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: « Previous 1 2
Kaltes, that comment about not being able to call it rape if the woman doesn’t fight back is completely and utterly insulting and renders you, in my book, lacking in credibility on the subject of rape. It is akin to saying if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, there was no tree-fall. If a rape takes place, and the woman doesn’t fight, there’s no rape. Obviously, you’ve never had YOUR control completely taken from you.
Actually, that is sort of akin to saying, “she had it coming, because she didn’t fight me off.”
tickleddragon on August 26, 2006 at 9:04 PM
“I am stunned how many of you are at least mildly illiterate!”
I can read what you type just fine, thank you. If you mean to say something else, then say something else.
“I mentioned bestiality, sadomasochism, and pedophilia as extreme, therefore not a common result.”
You said that escalation occured in virtually every case, and then listed those extremes without ever mentioning anything about any kind of de-escalation or plateau effect.
“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.”
Even now, you still make it sound as though practically anyone indulging in porn will eventually spiral completely out of control. What do you see as the end result for all the people supposedly trapped in this pattern of behavior… if not the extremes you listed, then what?
“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?”
Not sure that I would compare any of those places to San Francisco. (Though, from what I’ve heard, you might want to substitute Austin for Houston.) The problem with San Francisco is a perversion of politics. The radical leftist agenda and that of gay activism have become largely indistinguishable… and the rampant Jew-hatred isn’t very helpful, either. (You’d think the Marxist/LGBT brigade might eventually wake up to the fact that the Islamofascists are not exactly down with homosexuality.)
“As to your invoking the 1st Amendment, does it sanction the distribution of snuff films or child pronography? Of course not!”
That’s a cute way to dodge the question. Let me try this again… do you think that it should be a crime to sell a Playboy magazine to an adult for reading (or whatever) in the privacy of his or her own home? I want to know your reaction to that specific example… I’m not talking about Busty Dead Chicks Monthly, or The Beautiful Boys of NAMBLA here.
And the 1st Amendment doesn’t sanction anything… it disallows certain rights from being infringed upon.
“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!”
Seeing as how you have previously referred to commercials as pornography, I’ll take it that you would find looking at a Playboy to be an “explicit” and “gratuitous” sexual activity, and therefore a crime of some sort. What shall the punishment be, may I ask… stoning the person to death?
Watcher on August 27, 2006 at 3:28 AM
I suppose it also follows that anyone who enjoys the visage of the Coors Light Twins (now with more truth in advertising!) will before long find themselves lusting for video of little boys screwing dead girls or something along those lines. Because, you know, they can’t help themselves! The images of flesh, in virtually all cases, pull you in and rot your soul.
Ahem.
Pablo on August 27, 2006 at 7:44 AM
Umnumzana says:
I believe that you’re addressing me, not honora, and I believe that you’re quite mistaken. Exactly what is the basis of this bias you’re imagining?
Pablo on August 27, 2006 at 7:50 AM
Watcher:
1. I said exactly what I meant to say, but you need to be able to read the English language. Not just the individual words, but the punctuations and emphasis.
2. I said and meant an escalation to more explicit and perverse forms of sexual activity in their pornographic choices. Not all go to the extremes, in fact being extremes, by definition, only a small number of those addicted to pornography ever go that far; but all of those people with more than a causual interest in pornographic images are never satisfied with simple nudity or normal, heterosexual conduct, over time they seek out and need more perverse forms of sexual images to stimulate their sexual desires/appetites.
3. The 1st Amendment right of Free Speech involves political speech, to speak in support of or against the government and it does not anticipate or allow for other forms of socially harmful speech, such as ‘crying fire in a crowded theater;’ and in my opinion, that includes employing vulgar terms in public meant to stir the passions of others to violence or other behavior contrary to general public safety.
4. You seem to have an obsession with Playboy, I take it you are a long term subscriber and enjoy its content for your hand generated physical gratification? On the surface Playboy seems fairly benign compared to other magazines like Hustler or those purchased in adult book stores. But, because of its ‘execllent articles,’ some political in nature, which most men say they read while feigning disinterest in the nudity; it gained general acceptance with the public, and then the next, a little more explicit magazine met less resistance and soon there were adult book stores with quite perverse photgraphs and stories in most towns in America. So, even a mildly pornographic magazine gaining general acceptance as not being harmful set the stage for the widespread, explicit and perverse pornography you now enjoy. The answer would have been, back then, to ban it and make it a criminal activity to distribute it with its soft porn images and articles. Now the Genie is out of the bottle and so it would be impractical and not be accepted by the public in general to assess legal penalties for its distribution, but had we moved back when it was first published, I doubt we would have the proliferation of hard core pornography in every grocery and convenience store in America today.
