Comic books = pornography?

[Marc]

Almost missed this

In spite of the lack of such researches , thought, the FBI's own statistics who that p.is found at 80% of the scenes of violent sex crimes, or in the homes or perpetrators".

I think the best answer to this is the Central Iowa Skeptics warning about the dangers of.....Bread!!!

In the period 1999-2000, it was found that more than 98 percent of convicted felons were bread users.

In that same period, fully half of all children who grew up in bread-consuming households scored below average on standardized IQ and physical tests.

In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high, and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

Statistics show that more than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of the perpetrator eating bread.

Bread has been proven to be highly addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

Bread is a "gateway" food item, frequently leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

Newborn babies can choke on bread.

Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 200 degrees Celsius! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

 

[Cleopatra]

I, and Glory have also refuted the arguments by pointing out there are studies that directly refute the claims you made.

Yes, but you and Glory y have forgotten to point to me a survey that can persuade me on the contrary.

and what work of their directly links all porn to organized crime, drugs, and child prostitution? I'm sure it is possible to find a few agents that would agree, after all one person I know was invited to speak at a debate on if D&D leads to satanism and suicides. One of the debaters for the claim was an FBI agent.

James Check is a Canadian and an authority on the topic.I understand your point but it's not enough to dismiss statistics of organizations like FBI or Interpol especially when you don't provide an alternative.

and where is YOUR data that you seem to expect me to take at face value? You are the one making the claim that there is a connection here.

I mentioned James Check's report to the Canadian Ministry of Justice, of course I can provide you a full bibliography.

[Already supplied examples of how the US does lie and distort in order to promote an agenda. Not necesarily saying they are lying, but could be relying on heavily biased or misrepresented studies.

Yes, you are right they could be relying on heavily biased studies but you have to understand that it's FBI's data against political views.

My original post to Lucy had one purpose only. I do not want us to dismiss the idea that pornography might be related to crime.

I chose to quote Check because as you saw he is not willing to interpret statistics in a specific way but he just points out to some facts.

What makes you that sure that there is no way that pornography is related to crime? This is my question. What makes you so sure?

 

[Cleopatra]

Almost missed this




I think the best answer to this is the Central Iowa Skeptics warning about the dangers of.....Bread!!!

Cute

But still is FBI against you ....

Where did you find this BTW can you send me the link? I want to post it to the Chef's forum

 

[JamesM]

James Check is a Canadian and an authority on the topic.

No doubt, but he cannot repeal the laws of statistics.

 

[Cleopatra]

As a correlation, no. But how do we differentiate between the two following cases:

1. Exposure to p. causes them to become perpetrators.

2. The tastes of the perpetrators causes them to have a liking for p, in the same way that one could argue that violent people like violent films without the films causing them to be violent.

It is impossible to infer cause and effect from a study of the sort you mention.

Did you read the quote of J.Check ?

These are exactly the problems he points out but can you ignore the statistic?

One could do so from a randomised trial or one could obtain evidence for a causative mechanism from elsewhere, but the correlation itself, while it does not argue against case 1 above, does not prove it, as there are alternative scenarios that it would also be true for.

He goes further than you do by describing the methods he thinks one should use in order to have definite answers.

But critical thinking dictates us not to dismiss the theory that there might be a relation between p. and violence.

 

[JamesM]

But critical thinking dictates us not to dismiss the theory that there might be a relation between p. and violence.

The statistic you quote does indeed show there is a relation between p and violence. It does not show cause-and-effect. Even if it did, there is the question of to what population the results could be extended.

My own personal belief is that I would not be even remotely surprised to discover that p could have an effect on behaviour of a deleterious nature, so I would not reject that idea out of hand. However, I do not have anything other than my own prejudices and feelings to back me up on this.

 

[Glory]

Do you have a statistic that shows how much pornography one expects to find in homes of non-perpetrators?

Of course not. No one cares how much porn the average person has unless the average person becomes decidedly unaverage. There is always someone looking for porn once an offender is identified because porn is seen by so many as a red flag. "Look at all that porn! He really is a freak!"

As I said to James I do not have personal statistics and I have to rely on FBI, Interpol and US Dept of Justice.

And we have explained to you on more than one occassion why those sources are suspect and unreliable. John Ashcroft is a liar, an obfuscator of truth and a manipulator of fact. He has an agenda and picks and choose his evidence so that his claims are supported.

Quite honestly, it has been a long time since I looked up this kind of thing. I will need sometime to do some research. Please stand by.

In the mean time, do you have any studies that come from a less biased source?

ment is like Coca-Cola, it applies in every occassion.

Funny how that works. It is always true.

Show me your statistics, please.

What good are statistics? I can show you statistics that support your positions, given time, and ones that support mine.

A few years ago, well more like forty or so, there was beautiful new hospital built. The first birth in the hospital was twins. One of them was weak and died. Since there were not anymore births in the hospital before the end of the calendar year, the mortality rate for babies born in the hospital in the first year, only about eight weeks since it was late in the year, was 50 %. There's a statistic for you. Would you want to have your baby in hospital in with a 50 % mortality rate for newborns? Stats are often misleading and manipulated. I prefer evidence.

