Comic books = pornography?

[Cinorjer]

In August, the conviction of a Dallas bookstore manager became final, for selling obscenity in the form of adult science-fiction comic books; the sales were to adults in an adults-only section, but the prosecutor's main argument about the books's alleged "danger" was merely that comic books are an art form of general appeal to children. [Chicago Sun-Times, 7-29-03]

What's with the people down South? It's been a long time since comic books were "for kids." In today's world, most comics are marketed to and bought by grown men. For that matter, why should the fact that something is in the form of a comic book automatically make it designed for children? This kind of thing just gives me another item on my list of reasons never to move down south.

[Cleopatra]

Hmmmm is the Art of Milo Manara or Guido Crepax pornographic?

On the other hand are their comics appropriate for children?

[Hexxenhammer]

That's bull-plop. They need to go arrest every Barnes & Noble manager for selling "Heavy Metal" then.

[Cleopatra]

That's a good idea :D And when they are finished with Heavy Metal they must continue with Country music :D

[zakur]

More on this case here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11278

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
That's a good idea :D And when they are finished with Heavy Metal they must continue with Country music :D

Very funny my queen :D. Heavy Metal is also the name of a comic magazine with a bunch of naked women in it. It's sold at most magazine racks.

[Cleopatra]

LOL LOL

Of course I had no idea :)

Thanks for the clarification although the idea of banning Heavy Metal made me--even for an hour-- optimistic about the future of Western Civilization :D

[Mocker Wall]

Is Heavy Metal still sold now a days? I haven't seen a issue since the '80's.

[Hexxenhammer]

Oh sure. It's published by Kevin Eastman of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fame.

[Cinorjer]

The fact is, over the last year we've seen the beginning of another big campaign against pornography by both state and federal agencies. Hey, we have elections coming up! Let's get the people worked up about a safe issue. Pornography in all its forms has always been a thorn in the side of people who have never believed that the constitutional right to free speech should extend to "those nasty perverts." The religious conservatives lost this battle badly in the past, and would love to see a rematch in the Ashcroft era. For them, free speech only extends to people who are saying and showing things they don't mind watching.

Consider: Ashcroft has ordered his legal army to start bringing obscenity cases to the courts. Pornographic film companies in California have been shut down (and since product is readily available from overseas, what did that accomplish except headlines?) Just recently, they've decided to put together another task force to go after people who swap dirty pictures over the net, in the name of "ridding the world of child pornography", of course. Who can argue with that?

[LW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hmmmm is the Art of Milo Manara or Guido Crepax pornographic?

I can't now remember any particular story by Crepax, but as for Manara, he certainly has some stories that I'd classify as pornography.

[DrMatt]

Is the art of August Rodin pornographic? How about the art of Michelangelo? Paul Gaugin? Leonardo da Vinci?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LW

I can't now remember any particular story by Crepax

The great "Valentina"! She doesn't hesitate to take her clothes off whenever she thinks that it's the only way to save her country :)

but as for Manara, he certainly has some stories that I'd classify as pornography.

I happen to be a great fan of Milo Manara's work. Certainly he is walking on the edges and sometimes he crosses them but the aesthetic value of his work is so high that it doesn't really bothers you.

I think that what distinguishes pornography from art is the aesthetics.

Pornography is vulgar and it addresses the insticts. Erotic Art addresses the intelect.

At least this is how I see it, unless you persuade me on the contrary because I do not have a fixed opinion about the issue.

[Rayn]

Of course comic books can become "pornography."

Look at some of R. Crumbs works. Although I personally believe they're fantastic, I definitely wouldn't give them to my little sister (a minor) to read. However, I personally view these works as satirical, reflecting society through a different lens. I would like to think that they could be seen as addressing "intellect" and encouraging intelligent conversation, however, for the lowest common denominator that is the majority of the public, Crumbs works and others like him would be considered pornography. Personally, I don't see how the case could be brought as far as the sale was to adults and there was an adults-only section. Also, comic books are not just for kids, graphic novels are definitely sold to more adults than kids nowadays.

[Glory]

What is the legal definition of a comic book? If there isn't a definition of comic book than one cannot hope to determine wether or not a particular work appeals to children.

I didn't know that being appealing to children meant one had to be G rated. There are lots of movies which, while being inappropriate for children, are appealing to them. Likewise books, posters, clothing, music...I don't want my choices limited to whatever a court decides is appropriate for children.

This decision is obscene.

Glory

[Temporal Renegade]

Parents can NOT just turn their kids loose in a shop, and then act shocked and surprised when the kid brings something home that they deem obscene or improper. Whether it's a comic, or a CD, DVD, a book, etc., if the parents don't have the smarts to take an active interest in what their offspring are doing, it's their fault. Period.

Granted, some shop owners don't care, as long as they get their money. If that's the case, then they deserve to be arrested and punished, much like someone selling a HUSTLER to someone who looks 15, and can't produce I.D.

Kids, for the most part, don't care, because they know that they are the last ones to get in trouble in this type of situation; blame falls to the parents, the seller, and the producer of the material in question. No one really seems to want to nail the kid (who should know better), for whatever reason. When I was a teen, if I bought something my parents didn't think was appropriate, whoever sold it was taken to task; but, the REAL heat came down on ME.

Pornographic? Maybe some...but, that's why things are LABELED now, to help prevent this from going on.
Besides, if you don't like it, don't read it.

[Cinorjer]

Pornography, in and of itself, is not illegal. Playboy is pornographic, and that only means it must be restricted to adults. The crime these cases fall under is obscenity, and there lies the problem. What is obscene is whatever a jury decides is obscene. It's so broadly defined in a legal sense that conviction is almost certain. The guiding law as laid down by the Supreme Court uses archaic language that basically boils down to: does the average citizen (whoever that is) find the material contains images or discriptions that might excite people sexually, and does the material taken as a whole have no redeeming social value. Obscenity is illegal where local laws say it is, even if seen and marketed only to adults.

Obviously the jury in this case is no fan of Japanese Manga. Have one shocking scene in a story, and you're toast. The problem from a civil rights standpoint is that this is censorship allowed not because it harms someone (such as child pornography), but because it offends the community. Even if the obscene material is looked at in private, even if it's sold through the mail so nobody but the buyer sees it. It's enough that a certain segment of the community doesn't even want it in your house.

