Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I heard the same presentation (I think...I didn't actually get the
    lecturer's name, but the content sounds identical) at a recent
    W.I.T.C.H lecture.  
    
    It was indeed chilling.  And sickening with it.  The images that stick
    in my mind are the meat-grinder collage, the cartoon of the mutilated
    body (pelvic area only) lying in bed, and the cartoon of the woman
    having her vagina used as a roach trap.
    
    I don't know what to do about it.  I used to think that the Danish and
    Swedish stats proved that the availability of porn reduced the
    frequency of sex crimes rather than increasing them, but the lecturer
    asserted that the sharp drop in stats was due to a simultaneous change
    in reporting criteria.
    
    						=maggie 

    I have not been to one of these lectures but I know that some of
    this stuff is pretty sick. I do not think that we can beat this
    by making it illegal. It will just drive it further underground.
    
    I would like to make an analogy to much of the *unchallenged* racism
    that used to go on. It was *reduced* with the rise of the civil rights
    movement and the more recent Black rights movements.
    
    I think that there is a serious lack of respect for women in this
    country. There is also a general lack of respect for human rights.
    
    This permeates our society and institutions. How can women expect
    that they be respected while much of the establishment does not
    even grant a woman the right to control her own body.
    
    I think we have a long struggle ahead of us. Women's equality and
    dignity will not be cheap for those that make $trillions on the
    lower wages that are paid women.
    
    Women that cannot be degraded will be very powerful force. A very
    powerful force of women will not and cannot be degraded.
    
    Les

    Another topic on pornography can be viewed in Womannotes-V1
    
    topic 45 is titled Pornography.
    
    -Jody
    

    	I don't think pornography itself can be blamed for rape, incest,
    murder etc., any more than anyone believes that dress, mannerisms,
    makeup, can be blamed for same. It's all window dressing for a much
    deeper problem.
    
    	People who have alcoholic parents are very likely to experience
    alcohol related problems. Children who were beaten by parents are
    likely to beat their own children. This is known and treatable.
    
    	Pornography is a sickness within itself. People who buy
    pornographic material are fulfilling fantasies that they may otherwise
    never be able to fulfill. 
    
    	I did a study in college about sexual attitudes in the Greater
    Portland Maine area. An area of 80-100,000 people at the time had
    5-6 X-rated cinemas, 4 peep shops, and a rising prostitution problem
    in an age of relative sexual freedom (1975). I won't go into the
    entire research paper, but what I found was that many average people
    are embarrassed about being in these places but it affords them
    a temporary stress relief from everyday pressure. I spoke with men
    and women who purchased materials, magazines, films etc. and almost
    to a person they did it to fulfill something missing in their lives.
    I did not deal with Pedophilia or kiddie porn, just adult stuff.
    
    	Snuff films and other depictions of gruesome action are not
    really pornographic, rather they are more horror effective. They
    present an opportunity for the viewer experience something out of
    the ordinary. It's the same sick little gremlin that makes people
    slow down and take a curiously long look at an automobile accident.
    
    	I'm not justifying pornography. I believe that it does not promote
    rape, incest, or other extraordinary behavior. I think some pornography
    actually provides therapy to some individuals who find it tantilizing
    or 'naughty'.
    
    Ken

    re .4:
    
    "tantalizing" is spelled with an a.

     What I don't understand is why people allow those types of pictures to
    be taken of themselves. I realize the degrading nature of some
    pornography applies more to women than men, but I have seen some
    equally degrading pictures of men all trussed up by their dominatrixes.
    
     How does one go about forcing another human being into posing for
    these types of photos? Isn't that action (forcing) illegal? If the
    action is voluntary, do we have any right to ban such materials? (Will
    it make any difference if we do?)
    
     To me, pictures of naked people do not in and of themselves constitute
    pornography. I know some people have differing opinions over what is
    pornographic. I am certain from the descriptions in the first few notes
    that I would not be interested in looking at the pictures described-
    they definitely sound pornographic. I am not sure that we have the
    right to ban pictures of that nature, though, if the subjects of the
    pictures are consenting adults. I understand and empathise with the
    disgust and frustration exhibited by the previous noters. I too am
    disgusted at some things I see. I am not sure that a ban on said
    articles would solve any problems.
    
     When someone is actually forced to do things of that nature, to be
    captured on film or otherwise, it is or should be against the law. When
    someone feels it necessary to do that to express themselves sexually, I
    don't have a problem with it. I do think that the distribution of those
    materials should be restricted to those over 21.
    
     The Doctah

    also from womannotes-v1:
    
    774	"Why I Hate Marilyn" 59 replies (including rathole on porn)
    782 "Playboy/Playgirl (from 774) how do we react" 218 replies
    
    DougO

    It is extremely important (IMO) to distinguish *violent* porn from
    porn depicting non-violent, consensual sex between adults.  Too
    many people lump the two together.  Even this early in this string,
    there is at least the *tendency* to do so.
    
    I really would like to see the results of a study that compares
    the effects of three different stimuli: (1)violent pornography,
    (2) non-violent pornography (which *I* would call eroticism), and
    (3) violent images that are unrelated to any sexual activity.
    
    My problem with this is that too many people are eager to lump together
    #1 and #2 and ban both of them, while almost everyone ignores the
    impact of #3!
    
    Nancy
    

    Yes, Maggie, it is the same woman.  (I kept my flyer; her name
    is given as plain Gail Dines in it.)
    
    						Ann B.

.0>...Statistics correlating rise in pornography with
.0>rise in rape. Admissions from rapists and serial murderers that they were
.0>heavily into pornography. 

    I have a gut feeling (shared by some previous noters) that
    there is at least an indirect connection between violent
    pornography and violence against women.

    But the statistical correlation does *not* imply a causal
    relationship. 

    Nor do the admissions by criminals that they were "into"
    porn...what percentage of them were?  What "type" of porn,
    how violent was it?  How did they feel at the time?  How many
    (presumably) non-criminal persons are "into" porn?  How do
    the stats compare?  And again, even if the stats show that a
    significantly higher number of rapists etc were "into" porn,
    or that they "felt" differently about it, it still doesn't
    imply that porn is the direct cause.

    I suspect that porn, like woman-directed violence, is a
    symptom of something else...and *that* is what we have to
    fix.

    -- Linda

    P.S. Sorry about the digression, but mis-use and
         mis-understanding of statistics is one of my pet peeves.

�    < Note 544.5 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >
                                    -< Nit >-

�    re .4:
    
�    "tantalizing" is spelled with an a.
 
    And of course an 's' (as in tantalising)
    
    :-)
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    	The definition of pornography, from the AHD anyway, is "written
    or pictorial material intended to arouse sexual feelings"
    
    	Seems the material spoken of in .0 is intended to arouse a
    bit more than just "sexual feelings"... 
    
    	Either that, or they're presenting the idea of sex in a completely
    inappropriate context, yet, "apparently" one that some people can
    relate to. How do I know? Because it "apparently" sells...
    
    	Now, why would anyone only be able to get themselves aroused
    sexually in the context of violence, hate and desecration? Could
    it be that they themselves were once the object of such a view?
    Could it be that this is what "works for them" as a direct result 
    of their own past experiences, ones that they perhaps had no choice 
    in "going through with it" or not? (likely as a child...)
    
