Is pornography evil?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Another philosophical Chinese fire drill: Is pornography evil?
-- Lawrence Flynt (@ .), May 03, 2000
Are you Manny?
-- (W@iting for an .answer), May 03, 2000.
Can't be Manny: the spelling is too good.
-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.
Why don't you just go spank the monkey?
-- Klicker (klicker@keyckicks.con), May 03, 2000.
Yes pornography is VERY evil! Sex is evil!! It's a SIN!!! You are possessed by Satan!!!!Come to the church and confess, you sinner! Get on your knees and pray to the Lord for forgiveness! Don't forget to put money in the basket or your prayers may not be answered!
-- (Pope@John.Paul), May 03, 2000.
If you're talking about hardcore pornography, yes, it's evil.First, it debases the human body, making it into a mere sex object. Sex is a gift from God, intended to be enjoyed (and I mean that in the best sense of the word[g]) by committed couples. Pornography perverts that which is good into mere lust (or worse). (Sometimes a LOT worse.)
Second, here's a deep, dark politically-incorrect secret that the defenders of porno won't acknowledge: most of the women you see in hardcore porno were sexually abused as children (the Kinsey Institute did the ground-breaking study on this many years ago).
There are complex psychological reasons behind this that are heartbreaking. Suffice to say, in general, these women have no self-esteem and/or enjoy "teasing" men and/or exercising control over them. For some, it's a form of revenge.
(A similar statistic applies to prostitutes, who were also likely to have been abused as children.)
It's very sad.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 2000.
Send me what you got and I'll get back.
-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 03, 2000.
I wouldn't call pornography evil because its the right of the person to chose wether to look at it or not. Or for the persons who work in the adult film, magazine or whatever else they are using to make porno now.
-- Patrick M (BAMECW@aol.com), May 03, 2000.
Evil my ass.Porno is pictures of people having sex, if sex is dirty or evil, then I guess that porno is too.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.
And...The WINNER is...(hoping you dont mind)NEMISIS!!!
Passing the golden smut award....while LMAO.
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.
Stephen:Have you looked into the Kinsey Report lately? Those two were pretty darn kinky in THEIR methods of obtaining information.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2000.
Pornography is evil if the subjects are juvenile or unwillng......if subjects are adult and willing then.....let'er roll baby!!
-- Will (righthere@home.now), May 04, 2000.
Anita,Kinsey was merely the first (or one of the first, and I don't deny that he was exceedingly odd, either.[g]) There have been plenty of other studies, too, both here and in Europe.
I did a Web search and found surprisingly consistent numbers: about 2/3 (60-70%) of the females who are prostitutes or who "star" in hardcore porn were abused as children. The average age at which the abuse occurred was 10-12, and the perpetrator was usually an adult male family member (father or uncle).
(If I'd had one functional brain cell, I'd have saved a couple of links to post here; but the Alta Vista search was on something like "+teen +pornography +prostitution +abuse -[the usual nasty words so that you don't get links to dozens of porno sites]." I hit tons of information right off.)
Deedah,
I won't deny that my personal beliefs play a part, but do note that I made a distinction for *HARDCORE* porn here. I'm not talking about the girls who pose for softcore mags like Playboy. They usually have other reasons (lack of common sense, a wee bit of latent exhibitionism and/or the desire to be Discovered And Become A Star are probably the top three [g]).
Naturism/nudism is another subject, too, as is sex between married couples. (Interesting sidebar: one of the most ... erm, IN DEPTH ... sex books I've ever read was written by Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling "Left Behind" series.[g] It was a book for married couples.)
Hardcore porn (do you really need me to define it?) is another matter entirely. I don't think it can be defended morally, and I say (without hesitation or apology!) that it is at least partially responsible percentage for the breakdown of the family and for the increase in the incidence of child abuse in the past couple of decades. This, too, can be demonstrated statistically.
I realize that the courts feel that people have the First Amendment right to produce and view it (with the welcome exception of child pornography), but that doesn't make it RIGHT.
The question was, "is pornography evil." The answer is, "yes."
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 2000.
Patrick,Just because you have the LEGAL right to do something doesn't make it MORALLY right. You have the RIGHT to do all sorts of things, from smoking cigarettes to downing a gallon of tequila a day. You also have the LEGAL right to ignore a neighbor in need so that you can buy a new SUV. That doesn't make these things MORALLY right.
Politically, I'm a libertarian at heart. I believe that you have the LEGAL right to engage in evil behavior as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else. But call a spade a spade, and realize that having the LEGAL RIGHT to engage in a certain behavior doesn't make it GOOD.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 2000.
My sister-in-law worked as a prostitute and porn model when she was in her 20's. She is not an evil person at all, and nor is she ashamed of her previous life. Instead she saw at as a means of giving pleasure to others while earning a very good living at $1000+ per week 20 years ago.She is now settled, and is not scared to discuss her work. And I know that she was not abused as a child, that was one of the first questions that I asked too. It appears that very few of the "girls" were abused, but then there are also plenty of girls not in the game who were abused. So can an conclusion be found?
-- I'm (not_usually@nonymous.but), May 04, 2000.
If prostitution were to be legalized, or at least decriminalized, we'd likely have a happier world. It just needs to be kept free of organized crime and coercion. Would help the GDP and tax base, too.
-- Bachelor (Bachelor@loveya.ladies), May 04, 2000.