And we're going to hear more and more about Ashcroft's war against the evil obscene pornography infesting our nation. Gotta get those roght wing religious conservatives voting for Bush, Inc., after all.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade

Granted, some shop owners don't care, as long as they get their money. If that's the case, then they deserve to be arrested and punished, much like someone selling a HUSTLER to someone who looks 15, and can't produce I.D.


How does viewing pornography harm people of any age? Does it cause cancer?

[BrianT]

How does viewing pornography harm people of any age? Does it cause cancer?
Wingnuts are afraid it could lead to independent thinking.

[LW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The great "Valentina"! She doesn't hesitate to take her clothes off whenever she thinks that it's the only way to save her country

I know for certain that I've read at least few Crepax stories as I recognize the name, but I simply can't remember names or storylines.

I happen to be a great fan of Milo Manara's work. Certainly he is walking on the edges and sometimes he crosses them but the aesthetic value of his work is so high that it doesn't really bothers you.

The main thing about Manara that bothers me is that in many of his stories the plot is only an excuse to draw as many naked women as possible. While I certainly have nothing against naked women, I would like a comic to also have a coherent storyline.

Some of the albums that he coauthored with Pratt were rather good. They look like Pratt wrote the plot and drew all men while Manara drew all women. Especially the album about the Indian war (can't remember the original name, translated to Finnish as Intiaanikesä "Summer of Indians") looks like this.

[b]I think that what distinguishes pornography from art is the aesthetics.
Pornography is vulgar and it addresses the insticts. Erotic Art addresses the intelect.[/n]

There's a rough guideline that applies to movies:

If there's a beautiful French woman who softly whispers: "slower, slower", it is erotic.

However, if there is a fat moustached German named Horst shouting: "faster, faster", it is porn.

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by LucyR


How does viewing pornography harm people of any age? Does it cause cancer?

Only from a legal standpoint; I used to work in a comic shop, and we had all the 'adult' material in a seperate area, with signs that clearly marked it as such. We did have someome there who sold a kid an 'adults only' book, and the owner fired them on the spot--it was either that, or risk getting the place closed. We also, however, had a dad with his son, and gave his OK for his kid to read them. He figured, if the kid's going to do it, I might as well know in advance.

My (rather convoluted) point is, if a shop is closed because of someone breaking the (admittedly vague) law, it's the employees that are S.O.L. It's a matter of self-preservation; why risk getting busted and losing your job for a few dollars?
Personally, if someone wants to view porn, that's up to them. I don't pass that judgement on anyone (having viewed my fair share in the past:roll: )
Besides, it's mostly all the same anyway---seen one, seen just about all.

[kourama]

Why Cleopatra! I had no idea!

We have quite a bit in common.

I think Manara is excellent, and I would classify some of his stuff as pornography, as it is obviously intended to be sexually arousing, but I also think it falls under the category of what you describe as "Erotic Art".

One of Manara's 'Clic' stories ended with a fisting scene. That's pretty pornogprahic IMO.

I've seen crepax stuff too, and remember liking it, but nothing sticks in my mind like Manara's stuff. He's gifted.

As far as arresting people for selling pornography to children, can I get my local christian bookstore closed for selling a RSV bible which contains descriptions of people eating faeces (Isaiah 36:12), and voluminous ejaculation and giant penises (Ezekiel 23:20-21)???

[zakur]

Originally posted by kourama
As far as arresting people for selling pornography to children.. A couple of people have mentioned this, and I just want to clarify that this was not what happened in this case. Castillo was arrested for selling an adult comic, from the adult section of the store, to an adult police officer, and convicted because the DA convinced the jury that all "comic books ... are for kids." This case was NOT about selling pornography to kids.

http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml

[Bikewer]

Dabbling as I do in the arts, I've read quite a bit on the history of the comic-book industry. Back in the 30's, the burgeoning comic-book market led to the release of more and more graphic material, much of it of the "true romance" sort.

Naturally, parents began to get upset.... a presage of Tipper Gore, pehaps.

This eventually led to the adoption of the "comic code", which prohibited almost everything in the comic-book format. (Very similar to the Hayes Commision work on movie conduct)

The editor of "Mad", then putting the satiric rag up as a comic-sized volume, simply changed it's format slightly, calling it a "magazine", and continuing to publish rather inflammatory material without restriction.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Dabbling as I do in the arts, I've read quite a bit on the history of the comic-book industry. Back in the 30's, the burgeoning comic-book market led to the release of more and more graphic material, much of it of the "true romance" sort.

Naturally, parents began to get upset.... a presage of Tipper Gore, pehaps.

This eventually led to the adoption of the "comic code", which prohibited almost everything in the comic-book format. (Very similar to the Hayes Commision work on movie conduct)

The editor of "Mad", then putting the satiric rag up as a comic-sized volume, simply changed it's format slightly, calling it a "magazine", and continuing to publish rather inflammatory material without restriction.

The comics code clearly defined "comic book" as being of a certain size amongst other criteria. What, I must wonder is the definition used in the Castillo case?

Glory

[Bikewer]

Dunno- There seem to be a lot of different formats available now. We have the "graphic novel", for instance.

I'm quite a fan of comic erotica, those Italian lads like Manara do nice work. I'm also fond of Michael Manning, who works in a more graphic black & white style.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LucyR


How does viewing pornography harm people of any age? Does it cause cancer?

Being a great fan of Erotic Art I feel the need to address that :)

Yes, pornography harms people.

First of all, pornography is a 8-10 billion $ business with close ties to organized crime.

According to many many surveys the psychological effects of pornography are tremendous.

A series of surveys have found that exposure to violent forms of p. can lead to anti-social behavior; males tend to become more aggressive towards women, less responsive to pain and suffering of rape victims and the most important is that they are willing to accept various myths about rape.

So, we can't accept pornography just like that.

I could have mentioned more side-effects of p. but I leave it for now, just one hint , in the most cases of violent incidents against children, the perpetrators were in possession of large quantity of pornographic material...

Kourama, yes of course I agree that recent stories of Milo Manara are just a pretense for sketching more nude women.

