One indictment against the owner of one Wichita adult store on a single count of promoting obscenity this week was the best a monthlong grand jury investigation of seven stores could manage. As our editorial today notes, that’s not exactly what Operation SouthWind’s petition drive was aiming for, but it’s part of a pattern of measures aimed at targeting sexually oriented businesses and pornography locally and in Topeka with criminal charges and with new zoning and taxation. It’s also the latest illustration of how difficult it is for people to decide what constitutes obscenity according to “contemporary community standards.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
56 Comments
It needs to be decided what the community standards are and then sexaully oriented businesses be held to those standards. It could be a panel made up of a diverse group of individuals, not just pastors or the religious right, who take input from the citizens and then decide what the community will tolerate and what it won’t.
Having attended one meeting of “Operation Southwind”, I am concerned. These people put into their literature that they fully intend to “legislate morality”.
What is next, to legally force people to go to church? And not just any church, but an ‘approved’ one?
These zealots are using small points of the law to try to force their idea of morality on the public. Their crusade is reminiscent of Hitler’s attempts at mind control. One of his first acts was to outlaw pornography as a means of controlling the populace.
In the meantime, there are significant wastes of taxpayer money to prosecute one store owner for carrying a video that can easily be bought online. If they don’t want to see it, DON’T BUY IT.
Then why should we have any standards at all? If I want to walk down the street naked or have sex in public, people don’t have to look at me, so it should my right to do so, RIGHT?Afterall, we don’t want to be accused of turning into Nazis!!!
Where do we draw the line, Ray? With no standards, can’t it go just as easily in the other direction?
No comparison, Damoon. The porn movies/books are not walking down the street, but inside businesses that restrict access to those over 18 only.
There are standards of restricting access to adults. It is not a free for all, nor should it be.
However, we cannot allow one fringe group to waste taxpayer funds with nuisance lawsuits while trying to push their private religious agenda. Using legal means to force their religious beliefs on the public is, in my opninion, flat out wrong.
One more time:ALL laws are about morality.The best and most effective laws are the ones that are written right down the middle of the two extreme views mentioned above.Zero control? Nope.100% control? Nope.How about we end the contol at peoples front doors and let them be as kinky as they want IN PRIVATE.When porno becomes public it is no longer porno but is properly renamed obscenity.
A neighbor has a bumper sticker that says: IT’S ONLY KINKY THE FIRST COUPLE OF TIMES!I like a good sense of humor.
Operation Southwind don’t get it. People that want porno can order it over the internet. All they’re doing is hurting local businesses, like Pricilla’s.
But since when do facts matter to the American Taliban?
Tracy,I think we need a set of working definitions here; we’re treating ethical, moral and legal as synonyms. They’re not; they overlap to a degree that can be confusing, but we need to make the distinction. How about these as definitions for our purposes here:Ethics treats the relationship of one person to another.Morality involves a person’s relationship to his god.Legality denotes an individual’s responsibility to the society.Can we agree on these?
Galahad,Hurting local businesses? Hey, I’d never heard of Priscilla’s until all this came up! All publicity is good publicity!
“Ethics treats the relationship of one person to another.Morality involves a person’s relationship to his god.Legality denotes an individual’s responsibility to the society.”
Jed I would keep your terms parallel. I would change the last one to:”Legality denotes an individual’s relationship to society.”
The consistency in form also represents what I believe is a reciprocal relationship between the individual and society, and vice versa. Or, as my old Cuban boss used to say “vica verse”
I think your definitions are useful.
Ray made the best point of all. The last time I went to camalots on Oilver back eight years ago. I was I.D. Eight years ago I was forty one. The clerk said that they I.D. everyone. I believed him considering I do not look young.
These porn shops have their windows covered, for the most part other then a sign that state what they are. There is no ads that show and images. The only thing that is obscene about them is in the mind of the observer.
I did find it odd that it was Priscilla’s. Seeing that a great deal of their fare is sexy clothies and toys. It is the most popular amoung women.
