|
Post by Tom on Apr 9, 2006 11:39:53 GMT 10
Saw an article in The Age today that is particularly relevant to the debate on banning pornography, which some peope did in Freshers round 4. www.theage.com.au/news/world/orange-county-reveals-americas-shame/2006/04/08/1143916767099.htmlThis can be used to show three things: 1) How images from pornography can cause actual harm in the real world. 2) How pornography robs women of the choice to be promiscuous without being associated with such images. 3) As these people were almost acquitted, and eventually convicted of sexual assault rather than rape, that pornography does change the way all of society sees these issues. I admit the last one might be a long bow to draw, but it would probably work in a debate.
|
|
|
Post by nat on Apr 9, 2006 13:42:52 GMT 10
I don't think that I've ever felt so sick in my life, than I did after reading that article. Ironic that the name of the place this occurred in, is the same as that of such a 'beloved' TV show which many would argue, perpetuates somewhat similar sexual stereotypes and promiscuity.
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Apr 9, 2006 14:00:52 GMT 10
sad really that those kids wont really serve much time. on another note, pornography, and the law surrounding it, has been a big topic in Indonesia at the moment, with the government considering a law banning all forms of pornography (ie you wont even be able to sunbathe on the beaches). First article is on Playboy launching in Indonesia (check out the links on the side too - the one about playboy changing its approach would be interesting in a debate): news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4886686.stmThis article has some information on the anti-pornography law Indonesia wants to pass: www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179416,00.html What's interesting about the proposed law is the effect it would have on tourism in Bali, seeing as anything where skin is bared would be deemed inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Apr 9, 2006 14:31:33 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Apr 9, 2006 15:14:14 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 9, 2006 20:12:31 GMT 10
That article Tom posted is incredibly disturbing, and i don't really want to talk about it - or even think about it - but i do want to comment on Tom's suggestions about how this example might be used in a debate because he touches on a critical argument in debates about pornography - but one that is very hard to do well if you're not Cathy Rossouw (who taught me about this in a bus on the way to my Semi Final at 2001 Worlds when i was freaking about how little i knew about feminism - the topic ended up being about reparations for Japanese war crimes, but Cathy's analysis has remained part of my 1st principles arsenal ever since).
Tom's first point 1) How images from pornography can cause actual harm in the real world is one of the crucial links in an anti-porn debate (along with showing harm to the women involved - but thats not the hard part).
Although i'm pretty sure that Tom is making a fairly sophisticated point, namely that these boys may have been exposed to violent/non-consensual pornography, and so were willing to believe that this girl's claim to wanting to be a porn star was implicit consent for ostensibly non-consentual acts (which is a good - albeit difficult - argument to make), i want to make sure people understand that point.
Because taken simplistically some people might have read Tom's post and thought he meant that the 'real world harm of porn' was caused by the creation this "porn video" and inflicted on Jane Doe. Naturally this video did do harm to Jane Doe, but no one would deny that. Thats not the 'real world harm causation' that you need to prove.
The reason is because this video isn't pornography, its a video of a crime taking place. Just as no one would defend 'snuff' films in a 'pro-pornography' case, no one would defend video's like this either.
But like i said, i think Tom is actually making a much deeper, much better argument about how these boys might have gotten to the belief that committing this crime was 'ok' and that the girl would have been grateful for it (since they thought it would help her achieve her goal of becoming a porn star).
It's what feminist theorists like Rae Langton (who used to lecture at Monash incidently!) call "speech-act theory" - that images and language (speech) can shape our attitudes and therefore our actions.
The classic example is "white only" signs during the segregation era - by allowing places to put up these signs it gave legitimacy and authority to the idea of segregation and entrenched in the minds of people who saw them commonly the idea that segregation was a widely held and legitmate norm.
The crucial link is that people didn't have to actually go into 'white only' venues to feel the effect. the brazen commonality of the signs refinforced stereotypes and ignorance - which directly contributed to racism.