Glory

 

[Cleopatra]

The statistic you quote does indeed show there is a relation between p and violence. It does not show cause-and-effect. Even if it did, there is the question of to what population the results could be extended.

My own personal belief is that I would not be even remotely surprised to discover that p could have an effect on behaviour of a deleterious nature, so I would not reject that idea out of hand. However, I do not have anything other than my own prejudices and feelings to back me up on this.

The cause and effect cannot be shown in a statistic at least for now and I find his argument persuasive as to why we will never have such a survey.

I do not have personal prejudices, on the contrary but I cannot ignore some facts just to support my personal tastes.

 

[JamesM]

The cause and effect cannot be shown in a statistic at least for now and I find his argument persuasive as to why we will never have such a survey.

I concur.

I do not have personal prejudices, on the contrary but I cannot ignore some facts just to support my personal tastes.

It's not a case of ignoring facts. It is recognising that a correlation from a retrospective study cannot establish cause and effect without evidence from elsewhere. I am not arguing that there isn't evidence from elsewhere that establishes cause and effect. My comments are restricted entirely to interpretation of that statistic.

 

[Marc]

Found a nice little quote from Check

"Check found that the violent material had the most negative effect, the degrading material had the next most negative effects, and the other sexual material had no negative effects at all. The negative effects he documented included an increase in the self-reported likelihood that the men would actually act out a rape. ... (Check & Guloien 1989)". (emphasis added)

from this site on the debate. It was pointing out Checks findings were misrepresented to strike at all porn when even by his findings there were no negative effect from non-violent porn. I'm fairly confident if I looked enough there might be refutations to even his claims on violent porn too.


The bread thing was reprinted in Randi's Swift articles. Just do a search on bread, it should be the first thing to show up.

 

[Marc]

And we have explained to you on more than one occassion why those sources are suspect and unreliable. John Ashcroft is a liar, an obfuscator of truth and a manipulator of fact. He has an agenda and picks and choose his evidence so that his claims are supported.
[/b]

You left out how he spent $8,000 of the departments money to put draperies around the statue of Justice, because he objected to the statue being bare breasted. Sounds like a person with a sensible and honest outlook on porn, doesn't he?

 

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for the link, at least now people know that Check isn't a figment of my imagination...

Yes indeed, Check agrees that Milo Manara and other soft porn is not harmful....

 

[LucyR]

Marc,

Wow! Is that really true?

I think it's people with that sort of attitude that are more likely to be guilty of sex crimes.

How's that for an unsubstantiated and emotionally charged remark?

 

[Cleopatra]

It was pointing out Checks findings were misrepresented to strike at all porn when even by his findings there were no negative effect from non-violent porn. . [/B]

Hey Marc, this link refers to misrepresentations of Check's survey by the Fraser Committee and not to Check's reports.

I didn't see anybody here misrepresenting his report. I have just mentioned it.

The link refers to a bad use of this report it doesn't dismiss the report.

What about a link that dismisses that report, if you don't agree with him.

 

[Bikewer]

This post has become rather lengthy, but I have not yet seen anyone adress the central problem; that of defining pornography.

Something the courts have tried and failed to do many times.
I recall Pres. Reagan's "blue-ribbon" panel that was hand-picked to study pornography; even though the panel was widely dismissed as being "loaded" with anti-porn types, it was only by the closest of margins that they were able to submit a report, a report that was denounced by the minority of the panel. A very slight minority, I might add.

All rather typical of the controversy.

One person's erotica is another person's yawn and yet another's god-awful degeneracy. Transvestites, can, after all, get quite aroused over a women's clothing catalogue....

A great deal of BDSM-Fetish oriented material does not show any sex act whatever; yet devotees collect the stuff enthusiastically.

The relationship between sex crimes and pornography is tenuous at best. While it's true that paraphiliacs such as pedophiles collect large quantities of child pornography, there is a great deal of controversy over this material being causal.
In fact, regarding such conditions, (paraphilias) it's the current paradigm that one's sexual orientation (or lovemap, in sexologist parlance) is fully formed by age 3 or so, long before an infant would become exposed to, or even aware of any erotic material.

The most troubling aspect of a great deal of pornography is the exploitation of the "models" involved. In the case of children, of course, it's felonious in all "developed" countries that I'm aware of.
But, in regards to more conventional material, there is an element of criminal behaviour involved in the production and distribution of a percentage, and in the exploitation of the "actors".
On the other hand, there is a relatively large "amatuer" scene, where enthusiastic folks willingly put themselves on display for pay.
We have a husband-and-wife team here in the St. Louis area that have been enthusiastically self-producing films for years, and have recently started giving "sex seminars" which amount to little more than staged intercourse.

 

[Cinorjer]

Viewing pornography no more "causes" or promotes sexual violence than playing violent video games "causes" kids to run out and commit acts of violence. Misleading statistics are of course thrown around, but the most telling argument against a causual relationship is that internet porn has made the consumption of pornography skyrocket, while actual acts of sexual or other violence has dropped overall. That's like having smoking increase dramatically and lung disease drop off at the same time: it's simply impossible if there's any causual relationship at all! Period!