    	As was alluded to earlier, that the market for this stuff even exists
    is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem in our society. Working
    on clearing up the symptoms of the bigger problem will provide some
    *temporary* relief, but, it will return again at some later time
    or simply manefest itself in a different way...Hopefully *not* in
    some "proactive effort" on the part of the person with the problem.
    
    	Working on the actual problem and perhaps solving it in our
     Great Society, will eventually cause this market to dissappear. With
    no market for this material, there will be no sales. With no sales,
    there will be no product offering. With no product offering, the
    "clean up" goal has been achieved.
    
    	An analogous argument can be made for the drug problems in this
    country.
    
    	Joe Jas 
             

    
    �< Note 544.13 by ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI "We're part of the fire that is burning!" >
    �                            -< It sure is. >-

    
    �	The definition of pornography, from the AHD anyway, is "written
    �or pictorial material intended to arouse sexual feelings"
     
    My dictionary defines "pornography" as "published material that
    tends to deprave or corrupt normal members of the public". This
    definition is probably due to the fact that this is how British
    law defines pornography. A judge once defined these criteria to
    a jury by saying that a typical member of the public was the man
    on the upper deck of the Clapham Omnibus.
    
    I would argue that the material mentioned in .0 neither depraves
    nor corrupts normal members of the public: it simply sickens them.
    The people who would buy it and read (or otherwise view) it are
    already depraved and corrupt. Therefore the material may be sick,
    but it isn't pornographic.               
    
    /. Ian .\

    Pornography is not going to go away, until *everybody* stops purchsing
    it.  John and Jane Doe may not think they are hurting anything or
    anyone if they purchase a magazine or rent a video, whatever, but by
    doing so, they are *SUPPORTING* the creeps that make this stuff.  And,
    as was said in an earlier reply, as long as there is a demand, there
    will be a supply. (Same argument with drugs). 

      I believe that a lot of us care. But what can we do about it? I
      don't want censorship, it will too soon be used to block political
      thought regardless how it starts. My time spent working in the ER
      let me see a lot of what happens to people in our supposedly
      civilized society. Violence is a fact of daily life for the poor
      in the streets. Violence is a fact in a large number of movies
      made for teenagers (got to reach those developing minds). Just
      watch TV at night. We are suffused with violence.

      We can not remove violence from sex if it exists as a permissable
      form of behavior in the rest of our lives. When I see pictures
      like that I'm afraid. Who are these men that think this is sexy?
      How can I tell them apart from the decent ones? They don't carry
      the sign of the devil in their faces, I suspect more than a few of
      them are "pillars" of the community.

      No answers here, just questions and a background fear of "what
      evil lurks, in the minds of men". liesl

    re: .15
    
         How are John and Jane Doe hurting anyone or anything by supporting
    the "creeps" that make pornography?
    
         John and Jane have decidee that they enjoy what other people
    call pornography.  They enjoy it in the privacy of their home and
    they are courteous enough to not "expose" others who may not be
    interested in it.  Who is being hurt?
    
         Would anyone care to explain to me the relationship between
    pornography and erotica?
    
    ASP

    
    I have several opinions on this subject:
    
    1. Once while I was in the USMC I had to clean up the barracks after
    a deployment (our squadron was in Yuma Arizona for 20 days) and
    I cleaned out a huge pile of Playboys. Noone ever talked about buying
    them. So who buys this stuff? Also there were none of the goofy
    violent magazines in the bunch.
    
    2. Censorship is always wrong. I can't imagine I'd ever agree with
    the ACLU but they are correct on this one, have you ever been in
    a video store that has been closed down because they rent X-rated
    movies? Well I have. I have. There wasn't any intent of renting
    anything other than mainstream X-rated stuff but the local prosecutor
    went after them and closed them down and force the store to open
    up a mile away in another county. If the government starts telling
    us what to watch it won't be long before they tell us what to read.
    Pretty soon we'll have to watch what we say in NOTES.
    
    3. As disgusting and rotten as he was I have to take my hat off
    to Ted Bundy. He used every trick in the book to escape the chair
    and after he failed what did he do he dredged up a Preacher and
    told him that pornograply made him do it! What a joke! What a magic
    button, why didn't he say that moneygrubbing TV ministers caused
    him to not believe in God? Or maybe he could have said he was following
    in Jim and Tammy's footsteps by trying to rip off society. No he
    was smarter than that. All he had to do is say that pornography
    caused him to murder and he had a chorus that would give him
    credability forever. 
    
   
    for what its worth
    
    Fred Mudgett

    
    	Seems ch. 27 has a lot of time to sell on Saturday mornings...
    Interspersed with the "get rich quick" type stuff was an hour of
    campaigning by the "National alliance against pornography" or some
    such group, asking for $25, $50, $100, and $500 donations. With
    a 1-800 number.
    
    	After watching their presentation, *I* was almost ready to give!
    I could identify with their causal implications between the presence
    of pornography and the "state of the street" or whatever. They even
    didnt "slight the context" by carefully stating "Hard Core, Violent
    Pornography" *each* time they mentioned their issue.
    
    	I assumed they werent talking about "Playboy"...
    
    	However, many of the stories they presented to validate their
    cause I have heard before, in the context of "the alcoholic family"
    and "family dysfunctionality". As I had suspected, HCVP is a symptom 
    /manefestation of a much bigger problem. Relieving the symptoms
    will provide temporary relief...
    
    	Clearly, getting one's self aroused over images of desecration
    and violence is dysfunctional in terms of context. Is looking at
    "playboy" as a member of a barracks full of Marines also being 
    "dysfunctional", considering the context of arousal? Certainly it
    can be argued that a barricks full of Marines is hardly a "fully
    functional" situation for the individual's needs. Certain "levels"
    just may be *necessary*, I've been told.
    
    	Joe Jas 

			An Open Letter
 


   We live in cities like the tame pheasants who are hand-raised and then 
turned loose for hunters to shoot, an activity called sport. The hunting, 
maiming, the mutilation and murder of ourselves, our mothers, our 
grandmothers, our daughters, our granddaughters is the stuff of a vast 
industry. Just as the National Rifle Association spends millions whenever 
restriction of hunting is considered in an area like the one I live in, 
where more dogs are shot every year than deer, so the corporate 
woman-desecrators hire the best legal talent to keep their violence against 
women on the streets, in the theaters, in the combat zones of every city. 
They use all the arsenal of weapons available to those with money and 
position: they use economic pressure against newsstand vendors: if you 
don't like these flesh magazines, you can't have the others you need. They 
use muscles. They use threats and injunctions and sympathetic or bought 
judges. They use male intellectuals who consider arousal sacred, no matter 
whether it is caused by a caress or the sight of a disemboweling. The link 
between sex and violence must be broken in our generation and broken for 
good if we are to survive into a future fit for our children to inhabit.

			-- Marge Piercy, Take the Back the Night, 1980

> The link 
>between sex and violence must be broken in our generation and broken for 
>good if we are to survive into a future fit for our children to inhabit.

Perhaps you might start with Calvin Klein ads?

