tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post8173867565815193432..comments2023-10-23T09:51:37.441-05:00Comments on Blog of Pro-Porn Activism: The Latest from the "Liberal" MediaRenegade Evolutionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-34273543865454783922010-08-07T04:29:07.782-05:002010-08-07T04:29:07.782-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gregory Underwoodhttp://www.feedtherightwolf.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-34590842550846841492010-03-20T18:37:54.968-05:002010-03-20T18:37:54.968-05:00I vote for straight-up lying too, mainly because t...I vote for straight-up lying too, mainly because that takes less paperwork.<br /><br />I continue to be amused that some of the same women who argue for a woman's right to say no or yes to sex, to forgo marriage and support herself and to generally rebuke the constraints of the patriarchy will then advocate what IACB says in the following paragraph, in order to take down pornography, which supposedly both supports patriarchy and subverts it:<br /><br />"Their assumptions about what constitutes “sexual callousness” include: the belief that having multiple partners is more natural than life-long monogamy, placing a low value on the institution of marriage, seeing nothing wrong with non-marital sexuality, belief that repressing sexual desire is unhealthy, and having less desire to have children. In other words, being sex-positive makes you “sexually callous”!"La Libertinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14051871564467162258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-7660043286039466402010-03-13T22:54:03.808-06:002010-03-13T22:54:03.808-06:00I vote for straight up lying.
There is legitimate...I vote for straight up lying.<br /><br />There is legitimate ongoing academic research regarding the effects of pornography, such as Neil Malmuth's, at a variety of institutions and I seriously doubt that Zillman or Bryant could be unaware of this fact. <br /><br />Of course, it's also possible that Pamela Paul is the one doing the lying.<br /><br />Such behavior wouldn't be out of character for any of the parties in question.Ernest Greenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-21172633245569061092010-03-13T22:37:09.830-06:002010-03-13T22:37:09.830-06:00Salon sucks and Tracy Clark-Flory has either been ...Salon sucks and Tracy Clark-Flory has either been body-snatched or lobotomized. More likely lobotomized because I figure those body-snatchers are pretty smart, especially when it comes to porn. I suspect that's what happened to most of the internet feminists, few of them seem to have their hemispheres connected so well anymore.FWhttp://feministwhore.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-17219439127807541972010-03-13T09:52:07.078-06:002010-03-13T09:52:07.078-06:00Their conclusions that such research therefore bec...Their conclusions that such research therefore became prohibited for all other researchers everywhere from that point forward demonstrates that either they weren't following the literature in their own field, or Zillmann &/or Bryant were straight up lying.iacbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267608319896053702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-26750212436119985512010-03-12T20:40:19.233-06:002010-03-12T20:40:19.233-06:00Actually, Pamela Paul claims that Zillman and/or B...Actually, Pamela Paul claims that Zillman and/or Bryant TOLD her that further research efforts were vetoed by some university board because the harmful effects of porn on test subjects rendered further experimentation unethical.<br /><br />So I guess we just have to take their word for it. Tee hee!Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16525894777909361937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-54743797363884605872010-03-11T20:49:16.624-06:002010-03-11T20:49:16.624-06:00In other words, they were censured, not censored, ...In other words, they were cen<i>sured</i>, not cen<i>sored</i>, which is what I meant.<br /><br />I was also wondering if you had a source about their research being dismissed by a research or ethics board, because I'd definitely like to know the details.iacbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267608319896053702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-40668990369467897502010-03-11T20:00:08.193-06:002010-03-11T20:00:08.193-06:00Actually, IACB, I didn't say that they were ce...Actually, IACB, I didn't say that they were censored, only that their research had been attacked from so many quarters for violating basic ethics rules and standard practices that various research boards refused to ratify their findings. It is they (Zillmann and Bryant and their followers) that even today are claiming that this repudiation amounts to mere "censorship" by the "liberal" media who simply is <br />biased against conservatives and "Christians".<br /><br /><br />AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-53798180818645336152010-03-09T20:07:33.339-06:002010-03-09T20:07:33.339-06:00BTW, I haven't heard the story behind the cens...BTW, I haven't heard the story behind the censure of Zillman and Bryant's research. Do you have a source for that?iacbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267608319896053702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-62953123144253118292010-03-09T16:04:59.687-06:002010-03-09T16:04:59.687-06:00"As to the Washington Post and its representa...<i>"As to the Washington Post and its representation amongst the "liberal" media....it's been an open secret about how the Post has been steadily lurching hard to the Right politically since Fred Hiatt took over as its chief editor."</i><br /><br />Ah – thanks for that. I haven't been up on the media buyouts and consolidations news, or what the politics of the ownership are.<br /><br />I still remember Salon from when Susie Bright was a columnist there. Boy, have they changed!iacbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267608319896053702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-18621741211895540472010-03-09T13:26:12.530-06:002010-03-09T13:26:12.530-06:00Sorry for the serial posting, but I just thought I...Sorry for the serial posting, but I just thought I'd add this while it's racking my brain:<br /><br />As to the <i>Washington Post</i> and its representation amongst the "liberal" media....it's been an open secret about how the Post has been steadily lurching hard to the Right politically since Fred Hiatt took over as its chief editor. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that Paul's front-page editorial was simply another salvo in the Post's attempt to attract a more conservative base of customers.<br /><br /><br />AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-50620610299713369312010-03-09T13:19:24.932-06:002010-03-09T13:19:24.932-06:00Oh, and then there is this:
This brings me to one...Oh, and then there is this:<br /><br /><i>This brings me to one Pamela Paul's tallest assertions, apparently based on an interview with Jennings Bryant, in which he claims that the results of his study showed such clear and overwhelmingly negative effects that they were blocked by an ethics board from conducing further research where subjects were directly exposed to pornography.</i><br /><br />Actually, what Ms. Paul seems to ignore was that Zillman and Bryant were sanctioned not because of their biases, but because their work was found to be so deliberately shoddy and in direct violation of basic research guidelines and procedures.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't prevent both fundie Christian groups AND APRF's from using their "research" to slam porn for its alleged harm.<br /><br />Two examples, each from different perspectives:<br /><br /><a href="www.beliefnet.com/Love.../The-Elastic-Bed-Syndrome.aspx" rel="nofollow">Beliefnet.com -- Pornography has a negative effect on marriage</a> (from a fundie Christian perspective)<br /><br /><a href="feminazi.wordpress.com/2007/.../porn-statistics-and-research/" rel="nofollow">Porn Statistics and Research -- miss Andrea's blog (Femanazi)</a> (From a APRF perspective, albeit mAndrea is one of the more extreme antipornradfems, so take that into account)<br /><br /><br />AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-74842086947853688942010-03-09T13:05:24.368-06:002010-03-09T13:05:24.368-06:00My main recollection of Zillman and Bryant's &...My main recollection of Zillman and Bryant's "research" on porn during the Meese Commision days were mainly the fact that they represented the fundamentalist Right critique that porn essentially destroys not only relationships, but marriages as well, and that the mere portrayal of women as active sexual agents of their own free will was in and of itself damaging and harmful to "civilization".<br /><br />Interesting that a supposed "feminist" like Pauline Paul would revert to these antifeminist jokers to justify her screed against porn today.<br /><br />Then again...maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. Antiporn feminism and fundie Christian fascism do tend to collude so well together when it comes to imposing their own narrow sex codes.<br /><br /><br />AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-4407123548296725482010-03-09T12:57:09.846-06:002010-03-09T12:57:09.846-06:00Prohibition means we empower the state to send out...Prohibition means we empower the state to send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral. That's not right.<br /><br />And it doesn't even work.kevinhttp://heydj48.spaces.live.com/noreply@blogger.com