LW "The Indian summer" is a classic, as for your example of the whispering French woman and the shouting moustached German... I intend to quote you as often as possible :D

[LucyR]

Typically I ignore your posts as I consider you to be one of the more weak-minded people on this forum.

Your most recent drivel merely confirms my impression of you.

[Cleopatra]

Are you addressing to me?

If you do, please be more soft I am risking to lose my sleep right now....

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Being a great fan of Erotic Art I feel the need to address that :)

Yes, pornography harms people.

First of all, pornography is a 8-10 billion $ business with close ties to organized crime.

According to many many surveys the psychological effects of pornography are tremendous.

A series of surveys have found that exposure to violent forms of p. can lead to anti-social behavior; males tend to become more aggressive towards women, less responsive to pain and suffering of rape victims and the most important is that they are willing to accept various myths about rape.

So, we can't accept pornography just like that.

I could have mentioned more side-effects of p. but I leave it for now, just one hint , in the most cases of violent incidents against children, the perpetrators were in possession of large quantity of pornographic material...

Kourama, yes of course I agree that recent stories of Milo Manara are just a pretense for sketching more nude women.

LW "The Indian summer" is a classic, as for your example of the whispering French woman and the shouting moustached German... I intend to quote you as often as possible :D

There are just as many studies which refute these claims as support them. Everyone responds to porn differently and everyone uses it differently. Generalizations like these are not useful and are misleading,IMO.

Regarding the fact that child molesters use porn, so do nonmolesters. I know several people who use porn very liberally. My husband loves porn and has a veritable ton of it. He is not a molester and neither are the people I know who also use it a lot. I also know a woman whose daughter was molested by her husband for years. He is in prison now. A search of his home, car, and office revealed no pornographic material. Go figure.

Lastly, lets not confuse correlation with causation. They are different and utterly independant phenomena.

Glory

[LucyR]

Glory,

You have a great deal more patience than I do.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory

My husband loves porn and has a veritable ton of it. He is not a molester and neither are the people I know who also use it a lot. I also know a woman whose daughter was molested by her husband for years. He is in prison now. A search of his home, car, and office revealed no pornographic material. Go figure.
Glory

These examples are anecdotal, I am sorry, I wish things were they way you say but there are many studies that relate pornography to violence and I can mention to you a series if you wish.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LucyR
Glory,

You have a great deal more patience than I do.

It's true that geniuses lack patience....

[LucyR]

...often where fools are concerned.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LucyR
...often where fools are concerned.

Please, I insist. Especially where fools are concerned it's the intellectual's duty to preach.

Please, illuminate us. Show us how pornography doesn't cause cancer.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Especially where fools are concerned it's the intellectual's duty to preach.


Wrong as usual.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LucyR


Wrong as usual.

Please don't be that cruel. Show me where I am wrong , Speak-up!!! Illuminate us!!!

[Marc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
First of all, pornography is a 8-10 billion $ business with close ties to organized crime.



And what evidence is there for that? When prohibition was in force organized crime made a lot of money off of alcohal. But porn is legal, not only that but it is not as stigmatized as it used to be. You can find movies available for viewing in most major hotel chains and cable providers. Maybe people do not like to talk about it, but the people giving us porn are not shady organizations but major corporations. (ok, maybe that doesn't make them any less 'criminal' :p )


The only real harm I see being done by porn is soreness in the wrist and damage to the wallet. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc


And what evidence is there for that? When prohibition was in force organized crime made a lot of money off of alcohal.

First of all I am not pro-prohibition of porn and second I was having in mind the Report of the Attorney General coming from the U.S Department of Justice, do you want a complete reference?

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


These examples are anecdotal, I am sorry, I wish things were they way you say but there are many studies that relate pornography to violence and I can mention to you a series if you wish.

I have read plent of studies. I have also read studies which contradict them.

Yes, I offered up anecdotes. That is all we have. Anecdotes. These anecdotes illustrate the fact tha using porn does not make one into a predator. For every molester who uses porn there is a nonmolester who uses it. For every rapist who uses porn, there is a nonrapist who uses it. Blaming porn is convenient but ultimately not supportable. We will have to look elsewhere for the cause of these problems.

Glory

[LucyR]

Look Cleopatra, I'd just encourage you to think as critically as possible about the statements you made in your earlier post, especially in light of what Glory has said. Don't reply immediately, spend some time. Consider, how, for example, rape statistics vary from country to country, and see if you can find a correlation with a liberal attitude to pornography. For me, it's an interesting observation that countries that have what I'd consider to be an extremely backward attitude to women, also ban pornography outright. This may be misleading I'm not sure, but I think it's food for thought.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory


I have read plent of studies. I have also read studies which contradict them.

Yes, I offered up anecdotes. That is all we have. Anecdotes. These anecdotes illustrate the fact tha using porn does not make one into a predator. For every molester who uses porn there is a nonmolester who uses it. For every rapist who uses porn, there is a nonrapist who uses it. Blaming porn is convenient but ultimately not supportable. We will have to look elsewhere for the cause of these problems.

Glory

Can you mention ONE study according to which : " For every molester who uses porn there is a nonmolester who uses it. "

Lucy, Your Highness, I am using sources from your county because USA is the leading country in such surveys.

[LucyR]

Cleopatra,

SA = South Africa.

I don't think you're trying very hard.

[Cleopatra]

I am terribly sorry Lucy I didn't mean to offend you by calling you an American.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am terribly sorry Lucy I didn't mean to offend you by calling you an American.

That doesn't bother me. I don't mind being called an American, particularly. It's just a possible indication that you have to slow down a bit, and check your facts and figures. In any case, I apologize for my uncharitable remarks earlier. I'm very capricious.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


First of all I am not pro-prohibition of porn and second I was having in mind the Report of the Attorney General coming from the U.S Department of Justice, do you want a complete reference?

Yes, especially since the AG is a fundie and this administration has a history if ignoring reports that don't agree with preconcieved notions, possibly falsifying others or at least picking ones that support thier position.

[Cleopatra]

Lucy:

If you have read my posts, you'd realize that I am NOT against pornography.

I do not want it banned or prohibited or anything.

BUT we cannot dismiss just like that the fact that there are surveys that relate pornography to violence.

I didn't suggest you to embrace these surveys, I just said that they exist.