Martin.

    re .23 (Martin)
    
    I agree. I think much of the U.S.'s gross national product is based
    on some degree of appealing to sexual insecurities.
    
    Les

    Pheasants are not "hand-raised" they are pen-raised in large flight
    pens, and they are not tame either any more than the alligators
    raised on alligator farms are tame.  What does that part have to
    do with pornography anyway?
    	Linda

 Yeah Linda!!!!!

 Your pal,

 Doc :-)

    Re .25:
    
    Pheasants per se, as far as I know, have nothing to do with
    pornography. Ostriches, on the other hand, have everything to do
    with it. They enable it by burying their heads in the sand.

Someone once defined the difference between erotica and pornography as
the difference between a feather and a chicken.

M.

    A feather is erotic, the whole chicken is kinky!

    
    When I was a humble photographic apprentice (a long time ago) I
    was told that if when I had taken a figure study I was prepared
    to sign it then it was [erotic] art. If I wasn't it was either bad
    or pornographic or both.
    
    I have used the guideline ever since, and haven't had a lot of trouble
    with it.               
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    So that we're at least on opposite sides of the _same_ issue, could
    I ask that we use these terms:
    
       "Erotica" -- stuff that winds up in museums if it's good
       enough, and which we'd then be willing to have our name
       on if we were the artist/photographer/subject/ whatever
       [thanks, Ian]
       
       "Soft Porn" -- stuff that's typically peddled in Playboy
       or Playgirl.  Nudity, provocative poses, no sex acts.
       
       "Hard Porn" -- sex acts, but no violence (except maybe
       consensual, as B&D or S&M). 
       
       "Violent Porn" -- sexualised violence.
                                                  
       "Violence"  -- without a link to sex.
       
       "Degradation" -- portrayal of something not explicity
       sexual or violent, but nonetheless clearly conveying an
       image not favorable to the subject.
       
       
    I may have left some off, or you may wish to redefine some term in
    the context of your note.  For the sake of clearer communication,
    let's at least take these as the default meanwhile.  Thanks. 
                                              
    						=maggie
       

Last Sunday's Globe had an article in the Focus section on the recent trend
in advertising towards steamily sexual spreads in women's fashion
magazines. Just to give one example, the May issue of Vogue has an ad for
Obsession fragrance showing a full-page nude, front-view female torso with erect
nipples. 

Can anyone explain how this happened - the transformation of Vogue, Cosmo,
New Woman, Self, and the like, via of the ads they carry, into virtual
soft-core porn mags? What does it say about anything? 

    Money
    
    It appears to be the only thing that matters today.  Everything has
    a price, from whole governments (the Japanese stock scandal), to
    human dignity.  Sometimes I wish the entire economic system would
    collapse and give us a chance to start over.
    
    Mary

    Re .34:
    
    Granted, money explains almost everything...but why soft-porn imagery
    in magazines that are supposedly for *women*? I.e., why does it
    sell products to women? (Unless the real function of these magazines is 
    to teach women how to become the sex objects that are so similarly
    portrayed in men's magazines for purposes of titillation)
          

    re .35
    
>   Granted, money explains almost everything...but why soft-porn imagery
>   in magazines that are supposedly for *women*? I.e., why does it
>   sell products to women? (Unless the real function of these magazines is 
>   to teach women how to become the sex objects that are so similarly
>   portrayed in men's magazines for purposes of titillation)
   
    But isn't this the major reason for such magazines? Who are their
    advertizers? Arn't they the ones that are making gobs from telling
    women that they must buy these products to be in vogue, to be worthy
    of a fitting mate and acceptance in this strata of society.
    
    Magazines targeted to men do similar things. That's how a lot of
    cars get sold.
    
    Les 

    re.35 'dawn breaks...'
    
    Cosmo's idea of 'liberated and independent' oh so frequently translates
    to 'marketable enough to be a total bitch and still attract men like
    bees to honey' 
    
    Vogue is 'high-fashion' and puts forward the latest and greatest
    ideas of those who brought us:
      1. women with no hips
      2. women with no breasts
      3. women whose bodies automatically adapt to the shape of this
	 year's chic
    
    Neither by their imagery present women as realistic persons, but rather
    as segmented icons.  The images portrayed are attractive on first
    glance and project an appealing aura of beauty-made-simple.
    
    While there's nothing wrong with breasts having nipples, indeed
    one hopes that they do, one does wonder what earthly connection
    they have to _smelling_ alluring.
    
   Advertisers will stop using these images when they no longer sell.
    
    
      Ann

Re .36 -

I guess you're right, fashion magazines have always told women how to 
dress, etc. to please men. It just was a surprise to me to see how
blatantly they're now telling women how to *un*dress to please men! 

Oh well, so what's female sexuality for anyway, if not to please men?    

Instead of "... to please men," perhaps one could read the advertisements
roughly as follows:

  "You're ugly.  You smell bad.  Noone loves you.  Noone desires you.
   You're not sexually exciting."

   "Buy this stuff."

   "You'll be beautiful.  You'll smell normal.  Someone will love you.
    Someone will desire you.  You'll be sexually exciting."

For "this stuff" substitute anything you wish, from jeans to toothpaste
to automobiles.

When I moved back to America, the strangest culture shock came from
"ring around the collar" and toothpaste/mouthwash/deodorant ads.  The
ads where the "before" person gets into an elevator and everyone else
gets out.  The image of "you don't belong unless you smell fresh and
you won't smell fresh unless you use our soap" is very strong.

The porno-ads are just a bit more blatant, but not intrinsically different.

Martin.

    
       Joe Jas explained the Pornography phenomenon very well 
    a few replies back.  The abundance of vulgar and degrading 
    material is America's market economy satisfying a need.  
       The need for violent or degrading material probably begins
    at an early age - especially if a child is denied the opportunity
    to discuss or explore their sexuality in a healthy, normal way.
    If children make an association between degradation or violence
    and sexuality, that connection is likely to carry into adulthood.
    Similarly, if a child is taught to feel guilt over sexual feelings
    perhaps the violent aspect of pornography are concessions to guilt
    feelings - by adding a pain element to the sexual act.
                                         
    
    TF             
    
    TF
    

    
    	re .35...
    
    I've noticed that about those "women's" magazines; and the "erotica"
    is clearly _not_ limited to the advertizements, it is also part
    'n parcel of the whole publication - it's in the articles.
    
    If I wanted to "get turned on" by looking at women's photographic
    images in an objective/subjective context, I could do it just as
    easily with these "women's magazines" as I could by looking at any
    "playboy". The "required material" is there. So, in my mind, the
    question of "why is that?" still stands unanswered.
    
    It does "suggest" some things, however.
    
    	Joe Jas
                                                             

    	All one has to do is look at the cover of Cosmopolitan to see
    the latest 'hot' 13 year old model made up to look 26 or the latest
    'hot' 26 year old model made up to look 13.
    
