Science: More porn = less rape
posted at 2:08 pm on August 25, 2006 by Allahpundit
The nuns always told me it was wrong, but I knew. I knew.
If his theory’s correct, the Dworkin school of feminism will have to take a much softer line on porn. Either that or fight tooth and nail to show that he can’t possibly be right. Which approach do you suppose they’ll take?
Unrelated, except insofar as it also annoys feminists: A writer for Forbes got in trouble earlier this week for arguing that career women make bad wives. Quote:
To be clear, we’re not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a “career girl” has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.
His article was initially a standalone piece until it drew the predictable reaction, leading the editors to actually take the piece offline until they could recruit one of their female reporters to write a rebuttal. Mmmm, that’s good mau-mauing.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Huh. How’d you sneak this one in?
Slublog on August 25, 2006 at 2:12 PM
I heard a blurb about this on KSFO this morning , my own anecdotal evidence ( on the career woman thing,ya perv) in this area is in agreement with the article.
bbz123 on August 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM
This is a crock. Drop in rape is likely due to the fact that DNA evidence and conviction rates are so good now. Remember the whole deterrent part of jail?
And if rape is going down due to porn, how do you account for the sharp rise in child molestation? Myspace.com is nothing more than a child predator’s dining menu.
BelchSpeak on August 25, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Allah, stirring the pot on a Friday afternoon. We take it then that you are not interested in career gals, Creator of Worlds? It’s not mau-mauing if it’s a legit argument. :P
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Wait…I though rape was about power, not about sex.
And with all due respect to you fellas that view porn, the more you spend your time “relating” to objects that can’t relate back, the less able you are to relate to a real woman.
So, in practice, I think it’s fine (not going to stand on the usual female soapbox about you guys being pervs)…but in the long run, it diminishes your ability to have a healthy relationship.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 2:24 PM
(cringing…braced for the onslaught…)
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Oh, the argument might be legit. It almost surely is. But the undercurrent in these bursts of outrage is always that such views shouldn’t even be aired — and if they are, they should always be accompanied by the opposing argument for “balance.” It’s exactly the same thing as when Ben Domenech got that blogging gig at WaPo and lefties howled that a left-wing blogger hadn’t been hired as well. For “balance.” Never mind the political leanings of the entire rest of the newspaper.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 2:26 PM
Allah:
I read (skimmed mostly because I’m at work) the point/counterpoint article, and didn’t see anything that made an inference to the title of this post. I’m not being snarky, but I’d like to know if there is a relativity in the article. Maybe I’m just too obtuse to see it, but I don’t know. I’d like to comment on this post, but I need further edification, please. ;-)
Ms. U
MsUnderestimated on August 25, 2006 at 2:28 PM
It’s not related to the title, Ms. U, as I noted in the boldface. The first link (“I knew”) explains the title.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 2:30 PM
All your porn are belonging to us. MUAWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh and by the way, BelchSpeak; While I agree that Myspace.com is a perv’s dream come true, it has nothing to do with porn.
I don’t see how you can use the argument that Myspace, “is nothing more than a child predator’s dining menu,” when we’re discussing porn and it’s relationship to rape. It’s like examining oranges for fruit flies and then saying that fruit flies are not on the decline because standing water breeds mosquitos. The two are unrelated.
WTF, over?
Just my thoughts anyway.
~V5
V5 on August 25, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Oh, I’m not disagreeing that the thing should not have been taken down, and I agree that the guy has a “write” to his views, haha. But if anything, the blogs have almost made it more important for MSM pubs to consider publishing a balanced view–if they don’t allow commenters to tear the guy apart themselves. :)
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 2:30 PM
Yep. Such calls for ‘you can’t say that!’ are the left’s version of stifling (or attempting to) the debate. Contrarian views are discourage in favor of creating popular myths about their supposedly ‘good’ ideas which are, in many cases in fact, bad. It’s what they did in the 60′s with the push for sex ed aka ‘family planning classes’, the Great Society programs, etc. Anyone who suggested such things would have an adverse affect on society was shouted down and told they were backwards. Those people who were shouted down turned out to be right. Will the ‘you can’t say that’ lefties ever acknowledge this? Methinks not.
An inspiring topic. I may write about it at my own blog soon.
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Some of the worst damage done to ordinary women by the militant feminists (I am far, far from one of them) is co-opting common sense into a feminist position so that when there’s a legitimate cause for an argument, that argument might get dismissed as feminist junk.
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 2:39 PM
In other words, what he’s saying (even though he doesn’t realize it) is that “career women” act like men.
He sounds like an idiot. He should speak for himself.
It’s laughably stupid that they felt they had to find and put up a “counterpoint” right next to it, rather than in its own right, but it’s no surprise people got pissed off.
