> There are dozens of studies done on the effects of exposure to various
> sexually explicit materials on attitudes about rape survivors, so I'm
> not sure which ones D. refers to. Almost all studies that include
> both aggressive and nonaggressive sexual film conditions show that
> "rape myths" are more likely to be accepted by the men in the
> aggressive film condition: Mullin & Linz, 1995, Boeringer, 1994,
> Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt & Giery, 1995, Malamuth & Check, 1981. I
> can extend the list if you'd like. You will find little or no
> solid experimental research that provides support for the claim
> that nonaggressive sexual content has a negative influence on
> men's attitudes toward women.
Fine. I don't know, nor do I claim to know, this literature *very well*; however, I don't know that MacKinnon, Dworkin and others make the same conflation mistake I was making, in describing from memory the studies they cite. (The more significant conflation in my view is ignoring the violent/aggressive porn, which almost everyone who's spoken for porn or against any policy limiting it further has conceded exists, because it's not *all* violent or aggressive. How much of it has to be before the part that is can be regulated?)
The only point I wanted to make was that violent/aggressive porn did harm other than contributing to or causing actual violent behavior. According to these studies you cite, it may also make men more likely to be indifferent to systematic sexual violence against women.
Despite all the other arguments against policy limiting porn in this thread, I find it curious that no one seems willing to give serious weight to the probability that violent porn consumption by male jurors makes them less likely to credit a rape survivors testimony. That strikes me a serious political problem.
> It should be clear now that you did, see above.
Yes, I concede that I wasn't describing the study I remember carefully enough.
> > *I* don't want to take my sexual arousal -- perhaps irrespective of
> > context, but *especially* not when I'm immersed in, and was socialized
> > by, a culture in which women are second-class citizens -- from
> > material that demeans, degrades, or objectifies women, all of which
> > are separate from violent or aggressive materials. That's what many
> > anti-porn feminists object to. But then acknowledging that claim of
> > theirs points back to the nuanced view, which you don't seem to buy.
> That's what I don't get: who gets to decide what objectifies or demeans
> women?
Hmm, well, putting a woman's head into a toilet while having sex with her, spitting into her face -- Are there really people who will argue these *aren't* degrading or demeaning?
As for who gets to decide, you can suggest that kind of epistemic skepticism about *any* interpretive judgment that isn't amenable to empirical analysis. So what. In a democracy, people decide by, in part, arguing together about what is what. That's at least in part what antiporn feminists do; for their trouble they get called 'censorious prudes'.
Is every sexually explicit film degrading to women? If not,
> what are the specific criteria?
MacKinnon and Dworkin listed *very* specific criteria in the ordinance they drafted for the city of Minneapolis. If you really want specific criteria, that's one place to look for them. Now, you may well disagree with the specifics, but there *are* specific criteria.
If Andrea Dworkin says "This is
> degrading to women," is that good enough?
No, of course not and no one, least of Dworkin, suggests that is sufficient. That's just a silly suggestion, Miles.
Call me a naive empiricist,
> but if we're going to claim that something has negative effects on
> society, let's carry out some rigorous research to document the
> effects.
Not every question of negative effect is amenable to empirical inquiry; the only way I'd call you a 'naive empiricist' is if you claim otherwise. Gee, LBO is just *full* of all sorts of sharp, rigorous, and non-empirical analysis of various kinds of social harm.
One charismatic writer's subjective opinion about how it
> must be "degrading to women" isn't too convincing to me.
Nor should it be, though it's not nothing either. You should read some of the dozens and dozens of testimonies offered by rape, incest, prolonged abuse victims, many of whom say that porn *did* play a role in the abuse they survived. That may not convince you either, but it does suggest something worth noting, I think.
Kendall Clark