    	My daughter picked up a copy of Vogue Saturday while we were
    in the checkout line. The ads were "sexier" (IMO) than most of the
    photo spreads in men's magazines. Long legged women with garters
    and black nylons, sheer nightwear (playwear??), and most intriguing
    of all, the magazines had an aroma like a musk(ish) male aftershave
    or cologne. She went to another rack to sniff another issue and
    it smelled the same. I don't understand why scantily clad, alluring
    female models are selling ads in these magazines. Unless they are
    selling women that they will look like the model if they buy the
    stuff in the ad. 
    
    Ken  

    <-- re .43, << Unless they are selling women that they will look
    like the model if they buy the stuff in the ad. >>
    
    Bingo!  Ms. Average Woman picks up Cosmo/Vogue/etc. in the grocery
    check-out line.  Sees scores of models with perfect faces and bodies
    (scantily clad to accentuate their perfection and utter lack of
    cellulite) in romantic and exciting scenarios.  Thinks, "Gee, I
    don't look much like that.  Maybe if I did, I'd be in one of those 
    exciting scenarios instead of here in a crowded grocery store."  
    
    Quel coincidence! The advertisement helpfully informs Ms. Average 
    that all she needs to do to transform her body/face/life is buy
    Product A.  And then Product B, then C, etc. etc.  So that women
    keep buying, and perfection (beyond the glossy pages of these
    magazines) always hovers just out of reach.
    
                             ...Lisa V...

    If Madison Avenue has decided that "sex sells" then they will probably
    apply their formula without distinction or thought.
    
    Mary

    Also tied in with this, in my opinion, is "designer labels" on
    clothing.  If you have ever worn clothing with a conspicuous
    designer label have you noticed the associations made to the
    advertisements?  Do people assume that you are automatically
    the same type of person as portrayed in the tv commercial or
    magazine ad?

    
    Advertisers haven't decided that sex sells,
    they have LEARNED that sex sells.
    
    /bruce

    re: Lisa V
    
     Isn't it a pretty strong indictment of women that they are willing to
    buy things advertised in a manner that clearly exploits them (according
    to my understanding of your reply)? What I got from your note is that
    women see the sexy/sensual/perfect body in the advertisement and the
    woman thinks she will be transformed by purchasing the product. Does
    anyone really believe that? (Am I misunderstanding you?)
    
     I find it hard to believe that too many women would fall for that, or
    too many men either. I think it's more a matter of wanting to be
    associated with "pretty people" rather than becoming one that draws
    people's interest. Most people I know are at least somewhat realistic
    about their appearance. I know I'm not going to magically become 6'2"
    when I buy a pair of Sergio Valente jeans or Brooks Brothers suit. I
    think it's more a matter of people wanting to be associated with a
    "winner" or popular product. (Similar to wearing a tshirt of your
    favorite sports team.)
    
    The Doctah

Looks like we are going off pornography and into advertizing (although
as it has been pointed out, the difference is hard to discern at
times).  

I think most of us can see (if we check it out) that all these images
affect us in many ways.  Along with the messages we get directly from
adults, the messages we get from ads are:

  o  Money is very important and we should make sure others know our
     status through the products we use.  We need to compete with
     others to be sucessful.

  o  To be physically attractive to the opposite sex is very important and the
     products we buy can help get us there.

  o  There is an ideal for Americans and it involves a sexy mate of
     the opposite sex, children, a big house, lots of expensive toys,
     a wonderful career (may be gender specific although less so these
     days), and if you have all these things, you will be happy and
     live happily ever after.

How many of have not bought into these beleifs?

The messages are insidious and I think it takes a lot of discipline
and inner work to actually see the effects of these things on our
life.  Suffering seems to occur when:

   o  You have all these things and still aren't happy
   o  Or you don't have all these things but you wan them so you
      aren't happy

Personally, I don't watch TV and fancy mags because it is such a
fertile ground for these images that I find take me away from the
important experience of direct moment to moment existence.  Also, I
don't find them very interesting or helpful and find that TV and
magazine ads are full of "you should
be" messages.

We are so full of "SHOULD BE" messages, how can be ever be free to be
just what we are meant to be?  Each of us has wonderful gifts and I
think a lot of the work of finding out what these are and living them
is really seeing clearly all the SHOULD BE messages and not listening
to them.  I wonder that if we can get below the SHOULD BE level, we
might find that we already have a sense of what to do without the need
for creating a lot of thoughts and emotional turmoil about our life. 

I guess in terms of advertizing, we can:

   o  Not look at ads
   o  Look at ads but be sensitive to their affects
   o  Work for non-sexist and realistic ads

There are some ads now that use real people for models and it was
quite interesting to me to look at these ads.  I sensed alot less
tension and desire and other weird effects from these ads.

I find violence pornography to be very scary in terms of the
messages that are being sent!

john

	 It's not the LOOK women want to achieve, its the FEELING
	 associated with it.  I look at an ad like that and I say,
	 "Wow!  I would feel SOOOOO sexy in that outfit!"

	 Is there something wrong with WANTING TO FEEL SEXY?  I don't
	 think any of us expect to LOOK like that, but we definately
	 like to FEEL like that.

	 Without the perfect body in the ads, tho, HOW would they
	 really stun your imagination and fantasies with the feeling
	 of sexiness?  The women in the ads are the epitomy of
	 sexy...you can tell they FEEL that sexiness.  I open the mag
	 to the ad and it makes ME feel SEXY because THEY feel so
	 SEXY (feelings rub off, ya know?)!  Whether it makes me buy
	 the product or not (usually not, cuz I'm a thrift shopper,
	 but...) it still gives me that feeling of the ultimate
	 sexiness.

	 Something, I might add, most men IMHO can't/don't give women.  I
	 can count on one hand the number of times a man has instilled
	 that feeling of ultimate sexiness in me....The feeling is
	 almost like a natural high and is almost purely fantasy....if
	 a magazine can help me heighten these fantasies, then *I'm*
	 gonna buy if for the good feeling it gives me!

	 (not to mention all the designer styles I can steal from the
	 ads and create on my own sewing machine for pennies!)


	 I'm NOT going to buy it because I want to look/smell/act like
	 that....I want to FEEL that!

	 nuff said.

	 kath

    re:.46
    
    Whenever I think of designer clothing, the first thing that pops
    into my mind is an old Rosanne Rosannadanna skit on SATURDAY
    NIGHT LIVE, where RR was telling a story about meeting Gloria
    Vanderbilt. After mentioning the name for the first time, she
    said, "You know, the woman with her name on half the asses in
    America?"  Somehow, seen in that light, the appeal seems
    questionable.
    
    re:.49
    
    Sex or no sex, that's how the ad game operates. When you see an
    ad, say, in a music magazine with Guitar_Hero_of_the_Week endorsing
    Brand X guitars, isn't it the intended implication that the
    consumer will subconsciously think that by buying Brand X, he or
    she will be able to play just like G_H_o_t_W?
    
    Getting back to the topic of pornography, I was struck by something
    Liesl quoted in Note 556.8:
    
    	� ...after all watching an ad is the safest sex of all"
    	Judith Langer of Langer Associates �
    
    Can't the same be said for (non-violent) pornography?  We seem to
    orient our concern -- not without reason -- about the fact that
    porno objectifies the subjects (mostly women). The question that
    leaps to mind, and is worth a round of discussion, is: "Is this
    *necessarily* a bad thing, or should it depend on what the mind-
    state is of the person who looks at the material?"
    