And BTW since you are so definite about your opinions do you know why we will never have a definite answer about this issue?Have you ever heard of the methodological problems that are related to those surveys, I am asking since you advised me to apply some critical thinking.

You are capricius... Why?

Why do you ask me to tolerate your caprices?

Please, spare me the BS, ok?

edited to change a my to me

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc


Yes, especially since the AG is a fundie and this administration has a history if ignoring reports that don't agree with preconcieved notions, possibly falsifying others or at least picking ones that support thier position.

These are ridiculous things. Do you know what makes your country a leading power in the scientific research of all sorts?

It's ability to get over politics. We are talking about a serious thing here.

Haven't you ever heard that pornography is a gross industry that is related to child prostitution and drugs?

Try the issue 112 of the Reports of the Attorney General but you don't need to go that far.

I mentioned once in Paltalk to some members of JREF that USA is lthe eading country in producing pornographic material and they laughted at me until Mr. Skinny did a google search and they apologized afterwards.

Jesus people! I am pro freedom of expression myself but this doesn't mean that I am willing to sugar coat some facts.

[LucyR]

Cleoptara,

The only thing I am certain about was that your first post lacked critical thinking.

You also sounded as though you were taking these surveys you refer to at face value, and you are now asking me to consider their 'methodological problems'.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
These are ridiculous things. Do you know what makes your country a leading power in the scientific research of all sorts?

It's ability to get over politics. We are talking about a serious thing here.
Aparently you are not that familiar with american government. Yes we have great scientific research, but don't expect it to have much influence on government. Remember, the CIA had a secret Psychics project for a while, the National Institute of Health has been saddled with an office that does nothing but promote alternative medicines. The current administration is trying to fight AIDS with an abstinance only agenda, has even forced health agencies to remove information on the benefits of condom use from their websites, and stopped funding to an inernational organization that helps women because of accusation that it supports forced abortions in China, accusations that the government admits that it can't back up. Then you can get into the whole Iraq thing as to the differences of what the government says and what they have actual evidence for.

and as others have stated, there is just as much research showing no connection between porn and the horrors you cite.


Haven't you ever heard that pornography is a gross industry that is related to child prostitution and drugs?

Yes, usually from religious groups that are against porn to begin with.


[qb]I mentioned once in Paltalk to some members of JREF that USA is lthe eading country in producing pornographic material and they laughted at me until Mr. Skinny did a google search and they apologized afterwards. [/B]
and I'm not surprised. Just as the US is a leading country in producing all kinds of movies and entertainment. That however does not demonstrate any conection between all porn and organized crime, drugs, and child prostitution.

Your statements sound like someone who sees 3 card montey players who cheat people and deal drugs on the side, then extrapolate from there that all casinos are therefor criminal organizations that deal in drugs.

[Cleopatra]

The only thing that you are certain Lucy is that I am one of the weakest minds in this forum.

What do you call critical thinking? The fact that you turn your personal tastes into facts?

I enjoy pornography too, so? Does this makes it harmless?

No I do not take the surveys at face value because I know the chief methodological problem that such surveys put. And I know it not because I am a genious but because I have read what a leading scientist in this field has said.

Now open your eyes Lucy it's not the weak mind that is speaking but James Check of the Dept of Justice of Canada in the " Effects of violent and non-violent pornography" "

" The argument that there atr not enough studies that show a connection between pornography and violent crime is a smoke-screen. Those who promote this stance well know that such research will never be done. It would require a sampling of much more than a thousand males, exposed to pornography throught puberty and adolescence, while the other group is totally isolated from its influence in all its forms and varying degrees. each group would then have to be monitored throught the commission of violent crimes or not. In spite of the lack of such researches , thought, the FBI's own statistics who that p.is found at 80% of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes or perpetrators".

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc
[B]
Aparently you are not that familiar with american government. Yes we have great scientific research, but don't expect it to have much influence on government. Remember, the CIA had a secret Psychics project for a while, the National Institute of Health has been saddled with an office that does nothing but promote alternative medicines. The current administration is trying to fight AIDS with an abstinance only agenda, has even forced health agencies to remove information on the benefits of condom use from their websites, and stopped funding to an inernational organization that helps women because of accusation that it supports forced abortions in China, accusations that the government admits that it can't back up. Then you can get into the whole Iraq thing as to the differences of what the government says and what they have actual evidence for.

Interesting but it doesn't address the topic and certainly you don't refute the arguments.

and as others have stated, there is just as much research showing no connection between porn and the horrors you cite.

As others, you forgot to mention one of these surveys.

Yes, usually from religious groups that are against porn to begin with.

FBI and Interpol are not religious groups.

and I'm not surprised. Just as the US is a leading country in producing all kinds of movies and entertainment. That however does not demonstrate any conection between all porn and organized crime, drugs, and child prostitution.

You will have to show me that, unless you want me to take your statistics at face value and reject Interpol's and FBI's data.

Your statements sound like someone who sees 3 card montey players who cheat people and deal drugs on the side, then extrapolate from there that all casinos are therefor criminal organizations that deal in drugs.

Simplistic but I am willing to see my fault. You will have to persuade me with facts that Interpol, FBI and the US Dept of Justice are lying.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


These are ridiculous things. Do you know what makes your country a leading power in the scientific research of all sorts?

It's ability to get over politics. We are talking about a serious thing here.



Not really. It's a large amount of money, and the ability to attract scientific talent from all over the world. The vast majority of scientific output is not controversial and has nothing directly to do with government.

I think Marc's comment is quite reasonable, and is not inconsistent with the scientific reputation of the US.



Haven't you ever heard that pornography is a gross industry that is related to child prostitution and drugs?



Actually, I haven't. Most pornography involves only consenting adults as far as I know. Drugs? That's an entirely separate issue.



I mentioned once in Paltalk to some members of JREF that USA is lthe eading country in producing pornographic material and they laughted at me until Mr. Skinny did a google search and they apologized afterwards.



Relevance? I can't imagine why Mr. Skinny, or anyone else, would be surprised.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In spite of the lack of such researches , thought, the FBI's own statistics who that p.is found at 80% of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes or perpetrators".
A-ha! A correlation!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

A-ha! A correlation!