I worked as a phone sex operator when I was in college to make money for school. I also did some voice overs for adult movies as well as nude modeling for art school. I'm not drop dead gorgeous, in fact, I'm a size 18, but I do have a sexy voice.I've known many women in this industry. While I'm not in this industry now, I still keep in touch with some of them. I was not molested, in fact, I had a pretty good childhood. I think the 60-70% statistic is inflated. I'd say that it's closer to 40-50%. I think that the numbers of survivors increases with the more "street walkers" you get in your sample population. There's a HUGE difference in lifestyle, outlook, and income for street walkers vs. call girls, strippers, actresses, etc.
I will say this; most of the women I knew suffered from low self- esteem. More than a few had abusive boyfriends, husbands, or lesbian partners. About half had survived or were surviving substance abuse problems. All of them were undereducated and were inclined to sell themselves short. When they heard I was a college student, they would say something like, "Wow, that's great, you must be really smart. I would never be smart enough to go to school,"
-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 04, 2000.
There's nothing wrong with pornography as long as it's the right kind. And the right kind is the stuff that can really get you going when you're without a partner. I don't mean weird shit just the kind that turns up the heat a few degrees. Everybody needs some kind of sex sometime in their lives. Even people in the ministry like to poke the pickle into something warm once in awhile.
-- Spankey the Monkey (chickenchoker@blueveiner.fun), May 04, 2000.
Let me see if I have this right.Porno is evil, the actresses it employs are women who were abused. Thus, bread is evil, if the bakers who make it are women who were abused.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 04, 2000.
What each one of us considers to be pornography is relative to our own value systems. The term itself is usually used to connote something evil or bad. I believe that like most everything else, it is evil, good, or neutral depending upon the purpose to which it is put. If it harms someone, then it is evil. If not, it is at least neutral. If it is used to enhance someone's life, then it is good.
-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 04, 2000.
Evil? I have a problem with the definition of that word. 1: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity. 2a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing, 2b: a cosmic evil force.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2000.
Deedah,Let me see if I have this right.
Porno is evil, the actresses it employs are women who were abused. Thus, bread is evil, if the bakers who make it are women who were abused.
I can see you're having fun here[g]. That analogy is too far reduced. Hardcore pornography is evil for several reasons, not just that, so you can't make a simple "if then" statement.
For another thing, few would disagree that bread is a useful product and that the making of it is a constructive endeavor. The same can't be said of hardcore pornography.
Anita,
If you don't like "evil," find another term, then. It doesn't really matter. Words like, "destructive," "self-gratifying" (simply put: the man tends to satisfy himself and ignore his spouse), and others come to mind.
Finally, to the person whose sister rejects these statistics: these were gathered under scientific conditions. Just because you know someone who claims a different experience doesn't make that experience apply across the board.
Good heavens, didn't we learn ANYTHING from Y2K? Perfect example: a guy who was best friends with the IS director for one of Alabama's largest banks told me, point blank, that they "weren't going to make it" for Y2K.
That represents a statitical sampling of ONE. It's an anecdotal story of limited usefulness, NOT a scientifically-done survey that can be repeated.
(And of course, it goes without saying that his bank did fine over the transition; in fact, they just built a great big ol' service center to handle their expansion into the next decade[g].)
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 2000.
Observer,We agree implicitly. But I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate to me how hardcore pornography is "beneficial."
It's a proven fact that it can lead to compulsive-addictive behavior (just ask a psychologist who's treated some people for porno addiction). It follows the classic addictive profile: for example, in time, you're no longer satisfied with cute poses of smiling girls; it becomes passe'. You need more graphic stuff to become aroused. Then MORE graphic; and so on.
It's a proven FACT that porno does NOT, in general, improve marital bliss or some other such nonsense. (Again: there are exceptions, but in general -- ie, for MOST normal couples -- what I said is true.) For one thing, the man will tend to view it in private, satisfy himself and ignore his spouse.
Just because you can find exceptions doesn't make the statistics invalid. The fact that 2/3 come from abusive backgrounds automatically implies that 1/3 DIDN'T. Therefore, I would EXPECT that some people in the industry would strongly disagree with these statistics, and from personal experience. That doesn't alter the results of these studies.
Actually, porno is very troublesome for liberals in general. On the one hand, they feel the need to defend it as a free speech issue; on the other, they acknowledge that it can be degrading to women and can make them into mere sex objects.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 2000.
Hey Stephen-You said it's a proven fact that pornography is bad for marriages. Well, prove it.
-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 04, 2000.
Well, the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found, among other related things, that those convicted of sex crimes had, on average, significantly *less* exposure to sexually explicit material as a child than the average for children across the culture.Now, what this indicates to me is that when it comes to conducting studies on a subject as highly charged as this one, the motivation to find what you set out to find is nearly impossible to overcome. Just what constitutes 'abuse'? The range of reasonable definitions is broad enough to permit picking one that supports the intended findings regardless of your intent. Want evil? No problem. Want harmless? No problem. Hire me, and I'll design and conduct an objective study indicating whatever you pay me to find!
I notice that Stephen Poole is careful NOT to cite comparisons with control populations, based on identical methodological definitions. It's entirely likely that such control statistics were never collected (or at least presented), *especially* if they tend to undermine the desired conclusions. I've seen studies indicating that 70% of ALL women suffered abuse as children (paid for by those whose profession is to counsel such women. Could that have influenced the study? Nah...)
Needless to say, Poole is also careful not to attempt to quantify "public harm" in order to compare it quantitatively with any of an endless list of other materials or activities which also demonstrably cause harm to those who engage in them -- from driving cars to fast food diets. I think he senses that by comparison, exposure to pornography pales into insignificance.