    For instance...
    
    For many people, pornography provides a sexual release that they
    can't, for one reason or another, get elsewhere. Maybe they're
    too shy or have a psychological disorder that makes it hard for
    them to establish a relationship with a member of the desired sex.
    Maybe they have a physical impairment or disfigurement that makes
    it difficult for them to find someone to love them (or more likely,
    makes them *think* they can't find someone). Or maybe they have a
    phobia about "social diseases" and think of porn, like the quote
    suggests about ads, as the "safest sex".
    
    It could be that denying these people pornography would be,
    essentially, denying them sex.
    
    Something to think about.
    
    --- jerry

Re .48 and the ad game:

I don't think that most women consiously believe that if they buy a certain
product it will make them look like "that" in the ad. It is the whole
range of messages that some of these ads give that women buy into. If I
am "thinner, shorter, thinner, taller, thinner, different hair, thinner,
smoother skin, thinner etc etc." then I will attract a man and be happy.
Many products deal with one aspect of getting that perfect body, face,
smell. 

Women do buy into the message that 1) I have to have a man to be happy,
and 2) To get a man I have to be beautiful. Few of these ads give messages
about personality, loving, giving, strong, dynamic, self aware etc.

I think the major problem we have today among young (and older) women
with anorexia and bulimia is a result of women trying to live up to
the "perfect" image.  That "perfect" image is portrayed by the media.
Trying to live up to the perfect image can be a dangerous game both
physically and emotionally.

Re .51 -

Pornography may be the only form of sex acceptable to a few people. So what?
Does that mean we have to cater to these deviants, at the expense of the
dignity and well-being of half+ the population? Objectifying/degrading/
violent images of women are symbols of men's sexual power over women. They
are extremely insidious, for at least two reasons: 

o There are *everywhere* - in the corner newsstand, in the drugstore, on tv, 
  on billboards, on public transportation, in store windows. They are 
  published, as we've seen in this string, not just in skin mags, but in 
  good ole Mom/apple pie women's mags at supermarket checkout counters. These 
  images are inescapable. As a result, they permeate the consciousnesses of 
  us all, shaping our attitudes towards women whether we want them to or not. 

o The conditions under which these images are created are often *very* 
  degrading and dangerous to the women used in making them. Read the book
  Ordeal by Linda Lovelace, who was forced virtually at gunpoint into
  making the porn movie Deep Throat, for more on this theme. 
                                                  

    Re:  .48 (Doctah)
    
    My reply was an oversimplification of a much more complex process
    (i.e., advertisers using sex to induce us to buy).  Certainly I do not 
    believe that an intelligent woman or man looks at a picture in a
    magazine and consciously thinks "If I buy that product, I will be
    transformed".  
    
    But the message from advertisers does seem to be "You're not attractive
    enough as you are -- you need to buy this in order to be attractive."
    This message is targeted primarily at women, because in our culture
    a higher premium is placed on physical attractiveness for women
    than for men.  As one of the previous replies pointed out, this
    is an attitude that permeates our consciousness -- the message is
    everywhere.  Sometimes it's blatant, sometimes it's very subtle.
    
    So no, I don't mean <<the woman thinks she will be transformed by
    purchasing the product>>, but that the relentless repetition of
    the message "You aren't attractive enough as you are -- you need
    to buy this in order to be attractive (like these perfect models
    we're showing you)" can't help but insinuate its way into our attitudes
    about ourselves.
    
    Hope this is clearer?
    
                             ...Lisa V...
    

    Speaking of Cosmo, there's a section in there that give the model's
    vital statistics.  I'm always comparing myself to those stats. 
    I think "God, she's 2 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter!"  I wonder
    how many other do the same.  I feel totally inadequate compared
    to the models.  

    Re: .51
    
    >"Is this *necessarily* a bad thing, or should it depend on what
    >the mindstate is of the person who looks at the material?"
    
    I don't think non-violent pornography is, in and of itself, a bad
    thing.  Looking at an attractive person is usually a pleasant
    experience and most of us engage in that behavior to some degree.
    (Witness the Playgirl channel note.)  The problem is that it doesn't
    take place in isolation, but in the context of thousands of years
    of women being relegated to a secondary status.  Objectification
    is part of an attitude.  It's possible to relish the appearance
    of an attractive person without objectifying them beyond the extent
    that you objectify anyone you don't really know.  It's possible
    to objectify people without using pornography.  Unfortunately, 
    pornography does nothing to discourage the attitudes that lead to
    objectification and it creates a situation in which objectification
    is a very easy outlook to adopt.

       
Re: .53

> Pornography may be the only form of sex acceptable to a few people. So what?
> Does that mean we have to cater to these deviants, at the expense of the
> dignity and well-being of half+ the population? Objectifying/degrading/

In .32, Maggie Tarbet provided us with what, I thought, were very good
defintions of terms such as erotica, soft-porn, hard-porn, violent porn,
violence, and degredation. Did you read and understand them?

And are you calling the men and women who read (and even look at the photos
in) Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl "deviants"? I find that term rather offen-
sive, myself.  
    
 > The conditions under which these images are created are often *very* 
 > degrading and dangerous to the women used in making them. Read the book
 > Ordeal by Linda Lovelace, who was forced virtually at gunpoint into
 > making the porn movie Deep Throat, for more on this theme. 

Right! 

Month after month, Hugh Heffner, Bob Guccione, Larry and Althea
Flynt and their ilk, send out teams of hit-persons to round up poor, un-
suspecting people and force them to pose nude at gunpoint. 

  Alan 
    

    re .55 �  -< fat?  short?  ugly?  boring? >-
            
           � ...   I feel totally inadequate compared to the models.  
                                                      
    Considering the fact that many if not all advertising models maintain
    their figures by a dietary regime that walks the tightrope over
    the abyss of anorexia or bolemia, and have an exercise regime that
    would be suitable for an olympic athlete, I would'nt be too worried
    if I were you ... if all spent spent 4-6 hours a day on it I'm sure 95%
    of the female population of the world could have similar figures.
             
    However I do wonder at the relevance of this section of the magazine
    for the general reading public...
    
    /. Ian .\                        

    re:.53
    
    For the record, I wasn't advocating anything in .51, just tossing
    in some food for thought. Some of what you say I agree with.
    
    Also for the record, consider this:
    
    	If something isn't a "good thing", does that mean it has to
    	be a "bad thing"?  And if it isn't a "bad thing", does that
    	mean it's a "good thing"?
    
    I ask this because while I don't particular feel that pornography
    (as a general concept; I'm not talking about specific examples)
    is a good thing, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. More or less
    neutral.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .57:
    
    I think that if you read my .53 again, and the reply to which I
    referred (.51), you will understand what I was saying.
    
    I would also recommend reading and understanding the book I referred
    to, before misconstruing my statements.
    
    Of course, with the present emphasis in our culture on visual images,
    the task of reading and understanding printed words *is* becoming a
    real challenge!

