagery than a library of porn.  The Times best
seller list is a pretty good resource for violent imagery as well.

Bringing up "snuff films" in a porn discussion strikes me as something a lot
like bringing up "Jack the Ripper" in a men's general attitudes towards women
discussion.


(*) = pornography...that "imagery" may also be textual.

    
    I am troubled by the fact that people want to and do make, promote,
    watch, and profit from films/books/ads/TV shows/songs, etc.  that
    feature the degradation and/or violation of another person. 
    Interestingly, it seems that it is (almost) always women (esp women of
    color) and children who are the degraded/violated and men who are the
    promoters and main customers.
    
    I can't say that I enjoy (and probably wouldn't even if I were
    straight) the no-plot, poorly produced, unbelievable (from the POV of
    a woman) sex scenes kind of porn, but I don't feel offended by it.
    I suppose if I watched a lot of it, I might see a trend of
    trivialization of women (slightly greater than the trivialization of
    men), but maybe it's like M&Ms (choc. candy) -- not all that
    great for you, but one serving doesn't wipe out the goodness of a
    mostly healthy diet.
    
    I agree with all those (on both sides of the porn issue) who have
    said that it's not just (and not all) porn that degrades women.
    I object to all degrading images of women -- wherever they occur.
    Perhaps porn gets more of the attention in this regard because it is
    more graphic (in all things, not just sex, but the violence, language,
    etc.)  and less subtle. The mainstream shoe advertiser, on the other
    hand, has to take care that the corpse of the woman in the display
    window (from an actual window display -- See Jean Kilbourne's "Killing
    us softly") was somewhat conservatively dressed and with only enough blood 
    on her so you'd know she died of unnatural causes.  Hey, whatever
    sells, right?
    
    I agree that the snuff films are on the fringe and not really a part of
    the argument -- almost everyone agrees these are bad and would like to
    stop them at least as much as they'd like to stop other (actual)
    violence against women.
    
    Justine      
                                                      

interestingly, most of the avid anti-pornography feminists I have met
haven't actually *seen* much pornography.  Most of what they have seen
has been in the context of a lecture or book or whatever, presented
by *another*anti-pornography activist, with the clips or excerpts
carefully selected for their maximum shock potential.

The people who write these books and design these lectures have an
agenda, and they are smart enough to know how to go about convincing
others to their side.  So they go around, pick the most outrageous 
examples of pornography and violent literature (for instance, the oft
cited "meat grinder" cartoon in Hustler).

Whenever I am arguing pornography with someone, eventually I will ask
"What porn have you *seen*?"  If she shoots back "Well, at a lecture
by Andrea Dworkin, she showed clips of..." or "Well I read this book
by..." or "Well, according to the Meese Commision on pornography...".

If you *really* want to know what's out there, go to the adult section
of your local video shop, pick four titles randomly, and watch them.
Chances are, none of them include women getting beat up, dismembered, etc,
etc.  Even women getting tied up is extremely rare.

D!

    N.b.
    
    The meat grinder image was a "Hustler" cover, not an interior
    photo-collage, and definitely not a cartoon.
    
    						Ann B.

By cartoon I meant it was drawn, rather than being a photo...am I 
misremembering?  (I used "cartoon" meaning a drawn thing intended to
be humorous.)

D!

    
    I've seen snuff about 15 years ago, sickens the heart.  I can describe
    it but the movie industry did it better and in color not to long ago.
    I'm refering to the FRIDAY the 13th series of movies( and related
    spinoff look alikes), even if the action is faked the violence is
    real enough and take me back to that first sick piece of trash.
    
    I can't define porn but I do know it whan I see it and it's much more
    than pictures of naked people.  One item that triggers my porn alarm
    is violence.  
    
    Peace,
    Allison
    

    Re: .151
    
    I have seen enough porn -- including rubber novelties, MOTSS and MOTOS,
    2+ people, skin books, 8mm stag films and beautifully produced color
    films, soft- and hard-core magazines, kids, etc., to know I don't ever
    want to see any more.
    
    Hell, I used to live next door to an SOB who was doing kid porn in his
    house and selling the films to the most incredibly disgusting parade of
    individuals I ever saw.  He also hired his tame cat burglar to hit my
    house while I was on vacation one summer.  According to the cops, who
    warned us to keep our kids away from him until they could catch him
    (which they eventually did), he was utterly typical of the people they
    deal with -- a person who, choosing to commit one species of crime, is
    only too happy to commit others.
    
