Posted on 07/14/2004 7:46:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Pornography is tearing apart the very fabric of our society. Yet Christians are often ignorant of its impact and apathetic about the need to control this menace.
Pornography is an $8 billion a year business with close ties to organized crime.(1) The wages of sin are enormous when pornography is involved. Purveyors of pornography reap enormous profits through sales in so-called "adult bookstores" and viewing of films and live acts at theaters.
Pornography involves books, magazines, videos, and devices and has moved from the periphery of society into the mainstream through the renting of video cassettes, sales of so-called "soft-porn" magazines, and the airing of sexually explicit movies on cable television. To some, pornography is nothing more than a few pictures of scantily-clad women in seductive poses. But pornography has become much more than just photographs of nude women.
Nearly 900 theaters show pornographic films and more than 15,000 "adult" bookstores and video stores offer pornographic material. Adult bookstores outnumber McDonald's restaurants in the United States by a margin of at least three to one.(2) In 1985, nearly 100 full-length pornographic films were distributed to "adult" theaters providing estimated annual box office sales of $50 million.(3)
Definitions
The 1986 Attorney General Commission on Pornography defined pornography as material that "is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." Hard core pornography "is sexually explicit in the extreme, and devoid of any other apparent content or purpose."(4) Another important term is the definition of obscenity. The current legal definition of obscenity is found in the 1973 case of Miller v. California. "According to the Miller case, material is obscene if all three of the following conditions are met:
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests.
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or federal) law, and
3. The work taken as a whole, lacks serious, artistic, political or scientific value.(5)
Types of Pornography
The first type of pornography is adult magazines. These are primarily directed toward an adult male audience (but not exclusively). The magazines which have the widest distribution (e.g., Playboy, Penthouse) do not violate the Miller standard of obscenity and thus can be legally distributed. But other magazines which do violate these standards are still readily available in many adult bookstores.
The second type of pornography is video cassettes. These are rented or sold in most adult bookstores and have become a growth industry for pornography. People who would never go into an adult bookstore or theater to watch a pornographic movie will obtain these video cassettes through bookstores or in the mail and watch them in the privacy of their homes. Usually these videos display a high degree of hard core pornography and illegal acts.
The third type of pornography is motion pictures. Ratings standards are being relaxed and many pornographic movies are being shown and distributed carrying R and NC-17 ratings. Many of these so-called "hard R" rated films would have been considered obscene just a decade ago.
A fourth type of pornography is television. As in motion pictures, standards for commercial television have been continuously lowered. But cable television poses an even greater threat. The FCC does not regulate cable in the same way it does public access stations. Thus, many pornographic movies are shown on cable television. Like video cassettes, cable TV provides the average person with easy access to pornographic material. People who would never go to an adult bookstore can now view the same sexually explicit material in the privacy of their homes, making cable TV "the ultimate brown wrapper."
A fifth type of pornography is cyberporn. Hard core pictures, movies, online chat, and even live sex acts can be downloaded and viewed by virtually anyone through the Internet. Sexually explicit images can be found on web pages and in news groups and are far too easy for anyone of any age to view. What was only available to a small number of people willing to drive to the bad side of town can now be viewed at any time in the privacy of one's home.
A final type of pornography is audio porn. This includes "Dial-a- porn" telephone calls which are the second fastest growth market of pornography. Although most of the messages are within the Miller definition of obscenity, these businesses continue to thrive and are often used most by children.
According to Henry Boatwright (Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board for Social Concerns), approximately 70 percent of the pornographic magazines sold end up in the hands of minors. Women Against Pornography estimate that about 1.2 million children are annually exploited in commercial sex (child pornography and prostitution).