Also, considering what all you can find at any of the other Adult shops. The fact that is was a dvd stating that oral sex is can be good for your health? What did they disagee with the statement?Even if as the title suggest and it was an instructual video on how to preform the act. How in the world would that differ from ninty precent of the X-rated vids you can buy or rent?
No this whole thing is much to do about nothing! In order for you to be exposed to the porn you would have to make a decision to enter the building and view it.
We could go back to the old arguement that porn insight sexual violance against women. I point that has never been show to be true.
Only those that object to porn in the first place except the primise.Which holds as much water as saying that eating PB&J sanwiches is a cause of rape. It is only common sense.
There is nothing that someone does not object to. When will it stop and at what?
“Legal” should be defined as that which is legislated by a society’s representatives..it is not necessarily anything an individual owes to society. And a distiction should be made between what is legal (or legislated) and what is legitimate. For example, while every single provision of the Constitution is (by definition) constitutional and legal, not every provision is legitimate; think of the Three-Fifths Clause, for instance. Simply because that clause (and others) is now considered void while others are not does not mean that every currently accepted part of the Constitution necessarily has legitimacy or is indeed consistent with the document as a whole or with the protection of actual rights.
Sure Jed, your terminology is suitable.All laws govern ethics and/or morals dependinging on your point of view.The neocons want laws for morals, I think it’s none of there business, as long as people of ‘low morals’(subjective judgement), don’t infringe or impose their values in an injurious way to others.Talking point: gay marriage and or sex. Illegal. Is it any of the sherrif’s business what two people of the same sex do in private?I don’t believe the sherrif even wants to know, but it may still be illegal. One person may see the gay issue as ethics where another may call it morals under you definitions. It’s fine to want to be on the same page semantically.(sp?) I personally don’t care what we call the reason for laws and what they attempt to control and regulate.
In Oakland California we have seen alleged religious extremists smashing liquor stores. The reason: alcohol is evil in their eyes. Here in Wichita we see the same thing with Operation Southwind.
I believe adults who want porno will get it any way, legal, illegal or not.Similar to the history of prohibition, and related to this ‘war on drugs’.In the 50’s, drugs and inter-racial marriage were the ultimate taboo. See what that led to?Just like the stupid boycott on the ‘titty touting’ t-shirts it made t-shirt sales boom.It’s human nature, and no matter how many laws we write, we’ll never change the rebellious nature of human beings. Conservatives are just as rebellious as liberals, they just have different causes.You know the old line: ‘What are you rebelling against Johnny? I don’t know, what have you got?’
Oh well I’ve rambled far too long and really didn’t have a point to make anyway. Morals? Everyone has them and everyone thinks their own are the correct ones.
It’s a matter of leaving people alone. As several posters on different threads have said, “If you don’t like it, don’t do it”. But as long as no crime is committed and no one is hurt, let’s just leave people alone. This is what pisses me off about the religious Taliban around here. They’re hell-bent to force their morals and beliefs on the rest of us. They only found ONE DVD that was obscene? I’d think they’d be too embarrassed to bring a charge, much less prosecute. This, like everything else the religious fanatics are involved in, just goes too far!
But that is just what they want to do XXX. They want to make it illegal. They don’t do it (or so they say) and they don’t want you to either.
Mandatory chastity belts for everyone! Sex is filthy, evil,uhh, evil…did I say filthy? Missionary position for everybody. Lights out.
Anyone caught skirting these rules will be flogged with a cat O’ nine tails by either a KBOE member, or Reverend Phelps. Heck, they both may show up. Where’s my tutu?
Ray, you say access to porn is restricted? What about the internet? How many parents are computer savy enough to keep their kids locked out so they don’t have access? The only alternative is to not have internet access in the house. If nothing else, internet porn should be like cable TV, in order to receive it you have to subscribe and pay for it. I RESENT having to be a security guard in my own home when my grandchildren are visiting, my only other choice being to throw out my TV, radio, and computer!
Dog, research HAS shown a correlation between violent porn and sexual acting out. Sorry to burst your bubble, now go eat your peanut butter and jelly.
