Porn is bad. Violence good.

February 26, 2003 8:51 AM

It's official! Watching porn can make you a bad person. So says the FBI. Get ready for the crackdown. "Pornography teaches ideas that validate aberrant behavior," according to detective Nate Gittins of the Madison County Sheriff’s office. The use of illicit materials is not exclusively related to sex crimes. It may also lead to other criminal activities, FBI officials say. Oh my! What does this mean for us deviants?
posted by eas98 (57 comments total)

right. next come the searches, and the ' i rented 'girls gone wild' and i supported terrorism' commercials
posted by das_2099 at 8:57 AM on February 26, 2003

"I have been on the force for five and half years, and every time I have gone to serve a search warrant for dope, I have found porn,” Gittine said."

--Best quote i have ever seen. Seriously.

porn. the gateway drug.
posted by das_2099 at 8:59 AM on February 26, 2003

This is just silly. It totally confuses cause and effect. Those predisposed to aberrant behavior will do things further from the social norms or at least perceived norms. And sure, some unstable folks will find inspiration in material that might contain criminal behaviors. The suggestion here, though is that massive numbers of people are practicing anabolism because of the Hannibal Lecter films, huge numbers are assassins or secret agents, and everyone in America is a complete stereotype. None of this is true of course, but it's the same kind of thinking.
posted by shagoth at 9:02 AM on February 26, 2003

Notice the article comes from Brigham Young University. That's all, nothing else to say just take that as you may.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:04 AM on February 26, 2003

massive numbers of people are practicing anabolism

I knew it! Steroids!
posted by konolia at 9:04 AM on February 26, 2003

What does this mean for us deviants?

Get the fuck out of Utah.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:07 AM on February 26, 2003

By his logic religion makes you a horrible person too, since chances are that almost all of those searched homes also had a bible, or a crucifix or a menorah or mandala. We also know from television that any questionable or illegal act potentially funnels money to terrorists, ergo, Religion: Terrorism's Little Helper.


posted by substrate at 9:08 AM on February 26, 2003

“I have been on the force for five and half years, and every time I have gone to serve a search warrant for dope, I have found porn,” Gittine said.

Perhaps this may have something to do with it...

There were 27.5 million U.S. visitors to adult-oriented pornographic Web sites in January 2002, says Christine Chan of Nielsen//NetRatings, the Internet audience measurement service. Source: USA Today
posted by VulcanMike at 9:08 AM on February 26, 2003

this is a BYU Idaho publication---Formerly Ricks College. You could get put on probation or even get kicked out for having porn most likely.

interesting thing, at the various BYU campuses, there is lots of porn, drinking, drug use, etc....but it is all done as individuals or in small cells of 2-3 trusted people. You have to do it that way....because when people repent and get ready to get married or go on a church mission they will rat-out all of there old smoking buddies. Makes for an interesting subculture.

shagoth...This is just silly. It totally confuses cause and effect. Absolutely. And, even if it was a bit more balanced, a detective who has been to one FBI seminar isn't an expert on pr0n anyhow.

every time I have gone to serve a search warrant for dope, I have found porn

WOW!
it is amazing what you can find when you actually Look. Bet they wouldn't find any porn at all if they just served warrants at random to non-drug users.
posted by th3ph17 at 9:11 AM on February 26, 2003

"I have been on the force for five and half years, and every time I have
gone to serve a search warrant for dope, I have found porn,” Gittine said."

I bet pizza was found in many homes raided for dope, so according to that line of logic, anyone calling pizza hut shall be arrested.

Notice the article comes from Brigham Young University.
That's all, nothing else to say just take that as you may.

Are there any other online sources for this ridiculous story? Anything at the FBI's site about the seminar where these revealations were made?
posted by mathowie at 9:15 AM on February 26, 2003

That means the end of my blog! sorry, deviants.
posted by Postroad at 9:25 AM on February 26, 2003

My plan, when they come to get me, is to leave my door open just a smidge, and I'll be whacking it on the couch, and they'll all burst in right at the moment that I'm snapping off a bean, and man that turns me on just to think about it. Hope they send a really mean, female cop.
posted by vito90 at 9:26 AM on February 26, 2003

I'm sorry but the very first words in the article are:

FBI officials say that pornography does not cause sex crimes.