Pablo said: “suppose it also follows that anyone who enjoys the visage of the Coors Light Twins (now with more truth in advertising!) will before long find themselves lusting for video of little boys screwing dead girls or something along those lines. Because, you know, they can’t help themselves! The images of flesh, in virtually all cases, pull you in and rot your soul.” You said this sarcastically, but you are closer to the truth than you know. In Europe more sexually explicit and deviant sexual images are already in their commercials and: 1. These commercial, sexual images will soon arrive in America. b. Those commercials in Europe are getting more explicit ever year. Lastly, yes these explicit sexual images do play a major role in rotting the souls of those caught up in their pursuit.
Umnumzana on August 27, 2006 at 10:58 AM
“I said and meant an escalation to more explicit and perverse forms of sexual activity in their pornographic choices. Not all go to the extremes, in fact being extremes, by definition, only a small number of those addicted to pornography ever go that far; but all of those people with more than a causual interest in pornographic images are never satisfied with simple nudity or normal, heterosexual conduct, over time they seek out and need more perverse forms of sexual images to stimulate their sexual desires/appetites.”
And yet, you later go on to describe Pablo’s sarcastic response to my post as being “closer to the truth than you know” — so, which is it?
“The 1st Amendment right of Free Speech involves political speech, to speak in support of or against the government and it does not anticipate or allow for other forms of socially harmful speech, such as ‘crying fire in a crowded theater;’ and in my opinion, that includes employing vulgar terms in public meant to stir the passions of others to violence or other behavior contrary to general public safety.”
How are such examples comparable to someone willingly purchasing a magazine and looking at it in private? That’s a far cry from someone running up and down the aisles of a movie theater screaming “fire” — or screaming anything for that matter. Do you take an equally dim view of the 2nd Amendment? Your talk about about banning all “socially harmful speech” reminds me an awful lot of the leftist gun-grabber talking points.
“You seem to have an obsession with Playboy, I take it you are a long term subscriber and enjoy its content for your hand generated physical gratification? On the surface Playboy seems fairly benign compared to other magazines like Hustler or those purchased in adult book stores. But, because of its ‘execllent articles,’ some political in nature, which most men say they read while feigning disinterest in the nudity; it gained general acceptance with the public, and then the next, a little more explicit magazine met less resistance and soon there were adult book stores with quite perverse photgraphs and stories in most towns in America. So, even a mildly pornographic magazine gaining general acceptance as not being harmful set the stage for the widespread, explicit and perverse pornography you now enjoy. The answer would have been, back then, to ban it and make it a criminal activity to distribute it with its soft porn images and articles. Now the Genie is out of the bottle and so it would be impractical and not be accepted by the public in general to assess legal penalties for its distribution, but had we moved back when it was first published, I doubt we would have the proliferation of hard core pornography in every grocery and convenience store in America today.”
I have an obsession with Playboy? You’re the one who wishes that it were possible to go back in time so that you could retroactively ban its publication entirely, as if that alone would somehow be the answer to all the world’s problems. Hard-core porn in every single grocery store, eh? Hmmm… apparently, the one around the corner from me must be the only one in the country that doesn’t sell that kind of stuff. What “hard-core pornography” are you talking about here… TV Guide, Time Magazine, Newsweek?
Watcher on August 27, 2006 at 5:34 PM
Watcher: Both Playboy and Hustler have long had hardcore porn in words and pictures!
It is not a far cry from yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is far more dangerous and destructive to society than some nut crying fire.
I am an extreme Right Wing Conservative and I believe in the Constitution as it was written and by virtue of original intent, not as you leftists try and pervert it to make it mean something else.
As to being in agreement, I may have made it appear I was referring to you, but I assure I was talking to Honora, as you and I have no agreement about your desire to produce all sorts of pornography and call it Free Speech!
Umnumzana on August 27, 2006 at 9:21 PM
“Both Playboy and Hustler have long had hardcore porn in words and pictures!”