The research you refer to is superficial, coincidental, evidence of a link from one allegory to an act.A search for a commonality between the act and the predisposed stimulant. Otherwise saying, you take a proven sex offender, look for the common activity between that offender and other proven offenders.To form a line of those common traits, such as :Drink milk as a childate PB&J sandwichesWatched scary movies.Had a playboy under their bed during their teenage years.Watch X-rated movies as an adult.Like Charlie’s angels.Was more into football then tennis.
Taking the list you would then search for a factor that would seem to be a caused by to the offense.Since the offense is of an sexual nature, you would then tend to focus on the common thing with sex.I.E. Playboy, X-rated movies and Charlie’s angels and dismiss the other common traits. As in most cases the offense is done by the use of force, so football being a physical game of brute force might be seen as a contributing factor.
In order to come to the conclusion that porn is a caused by factor, you have to ignore that other watch it and do not offend. The statement that porn inflamed the offender to act, has to discount that they may very well have acted with out it. No it is a simple answer to a complex question and to those predisposed to seeing no good or need from porn. Reinforces their argument that it should be done away with, but their believe in such research comes not from the data as much as from their preconceived thoughts.
It would be just as easy to substitute the drinking of milk or the eating of the sandwich for porn and be just as valid. This research did away with the control subject factor in the conclusion to come to that conclusion.Porn may very well have in sighted the offender, but that is just antidotal evidence as the offender had a predisposition to offend.
Let us go a different route, ok we agree that in those that have a predisposition to offend. Porn is a factor that causes them to offend. Though it does not cause those without that predisposition to offend. Should it be that porn be banned on that account? Even through the majority of those watching porn are not effected or caused to become an offender? If someone is allergic to strawberry, should there be a law passed that no store sell strawberries? I say no, the world is full of things that can cause a small portion of the population to have a bad reaction.
“I RESENT having to be a security guard in my own home when my grandchildren are visiting, my only other choice being to throw out my TV, radio, and computer!”Would you rather have the government decide for you what you have in your house? What you can watch or do within the walls of your home? Whom better to be a security guard for your grandchildren than you?I do not know the age range of your grandchildren, right now I have my one and a half year old grandson living with us. The only time I do not have to play security guard with him is when he is asleep. He is not old enough to know that putting things into electrical outlet has a bad outcome. Or that the dog food is not for him to eat.
Listen my youngest just moved out a year ago, we got the internet when my oldest was thirteen. I am well aware how difficult it is to prevent a child from accessing porn and offensive materials on the computer.None of the child protection software is 100 percent foolproof. One time my youngest wanted to watch a video called the “snow walker” it was a video shot of what is suppose to be a yeti. Surfwatch would not let him. I started seeing what it would let him see, even though he could not watch that video. I was able to go to a site that sold women’s corsets! There were pictures of women wearing nothing but a corset that only covered from above their pelvic bone to under their breasts.
I password protect my desktop and set up the child’s desktop for them. It is the safest way for your grandkids to view the net as you can kid proof their connection. Unless you grandkids are like my oldest, to this day I am not sure if I am proud of him for cracking the middle school’s computer PW. Or mad that he did it in the first place.
The crimes against women are society based, not porn based.
Until Society stops treating women as second class citizens there will be crimes against women.
I believe some religions brainwash their congregations. They teach a flawed message to force their own interpretations on everyone else.In my opinion they should be banned from that practise.
The same things goes with porn. A small percentage might use it to exploit others, but does that mean everyone should have it banned from their use?If we ban porn stores how long before we can only watch g rated movies, only purchase appropriate magazines, lingerie shops closed, probably never, so how does this change things in the long run.
Damoon–
I said the adult stores are already restricted–the ones that Southwind is so adamant about closing down. I agree with you, there is constant porn on the internet–which makes southwind’s crusade all the more ridiculous. They are not stopping a thing, just trying to impose their moralistic religious views on the rest of us.
