At 09:28 AM 1/13/97 EST, you wrote:


>  IOW, it isn't the porn, it is 
>the exciting violence.  Also, when the subjects were re-tested a short time 
>later, the more violent urges had passed away.

Diane: So doesn't that conclude that the violent porn as well as non-sexual
violence BOTH incite aggressive behavior? PLease define for me "a short time".
>
>Snuff films are trotted out as the ne plus ultra of the argument.  Problem 
>is, no one has ever seen one, and no researcher or politico or 
>investigator has ever found one.  They appear not to exist, to be an entirely 
>false bugaboo.

Diane: Just because the FBI or an "authority figure" hasn't gotten a hold of
one does not mean that they don't exist. Since one has not been confiscated,
researchers have had to rely on the testimony of prostitues who claim to
have been forced to watch them with their "Johns". Some years ago, a
first-run movie house around Times Square showed what puported to be a snuff
film. The marqee read the word SNUFF followed by, "Made in South America
where life is cheap". The film was being advertised in the subways that
pictured a woman cut in half. It's a horrible thing and I truly hope that
people who debunk the existence of snuff film are right!

>The anti-sex feminists also say that gay male porn degrades women.  Either 
>Andrea Dworkin or Catherine MacKinnon has said that all penetrative sex, no 
>matter how consensual, is rape. 

Diane: PLease don't catagorize anti-sex feminists with all anti-pornography
feminists!!! There is an ENORMOUS distinction. Anti-porn feminists have NO
objection to nondegrading images unless the woman was abused in its
production. People like Strossen who make no distinction b/w erotica and
porn make it so easy to identify anti-porn feminists with the right wing
that oppose all sexually explicit material. As far as I know, among
anti-pornography feminists Dworkin stands ALONE in her assertion that all
sex is rape. And I firmly believe that this view is utter bullshit. 

>
>As for rape statistics: a. they are not correlated with any increase in 
>population, just presented as sheer numbers, which are meaningless; b. in 
>some studies, the definition of rape has included such things as being 
>whistled at by construction workers.

Diane: I agree, rape stats have to be more than sheer numbers to establish
correlation or causation. Of the many researchers that have scientifically
proven a relationship between porn and violence some are Diana E.H. Russell,
Neil Malamuth, James Check, Dolf Zillman, and Bryant Jennings. Please tell
me which studies actually considered harassment by construction workers rape!!!
>
>And, for those of you who still think that laws against porn are a good 
>thing, note that such laws are usually used first and foremost against gay 
>and lesbian bookstores.  One region of Canada adopted the MacDworkinites law 
>pretty much verbatim and the law has, so far, been mostly used against Little 
>Sister Bookstore, a lesbian bookstore.  Books such as Our Bodies, Ourselves 
>have been seized.

Diane: Yes. I absolutely agree. There are serious problems with censorship
legislation. I am no expert on the issue and frankly, I don't know how I
would handle it if it were all up to me. However, the "MacDworkinite"
ordinance was made to REGULATE pornography. The ordinance provides that
pornography is civilly actionable as a form of sexual discrimination when
any of the following can be proven: (1) coercion into pornography; (2)
forcing pornography on a person; (3) assaulting or physically attacking
someone due to pornography; or (4) defaming a person through the use of
their name, image, or likeness in pornography. Finally, it gives rise to
injunctive relief by those who establish that they were specifically harmed
by pornography.
>

And if you still think porn made those boys do all those wrong things, well, 
>heck.  It isn't their fault.  Let's let all the rapists out of prison.  They 
>were misled by nasty pictures.

Diaen: Let me clarify, porn has been proven to be A factor. There are many
causes of rape, and the significance of pornography varies depending on its
availability, its content, and its degree of acceptablity in a particular
culture.  
>
A couple of interesting books on the subject: Nadine Strossen's Defending 
>Pornography, and Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan's Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace.
>
>Diane: I read something very interesting about the ACLU and Strossen. There
has been a collusion of the ACLU and pornographers which involves taking
money from them. It includes rent free office space in buildings owned by
pornographers and using pornography events to raise money. It includes not
only defending them in court but also doing publicity for them, organizing
events like the Hugh Hefner First Ammendment Awards and it includes
publishing in their magazines. They are reaping great economic reward from
working with pornographers. Don't you think that Strossen has some vested
interest in protecting the industry. 

Don't forget that the pro-pornography lobby spent LOTSA cash to PR firms to
discredit anti-pornography stats by planting propoganda in the news that
disproved the relationship between porn and violence.  

I think that the public has been largely misinformed about this issue. Read
Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" and maybe you'll find that this and
other such claims are not so outrageous.
>