So the underlying evil of pornography is implied "moral turpitude", as defined personally. Poole is commingling a matter of measurement (always-biased statistical studies of harm) with a matter of definition (whether something is right or wrong morally). He knows better than this, as he's demonstrated so well in the y2k arena.
Definitional convictions are always subject to the danger of intricate circular reasoning. If you start out KNOWING something is "bad", then of course any effect of this bad thing, either measurable or even presumptive, must perforce be a bad effect. And since the effects are bad, therefore their "cause" must be bad, QED. Look carefully enough, you can find this reasoning buried somewhere in there almost every time.
I have my own value system, and I very clearly get upset when it's violated. As Brian McLaughlin points out, I am astounded at those who don't share my values. But he's right, they aren't objective standards in any sense. Poole's position is just like mine -- a *learned* response inherent in US, and NOT in the subject matter itself.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 04, 2000.
Stephen,I don't see how you can make a categorical statement implying that pornography can't be beneficial for a marriage. All I would have to do is bring home a new tape from Blockbuster, and I'd better be ready for the ensuing action! If I did this a lot, or was obsessed with it, I might not get the same response. But on an occasional basis, it's a treat.
I agree that if someone becomes somewhat obsessed with it (usually the male) then it can cause problems. But people are inherently curious, and many are interested in an occasional look at other people's sexual techniques. Also, a lot of the newer stuff isn't as degrading to women as some of the earlier stuff. There are even some films made especially with the female audience in mind.
Regarding your statement "It's a proven FACT that porno does NOT, in general, improve marital bliss or some other such nonsense", I'm sure that my wife and many other ladies would take exception with your views.
-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 04, 2000.
"the motivation to find what you set out to find is nearly impossible to overcome..."I agree with this. We can look back at Freud's work and the Kinsey Report and find that the testing methods were skewed to reflect the conclusions desired. I forgot the name of the other testing organization, but I mentioned it in a thread regarding fidelity and marriage. How many folks are willing to admit to sex outside of marriage with their spouse at their side?
The word EVIL has a strength that goes beyond it's definition. Folks equate it with the devil incarnate. Of course the word is only used to describe people, material, situations, which they themselves find objectionable. On occasion, masses of people agree, but a lesser group disagrees. Is determination of evil a contest in popularity?
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2000.
Easy answer: evil is not inherent in things, especially inert things. Evil exists only in humans. Pornography, by almost any definition, is a set of things. So, by the narrowest definition, pornography existing only in itself is not evil.Taking the question slightly further (which I am certain is what Flynt intended), since every piece of pornography is fashioned by a human thought and a human hand for a human audience, does its mere existance require that something evil also exist within some human for it to exist?
I would say no. Pornography is a purely subjective term, similar to erotica. Except erotica is whatever I approve of, while pornography is whatever I object to. Thus, Ms. Grundy might be disgusted at Michelanngelo's statue of David for having his penis exposed to plain view. Until this definitional problem is cleared up, there is no way one can say that the existance of pornography requires the existance of evil.
The last stage of this intellectual game is to ask whether any association between pornography and evil exists at all, and if it does, is the association more in the nature of a dependency or the nature of a coincidence?
I would say that, in the more extreme cases of pornography, such as the fabled snuff films, there is not only an association but a dependency. But, the nature of that dependency originates with the sexual appetites of certain depraved people. The only method for satifying those appetities requires evil acts. The act of satisfying those appetites will always be evil. Those acts would evil whether or not pornographic materials were created to reflect them. To some extent the pornography is incidental to the evil.
So, I guess my answer is that people may be evil. Pornography will inevitably reflect its audience. Given an evil audience, it will reflect that, too, and take on an evil color.
Now, harkening back to a thread a while ago that took a left turn into the subject of child porn, there is a whole 'nother segment of the argument that covers the interaction between the audience and the pornographic material.
Actions that happen "between" people and things, like learning, have a sort of alchemical quality that is very hard to observe or quantify. I will leave it to others better versed in this nebulosity to teach me what they know about it. I've reached the territory where my ignorance provides a map with few features.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 04, 2000.
Okay:Want evil, go to EAC
Gives you a chance to join :o)
Go to it.
Best wishes,,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 04, 2000.
Stephen,For another thing, few would disagree that bread is a useful product and that the making of it is a constructive endeavor. The same can't be said of hardcore pornography.
Porn is not a constructive indeavor. Why? Because it is evil.
Actually, porno is very troublesome for liberals in general. On the one hand, they feel the need to defend it as a free speech issue; on the other, they acknowledge that it can be degrading to women and can make them into mere sex objects.
Porn degrades women. Why? Because it is evil.
I won't deny that my personal beliefs play a part, but do note that I made a distinction for *HARDCORE* porn here. I'm not talking about the girls who pose for softcore mags like Playboy.
So I guess that looking at naked women is OK, just so long as they are not touching a penis. Like I first said, what you think of porn has a LOT to do with how you view sex.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 05, 2000.
For a wonderfully penetrating look at "evil" and some surprising definitions, read M. Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie."
-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.
FutureShockWe must own the same library. People of the Lie is a great read for anyone interested in a discussion of evil.
Where has Hawk been lately? Think he is off reading The Celestine Prophecy?
-- Debra (...@....), May 05, 2000.
Stephen said:
Actually, porno is very troublesome for liberals in general. On the one hand, they feel the need to defend it as a free speech issue; on the other, they acknowledge that it can be degrading to women and can make them into mere sex objects.