Damoon, do you suggest we regulate the internet? If we regulate porn on the internet, what will we regulate next? How long before we regulate the flow of certian types of information?
“I RESENT having to be a security guard”
Well isn’t that part of what being a parent is?
“How many parents are computer savy enough to keep their kids locked out so they don’t have access?”
The answer is self-evident. It’s just like anything else that could be a threat to your kids. You either get savy, or you deny access. There’s no logical reason for kids to be so much smarter than their parents. It’s also irresponsible to allow your kids to come into contact with something that may cause harm. You wouldn’t turn your kids loose with the car keys or Dad’s hunting rifle without proper supervision. It’s too easy to turn over responsibility for keeping your kids in line to some regulatory agency or other. I propose that people take responsibility for controlling their kids in some manner that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
You obviously have a problem with porn and that’s fine. Avoid it. But please don’t dictate to those of us who don’t have a problem with it.
I don’t think I should be forced to live in a society where women are devalued and treated like objects. To me, it’s not unlike what we did to Afican Americans and the “Jim Crow” era. We seem to be going backwards instead of progressing to a society where mutual respect is the goal.Porn serves no purpose other than to degrade and objectify women and children.You guys always think in such black and white, are there no shades of gray in your minds? Using your logic that we could never tolerate censorship in a free society, what if it goes the other way. Why shouldn’t child porn be legal? After all, if all you do is collect it and watch it, then you’re really not hurting anyone, right? Why shouldn’t I be able to walk down the street naked or have sex in a public place, or use the bathroom in the flower pots in front of the library? If you can just turn the channel or the dial when something offends you, then why can’t you just turn your head as well??How far do we have to go before we say it’s enough?You can try to invalidate the data on porn’s effect on men’s behavior, but the research has been done and the conclusion is that porn isn’t some harmless giggle for those who want to spice up their sex life.I enjoy sex as much as the next person (well, I used to before I got into my 50’s!) and I’m no prude, but I feel like we’re crossing the line from healthy, fun sex to defining sex as the control, abuse and degradation of women and children. Porn is not erotica, it’s intention is to humiliate and devalue, and it has a negative effect on our society. If it was so harmless as many of you claim, then I wouldn’t give a rip, but I know it’s not.
I’m not as concerned about the rights of people to do whatever makes them feel good as I am for the right of my granchildren not to be raised in an X rated world. When we get back to putting our kids first, then the world will be a better place.
Hey, good job everybody! It’s so nice to be able to rationally discuss an issue without all the name calling and put downs!
Damoon,I read back through all the posts on this thread and strangely enough, I can’t find where anybody called you a name or “put you down”.
“I don’t think I should be forced to live in a society where women are devalued and treated like objects.”
On this I agree with you, to the extent that it does speak badly of a society. When a normal woman can make more money using her body in some fashion over her mind. By displaying, touching, being touched or even her voice.It would be an interesting debate as to whom is more victimized. The women who make the money for exploit a male weakness. Or the men who pay for to have their weakness exploited?
“Using your logic that we could never tolerate censorship in a free society, what if it goes the other way. Why shouldn’t child porn be legal? After all, if all you do is collect it and watch it, then you’re really not hurting anyone,”
The current topic is not about censorship. The porn shop know it is for their own good to self regulate. As to who they let in the door. What they sell and how they sell it. The movement of Southwind is not trying to control content as much as it is attempt to control morals of others. Most of their members might not have ever seen the inside of these shops. They have no idea as to what expectly is sold there. They simple go by the sign in front and let their imagination run wild.
They are like a boss I once had, he had stopped smoking. So he said that no one could smoke inside the building. Stating it was a fire hazard because of the use of flamable gases, though there were open flames through out the building. The truth was he simply had quit smoking and did not want to see others smoking.
If the streets became flooded with porn, it is not these shops doing it. Child porn is not sold in these shops. In our society we have the concept of age of concent,below a certain age you can not understand what you are doing. That is the main reason Child porn is illegal. Though someone that only collect or views it is not hurting a child directly, it is consider that a child had to be hurt in the production of it. This is a matter of censorship and not in question.