Pornography falls into the "moral sin" catagory, involving the vague concept of "community standards". Yes, there is a Christian campaign to make a case for pornography being "addictive". They want looking at dirty pictures to be placed in the same catagory as smoking crack. According to them, looking at tame naked women leads to fetish pictues, finally to acting out the fantasies. Yet, there's not a shred of evidence this happens.

 

[Dogwood]

Cleo,

I really don't understand your position here. The only statistic you've provided is that pornography was found in 80% of the homes of child molesters. As Marc points out in his "bread" rebuttal, that statistic is meaningless. Probably 100% of those people had paper towels in their homes. Would that make you think there was a connection between Bounty and violent sex crimes?

You continue to suggest that others provide statistics to refute yours, yet, you don't have any to refute. I recognize what you've said about appreciating porn yourself, but you seem to be arguing more from a pre-conceived notion than any facts, reason, or argument, in my opinion.

 

[Cinorjer]

The most troubling aspect of a great deal of pornography is the exploitation of the "models" involved.

Yes, this is one case where the Women's Lib movement and the Christian Right have common cause. Pornography is seen by the Women's Libbers to be exploiting and degrading, turning a woman into a sex object. Some women apparently have a beef about men getting excited over the thought of sex. Most pornography is about two or more consenting adults going at it while the pizza gets cold, but there is a large fetish audience, apparently, for pornography that is intended to degrade. Also, the women who make money posing are supposed to be practically forced to do so, so like prostitution, they would make the whole business illegal "for the sake of the women". It's a much more defensible position than the Biblical "pornography causes masterbation, and the Bible says masterbation is a sin" (it doesn't, but facts have never stood in the way of claims made with the Bible as authority).

In my own case, I dislike the hypocracy of claiming women are equal in every case to men, then claiming that women are victims that need our protection. But it is an argument that makes sense to me. I'd like to know other's reactions to this.

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by mark tidwell Cleo,

I really don't understand your position here. The only statistic you've provided is that pornography was found in 80% of the homes of child molesters. As Marc points out in his "bread" rebuttal, that statistic is meaningless. Probably 100% of those people had paper towels in their homes. Would that make you think there was a connection between Bounty and violent sex crimes?

No it wouldn't make me think that. By applying the simple causation one can't support that pornography can cause rape this is true but if you apply the concept of multiple causation then you might be driven to different conclusions.

But there is not need to get involved in legalistic terms.

but you seem to be arguing more from a pre-conceived notion than any facts, reason, or argument, in my opinion.

Hmmm... let's see:

1. Edward Donnerstein, " Pornography and Violence Against women", Annals of the NY Academy of Science, 347 ( 1980 )
2.Neil Malamuth," Rape Fantasies as a Function of repeated Exposure to sexual violence" Archives of Sexual Behavior,10( 1981).
3.Linz, Donnerstein and Penrod," The Effects of Multiple exposures to Filmed Violence Against Women", Journal of Communication, 34 ( 1984)
4. James Check, " The Effects of Violent and Non-Violent Pornography", Dept. of Justice. Ottawa, Canada.

Also, I am aware of the survey of Zillman but I keep a copy in my office and I can't post the exact reference right now, maybe Mercutio has it handy.

Mercutio who is following the thread, send me a PM, asking me whether I was referring to those surveys, probably he knows what lawyers are taught is Law Schools . He says that he disagrees with those views but I post them here just to force Mercutio to join the thread and to put those surveys on the table of discussion.

This morning I did a google search and I saw that Donnerstein is extensively quoted by Christian sites. Others make vague criticism to Donnestein without refuting his arguments in essence though , while most of those that criticize Donnenstein, seem to ignore J.Check,Neil Malamuth and Zillman.

The fact that Donnenstein's work is extensively quoted by Christian sources doesn't make his survey less trustworthy but since I am not an expert the way Mercutio is I am waiting to hear to his arguemnts and info.

As you see Mark Tidwell, although I am a non-expert I have done my homework before opening my mouth and from my list above are absent a couple of important surveys( Zillman's is one of those) because I can't post their exact reference at least now.

Those that dismissed my posts what have they read? Are they aware of other surveys or they base their opinion on their political beliefs?

This was my question

 

[Cinorjer]

Those that dismissed my posts what have they read? Are they aware of other surveys or they base their opinion on their political beliefs?

While I never dismiss anyone's posts outright, in my case I was exposed to Donnenstein and other researchers in the Human Sexuality courses in college, on my way to getting my Psychology degree. That hardly makes me an authority, and it definitely makes that research dated.

The courses that taught me the most were the ones on statistics and research paradigms. What I found out is that, when it comes to human behavior, take any and all authority with a healthy dose of disbelief. Especially if it tells you what you want to hear. Any time you move from general trends to individual behavior, you can get just about any result depending on how the study is designed. For instance, one of the studies you list seeks to find out if viewing porn leads to fantasies about rape and other violent behavior. How do you seperate cause and effect in this case? For that matter, there's a huge difference between fantasies and behavior. What, in the end, have you proved by the study?