I'm a prude? What's your opinion

[QuantumIguana]

Just because things might have effects doesn't mean that a book will have just any effect that someone wants to claim it does.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

When I was a young girl, my mother objected to my reading so many mysteries, because she was afraid it would affect my view of humanity.

It did. At 62, I still have the unreasonable sense that justice will always happen, in some form or another.

Yeah, that's pretty unreasonable, all right.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

ANY literature can "affect behavior," by that standard. Why single out erotic literature as noteworthy?

Shops that sell photography books, postcards and magazines and also camera equipment, notice that people who buy the magazines often come back to buy a camera later. Comic book stores also sell figurines, plastic "blaster" guns, masks and capes. That doesn't mean the readers are trying to become superheroes.

Shall we ban murder mysteries, or remove them from public searches in ebook stores, because some Sherlock Holmes fans buy pipes, hats and trenchcoats?

I love that we're both smacking our foreheads in frustration.

Part of this debate has been on whether or not literature affects behavior. Another part has been on whether or not erotic literature should be banned. Still another part has been whether or not it should be filtered. My answers to these three questions are: yes it does, no it shouldn't, and yes it should.

I appreciate that it helps your argument to assume that I want to ban such literature, but I affirm once again that I do not.

EDIT: Just curious--what standard would you use to determine whether or not a book has impacted another person's behavior?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by djulian

:I appreciate that it helps your argument to assume that I want to ban such literature, but I affirm once again that I do not.

I put "mandatory filtering" in the same rough category for banning--it's removing access from people based on someone else's preferences. I have no problem at all with people setting up their own filters and never seeing content they're not interested in.

EDIT: Just curious--what standard would you use to determine whether or not a book has impacted another person's behavior?

I find the question irrelevant. I assume that all aspects of a person's life, and all things they see or do or think about, will affect their behavior. Sorting out what influences tend to cause behaviors that are harmful to others is useful; sorting out what influences "affect behaviors" is meaningless. Everything affects behavior.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by djulian

EDIT: Just curious--what standard would you use to determine whether or not a book has impacted another person's behavior?

Everyone's different, so there is no "standard" that applies.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I put "mandatory filtering" in the same rough category for banning--it's removing access from people based on someone else's preferences. I have no problem at all with people setting up their own filters and never seeing content they're not interested in.
...
I find the question irrelevant. I assume that all aspects of a person's life, and all things they see or do or think about, will affect their behavior. Sorting out what influences tend to cause behaviors that are harmful to others is useful; sorting out what influences "affect behaviors" is meaningless. Everything affects behavior.

Well, if you consider filtering to be the same as banning, then that part of the discussion is a little tough to resolve. I don't think they're the same thing.

But if you think that everything affects behavior, then we've reached agreement on the idea that erotic literature affects behavior as erotic literature is a part of everything. Who knows how it will affect them--I'm inclined to think it will affect them with regards to their views on sex/sexual behavior--but we agree that it will affect them.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Everyone's different, so there is no "standard" that applies.

I'm not trying to be dim here, but I'm not sure I understand your answer.

[Freeshadow]

I'm with Elfwreck here: why should erotica (regardless of the flavour) be singled out as a to-be-filtered target? I see no reason there; unless erotic or sexuality is something bad; a POV which I, as previously stated, don't share.
It would be much more productive if people would stop to put this topic under "special treatment" and treat it just like what it is: a pleasant activity, with the ability to cause offspring. If moralists wouldn't make so much ado about it, if the "special treatment" would stop, a lot of idiotic behavioural patterns as "I have to have a partner at all costs", the "laid/scored" mentality of some people, or the "it has to be true love" self-pressurising would vanish.
There isn't that much of freaking out about sexuality?
Field test: You are asked what you planned for weekend:
a) "It's been a stressful week, 'll just go with $_friend (not necessarily for being a partner), to the movies/rollerblading/gaming"
Reactions normal.
b) now substitute the above with "having a comforting in-the-sheets-session with $_friend"
Report reactions please.

Dehumanising or misvaluing human beings as an argument for filtering? Fine, I hereby vote for filtering out most sport disciplines: Take soccer or football for an example. Today's children and youth grow up continously exposed to the idea that a bunch of people is to be treated like heroes for doing nothing useful but stupidly running behind an inflated piece of leather, while a master of some craft, like a carpenter, tailor or alike is just the guy or gal next door. Yeah especially minors should definitely not be exposed to all that sports frenzy, at least until they learn ri respect useful knowledge and training.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by djulian

I'm not trying to be dim here, but I'm not sure I understand your answer.

What I mean is that everyone reacts differently to stimulus, so you can't apply a "standard formula" to determine their behavior. Nor can we accurately determine what is happening inside someone's brain, so we have no way to determine what causes or even constitutes a behavioral change. Even overt and obvious changes in behavior can be caused by myriad and often unidentifiable causes, not just the obvious.

Suppose a man had read rape magazines for years, for its personal titillation, but had never raped or had rough sex with a partner. Then, one day, he had a really bad day that culminates in his girlfriend telling him she'd been fooling around with another man; and that angers him so much that he just snaps, and rapes her.

What, exactly, caused his behavior: A buried desire to rape a girl, even though he knew he shouldn't; an impression, however suppressed, that rape was okay because he enjoyed thinking about it; his having eight really bad things happen to him before lunch; his anger at his girlfriend's admission; or something else that happened to him a decade ago, finally causing him to snap today? And what prevents another person having the same background and the exact same day to just walk away? Even psychoanalysts have problems with that answer.

This is why there are no models or meters that can work for everyone, why blanket censorship or banning of anything isn't effective on all of the population, and why censorship and bans do not address the real issue in the first place. The issue is the behavior: What makes a person act counter to a social and moral acceptability that they, themselves, should understand and follow.

All we can do is take cases individually: We can investigate the causes of bad behavior; we can analyze and define it; but most importantly, we must find ways to prevent bad behavior.

[Freeshadow]

Well said. Everything else than a single-case analysis is euphemism for scapegoat hunting.

It's the rock music, the TV, video games, erotica or plain porn... Take your pick. It could be the reading too. All this solitary dig-your-head in text instead of aimlessly hanging out with the crowd.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

...

Got it. I was confused because I was asking what you would consider to be a change in behavior, and you responded with, "Everyone's different."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying, "There's no way to identify whether or not someone's behavior has been affected." as a response to the question, "Does reading a book affect someone's behavior." You're not actually saying it doesn't--just that we don't know if it does, and even if we think it does, we don't know how it does.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by djulian

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying, "There's no way to identify whether or not someone's behavior has been affected." as a response to the question, "Does reading a book affect someone's behavior." You're not actually saying it doesn't--just that we don't know if it does, and even if we think it does, we don't know how it does.

Yup, you got it.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yup, you got it.

I feel a strange sense of satisfaction creeping over me like a warm blanket. It's like the internet was made for this moment of understanding!

[Freeshadow]

On IRC it would be the moment for you two to vanish in a private chatroom

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

On IRC it would be the moment for you two to vanish in a private chatroom

My wife would never let me hear the end of it...

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

My wife would never let me hear the end of it...

Nor should she.