Psychological Effects
Psychologist Edward Donnerstein (University of Wisconsin) found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. Male viewers tend to be more aggressive toward women, less responsive to pain and suffering of rape victims, and more willing to accept various myths about rape.(6)
Researchers have found that pornography (especially violent pornography) can produce an array of undesirable effects such as rape and sexual coercion. Specifically they found that such exposure can lead to increased use of coercion or rape,(7) increased fantasies about rape,(8) and desensitization to sexual violence and trivialization of rape.(9)
In an attempt to isolate the role of violence as distinct from sex in pornography-induced situations, James Check (York University in Canada) conducted an experiment where men were exposed to different degrees of pornography, some violent, some not. All groups exhibited the same shift in attitude, namely a higher inclination to use force as part of sex.(10)
In one study, researchers Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant investigated the effects of nonviolent pornography on sexual callousness and the trivialization of rape. They showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious adverse effects on beliefs about sexuality in general and on attitudes toward women in particular. They also found that pornography desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offense.(11) These researchers also found that massive exposure to pornography encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials which involve violence (sadomasochism and rape).(12)
Dolf Zillman measured the impact of viewing pornography on the subjects' views as to what constitutes normal sexual practice. The group that saw the largest amount of pornography gave far higher estimates of the incidence of oral sex, anal sex, group sex, sado- masochism, and bestiality than did the other two groups.(13)
One study demonstrated that pornography can diminish a person's sexual happiness.(14) The researchers found that people exposed to nonviolent pornography reported diminished satisfaction with their sexual partner's physical appearance, affection, curiosity, and sexual performance. They were also more inclined to put more importance on sex without emotional involvement.
In a nationwide study, University of New Hampshire researchers Larry Baron and Murray Strauss found a strong statistical correlation between circulation rates of pornographic magazines and rape rates.(15) They found that in states with high circulation rates, rape rates were also high. And in states with low circulation rates, rape rates also tended to be low as well.
Of course, a statistical correlation does not prove that pornography causes rape. Certainly not everyone who uses pornography becomes a rapist. And it is possible that rape and pornographic consumption are only indirectly related through other factors, like social permissiveness and "macho" attitudes among men. In fact, Baron and Strauss did examine some of these factors in their study and did not find any significant correlation.
Subsequent studies have had similar results. Ohio State University researchers Joseph Scott (a man who testifies frequently for pornographers in court) and Loretta Schwalm examined even more factors than Baron and Strauss (including the circulation of non- sexual magazines) and could not eliminate the correlation between pornography and rape.(16)
Michigan state police detective Darrell Pope found that in 41 percent of the 38,000 sexual assault cases in Michigan (1956 1979), pornographic material was viewed just prior to or during the crime. This corroborates with research done by psychotherapist David Scott who found that "half the rapists studied used pornography to arouse themselves immediately prior to seeking out a victim."(17)
Social Effects
Defining the social effects of pornography has been difficult because of some of the prevailing theories of its impact. One view was that it actually performs a positive function in society by acting like a "safety-value" for potential sexual offenders.
The most famous proponent of this view was Berl Kutchinsky, a criminologist at the University of Copenhagen. His famous study on pornography found that when the Danish government lifted restrictions on pornography, the number of sex crimes decreased.(18) His theory was that the availability of pornography siphons off dangerous sexual impulses. But when the data for his "safety valve" theory was further evaluated, many of his research flaws began to show.
For example, Kutchinsky failed to distinguish between different kinds of sex crimes (e.g., rape, indecent exposure, etc.) and instead merely lumped them together. This effectively masked an increase in rape statistics. He also failed to take into account that increased tolerance for certain crimes (e.g., public nudity, sex with a minor) may have contributed to a drop in the reported crimes.
