Thoughts on the Christopher Handley case

[chaos]

That last sentence is what I find the most interesting. Why should it be that a lot of pornography is misogynistic? I don't like that aspect of pornography at all, but I can't help but feel that it's prevalence has something to do with the predominant attitudes of each gender to sex. It seems to me that men gain enjoyment from it because they see themselves as victims of women in the first place, due to the fact that they are not having as much real sex as they would like. Let's face it; No-one would need pornography at all if everyone was sexually fulfilled.

I'm not saying that this is the fault of either sex, but the (usual) difference in sex drive between genders definitely plays a part in views of pornography. For many women pornography may seem misogynistic (and not without good reason) but for men I feel it's an outlet the modern, real world of sex and relationships is not allowing them. You'll get no argument from me that the content of much real and drawn pornography is anti-women and I'd rather it wasn't; But I think that the feelings which drive men to create and consume such material must come from rejection by, or negative experiences with, women in real life.

I agree with all you say there, and I'm actually wondering why women do not consume pornography in the same proportion as men. It's not like they don't like sex as much as men does, but perhaps the relation each gender has with sex and atraction.

The more I think about it, the more confused I get.


I digress though, back to the original topic, should all sort of violence be permanently banned?
I guess I can only accept such a law if it were to be executed to the full extent of the issue at hand (depictions of crime, feeding/inspiring potential criminals). This would never happen though.

 

[Zin5ki]

But I wonder about the general rights of children not to be depicted and legitimised as sexual objects.

Might one ask what you mean to imply by this? There are, it seems, two separate ways in which one could clarify the point you are using a basis of argument:

1) Certain depictions of any particular child would violate the rights of that particular child.
2) Certain depictions of any particular child would violate the rights of all children.

The difference between these two notions is, for the sake of your argument, quite great.
If you only consider 1) to be the case, then you are only in a position to take issue against material containing depictions of an existent child, for only in cases of the possession of such depictions are any rights violated; these rights being those of the very children depicted.
Vice versa, if there is no existent child being depicted, 1) does not alone entail any rights to have been abused.

Intuitively however, I assume you had in mind the second proposition and not the first. (If this is incorrect, then you may discard the following content.)

Now, consider this. If 2) is true, to what extent would 2) generalise so as to apply to other distinguishable groups of people? One might, by giving consideration to the continuum of ages between childhood and adulthood, consider that 2) can only be adhered to qua a vague instance of the more general principle, which I outline thus:

3) Certain depictions of any particular person would violate the rights of all persons.

Indeed, this position is far from unheard of.
Now, you have two options. You may suggest that 2) does not generalise to 3), and if so you must provide a reason for this. You may alternatively suggest that 3) indeed holds, and must therefore defend it vis-à-vis the wealth of content which violates 3) but exists quite prominently across all forms of media.

Of course, you might only wish to defend 1), but I assume that you do not.

But pornography, real or animated, has been shown to lead to the debasement and objectification of women in the eyes of society in a general sense.

It appears that you refer to an empirical study when making this point. If so, sharing it with us would be much appreciated.

 

[Rui]

I think a lot of girls - well, those with enough free time and liberty, it's seen as vulgar in many circles - do consume erotica fairly rabidly. It's just that girls are more turned on by subtle things rather than the visual side, and a steamy novel is always going to seem less obvious than a lewd magazine covered in pictures of breasts even if it's just as titillating to its audience. Fanfiction is heaving with naughty female writers and there's probably not a male anime character around who hasn't been slashed with another at some time or other.

When my husband picks up a risque doujinshi aimed at women he often smiles at how PG it all looks, having seen how visually explicit some of the male-orientated versions are. But it doesn't always mean that it isn't explicit in its own right. Sometimes what isn't shown can be more interesting than what is not, if you aren't of a strictly visual mindset.

I think that the hysteria over paedophilia lately is being made worse by the drift in our society to have much less contact with children than is normal. It's perfectly possible (and indeed common) for a person to reach adulthood with no experience whatsoever of interacting normally with humans younger than them, so to some children unfortunately end up with a strange mystique attached to them rather than being seen as little people with their own rights. I believe that sadly, paedophiles will always exist and should be absolutely condemned if they even think about acting on their urges, but it's a shame the way our culture is going too. When I read comments on things such as YouTube videos or bawdy websites written by the mostly male users, I realise that many young men see women as an alien species. It seems that children are thought of this way sometimes as well.

R

 

[VivisQueen]

It appears that you refer to an empirical study when making this point. If so, sharing it with us would be much appreciated.

I read through your one-two-three points and just picked the one that seemed to fit my view best.

3) Certain depictions of any particular person would violate the rights of all persons.

I'm not sure I'd use 'all persons'. But if you mean a particular population within the general population, then fine, yes. My problem is legitimisation in the minds of people of a harmful image of a population. If society persistently portrays Jews as money-grabbing baddies a la Merchant of Venice, Jews will be harmed. If people get used to seeing children as sexual objects (actual or not), children will be harmed.

Interestingly, in googling the issue of pornography leading to higher rates of sexual crimes, I found it to be a contentious question. Older debates lean towards yes; more contemporary arguments even by feminists lean towards no. Agreement tends to exist that the common form of pornography i.e. those dirty vids and mags generally debase women for the sexual gratification of men. If you want empirical evidence for either side of the debate, use google scholar. I typed 'studies of pornography harming women' and got this list:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=stu ... i=scholart

Many articles cannot be accessed without purchasing. But, clearly, there is a lively debate around the issue.