The porn/rape thing? Most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a LONG time. Obviously the guy knows nothing about rape at all. Rape isn’t about lust, it’s about violence and domination. He’s obviously got an agenda that he’s propping up with some retarded “theory.” Color me unsurprised. At least we don’t have to claim him on our side of the political divide, though.
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 2:46 PM
I’m living proof, because I’ve almost never been raped.
Jim Treacher on August 25, 2006 at 2:46 PM
In every single case, though? I’m not a rapist so I wouldn’t know, but that smacks of a politically driven conclusion. As though women think if they say it might in part be about sex, that would somehow put them partially at fault for it. It wouldn’t, though; no is no is no, whatever the shitheel’s motivation might be.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 2:49 PM
The woman who wrote the counterpoint persuaded me. The guy’s full o’ crap, because HER marriage has been good. QED
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Hmmm… Allah, that’s an interesting question. But in breaking down the situation, it seems there is a point at which the desire for sex is overpowered by an aggressive violence. So, it isn’t really any longer about the sex IMO.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 2:55 PM
No, not at all. That’s not what I’m saying. Even with date rape, it’s still no means no, like you said.
The theory is just simply illogical. If he’s correct, then it follows that men who don’t do porn are more likely to rape. As though that’s the default.
I don’t even see how it’s a Dworkin feminist thing. Maybe a Dworkin feminist would say “men are by default, rapists, who need conditioning or training to NOT be rapists.” Obviously, for most men, that’s a crock.
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 2:56 PM
Attila, the guy made a blanket statement. Those are usually full o’ crap. Meet an individual girl. Figure out if you can make it work with her. Don’t assume she’s more trouble than a barrel of monkeys because she has a career. Puhleaze.
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Bingo.
Gotta go pick up the daughter at school now though, so more later I’m sure.
/divorced mother, with an ex who couldn’t stand having a wife who didn’t work any more
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 2:59 PM
For some guys, it might be. For whatever physiological or mental reason, they can’t control themselves. And somehow porn gives them an outlet. That would be the theory, anyway.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 3:00 PM
It doesn’t surprise me that porn does not cause rape. But I still believe, like the social conservatives believe, that widespread porn is bad for society. Among other things, it turns men into bad lovers.
sandberg on August 25, 2006 at 3:02 PM
bamapachyderm, that’s … sigh. That is so wrong.
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Fridays are sure eclectic. Not a chance in hell I’m commenting here…not on this one. Gettin’ too weird.
shooter on August 25, 2006 at 3:04 PM
After a certain point it’s not, no. But it starts out being that way. If rape had nothing to do with sex then the b@stards who commit such acts would instead just beat the crap out of the woman rather than forcing her to sleep with him, too.
(Just making a general statement here, and not commenting on the points [or lack thereof?] of the theory proposed by the person in Allah’s opening link)
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM
Anwyn, don’t worry about me. I’ve been married, happily, for about 23 years. I was simply saying that you can’t refute a theory with one counter-example, unless the theory is supposed to apply in EVERY case.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM
How lame that you cant see the article about wives and then have the OPTION of reading the “response”, instead you have the “response” forced upon you on the same page. Of course, I skimmed the response and it looked lame. I saw the woman dispensing (unwanted) advice to male readers, such as going to the gym. She also essentially admits that a professional couple will live a more difficult life, but spins this as an “exciting” life. I am not impressed.
Moving on to the man’s article: His premise is very weak. I am supposed to give up all the OBVIOUS BENEFITS of marrying a career women, namely MONEY, because I will have to deal with a higher RISK of problems?
A better risk avoidance strategy is being picky in selecting who I marry, such that I minimize these risks. For example I can place a premium on women who are loyal and who are deeply in love with me. I can pick a woman with conservative values who believes that marriage is sacred and loathes the idea of divorce.
Excluding career women means you will, as an average couple, see your earning power cut by almost half. This is a huge drawback. Instead of an economic partnership, you will have economic dead weight.
I think the article was poorly reasoned. Unfortunately, the rebuttal was even worse.
kaltes on August 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM
Quite true, Attila, but the guy was implying that it’s true in general, it’s true most of the time, and most of all he was suggesting staying away from career women as an up-front criterion for a marriageable woman. Which is just stupid.
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM
I’m sorry, all. I still don’t see how porn keeps a man from raping, if it’s not about sex. Look how many men view porn that are in very healthy sexual relationships (some experience there)…I still say rape’s not about sex at all.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:09 PM
Economic dead weight?
Aargh. I simply do not have the time to argue this properly because I am too busy taking care of my son, aka economic dead weight.
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 3:10 PM
It could be reduced because more women are armed and/or otherwise trained to defend themselves. Or because fewer women report rape, knowing that their entire sex lives will play out in the local news if they do.
But I like the idea that it could be porn. Go, porn!