Proving cause and effect in pornography is virtually impossible because ethically researchers cannot do certain kinds of research. Researcher Dolf Zillman says, "Men cannot be placed at risk of developing sexually violent inclinations by extensive exposure to violent or nonviolent pornography, and women cannot be placed at risk of becoming victims of such inclinations."(19)
Deborah Baker, a legal assistant and executive director of an anti-obscenity group, agrees that conclusively proving a connection between pornography and crime would be very difficult:
The argument that there are no established studies showing a connection between pornography and violent crime is merely a smokescreen. 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 through 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 through the commission of violent crimes or not. In spite of the lack of formal research, though, the FBI's own statistics show that pornography is found at 80 percent of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes of the perpetrators.(20)
Nevertheless, there are a number of compelling statistics that suggest that pornography does have profound social consequences. For example, of the 1400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, between July 1980 and February 1984, adult pornography was connected with each incident and child pornography with the majority of them.(21) Extensive interviews with sex offenders (rapists, incest offenders, and child molesters) have uncovered a sizable percentage of offenders who use pornography to arouse themselves prior to and during their assaults.(22) Police officers have seen the impact pornography has had on serial murders. In fact, pornography consumption is one of the most common profile characteristics of serial murders and rapists.(23)
Professor Cass Sunstein, writing in the Duke Law Journal, says that some sexual violence against women "would not have occurred but for the massive circulation of pornography." Citing cross-cultural data, he concludes:
The liberalization of pornography laws in the United States, Britain, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries has been accompanied by a rise in reported rape rates. In countries where pornography laws have not been liberalized, there has been a less steep rise in reported rapes. And in countries where restrictions have been adopted, reported rapes have decreased.(24)
In his introduction to a reprint of the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, columnist Michael McManus noted that
The FBI interviewed two dozen sex murderers in prison who had killed multiple numbers of times. Some eighty-one percent said their biggest sexual interest was in reading pornography. They acted out sex fantasies on real people. For example, Arthur Gary Bishop, convicted of sexually abusing and killing five young boys said, "If pornographic material would have been unavailable to me in my early states, it is most probable that my sexual activities would not have escalated to the degree they did." He said pornography's impact on him was "devastating. . . . I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall."(25)
Dr. James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, one of this nation's most notorious serial killers. On the day before his execution, Ted Bundy said that the "most damaging kinds of pornography are those that involve violence and sexual violence. Because the wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings about behavior that is just, just too terrible to describe."(26)
Censorship and Freedom of Speech
Attempts to regulate and outlaw pornography within a community are frequently criticized as censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court clearly stated in Roth v. United States (1957) that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment. Federal, state, and local laws apply to the sale, display, distribution, and broadcast of pornography. Pornographic material, therefore, can be prohibited if it meets the legal definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miller v. California (1973) that a legal definition of obscenity must meet the three-part test we previously discussed. If it appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive, and lacks serious value (artistically, etc.) then the material is considered obscene and is illegal.
The Supreme Court further ruled in Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (1973) that material legally defined as obscene is not accorded the same protection as free speech in the First Amendment. The court ruled that even if obscene films are shown only to "consenting adults," this did not grant them immunity from the law.
In the case of New York v. Ferber (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that child pornography was not protected under the First Amendment even if it was not legally defined as obscene under their three- part test. Since children cannot legally consent to sexual relations, child pornography constitutes sexual abuse. Congress also passed the Child Protection Act in 1984 which provided tougher restrictions on child pornography.
Cable television is presently unregulated since it is not technically "broadcasting" as defined in the Federal Communications Act. Thus, cable television is able to show pornographic movies with virtual impunity. The FCC Act needs to be amended so that the FCC can regulate cable television.
(Excerpt) Read more at leaderu.com ...
According to this Reuters article, at the end of September, 2002, McDonald's had 30,783 restaurants in 121 countries. If only half of those are in the United States, that is over 15,000. Still looking for a specific US number.
McDonalds has around 30,000 restaurants as of 2004. I don't think there are 90,000 total book stores in the US. I don't think that there that many people who can read or even just look at the pictures.
Found it!
YOU: IF the pornographer is producing illegal porn.
All you've given is a circular definition. I will be happy to agree with you that illegal porn is illegal. Would you be so kind now to tell me what your definition of "illegal porn" is, and how closely this definition matches the actual statutes as passed by legislatures and interpreted by the judiciary?
I haven't read any of the responses, but I have one question for you, or anyone that proposes government enforcement of morals. (An assumed stance based on this one article you posted....)
If we use government force to ensure that all people are living morally good lives, what value is held in that morality? In other words, if you forced everyone to live by the rules of christianity, what good would it be? If God didn't want us to be forced to chose individualy to be moral and good, why did he give us a free will?
Without the sinners committing sin, your morality is of little to no value.
How does one determine that the rate has increased, since there is no way of telling how many have gone unreported?
Why prosecute anyone for any crime then?
You didn't answer my question. But I will answer yours.
We should be prosecuting all crimes that involve damage or harm to another person not consenting to the activity that caused that harm. In the case of pornography, we have consenting adults willing to sell pictures/movies of their own bodies and we have consenting adults willing to pay for those pictures.
If we get to decide to push all morals on people with the force of the government, who gets to decide the morals?