This one, I could read the synopsis, and it contradicts my assertion: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... 046&db=all

I found a feminist perspective on the F-word which argues for reform of porn because it is degrading to women, but not censorship because porn could be fulfilling and artistic: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... st_censors

Another feminist perspective that argues about the 'pornification' of women in the media in general and so it is still an issue today: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200 ... ct_culture

Yet another f-word entry that says the BDSM scene is full of mutual respect and safe deviant sex: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/07/kink_101

I thought this book was interesting: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... &q&f=false

An article that agrees with the view that pornography harms women (with important caveats I had not considered): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 2bccbf8fa3

Another article that seems to agree that it is harmful: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... 063&db=all

Having checked out some of those, I'm finding my view changed in one way: reform sounds like a good idea - I've always believed in the idea of sex, like any act, being about choices and freedom for people to enjoy themselves. But not for the entertainment of one sex at the expense of another. And I definitely don't agree with kids being portrayed in it.

In the end, this PDF made a pretty interesting case that pornography can cause moral harm, but this doesn't mean it should lead to censorhip for adults. This probably has the most relevance to the Handley case: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent. ... text=nwwps

I am finished.

 

[ilmaestro]

But I wonder about the general rights of children not to be depicted and legitimised as sexual objects.

That's certainly an interesting way of putting it, but I just can't see how this applies when the characters are entirely fictional. If someone wanted to make, say, a film about suburban white guys getting killed in a string of serial killings, I don't see why I should have the right to stop them. If someone was actually going around doing those things, though, it is very clearly a different matter.

 

[Zin5ki]

I'm not sure I'd use 'all persons'. But if you mean a particular population within the general population, then fine, yes.

I propose to construe this as the following:

4) Certain depictions of any particular person would violate the rights of a salient subset of the population, of which said particular person is a member.

To which, in the context of this discussion, it would be apt to add this:

4') Certain depictions of any particular fictional person would violate the rights of a salient subset of the population, provided said particular person would be a member of said subset if they were not fictional.

Note that 4) and 4') say nothing of direct actions subjected unto any subset of the population, nor of the development of any propensity in a person to do so.

I shall pause further discussion on this matter at present, in order to ask whether you deem 4) and 4') to be appropriate statements of your beliefs.

My problem is legitimisation in the minds of people of a harmful image of a population.

It should be noted that the legitimisation of harmful mental images (i.e. a mens rea) does not trivially follow from the existence of physical images of fictional harm.
One must demonstrate a causal or constitutive link between a person possessing a certain fictional depiction and that very same person coming to hold certain views of particular groups of society — views that would motivate the person to harm such groups or members thereof.

One might rebut by accusing me of making too strong a demand. One might say that the possession of the image is ipso facto an act of harming, insofar as it verifies 4'), and that the demonstration for which I ask is not of primary relevance.

Nonetheless, you have provided several published articles containing data relevant to this. I shall mention one in particular. In the 2001 article published in Aggression and Violent Behaviour, the most appropriate result from the analyses made is that a slight correlation exists between pornographic exposure and proxy measures of aggression. These proxy measures fall far short, however, of indicating a genuine willingness to engage in aggression of the sort depicted in the pornography in question, and the authors' emphasis on a subject's predisposition suggests that more prominent causes of aggression are independent of the exposure to such material.

 

[chaos]

This is probably going way off topic and is a bit of a heavy discussion to drag a new member into (sorry) but sex and gender based questions fascinate me. The thread may be split, but we're pioneers of the epic thread here

I feel a bit hurt here, as Salinger and Orwell have loads more content and depth in the thinner books than all of Stephen King's work... =P

I'm not sure I'd use 'all persons'. But if you mean a particular population within the general population, then fine, yes. My problem is legitimisation in the minds of people of a harmful image of a population. If society persistently portrays Jews as money-grabbing baddies a la Merchant of Venice, Jews will be harmed. If people get used to seeing children as sexual objects (actual or not), children will be harmed.

Then, how's is it different from Rambo, Bond or any other cinema hero killings? What about violent video games?

Wouldn't that also legitimize killing?

My problem is legitimisation in the minds of people of a harmful image of a population.

It should be noted that the legitimisation of harmful mental images (i.e. a mens rea) does not trivially follow from the existence of physical images of fictional harm.
One must demonstrate a causal or constitutive link between a person possessing a certain fictional depiction and that very same person coming to hold certain views of particular groups of society — views that would motivate the person to harm such groups or members thereof.

One might rebut by accusing me of making too strong a demand. One might say that the possession of the image is ipso facto an act of harming, insofar as it verifies 4'), and that the demonstration for which I ask is not of primary relevance.

Nonetheless, you have provided several published articles containing data relevant to this. I shall mention one in particular. In the 2001 article published in Aggression and Violent Behaviour, the most appropriate result from the analyses made is that a slight correlation exists between pornographic exposure and proxy measures of aggression. These proxy measures fall far short, however, of indicating a genuine willingness to engage in aggression of the sort depicted in the pornography in question, and the authors' emphasis on a subject's predisposition suggests that more prominent causes of aggression are independent of the exposure to such material.

You just scared and amazed me now.

 

[ayase]

I feel a bit hurt here, as Salinger and Orwell have loads more content and depth in the thinner books than all of Stephen King's work... =P

But they're more entertaining, and you get hooked on them.