Tanya on August 25, 2006 at 3:12 PM
Look at how many pervs we hear about who molest kids who are also found to be porn addicts.
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Ugh. Now there’s a depressing thought.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 3:13 PM
It seems weird to me to argue about whether rape is about sex or about domination, since it is, by definition, a combination of the two.
sandberg on August 25, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Hmm, I wonder. Anyway. Personally, and I know that I won’t make myself anymore popular here, my problem isn’t with the morality of pornography. Truth is, my wife and I have viewed some, and to a certain degree, as two consenting adults, enjoyed it. No, it’s the almost inevitable exploitation of women, and the fact that most “pornstars” were victims of sexual molestation as children, something that can never be tolerated. So with our little pleasure came alot of guilt, and weighing the pros and cons decided that we’d not contribute to the industry.
Now I bet everyone hates me.
THeDRiFTeR on August 25, 2006 at 3:14 PM
Porn, porn, what is porn?
I guess we’d know it when we see it.
But really, as many people here have commented rape stops being about sex, and becomes more about power. Power to make women submit to you. And what more effective way (in the mind of the predator) to make a woman submit than sexually. Unfortunately, there are men like that. Too many men like that.
But even then, I’ve found that porn gives an unrealistic idea of the relationships between the sexes. As a recovering adult porn looker (watcher, whatever), I know it. It can condition your mind in ways not healthy either spiritually or mentally. Makes you wanna practice what you see. But even more important, you won’t be able to have any real intimacy. You will think only about yourself and satisfying only yourself, while having sex (not making love) with your partner. IMO, that sounds fairly close to rape.
I’m speaking a spouse, not a single guy. But I don’t think it can be that much different.
batperez on August 25, 2006 at 3:14 PM
No, I agree with you, THeDRiFTeR. I’ve gone through the exact same thought process myself. I’m no prude, but I’ve been trying to avoid pornography.
sandberg on August 25, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Drifter, no clue why that position would make anybody hate you but people who run the porn industry. :)
Anwyn on August 25, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Sister, I wasn’t saying that has nothing to do with sex. The act of rape is the taking of sex, so the act itself is aggressive and violent. Not sure it matters where it starts.
And as to the question as to why the man wouldn’t just BEAT the woman, there is no worse damage you can do to a woman, through control, than forcing sex upon her.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM
How to Make a Panography
shooter on August 25, 2006 at 3:20 PM
I was not aware that child molestation was increasing–certainly the coverage is. Where is this info? Thanks.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 3:22 PM
I have no problem believing the career “girl” report. A lot of men find a successful wife daunting.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 3:24 PM
Rape is almost always about sex. The idea that it is not is just political BS. Men rape women mostly because they are both very horny and very sexually frustrated / angry.
While there are plenty of rapes where the guy is clearly 100% at fault, there are also a lot of “rapes” that are more complicated. There is also a HUGE danger of false rape accusations, studies have shown that something like 10-15% of the female population would be willing to make false rape allegations. False rape allegations are very common and very dangerous to men.
Quite a few women consider something to be a rape when they didn’t want it, but they let it happen anyway. Any woman who doesnt care enough to raise her voice or make a physical effort to stop the guy, didn’t get raped. When I saw a special on TV about all the supposed rape at the air force academy, I wasn’t hearing stories of “rape” I was hearing stories of men aggressively trying to get laid and the women going along with it then regretting it later. The rape threshold gets cross IF and only IF the woman attempts to defend herself physically and the man uses force/coercion to overcome that defense. That is my opinion.
kaltes on August 25, 2006 at 3:24 PM
The decline in rape is linear, but the access to porn isn’t, and he never writes the function. He lists official explanations for the decline, then dismisses them as “minor” factors, without describing their impact. His whole “cause” argument is based on Internet access stats, which can only describe a fraction of the graph. As far as I can tell, he successfully argues that pornography has no impact on rape. The rest is just a weird bias.
Hmm, I wonder.
Don’t have to, Drifter; there are good stats on that. It’s been shown pretty reliably regular consumers of porn and are less satisfied with their partners. Wonder why :) I know a footnote is required on this, but (cough) I’m supposed to be working. Ethics is a hobby of mine, not a lifestyle. Put another smiley here please.
I agree with your point, btw; my first argument is always your argument.
Axe on August 25, 2006 at 3:29 PM
I have to disagree. Rape is almost always about power, I don’t get the “political BS” comment? Beyond that, I don’t have a problem with your rape threshold definition, with the obvious exception of statutory rape.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 3:31 PM
You think so? Ever gone through years of physical and emotional abuse?