Many anti-porn feminists employ speach-act theory to show the 'real world' harm of porn. and there are some compelling studies cited by people like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon (key figures in the anti-porn debate) that back up the claim that watching a lot of porn desensitizes men to the subtlties of consent and reinforces simplistic stereotypes (like assuming that if you bought a women dinner or expensive presents then she 'owes' you sex) because such stereotypes are ubiquitous in porn and the narrative always ends the same way - with the man receiving whatever sexual gratification he wants, even if the women seemed hesitant at first - a man can become 'socialized' into assuming that those norms are relevant in the real world too. the results can be anything from merely entrenching misogynistic beliefs, to internal justification for rape/sex crimes (and that video of Jane Doe is a good example of that).
I'm sure anyone who did gender studies recently will be well aware of speech-act theory, and they should post here if they have a clearer/better description of it.
But its a vital 1st principle argument to have up your sleeve (for any debates about the negative effects of media - porn, violence, gangsta rap, etc) so if you don't quite get it yet then post your questions and we can discuss it. (in terms of the 'first principles' sheet that i handed out at the MUDS training day - and is still available on their website - speech-act theory is a sub-set of the 'radical feminism' discipline).
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 10, 2006 1:39:36 GMT 10
Tim's right to post that. I probably should know better than to throw out a controversial example and just assume people will know what I'm talking about.
Speech-act theory sounds interesting. I've heard the idea you described Tim, but I never heard that term for it.
I should just quickly mention that if anyone wants to use this example in a debate, you have to explain how easily accessible porn is to minors. That these guys were young and stupid no doubt played a big part in their actions.
The boys involved here associated the term 'porn star' with whatever violent pornography they'd been exposed to, while the poor girl probably associated it with something far more benign.
I'm sure they're also vicious thugs.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 10, 2006 9:29:50 GMT 10
No worries Tom - i'm happy to back you up!
I think Tom is dead right about a key link in the speech-act theory argument is the accessability of porn. Obviously you can make that link fairly easily by refering to things like the internet, but if you read the last book i reviewed "Female Chuavanist Pigs" you'll find a sustained discussion of exactly this point - that 'porn culture' (or "raunch culture" as its called in the book") has become a common cultural norm amongst young people in the US - and so its reasonable to assume that a similar process would occuring in Australia (but at an earlier stage - which helps you make the argument for change, to avoid a fully-blown 'raunch culture' from developing in Australia).
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 13, 2006 8:29:30 GMT 10
I know that there is almost no chance that anyone will ever read this - because you're all at Easters and i'm stuck at work.... But its just too an example to pass on. I was discussing speech-act theory with Amit recently and then stumbled on this, which is a pretty good example of how exposure to sexual content can shape and define an individuals sense of social norms. In this case, kiddies. A 2006 study of 1017 young teens by North Carolina University’s journalism school found that those with a “high sexual media diet” were twice as likely to have sex between the ages of 14 and 16 as opposed to those with the lowest exposure to sexualised media. bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/EC3C64A28818710CCA257149002D82D5Now imagine what constant expose to pornography does to guys... On a sort related story - prostitution www.csmonitor.com/2006/0413/p13s01-lihc.html
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on May 29, 2006 14:16:21 GMT 10
here is a paragraph from a story in today's Age ("Think Sex", Caroline Milburn, p.4.) that is an interesting addition to our previous conversations about pornography and speech-act theory
She is not surprised by findings from a New Zealand study that revealed teen boys get most of their information about sex from porn sites. Viewing adult websites is one of the top three activities that Australian boys spend most of their time doing, according to Dolly's youth monitor, a face-to-face survey of 1000 adolescents last year.
|
|
|
Post by Staggy on Aug 9, 2006 16:53:49 GMT 10
Really good article on the Age Blogs today. blogs.theage.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/2006/08/a_girl_called_j.htmlWhile this thread has so far discussed the social ramifications of exposure to pornography, this article discusses the harm to the women themselves, focusing on one particular case study. It's about a ten minute read. Interesting take on the debate.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Aug 28, 2006 11:26:04 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 28, 2006 16:22:50 GMT 10
There's a lot of good examples for debaters in that article, and I agree with the contention, but the arguments seem a bit simplistic.
