I noticed a confluence of stories last week. One, highlighted by Allahpundit over at HotAir, was a paper by a NU law professor describing how exposure to pornography reduces the occurrence of rape. Well, he doesn’t describe how, but he……

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.

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.

“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!”

Ummy, your 8/26 post at 3:58 reads, in part:

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?”

You’re adressing Honora, but the quote you used was mine. Do try to pay attention, won’t you?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

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?

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…

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.

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?

Actually, that is sort of akin to saying, “she had it coming, because she didn’t fight me off.”

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!

) I don’t think rape or child molestation are considered “alternative life choices”…

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I have.

After much blogosphere outcry, Michael Noer’s Don’t Marry a Career Woman was taken down and put back up as a point-counterpoint to Elizabeth Corcoran’s Don’t Marry A Lazy Man. A lesson for Forbes and Mr. Noer: don’t underestimate the response……

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.

So, the 100-pound woman who cannot physically push away the 200-pound man who overpowers her, is now officially “consenting.” Got it.

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.

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.

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?