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 3:33 PM
Actually, I think rape reporting has increased. And about 10 or 15 years ago, the data were adjusted to take into account the unreported rapes. I used to follow this stuff, but it’s been a while.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2006 at 3:35 PM
Rape is the act of taking the sex. It’s dominance and control. Yes, kaltes, there are many false accusations…I share your cynical view there, but we’re talking about the real rapes, not the false ones. It’s about taking control of a woman. That is power, not sex. And a person can always service himself if it’s about sex.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM
By the way Allah, societal attitudes towards rape and intimacy play a significant role in the p*ssification of the modern western male. The idea that a man needs to tread lightly and get a woman to sign a f*cking waiver every time he tries to move to the next base is pathetic.
It is natural for men to aggressively try to have sex with women, and it is natural for women who are not interested in having sex to indicate this CLEARLY and DECISIVELY by pushing the guy away or something similar.
Men are not mind readers, and oftentimes discussions of rape shaped by women assume that men are.
kaltes on August 25, 2006 at 3:37 PM
I mean that after he stops lovingly musing over Deep Throat, and stops discussing the general correlation of more porn and less rape, the only relationship he even tries to establish is with Internet access. I probably should have said The bulk of his “cause” argument or something.
Axe on August 25, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Those critiquing the D’Amato piece should read the whole thing. He is not saying that porn decreases rape, only that there is a correlation between the two.
I’ll be stealing that second line.
He does seem to think he’s proved one thing, which is that those who said porn would cause rape were wrong.
At a brief glance, he appears to be quite right.
Pablo on August 25, 2006 at 3:39 PM
Crimes against children, especially on the internet are way up. see http://www.cybertipline.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=218
Is it porn related? Some of it certainly. But to say that rape is down because of the easy accessibility of porn is ridiculous. Id say rape is down because of global warming. Or because Jerry Lewis got way fat.
BelchSpeak on August 25, 2006 at 3:40 PM
No, Sister, I’ve not. I was raped at 19, but anyone that began to get aggressive with me after that, I left behind. (which I recognize is not the norm)
We were talking about rape (in the sense of a single act), not about longterm abuse. In the confines of spousal abuse, I can see your point. THAT would include other forms of abuse. But the single act, usually is going to manifest as rape.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Twenty years Law Enforcement and Criminal Law, plus ongoing training and experience, and I am taken aback by the suggestion that More Porn reduces incidents of rape. The vast majority of rapes occur mainly for two reasons: A sociopathic need for power involving mental instabilities, and simply ones overwhelming need to get ones rocks off, even by force if necessary… the need for which is occassionally emphasized by ingesting certain drugs.
Twenty years ago plus, fewer women came forward to report rapes. That was mostly due to embarrassment and fear of reprisals. Many even viewed being raped as being their “fault”. Nowadays, many more women come forward to report rapes because they have been empowered by recent decades social changes (they burned their bras!), present day public service announcements, wide spread counseling efforts, and just the knowing that they are not subjugated non-entities, or slaves expected to cater to men’s every whim. Women have rights, they’re empowered and successful, and they don’t have to take that sh** anymore… they report it more often. Changes in sentencing laws for convictions of sex crimes also makes the vitims of rape feel safer to a degree.
However, it just so happens, and it makes perfect sense, that with the sudden increase in ready-access to endless amounts of hardcore porn, has come the more willing acceptance to have casual sex with multiple partners. In case no one noticed, we are in the midst of a second sexual revolution. But now, it’s not uncommon for children as young as 6-10 years old to emulate that behavior, and the acceptance that frequent casual sex is okay fills their little brains. They’re growing up with it pervading their everyday lives. Much, if not most, of that is due to children and adults being inundated with porn all day, every day and having instant access to hardcore from anywhere. Be it XXX or softcore, or just suggestive TV commercials, porn is everywhere. Parents who are not nurturing, watchful, and effectively protective of their children are raising a generation of, for lack of a better term, sluts. Okay, promiscuous children might have been a better term. Couple that with the erosion of modern societys values and morals that makes the 60′s look like the 50′s, and it’s a no-brainer.
Rape isn’t being reduced by porn… mountains of porn, erosion of societys morals, and inexperienced (or ignorant) parents is perpetuating promiscuity beyond anything we’ve ever seen before.
You can’t rape the willing.
SilverStar830 on August 25, 2006 at 3:44 PM
Then why don’t men get raped as well as beat up?
Rapists are twisted, and there’s clearly a power/domination component. But it’s also about sex or more specifically (as was mentioned above) it’s about taking sex.
Pablo on August 25, 2006 at 3:44 PM
I did read the whole thing. He’s arguing cause.
Axe on August 25, 2006 at 3:46 PM
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you, but this is what I was responding to:
In retrospect, inserting “long term” on my part probably wasn’t necessary, because just one instance of a spouse/lover beating you nearly to death can be as equally scarring, just in a different way. Beating the hell out of someone is a form of control and power, too, whether it’s is one instance or many.