Such as 'It should not require a doctorate in psychology to understand that what we see and hear can influence our behavior.'
Or '...the Rand Corp. in Pittsburgh has just published in the current issue of Pediatrics the results of a survey indicating that teens who listen to music full of raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs.' Surely this is more likely to work the other way around? Young people who are interested in sex would be more likely to seek out music that reflects their interests, rather than be exposed to a whole lot of random music which then shapes their views.
And finally: 'Human sexuality researcher Reisman gets it right when she says: "It's not that pornography acts like a drug. It is a drug."'. Actually no, thats about as wrong as you can get. Pornography is obviously not a drug. To say it is, rather than it acts like one, is just incorrect and doesn't help anyone analyse the problem and come up with a solution.
I don't want to be too critical Tim (actually I do, but lets pretend I don't), but what exactly makes that article brilliant?
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Aug 28, 2006 16:43:31 GMT 10
Fair question Tom, and while i agree that the analysis isn't superb (its a newspaper article afterall, not a journal article) i think you're being a little unfair.
Firstly the line about: 'It should not require a doctorate in psychology to understand that what we see and hear can influence our behavior.'
While i agree that thats a simplistic way of putting it, i'm viewing it in the context of the extended discussion on speech-act theory (which is what the article is refering to) which we had earlier in this thread. So i think readers of this board will understand the point that is being made.
With respect to the Rand study, there was another paragraph of analysis in the article discussing the causation, which Tom didn't copy in. But nevertheless his criticism is reasonable. But the point that the Rand study makes (which was extensively covered in various media sources when it came out a few weeks ago) is that mainstream music is overwhelmingly of the sexualised variety. so kids actually have to make an effort to avoid it (or live in restrictive environments - small towns, conservative parents, etc), rather than seek it out, which is what Tom suggested. A quick look at the US Billboard Top 40 will confirm that for anyone who is in doubt.
Secondly that while Tom is certainly raising a valid issue - namely that kids who are esp interested in sex will probably seek out media that engages that interest, that doesn't mean that listening to the music doesn't accelerate that level of interest and shape it.
Classic speach-act theorists would argue that while it is not surprising that boys who want to see lots of boobs will seek out Girls Gone Wild videos, persistant viewing of those videos will condition the boy to think that such behaviour is normal, acceptable and common, which obviously shapes their opinion and interaction with girls.
And that is exactly the argument that is outlined in the missing paragraph:
The Associated Press quotes the lead researcher [of the Rand study], Steven Martino, as saying that exposure to lots of sexually degrading music "gives them a specific message about sex." Boys learn they should be relentless in pursuit of girls, and girls learn to view themselves as sex objects. "We think that really lowers kids' inhibitions," he says.
all in all i think this article raises all the ideas you'd need for a pro-censorship case, and when combined with the discussion on this thread, the examples contained in the article could be very effective in a debate.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Feb 1, 2007 9:30:55 GMT 10
Ok this isn't really about pornography, but the thematic link should be fairly obvious - its about prostitution. I know that we often debate the legality of prostitution, but there are actually more complex issues regarding regulation of prostitutution (legality of street prostitution is a topic that briefly was in fashion but seems to have disappeared), well here is one such complexity - so-called "outcall services" (to put it bluntly, this is the prostitution eqivolent of 'home delivery') Its illegal in some parts of Australia (so the only legal prostitution is within a licenced brothel) and that has opened the way for illegal operations to fillt he void. Whats interesting is that many brothel owners argue that the illegal outcall service industry is undermining the viability of licenced brothels! Anyway, have a read of this story from today's Age: www.theage.com.au/news/travel/backpackers-work-as-prostitutes/2007/01/30/1169919313373.htmlAnd if you want a little extra background, i tracked down this story i remember reading lasting year from the ABC abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1756360.htmI think there is a really good debate to had on this issue
|
|