It's not troubling for this liberal. And I've always had trouble with the idea that pornography can be degrading to women and make them into mere sex objects. Surely being a sex object, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? Pornography shouldn't be held responsible for the attitudes of male chauvinists who see women as nothing more than sex objects. Surely those attitudes would still exist whether pornography did or not. You can argue that pornography supports such attitudes, but I say it'll only do so if the seeds of that attitude were waiting there to be nurtured. I think you would be hard pushed to find anybody who was "converted" to seeing women as mere sex objects by pornography.
In my opinion, "normal" pornography (i.e. that showing sexual acts between consenting adults), if it degrades women, must therefore degrade men as well, since they too appear in it as "sex objects". Any men here feel degraded by pornography?
-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.
Flint,
Are you (and Deedah) kicking anthills here out of boredom? [g]
The Meese report condemned pornography seven ways to Sunday and you KNOW it. I can still remember the furor it caused when it was released -- PRECISELY because it DID condemn porno in just about any form imaginable and found all sorts of links between ANY form of porno and negative behavior.
That's of limited relevancy because, as I said clearly during the Y2K debate/debacle, I don't generally use government studies. But just for the record, go back in time and look at how that report was attacked: no one questioned the conclusions about HARDCORE pornography. Instead, they did PRECISELY what's being done here: they tried (heroically) to blur the distinction between hardcore and softcore porno.
(The average American isn't aware, either, that these terms are clearly defined, both legally and in the literature -- perhaps with a subjective standard, but defined, nonetheless.)
Pro-pornography groups love to blur that distinction, because then they can engage in sophistry and tautological debating tricks like the ones here, as well as the usual, "oh, you want to put pasties on the paintings down at the local museum and remove the pictures from medical journals?"
I've got TONS of work to do; I've spent too much time on this as it is. I'll take my parting shots and let everyone else have at it. But also for the record, the statistics that I've quoted here came from properly-done scientific studies.
If we were talking about one or two studies done by special interest groups with an axe to grind (as you imply), you might have an argument. I'm not. That "2/3" figure is surprisingly consistent in every legitimate (ex., non-government[g]) study that I've seen.
I'm not deliberately ignoring anything about this, I assure you.
Back to thing about addiction. Fortunately, many people are stopped (say, when they're discovered by a family member, or when they get their first credit card bill for those "free" porn Web sites!) before they begin descending to the hardcore (and illegal) porn level -- violent sex, incestual and rape fantasies, child porn, etc.
But a few don't and mental health professionals have had to develop TREATMENTS for these people. This increases the irony: we have the general public (trying to be "kewl" and progressive, don'tcha know) pretending that a problem doesn't exist while counseling centers all over the place deal with this "non-problem" on a daily basis.
Is that enough to brand pornography "evil?" You decide. I've given you my opinion. I'll close with a few samples of properly-done studies selected pretty much at random.
Psychologist Edward Donnerstein of the University of Wisconsin found that even brief exposure to violent forms of pornography could lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. Male viewers tended to be more aggressive toward women and less responsive to pain and suffering of rape victims, and more willing to accept various myths about rape. (Donnerstein, "Pornography and Violence Against Women," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 347 (1980), 277-88. It's not on the Web; you'll have to go to a good college library.)
Donnerstein's study found a clear link between violent porno and "increased fantasies about rape and desensitation to sexual violence" in general (including the inaccurate, ludicrous and offensive idea -- frequently a theme in violent porn -- that women secretly "enjoy" getting raped; that it's a fantasy of theirs).
Ted Bundy mentions the FBI's own studies in the quote below. They don't advertise this, but it's part of their "profile" for serial killers and rapists: if they go to the suspect's apartment and see porn all over the place, that suspect immediately moves from "possible" to "likely." Did you know that?
James Check of York University in Canada did a similar study for the Canadian Dept. of Justice in which both violent and non-violent porno were examined. He exposed men to different degrees of pornography, some violent, some not. His conclusion was even more stark: "ALL groups exhibited ... [a] shift in attitude, namely, a higher inclination to use force as part of sex."
The bottom line is, this is one of those deep, dark Politically Incorrect secrets that no one wants to talk about. Porno addiction? "Hah! Don't be silly!" It's just not kewl to talk like that, is it?
Tough. People who think that hardcore pornography is "just sex" are wrong. Sexual intimacy is a gift from God intended to be enjoyed (yes, ENJOYED: GOD is the one who made it feel good, after all!) by married couples. Hardcore porno, BY DEFINITION, has none of that: there's no intimacy or love involved. It's just the raw sex act (or worse).
(Comparing normal marital relations to hardcore porno is like comparing the mass-produced Sloppy Joes in a high school cafeteria with a properly aged and grilled steak. They're both beef, but that's about it.)
But enough of this. People so badly want to believe that our problem is Victorian repression (or some other such nonsense) that they ignore the results of dozens of scientific studies. The numbers CLEARLY show that pornography is not just a harmless form of "adult entertainment."
Does this make it "evil?" In my opinion -- and on THAT point, I'll admit that's all it is; my OPINION -- yes. You can certainly disagree. But I've answered the original poster's question.
Now: just so I can use my own anecdotal story, I'll finish with this little cut and paste from a TV interview that Ted Bundy, the infamous child stalker, did a few years ago:
As a young boy, and I mean a boy of 12 or 13, I encountered . . . in the local grocery store, in the local drugstore, the soft-core pornography that people call soft porn. . . . Once you become addicted to pornography, and this is a kind of addiction, I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit material, more graphic kinds of material. . . .You begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it . . . Ive lived in prison for a long time now and Ive met a lot of men who are motivated to violence just like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved with pornography without exception -- without exception -- deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction. The FBIs own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography.
(Now: if you say, "oh, so you're claiming that pornography automatically leads to serial murder or rape," I'll truly despair of you getting the point here ...)