    A man who is content to use the women pictured in porn for his solo
    sexual gratification -- note the word "use" there -- seems like the
    kind of man who wouldn't quail at using a woman to gratify his need for
    power.
    
    If I ran my own country, making and selling any porn harder than maybe
    Playboy would be a capital offense.  The stuff sickens me.
    
    -d

    
 >..he was utterly typical of the people they
 >  deal with -- a person who, choosing to commit one species of crime, is
 >   only too happy to commit others
    
I feel uncomfortable with this stereotyping and generalising about
    the "type" of people who deal in/use pornography.
    It reminds me of the "What Kind of Men Rape?" string - we tend to
    put people into boxes ("filthy pervert", "OK guy") because it's
    easier for us to deal with our discomfort like that, not
    because it reflects real clues as to someone's nature or habits.
    
    Recently a colleague of mine here at work was convicted of
    dealing in child pornography.
    
    I was stunned.
    I didn't know him particularly well, but I had enjoyed his company
    and he certainly didn't strike me as "disgusting" in any way.
    
    'gail                       

'gail,

I merely repeat what the police said.  They made it clear that their
experience indicated that someone who becomes an habitual offender by
the repeated commission of any given type of crime is likely not to
quail at committing crimes of other types suited to his or her modus
operandi.

A parallel can be drawn from this kind of thought pattern to one that
makes it possible for people to use others for self-gratification.
If persons who do not respond to John Doe's need for sexual release can
be the objects through which he gains that release, it is a short step
to a point at which his need for power can similarly be gratified by
the use of another person without the other's consent.  If there is any
validity at all in Freud's theories, frustration in one's sexual life
can lead to a rage sufficient to trigger violent behaviours.  By
selling material that encourages sex that may not be fulfilling, porno-
graphers can be indirectly responsible for those behaviours.  In legal
terms, they can be accessories before the fact.  Proof is required of
such a link, however; that proof comes in individual cases, not on the
level of the whole.

-d

    
    
    Something that is jumping out at me here as I read and reread this
    string is that people seem to mean different things when they use the
    word "porn" maybe even when they use the word "violence."  I think it
    would be helpful if people could define these words as they use them.
    (that would probably be easier than our trying to reach consensus on a
    common operational definition.)
    
    For example, when you refer to pornography, do you mean all porn? 
    "Violent porn," and in that category, would you include (all, some, no)
    SM?  
    
    Justine
    

Ellen and -d,

You are right, my note was inappropriate...I was tired and responding with
my gut instead of my mind.  I have deleted the note.

D!

[PS: Ellen, of *course* I have an agenda...I think just about everyone in
this note has an agenda.  I am very open about mine, and have never denied
it.  I am anti prohibition on porn, always have been, always have argued
that way, and I am surprised that after two years of constantly saying the
same thing, I am just now "wearing thin."]

    
    D!,
    	
    No I'm not upset by what you said.  I was an easy conclusion to reach
    even though that was not what was meant.  I was answering another noters
    question as to what snuff was by indirect example.  
    	
    I have a particular hot spot concerning violence with sexual overtones
    and many of the blood and guts horror movies hit it.  To me it is a 
    _near porn_ type of thing like the Hustler's meat grinder.  I seperate
    it far from erotica(has value) and the more common exploitive junk(no
    value except to it's marketer who get rich).  I do have issue with
    those that would ban books or censor art or publications, there is
    not place for that.  There are things I will prefer not to view or
    purchase however.  The choice is mine.
    	
    One last thing, MY opinion.  Friday the 13th and a few others were
    poor grade horror that titilated the audience with sexual situations
    ending in a bloody death.  What in the world should make that ok to
    depict when I'm horrified by the same thing on the front page of a
    newpaper?   To me it's junk.  What bugs me is the financial success
    says there's a market.
    
    Allison
    

    
    re .164, D!:
    
    I have also deleted my note.  I know you are anti-prohibition
    and anti-censorship.  I think most people in the file are, for
    varying reasons (but I'm not sure).  I know I am.  Certainly
    Alison didn't mention anything about that.  That's not really
    what I meant by "agenda", but I'm not sure I can explain (I'd try
    by mail if you wish).  I'm dropping it.
    