“Why shouldn’t I be able to walk down the street naked or have sex in a public place, or use the bathroom in the flower pots in front of the library? If you can just turn the channel or the dial when something offends you, then why can’t you just turn your head as well??”
Apples and oranges my friend, if you were to walk around any of these shops 24/7 and did see objectible materal. It would not be the shops showing it to you.The materal is on the inside not the outside. For the most part if they changed their sign, the only way you would know what was inside is if someone told you. This is not even about changing a channel or not looking as you pass. Look all you want, like the T.V. if you see something that offends you it would be rare. As most of the time it not an every minute occurrence.
I do hope your grandkids are free from an unhealthy influences. That can be a hard thing to prevent, but these shops are not the cause that will expose them.
As to another comment, I am forty eight and sad to say I know just what you meant LoL.(Footnote) It has been around eight years since the last time I was in one of the porn shops in Wichita. In part because of my thoughts on society and women in porn. Also if I do feel the need to see any. I do have internet, no traveling, no running into someone from work or church(Yes that has happened in the past). But even that has been rarely, My new release is politics and the R.R.Talk about a preversion! There is a place in socielty for censorship. Just as there is a time and place for everything. Censorship is already in place as to the shops. They can not sell child porn, snuff films, beastality, golden shower or ok I can not think of the name for the other waste fetish, or sex with the dead. No one under eighteen may enter. They can not have graphic displays that are visible from the street. Window are covered and signs can not have images of sexual nature.
Now I feel the need to be aroused,m so I am going to “Who lied about WMDs”.
Good point, dog. So there is an appropiate place to draw the line. I just happen to set the bar a little higher than most because of what I know about pornography and it’s effect on the way women are viewed.
XXX, I wasn’t being sarcastic! Go back and read my post. I really meant it when I said it was nice to have a discussion where everyone is respectful of each other. I think we should pat ourselves on the back for behaving like the adults.
Ah-ha. Sorry Damoon, my bad.
A demonstration of the lack of maturity of Southwind is in their own activities. They go to porn shop parking lots to write down license plate numbers.
And then what? Are the going to “tell on someone”? Like dog pointed out, I doubt any of them have ever been inside these stores that so badly offend them. A healthy marriage is not threatened but can be enhanced by some of the adult products sold there.
So…with internet, with a global economy, with movies, cd’s, etc., back to the initial question, do local/state laws on porn matter? I vote no…and southwind needs to go away, permanently.
Damoon, since you’re claiming to be some sort of expert, how about citing peer-reviewed studies, instead of popular polemics? It’s doesn’t help that your arguments are chockablock with textbook logical fallacies (e.g. the slippery-slope argument, legal porn –> legal child porn).
I’m not about to argue that, say, “Anal Babes 25,” is the epitome of respectful enlightment. I’m not blind. But neither can I meekly accept that any represention of the sexual act is per se degrading to women (care to explain who’s being degraded in gay porn?). You see, it’s the rest of the package–the unsupported presumption upon unsupported presumption upon unsupported presumption–with which I take issue.
Yes, you claim over and over that studies support what you’re saying.
Name them.—–
DOG, man it’s true. Infant formula and/or mother’s milk leads to heroin use. Go figure.
I’m not sure who I’m responding to, since you signed my name at the end of your post. The American Psychatric Association is a good place to start, much of my info comes from studies that association has sited.I’ve listed several books written by PhDs that echo what I’ve seen in my own experience as a psyche nurse.It’s not my opinion that any representation of the sexual act has negative consequences for a society, it’s porn I’m opposed to, not erotica (although I’d like to see less of erotica on TV). If you’d read my posts you’d know the difference. Erotica doesn’t degrade anyone, porn does. Learn the difference.
Bible-inspired-porn-peddling church, found at Yahoo.com.
Erotic moments from Bible..
A German Protestant youth group has put together a 2006 calendar with 12 staged photos depicting erotic scenes from the Bible, including a bare-breasted Delilah cutting Samson’s hair and a nude Eve offering an apple.