I've got to get to work.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 2000.
Part of the problem is that we are in two separate arenas. Sex and it's various attendants are biological in nature, while the concepts of good and evil are essentually abstract ideas. It's like grading apples on their math ability. Apples are apples, and will be apples whether we as civilized man, think them "smart" or "stupid".But, "evil", as it may apply to pornagraphy, is not about sex at all. It's about power. The power to have someone do something against their will. The power to exploit. The power to tell people how to think. The power to control.
And whether this particular concept of "evil" (mine), is manifested as sexual abuse through porn, or political tyranny, or religeous dogma, it's still about power.
So, to me, your question, "is porn evil?" whould better be, "does porn have the capacity to be evil?". And the answer, of course, is yes. But once we start down that path, it becomes very slippery indeed.
Is porn evil? Is homosexuality evil? Is beastiality evil? Is abstenance evil? Is religion evil? Is Catholicism evil? Is Paganism evil? Are black people evil? Are white people evil? Are all people evil?
Once we make the jump from "evil" to "capable of evil", the mesh in our net gets very fine. Once we take an abstract lable and affix it to an action, boundaries begin to disappear. "Evil" and evil actions are part of our society, and the best we can do to define them, is through law, based on our particular mores and tempered with our experience. But, laws are an abstract idea, an instrument of control. Is Law evil? (The Chinese fi
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 05, 2000.
.....firedril continues)Damn Internet Explorer!
-----------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 05, 2000.
How about someone defining Pornography and Soft-Core and Hard-Core Porn? The lines seem to be getting blurred here as the discourse progresses. Does Pornography apply only to situations of dominance, degredation, or exercising power over others? Not to me, it doesn't. Besides being subjective, it's definition (at least here) is getting to be too general. How about some suggested definitions or even the aforementioned legal definition?
-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 05, 2000.
Stephen said:
James Check of York University in Canada did a similar study for the Canadian Dept. of Justice in which both violent and non- violent porno were examined. He exposed men to different degrees of pornography, some violent, some not. His conclusion was even more stark: "ALL groups exhibited ... [a] shift in attitude, namely, a higher inclination to use force as part of sex."
What sort of men were these? They sound like the sort of men who, if exposed to guns, would exhibit a shift in attitude, namely a higher inclination to go and use those guns to commit criminal violence. Something's not quite right here.
In any case, your argument seems to be that pornography is evil because it encourages anti-social or violent behaviour in men. Sort of shifting the blame from the person to the object, in rather the same way as some anti-gun fanatics shift the blame from the violent criminal to his firearm (I was going to say "weapon", but thought better of it in the context of this discussion!), and label that "evil" instead. If that's what you're doing, then I have to disagree with you. (And for the record, I'm actually pro-gun control myself.)
-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.
Doesn't the guilt associated with it being 'bad' contribute to its popularity & allure?
-- flora (***@__._), May 05, 2000.
Stephen:In the interesting, albeit lengthy discussion regarding the studies you mentioned, Li nz, Malamuth, and Beckett point out that the Meese Report ignored all evidence contrary to their "desired" conclusion, and that Donnerstein's lab studies revealed an attitude change that was only temporary in nature. This is consistent with my OWN "study" of temporary attitude change experienced immediately after I view films such as "Code Name Dancer", "Last Kiss Goodnight", etc. For a period ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, I feel invincible, and quite capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound.
In addition, further studies have demonstrated that violence was the factor that produced increased aggression, with sexual explicitness playing little or no role at all.
The studies both mixed sexual explicitness with violence in determining their findings. When my kids weren't quite old enough to view "R" rated films unattended, I checked the reasoning behind the "R" rating. One of the kids had a friend whose mother asked the same question, but we differed on which reason was more important. The other mother would allow her kids to see films rated "R" due to violence, but wouldn't allow them to see films rated "R" due to sex. My opinion was just the opposite. I felt sex to be a normal function in humans, but violence an abnormal function.
To answer the questions regarding differences between soft-porn and hard-porn, the porn questioned in the studies was referenced as HARD. This rating indicated forceful acts of power and included areas in the range of defecation/urination on a victim [in an attempt to degrade them], moving along to rape and finally to snuff films. One wouldn't find these types of films at the local video store, or playing at the local porn theatre, or even on the internet.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.
Anita:Thanks for the link. While long and extremely academic, it nonetheless makes it clear that Stephen Poole has started with his foregone conclusion, and has (in the words of Malamuth et. al.) "sought first to advance a political or moral position and then tried to support these positions with the necessary scientific evidence. When the evidence has been consistent they have emphasized it; when it has proven contrary to their case they have usually chosen to ignore it or to denigrate its value."
Now, just HOW did the doomers support their case for y2k catastrophe? The irony of Poole using these exact same techniques for the exact same reason is delicious! Here is someone who applied skepticism with deadly accuracy when he approached a topic without preconceptions, yet commits the same errors he saw so clearly in others when his religion is steering him. Poole provides us with a marvelous insight into WHY the doomers got it so wrong.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 2000.
Flint:I LIKE Stephen, so I don't want this to become an issue of Stephen being incorrect, so much as the studies he chose as examples being incorrect. One only has to look on the internet to see that the Christian Right has referred to these studies extensively because they supported their value system.
