Dicks & dough

[joanna bujes]

At 09:10 PM 03/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>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.

I don't care how many studies they do. Studies will prove anything. In 
fact, I don't even buy the "cause and effect" basis upon which most studies 
are based. I mean, do you all remember how, after the Watts riots, they 
started doing studies at UCLA to investigate the biological roots of black 
violence?

I was ruminating upon cause and effect scenarios as I was reading through 
the porn lbo debate... and the random thought came into my head...."does 
this mean that Catholicism causes pedophilia?" None of this makes sense to me.

I don't see porn either as a triumph of or a defeat of feminism. It is 
simply a mechanistic way of amplifying sexual excitation ...and therefore 
amplifying sexual release.  And I have never, never understood why it is 
that strippers, prostitutes, etc. claim to be empowered by taking money for 
sex...though I have a friend who built an incredibly successful academic 
career on that principle.

The problem isn't porn, the problem is unconsciousness.

"Prisons are built with stones of law; brothels with bricks of religion."

Joanna