“There’s a whole range of biblical scriptures simply bursting with eroticism,” said Stefan Wiest, the 32-year-old photographer who took the titillating pictures.
Anne Rohmer, 21, poses on a doorstep in garters and stockings as the prostitute Rahab, who is mentioned in both New and Old Testaments. “We wanted to represent the Bible in a different way and to interest young people,” she told Reuters.
“Anyway, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that you are forbidden to show yourself nude.”
Bernd Grasser, pastor of the church in Nuremberg where the calendar is being sold, was enthusiastic about the project which is explained online at http://www.bibelkalender.de.
“It’s just wonderful when teenagers commit themselves with their hair and their skin to the bible,” he said.
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
The Bible also doesn’t say anywhere that 400 pound obese people shouldn’t wear Speed-O’s. But some things just ought not to happen… know what I mean?
Damoon, the person who used your name uses the same email as Rage.
(am I the only one who watches this kind of stuff?)
Galahad and I first met through such a misunderstanding.
I find this interesting: Virgin Airlines has just installed urinals in their guest clubhouse at JFK airport that are shaped like women’s mouths. The company states “This is one target men will never miss”.If the urinals were shaped like a black person’s face and mouth, do you think it would be tolerated?
Women will be treated as doormats as long as we continue to lay on the floor.
Comments anyone? Or is this thread going to go silent?
Are you still there, Rage? I’d like to know what you think about the urinals.
Yeah Da,And a woman ceramist I knew made and showed a working toilet with a man’s face in the bottom of the bowl back in the late ’70’s.
This is Richard Branson you are talking about… he is a morally bankrupt egomaniac. The same guy that wants bedrooms in his A380’s so people can “get lucky” in the casino, and then “get lucky” in the bedroom. This is just another showboating effort to get attention….. sad!
Damoon,I don’t know as it’s particularly “wrong” to use a model of a woman’s lips for a urinal, but it is unquestionably bad taste (no pun intended). Here’s the pun: If you don’t like urinals shaped like women’s lips, don’t use them, lol.
Society is such that bad taste sells and sex sells, and some people will make money by demeaning one sex or the other. I tend to be sympathetic about women who claim to be victimized until about the time I walk past a group of them on the factory floor or in the cafeteria. Women can be just as bad as men. I especially love to hear the old gem, “Men are just no damn good!” My answer to that is, “You need to take a hard look at what qualities you consider importiant when you choose a man.”
” Women will be treated as doormats as long as we continue to lay on the floor.”
Damoon, nobody does ANYTHING to you that you don’t let them do.
This cuts both ways, dear lady.
Sam,Yeah, Branson’s morally bankrupt, but it’s sure kept from being the other kind of bankrupt!
XXX, that WAS my point, you have to lay on the floor before someone can treat you like a doormat!! Unfortunately, many women are too comfortable on the floor and don’t think they have what it takes to get up.You’re right, women can be just as bad as guys when discriminating aginst the opposite sex. I think it’s high time we worked toward mutual respect.Not only are the urinals in bad taste, they’re wrong. Like I said before, if the urinals depicted a black face and lips, it wouldn’t be tolerated for a second. Everyone (even women) deserves respect.
Damoon, I try real hard to do my part.
Porn creates tacky stylized urinals! Now I’ve heard everything. I’m sorry I even looked.
For your information, Moonie, I’ve been here, done this, and long since lost the t-shirt. I am not, and have never been, anti-feminist. I’ve read enough feminist antiporn diatribes to make my head hurt. I’ve also read the densely academic “The Question of Pornography” (Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod, S.,1987) cover-to-cover, which found far more ambiguous results than you’re claiming.