However, many officials believe that people who indulge in pornography are more likely to commit sex crimes

The first paragraph defeats the spin put on the article by eas98, and the second paragraph is probably quite true -- i.e., people who "indulge" in pornography are "more likely" to commit sex crimes. In other words, say hypothetically that .05% of people who do not "indulge in pornography" commit sex crimes, whereas .07% of the people who do indulge commit sex crimes. Given those statistics, it is literally "more likely" that a person who indulges in pornography would commit a sex crime. Is that really a controversial view?

I've been known to "indulge" in pornography, and I've never committed a sex crime. But it wouldn't surprise me one whit if most of the people that have committed sex crimes have also indulged in pornography. Remember, just because all mosquitos are insects does not mean that all insects are mosquitos.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:26 AM on February 26, 2003

actually re-reading this article, its even worse than i thought.

first line:
FBI officials say that pornography does not cause sex crimes.

contrasted with the title:
FBI: Pornography linked to sex crimes
Criminals may choose to act out desires sparked by porn


wha?

then:
Some officials claim people who view pornography use it to stimulate their own desires.

what officials? the FBI? no, the local sheriffs and an instructor and "FBI Profiler" [consultant?]

then out of the blue:
Sgt. Kevin Cox of the Bonneville County Sheriff’s Department has a similar outlook to the FBI’s in regards to the influence pornography has on criminals.

which would be that FBI officials say that pornography does not cause sex crimes. well, no...

Upon searching his home, authorities found an extensive collection of hard-core films and magazines, according to Cox.

“A guy just doesn’t wake up one day and decide to go out and rape somebody,” Cox said, “In my mind he thought about it; he probably even tried it before.”

Totally contradictory, or am i just not on enough caffiene yet this morning?
posted by th3ph17 at 9:27 AM on February 26, 2003

From the article:
Pornography can weaken sensitivity.
A guy just doesn't wake up one day and decide to go out and rape somebody.

These things seem so obvious to me that it hardly seems you need to be a counselor/minister/Mormon/FBI profiler to figure it out. Seriously, this seems like our society's version of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember how Marge wondered how Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually? When I hear people talk about pornography like it has no consequences, I feel a lot like Marge, wondering how the hell we got to this place. Look everybody, the Emperor guy is naked!
posted by footballrabi at 9:29 AM on February 26, 2003

I blame pornography for making me want to be a plumber.
posted by solistrato at 9:29 AM on February 26, 2003

in one of my college sociology courses, they taught us that the incidence of sexual violence against women by men actually declines in states with looser pornography restrictions. or something like that. it was a long time ago. but saying porn increases criminal tendencies -- what a bunch of horseshit. why are these idiots in charge?
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:30 AM on February 26, 2003

"Pornography teaches ideas that validate aberrant behavior," according to detective Nate Gittins of the Madison County Sheriff’s office.

I'm amazed ol' Nate has time to worry about the porn in Madison County, what with all those Bridges to look after and all.
posted by jonmc at 9:30 AM on February 26, 2003

I don't look at porn, but judging from my email spam there are some really deviant kinky things out there. I would think that the type of person who would go for that would also be deviant in other ways.
posted by konolia at 9:34 AM on February 26, 2003

Brigham Young ... isn't that the title of a porn flick?

Oh wait, that was Bring 'um Young.
posted by mfli at 9:38 AM on February 26, 2003

The 1967 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found no casual relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual deviance. In fact, it went out of its way to declare porn "therapeutic" and recommended that obscenity laws be stricken from the records. Of course, by the time they finished the report, Nixon was President and nothing was done. According to World Sex Records, this was the most detailed pornography study ever conducted.
posted by ed at 9:39 AM on February 26, 2003

Totally contradictory..?

yup. the article was written by a student for the college paper...god help us all if this is the future of journalism, even just reactionary conservative religious journalism. there is zero substantive content, let alone editing polish -- the article might as well be titled, "Interviewee Shares Opinion, Random Extrapolations Made."
posted by serafinapekkala at 9:39 AM on February 26, 2003

pardonyou, you took the wind out of my sail. Good points.
posted by ZupanGOD at 9:40 AM on February 26, 2003

Some officials claim people who view pornography use it to stimulate their own desires. Eventually, some people may choose to act out those desires.