Do you dismiss it? I'd like to hear that because I do not have personal statistics on the matter and I have to rely on the data of FBI, Interpol and US Dept. of Justice.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

What do you call critical thinking? The fact that you turn your personal tastes into facts?



What are you talking about? My personal tastes? Facts?



Now open your eyes Lucy it's not the weak mind that is speaking but James Check of the Dept of Justice of Canada in the " Effects of violent and non-violent pornography" "

" The argument that there atr not enough studies that show a connection between pornography and violent crime is a smoke-screen. Those who promote this stance well know that such research will never be done. It would require a sampling of much more than a thousand males, exposed to pornography throught puberty and adolescence, while the other group is totally isolated from its influence in all its forms and varying degrees. each group would then have to be monitored throught the commission of violent crimes or not. In spite of the lack of such researches , thought, the FBI's own statistics who that p.is found at 80% of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes or perpetrators".

This is very poor Cleopatra. How much pornography would you expect to find in the homes of non-perpetrators? This point has already been made to you. Allow me to quote Glory thus,

"Lastly, lets not confuse correlation with causation. They are different and utterly independant phenomena."

[Marc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Interesting but it doesn't address the topic and certainly you don't refute the arguments.
It is very pertinent to the topic. The only evidence you have provided is mentioning some report from the AG. I have pointed out that a single report, especially from the current administraion, is not neccesarily credible. I, and Glory have also refuted the arguments by pointing out there are studies that directly refute the claims you made. It is you who are not refuting the other's argument, instead just continu making claims without backing it up.




FBI and Interpol are not religious groups.

and what work of their directly links all porn to organized crime, drugs, and child prostitution? I'm sure it is possible to find a few agents that would agree, after all one person I know was invited to speak at a debate on if D&D leads to satanism and suicides. One of the debaters for the claim was an FBI agent.



You will have to show me that, unless you want me to take your statistics at face value and reject Interpol's and FBI's data.
and where is YOUR data that you seem to expect me to take at face value? You are the one making the claim that there is a connection here.



Simplistic but I am willing to see my fault. You will have to persuade me with facts that Interpol, FBI and the US Dept of Justice are lying.
Already supplied examples of how the US does lie and distort in order to promote an agenda. Not necesarily saying they are lying, but could be relying on heavily biased or misrepresented studies.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by LucyR

This is very poor Cleopatra. How much pornography would you expect to find in the homes of non-perpertrators? This point has already been made to you. Allow me to quote Glory thus,


Do you have a statistic that shows how much pornography one expects to find in homes of non-perpetrators?

As I said to James I do not have personal statistics and I have to rely on FBI, Interpol and US Dept of Justice.

Where do you rely to make your assumptions?

"Lastly, lets not confuse correlation with causation. They are different and utterly independant phenomena."


This statement is like Coca-Cola, it applies in every occassion.

Show me your statistics, please.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Do you have a statistic that shows how much pornography one expects to find in homes of non-perpetrators?



No, I don't. That's the point I think.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Do you dismiss it?
As a correlation, no. But how do we differentiate between the two following cases:

1. Exposure to p. causes them to become perpetrators.

2. The tastes of the perpetrators causes them to have a liking for p, in the same way that one could argue that violent people like violent films without the films causing them to be violent.

It is impossible to infer cause and effect from a study of the sort you mention. One could do so from a randomised trial or one could obtain evidence for a causative mechanism from elsewhere, but the correlation itself, while it does not argue against case 1 above, does not prove it, as there are alternative scenarios that it would also be true for.

[Marc]

Almost missed this

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In spite of the lack of such researches , thought, the FBI's own statistics who that p.is found at 80% of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes or perpetrators".


I think the best answer to this is the Central Iowa Skeptics warning about the dangers of.....Bread!!!




In the period 1999-2000, it was found that more than 98 percent of convicted felons were bread users.

In that same period, fully half of all children who grew up in bread-consuming households scored below average on standardized IQ and physical tests.

In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high, and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

Statistics show that more than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of the perpetrator eating bread.

Bread has been proven to be highly addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

Bread is a "gateway" food item, frequently leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

Newborn babies can choke on bread.

Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 200 degrees Celsius! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc
I, and Glory have also refuted the arguments by pointing out there are studies that directly refute the claims you made.

Yes, but you and Glory y have forgotten to point to me a survey that can persuade me on the contrary.


and what work of their directly links all porn to organized crime, drugs, and child prostitution? I'm sure it is possible to find a few agents that would agree, after all one person I know was invited to speak at a debate on if D&D leads to satanism and suicides. One of the debaters for the claim was an FBI agent.

James Check is a Canadian and an authority on the topic.I understand your point but it's not enough to dismiss statistics of organizations like FBI or Interpol especially when you don't provide an alternative.

and where is YOUR data that you seem to expect me to take at face value? You are the one making the claim that there is a connection here.

I mentioned James Check's report to the Canadian Ministry of Justice, of course I can provide you a full bibliography.

[Already supplied examples of how the US does lie and distort in order to promote an agenda. Not necesarily saying they are lying, but could be relying on heavily biased or misrepresented studies.

Yes, you are right they could be relying on heavily biased studies but you have to understand that it's FBI's data against political views.

My original post to Lucy had one purpose only. I do not want us to dismiss the idea that pornography might be related to crime.

I chose to quote Check because as you saw he is not willing to interpret statistics in a specific way but he just points out to some facts.

What makes you that sure that there is no way that pornography is related to crime? This is my question. What makes you so sure?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc
Almost missed this




I think the best answer to this is the Central Iowa Skeptics warning about the dangers of.....Bread!!!






Cute :)

But still is FBI against you ....

Where did you find this BTW can you send me the link? I want to post it to the Chef's forum :)

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

James Check is a Canadian and an authority on the topic.
No doubt, but he cannot repeal the laws of statistics.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

As a correlation, no. But how do we differentiate between the two following cases:

1. Exposure to p. causes them to become perpetrators.

2. The tastes of the perpetrators causes them to have a liking for p, in the same way that one could argue that violent people like violent films without the films causing them to be violent.

It is impossible to infer cause and effect from a study of the sort you mention.

Did you read the quote of J.Check ?

These are exactly the problems he points out but can you ignore the statistic?

One could do so from a randomised trial or one could obtain evidence for a causative mechanism from elsewhere, but the correlation itself, while it does not argue against case 1 above, does not prove it, as there are alternative scenarios that it would also be true for.

