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 ...
One beneficial side effect on the war on Wahabi Wackjobism is that it will probably make such attitudes less acceptable in polite society, much as the war on Naziism cast a sterilizing light upon the genteel anti-Semitism endemic to Western societies up to that time.
-sign in Clarence Thomas' office.
was that an admission on your part, swampfox98, that you made a deliberate personal attack against tpaine?
Of course. Why wouldn't I approve of the court applying the Constitution correctly?
Yet another lie. Repeatedly on this board, I have expressed the opinion that the proper response to court descisions you do not like, or to outcomes one does not support, is to continue to work legally and within the system for change. I am no anarchist; I take my oaths to uphold the Constitution and our system of government deadly serious. Even descisions I do not personally agree with. I have never advocated extra-Constitutional means to rectify what I do not like.
It's always interesting to see a person "deny" something he was never accused of in the first place. One of those things that make me go Hmmm...
In my heart I want women, children and animals to be protected from being hurt by pornography reading perverts. Those who defend pornography obviously don't care.
How do you think I'm going to react to your question? Run away terrified by you big ole porno supporting posters? In a pig's eye. Hey, get me kicked off Free Republic for defending the rights of women, children and animals. I don't give a rat's. I'll go proudly because I'm right.
By that remarkable turn of logic, WalMart should be the world's largest producer of child pornography.
I am reminded of this exchange:
"What is your definition of justice?"
"Justice, Elijah, is that which exists when all the laws are enforced."
Fastolfe nodded. "A good definition, Mr. Baley, for a robot.... A human being can recognize the fact that, on the basis of an abstract moral code, some laws may be bad ones and their enforcement unjust. What do you say, R. Daneel?"
"An unjust law," said R. Daneel evenly, "is a contradiction in terms."
-- Isaac Asimov (The Caves Of Steel)
I was taught early on that those freedoms contained in the Constitution had a corollary...that they might be used in a manner we might NOT like, but that was no reason to abridge them. We cannot "cherry-pick" which freedoms and Liberties we will and will not support.
-Long Cut-
______________________________________
There's another corollary to the Constitution:
The fact that it's something you do like, doesn't necessarily mean it's a right enshrined in the Constitution.
Porn is a case in point. It is not "speech", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.
587 inquest
______________________________________
And what -you- & your peers don't 'like' and see as porn can be reasonably regulated, inq.
But your options on 'regulating' are tempered by our Constitutional rule of law & due process.
You have no natural right to commit an aggression, a 'porno' prohibition, on the equal rights of your peers.
If you take the time to look, you'll see that many of the ones who encourage the libertine mindset have only been FReepers for 60 days or less. Many trolls are lurking these days. Ignore their hyena taunts.
I do, but clearly you don't and ignore and reject any research which shows your positions to be false.
Still waiting for you to cite the laws and statues that make the production of, distribution of, and possesion of porn illegal.
In her heart, I'm sure Sara Brady wants good men to be protected from whackjobs with handguns. MADD wants their families to be protected from booze guzzling drivers. There's nothing wrong with this. Everyone wants things, it's what they're willing to do to get them that gets to be problematic.
Anybody with a speck of common sense has "reason to doubt" a statistic that flies in the face of ordinary experience (i.e. most people do not see an adult bookstore on the roadside nearly as often as they see the Golden Arches, much less three times as often).
If someone told me that they'd seen a horse in a field, I'd take it at face value. If they said they'd seen a zebra, I'd want some confirmation. If told that someone had seen a centaur, I'd pretty much dismiss the claim out of hand barring some extremely strong evidence.
No, you don't get it. The poster made the correct claim that with the end of alcohol prohibition the gangs related to the illegal production of, smuggling, and control of the distribution of illegal alcohol went away.
They did.
Phantom Lord
______________________________________
Legalizing a drug will not make gang violence go away.
Legalizing alcohol only moved the gangs into drugs.
Legalizing marijuana will not make the gang violence go away. They'll continue to deal hard drugs.
Legalize all recreational drugs and the gangs will deal prescription drugs, export drugs, and sell to minors. Violence remains.
591 bumpkinbob
______________________________________
Bob advocates total prohibition of ALL mind altering substances.
And is too dense to realize how his position violates our Constitutional principles.
Someone testifying on the floor of Congress can say that the Earth is flat, and this statement will be solemnly recorded in the resulting committee report. That doesn't make it credible.
What defines an adult bookstore should be a pretty narrow definition. A video store whose primary business is the rental of regular hollywood releases but has an adult section in the back is not an adult bookstore. A Kwiki-Mart that sells Playboy, Hustler, etc... is not an adult bookstore. Barnes and Noble, who sells said mags is not an adult bookstore.
And adult bookstore is a store who sole purpose is the sale of adult products such as magazines, videos, books, and marital aides as they are commonly called.
Such lovely non-sequiturs you spin forth.
"In my heart I want women, children and animals to be protected from being hurt by pornography reading perverts."
1. If you say so, dear.
"Those who defend pornography obviously don't care."
2. You err, but nothing - not even the direct testimony of God Almighty - shall ever suffice to convince you of that fact.
"How do you think I'm going to react to your question? Run away terrified by you big ole porno supporting posters?"
3. No, I expected you to react pretty much the way you did: with acrimony, bombast, chest-beating, illogic, ad-hominem, and non-sequitur.
"In a pig's eye. Hey, get me kicked off Free Republic for defending the rights of women, children and animals."
4. As I am not a Mod, I cannot "get you kicked off" this site.
5. Even were I a Mod, I would not "get you kicked off" this site for actually defending the rights of women, children, and animals.
6. Since that is not what you are doing, that is irrelevant.
7. What I can do, and AM doing, is alerting the Admin Moderator to a poster who is making personal attacks against other members of this site, in direct violation of this site's TOS. I am making no recommendation as to actions to be taken - that is up to the Powers of this site - not me, and not you.
"I don't give a rat's."
8. Of course you don't, dear.
"I'll go proudly..."
9. Irrelevant. If it comes to you leaving, you will go - proudly or otherwise.
"...because I'm right."
10. That is highly debatable (as over 600 posts of heated disagreement makes quite evident)
Actually, your contention was the opposite. You contended that if current mainstream porn was made illegal, those who are currently producing said porn would turn to child porn to make a buck.
Playboy is pornographic?
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.