October 20, 2013
Flooding the Erogenous Zone
Buck sends along this, from The Scientist. Why am I not surprised?
Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined…
In terms of the use of pornography by sex offenders, the police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.
Posted by Jerome Doolittle at October 20, 2013 09:56 AM
No man who knows how to use his right hand must ever violate a women. (Okay, make that "or left hand").
You have to wonder how many extra murders and rapes have been caused in those states that have taken watching porn as a reason for investigating someone on the internet and thus making watching porn on the net a de facto crime. How many crimes have these "investigators" caused. How many murders? How many rapes? These kind of statistics tell us that they must have caused many. I hope that the worst "investigators" have trouble sleeping at night because of what they have done to those who have not done anything criminal and which our society has now called legal for almost fifty years. Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that made this kind of investigation illegal for many years, but the unscrupulous used the creation of the internet as a way to get around it. Reagan just wanted to get two appointees into government, ones who had a particular penchant for renting x-rated videos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
Who knew that the law was actually enlightenment for the nation, until it was usurped by the criminally deranged investigative types? It's probably one law that actually helped the nation, despite the real narrow purpose for which it was enacted.
The more pressure you pile on to someone, the more likely they are to explode.
Up to about 10 years ago I would periodically transcribe sexual dangerousness hearings in Massachusetts (if you're convicted of a sex crime, the Commonwealth can have you held indefinitely as sexually dangerous; you can appeal at intervals of time to be released). Inmates that were released (as well as those being held) were forbidden from looking at pornography. Yes, it does seem more than a little bizarre, and divorced from reality, to imagine that you can stop men from thinking about sex. I hope Massachusetts is keeping up with the research and changing standards where appropriate.