He goes further than you do by describing the methods he thinks one should use in order to have definite answers.

But critical thinking dictates us not to dismiss the theory that there might be a relation between p. and violence.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
But critical thinking dictates us not to dismiss the theory that there might be a relation between p. and violence.
The statistic you quote does indeed show there is a relation between p and violence. It does not show cause-and-effect. Even if it did, there is the question of to what population the results could be extended.

My own personal belief is that I would not be even remotely surprised to discover that p could have an effect on behaviour of a deleterious nature, so I would not reject that idea out of hand. However, I do not have anything other than my own prejudices and feelings to back me up on this.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do you have a statistic that shows how much pornography one expects to find in homes of non-perpetrators?[quote][b]

Of course not. No one cares how much porn the average person has unless the average person becomes decidedly unaverage. There is always someone looking for porn once an offender is identified because porn is seen by so many as a red flag. "Look at all that porn! He really is a freak!"

[quote][b]As I said to James I do not have personal statistics and I have to rely on FBI, Interpol and US Dept of Justice.

And we have explained to you on more than one occassion why those sources are suspect and unreliable. John Ashcroft is a liar, an obfuscator of truth and a manipulator of fact. He has an agenda and picks and choose his evidence so that his claims are supported.

Quite honestly, it has been a long time since I looked up this kind of thing. I will need sometime to do some research. Please stand by.

In the mean time, do you have any studies that come from a less biased source?

ment is like Coca-Cola, it applies in every occassion.

Funny how that works. It is always true.

Show me your statistics, please.

What good are statistics? I can show you statistics that support your positions, given time, and ones that support mine.

A few years ago, well more like forty or so, there was beautiful new hospital built. The first birth in the hospital was twins. One of them was weak and died. Since there were not anymore births in the hospital before the end of the calendar year, the mortality rate for babies born in the hospital in the first year, only about eight weeks since it was late in the year, was 50 %. There's a statistic for you. Would you want to have your baby in hospital in with a 50 % mortality rate for newborns? Stats are often misleading and manipulated. I prefer evidence.

Glory

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

The statistic you quote does indeed show there is a relation between p and violence. It does not show cause-and-effect. Even if it did, there is the question of to what population the results could be extended.

My own personal belief is that I would not be even remotely surprised to discover that p could have an effect on behaviour of a deleterious nature, so I would not reject that idea out of hand. However, I do not have anything other than my own prejudices and feelings to back me up on this.

The cause and effect cannot be shown in a statistic at least for now and I find his argument persuasive as to why we will never have such a survey.

I do not have personal prejudices, on the contrary but I cannot ignore some facts just to support my personal tastes.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The cause and effect cannot be shown in a statistic at least for now and I find his argument persuasive as to why we will never have such a survey.
I concur.


I do not have personal prejudices, on the contrary but I cannot ignore some facts just to support my personal tastes.
It's not a case of ignoring facts. It is recognising that a correlation from a retrospective study cannot establish cause and effect without evidence from elsewhere. I am not arguing that there isn't evidence from elsewhere that establishes cause and effect. My comments are restricted entirely to interpretation of that statistic.

[Marc]

Found a nice little quote from Check

"Check found that the violent material had the most negative effect, the degrading material had the next most negative effects, and the other sexual material had no negative effects at all. The negative effects he documented included an increase in the self-reported likelihood that the men would actually act out a rape. ... (Check & Guloien 1989)". (emphasis added)
from this site (http://libertus.net/censor/rdocs/candle3.html) on the debate. It was pointing out Checks findings were misrepresented to strike at all porn when even by his findings there were no negative effect from non-violent porn. I'm fairly confident if I looked enough there might be refutations to even his claims on violent porn too.


The bread thing was reprinted in Randi's Swift articles. Just do a search on bread, it should be the first thing to show up.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Glory


And we have explained to you on more than one occassion why those sources are suspect and unreliable. John Ashcroft is a liar, an obfuscator of truth and a manipulator of fact. He has an agenda and picks and choose his evidence so that his claims are supported.
[/b]


You left out how he spent $8,000 of the departments money to put draperies around the statue of Justice, because he objected to the statue being bare breasted. Sounds like a person with a sensible and honest outlook on porn, doesn't he? :roll:

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for the link, at least now people know that Check isn't a figment of my imagination...

Yes indeed, Check agrees that Milo Manara and other soft porn is not harmful....

[LucyR]

Marc,

Wow! Is that really true?

I think it's people with that sort of attitude that are more likely to be guilty of sex crimes.

How's that for an unsubstantiated and emotionally charged remark?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Marc
It was pointing out Checks findings were misrepresented to strike at all porn when even by his findings there were no negative effect from non-violent porn. . [/B]

Hey Marc, this link refers to misrepresentations of Check's survey by the Fraser Committee and not to Check's reports.

I didn't see anybody here misrepresenting his report. I have just mentioned it.

The link refers to a bad use of this report it doesn't dismiss the report.

What about a link that dismisses that report, if you don't agree with him.

[Bikewer]

This post has become rather lengthy, but I have not yet seen anyone adress the central problem; that of defining pornography.

Something the courts have tried and failed to do many times.
I recall Pres. Reagan's "blue-ribbon" panel that was hand-picked to study pornography; even though the panel was widely dismissed as being "loaded" with anti-porn types, it was only by the closest of margins that they were able to submit a report, a report that was denounced by the minority of the panel. A very slight minority, I might add.

All rather typical of the controversy.

One person's erotica is another person's yawn and yet another's god-awful degeneracy. Transvestites, can, after all, get quite aroused over a women's clothing catalogue....

A great deal of BDSM-Fetish oriented material does not show any sex act whatever; yet devotees collect the stuff enthusiastically.

The relationship between sex crimes and pornography is tenuous at best. While it's true that paraphiliacs such as pedophiles collect large quantities of child pornography, there is a great deal of controversy over this material being causal.
In fact, regarding such conditions, (paraphilias) it's the current paradigm that one's sexual orientation (or lovemap, in sexologist parlance) is fully formed by age 3 or so, long before an infant would become exposed to, or even aware of any erotic material.

