More from the Guardian:
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2006 01:51:55
Hi there,
Here's another good comment from the Guardian's forums with some handy
links to add to our list:
* * * * *
The research carried out on the effects of pornography, violent or not,
are inconclusive and contradictory, much of it has been carried out or
funded by reactionary conservative christians in the US. They can often,
for example, define a belief that sex before marriage is permissible as
evidence of increased "callousness" or lower regard toward women, they
often classify slasher films as "pornography" or fail to cite exactly
which films are used so results can't be tested by peers. It also
follows that those subject to conservative or sexualy repressive
upbringings may well react negatively toward women after veiwing
pornography, however their prior existing values may be of more
significance in this than their veiwing of pornography. For an overview
of the multiple faults in such research I'd recommend the essay Mystery
And Imagination: The Case Of Pornography Effects Studies by Alison King.
Many studies that claim to prove a causal link between visual violence
and actual violence or increased "callousness" use flawed methods of
behavioural psychology, correlative studies often show the opposite.
Below are links to correlative studies showing that an increase in the
availability of porn tends to correspond with a decrease in sexual
violence. In particular Japan makes an interesting and relevant case due
to the availability of sadomasochistic porn.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf
Below are more overveiws of the research, the first one on the relation
between violent sexual fantasy and crime rather than porn specifically.
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/484
http://www.omaha-neb.com/experts.html
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm
* * * * *
Cheers,
Graham.
rovacs, 05 Sep 2006 10:21:07
More for the court case-from what I.ve seen its pretty good stuff. It would be wonderful to see Croaker in court repeat his lies and be exposed as a perjuror and treated accordingly.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Here's another good comment from the Guardian's forums with some handy
> links to add to our list:
> * * * * *
> The research carried out on the effects of pornography, violent or not,
> are inconclusive and contradictory, much of it has been carried out or
> funded by reactionary conservative christians in the US. They can often,
> for example, define a belief that sex before marriage is permissible as
> evidence of increased "callousness" or lower regard toward women, they
> often classify slasher films as "pornography" or fail to cite exactly
> which films are used so results can't be tested by peers. It also
> follows that those subject to conservative or sexualy repressive
> upbringings may well react negatively toward women after veiwing
> pornography, however their prior existing values may be of more
> significance in this than their veiwing of pornography. For an overview
> of the multiple faults in such research I'd recommend the essay Mystery
> And Imagination: The Case Of Pornography Effects Studies by Alison King.
> Many studies that claim to prove a causal link between visual violence
> and actual violence or increased "callousness" use flawed methods of
> behavioural psychology, correlative studies often show the opposite.
> Below are links to correlative studies showing that an increase in the
> availability of porn tends to correspond with a decrease in sexual
> violence. In particular Japan makes an interesting and relevant case due
> to the availability of sadomasochistic porn.
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
> http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf
> http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf
> Below are more overveiws of the research, the first one on the relation
> between violent sexual fantasy and crime rather than porn specifically.
> http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/484
> http://www.omaha-neb.com/experts.html
> http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm
> * * * * *
> Cheers,
> Graham.
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:25:01
again thanks for that Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 09 Sep 2006 20:51:19
In message <7768549.1157447615128.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, mrlucky@fastermail.com wrote:
>More for the court case-from what I.ve seen its pretty good stuff. It would be
>wonderful to see Croaker in court repeat his lies and be exposed as a perjuror
>and treated accordingly.
For that to happen, an operator of a website or a producer of fetish
material would have to sue that ministerial onanist for libel. Croaker
would then have to try to defend his imprudent allegations or would have
to apologise and withdraw his defamatory statements.
The libelled party would not have to prove anything. It would be up to
Croaker to prove that (a) the words did not have the meaning placed on
them by the claimant, or (b) that the words were true and made without
malice. His comments would not be privileged, as they would have been
had he made those remarks in Parliament; outside the Palace of
Westminster, no MP can claim Parliamentary privilege.
--
< Paul >