It's true! That's how I became a lesbian!
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:42 AM on February 26, 2003

I blame pornography for making me want to be a plumber.

I know how you feel, I blame porn for making me want to be a UPS driver. As yet, I haven't been invited to have sex with a single bored housewife, and I also have to wear these dumb brown shorts.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:43 AM on February 26, 2003

"Pornography teaches ideas that validate aberrant behavior," according to detective Nate Gittins of the Madison County Sheriff’s office."

I'm pretty sure Mr Gittins totally made that up.

This is the same tired logic error we've been hearing for decades. Having two things together does not mean one caused the other.

Children who have larger shoe sizes also have higher scores on specific math tests. One does not cause the other. Children with larger shoes just tend to be older.

In the case of porn it seems clear that people who might commit sex crimes would seek out porn. Likewise, people who lead hedonistic lifestyles will tend to buy porn.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:44 AM on February 26, 2003

Likewise, people who lead hedonistic lifestyles will tend to buy porn.

Buy porn? Shit, baby, why buy when you can download the stuff for free?
posted by ed at 9:49 AM on February 26, 2003

Does this mean that celibacy would make me a good person. Hmmm.....The Catholic Church needs priests!

(my apologies, in advance, to anyone reading this molested by a "celibate" priest)
posted by troutfishing at 9:57 AM on February 26, 2003

"In my mind he thought about it [raping somebody]"

I hate it when rapists take over my mind to think about things, especially sexual assault.

...or is the whole thing a hoax? A talk with COX. You GITTINE any? (Or is the fact that this guy's name changes from one paragraph to the next a different sort of clue?)

Verrrry mysterious.
posted by soyjoy at 10:06 AM on February 26, 2003

I think everyone knows what porn really leads to....
Then, it leads to a nap and then maybe a sandwich or some chips or something.
posted by srw12 at 10:09 AM on February 26, 2003

pardonyou? I am aware of what you pointed out, but when they added: The use of illicit materials is not exclusively related to sex crimes. It may also lead to other criminal activities, FBI officials say. I felt justified in my 'spin'. Thank you.
posted by eas98 at 10:12 AM on February 26, 2003

cart...horse...

"...and wherever we have found porn, we have found genitalia."

the true enemy.
posted by quonsar at 10:21 AM on February 26, 2003

Oh my! What does this mean for us deviants?

It means that if bobbleheaded puritans like Gore/Lieberman had made it into office, they'd would've had helped perpetuate ideas like this in their first weeks in office. Bet.
posted by Karl at 10:29 AM on February 26, 2003

Some officials claim people who view pornography use it to stimulate their own desires.

and here I thought that was the whole point!
posted by badzen at 10:30 AM on February 26, 2003

this is a BYU Idaho publication---Formerly Ricks College. You could get put on probation or even get kicked out for having porn most likely.

True.

interesting thing, at the various BYU campuses, there is lots of porn, drinking, drug use,

It depends on your social network. I spent four years full time on the Provo campus, another 3 1/2 part time (two degrees, folks), and didn't run into BYU students who were interested in it all that often. A few of my friends were, and they knew a fair number of people who were as well. It's not all that surprising.

Now that you all know I attended there and have been awash for years in the attendant ideology, let me make a point or two.

There isn't a study referenced in this article. In fact the point of the article is rather sketchy, other than a member of a community feeding its ideaology back to it (are you really surprised Mormons think porn has a negative effect on people?). The only bit of new information I can glean from it is that an FBI profiler believes that there's a correlation between criminals --- specifically sex offenders -- and porn usage. I find it pretty hard to doubt that such a correlation exists.

Causation I'd agree is much more tenuous. For one thing, you'd need to take a large sample of porn fans/addicts/occasional-viewers-readers/whatever and survey them in order to begin establishing a statistically significant causitive link -- it's my understanding that you've got to have a statistically significant number of one-to-one relations between two groups to even start on causation, rather than a possible many-to-one (as could easily be the case if you just sampled sex offenders).