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Good explanation, SilverStar830.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:48 PM
BelchSpeak sez:
No, that’s a matter of access. Before the internet, it was much, much harder to get “private” access to children. You couldn’t build a relationship with a kid like you can on the net.
I can’t remember the name of it, but there’s a website dedicated to running stings on internet pedophiles and some of the IM transcripts they’ve collected will curl your hair then make it fall out. The odds of getting away with that sort of contact in meatspace are very low. With the interweb, they’re much, much higher.
Pablo on August 25, 2006 at 3:50 PM
(Damn Allah–you mean to introduce 4, 5 passionate, unrelated threads with 100 words or so?)
Axe on August 25, 2006 at 3:52 PM
I agree, Sister. As I said, I wasn’t talking about longterm abuse. Spousal abuse does come in many more forms. I was just talking about rape, as a single event.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 3:52 PM
tickled, I think we have sort of ‘met in the middle’ on this one …
SisterToldjah on August 25, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Reporting is up. And unfortunately, some of that reporting is based on the ridiculous assumption that ‘children don’t lie.’ Of course kids lie. Worse, they’ll try to tell you what they think you want to hear. I just read John Stossel’s Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, which includes some really scary bits about how social workers can plant false memories in kids, which they then will believe actually happened.
There is a lot of media coverage, especially when the Intarweb is involved, but it’s difficult to reason from reportage from reality.
This is not to say that there aren’t pedophiles out there. Obviously there are. It is not necessary to inflate the numbers to recognize that every time it happens, it’s a Bad Thing.
The Monster on August 25, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Agreed, Sister. :o)
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Heh, Shooter. That your way of getting in edgewise? Interesting article. I didn’t know there was such a thing.
Axe on August 25, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Interesting how the responses to the Rape/Porn link article seem to fall primarily down Gender lines….
Most guys going… Hmmm… interesting…. may be somthing to it…
Most women saying he’s full of crap….
As to the increase in Internet child related crimes… isn’t that primarily due to childrens increased access to the internet? And sting operations?
10 years ago, computers were compicated enough that children were not really on the internet, now??? all over the place… with sites dedicated to their use.
Romeo13 on August 25, 2006 at 4:07 PM
You know what? I don’t know the statistics on women being victims of sexual assault or rape, but it’s disturbingly high.
I suggest you dudes start listening to women who have been there (I’m not one, but I always pay attention to what they say), or alternatively, listen to rapists. Some effing wonk in a chair doesn’t know squat, and it hits every nerve for him to look at statistics and draw some agenda-based conclusion.
There have been plenty of OTHER studies done that come to the exact opposite conclusion. Agenda driven? Sure. Just like this one.
It’s BS, and it provides fodder for those who want an excuse. (I don’t mean as in Allah’s “I knew it;” I do get humor.) Everyone cherry-picks their studies to back up their POV, even when they’re illogical and fallacious. Personally, I don’t see a correlation either way, but I do have problems with porn in the same way Drifter said. There’s always a victim of some kind involved in it, and I feel a moral obligation to not support it.
This:
Don’t say that too loudly on the internets! You’ll have the Internet Freedom Police™ all up your butt, calling you a “fascist” because their freedom is being threatened! Police State! (eyeroll) Ugh! Screw internet freedom. Nobody has a “right” to abuse or exploit children. I don’t have an easy answer, but there has to be one.
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 4:21 PM
The “rape is not about sex” crowd needs to stop trying to make this an either/or situation. We aren’t talking about mutually exclusive things here… oftentimes a rapist is simply using violence and domination as a means to an end, or his desire for sex is intertwined with a desire to dominate or with some deep-seated resentment of women — but even in such cases, sexual frustration is frequently the root cause of the need to feel in control or play out some kind of revenge.
And for those of you who flunked biology, a man cannot have intercourse unless he is physically aroused… so, unless you are talking about some kind of weirdo sodomization scenario involving inanimate objects, then it has to be about sex for the rapist on some level, right?
Watcher on August 25, 2006 at 4:23 PM
OK, this is starting to look like a less AoSL™ version of an Ace thread. Bring up anything gender/sex-related, and the comments go wild. ;-)
I think I’m gonna go back to Ace’s and talk trash with the other morons, since my readers would just nod their heads and say “yes ma’am” if I posted this stuff. (I love my readers!)
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Watcher, does that mean that when the arousal happens, men HAVE to have sex. (And don’t even get me started on the whole “blue balls” myth. ;O) I always thought there was a choice in there somewhere. The choice to act on it, is violence.
tickleddragon on August 25, 2006 at 4:31 PM
And that’s OK?
