Anti-porn bill would reduce sexual assault, advocates say

I suppose I will now have to watch all the in-room movies and decide which are “violent or exploitative pornography” vs. “not violent or not exploitative”. Someone has to do it.

It will be tough to make a call on classics like “Hanky Spanky”. Is that violent, or just good clean fun?

However, I will call them as I see them, and my judgments will be final and sent to the goverment database so they can enter this into their hotel picking.

Put that in the bill. No need to thank me, I’ll send you a bill of my own.

I support this move. Although, I think the heading of the article is a bit misleading. Just as Palmer said, the bill isn’t anti-ALL-porn. Just anti-violent-porn.

But the article itself does a good job explaining the issue. And I couldn’t agree more.

Wow – with a $1.2 billion deficit, I’m glad Tarryl Clark is giving us a preview of her Bachmann imitation. When’s the Hardball interview?

What a sad commentary on our idiot legislators. We have real problems in this state and in this country. Real problems that threaten our well being. So, what do these guys waste their valuable time on. Censorship. This is just what we need, a state committee of idiots to tell us which pornography is okay. Great, guys, keep up the good work. Who knows maybe rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic might have helped?

A classic case of a solution in search of a problem. Unfortunately for the legislators, what sounds good on the surface might look less good when the evidence is taken into account, or in this case, the entire lack of evidence. The following article suggests there’s no evidence of a link between pornography and an increase in sexual assault. In fact there might even be a decrease:
http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/3/1/29/1/

If it is the case that more readily available pornography might actually decrease the rate of sexual assault and rape, there’s absolutely no doubt we’d never see these do-gooders calling for more readily available erotica. Our sexually ignorant and conservative culture wouldn’t allow it. What appears to be the rule then is, “Let’s do what looks good on the surface, even if evidence shows that it will make the problem worse.”

Buy, what might increase the rate of sexual assault and rape, you might ask? Not all men (or women) are sexual predators. The article states that “What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing.”

No way. Really? Bible-slapped sexual repression produces harmful psycho-sexual development? You learn something new every day.

But, being politicians with a propensity for censorship and basing judgments on pseudo-knowledge, there’s no doubt that that cause will ever be addressed by the state.

Research is revealing the correlation between violent porn and the aggressive behaviors that are at the heart of sexual violence is real — stronger than the correlation between between smoking and cancer. The porn industry is making a boatload of money while producing a lot of social harm. It’s great when individuals say “no,” we are not going to put our money here, but we also need big purchasers in business and government to say “no,” as well. It’s one of many steps we need to be taking to say “yes” to sex, but to change cultural norms that turn sex into something that accepts sexual violence as a cultural norm.

I have to say that there is plenty of evidence that pornography has NO adverse effects on “society” and that it probably has benefits. See the results various studies and presidential commissions (which were organized to find that it does have harmful effects.). Correlations are meaningless because they do not establish a causal relationship. Correlations say nothing about whether “violent” porn causes antisocial behavior. It is likely that violent people like looking at violent porn. So what?

The religious right having failed at stopping porn have now invented “violent porn” as a way to try to impose their beliefs and influence the prudish American center. The supreme court admitted that they can not identify porn, are they going to be any better at identifying violent porn? Grow up America and focus on our real problems.

How does one deteremine which films “objectifies or exploits its subjects by eroticizing domination, degradation, or violence”? Clearly this will need to be done on a film-by-film basis and not simply comparing channels. The state will need to send a lot of money to porn providers to come to the conclusions required by this bill.

Is this an extortion attempt by the state to get hotels to drop legal movie choices? Nanny knows best! Maybe this is Tarryl Clark’s attempt to prove she can be as goofy as Michele Bachmann.

I support this legislation because it focuses on the link between sex and violence and doesn’t restrict any company or individual’s freedom of speech or business practices. It sets a preference to not use state funds to support those who sell access to violent and degrading sexual images. This is not censorship.

JoeTheBummer mentions the $1.2 billion deficit, but seems unaware that sexual violence has an estimated $8 billion yearly impact on Minnesotans and a significant amount of this money comes from taxpayers.

Rob C says we have “real problems” in MN and the country which positions sexual violence as not a real problem. In his second comment he contradicts himself by stating that research shows porn probably has benefits but also states that correlations are meaningless.

Eric writes of repression but nobody is being repressed or censored by this legislation. He links to an article which references a decline in sexual assault which positions porn as the probable cause while failing to mention comprehensive efforts during those same years by people actively and directly working to address the problem of sexual violence. That ommission invalidates that article writer’s credibility on this subject.

How does one enforce this? Who is the “authority” on which movies are degrading/violent? (And are there really that many of these “violent” types of porn movies available at hotels anyway???)

How about they talk about reducing travel and unneeded expense rather than trying to spend lots of money to identify “acceptable” hotel movies? Aren’t the hotel bills itemized? (Mine always have been.) If a state employee has porn on their hotel bill, make THEM pay for it. (Or make it a departmental regulation/policy that NO porn can show up on hotel bills.) PROBLEM SOLVED. Don’t hide behind some supposed morale reasons or “safety” reasons. There is a hotel chain out there right now telling these legislators how their Hotel will comply and in turn pad the politicians’ coffers for steering business to their hotels. It’s so obvious.