As with Y2k, I reviewed Stephen's posts and noticed conflicts with my life experiences. My first experience with pornography occurred when I was in my early 20's. I was a young programmer working in the Chicago loop, and just about everyone passed an "Art" theatre on the way from the train to the office. One day, [for whatever reason], four other programmers and I began discussing what type of movie might be played at this theatre. We concluded that it was porn and none of us had ever seen porn. We decided to attend one day on our lunch hour. We walked into the theatre somewhere into the plot [?] and saw/heard much heaving/moaning from the screen. Since I was the only female in this group of five, I quickly said, "Just keep your hands where I can see them." as we took our seats. We watched, the film ended, and we left. I didn't see any unusual behavior in my co- workers. I didn't even see anyone with a need to perhaps hold a newspaper discretely around the waist.
I married, and on occasion my spouse would bring home the classics, such as "Debbie does Dallas", or a few others. We watched these together, and I must admit, some of them stimulated the loins in BOTH of us. As time moved on, I met co-workers who had what I'd consider porn addictions. I think I mentioned in one of Dr. Bill's threads the boss I had wherein I knocked and turned my head before entering his office. On that same contract, I had a co-worker who regularly checked out porn sites as well as local strip joints. Everyone knew this about him.
The co-workers mentioned have maintained marriages of 25 years or more now. They never moved on to even CONSIDER degrading women in any way, nor were they inclined to commit violent acts. The porn/stip joint lover is even adopting a little girl from Guatemala now [which *I* think is nuts at his age, but we're all different.]
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.
"Sexual intimacy is a gift from God intended to be enjoyed (yes, ENJOYED: GOD is the one who made it feel good, after all!) by married couples. Hardcore porno, BY DEFINITION, has none of that: there's no intimacy or love involved. It's just the raw sex act (or worse)."--Sorry, Steven, but this statement renders all your other ones as being highly suspect, as also inferred by Flint, and to a lesser extent, Anita. I suppose I'm stereotyping you, but this sounds to me like you have a religious agenda here. I personally have ENJOYED having sex with quite a few females of various ages, only three of whom to whom I was married (separate times-one wife is more trouble than I need, much less multiple wives). Why do you fell that you need to tell us that sex is MEANT to be enjoyed by "married" couples.
First of all, I've had some really fine sex, when I was younger and between wives, which was almost purely for lust--by myself AND my partners. Other sex involved a lot more than lust. But if I had it to do over again, I'd still go for the lusty women, without benefit of marriage, although, considering all the nasty diseases which are now available, I'm certain that I'd be a bit more discriminaing than I was in the sixties and seventies. Secondly, what about homosexuals? Your judgement that sex is to be enjoyed by a married couple extrapolates to saying that homosexuals should remain celibate. Ha! Real likely!
Anita, I agree with you about the difference between violence and sex. Totally. But I don't think you can make a valid argument from the histories of your coworkers' lives. I doubt if they'd tell you if they were having some kind of kinky, violence filled sexual escapades.
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 05, 2000.
The Meese Commission concluding that porn is evil is akin to The Gates Commission concluding that Internet Explorer is the best web browser.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 05, 2000.
JJ:"I doubt if they'd tell you if they were having some kind of kinky, violence filled sexual escapades."
I'd like to think they spared me SOMETHING myself. Sometimes during those multi-day installs, I found myself saying [to myself] "Did I REALLY want to know this?" None of them are young anymore, however, so if they were able to hide their indiscretions from society THIS long, they're a few steps ahead of many others.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.
So Unc, what limits would you put on porn? I bet you wouldn't approve of it being in grade schools. I bet you wouldn't approve of sadistic porn, kiddie porn, animal porn, crip porn, snuff flicks. Where do you draw the line and, more importantly, WHY? What do you say to the pedaphile who claims that you have no right to inflict your values on him and the "consenting" child? How about some hard core porn on this forum? ("tastefully" done of course).
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 06, 2000.
JOJ, you said,only three of whom to whom I was married
This may be too personal, and if so please don't respond, but WHY would you get married again after two previous failed marriages? I could see you saying the first was due to youth, inexperience, finding the wrong person for the wrong reasons, etc., but after two times? What made you go for round 3?
To All:
I consider Porno evil because I wouldn't want my kids doing it. This may not be a profound definition, but it works for me. Not that I'd BAN "consenting" adults from doing what they want, but I sure wouldn't recommend exposing oneself :-) to it. After all, GIGO.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2000.
"Snuff Porn" is just another urban legend. There's never been an honest to goodness snuff film produced.Can't Get Enough Of That Wonderful Snuff
"All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product.
(Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.)"
-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 06, 2000.
Frank:Although the question re: 3x married was to Joe, I would like to add my 2 cents worth if I may.
Basically because I too am on 3rd.
It applies a little to this thread:
Marriage #1 = 17 yrs old, mom dying of cancer, had a yr old son, met man thru friend, was terrified of how to live w/out mom, and mom felt best I marry him, took me to get license and the rest is history.
Marriage #2 = Married 4 yours after 1st divorce, hubby addicted to porn, I did not like it, used porn more than me. He allowed my sons to come into contact with it. He Left me for a blonde.
Marriage #3 = After much prayer, waited till marriage nite, WOW. Just celebrated 7 Great years. Will be with him till death do we part, he is the BOMB.
Just my 2 cents worth. Do not misunderstand me, I am not blaming porn for collapse of marriage, but it did create a problem.
IMHO when is porn evil? When a man would rather utilize porn instead of his wife.
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 06, 2000.
Lars,I draw the line at children, both as participants and viewers. And as to why, well, they are hardly consenting adults are they? I find the type of porn you listed distasteful, but certainly no more inherently evil than, oh, pictures of war dead splayed across the battlefield.
So here is a question: Are pictures of the Holocaust evil? Or are disturbing images evil only when they depict sex?
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 06, 2000.