That’s great, but none of the groceries near where I live carry any magazines remotely like either of those… so I don’t understand why you insist on claiming that every grocery store in the country is jam-packed with pornography. (In fairness, there are a couple of liquor stores a bit further away that peddle some filth… but people don’t go there to buy groceries, and there aren’t exactly a whole lot of kids around.)
And now you are also complaining about hard-core porn words… what does that mean? Do you want all erotic literature banned as well, even without any pictures? Who gets to decide which words are pornographic and which words aren’t? And what’s to be done with all the undesirable books… shall we burn them? Next, will you come to scrape away all the bits of gray matter that contain any remaining pornographic thoughts?
“It is not a far cry from yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is far more dangerous and destructive to society than some nut crying fire. I am an extreme Right Wing Conservative and I believe in the Constitution as it was written and by virtue of original intent, not as you leftists try and pervert it to make it mean something else.”
Here is the text of the 1st Amendment, in its entirety:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
So, because I am opposed to the federal government stepping in to save people’s souls from the evils of every conceivable kind of pornography, even the relatively tame meat-and-potatoes varieties, that makes me some kind of leftist who’s trying to pervert the Constitution? For someone who refers to himself as an “extreme Right Wing Conservative”, you are espousing some decidedly Statist stuff here.
“As to being in agreement, I may have made it appear I was referring to you, but I assure I was talking to Honora, as you and I have no agreement about your desire to produce all sorts of pornography and call it Free Speech!”
No, no, I was referring to your reply to Pablo’s joke about the Coors Light Twins causing people to: “…find themselves lusting for video of little boys screwing dead girls or something along those lines.”
You acknowledged his sarcasm, yet you still seemed to agree with the premise of his remarks… I just found that curious, given the way you have accused me of misinterpreting what you originally stated about the pattern of escalation in porn indulgence.
I didn’t say that I had a desire to produce pornography. Partake in some of it maybe… even so, there is an awful lot of stupid and disgusting stuff out there that I don’t care to see or even know about. But when people decide to put out the kind of crap I don’t want to see, I just ignore it… I don’t start demanding that the federal government get involved to save everyone from themselves. I believe in personal responsibility, not a nanny state… whether it be a socialist or a theocratic one.
Local governments setting their own standards on obscenity laws is one thing, but pushing for a blanket standard of the strictness that you describe is utter craziness.
Watcher on August 28, 2006 at 1:01 AM
Ummy, your 8/26 post at 3:58 reads, in part:
You’re adressing Honora, but the quote you used was mine. Do try to pay attention, won’t you?
Pablo on August 28, 2006 at 10:58 AM
I agree with SilverStar above.
Okay, going out on a limb here, be honest, and hopefully set it straight. I am the survivor of a violent kidnapping and rape in 1987, and I can tell you for certain that it is NOT about sex. The person who abducted me and raped me couldn’t even get an erection. I was a victim – he talked at me, not with me. It was a performed-before script in his head, and I said and did what it took for me to live, because he repeatedly told me he was going to kill me. I finally escaped when he dumped me out in a field to go switch cars (he shoved me into mine at a payphone, and left his behind, so he was going to get his), and I crawled about 100 yards through briars to safety. I called the police, prosecuted the bastard, and he was sentenced to 55 years in state prison; 30 for 1st degree rape, 10 for kidnapping, and 10 for forcible oral sodomy – all to serve consecutively. He was sentenced and went into prison in 1988, and unfortunately he will have served his entire “55″ years next year.
It’s very sad to know how many women have had this happen to them but never say anything. After it did happen to me, I volunteered at the local YWCA Rape Crisis Center, and that’s where I met many of them there who only wanted to talk, but not prosecute. There are more of us out there than anyone can fathom.
I also learned that there are two types of people who go through a violent crime. You are either a “victim,” and you basically try to ignore it, not talk about it, deny it ever happened, and maybe someday it will all go away. The second type is a “survivor,” which is what I was. A survivor runs to it with a desparate need to know who these people are, why they do what they do, what makes them evil, and just an insatiable need to get inside their heads to know what makes them tick. I enrolled in college and started studied Dangerous and Violent offenders, and learned a lot.
And after that, I became part of the “brotherhood.” SilverStar knows what I’m talking about.
MsUnderestimated on August 28, 2006 at 8:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2