The other part of "causation" is a paradigm that supports it, though. You notice the strong statistical correlation, and you attempt to come up with a supporting theory. Or more likely, you develop a hypothesis, and you set out to make a study to see if it's supported. Mormons generally have the belief that pornography is eroding spiritually/emotionally/psychologically. It's not hard to see why they might form the hypothesis that sometimes one aspect of that erosion might result in criminally deviant behavior. This article telegraphs the hypothesis. .

If the purpose of the link is to criticize the hypothesis, all you really have to do is produce the results of the study that I just mentioned. If the purpose of the link is to mock them crazy Mormons, well, I won't interrupt too much. If you're trying to understand how in the world the hypothesis is arrived at in the first place, maybe I'll elaborate. But mostly, I think it's likely that those who already share the paradigm will probably accept it without thinking about it much, and those who are completely outside of it will probably violently reject it without thinking about it much (though at least both parties have message boards to post said decisions on vociferously!).
posted by namespan at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2003

"...at the moment that I'm snapping off a bean..."

vito90, if nothing else, you're colorful.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:41 AM on February 26, 2003

It means that if bobbleheaded puritans like Gore/Lieberman had made it into office, they'd would've had helped perpetuate ideas like this in their first weeks in office. Bet.
posted by Karl at 10:29 AM PST on February 26

??? WTF ???
So does this mean having Ashcroft as head of the FBI is preferable? Cluetrain.

An interesting tidbit: Utah is the state which holds the distinction of being the largest consumer of porn and ice cream.
posted by nofundy at 10:50 AM on February 26, 2003

why buy when you can download the stuff for free?

yeah, that way you'll have not only the DEA and the Salt Lake City FBI Bureau to worry about: Hilary Rosen will sue your ass, too
posted by matteo at 10:55 AM on February 26, 2003

I agree with Nofundy: Karl, Gore/Lieberman would never, ever, EVER have put a neo-nazi FREAK like Ashcroft in office. In any normal world the guy would be a) a homeless guy ranting at strangers b) a religious zealot telling his clan of 30 followers how to starch their briefs or c) the laughing stock of the political arena.

The fact that he's in any national office is a sign of the times... the times being extremely fucked up.
posted by zekinskia at 10:57 AM on February 26, 2003

An interesting tidbit: Utah is the state which holds the distinction of being the largest consumer of porn and ice cream.

I thought you viewed porn. But then, what do I know. And I guess some of us have to make do with just looking at pictures of ice cream.
posted by namespan at 11:11 AM on February 26, 2003

It's the bad porno music that drives people to crime.
posted by john at 11:23 AM on February 26, 2003

Awww, crap. Masturbating to porn was my anti-drug.
posted by Dirjy at 11:51 AM on February 26, 2003

Interestingly enough - I searched Google for the Kevin Hescock rape/suicide case mentioned at the end of the article and came up with nothing.

I'm thinking it's a hoax.
posted by DragonBoy at 12:13 PM on February 26, 2003

right. next come the searches, and the ' i rented 'girls gone wild' and i supported terrorism' commercials

Conviction and connections between rap and violence have been summarily held unconstitutional. Before we declare another step toward 1984, why don't look at the litigation over this issue during the 1980s. I call your attention to the litigation over Indianapolis’s model pornography statute and the rejection of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. Mackinnon’s theories and arguments. The debate on this issue has already been done and notion that pornography should be banned because it hurts women has already been held unconstitutional.

I also want to call your attention to the fact the Canada has aggressively prosecuted laws banning pornography, which include many intellectual works about Feminism. Why are not decrying a government that gone far beyond what the US was done for the past 10-20 years? Yes, the US is evil and rest of the world is perfect...Or is that people over have post in ignorance?
posted by Bag Man at 12:39 PM on February 26, 2003

Or is (it) that people over (there) have post(ed) without leaving out important words?
posted by hank_14 at 12:53 PM on February 26, 2003

Who here said the US is evil? And how does Canada play into this FBI/Utah thing?
posted by tolkhan at 1:18 PM on February 26, 2003

I blame porn for sex. I mean, you don't just wake up one day and decide to put your you-know-what you-know-where. That's just icky.
posted by Hackworth at 1:26 PM on February 26, 2003

Or is (it) that people over (there) have post(ed) without leaving out important words?