The most troubling aspect of a great deal of pornography is the exploitation of the "models" involved. In the case of children, of course, it's felonious in all "developed" countries that I'm aware of.
But, in regards to more conventional material, there is an element of criminal behaviour involved in the production and distribution of a percentage, and in the exploitation of the "actors".
On the other hand, there is a relatively large "amatuer" scene, where enthusiastic folks willingly put themselves on display for pay.
We have a husband-and-wife team here in the St. Louis area that have been enthusiastically self-producing films for years, and have recently started giving "sex seminars" which amount to little more than staged intercourse.

[Cinorjer]

Viewing pornography no more "causes" or promotes sexual violence than playing violent video games "causes" kids to run out and commit acts of violence. Misleading statistics are of course thrown around, but the most telling argument against a causual relationship is that internet porn has made the consumption of pornography skyrocket, while actual acts of sexual or other violence has dropped overall. That's like having smoking increase dramatically and lung disease drop off at the same time: it's simply impossible if there's any causual relationship at all! Period!

Pornography falls into the "moral sin" catagory, involving the vague concept of "community standards". Yes, there is a Christian campaign to make a case for pornography being "addictive". They want looking at dirty pictures to be placed in the same catagory as smoking crack. According to them, looking at tame naked women leads to fetish pictues, finally to acting out the fantasies. Yet, there's not a shred of evidence this happens.

[Dogwood]

Cleo,

I really don't understand your position here. The only statistic you've provided is that pornography was found in 80% of the homes of child molesters. As Marc points out in his "bread" rebuttal, that statistic is meaningless. Probably 100% of those people had paper towels in their homes. Would that make you think there was a connection between Bounty and violent sex crimes?

You continue to suggest that others provide statistics to refute yours, yet, you don't have any to refute. I recognize what you've said about appreciating porn yourself, but you seem to be arguing more from a pre-conceived notion than any facts, reason, or argument, in my opinion.

[Cinorjer]

The most troubling aspect of a great deal of pornography is the exploitation of the "models" involved.

Yes, this is one case where the Women's Lib movement and the Christian Right have common cause. Pornography is seen by the Women's Libbers to be exploiting and degrading, turning a woman into a sex object. Some women apparently have a beef about men getting excited over the thought of sex. Most pornography is about two or more consenting adults going at it while the pizza gets cold, but there is a large fetish audience, apparently, for pornography that is intended to degrade. Also, the women who make money posing are supposed to be practically forced to do so, so like prostitution, they would make the whole business illegal "for the sake of the women". It's a much more defensible position than the Biblical "pornography causes masterbation, and the Bible says masterbation is a sin" (it doesn't, but facts have never stood in the way of claims made with the Bible as authority).

In my own case, I dislike the hypocracy of claiming women are equal in every case to men, then claiming that women are victims that need our protection. But it is an argument that makes sense to me. I'd like to know other's reactions to this.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by mark tidwell Cleo,

I really don't understand your position here. The only statistic you've provided is that pornography was found in 80% of the homes of child molesters. As Marc points out in his "bread" rebuttal, that statistic is meaningless. Probably 100% of those people had paper towels in their homes. Would that make you think there was a connection between Bounty and violent sex crimes?

No it wouldn't make me think that. By applying the simple causation one can't support that pornography can cause rape this is true but if you apply the concept of multiple causation then you might be driven to different conclusions.

But there is not need to get involved in legalistic terms.

but you seem to be arguing more from a pre-conceived notion than any facts, reason, or argument, in my opinion.

Hmmm... let's see:

1. Edward Donnerstein, " Pornography and Violence Against women", Annals of the NY Academy of Science, 347 ( 1980 )
2.Neil Malamuth," Rape Fantasies as a Function of repeated Exposure to sexual violence" Archives of Sexual Behavior,10( 1981).
3.Linz, Donnerstein and Penrod," The Effects of Multiple exposures to Filmed Violence Against Women", Journal of Communication, 34 ( 1984)
4. James Check, " The Effects of Violent and Non-Violent Pornography", Dept. of Justice. Ottawa, Canada.

Also, I am aware of the survey of Zillman but I keep a copy in my office and I can't post the exact reference right now, maybe Mercutio has it handy.

Mercutio who is following the thread, send me a PM, asking me whether I was referring to those surveys, probably he knows what lawyers are taught is Law Schools :). He says that he disagrees with those views but I post them here just to force Mercutio to join the thread and to put those surveys on the table of discussion.

This morning I did a google search and I saw that Donnerstein is extensively quoted by Christian sites. Others make vague criticism to Donnestein without refuting his arguments in essence though , while most of those that criticize Donnenstein, seem to ignore J.Check,Neil Malamuth and Zillman.

The fact that Donnenstein's work is extensively quoted by Christian sources doesn't make his survey less trustworthy but since I am not an expert the way Mercutio is I am waiting to hear to his arguemnts and info.

As you see Mark Tidwell, although I am a non-expert I have done my homework before opening my mouth and from my list above are absent a couple of important surveys( Zillman's is one of those) because I can't post their exact reference at least now.

Those that dismissed my posts what have they read? Are they aware of other surveys or they base their opinion on their political beliefs?

This was my question :)

[Cinorjer]

Those that dismissed my posts what have they read? Are they aware of other surveys or they base their opinion on their political beliefs?

While I never dismiss anyone's posts outright, in my case I was exposed to Donnenstein and other researchers in the Human Sexuality courses in college, on my way to getting my Psychology degree. That hardly makes me an authority, and it definitely makes that research dated.

The courses that taught me the most were the ones on statistics and research paradigms. What I found out is that, when it comes to human behavior, take any and all authority with a healthy dose of disbelief. Especially if it tells you what you want to hear. Any time you move from general trends to individual behavior, you can get just about any result depending on how the study is designed. For instance, one of the studies you list seeks to find out if viewing porn leads to fantasies about rape and other violent behavior. How do you seperate cause and effect in this case? For that matter, there's a huge difference between fantasies and behavior. What, in the end, have you proved by the study?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
The most troubling aspect of a great deal of pornography is the exploitation of the "models" involved.

