Posted on 12/09/2004 1:16:14 PM PST by Lindykim
Pornography is Anything But a 'Victimless Crime' 12/8/2004 By Cheri Pierson Yecke How many more expert studies do we need to convince ourselves of this fact?
Jud Fry -- one of the characters in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma! lives in a shack that is papered with pornographic images. He is a loner, lacks social skills, and is feared by his neighbors. He is clearly capable of murder. This insight into the character of a porn addict hit the Broadway stage in 1943.
Fast forward to 2004. A sexual assault and several attempted abductions of girls in the St. Paul, Minnesota, area are allegedly the work of 19-year-old Ryan Mely, who has been charged (for starters) with second-degree criminal sexual conduct. He apparently was a loner who was feared by his neighbors. Jud Fry is a fictitious character who bought his porn from an itinerant peddler. How did Ryan Mely get his start? Apparently, pornography was a family pastime. While some dads bond with their kids by fishing or playing hockey together, it appears that Mely and his father (a convicted sex offender) shared an interest in pornography. It was reported that sexually explicit material was found at the family home and on their computer.
Is anyone really surprised that pornography is involved here? It has been 60 years since a Broadway musical portrayed what social scientists and criminal analysis have now found to be true -- addiction to pornography can lead to violent sexual behavior. Dr. Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist and expert on sexual addictions, has identified four stages of progression among his patients.
The first stage is addiction, where the attraction to porn is overpowering and the viewer keeps craving more. The next stage is an escalation to more shocking and deviant images, as the earlier ones have lost their power to stimulate. Third is desensitization, where anything earlier seen as disturbing and repulsive becomes viewed as commonplace. Finally, satisfaction cannot be reached unless the perpetrator begins acting out the activities witnessed in the pornography. In effect, fantasy must become reality.
The events in which Mely was allegedly involved appear to follow this pattern. Perhaps the same is true for Alfonso Rodriguez, the man who allegedly abducted and murdered Dru Sjodin. Rodriguez apparently had an infatuation with Dru, who worked at Victoria's Secret, an upscale lingerie shop. On several occasions he allegedly called the store where she worked, asking for her by name.
Victoria's Secret is well known for its racy, soft-porn "fashion show" where voluptuous young models strut the runways in revealing lingerie. The liberal National Organization for Women called it "exploitative" and the conservative Concerned Women for America condemned it as a "high-tech striptease." Regularly protested by both sides of the political spectrum, the company announced in April that it will no longer air this event
The last Victoria's Secret "fashion show" aired on network television November 19, 2003. Dru was abducted three days later. Could it be that Alfonso Rodriguez, a convicted sex offender, watched the show and was propelled into Dr. Cline's fourth stage of sexual deviance? This is a question his judge and jury may consider.
In an interview the night before his 1989 execution, serial killer Ted Bundy revealed the influence of pornography on his life.
A case study for Cline's four stages of addiction, Bundy started his descent into sexual deviance and murder with magazines he found in the neighbor's trash. His addiction escalated until he felt compelled to act out his desires in more than 30 murders that were accompanied with violent sexual acts.
He warned Americans: "There are those loose in [your] towns and communities, like me, whose dangerous impulses are being fueled, day in and day out, by violence in the media, in its various forms -- particularly sexualized violence ... . There are lots of other kids playing in the streets around the country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, because other young people are reading and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today."
Abundant evidence has demonstrated the tragic impact of pornography. How many more expert studies do we need to convince ourselves of this fact? The elections of 2004 have sent politicians the message that morals matter, so now is the time to focus on the impact of pornography -- the so-called "victimless crime."
Cheri Pierson Yecke is a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Education and Social Policy at the Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank in Minneapolis. She is a former Minnesota commissioner of education and is author of The War Against Excellence. This article first appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Used with permission.
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 E-mail: mail@cwfa.org
No, it's completely true. You didn't link to the source where you borrowed your material. Other than that, you're always free to get ideas from wherever you like - if you want to climb in bed with the Andrea Dworkin left, that's your business.
Do you just sit in wait for opportunities to nail people that haven't buttoned up every microdot of due diligence before clicking 'post'??
AGAIN...I posted an explanation that spoke to my sentiments--did not try and hide my source, but didn't include it either--too lazy to paraphrase (absolutely false to claim that I tried to hide this--YOU do not know the mechanics of my mind, although you are certainly arrogant in acting as if you've "secreted out" my "intent'!)
Get a life.
I have explained plenty to you about my philosophy regarding NOW and this has become more tedious than I choose to further engage in.
Go pick on somebody else.
LOL. If it's no big deal, why are you getting so agitated? So you and Catherine MacKinnon have a lot in common - so what, who cares, right?
Bye.
Bye bye.
You are so right. I think pornography should be banned and we should legalize hookers... on every corner. Hookers will help stop pornography and will also help the local economy.
Yes, it does swing far afield of the matter. And that is the crux of the matter. Congress passed the VAWA under the Commerce Clause. None of it's enumerated powers give it the authority over such matters directly.
Seems like 'edifice' over reality.
I believe the "edifice" you're referring to is the US Constitution.
Explain it to me--how did I mischaracterize? I'm not an expert but something is amiss here...
Where in your characterization of their decision do you address the Commerce Clause issues, and the court's findings with regards to them that rendered the Act unconstitutional?
In his concurring opinion in the case, Clarence Thomas wrote
"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
Somehthing is amiss, indeed.
But the actresses are doing it of their own free will. Would you outlaw all anal sex? I know of several heterosexual couples that engage in anal sexual activity. Should the government bust down their door and arrest them?
I agree there are some men that get unrealistic expectations from porn. But I think this also ties in to the whole woman want to make love and men want to F*** thing.
Also I don't think some of the expectations are "unrealistic". Most of the woman I have known that were against porn, and whose husbands I knew, were the kind that wanted to do it only in the missionary position with the lights off. I don't think some nasty talking, hair pulling, and butt slapping is that unrealistic.
Ok, point taken.
My use of 'edifice' meant rigid parameters, regardless of content or specificity...(and I see how you interpretated that to imply the Constitution. I was actually referring to unyeilding bureaucratic processes -- you could argue that to a degree, that is one in the same however, but that was never my intent).
I did not include full detail, granted--I'm in no way prepared to--but all this academic dialogue still does not supply an answer to the specific need, it only moves it aside, as 'untidy'.
It may be neatly tied up with precedent but the situation still hemorrages...so what has been solved re the intrinsic nature of the original problem presented in the case?
This is where blinders-style process breaks dowen for me.
I understand the essential requirement for cemented anatomy of law to govern this massive cooperative, and do not take that lightly. Critical systems cannot be trivialized and disassembled in one-off hits, I get that--but this case represents an epidemic reality, not a blimp on the radar.
When law is not serving the very reasons for which it came into being in the first place, does it become an exercise in self-cycling, puff and blow paralysis?
The plaintiff just sucks it up because of constitutional inconvenience?
Or even a "blip" :-)
(Those pesky dirigibles can really screw up a situation...)
This was to you
Or even a "blip" :-)
(Those pesky dirigibles can really screw up a situation...)
And, they don't call it the world's oldest profession for nothing.
Porno prohibition will be about as successful as alcohol prohibition, although women may actually start getting paid more, as black market good command higher prices.
NOW can get as upset about it as they like ... but it's their consitutuency that has the propensity to shed their clothes when a few hundred dollar bills are waived at them.
Just getting this straight here...
Teens that use drugs and have social issues can blame this on porn? The drugs and unsupervised parties have nothing to do with this?
If parents include themselves in these children's lives and if dad gives his son the Talk at the approriate age, I feel certain these things wouldn't happen.
I had the opportunity on several occassions to have what your post said when I was younger. My dad taught me what respect is though, and I declined. Some girls thought it was strange, but I don't regret it.
I have had intercourse with one person now. I am 20, she is 18. I am currently saving up money for a ring and we have been going out for almost a year and a half. I love this young woman, she loves me. We have plans with each other. All because my dad taught me what was right.
And yes, I've seen or known of porn since I was in grade-school. It was a common topic for us 2nd graders who didn't know better. Once I had the talk, the uneducated banter stopped, and sex became less of a "discovery" that I felt I should persue.
Again, I agree with you that porn can be bad when used unresponsibly. However, "We" shouldn't worry about the message we send our societies children nearly so much as "We" should teach our own children. This is a family affair, not a social one.
My use of 'edifice' meant rigid parameters, regardless of content or specificity...(and I see how you interpretated that to imply the Constitution. I was actually referring to unyeilding bureaucratic processes -- you could argue that to a degree, that is one in the same however, but that was never my intent).
I did not include full detail, granted--I'm in no way prepared to--but all this academic dialogue still does not supply an answer to the specific need, it only moves it aside, as 'untidy'.
It may be neatly tied up with precedent but the situation still hemorrages...so what has been solved re the intrinsic nature of the original problem presented in the case?
Nothing was solved, because the end doesn't, and cannot justify the means if the Constitution is to remain as the basis for our government.
This is where blinders-style process breaks dowen for me.
I understand the essential requirement for cemented anatomy of law to govern this massive cooperative, and do not take that lightly. Critical systems cannot be trivialized and disassembled in one-off hits, I get that--but this case represents an epidemic reality, not a blimp on the radar.
A Communitarian Ethos The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal. He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty. "If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say ‘un-American,' or ‘dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out ‘well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other."
When law is not serving the very reasons for which it came into being in the first place, does it become an exercise in self-cycling, puff and blow paralysis?
The plaintiff just sucks it up because of constitutional inconvenience?
From George Washington's Farewell Address:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
You find fault with the Supreme Court's decision in this case without understanding the issues involved, and attribute the basis for that determination to "common sense". If such sense becomes common enough, the Constitution will be rendered little more than a curious relic of a bygone republic. The arguments you've copied and pasted are a blatant misrepresenttion of the issues involved. They are a lie. Granted, it is a very pretty and righteous sounding lie, but it is still a lie and you've been conned into helping them spread it.
Some of the most repressive regimes in the world have failed to stamp out pornography. For example, pre-revolutionary France failed to stop pornographic literature being widely distributed within the country, much of it anti-clerical in nature. And that was in a time when a printing press required a building and was not easily transported away.
With the internet, it is damn near impossible to ban pornography. The best we can do is try to encourage a moral rebirth, and fostering healthy sexual attitudes; this happens one family at a time.
Regards, Ivan
What about food?
"Nothing was solved"
Your words.
How do we reconcile this?
A conundrum. Do we just throw our hands up with "oh, well?"
"The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
I daresay this case symbolizes a continuous, permanent and pervasive evil that looms large, part of our fabric even--not a blip as I said--why then does it not deserve equitable, special status?
I mentioned in an earlier post the value of ongoing dialogue/process--I do not hear anything from you other than iron intransgigence.
"You find fault with the Supreme Court's decision in this case without understanding the issues involved, and attribute the basis for that determination to "common sense".
Well, right, I do--as you and I both admitted, nothing was solved. You say I don't understand the issues involved and ridicule my notion of common sense.
Let me again say emphatically I do understand the absolute necessity of a concrete anatomy of law--constitutional law in the US--it does hold us together. But the process of amendment is what allows it to flex for core, essential issues.
If you read my previous post, you should see that I do not advocate tampering frivolously here, that to do is to begin to unravel--we are preaching to one another.
The diff between us is that I do not consider the basis of this suit to be an aberration-- a cultural a one-off or rare event, but rather a part of the life experience of half the US population (in varying degrees) and hence profound to our country's well-being.
How do you reconcile this?
Do we write this situation off as too hard to tangle with, while preserving sancrosanct,lumbering, poetic writ, even if it becomes an ineffectual parody of itself--bloated to the point with no agility to address reality?
Seems we would be evolving our law toward irrelavance if it cannot address the very dynamics it was concieved to address.
I am not clear on why you say I am perpetuating a "lie"
'"Accepability" of porn is busting moves left and right (figuratively and ideologically) with NO end in sight."
I disagree with your opinion. Yes it is getting more acceptable in certain venues, but at the same time it is being challenged in a lot of different cities, and even New York has shut alot of their trade down.
The more it gets to be so out in the open, the less enticing it is. That's just human nature. There are self-limiting mechanisms in place, we just haven't seen them kick in quite yet. I predict that it has about reached its peak. The next few years will tell which one of us is correct.
Because you daring to say it does not make it so, nor entitle it to special treatment.
The answer is in Washington's words. If this is indeed a matter of such grave concern as you assert then getting a Contitutional Amendment giving the federal government authority over such matters should not be a difficult matter.
I am not clear on why you say I am perpetuating a "lie"
Then I suggest you actually read the court's decision in US v Morrison. I have already given you an excerpt from Clarence Thomas' concurrance. You will note that it bears no resemblance to the arguments and issues the propagandasmiths at NOW say are the basis of the decision. Read the decision, and then do a critical examination of the way that decision is characterized in the arguments you've posted.
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.