Justine, I think you've asked the impossible question. I don't think we can
agree on what is "acceptable" porn or violence. That's part of the problem. I
know when the lie has been crossed for me but not for anyone else. I've seen
a fair amount of porno flicks (of the varity shown on the Playboy channel) and
violence was never a big factor. The biggest crime these films are quilty of is
lack of quality and imagination. I'd enjoy seeing a truely erotic film with my
SO, these don't usually qualify. 

As for the violence link, speaking only for myself, what I enjoy seeing or
reading about is not necessarily what I enjoy doing. What I enjoy doing is not
necessarily what someone else would enjoy. Must we regulate something for the
benefit of the sickos? Charles Manson was inspired to kill brutally by the song
"Helter Skelter" (so he said). The sick are going to use any excuse available.
liesl

    D!
    
    My note is also gone.  We're all quits on that one.  :-)
    
    -d

    Let's face it, to _do_ something about porn we have to define
    the stuff. Along with the related terms 'objectionable' and
    'disgusting' and 'obscene'. In this context that's *impossible*.
    What I think is obscene may cause you to yawn. What you think is
    objectionable violence is a light romp to me. What someone else
    thinks is disgusting is something you and I enjoy on a 
    Saturday night ;-) 
    
    Some people have a stand which is effectively, "Anything that
    I don't like is obscene." Others have a reaction which amounts
    to, "Nothing I like could possibly be obscene." Who's 'right' ?
    
    Because of the total subjectivity of this topic, I don't think
    we can do more than state our preferences and go our own way.
    (There are probably a few exceptions, stuff which could only
    appeal to a deranged mind, but defining even that will be 
    difficult.)
    
    Dana

    
    I still think it would be helpful it we could be more specific about
    what offends us, just saying, I don't like porn doesn't help us
    understand each other better, imo.  Interesting to see all the comments
    in opposition to regulating, banning, etc -- I haven't advocated that,
    and I haven't seen anyone else advocate that (did I miss it?)  I think
    when something is offensive, we should use our powers as consumers
    (boycotts) and our voices and energy to speak up about it.  I support
    the activists who are raising up their voices in this area, but I think
    that looking for help from the state (beyond the restrictions that
    already exist -- child porn, eg.) is a mistake -- because the power of
    the state cannot be applied fairly in matters of expression.
    
    Justine

    Some of what offends me.  Several form feeds, it's fairly graphic.
    
    It's representative of what _I_ call 'violent pornography.'  I avoid it
    when ever possible.  I've discontinued doing business with any
    establishment that sells it, even if that choice means doing without
    something else I want.  I've been know to engage in some pretty fierce
    debate with acquaintances that enjoy this sort of thing as, personally,
    I find little to redeem it.
    
      Annie
    
    
    
    
    I don't like to see a picture of an unconscious woman bleeding from
    numerous body orifices with the bloody tools artfully grouped about
    her.
    
    I don't like to turn away just to late to miss seeing a woman's breast
    removed using garden shears.
    
    I don't like to see _anyone_ -- woman, man, or child -- begging and
    shreiking while being repeatedly raped and slashed with a straight razor.

    re .171, I think I can agree that I find all that stuff offensive.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re 127, D!
    
    I've been out for awhile; sorry for not answering.
    
    Justine (.137) expressed it far better than I could.  to add to that,
    there *have* been studies than demonstrate a causual link between
    violence on TV and violent crime increases...I can't quote the study
    off the top of my head, but I will look it up, if there's interest.  
    
    Jamd
    

    RE .171 (and others)
    
     Several years ago the Playboy channel had a weekly program with
    Marylyn Chambers hosting,,,
     One comment she made that has really stuck with me was.."If you 
    make a movie showing a man kissing a woman's breast it gets an X
    rating,,make a movie showing a man *chain-sawing* a woman's breast
    and it gets an R !!.Something's wrong here,folks"....
    
     Barbara and I have watched quite a bit (OK,,a lot) of "hardcore"
    movies/videos,,,(most of turned out to be pretty bad..:-),,,but
    we both find the gratuitous(sp?) violence in prime time TV and
    "regular" films far more revolting than the sex acts shown in the
    "porno flicks".
    
     I'd be more concerned that the violence in regular movies might
    trigger a rapist to commit hirs/her crime  since I've always looked
    at rape as a criminal act not a sexual one. 
    
      Doug 
    
    PS  I'd rather have my daughter watch a movie showing a couple engaged
    in a caring sexual relationship than one showing people being cut/shot/
    mangled etc. (Although *not* until she's a couple of years older!! :-)