You’re misunderstanding what everyone means when they (we) say “it’s not about sex.” “Sex” is normal. What you just described is what people who are not normal members of civilized society do. Porn isn’t going to alleviate that. I still say porn has no effect EITHER WAY. And if anything, if I had to say it does have an effect, I’d say it gives fuel to those who have rapist tendencies.
As I said, there are studies, just like this guy’s, that will back that up. Those seem more logical to me, but I don’t buy it enough to come down on the “porn increases rape” side at all.
bamapachyderm on August 25, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Get real, y’all! Rape is down because prison sentences are way up!!. If they’re in jail – they ain’t raping!! (Maybe, just each other, heh heh.)
Read Coulter’s book for the history of the “liberal crime wave” and how Guiliani and conservatives turned that around.
budugirl on August 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Please don’t be antagonistic. You know he’s not saying it’s okay.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM
I think Tanya hit on one of the factors he’s overlooked – the spread of ‘shall issue’ Concealed Carry. If you check the stats you’ll see a sharp drop in reported rapes in states shortly after they start letting women protect themselves.
SilverStar830 hit another important bit.
I think it’s like several have stated and he’s confusing correlation with causation.
KCSteve on August 25, 2006 at 4:37 PM
So, the 100-pound woman who cannot physically push away the 200-pound man who overpowers her, is now officially “consenting.” Got it.
Tanya on August 25, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Yes, it’s called “parenting”. Don’t go letting the intertubes raise your little uns, folks. Sure, there’s plenty of fun to be had, but there’s plenty of exploitative dirtbags out here too. Make sure your kids know better than to fall prey.
Pablo on August 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Thank You!, and I concur. It may not always be “easy”, but it is the “easy answer”.
Pablo, I’ll be watching for your posts m8.
THeDRiFTeR on August 25, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Why? I thought you gave us a very sane, adult report and conclusion.
The ‘career girl’ report is a generalization. Not all men, especially not strong men in good/even/balanced relationships, are threatened by career women. There is usually more threatening the bond than the ‘lady’ having a career.
I work almost exclusively with executives and there are b—–s/a——s and true leaders, on both isles of the sexes. Feminism and chauvinism often add flames to small fires, which could otherwise be extinguished by reasoned and open ommunication.
Since when is Forbes NPR or PBS?
Entelechy on August 25, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Has anybody here read the whole paper? Do they address causation?
Bad Penny on August 25, 2006 at 5:34 PM
I’m curious: If the news story I saw recently about hip-hop/rap music leading to more teen pregnancies is accurate, then the causal link is the degradation/objectification of women coupled with the encouragement of men to think of themselves as insatiable animals.
If one considers violent porn (perhaps as opposed to the more “soft core” variety) in the same light, with women degraded to objects and targets for aggressive male behavior, then it seems there’s some evidence to support the view that the more one is exposed to it, then just like hip hop the temptation becomes greater to “live the fantasy.”
Spurius Ligustinus on August 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM
Never mind. I just got up to the part of the comments where correlation v. causation is discussed.
Bad Penny on August 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM
Interesting article regarding career women. But (and I may have missed it), I didn’t see any study cited that addressed the question directly: Are men married to career women more or less happy than those who aren’t? Of course, the answer to this wouldn’t prove causation either, but it would eliminate the confounding use of surrogate markers such as divorce, etc.
mikeyboss on August 25, 2006 at 5:53 PM
“And that’s OK?”
Try re-reading all of my comment instead of zeroing in on the particular fragment of a sentence that you chose to excerpt. I didn’t say squat about it being ok, and i don’t appreciate you trying to put those words in my mouth.
“What you just described is what people who are not normal members of civilized society do. Porn isn’t going to alleviate that.”
I know they aren’t normal, but it is conceivable that they might have been (or at least passed for it) at one point… would you rather that those people were out buying rape kits, or at home watching porn?
“I still say porn has no effect EITHER WAY. And if anything, if I had to say it does have an effect, I’d say it gives fuel to those who have rapist tendencies.”
I think it depends on the circumstances. The pro-porn argument isn’t about the porn itself, but about the catharsis guys get by using porn as a visual aid to relieve sexual tension on their own. (If you think most guys are watching porn movies with a bowl of popcorn and a soda, then you are sadly mistaken.) Though you could certainly make the argument that an over-reliance on that sort of escapism might be setting the guy up for some major disappointments later when trying to deal with women in the real world.
In other circumstances, guys might become obsessed with porn to the point where they need more and more of it (and weirder versions of it) to achieve the same effect for them… and, when it becomes more difficult for porn addicts to get their fix, then porn only serves to increase their sexual frustrations rather than to alleviate them. These are the kind of guys who can escalate way beyond porn addiction into some really deviant behavior, and ultimately begin to see all women as masturbatory tools.
Watcher on August 25, 2006 at 5:57 PM
Isn’t that degradation/objectification on both ends? Is the stiff d**k attached to a human being while the soft curvy thing with the…um, aperture is a degraded object? Isn’t it a base act for both parties?