Let me reiterate that there is NO EVIDENCE that reducing “violent pornography”, whatever that is, will reduce sexual violence. Wishing won’t make it so.

Consider Japan which has both low sexual violence and very violent pornography (and has had so for ages). Sexual violence was not lower in this country when we completely censored erotica. What in the heck are these people talking about when they suggest sexual crime will be reduced if we censor movies?

I know it is hopeless to point out to those with limited critical thinking ability that our media is full of violence, sexual or otherwise. The recent academy award for best picture went to a violent movie and Avatar (the biggest money maker) also could be seen as including sex and violence. I guess those flims should have ben prohibited. Our values are causing violent films. Films aren’t causing our violence.

Rob C, When you equate the Academy award winning movie The Hurt Locker to violent porn you are demonstrating a failure of logic which undermines your entire argument.

Personal standards of behavior influences media and media influences personal standards of behavior and societal norms.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

The Hurt Locker “IS” violent pornography. As is the “Saw” series of movies, the movie reviewers herein would rather show brain matter splatted upon a wall than two consenting adults fornicating with each other (sin).

Blood spray is pornography of a certain genre.

You cannot legislate morals, my fine rethug bretheren…

This fits in with drug laws, prostitution laws, alcohol prohibition, et al.

END THE INSANITY.

After all, don’t we have a monsterous budget problem that is threatening us all FOR REAL?

Yet some weenie tea bagger makes this stuff “important”.

ok, tea baggers are DFLers as well. Look at who is asking for this…sheesh. Dems.

I agree that the appetite for violence seems insatiable in the U.S. I have to turn the channel if they are advertising for many of these “CSI” shows, “Nip/Tuck” etc. I just don’t care to see it (and that is the CHOICE we all free to make!) With as much violence as there is in “real” life, it honestly boggles my mind people have an appetite for even more violence and gore after watching the evening news.

This is funneling state funds to certain hotel companies who promise to support certain candidates, plain and simple. It isn’t even that veiled. The politicians are becoming quite brazen in their displays of personal agendas, as are these corporations. The voters are completely out of the loop. They are counting on people being tuned out and not paying attention.

Kids are raised with an acceptance of violence, check out most video games! Does this somehow lead to personality weakness and sex crimes? As far as sex, banning books and movies will not do it. Something is wrong to the core of these people. The only way to change this is to either treat violent sec crimes with death sentences. Something is really wrong with society to allow these creeps on the streets. Repeat offender, no excuse what so ever. We cant change them, this is proven. We must remove them permanently from society. Nutering comes to thought as do lunch mobs. I would not hesitate to protect my daughter with any methods available right or wrong, they would not be given a second opportunity to walk free. I would no doubt be receiving threes squares a day also.

So now state employees will just bring their laptops – unless this legislation also wants to boycott hotels with wifi?

“Hi, is this the OkiDoki Hotel? We have a party of five, each needing a single non-smoking room for the week of 5/13. Oh, ahh, do you have video systems with violent pornography…?”

People, our representatives are seriously and incurably stupid. Wake up and limit the damage they can do.

*sigh*…Porn is not necessarily bad. Being more sexually open is good and has been known to have benefits. Seeing positive sexual images is great. But people, violent images have been shown to have negative consequences. A film where two people have safe loving intercourse does not affect its audience the same way a barely legal gang bang does. A show about teens fixing up a neighborhood to increase property values will not create the same environment as a show about teens drinking and partying. Can’t you see the difference?

Rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power, and if someone gains the capacity to rape, they will rape. Watching what you don’t have can make you want it. (power) And making it commonplace in media will make it more acceptable. It would become more of an acceptable and “logical” choice if someone was on the fence about it. Kids are killing each other and their loved ones in elementary school. Did this happen 50 years ago? Not like this. School yard fights? Yes. Setting someone on fire? No. Things like that were rare (amongst children). For the average American, violent images make violence more acceptable.

Victorians created this problem. Sex shouldn’t be something “dirty”. We shouldn’t be chasing after the next sickest barely legal thrill. I want a world with more nude beaches! More mothers breastfeeding in public without having everyone staring! More tasteful nudes in public! The human body is beautiful and shouldn’t be hidden all the time. Sexuality is great and healthy, but gratuitous violent sexual images are hurtful and unnecessary.

Oh, and if the poster a few messages above thinks that in a society like Japan where women are still (especially by the older generation)thought of as secondary, rape will be reported, he needs to reexamine his position. In Countries (even modern ones) where women don’t hold as much power, they are less likely to report rape. Not to mention, Japan is less violent overall. But America? Not so much.

I’m not conservative, right wing, republican, religious or any of that. So there! But what do I know? I’m just merely a woman who studies Sociology and Psychology for a living. ^__^

Ann, I agree and have very similar viewpoints as yours. I would rather see the state and federal lawmakers focus instead on asking the porn industry to require all adult sites to have users register and prove their age before any type of pornographic content is allowed to be viewed. It is virtually impossible to escape the constant bombardment of sexually graphic images while surfing. Maybe the V-Chip was a first step but even that is backwards. Porn is so out of control in our society, productivity at work, families getting destroyed all by free will because it is so easy to hide at home in anonymity.. Once this does prove to be an epidemic and a valid addiction element is achieved (deemed so by trial lawyers) maybe victims could get a piece of the settlement to pay for their counseling. Just like the cigarette smokers that died from cancer did….oh wait.