Let’s take a look at one of your vaunted Phd.s, shall we? Diana Russell’s bio page opens with a glowing endorsement from Catherine MacKinnon, the famous antiporn law professor:
http://www.dianarussell.com/aboutDianaRussell.html
Okay. I couldn’t imagine, say, the late Steven Jay Gould promoting his work with an Alan Dershowitz quote, but whatever. But Russell also includes a rambling, extended excerpt from the very book you cited.
http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html
It’s certainly an eye-opener. At one point she refers to “the often-quoted statement of one judge — that although he could not necessarily define pornography, he could recognize it when he saw it.” Apparently it hasn’t been quoted enough for her to get it right (It was Justice Potter Stewart, and he said “obscenity,” not “pornography”). A minor quibble.
There are some pretty incredible things being claimed. Did you know, folks, for instance, that “about 5% of the pictorials and 10% of the cartoons” in Playboy from 1973-77 were sexually violent? No? Or that 46% of adult videos “involved bondage or confinement”? No? Don’t worry: Rest assured the terms have been appropriately redefined to fit the data.
How else could Russell blithely cite Edward Donnerstein (who has repeatedly stated, over and over , that violence, not sex, is the problem), and (repeatedly) the report of the Meese Commission (including much attributed to Donnerstein), which included such academic luminaries as James Dobson, and, by Donnerstein’s own account, thoroughly misrepresented his work?
Don’t look for any mention of control groups, confounding factors, ambiguous results, conflicting studies or indeed anything vaguely resembling the scientific method. It ain’t there. Russell instead relies heavily on anonymous quotes and tiny snippets from various studies, cherry-picking to produce the desired result. And she leans heavily on the same authors (primarily Neil Malamuth, and, of course, Diana Russell), over and over. She conflates terms used in different ways (see “sexually violent” above) to make her case stronger. Russell strains mightily to make her “multi-causal” case, reducing the human mind to a Blackberry, but noticeably absent is any data even correlating actual pornography with actual sex crimes.
Obviously you didn’t to go the American Psychiatry Association web site. There you can find all sorts of studies that show a link between porn and anti social behaviors.Rage, did I say that porn was responsible for the urinals? I brought them up to illustrate how easily our society accepts the degradation of women.How would you feel about toilets with mens faces at the bottom being installed in the airport bathrooms? Wouldn’t you think it just a tad disrepectful and degrading?Why is it OK to humiliate, control, exploit, and degrade women when you wouldn’t dream of displaying that attitude toward any minority?And why has porn (including child porn)skyrocketed in the last decade? Is it because we no longer respect boundries for fear of being seen as “anti-sex” or putitanical? Have we evolved to a society in which anything that provides sexual gratification is permissable and accepted?Do you understand the difference between porn and “sexually explicit”? If so, tell me why you think it’s Ok to use and degrade a woman for sexual gratification and why there should be a place for such discriminatory activity in our society.
“Running away, eh? … Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!”
“We’ll call it a draw.”
I of course haven’t even implied anything Damoon has said. No matter.
Folks, I want you to know I didn’t enjoy this. In fact, I found it very painful. Seriously. But, you know, well. . . (drumroll, please). . . wait for it. . .
She asked for it.
Damoon, feel free to tell everyone that some asshole on this blog said “she asked for it.” It’s consistent with your tactics.
Just answer my questions, Rage. You seen to be avoiding the main point I’m trying to make.
This subject shouldn’t be painful, it needs to be discussed because sexual exploitation of women and children is a real problem in our society. That’s one reaason why there is so much abuse, because it’s one of the problems society would just as soon sweep under the rug. I think how women and children are perceived and treated in our society is a valid issue that needs to be seriously addressed.
I’m not trying to imply that you’re a bad person, I’d just like some really honest discussion. If you feel anything I have said puts you in a bad light, then I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention.
Okay. I will, all of them:
Yes, I did. Nothing even close, not even the links.
You never explained the connection. or the relevance. It was a red herring.
I would find it annoying, and yes.
Neither is OK.
People buy it (well, not child porn–it’s hugely illegal).
No.
No.
Not your fuzzy definition. Would “My Loving CEO Wife”–complete with all the usual nasty–be okay with you?
The editors won’t let me answer the last one.
I’m done.