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I think I'm starting to detect some clenched teeth here.  Could
    we perhaps take a few deep breaths and generally reduce the heat
    under the various pots?  It'll make for a better discussion and
    fewer wounded feelings.  Please?
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .56 and others
    
    I grew up in a time and culture (KY in the 50's) where sexual feelings,
    especially by women, were either not to be had or not to be admitted
    to.  As I look back on it, the atmosphere (or was it just my own
    hormones) was sexually-charged, but "nice girls" were inexperienced
    and tolerated painful sex on their wedding nights.
    
    Frankly, the photos in Playboy were a real help in having *some*
    kind of "role-model" that portrayed that a woman could *enjoy* sexual
    feelings and activities!  I have always felt that the majority of
    the pics in Playboy portrayed women _actively_in_charge_of_their_
    _own_sexuality!
    
    Nancy

    Re: .62
    
    Nancy, in the latest (June) issue of Playboy, there is Part 3 of
    an article entitled "Burning Desires In America".
    
    In it, the authors have interviewed (among others) a woman - 
    <mumble> Rice - who defines herself as a "feminist" pornographic
    writer. Her targeted audience is female. 
    
    Ms. Rice talks about "good-girls" having been taught to be afraid
    of ever being "bad-girls", and how she hopes the new wave of feminist
    pornography will help liberate women in their sexuality.
    
    The article also mentions "Femme Productions" - a partnership of
    five women - whose pornographic films and videoes are slanted to
    match the sexual fantasies that women have expressed to them.
    
    No longer can - or should - porn be considered a "male-the-oppressor-
    subjugating-poor-helpless-women-for-sex-and-money" industry.
    
      Alan 

    Alan, one swallow does not a summer make.  The preponderance of the
    evidence still suggests that the porn industry (insofar as such a
    monolithic characterisation is valid) is still incredibly sleazy and
    overwhelmingly one-sided: men exploiting women.
    
    						=maggie 

    Re: .63
    
    I think the author was probably Anne Rice (author of the Queen of
    the Damned, Interview with a Vampire, among others).  The only author
    I've ever read who makes sucking the blood out of someone seem
    incredibly sensual.

    I think part of the problem is that most people, when they hear
    "pornography," think immediately of Playboy, then perhaps Penthouse,
    maybe Hustler, probably some adult movies.  Most of this is pretty
    mainstream and therefore relatively mild.  But there are plenty
    more magazines that are considerably less mainstream and less mild
    that a lot of people really haven't had much exposure to.  So when
    someone with a mainstream image of pornography discusses the topic
    with someone who has a wider view, there's bound to be some 
    miscommunication.  My .56 pertains to the mainstream-style pornography.

    
<    I think the author was probably Anne Rice (author of the Queen of
<    the Damned, Interview with a Vampire, among others).  The only author
<    I've ever read who makes sucking the blood out of someone seem
<    incredibly sensual.

      But then there was Louis Jourdan (sp?) in Dracula who really made
      it sensual.

      I have to say that "mainstream" pornography does not much bother
      me. I find much of it erotic myself. I see no real problem with it
      and suspect that many women don't. 

      Violent porn sickens me and is scary. I think we must disinguish
      between the two or we can't even carry on a discussion. liesl

>      I have to say that "mainstream" pornography does not much bother
>      me. I find much of it erotic myself. I see no real problem with it
>      and suspect that many women don't. 

	 See, this note's got me all worked up....I wrote a cool poem
	 today...definately pornographic.....and I LOVE IT!

	 Nope!  I have no problem with it!  There's nothing wrong with
	 eroticism....violence yes, eroticism, no...

	 kath
	 

    .65
    
    
    Anne Rice also wrote 'erotica' under the pen name Ann Rampling.
    One of her works was called "Belinda" and was the story of a
    writer's affair with a girl in her early teens.
    
    Under another pen name which also starts with an "R", she wrote
    soft-core pornography.  The first in the series was called "The
    Opening of Beauty" (I think) and was a fairy-tale-like story of
    bondage, sadism and masochism, with a few other fetishs thrown in
    for good measure.
    
    Frankly, I much preferred the Vampire Chronicles.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    
    You know Eagles....[sigh]
    
    To my reading...not a single one of these women has expressed the
    position of pretending to "not like" while "enjoying". To a person,
    they have been open, frank, straight forward, honest...in discussing
    this *very* touchy subject. I think that they deserve some respect
    for their ability to handle such a topic rather than snide comments
    from birds who soar so high they miss minor details like actual
    fact of written replies....Hmmmm?
    
    And...re: frank, honest...etc?
    
    Try it...you'll like it....
    
    Melinda
                                                         

    re:.69
    
    I had this saved from off of Usenet:
    
From:	hoptoad!tim  3-DEC-1987 12:23
To:	@SUBSCRIBERS.DIS
Subj:	Re: more on vampire novels...

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
Subject: Re: more on vampire novels...
Posted: 3 Dec 87 12:23:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, TOPS Division, Berkeley
 
Anne Rice fans may want to check out her pseudynomous S&M novels, "The
Claiming of Sleeping Beauty", "Beauty's Punishment", and "Beauty's Release".
She wrote them as "A. N. Rocquelaure".  The setting is a vague feudalistic
fantasy world, with no magic except that implied by the superhuman tolerance
of the heroine and her fellow victims, and the spell that prevents them from
ever having to relieve themselves at an inappropriate moment....
 
It's not Great Art by any means, but for porn the books are very well
written, and Rice has a well-developed feel for the location of those secret
buttons.
 
If you were wondering how Rice wrote a great book like "Interview with the
Vampire" as her first novel, now you know; she wrote the Beauty books first,
and didn't let on until she was too well-established for them to make a
difference.
-- 
Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
    
    --- jerry

    Why not start another note Dorian.  This is just one of many symptoms
    of a 'deep problem in our society' (indeed, in the world's society)
    and perhaps it's time we started discussing it.
    
    Mary

	When I was 13 I used to babysit at a relatives house
	for her three daughters.  There were a large number
	of "Detective" magazine there - some in living color.

	At that time I had already read a number of "classic"
	novels that involved profusely illustrated sex scenes.
	I still remember in my nightmares some of the pictures
	in those magazines and that stuff is now seen on TV.

	There is a clear line between erotica and prono for me
	one give me good dreams the other is a nightmare.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The world is full of many fine images
			most of which can be erotic with the
			right person at the right time.

 

    re:.75
    
    I'm not sure that any rational person would argue against
    the statement "porn is dangerous and erotica is enjoyable"
    or that there isn't a clear line between the two.
    
    Where the problem comes in is that each person draws that
    "clear line" in a different place.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .74
    
    I must admit that one person's "erotica" is another person's
    "pornography".  There isn't any objective distinction between
    the two.
    				-- Chris Peters

          re: topic 787   "Can you be both wicked and innocent"
              .12 (GEMVAX::KOTTLER)

          >  I guess what I'm saying though is, that when Hollywood gets
          >  their hands on such fantasies, they can all too easily come
          >  across as a whole 'nuther kind of thing... namely, the typical
          >  male fantasy that women *really do* want to be raped.

          The following is an interview of a repeat sexual offender/rapist
          whose career in violence against women began the night he viewed
          a violent porn flick in a porn store.  A brief description of the
          movie is included in the interview which some could find
          unsettling.