Consumer,Congrats on how everything turned out, and thanks for sharing what didn't. With the extra info, it is easily understandable.
Unc,
I wouldn't say that pictures of the Holocaust were evil, they are just paper. The Holocaust itself was evil, and pictures are a depiction of it.
If the pictures of the Holocaust were used to show people what humans can do to each other, what evil they can commit towards each other, and then used as a lesson of what NOT to repeat again, then I'd say that the images weren't evil, just graphic.
OTOH, if the same pictures were used by Neo-Nazis to show what SHOULD be done with Jews and minorities TODAY and the Holocaust pictures were portrayed in a positive light, then that is evil, based on the users intent.
How does this apply to porno? Similarly, if some social science class is dissecting the rationale for various porno, airbrushing techniques or whatever, that wouldn't be evil. OTOH, people *using porno to a prurient end* is what makes porno evil. The intent of the user.
Long winded,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2000.
Anita, I assumed that, since you know me so well by now, that I was not casting aspersions on your friends. It appears that you did know that.Your saying "if they were able to hide their indiscretions from society THIS long, they're a few steps ahead of many others." is so true. I'm really not trying to say that there is some reason to think they were anything but honest with you, either. Just that, in general, people often hide sides of themselves that they think will not meet with approval by their friends and relatives, I think.Frank said, "This may be too personal, and if so please don't respond, but WHY would you get married again after two previous failed marriages? I could see you saying the first was due to youth, inexperience, finding the wrong person for the wrong reasons, etc., but after two times? What made you go for round 3?"
Frank, it's not too personal. I'm still try to figure it out myself, sometimes. I'm either a slow learner, a glutton for punishment, or "third time's a charm". The latter answer is the one I prefer. But to tell you the truth, it only explains why I am LIVING WITH my wife, not why I MARRIED her. I really have no use for the marriage philosophy, insofar as it represents approval by the church, the state, or someone's friends and relatives. My fiance gave me an ultimatum: either we had to get married, or we had to draw up a prenuptial agreement. My choice. I chose marriage because it was a lot less paperwork. We were married down on a sandbar on the bank of our creek, surrounded by friends (one of whom married us), alder trees, wild azaleas, our kids, our relatives and our dog. It was actually pretty fun.
The first marriage was the "and the lived happily ever" kind of fairy tale marriage I had been led to believe was how my life should be lived, but reality struck. I was too young, she was too young. She was too submissive. It was nice, in some ways, to have such a submissive wife, but the relationship was too similar to having a pet dog. If I said "sit", she'd sit. And so on.
Number two was a marriage of income tax evasion. Didn't last long; wasn't really supposed to, I guess.
Number three is still putting up with me, after twenty years of marriage, and two years of prenuptial "living in sin". While our relationship has plenty of bumps and scrapes, neither of us wants to go through training some sweet young thing again.
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 06, 2000.
Frank,Forgive me if I'm a tad dull, are you agreeing with me?
If people *using porn to a prurient* end makes porn evil because of the INTENT of the user, and if porn being dissected by a social science class for whatever reason is not evil, then it is not the porn that is evil, it's what the viewer reads into it. Thus, porn cannot in and of itself be evil, UNLESS you enjoy it!. Joseph Heller would love that one, "Yosarian, you cannot read the porn unless you do not wish to read the porn. Only poeple who do not wish to read the porn are allowed, if you wish to read the porn, you are not allowed."
Let me change one word in your opening statement if I may;
I wouldn't say that pictures of the Holocaust (gang bang) were evil, they are just paper.
Which is what I've said from the begining, how you see porn depends on how you view sex. If a person thinks that there is something evil in getting pleasure from viewing sexually explicit pictures, it reflects on that person's attitude about sex. For if the porn is indeed "just pictures" then the pictures themselves simply cannot be evil, they just "are".
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 06, 2000.
Careful now uncle dee, you are getting 'deep'....
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 06, 2000.
JOJ,THX.
Unc,
I doubt that you're dull, but I was NOT agreeing with you. In your earlier post on the Holocaust, you said,
Are pictures of the Holocaust evil?
What I meant was, the *pictures themselves* are not evil, the act of committing the Holocaust was. As to porn, the *actual items of pornography* are not evil, they are just material objects. The act of producing it was (as was the actual taking of life in the Holocaust), as is its intended use (in this case prurient).
Maybe I'm the one missing the boat, but it doesn't seem like a Catch-22 to me.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 07, 2000.
Flint,I'm pleased that I could amuse you. :) I, in my turn, am amused at the tack that you've taken here: you don't directly address those factoids which I've posted, you've simply waved a magic hand to dismiss them and have then concluded that Stephen feels as he does primarily because of his religious beliefs.
You obviously feel that I'm unable to reach an objective conclusion about something like this. Heh. That's all I can say to that.
Believe it not, sometimes even liberals produce valid studies. So do conservatives. If the study is done scientifically, it should at least be given consideration. The arguments should apply to INTERPRETING the results, not necessarily to the data themselves (unless there's evidence of taint or tampering, of course).
And did I not say that I didn't use government studies as sources -- including the Meese study? And yet, you link me to the Meese report, act as though I defend it and imply that I am using it to support my beliefs! Heh.
(Does the term "strawman" ring a bell?[g])
Anita,
I am confused. Why do you think the Linz, Malamuth and Becket article contradicts what I've said here? It primarily addresses censorship (to which I am opposed, by the way) and basically, once you cut through the smoke, simply urges members of their profession not to get involved in political debates about porno! :)
I've been summarizing and leaving a lot of details out because I'm trying (and generally failing[g]) not to write three-page epistles with each post. There are dozens of factors here (some of which you touch on in your story about the trip to the theater: if a person is exposed to porno, but then immediately returns to their routine, the effects are diminished).