Da,Porn’s been around at least since the Venus of Willendorf was made. Go to Pompeii and look behind the curtain there. See the engravings of William Hogarth or the paintings of Hokusai, etc. etc!Violence has been around a lot longer than that! So has exploitation. How is paying women to act in porn videos different from putting men to work in coal mines for $1 a day?There are lots of different kinds of gratification in the world. Depending on a person’s needs, how is a picture of a naked lady different from a picture of a Big Mac, a stack of gold bars, a picture of your enemy in a compromising position, or any of the other things people lust for?You may make a distinction between porn and erotica, but that distinction is different for each of us, and boils down to what each of us likes and doesn’t like.
Just to lighten it up a little,I don’t like porn because my wife says I don’t. I married her, I love her and respect her wishes.
No, honestly I do.
Jed, just because something’s been around since mankind first walked the earth doesn’t make it right. Remeber slavery? That’s always been a part of the human condition and still is today. And you’re right, everybody has their own way of finding sexual gratification, some like to rape women and some like to molest children, Oh well, to each his own!Rage, I don’t think you “can see the forest for the trees”.You guys are clueless, I have absolutely no hope for your redemption.I should give you both a good spanking!
Da,Excuse me? I’ve never advocated rape or pedophilia or any other violence against women and children, or slavery, for that matter!What I have been relentlessly pointing out is that “porn” is strictly a matter of interpretation, and when you get idiots (read: politicians and televangelists) involved in interpretation, anything can mean anything. Anthony Comstock tried to get a cubist painting banned as obscene because of the the title (Nude Descending Staircase, by Marcel Duchamp- go look it up!). One pope had pants painted on all the figures in Michaelangelo’s Last Judgement. Medical texts were banned for having “obscene illustrations.” Several great literary works were banned, such as James Joyce’s Ulysses. Others, such as most of Shakespeare, were ordered bowdlerized, etc, etc!As an artist, I get damn tired of having to constantly look over my shoulder because some jackass may look at my work and decide it’s obscene, blasphemous, politically incorrect or whatever, and try to do something about it!I’m against censorship in most any form. I will make allowances for censoring troop movements in wartime, but that’s about it. We need more information, not less, and your contention that an image can produce a predictable behavior pattern is pure speculation at best, and an excuse for censorship at worst.
There is a difference between porn and artistic interpetation, between porn and erotica, between porn and sexually explicit.It is not speculation that porn can have an effect on behavior and attitude. That’s been studied for years by mental health professionals. I’ve been a psychatric nurse for 20 yrears, and what I’ve experienced in my work with both perpetrators and victims has validated that to me. You guys can deny it all you want, but I know what I believe has merit.OK, I’m done. Hopefully the next time you guys cruise the porn sites on internet, at least you’ll think about what I’ve said.Porn is not open to interpetation, it is what it is.
Da,Obviously, porn has had a different effect on you than it’s had on some of your patients (who, being patients, apparently have other problems as well). Personally, I find porn boring beyond words, probably because I spent 4hrs a day, 4 or 5 days a week for 9 years in life drawing classes. Nudity lost it’s mystery for me long ago, and porn offers nothing imaginative. It’s just constant repetition of a theme. Boring!The real problem with porn is when it becomes the only information on sex a kid gets. That was pretty much the case for most of the kids I knew back in the ’50’s, and is still the case for some segments of our society.That’s why I’m a strong advocate for a comprehensive sexuality education program in the schools that starts early, and covers all aspects of the relationship between the genders. Do that, and do it well, and you’ve pulled the teeth of porn and sexism in general; a much better solution than instituting bans that you can’t enforce anyway!
I agree with that, the more education, the better, especially when it comes to healthy relationship skills. Too many kids today aren’t being modeled that at home.I still think when it comes to porn we need to raise the bar when it comes to access. It’s just too easy today, and I know vulnerable and sick minds feed off of it.If it was up to me, it wouldn’t be available on the internet unless you subcribed to it and paid extra for it, just like cable TV.My home should be a safe haven from the things that offend me and my family and I shouldn’t have to go out of my way to have it that way. Right now everything is backwards.