Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 10:24:43 PDT
From: spp@zabriskie.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: A Detailed Critique of the TIME Article on Cyberporn


In my opinion:

Martin Rimm is a rabid anti-pornographer with an axe to grind.
Before beginning his supposed research he espoused his
anti-pornography views over on soc.feminism, where he hoped to
find a sympathetic audience.

He started out by arguing that all S&M pornography should be
illegal -- not just the currently-defined obscene forms of S&M
pornography; not just exploitative forms of S&M pornography; but
all of it, including items produced with the full consent of
adult models and distributed only to adults.  He thought that
if bestiality and child pornography is illegal, then S&M
pornography should be as well.   People on the group
pointed out that, unlike child or bestiality pornography, which
are made without consent and are already totally illegal in the
U.S., legal S&M pornography is made consensually by adults.  He
didn't seem to understand the distinction.

My impression of the discussion was that he did not seem to know the
meaning or significance of the word "consent".  Never did he
admit that consent among adults might be a reasonable and
important criterion for determining what sexual behavior should
be permitted.

Later, after performing his "research", he claimed to have viewed
and classified 1.1 million pornographic gifs.   The readers
of the group found this claim to be lacking credibility.  It was
clear that his conclusions as to the nature of the cyberporn
he had viewed were very much pre-formed before he even started his work.
His conclusions, at least as stated in that forum, and again
on the recent Nightline episode, were entirely an echo of his same 
opinions on the topic, as expresed on usenet, before the study was even
conducted.  (Big surprise.)

It would be my guess that his claim on Nightline that 25% of Internet
porn depicts the "torture of women" is not accurate,
because I believe he would apply such a phrase
to just about any bondage or spanking or S&M porno, regardless
of how mild it is, and regardless of whether or not 
it would meet an ordinary person's definition of "torture".
So far as I know, this statistic comes from one obviously biased 
individul *maybe* viewing a large number of gifs in a short span
of time.

If CMU really wants to take a position on the nature of
cyberporn, they should not rely on Rimm's opinions.  There
are more objective methods of evaluating pornography.

I doubt the current crop of wannabe censors and Christian coalescers
care at all whether the CMU porno research is scientifically sound.  
They will make use of it anyway.  But I do wonder whether CMU is 
really endorsing this guy's work; and if so, whether they would 
continue to do so if they knew all the facts.

All IMO of course.

Steve