🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug6.211342.7966@icd.ab.com> adnan@icd.ab.com
 (Adnan C. Yaqub) writes:
>These are vaild questions.  However, before you pass judgment, read
>the study.

I haven't passed judgement yet; your description suggested bias.  This
may simply be the result of your own bias, which is why I said I'd
take a look at them when I got a chance.

>You seem to assume, because of the experiment devised, that the
>researcher is biased.  Suppose you wanted to prove that pornography
>does or does not have harmful side effects.

My point is that your descriptions suggest that the researcher did, in
fact, set out to prove that pornography was harmful (just like the
Meese Commission).  Well, to no one's surprise that's what he found.
I already mentioned one experiment I'd like to see.  Here's another:
compute the "porn availability" for various parts of the country for
20 years, and compare it to the sex-crime rates.  Any correlation?
For extra credit, you can toss in comparisons with the Netherlands,
Germany, Sweden, and Japan (all countries with well-developed "porn"
industries), as well as England (for the page 3 girls, if nothing
else; I mean, if anything's going to have an effect, a daily dose of
knockers with your morning coffee ought to be it).

  And another: choose three good-sized samples out of the population;
give one of them busloads of hardcore skin flicks, give nothing to the
second group, and tell the third you're giving them underage Tracy
Lords movies, but give them Brooke Shields films instead (skip Tilt,
they might catch on).  Monitor them for a few months/years, and see
which ones become sex offenders (note: discount suicides in the third
group).

>What experiments would you choose?

I'd choose a different goal, namely investigating whether there is
*any* demonstrable effect of "pornography", positive, negative, or
irrelevant.  Does porn cause a greater interest in exercise by showing
lots of perfect bodies?  Does it reduce the divorce rate, by
encouraging couples to reawaken the flagging passion in their
relationships?  Does it cause delusions of sexual inadequacy, by
showing men who can always get it up and women who reach orgasm the
moment a hand touches their naughty bits?  How about delusions of
sexual adequacy?  Does it reduce incidence of sexual harassment in
the office?  Increase it?  Does it have no long-term effect at all,
except on people who are already seriously disturbed?

>I agree that these studies do not prove cause and effect.  It seems to
>me that this is a very hard thing to prove, kind of like proving that
>smoking causes cancer.

My point.  You're insisting it's so without proof.  I have no problem
with people suggesting that the material in question might be harmful,
and will cheer them on as they investigate honestly, but they'd better
have some solid evidence before they start rounding up copies of "On
Golden Blonde".

>However, I find these studies to be interesting, to raise serious
>questions,

They certainly are interesting; what's more interesting is that they
generally have ready answers for those questions.

>and to make me question the validity of "pornography has no adverse
>affects on anyone" statements.

I haven't seen any statements like that.  Who's been making them?


			This material has been reviewed by independent
			experts who found, based on their professional
			experience and training, that the material:
				* has scientific value
				* does not appeal to the prurient
				  interests of the average adult
				  American.
			Material is intended for viewing/reading by
			adults only, for use in the privacy of the
			customer's home.  Not for public use.
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)