Now, take a shot at answering my question.
Whether or not you are right with God is your business, not the state's.
Whether or not you break the law is the state's business.
I disagree with you that pornography does not cause harm. The people it harms the most are those who reduce themselves into whores for the entertainment of sexual deviants.
- We have TJ, coming off his prior shredding last night back for another session of having his illogical, anti-freedom stances destroyed solidly;
- We have robertpaulsen, who has been caught in demonstrable falsehoods before and never met a restrictive law he didn't like;
- We have biblewonk, who on EVERY thread like this, posts his "all porn should be illegal" broken record without any supporting evidence;
- We have the same people striving to equate legal porn with kiddie porn, totally ignoring the fact that NONE of us supports that outrage, despite numerous corrections;
And we post once more our refutations to all this nonsense, only to have them totally ignored by the fanatics and theocrats. Now we even have them claiming some sort of relationship between legal porn and higher incidences of rape, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary, and even posting articles with numerous lies of their own (more adult bookstores than McDonald's).
Terry McAuliffe would love these guy's tactics...they mirror his own.
It is indeed sad that some who call themselves "conservative" have apparently no idea what the word means, and feel that they must impose their will and beliefs on other, peaceable citizens who HARM NO ONE. They wish to create an entirely new class of criminals where none existed before, and where no unwilling person is harmed or deprived of rights or property; and to use already-overworked police and federal agents who have MUCH better things to worry about than "dirty pictures" to enforce their dictates.
I'll say it again: We are in a real, shooting war right now. Devoting resources to this foolishness is as stupid as the Left's constant calls for doing the same for their pet causes and complaints. It is not only incredibly shortsighted, but also selfish in the extreme. If enacted, their policies would have the effect of making our victory in a REAL war that much more difficult. Unforgivable.
So too is the constant refrain heard on these threads that if we do not do what they wish, then we do not deserve to win.
I've spent countless posts and large amounts of bandwidth destroying these so-called "arguments". So have all of you. It's like beating the same dead horse all over again. In many ways, it reminds me of the crevo threads...no amount of evidence, logic, facts, or reason seems to penetrate the calcification which infects the brains of those True Believers who cannot, for any reason, understand that freedom for them means freedom for others. They are like Leftists...FEEEEEELLLLLiinnngs and E-Mo-Tion rule them with iron fists, and will never let go.
Fortunately, the vast majority of decent, reasoned Americans reject their nonsense, including most FReepers.
What's the point, other than a complete waste of my time?
I'm supposed to define illegal porn for you (as though you'd accept it), then compare my definiton to the actual statutes of the legislatures of 50 states, then see how it stands up against the interpretation of thousands of judicial opinions in thousands of court cases.
Yeah. Keep looking for my response. It'll be up shortly.
"For generations, it's been illegal to engage in lewd behavior in the public square. Have such laws even come close to threatening people's right to pray or read the Bible in the public square?"
Where have you been the last 20 years? Public prayer banned in schools, the 10 commandments banned from courthouses, crosses removed from city seals, "In God We Trust" under attack, etc.
How many do I have to name before the connection hits a synapse?
And all of that done in the name of "not offending" someone.
Nothing to see here.
TJ, response to your source on this post proven a big ball of lies? Starting with their lie about adult bookstores outnumbering McDonalds 3-1.
Do you support the government passing laws regarding morality? If so, then your lame attempt to disconnect the two is noted.
The question is: If we force morality on everyone and their free will is no longer making moral choices, what is the value of that morality?
Some people will be immoral in God's eyes, and they will not be allowed into the kingdom. God wanted it that way or he would never have given man a free will. Yes, he desires us all to be moral, but even God didn't force us to be!
Your post about the legalization of alcohol and gang activity was a doozie. So was your subsequent attempt to back off from it.
Square that statement with your SOURCES contention that there are 15,000 adult bookstores. 20 times would be a number of 500,000 stores renting and selling porn.
And lets use that 25,000 number for the sake of simplicity. Again YOUR sources claim that they outnumber McDonalds by greater than 3-1 is shown to be a lie.
When you have to use lies to support your argument you have no argument.
You're the one who keeps throwing around the term "illegal porn". Now you concede that you have no real definition or meaning for your use of the term?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.