Pablo on August 25, 2006 at 6:30 PM
Way to miss the point. The woman merely has to TRY in order to communicate her lack of consent, then it becomes a rape because now the guy is using force to overpower her. The problem arises when the woman just lays there and takes it, then later on calls that a rape. That is total BS, but sadly it happens all the time.
If a woman is not even going to put up a fight, she shouldn’t be able to call it rape later on. Some women can be very CONFLICTED about sex, and go along with sex even though they don’t fully want to for whatever psychological reason. Guys should not be subject to rape allegations because a woman has issues when it comes to sex.
kaltes on August 25, 2006 at 7:15 PM
Pornography is an insidious, pernicious and malignant spiritual, moral and relational cancer on our society. It causes significant harm to almost everyone in our country. No one involved in pornography can honestly, factually claim it is harmless to them, their intimate partners, their family and society as a whole.
I cannot in this limited space and this format list the innumerable negative effects of pornography on our society; but I can say with absolute confidence that it is hardly a harmless activity. In virtually every case when someone has gotten involved in pornography, they can never be satisfied at viewing simple nudity or normative sexual intercourse for long, they easily find what they are viewing to be tame and they no longer feel stimulated; and so they must advance to more explicit forms of pornography, with the extremes being bestialty, sadomasochism, and pedophilia.
In my many decades of life I have witnessed a change from soft pornography, burlesque and very few sources for more degenerate forms of sexual behavior to extreme forms of pornography that just a few decades would have been considered unthinkable and deplored. But, let me give you an example of how such activity always degenerates: In San Francisco (late Fifties) on North Beach they had burlesque (striptease) and a few adult magazine stores, then came topless bars, then topless waitresses, then topless/bottomless dancers, to simulated sex acts on stage, to audience participation lap dances (dry F*#%king), and in between they had gay bathhouses with places for casual, unprotected sexual liaisons, and all of these places attracted prostitution, straight and gay and even transsexual prostitution. All of this happend within a few decades. Those attracted to such activity demanded more extreme forms of pornography to stimulate their sexual desires. Meanwhile the people involved were more often than not cheating on their spouses and/or significant others, destroying their relationships, spreading disease, helping finance a multi-billion dollar a year adult entertainment industry and creating a demand that has produced verbal and visual pornography in our every day lives that are inescapable – even from our children. Just listen to the music of our young people, look at their video games, look at the chat rooms, watch a top rated action or love movie on television or movies, and even at our commercials and pornography is everywhere.
As to this study, let me suggest: State paid prostitutes on demand for any citizen would probably cause rape to decline even further; and making some children, those into really perverse sexual activities available and rapes would probably go down to zero!
When we can commit such acts (pornographic in nature) absent a social stigma being attached to those involved and a penalty for distribution, there is nothing so low and vile that we, as a society, will not soon demand be tolerated and with time demand be accepted as normative human behavior. I know, I have witnessed the moral/spiritual decline of this nation at warp speed over the past four+ decades.
Umnumzana on August 25, 2006 at 8:23 PM
I really get tired of trying to post here and periodically my post not getting through and being included. It is worse than Expose the Left ever was!
Umnumzana on August 25, 2006 at 8:30 PM
Do your part.
I have.
Kralizec on August 25, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Umnumzana, I disagree almost completely. Porn is a symptom of what you describe, not a cause.
The true problem is the moral relativism and the death of shame. Things that once would have made you a social pariah are now simply “alternative life choices”.
Remember when being an unwed mother was a horrible shame, and your family would send you away to Aunt Lucy until you had the baby and gave it up for adoption? Now we’ve got Bill Cosby having to explain to young women that just because your girlfriend has a baby and it’s cute doesn’t mean that you ought to have one too.
Pablo on August 26, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Pablo: It is, in my opinion, a vain and useless exercise to argue cause versus effect. It is akin to ‘what came first the chicken or the egg?’ To get at the root cause of all evil, all perverse human behavior, we are forced to go back to something previous as the real cause; like WW-II and women entering the work force, the subsequent emancipation of women and the psychological emasculation of men. That answer not being fully satisfactory, then we look further back for a another social change being the real cause. I agree with many that we can look to Darwin and the scientific evolution of the species movement, which denied the existence of a Creator and ultimate Judgment, as a marker for the drastic change in moral behavior of human beings.
The truth is, in my opinion, that there is no evil of which we human beings are not capable, and with time we will find the excuse and opportunity to act out on those base impulses. Despite the protests of atheists and secular humanists, without our being answerable to Divine Justice, all restraints on human behavior are removed and the path to continual moral degeneration of the human race is inevitable.