          From the book "Men on Rape" (by Timothy Beneke):

          "Chuck"  who had a bad marriage and an abusive childhood

          "...Then one night about a year after I split from my wife, I was
          out partyin' and drinkin' and smokin' pot.  I'd shot up some
          heroin and done some downers and I went to a porno bookstore, put
          a quarter in the slot and saw this porn movie.  It was just a guy
          coming up from behind a girl and attacking her and raping her.
          That's when I started having my rape fantasies.  When I seen that
          movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse from my childhood on up.
          When that fuse got to the porn movie, I exploded.  I just went
          for it, went out and raped. It was like a little voice saying,

          "It's all right, it's all right, go ahead and rape and get your
          revenge; you'll never get caught.  Go out and rip off some girls.
          It's all right; they even make movies of it"

          The movie was just like a big picture stand with words on it say-
          ing go out and do it, everybody's doin' it, even the movies.

          So I just went out that night and...."

          That night he attempted his first rape.  Within ten days, he had
          attempted 3, succeeded in one, and was contemplating a fourth.
          He spent six and a half years in a state hospital as a mentally
          disordered sex offender and has been out for a year.  He is
          twenty-eight."
							nancy b.

    
    
    That guy is a drugged out wacko and would have ended up doing what he
    did without the porno flick. He said it himself, the fuse was already
    lit.
    
    ed

<          "...Then one night about a year after I split from my wife, I was
<          out partyin' and drinkin' and smokin' pot.  I'd shot up some
<          heroin and done some downers and I went to a porno bookstore, put
<          a quarter in the slot and saw this porn movie.  It was just a guy

    It seem to me the movie was merely the last straw in a string of
    events that was waiting to happen. Lets see, he was abused as a
    child, his marriage had failed, he was drinking, smoking pot, doing
    downers and shooting heroin. What would have happened if he had been
    watching TV? Miami Vice perhaps? Would it be any less likely that he
    might have gone out and become a mass murderer? That he choose to
    pick on women is not too unusual, we have less of an ability to
    fight back, but the truth is he was a time bomb waiting to blow. Had
    he been in volved in a traffic accident that might have set him off.

    This makes me think of the incident just yesterday where the guy
    walked into his former office and shot his co-workers into bloody
    plups. Or how about Manson claiming the beatles song told him to
    kill? If you're crazy enough anything can be your excuse. liesl

    Society has become much more violent in the past couple of decades.
    I think that it is due to our acceptance of extreme violence, including
    most porn, as reasonable activity.  I think porn is more addictive
    than any drug.  That's because, first of all, I believe it is
    increasingly addictive, and secondly because you can't expell it
    from your body without the help of brain surgery.  The "porn beginning"
    story is repeated time after time with rapists and serial murders.
     Granted, not everyone that watches porn is going to go out and
    do what they saw, but there are a lot of sex related deaths which
    often include sexual mutilation.  I don't believe those thoughts
    were born there (in the perpetrator).
    
    Bud

    	Did Jack The Ripper frequent porno theaters?

re .82

Non-sequitor. I haven't seen anybody suggest that porn is a necessary ingredient
to sexual violence, just that it may be a contributing factor.

The same logic would suggest that it's okay to give guns to children because
children could kill each other with bricks anyway.

(I'm not suggesting this is a direct analogy to porn and violence, nor am I
taking a stand on the issue. Just on the use of logic.)

          re: .79 (Ed Neumyer)

               >  That guy is a drugged out wacko and would have ended up
               >  what he did without the porno flick. He said it himself,
               >  the fuse was already lit.

          Note 544.80  (Liesl Kolbe)

               >  It seem to me the movie was merely the last straw in a
               string of events that was waiting to happen.
               .
               .
               >  What would have happened if he had been watching TV?
               >  Would it be any less likely that he might have gone out
               >  and become a mass murderer? <--|
                                                 |
          Good guess, Liesl.  -------------------|

          When I was reading, I also thought that his raping would've just
          happened sooner or later, with or without seeing the porn flick.
          But later in the chapter, he is asked:

          "If there had been no pornographic movies showing rape, would you
          have raped?"

          The response:

               "    I think I would've hurt a woman in a different way
               physically.  If I wouldn't have committed rape, I'd be in
               prison for murder right now, because it was goin' that way.
               I would've killed my next victim or the one after that.  I
               would've killed somebody.  I would've killed my stepmother,
               my mother, and my wife if I'd had the chance.
                    Pornographic movies have a lot to do with rape.  I be-
               lieve they shouldn't make movies of _any_ kind of rape.
               They just shouldn't show it.  Specials are okay because they
               can tell what can happen in rape, but a TV movie, a porn
               movie, or a regular movie about rape -- they should ban
               them.  You look at these movies and think, "Wow, I wonder
               what it would be like to go out and rape somebody!"  I heard
               stories in the hospital of people saying society must con-
               done it--they have it on TV and movies.  I know five or six
               guys who saw pictures of rape in a dirty book and believed
               it was all right to go out and rape; just still snapshots
               and that justified it to them.  It said, okay, go out and
               rape because it's in a dirty book; there's nothin' wrong
               with it.  That goes for child molesting, too.   "


          His answer about how he would've assaulted or murdered as a way
          to get revenge is one I can understand much better than a man
          getting revenge through sexual violence.

          But somewhere else in the chapter he says:

               "Rapists want to be in control.  Somewhere in their life a
               woman destroyed their ego.  Rape is a way a man rebuilds his
               ego, rebuilds his manhood.  Shit like that.
               .
               .
               I know that's the worst thing you can do to a female."

          So, I guess if many rapists feel that way (that rape is the worst
          think you can do to a female), that's why they commit rape in-
          stead of plain assault or murder.

                                                       	nancy b.

    Bundy, in one of his last interviews, said that porn was what got
    him started also.  Generalization is somewhat unfair, but when I
    hear of a search of the private quarters of a serial rape killer,
    it seems that there are always porn books and/or flicks there. 
    Sometimes there are even pictures or movies taken of the victims.
    
    While it's true that society used to sweep crimes such as rape under
    the carpet, they did not do so when murder was involved.  These
    were highly publicised, and I would say that there were not nearly
    as many rape/murders years ago, not even per capita, as there are
    today.  I believe this is due to the proliferation of violent and
    sex/violent films and books today, all of which were banned a couple
    of decades ago.
    
    Just my observation.  I couldn't prove it in court.
    
    Bud

An association between sexual violence and pornography -- the simple
observation that "rapists read pornography" -- can have several
plausible (and not necessarily mutually exclusive) interpretations.

On the one hand, it would seem inevitable that a person who tends to
sexual violence would also be attracted to the representation of sexual
violence.  By this interpretation, the reading of pornography is a 
*consequence* of the rapists condition.  This allows the possibility
of pornography being an alternative to overt violence -- that the
might-be rapist may (to some extent, for some time) sublimate his
tendencies through pornography.  It implies that one cannot conclude
anything interesting about the non-rapist who reads pornography.

On the other hand, it seems plausible that extensive exposure to
pornography could lead to a gradual acclimitization to a "pornographic
world view," in which sexual violence is the norm and women are objects
to be used.  By this interpretation, enjoyment of "soft" pornography 
would lead to a weakening of the natural revulsion at the subject
matter of "hard" pornography, and a natural progression would lead 
to a condition in which rape would seem "normal."  

