Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pornography Plague
Leadership U ^ | Kerby Anderson

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: boobiesscareme; churchlady; culturewar; demeaningwomen; deviance; hedonism; hedonists; ihateboobies; libertinarians; libertines; lustoftheflesh; moralchaos; nannystate; nowlovesyou; perversion; playboyphilosophy; porn; pornography; protectchildren; protectwomen; sexindustry; sexualperversion; sexworkers; tjwasadrunk; writingsonthewall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 721-739 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
We are all still waiting for you to provide the laws that make the production of porn illegal.

And again, as previously pointed out several times, if the production of porn is ILLEGAL as you claim, then why is Vivid Video traded on the NYSE?

Face facts, porn is legal. Period.

521 posted on 07/14/2004 3:09:15 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: dorben
Something like a hostage situation seems more like your style

Ala Rainbow Head

522 posted on 07/14/2004 3:10:32 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Prostitution harms people. Viewing filmed prostitution makes you an accesory to the crime. The crime was committed for your enjoyment.

Prostitution is not illegal in every jurisdiction in this country. Neither is the making of porn. Unless you have some evidence proving otherwise?

523 posted on 07/14/2004 3:10:38 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Even the 26,250 figure would not be three times the numbers of McDonalds

But it still supports the the thesis of the article.

524 posted on 07/14/2004 3:10:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (You CAN legislate morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
But it still supports the the thesis of the article.

On the contrary. By virtue of being demonstrably false, it undermines the author's credibility.

525 posted on 07/14/2004 3:12:41 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Umm...I DID refute it, in the post linked. You lied and used spin. You were caught, and did NOT retract. Thus, you have no credibility.

You've also been caught in numerous misstatements of fact, as well as fallacies of logic, right here.

Now, it seems you're getting mad. Getting too hot for ya?

526 posted on 07/14/2004 3:12:43 PM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

That claim may be a Clintonian "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" bit of weaseling. For example, if the person making the claim thinks that every convenience store that has "adult" magazines for sale is an "adult bookstore," then there might well be more of them than McDonalds.


527 posted on 07/14/2004 3:12:50 PM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

You've made no attempt to even find out how many adult bookstores there are in the U.S. You have only relied on my sources which you yourself impugn. You don't even know when this article was written.


528 posted on 07/14/2004 3:16:56 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (You CAN legislate morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel? Nope. Jury nullification is.
-BumpkinBob-


529 posted on 07/14/2004 3:17:19 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

I was attempting to agree with your post 11.
I additionally added my thougts that using a 20 year old panel report by an attorney general NOT in offced to define and restrict "free speech" was a pathetic premise.

If I misunderstood your disagreement with the thesis in general... sorry... Can I assume you agree with the article that was posted then?

or did I understand properly that you generally disagree and that you thought the original poster is asking for a good smackdown again... as you perhaps intimated in your post 11?


530 posted on 07/14/2004 3:18:05 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election is now officially underway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
You have only relied on my sources

You mean when debating you we should NOT rely on your sources when arguing against your position?

Later you posted another source that also proved your original source to be a lie.

You have 2 options. Get better sources or quit posting on FR.

531 posted on 07/14/2004 3:18:44 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
or did I understand properly that you generally disagree and that you thought the original poster is asking for a good smackdown again... as you perhaps intimated in your post 11?

That would be correct. I either am not paying attention, totally misread your post to me, or need a beer. All 3 actually.

I got the impression from your post that you thought I was in full support of Tailgunner Joe and his outrageous claims and statements.

532 posted on 07/14/2004 3:20:33 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

He's already engaged in the third option: threatening to kill those who disagree with him. He later tried to say that it was just a joke.


533 posted on 07/14/2004 3:21:02 PM PDT by Poohbah (Technical difficulties have temporarily interrupted this tagline. Please stand by.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Absolutely, you make an excellent point. Now would you say that your an above average parent, average, or below average? Now when I ask that question, I'm thinking about all the gangland violence and perponderance rap music in my environment.

So the question becomes, how do we perserve and balance your right to raise your children as you see fit, with the rights of other children to have a better chance than given to them by their gang familes, and crack, alcohol, or work addicted parents?

They're the ones suffering because their parents, not you, refuse to provide the support and supervision they need? And in turn there is a greater chance of them causing havoc, needing welfare, etc.

I am not saying that more government is the answer. I am suggesting that philosophically, we need to change our attitude of avoiding conflict and start ensuring that the world is the place where "we" would want to be raised.

If we do the job, the government will have no need to step in and do it for us.


534 posted on 07/14/2004 3:22:12 PM PDT by SanityFromTheLeftCoast (Without controversy, there is no discourse…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And where does Burger King fit into all this?

I don't know...OTOH, I never understood why the founder of Wendy's would want to associate his daughter's name with the phrase "hot and juicy," either.

535 posted on 07/14/2004 3:23:21 PM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
You don't even know when this article was written.

The "20 times the number of adult bookstores" quote you cited comes from an article entitled "The Business of Pornography", written by Eric Schlosser, and published in the February 10, 1997 edition of US News & World Report.

536 posted on 07/14/2004 3:23:24 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: SanityFromTheLeftCoast
So the question becomes, how do we perserve and balance your right to raise your children as you see fit, with the rights of other children to have a better chance than given to them by their gang familes, and crack, alcohol, or work addicted parents?

Private charity. Vouchers.

537 posted on 07/14/2004 3:23:29 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The source for the claim that adult bookstores outnumber McDonald's restaurants in the United States by a margin of at least three to one is: "Effect of Pornography on Women and Children," U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, 98th Congress, 2nd Session, 1984, 227.

Take it up with them.

538 posted on 07/14/2004 3:24:12 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (You CAN legislate morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Every time an anti-porn thread is posted here, it never fails to bring out the apologists for perversion. They hate anyone who would dare say anything against a business which debases women and destroys children. The most sick of the sick, when they become bored with these perversions, turn to little animals, hurting and killing them to satisfy their lusts. They are a sickening bunch, for sure. And every perversion they commit they have first seen it done in magazines or videos.That's why they don't want it stopped.
539 posted on 07/14/2004 3:25:24 PM PDT by swampfox98 (We are at war! We have been at war since 9/11. How smart do you have to be to understand this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

It was a joke, but I have no reason to believe that the threats I was responding to were jokes.


540 posted on 07/14/2004 3:26:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (You CAN legislate morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 721-739 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson