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
Um, did you read my post? Apparently not.
And I'm sure you know, or at least have heard of, families that have been destroyed because one of the parties crossed the street at the wrong time and was run over by a truck. I suppose the spouse and children are victims of the offender's reckless and risky decision to cross the street. Do families have the right to use the government to enjoin their members from engaging in risky behavior such as smoking, drinking, or crossing the street?
Of course you know my answer. Please note that this does not preclude them from issuing personal injunctions against such behavior, in the form of, "If you don't stop [drinking|smoking|yanking it to porn|eating those fatty foods|crossing the street], I'm taking the kids and we're outta here". But the minute they start asking the government to get involved, I have a problem with it. Government is force, every government mandate or injunction has an implicit gun behind it. And it's immoral to prevent someone from engaging in a victimless crime because he might offend his loved ones by pointing a gun at him.
There's been plenty of evidence, some sited in this article, that porn utilization contributes to behaviors such as rape, child molestation, even serial murder.
There's plenty of evidence of correlation between consumption of pornography and certain antisocial behaviors. The evidence of causation is far shakier, and is often from sources of questionable neutrality.
Maybe consuming pornography makes you more likely to be a serial killer. Or maybe being a serial killer makes you more likely to consume pornography. Or maybe there are a certain set of mental traits that make one more likely to both consume pornography and commit serial murder. There's really no way to know for sure; the data support all three conclusions. And only the first one would even remotely come close to justifying restrictions on pornography in the name of public safety. In fact, in the other two cases restrictions on pornography might actually be counterproductive and decrease public safety.
Drunk driving is illegal, drinking alcohol is not. Raping somebody while under the "influence" of porn is illegal, porn is not. In both circumstances, it takes an inanimate object (porn, alcohol) plus an additional act to create a crime. You can argue that we should make alcohol illegal in order to prevent the crimes that result from intoxication, but that's not the same as arguing we should make drunk driving legal.
I can see the merits of the argument, but that's a little bit too hardcore for me. I'm fine with the penal code of Libertopia criminalizing reckless endangerment, defined as engaging in conduct which inflicts a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious injury or death to a nonconsenting other, willfully disregarding or being consciously indifferent to the risk in a manner that grossly deviates from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances. Phew.
Drunk driving qualifies as reckless endangerment. Engaging in the production, marketing, or consumption of pornography does not.
Pre-conceived notions are frequently true. A study which happens to support my "pre-conceived" notions is not, therefore, false. You seem to imply that any work which supports "old-fashioned" ideas must be a faulty, sloppy and irrelevant "waste of time and money." There are also those who are still convinced that man has not set foot on the moon. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise, scientific or not. However, the truth of the matter remains, irrespective of their beliefs. The earth remained just as spherical in the years prior to scientific acceptance of the fact.
I'm not really interested in convincing secular skeptics, such as yourself, of facts you don't want to believe. If you are so sure that pornography and its consequences are healthy and strengthening to the American family and culture, then I have no choice but to allow you to live with your delusion.
I suppose there are some who would deny that pain hurts without a study to prove it.
The ones I hope to reach are those who may be living the lie themselves. Those who already know, deep down, they are destroying their family, their career, their lives with pornography and its effects. If anything I say or post helps stop an addict in his tracks long enough to give the matter some serious thought and honestly look at what's happening, then I am satisfied.
And that's fine, but it's not science
No, but it is truth. A repeated, personal experience is often far more convincing than a study, IMO.
But, for the more scientifically persuaded: Dr. Cline's study includes many, if not all, of the elements you want in a study on pornography's effects. Even empirical studies on volunteers proved the negative effects. I'm fully expecting that you won't be convinced, however. Those who don't want to believe something, won't.
Are you openly advocating that we should not allow porn to be legal? If so, do you understand what will be necessary to effect that prohibition?
I'm currrently serving on jury duty and I am considering mentioning "jury nullification" in order to be dismissed for cause instead of suffering more hours of questioning and waiting only to serve as demographic cannon fodder for the lawyers.
Came across your post lately.
I don't think anything should ever be banned if it's use is purely a matter of personal choice and the effects of it's use inure ONLY to the user. Your example is IMO inapposite. More often than not the use/abuse of alcohol has disastrous impacts on everyone other than the user. Just ask victims of drunk drivers or acquaintances of alcoholics who have been assaulted or worse by an out-of-control inebriant.
I strongly suspect the same is true of many other so-called 'Personal Activities' including pornography.
Does that mean tobacco and fatty foods, for example, should be banned?
Your example is IMO inapposite. More often than not the use/abuse of alcohol has disastrous impacts on everyone other than the user.
What do you mean by use/abuse? Are you saying that more often than not the use of alcohol has disastrous impacts on others, or just the abuse of alcohol?
Just ask victims of drunk drivers or acquaintances of alcoholics who have been assaulted or worse by an out-of-control inebriant.
What should be done about alcohol that is not being done now?
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.