TO THE EDITOR
PORN’S CROSSOVER
In response to Megan Shmidt’s “Ask Yourselves” viewpoint (7/15): If we are to
answer the question, “Why is EW willing to subjugate women?” we must first ask
this question in the appropriate manner: “Does EW intend to subjugate
women?” To answer this, we must first establish intent. Is it the intent of EW to
force readers into porn or prostitution? Are the ads portrayed in a lewd and las-
civious manner? Is EW forcing advertisers to run their ads to promote these
services for profit directly from these services?
While there are a few studies showing that a small percentage of people who
commit acts of violence and rape also consume pornography, the vast prepon-
derance of people who consume pornography never commit any crimes at all.
The reality is that there are significant scientific hurdles to overcome in
demonstrating that the consumption of pornography/prostitution actually
causes violence, no matter whether the research takes place in a laboratory
study, a field study, a longitudinal study, or a combination of those approaches.
Those who cite these carefully qualified studies suggesting a connection be-
tween adult entertainment and “aggressive behavior” — responses that are
often modeled or sanctioned by the studies or researchers themselves — ignore
the reality that there is absolutely no way of predicting with certainty whether
exposure/indulgence in adult entertainment will produce a positive, negative or
neutral result in a given individual.
We must then ask the question, based on Ms. Schmidt’s assumption, if women
are enslaved or subjugated by adult entertainment, in any form, surely they do
not indulge in it themselves?
In fact, the female demographic is probably the biggest catalyst for porn’s cul-
tural crossover. Adella O’Neal, publicist for the interactive adult-DVD company
Digital Playground, says that in 2000 roughly 9 percent of the company’s con-
sumers were women; four years later, that figure has bloomed to 53 percent.
Ladies: Your mind, body and conscience belong to one person — you. That
conviction is very empowering, whether you are in the adult industry or not. It
puts you in the driver’s seat in your own life. Men cannot victimize you unless you
allow them to by not being your own person, not knowing who you are and not
respecting yourself.
Victoria Austin & Sherylin York
Eugene
EDITOR’S NOTE: Victoria Austin is a student majoring in psychology with an emphasis on human sexuality and
Sherylin York has been an adult performer for the past 10 years.
GET OUT IN FRONT
WE ARE ALL EXPLOITED
Thank you for a fine publication with re-
porting on local news and issues. Megan
Schmidt in her viewpoint (7/15) presents a
powerful analysis connecting sex industry
ads and the exploitation of women. I expect
that in time this view will be widely accepted
as correct.
Can EW get “in front” on this issue and
find a way to be a profitable publication with-
out sex industry ads? There must be a way to
do this, and I encourage you to open a dia-
logue with your readers, advertisers, and sup-
porters to find that path.
Jon Tressler
Eugene
Contrary to Megan Schmidt’s suggestion
(7/15), no causal link has ever been found be-
tween sexually explicit material or behavior
and (sexual) violence. Indeed, countries with
more availability of porn and prostitution
such as the Netherlands, where I conduct my
own research, typically report lower rates of
(sexual) violence than more puritanical soci-
eties like the U.S. Thus, researchers Diamond
and Uchiyama write, “In the U.S., it was
shown that … no such relationship of
pornography leading to rape or sexual assault
could be demonstrated as applicable to adults
or juveniles.”
Referring to their own recent research in
BY TOM LININGER
Revenge of the Nerds
Professors gain clout in civic affairs.
N
ow that I’ve become a full-time professor, I get a little miffed when I hear
someone dismiss a discussion as “academic.” Apparently this term is synony-
mous with inconsequential. What’s so bad about being academic? To quote
Curly of the Three Stooges, “I resemble that remark!” (My scholarship draws heavily
from Curly.)
The public seems to believe that professors are ill-equipped to interact with the real
world. How many professors does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three: one to write a
research grant, one to organize a program in Darkness Studies, and one to write a
scathing tirade about the power industry. I myself have written more tirades about the
power industry than I’ve changed light bulbs.
President Bush seems to have little faith in professors (which is appropriate, be-
cause professors had little faith in this C student.) Bush is backing legislation that would
severely restrict academic freedom. The U.S. Senate will shortly vote on HR 3077, a bill
that would empower a new executive agency to oversee certain academic programs re-
lating to international studies. According to Beshara Doumani, a professor at UC
Berkeley, this bill “is the most ominous threat to U.S. academic freedom in decades.”
And the Bush administration is fighting to make sure that university libraries con-
tinue to serve their noblest function: surveillance. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act
enables the FBI to monitor the books checked out by library patrons. In early July, a
group of congressmen led by Bernie Sanders proposed to repeal this provision, but the
Bush administration rallied its allies on the Hill, and the proposal failed by a narrow vote.
You’d think that Bush wants to lock up the ivory tower and throw away the key. Will
the intelligentsia become the irrelevantsia?
Not to worry. Here in Oregon, academics are actually gaining influence in both na-
tional and local affairs. Within the last year, professors at the UO have won national ac-
claim for exposing gender bias in tort law, proving the health risks posed by vinyl, and
highlighting the dangers of marine pollution, among other important contributions.
Just last week, an Associated Press reporter ran a story entitled, “Oregon Professors
4 AUGUST 5, 2004
Influence Bush.” The article began with the typical
stereotypes: “Over the years, the UO has developed
a reputation as a hippie haven, home to Hacky-
Sackers, Frisbee-throwers and anti-globalism ac-
tivists.” (Memo to the admissions office: time to
drop the affirmative action policy for Hacky-
Sackers.) But the article goes on to note that pro-
fessors in the UO Education Department “have been
the driving forces behind the push for letting ‘scientif-
ically based research’ inform classroom practices.” The
Bush administration has great respect for the UO Education
Department, and this department actually earns $1.46 million in
grant money per faculty member — even higher than the grant money earned by the UO
Frisbee-Throwing and Anti-Globalism Departments.
A
cademics are also playing an influential role at a local level. Mayor-elect Kitty
Piercy has announced her intention to form a committee composed of profes-
sors and others who would advise city officials on sustainable economic devel-
opment. And professors with scientific expertise are organizing a group called the
Independent Science Review Board, which will provide local officials with neutral advice
on the scientific implications of policy proposals.
Are professors becoming too active in civic affairs? The famed jurist Learned Hand
warned that too much real-world involvement by scholars could comprise their intellec-
tual integrity. “You cannot raise the standard against oppression, or leap into the breach
to relieve injustice, and still keep an open mind to every disconcerting fact, or an open
ear to the cold voice of doubt. I am satisfied that a scholar who tries to combine these
parts sells his birthright for a mess of pottage; that, when the final count is made, it will
be found that the impairment of his powers far outweighs any possible contribution to
the causes he has espoused.”
Now there’s some erudite, flowery language. I just have one response: What kind of a
name is “Learned,” anyway?
Tom Lininger is a law professor and lifelong nerd.