Yes, this is one case where the Women's Lib movement and the Christian Right have common cause. Pornography is seen by the Women's Libbers to be exploiting and degrading, turning a woman into a sex object. Some women apparently have a beef about men getting excited over the thought of sex.
I've noticed that too. In a couple debates I've asked the other person if gay porn is ok then because there are no women involved. I saw one article by one of these 'womens lib' type who seems to be more anti-men than for equality. The article was bashing another article on an adult website catering to some unusual fettish. It made no difference that the site was founded by a women, who was simply sharing her own fantasies and interests (on a free site) that ended up growing into a free and a pay site that catered to people with similar interests. The writer blasted the site as catering to men and objectifying women. Guess women are not allowed to have sexual interestes then.

[Bikewer]

Although feminists constantly deride pornography as degrading to women, they have little to say about the large body of stuff that degrades men.

Especially in the BDSM line, the male-as-submissive and domininant-female image is immensely popular.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Marc

I've noticed that too. In a couple debates I've asked the other person if gay porn is ok then because there are no women involved. I saw one article by one of these 'womens lib' type who seems to be more anti-men than for equality. The article was bashing another article on an adult website catering to some unusual fettish. It made no difference that the site was founded by a women, who was simply sharing her own fantasies and interests (on a free site) that ended up growing into a free and a pay site that catered to people with similar interests. The writer blasted the site as catering to men and objectifying women. Guess women are not allowed to have sexual interestes then. To be fair, there are at least two major camps within the feminist literature on porn--one rabidly anti-porn, the other just as rabidly pro-"women can choose to watch, act in, or produce porn just as freely as men" (If someone can get me a shorter title, I'll edit). Both have extensive literatures behind their views.

Cleopatra, the studies you list are 20 years old; they really represent the beginning of the search. They are cited as gospel in some camps; reviled and dismissed in others. Their replication has been spotty, but I'll have to wait till I can get to my office to say more on that. Suffice it to say that there is plenty of ammunition for the lawyers on both sides at this point.

[Glory]

Okay, sorry I have been gone a few days. I had to get some space between me and the boards. Every time I thought about posting I felt like I was doing homework in my hardest class.

Anyway, I have found that if you go to Google and enter the question, “Does pornography cause violent behavior?” You’ll find a lot of material on the matter. These days the answer seems to be, “We don’t know.” On the one hand, the fact that pornography is found to be big with sex offenders does seem compelling and significant. On the other hand, the studies that have been done which, we have been told by the US government, indicate that porn is a cause of rape have a number of problems. Also, the studies, as data, have been widely misused by entities such as the Meese committee.

For example, one of the studies relies on the testimony of convicted sex offenders. "When I seen that movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse.... I just went for it, went out and raped”, said one perpetrator. Obviously such a statement could be self serving yet the study does not take note of that. I do not trust a researcher who ignores such obvious bias in an interview subject.

Also, as has been stipulated previously, the general population’s violent or nonviolent responses to pornography can not be assessed.

As far as the misuses of data are concerned, consider the following.

The individuals who use studies to illustrate that porn is linked to violence are guilty of:
• making no distinction between violent and nonviolent sexual stimuli;
• not distinguishing between short-term versus long-term effects of such stimuli;
• ignoring the limits of laboratory studies, which cannot test for violent behavior outside of the laboratory.

The above is according to Julie A. Allison and Lawrence S. Wrightsman who performed a meta-analysis of several key studies on perpetrators of rape and more generalized samples of sexually aggressive men.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) studied 41 incarcerated offenders guilty of performing between 10 and 78 rapes each. The sample most closely resembles the classic stereotype of the rapist as a predatory stranger and home invader. The results cannot, therefore, be generalized to the majority of rapists. Involvement in the armed forces is artificially inflated by the existence of a draft system in effect during the Vietnam War era.

The results of the analysis are that more research is needed to accurately determine what, if any, is the connection between porn and violence.

What strikes me is that I have noted a number of conclusions which reveal more about the researchers than the subjects, in my opinion. For instance, a researcher noted that men with a strongly masculine streak would, after viewing a pornographic movie, sit closer to female researchers during the questioning phase and generally seemed more flirtatious. This led the researcher to conclude that viewing porn caused men to be more sexist toward women. I do not think that is indicated at all. I do not view flirtatious men as sexist. If researchers do not put checks and balances on their own biases, how can they be trusted?

Also, studies show that violent nonsexual material(films, images) causes men to be more violent. If one concludes that violent porn increases violent tendencies, how can one know if it is the sexual content or the violent content that spurs violence? Questions like this are why I will not let up on the correlation/causation issue.

Glory

Article is available at http://www.crime.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1721

[Cinorjer]

For instance, a researcher noted that men with a strongly masculine streak would, after viewing a pornographic movie, sit closer to female researchers during the questioning phase and generally seemed more flirtatious. This led the researcher to conclude that viewing porn caused men to be more sexist toward women.

A "strongly masculine streak" rated on what scale? I know a professional wrestler who is by any external definition the most masculine person you've ever met. Now, any normal person without a political agenda would look at these results and say "I conclude that, for men who enjoy that sort of thing, looking at pornography makes them horny!" Well, duh!

But of course in the case that started this thread, it was all artwork, not photographs. So you can't even claim women were degraded in the production of the work.

On a related note, Neil Gaiman's Endless Nights graphic novel (read: comic book in hard cover) is finally out, and several of the stories are definitely pornographic. In particular, the story about Desire is drawn by Milo Manara and is fantastic! Full of naked women, showing people having sex, even a witch thrown in there to tick off the Fundies, yet it's a wonderful story of desire and what happens when all your desires are fulfilled. Yet, this story would be labeled obscene and result in conviction by Bible Belt communities.

[Bikewer]

Think along the following lines:

1. Define pornography. As I pointed out above, it can vary widely. Even the courts have had considerable difficulty.

2. What percentage of the general populace "uses" pornagraphy, and at what frequency or level.

3. What percentage of "users" are sex criminals of various sorts?

4. What percentage of "non-users" are sex criminals?

5. How do the two figures ( non-user percentages and user percentages) compare?

6. Is there a proven causal factor? Do folks with various sexual proclivities find themselves drawn to various kinds of porn, or is it the "using" of porn that inspires the behaviour?

Again, researchers in the field maintain that our sexual personas, complete with whatever oddments we're likely to exhibit, are fully formed at a very early age, long before any exposure to porn would even be recognized as such.