Umnumzana on August 26, 2006 at 10:41 AM
That makes sense (well not the Jerry Lewis part..); the FBI stats on forcible rape, which includes child molestation are in fact down, but this internet stuff is clearly the new big thing. Where there’s a (sick) will, there’s a way.
honora on August 26, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Umnumzana, I disagree almost completely. Porn is a symptom of what you describe, not a cause.
The true problem is the moral relativism and the death of shame. Things that once would have made you a social pariah are now simply “alternative life choices”.
Remember when being an unwed mother was a horrible shame, and your family would send you away to Aunt Lucy until you had the baby and gave it up for adoption? Now we’ve got Bill Cosby having to explain to young women that just because your girlfriend has a baby and it’s cute doesn’t mean that you ought to have one too.
Pablo on August 26, 2006 at 10:24 AM
honora on August 26, 2006 at 11:40 AM
“In virtually every case when someone has gotten involved in pornography, they can never be satisfied at viewing simple nudity or normative sexual intercourse for long, they easily find what they are viewing to be tame and they no longer feel stimulated; and so they must advance to more explicit forms of pornography, with the extremes being bestialty, sadomasochism, and pedophilia.”
So, what are you saying, exactly… that you think anyone who ever watches porn more than once will inevitably reach the point where they can only get off by watching sex with animals, kinky S&M stuff, and kiddie porn? You are trying to treat the exception as if it were the rule.
“But, let me give you an example of how such activity always degenerates: In San Francisco…”
Sorry, but San Francisco’s problems can’t all be blamed on porn. I would put it this way instead: San Francisco is one of the few places in the country where radical leftism and sexual identity have become almost interchangeable.
“When we can commit such acts (pornographic in nature) absent a social stigma being attached to those involved and a penalty for distribution, there is nothing so low and vile that we, as a society, will not soon demand be tolerated and with time demand be accepted as normative human behavior.”
A penalty for distribution? What the hell are you talking about… throwing people in jail for selling Playboy? If that’s the way you feel, then maybe you should think about moving to Saudi Arabia. We have something called the 1st Amendment here.
Watcher on August 26, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Pablo: (I am sure you will give great credence to someone who can’t conquer the intricacies of copy/paste. Dementia claims another victim…) I don’t think rape or child molestation are considered “alternative life choices”, and don’t think that’s what you mean. I get your point on the other, babies out of wedlock e.g. I wonder if this is indeed more common, or just more reported (or open/death of shame). Don’t really know how to find out. Your Bill Cosby comment is apt.
honora on August 26, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Well, not yet! ;-) And I was referring to things like the all too common choice to single parent, which also ties in to no-fault divorce and the destruction which that policy has wreaked on the American family and on America’s children.
But even though that wasn’t what I meant, it’s partly true. We’ve got the ACLU out there fighting for NAMBLA’s right to fly the freak flag, so at least half of that is being presented as worthy of discussion. Once upon a time, you could just shoot the bastards.
Pablo on August 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM
I am stunned how many of you are at least mildly illiterate!
Watcher: I mentioned bestiality, sadomasochism, and pedophilia as extreme, therefore not a common result. Nonetheless, I stand by the fact that virtually no one engaged in viewing pornography can be long satisfied with milder forms, but inevitably progress to more perverse forms in order to gain the necessary/desired sexual stimulation.
In reference to San Francisco, apparently you do not understand the concept of an example of something, in this case the progression, degeneration of pornography. I guess you think NYC, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Houston and other major cities in America have all avoided such progression or descent into perverse sexual behavior?
A penalty for distribution: You said, “What the hell are you talking about… throwing people in jail for selling Playboy? If that’s the way you feel, then maybe you should think about moving to Saudi Arabia. We have something called the 1st Amendment here.” As to your invoking the 1st Amendment, does it sanction the distribution of snuff films or child pronography? Of course not! Free Speech does not provide license for many forms of base, dangerous behavior or speech. Free Speech involves ‘political speech,’ and some rather bizarre Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding, pornography has nothing whatsoever to do with political speech. In the case of pornography the very fact that some forms are illegal, means that those people engaging in the distribution of these materials can be subjected to criminal penalties. For the good of society, I believe that all forms of explicit, gratuitous sexual activity in print or video/film should be illegal and distribution should be a crime!
Honora: If you read my post more carefully, you would discover that you and I agree almost completely that pornography is a symptom and a cause. Further, I agree with what you said: “the true problem is the moral relativism and the death of shame. Things that once would have made you a social pariah [in the past] are now simply “alternative life choices. Remember when being an unwed mother was a horrible shame, and your family would send you away to Aunt Lucy until you had the baby and gave it up for adoption?”
We do not disagree as much as you appear to think, and I believe it is because of your bias against me, and not based on a fair reading of my posts!
Umnumzana on August 26, 2006 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »