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 ...
What good is legislated morality? If you want to base this on religion, then why would you want to use the government to destroy the free will given to us by God? Shouldn't we chose our own reward?
I've been watching the argument you've been having with rp. It isn't about abstract morals, and you know it. I find it interesting that your post didn't mention anything about what the argument really is about, as though you didn't want to deal with it for some reason.
That question is already answered. You'll sit behind a keyboard and complain about all those people out there who actually have the gall to excercise their liberties as they see fit, without consulting YOU. You'll vote for pols who pat you on the head and smile, whilst they back away slowly.
Now, we all know what you'd LIKE to do, but you won't, of course, do it yourselves even if you ever DID get the power. You'd send hired enforcers to do your dirty work, just like every other tyrant.
Fortunately, while conservatism will one day be the majority opinion of America, your false version will never. Most of the people are not that foolish.
I disagree. The base rock is morals and religion.
I did not think I had to spell it all out in detail . Sorry for the long delay .
"Hey, that's my opinion based on past history."
No, it's a fear based on a misreading of that history. But nice try selling it.
Yes. The question is, exactly how will we "deal with you."
I could care less TJ . You statist superior types are always good for a few laughs .
Seems to me that this represents the trend, something you'd like to ignore (you call it society getting "more frank with itself regarding sex"). C'mon.
So, how long before hardcore hits the shelves? Then extreme hardcore?
When we reach that point is when I'm saying that there'll be an increase in the production and distribution of kiddie porn. Like porn producers won't cross that line?
If, after a half-century (beginning with Playboy, although porn certainly existed before it),and INCLUDING the '60s, that's all that has happened, we're in no trouble.
Sorry, but there is no evidence to support your slippery-slope arguments, historical or otherwise. It's merely an attempt to motivate others with unfounded fears. Gun cotrollers, as I said, do this as well. It's not even CLOSE to sufficient cause to restrict the liberties of other peaceable citizens. However, those who seek to do so frequently resort to such tactics. I suppose I should not be suprised to see you take this tack...you've tried all the others.
robertpaulsen, -- So you decline to dispute the lack of intellectual honesty in that comparison. Thanks.
701 -CSM-
______________________________________
Paulsen considers posting to FR to be one big "gottcha" game.
He long ago gave up on supporting any pretense of intellectual honesty, and gets called on his BS several times a day, at least. -- Strange fella. No pride.
As a result, when these porn-trained young men get married, they think they "got a dud" wife because she cooks slowly, like a crockpot, rather than comes on instantly, like a microwave. Even more unexpected, she connects sex to other concerns, like physical and financial security, a pleasant home, etc.
These young men need to wake up, repent of their porn and the lies it teaches, and replace their warped view with a biblical understanding"
That's what I was getting at too. Too many generations are currently learning via internet porn that objectification of females is "normal" when it is NOT! These silly boys will grow into men who will too late, and three divorces later that they were sold a bag of "tricks" (literally) by the internet pimps, while back in the REAL WORLD women demand and expect respect and equalities. Women aren't here to be mens "play things", to be discarded or murdered when certain men with little boy maturity levels don't get their way, example Scott Peterson (sick b*st*rd)
Yep.
(Have the shoulder-fired missiles and nerve gas grenades started to show up at gun shops in states with relatively libertarian gun laws? It's only a matter of time, according to robertpaulsen....)
On a few occasions I have had reasonable and logic based discussions with RP. So, while I understand your sentiment, I can't support a blanket statement about his approach. I do accept that your experience may differ from mine.
And of course you believe these are protected by the second amendment (otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned them).
Crazy, whackjob extremists like you have made Sarah Brady possible. Thanks a boatload.
CSM:
"So you would waste your time fighting a legal activity instead of protecting your little dog, nephew or daughter from evil individuals? Nice of you to openly state your priorities!"
_______________________________________
Let's make it legal to steal your property.
You, of couse, have the right to defend it by any legal means necessary. But we get to keep it if we take it.
You want to live that way? Is that your priority?
690 robertpaulsen
___________________________________________
Nice circular logic.
There is no intellectual honesty when you compare making a current legal activity between consenting adults with a current illegal activity causing harm to a non consenting adult.
But, then you knew that already.
694 csm
______________________________________
You comment that paulsen uses dishonest arguments; -- I agree, -- now you're back defending paulsen?
Whatever.
I'm not backing him on this thread, I'm just pointing out that I have had previous interactions that were much different than the interaction here. He's not from FLA if you get my drift.
(Have the shoulder-fired missiles and nerve gas grenades started to show up at gun shops in states with relatively libertarian gun laws?
It's only a matter of time, according to robertpaulsen....)
730 steve-b
______________________________________
And of course you believe these are protected by the second amendment (otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned them).
Crazy, whackjob extremists like you have made Sarah Brady possible.
Thanks a boatload.
733 paulsen
______________________________________
To: tpaine
On a few occasions I have had reasonable and logic based discussions with RP.
So, while I understand your sentiment, I can't support a blanket statement about his approach. I do accept that your experience may differ from mine.
732 CSM
______________________________________
# 733 is yet another demo of paulsens "reason & logic".
You will note that I wasn't the one who brought up "shoulder-fired missiles and nerve gas grenades".
I just counter those whack-a-moles with reason and logic. And a smile.
At #733 you said to Steve-B:
"Crazy, whackjob extremists like you have made Sarah Brady possible. Thanks a boatload."
Now you claim you did it with a "SMILE"?
True demntia, paulsen.
Yet another example of your inate duplicity.
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.