I see you have insulted me instead of forming an argument, real mature and good job sparkie. hank_14 your insult only proves one thing: you have no argument and have resorted to insults. That's worse than troll. I'd e-mail you (like you should have e-mailed me with your insults, rather than posting them) with my issues regarding your poorly thought out argument and personal insults, but you are a coward and have not posted your e-mail address.

Who here said the US is evil? And how does Canada play into this FBI/Utah thing?

Perhaps you should read the part of the post I was referring to (I italicized it for your pleasure and ease). I was also commenting on the assumptions that most people in the thread have used to create their posts. The bit about Canada is context for the debate. I ask again why do we not criticize Canada's history of censorship? Why? Because there is a double standard that goes a bit like this: The rest of the world can trample on civil liberties and rarely get criticized, but the US takes an it bitty step (or even opens a debate about the limits of rights) in that direction and peoples' criticism is thunderous; this happens even when US law remains more progressive than most of the world. Also people mostly ignore facts too…real intelligent. This thread is a perfect example of both of my contentions.

While I am sick of this double standard, I do not support most of what the US does and I do not support Bush at all. However, I do support good judgment, fair debate and open mindedness, not of which are often employed in these kinds of threads.
posted by Bag Man at 2:03 PM on February 26, 2003

Um, Bag Man, um, calm down buddy. First of all:

you are a coward and have not posted your e-mail address.

I haven't posted my address, not because I fear debate on issues, I just don't want spam or harassment from kooks (I promise that was not a stab at you personally, just at kooks that we both know are out there). I can't speak for others but that's my reason.

Now as to your reaction to this post, I'm afraid the only reason no one has talked about Canada or France or China's porn laws is that this post was about the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, a couple Idaho police officers and an Idaho school newspaper. Porn/censorship laws in other countries could be an interesting spin off of this talk, but the article didn't really focus on that. It is also important to note, I feel, at this point that other nations don't necessarily have the same constitutional protections of free press/speech and thus may have more restrictive laws, we pride ourselves on our civil rights in the US, that may be why we are so quick to defend against even the slightest attack.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:34 PM on February 26, 2003

I haven't posted my address, not because I fear debate on issues, I just don't want spam or harassment from kooks

spam: email addresses are shown only to logged in users. spambots are never logged and never see email addresses on metafilter.

kooks: in three years, i have rabble-roused with the best of them here, and i've SENT more harrassing kookmail than i have ever received. i have never received any.

your excuse: lame-o!
posted by quonsar at 3:13 PM on February 26, 2003

What is this porno? Is it something found on television?
posted by pekar wood at 3:19 PM on February 26, 2003

It's strange that when someone points out that not everything is perfect (even in) USA, the knee-jerk reaction of some people is to go "Well yeah, but Canada sucks!".

Funny, funny humans.
posted by spazzm at 4:42 PM on February 26, 2003

so according to that line of logic, anyone calling pizza hut shall be arrested.

First they came for the porno, and I was silent.
Then they came for the stuffed crust pizza, and I got righteously pissed.
posted by owillis at 5:10 PM on February 26, 2003

owillis... *whew*. I'm going to be laughing at that one for a while. Thanks.

quonsar: your post just persuaded me to take my email of my page.
posted by namespan at 5:34 PM on February 26, 2003

The rest of the world can trample on civil liberties and rarely get criticized, but the US takes an it bitty step (or even opens a debate about the limits of rights) in that direction and peoples' criticism is thunderous;

The rest of the world doesn't hold itself up as the bastion of civil liberties. The US does.

this happens even when US law remains more progressive than most of the world

It's worse elsewhere, so we should just shut up when it happens here?

I do support good judgment, fair debate and open mindedness

By whining that "peoples' criticism is thunderous?"

Also people mostly ignore facts too…real intelligent. This thread is a perfect example of both of my contentions.

Where and how so?
posted by tolkhan at 6:52 AM on February 27, 2003

It means that if bobbleheaded puritans like Gore/Lieberman had made it into office, they'd would've had helped perpetuate ideas like this in their first weeks in office. Bet.

Hello Mr. Troll. Don't you have a bridge that needs looking after?
posted by terrapin at 6:53 AM on February 27, 2003

i've SENT more harassing kookmail than i have ever received.

The Defense rests, your honor.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:22 AM on February 27, 2003