An intermediate interpretation would suggest that some men are intrinsically
unstable or rape-prone and some are not.  For the rape-prone, pornography
might offer an image or a direction for the release of violent impulses
that might otherwise have stayed in check (or been released in other 
directions).  For the stable, pornography might simply remain a fantasy,
clearly distinguished from the moral values of the real world.

Personally, I find all of these interpretations reasonable, at least in the
abstract; and any assertion that one or another is *the* truth of the matter
less than convincing.

	-Neil

A relevent but non-specific statistic:

I my "Human Sexuality" course last semester, in the section of "Sex, Violence
and the Law", the book said that in a study done in <the late sixties>,
men convicted of sexual crimes had had considerably *less* exposure to
pornography in their "formative years".

A few possible conclusions - they had never learned how to deal with the
difference between fantasy and reality in porn, so when they were exposed
later in life it had negative effects.
- they tended to be raised in stricter/more represive home, and this is
related to their crimes
- they have different views of sexuality because they were not exposed to
the same images as most men.

Also, rapists tend to react *less* (physically...erections, blood pressure,
skin conductance, etc) to pornographic material than other men.

I believe the study was commisioned by the government on the affects of
pornography, and the committee stated that there was no evidence that reading
pornography had any significant correlation to violent crimes against
women.

I can't remember which study it was, though.  Anyone else know what I am
talking about?

D!

Does anyone know if 'date rape' or 'acquaintance rape' has a conviction rate at
all akin to 'random rape'?
	Mez

Re :.83 re my .82

Paul,
	.82 was mostly a reaction to the following in .81:

�     Granted, not everyone that watches porn is going to go out and
�    do what they saw, but there are a lot of sex related deaths which
�    often include sexual mutilation.  I don't believe those thoughts
�    were born there (in the perpetrator).


Re: .85

	From everthing I've seen/read about him, Bundy was an expert at 
manipulating people.  I get the feeling he would have said anything if he
thought it would buy him some time.  I don't think Bundy is a good example.


Re: .86

	I suspect my feelings are very similar to what Neil presented here.
For the few folks that may be "pushed over the edge", there have to be an
awful lot who aren't.

							--D

    To say that reading pornography causes sex crimes is like saying
    reading murder mysteries leads to murder. I don't think there is any
    porno-rape correlation, or if there is, it is an inverse relationship.
    (i.e, those who read porno are less apt to commit sex crimes).
    
    Bruce

    I think the cause/effect is incorrect - I do believe that there
    are some people who WILL go over an edge whatever the provocation
    - be it killing or raping or whatever.  There are some people who
    will not go over the edge, no matter how much they are provoked
    (stressed, etc....).

    It's like the argument that says "let's take away
    non-work-related-noting because so many people note instead of
    working".  If people want to avoid work, there are *many* other
    ways to do it - computer games, coffee breaks, etc.....so don't
    blame the noting.  Many people use notes in productive ways, in
    educational ways, in enjoyable ways that allow them a break from
    work - but do not abuse them.  
    
    Likewise, if a few dungeons-and-dragons players
    took it too seriously and wound up mentally unbalanced in the sewers
    of New York (mazes and monsters, by Rona Jaffey, went into this),
    or died in caves by their college campus (another tale which is
    used by those who say D&D is dangerous)....I don't think it indicates
    that D&D is dangerous - I think these people had to be unbalanced
    to begin with.  
    
    And for someone to say that a movie or magazine caused them to go out
    and rape a human being, I'd say they, too, were pretty unbalanced to
    begin with.  A vast majority of people are taught from day 1 of
    why it's wrong to hurt other people.  Some people are somehow able
    to "unlearn" it, or get by it, or are given so many examples to
    the contrary ("do what I say, not what I do" says the parent as
    the child gets another 10 bruises), that they no longer hold life
    sacred, even for themselves.  Or they are able to look at other
    people as somehow "less than themselves" - or put there "for their
    entertainment" or even "to be at their mercy".....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    re .90 and others
    
    I agree with .86 that it may not be possible to state categorically
    "pornography triggers rapes that would not otherwise occur" or
    "pornography is a harmless outlet that prevents rapes that would
    otherwise occur".  Or other theories in between.
    
    From my readings on the subject (I do recommend the "Men Who Rape" book
    for voices on the other side), it appears that there are different
    categories of rapists.  For instance, a book I read (I think it was a
    section in the MWR book) tried to answer the question:  what should you
    do if you are in a situation where you are about to be raped?
    
    The answer was:  IT DEPENDS.  There is no one easy, obvious answer. You
    have to make a quick judgment as to which of four (their categories)
    different types of rapist personalities you are dealing with.  What you
    should do (talk, cry, scream, act bizarrely, do nothing, fight and run
    away) is DIFFERENT based on who you are dealing with.  
    
    So, if you agree that there are different personalities and different
    motivations for rape, I think it would be difficult to say that
    pornography -- as a class of literature -- EITHER contributes to OR
    wards off raping behavior.  It has to do a little of both.  (It's like
    the Pill -- longterm, I believe it both decreases your risk of ovarian
    cancer and increases your risk of breast cancer.  So it's linked to
    cancer, but positively or negatively for different people.)
    
    Having said all that, I DO think that the more violent and dehumanizing
    types of hardcore pornography, as well as pornography with children,
    etc., has ZERO redeeming value, and promotes an unhealthy view of the
    world.  I see a real difference between "generic pornography" and THAT
    type of pornography: it's violence that happens to include sex.  Sound
    familiar?
    
    Pam

RE: Do murder mysteries lead to murder?

The comparision of murder mysteries being ok, therefore pornography is ok is
misleading at best.  Murder mysteries are about finding the murderer and
sticking him or her in jail.  Pornography and specifically such pornography as
deals with rape are about 'enjoying' the rape (shudder).  The first (murder
mystery) is about figuring out who to punish, the second (rape pornography) is
about enjoying the rape--not PUNISHING someone who rapes.

Tamar

    Re: .93
    
    To avoid being nitpicked to death, insert the word "most" in front of 
    "murder mysteries".  (I felt a nitpicking kneejerk coming on....)

       <<< Note 544.87 by TLE::D_CARROLL "On the outside, looking in" >>>
<
<I my "Human Sexuality" course last semester, in the section of "Sex, Violence
<and the Law", the book said that in a study done in <the late sixties>,
.
<I believe the study was commisioned by the government on the affects of
<pornography, and the committee stated that there was no evidence that reading
<pornography had any significant correlation to violent crimes against
<women.
.
<I can't remember which study it was, though.  Anyone else know what I am
<talking about?

In my Human Sexuality course at Univ Calif San Diego around 1979-80, they 
brought in a speaker who had a copy of the study.  If it was the same study,
I seem to remember that it was commissioned by the Nixon administration 
and that they expected it to tell how bad pornography was.  Instead, it
supported the legalization of (most/all?) pornography, so the Nixon 
administration dropped the mention of it like a hot potato, since it was
not politically correct to say that porn was okay.

         Carol