When violent incidents like the Columbine shootings occur, some in the media rush to deny a link between media and violence. On the other hand, producers make millions from product placement in movies, on the premise that the mere appearance of a product in a movie will affect viewer behavior. ProtectKids.com elaborates (PDF)…
Film critic Michael Medved notes that: “More than 3,000 research projects and scientific studies between 1960 and 1992 have confirmed the
connection between a steady diet of violent entertainment and aggressive and anti-social behavior.”[37] The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded: “The vast majority of studies conclude that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and real-life violence. The link is undeniable and uncontestable…”[38][N]ay-sayers like to point out there is no proof that media violence is the ”principal” cause of actual violence. True–but what the research says is that media violence is clearly a contributing
factor, escalating the problem. Heart disease is caused by heredity, blood pressure, cholestorol and smoking–should concern be limited to only the principal cause?…Military psychologist Lt. Col. David Grossman points out that media violence fosters the same desensitization the military strives for in combat training.[40]
In a rare admission that media violence does affect behavior, a 1994 survey found that ”87% [of the Hollywood elite] say that violence in the media is a factor in contributing to violence in society.”[41] Although such public admissions are rare, there is no doubt Hollywood recognizes
the value of its media impact. ”Product placements” in movies, where companies pay a fee to have their product featured on-screen (think of the BMW roadster in the James Bond movie Goldeneye, or Bond’s Ericsson cell-phone), bring in multi-millions of dollars for major movies–and enhanced sales for the products advertised.[42]Hollywood also takes pride in scripts written to subtly promote behavior the producers view as responsible, such as seat belt use, avoiding cigarette smoking, condom use and environmental responsibility.[43] Their expectation that positive images can improve behavior is an intriguing
counterpoint to their public posture that negative images have no impact.Since studies indicate that violence in the media affects violence in society, and since Hollywood believes positive media images can influence individuals to behave in a more ”responsible” manner, one might reasonably expect sexual images to influence people also…
One of the most common findings from media studies is that “increased media viewing is associated with more stereotypical views, especially about gender,” and that ”being exposed to consistent and repeated stereotypical gender images shapes cognitive structures.”[45] Simply stated, what we see affects how we think.
In some quarters–as with the analogous research on pornography–there is a reluctance to review the evidence objectively in case the cure is worse than the disease. Thus Hollywood producers and others are often quick to leap-frog past the research and claim their First Amendment right to produce whatever they choose. But they miss the point, which is about
choices, not rights. Nothing in the First Amendment forces anyone to choose to contribute to violence in society.
I think it is important to maintain a distinction between violence and porn. It is important not to infer that porn has some effect because violence in the media has the effect. It would be much more responsible to keep your assumptions to a minimum.
It’s important because it is important to avoid mistakes like the ones you made in a series of posts that made reference to OneAngryGirl.net. You claimed in those posts that porn is related to violence. But when you look at the actual studies she cites, where the porn is violent there seems to be an increase in the tendency toward violence, but where the porn is nonviolent, there does not. (If I’ve made a similar point before, I and I have, I repeat myself because you’ve made this mistake before.)
Since pornographicness and violence vary independently in media, it is important to keep them separate as potential causes of society’s ills.
Many of our observations don’t require porn to be violent, but there still might be some value in distinguishing violence and porn. However, there appears to be a ‘slippery slope’ hazard with porn, in that many consumers start with ‘gentle porn’ and come to seek out rougher fare.
In addition, the pornographers are making the distinction between porn and violence increasingly fine, as porn has been getting more violent over time…
“As Jerome Tanner put it during a pornography directors’ roundtable
discussion featured in Adult Video News, ‘People just want it harder,
harder, and harder, because like Ron said, what are you gonna do next?’
Another director, Jules Jordan, was blunt about his task: ‘[O]ne of the
things about today’s porn and the extreme market, the gonzo market, so
many fans want to see so much more extreme stuff that I’m always trying
to figure out ways to do something different. But it seems everybody
wants to see a girl doing a d.p. [double penetration] now or a
gangbang. For certain girls, that’s great, and I like to see that for
certain people, but a lot of fans are becoming a lot more demanding
about wanting to see the more extreme stuff. It’s definitely brought
porn somewhere, but I don’t know where it’s headed from there.’
“Rocco has far more power in this industry than any actress,” said
Stagliano, pleased to be pulling one back for the boys (generally
speaking, men are the also-rans of porno). “I was the first to shoot
Rocco. Together we evolved toward rougher stuff. He started to spit on
girls. A strong male-dominant thing, with women being pushed to their
limit. It looks like violence but it’s not. I mean, pleasure and pain
are the same thing, right? Rocco is driven by the market. What makes it
in today’s market place is reality.”
The idea that women don’t make good directors is a commonly held belief
in the porn industry, [Borden] says, because women “shoot all the soft
stuff, all the lovey-dovey stuff that there’s not a big market for. In
the video stores, that’s not what you go see: You want to see hardcore
ass-fucking, DP [double-penetration], cum, piss, shit, whatever you
can.”
I dispute your point that if one ‘genre’ of media–violence–has been shown to affect viewers, we can make no assumption about other genres. In reality, the burden shifts to you to demonstrate that the porn genre has no significant effect on viewers.
Donnerstein and Linz have discovered that men’s attitudes with respect to rape are actually quite malleable. Violent porn can buttress one set of attitudes, but this can be countered with debriefings. This suggests that media and information have a major impact on attitudes in this area.
Perhaps I don’t understand the finer points of how burdens of proof shift around. In any case, suppose that there was an adequate understanding of the link between violent action films and violent behavior. I think we could then infer that there was probably also a link between violent psychological thrillers and violent behavior.
It would be weird, though, to infer that non-violent action films cause violent behavior because violent ones do. That’s my point. You’ve suggested that violent porn causes violence. Even if that’s true, it doens’t follow that non-violent porn does. This point is borne out in one of the few sets of real, actual scientific studies you’ve referenced on this blog.
I dispute your point that the results of D & L suggest that media and information have a major impact on attitudes in this area. If the relevant maxim is “easy come, easy go,” this suggests that the impact is minor. That is, if it is easy to talk the test subjects out of the attitudes, then the attitudes are not very “deep.”
It also suggests that if violent images have an effect, so does talking to other people. Having a conversation with a guy who thinks rape is OK could have an effect, too. So could having a friend who’s a jerk. But what kind of effect do these things have? Which is a greater influence: a violent movie, or a conversation with a rapist? That’s why it’s important to know the magnitude of the influences of the various factors.
Finally, given the ubiquity of violence in the media–violence is far more common on prime-time network TV than porn is–including violence against women, the claim that people learn their rape-friendly attitudes from porn and not from TV is premature. Tonight on “24” I anticipate watching at least ten people get murdered or tortured. But apparently the FCC thinks that it would be the end of the world if a nipple made it on. Much of the violence in the media is anti-woman. It is much easier to access mainstream violent films than violent pornographic films. If you’re worried about media violence causing actual violence, the influence of the mainstream media cannot be underestimated.
Excellent. We are waiting for new messages on the same topic:)
I do not regret that spent a couple of minutes to read.
Thank you, very interesting site.
All stylishly written
Comrade kill yourself
Good post, but much too much.