Whether the results of Donnerstein's study applied only in the short term is irrelevant to my main point. To make it personal, if you happen to the recipient of the attentions of an "agressive" male during that "short" period after viewing the video, you won't enjoy it very much.
That article also admits that there ARE studies which demonstrate long-term effects, too. They then try to argue that, overall, the evidence is "non-conclusive" ... and at this point, I would maintain that *THEY* are the ones who are applying *THEIR* political and personal beliefs to empirical evidence.
(Hey, they're human, too.)
But enough of this. My OPINION is that pornography is evil. I realize you may not like my choice of term; I apologize for that. It's quick, dirty and makes the point. :)
I stand by what I said above.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 07, 2000.
Stephen:I found your response a bit confusing. You said at first that you didn't GENERALLY use government studies, but Meese and Donnerstein were the only studies you presented here. You then went on to defend the Meese report, stating something about how they presented multiple arguments to state that pornography was definitely associated with aggressive behavior, using Donnerstein to support that. Linz, Malamuth, and Beckett DID point out that the Meese report ignored studies contrary to their conclusions. Of COURSE they suggested that the evidence is inconclusive...because it IS.
Regarding being subjected to someone in the temporary state of aggression, this would apply to areas outside of pornography as well. If I've just dropped a hammer on my foot, my kids would think twice about asking me for a favor. Does ANYONE move from a state of agitation immediately into a state of complacence?
It seems to me that we've gone beyond questioning pornography to questioning pornography addiction, and how can we single out pornography addiction without addressing OTHER addictions?
The same arguments used against pornography addiction apply to OTHER addictions, but they're used to define the addictive activities as "evil", even though the majority of people can indulge in the same activities to a lesser degree with no ill effects.
We've seen data indicating that some music, video games, TV programs, internet sites, etc. bring out aggressive tendencies in some individuals. The data blames the activities rather than questioning why MOST individuals can engage in the same activities with NO ill effects.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.
Frank,Thank you for agreeing with me again.
You said, "As to porn, the *actual items of pornography* are not evil, they are just material objects. The act of producing it was (as was the actual taking of life in the Holocaust),
So if it is the act of producing the porn that is evil, and not the pictures themselves, the evil is in the making, which is a sexual thing. In other words, if you see a picture of a guy having sex with a sheep as evil, it is because of how you view the sex act. But in a culture that accepted screwing sheep as healthy the same picture would not be seen as evil. It would go from being a picture of evil to just a picture of sex.
as is its intended use (in this case prurient).
So if porn is evil, it's because it is intended to produce a sexual response. And producing a sexual response is evil because lust is evil. And lust is evil because it leads to "un-wholesome" or illicit sex, which as I've stated, depends upon how you view sex, and sexual gratification.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 07, 2000.
Mr. Poole --I would greatly appreciate your clarification in reference to this statement earlier on this thread:
"The average American isn't aware, either, that these terms are clearly defined, both legally and in the literature -- perhaps with a subjective standard, but defined, nonetheless."
The reason I would like your clarification is this: I am unaware of any legal 'clear definition' of pornography at the Federal level. To what definition or definitions were you referring? Perhaps a state or local definition? Or perhaps a definition used by some other group or organization?
Please elaborate, if you would.
-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), May 07, 2000.
Unc,Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the *end intent* determined good vs. evil, my point was that both the production is evil, and the use is evil.
We agree on the fact that a roll of film is in itself not evil.
And I don't think pornography represents just the filming of a sex act, or I wouldn't think it's "evil". My question to you would be "have you talked to an 18 y/o girl lately?" I have, and I can say that while kids that age may legally be adults, to me in some ways they are still kids. To allow their exploitation in this fashion is evil, end of story.
You may not agree, but that's my .02. BTW, I *DO* take time out from my busy schedule to go to jury duty when asked to...
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 08, 2000.
Frank,I do not really know any 18 year old girls, we do not have kids. I consider adults age 21.
To allow their exploitation in this fashion is evil, end of story.
I guess I'm not too good at making a point, which was partly that if you see porn as evil, you will see it as exploitation. And if you see it as not evil, then it is not exploitation. Anyhow, I'm about talked out on this one, maybe Flint can step in here, hee hee.
BTW, I *DO* take time out from my busy schedule to go to jury duty when asked to...
Huh? Where did that come from?
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.
PS, So do I, I've served four times in the last seven years.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.
I hate to say this, but 18 is an adult, in the eyes of the law. You can buy a house, get married, go to war, and go to jail at the age of eighteen, and no one has a problem with these things. Heck, you can even mortgage your future through student loans and no one will stop you. So why is it that people are getting their undies in a wad over nude photographs?
-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.
Unk,With regard to juries, while half the time I can't decide if people are posting to play Devil's advocate or are serious, this comment was *meant* to imply I would be happy to *act* on my beliefs. On rereading though, it is a *bit* cryptic.
Ruth,
Because some of us (make that *I*) think it's evil to produce and distribute. As you point out, 18 is the age we can send people to war. If it was 25 as a minimum age to join the Services, do you think we'd have more calls to fight, or less?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 08, 2000.
If the minimum age for the service were twenty-five, we would see people futher infantilizing people under the age of twenty-five and using that as a reason to censor porn. I can hear it now, "The so- called 'women' who are victimized by appearing in these movies aren't even of an age to fight for our country, and yet we see no problem allowing them to be involved with this trash,"
-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.