"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 article is filled with statements like this without telling us if researchers controlled for any of the infinite possible confounding factors. This may be just a bad article, and the research may actually support the hypothesis of a causal link (perhaps even through a controlled experiment, rather than a statistical survey). But as it is, there's really no strong evidence at all in this article. Unless someone writes a more competent article, one would need to go read the actual studies.
EDIT: Wait, they are giving the internet credit for reducing rape between 1975 and 1995? The first graphical web browser, Mosaic, wasn't developed until 1992. OK, this article is total baloney.
First, Playboy and other print pornography were available long before VHS and Betamax. Is the claim that video pornography is the key product which reduced sexual violence?
Second, what fraction of young men regularly viewed pornography on videotape from 1975-1990? It has to be much, much lower than the (near-ubiquitous) viewing of online pornography today. (Then again, maybe those most at risk to commit sexual violence were much more likely to purchase pornography on video.)
The problem with this article, and those that assert the opposite, is that it's barely science.
There's no good control, and there are so many possible confounding factors that it's impossible to know what's really happening.
Even worse, if you read the comments, it seems that people can't even agree on whether or not sexual violence has increased or decreased in the US over the past 40 years or so!
Has anyone actually done any real science in this area? It seems like all we see are a bunch of ideologically motivated people selectively interpreting the data for their preferred viewpoint.
The only issue I contend with personally on porn is the number of women who create it in order to support a drug habit, thus removing a portion of the voluntariness from it. I know that factor does not apply to all women creating porn, not by a long shot, but by knowing the stories of women in the exotic dancing industry, where many porn actresses are recruited from, it's hard to ignore the reality once you become aware of it.
Also, like any fantasy based pasttime porn has it's own addiction dangers that would not necessarily be considered 'healthy'. Although this of course would not apply to people who are not prone to fantasy addiction in the first place, there is a reason that internet porn is a multi-billion dollar industry.
>Note: Just to clarify, I don't have any issues with the act of making, staring in, or viewing porn itself. I do watch porn. And I know that addiction occurs across all industries and walks of life. It does happen to have a higher occurrences in certain industries though, such as, for example, adult entertainment or telemarketing. I personally do not view porn as either bad or immoral.
Couldn't that be an issue with virtually any job? Do you take issue with factory jobs, due to the number of alcoholics working there just to support their beer-purchasing habits?
It is an issue for sure, but not one specific to pornography.
The social stigma applied to porn actresses is enormous. Working a factory job will not exclude you from other lines of work later in your life, nor is it necessary to hide former factory work from your parents or acquaintances. Even a brief stint in porn can cause long lasting deleterious effects in a woman's life.
I think that may be outdated. There are intelligent, interesting actresses that are covered in main stream media, best known current example is Sasha Grey but there are many others.
How do you know that "even a brief stint in porn can cause long lasting deleterious effects", have you talked to them? As in any job, e.g. programming, IT, etc. there will be people who hate their job. I think the relevant question is whether someone is forced to a job they hate or has "deleterious effects"?
The idea that all porn actresses are clueless feather brains who were tricked into this trade and continue to be victimized is condescending.
> The idea that all porn actresses are clueless feather brains who were tricked into this trade and continue to be victimized is condescending.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not a realist if you think a resume that includes porn or other sex work will not very much damage a woman's life. Find me one instance of a factory worker facing these kinds of consequences:
The conclusion I deduce from these news stories is that there is still quite a bit of prejudice against porn workers (one can argue esp. in the US; in Europe I have the feeling that they are more accepted). This, of course, doesn't make their profession inherently bad.
You cannot have it both ways: You are either (i) against the widespread stigmatization of porn workers (female and male, you don't see the male stories because they don't make for juicy journalism) and fight for them to become legitimate members of the society; or, (ii) you hold that porn is a dirty thing that should be eradicated (along with its workers). In the end, you can't be against porn and for porn workers (this actually was/is? the self contradictory stance of feminist activists against porn in the 70s). A lot of them see that as their job.
I'm not taking a stance on the inherent goodness or badness of porn at all,I'm merely pointing out that sex work is in no way equivalent to factory work.
I didn't see how this related to the drug habit for a second; you're saying that women turn to pornography in order to support their drug habit, not paying attention to the negative consequences, right? I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly before I reply and sounds like an idiot.
conversely, there are many people who look down their nose at you if you do a factory job, and many people who admire or desire women who worked in porn/stripping.
That argument doesn't hold. No one ever lost custody or a subsequent job because they were formerly a factory worker. A former porn actress is treated by the bulk of society much the same way a sex offender is treated.
I wouldn't go as far as sex offender. It's true among prudish areas of society there is stigma (but then would you want to deal with those type of people anyway).
A lot of former porn actresses/dancers/strippers go on to marry wealthy businessmen, and many enjoyed their work. The same can't be said for factory workers.
"The only issue I contend with personally on porn is the number of women who create it in order to support a drug habit, thus removing a portion of the voluntariness from it."
You could say this about any actor. I heard David Bowie didn't even know he'd starred in Labyrinth until he saw the video on sale at Blockbuster a couple years later.
I think your contention better supports an argument for the decriminalization of drugs than it does regarding the social ills of porn. As far as "voluntariness" goes I have known a number of high billing IT contractors over the years that work to support an expensive cocaine habit.
There's little doubt there's still a very seedy side to the business despite it being commercialised and regulated to a high extent. Although it's worth mentioning that a lot of the stars aren't your regular girl or boy next door types, they often have a troubled past and their own emotional luggage before they get into pornography. In many cases, the problems you outline are an extension of that.
The idea that pornography only objectifies women is inherently sexist. There are men in porn too. I think people take this point of view out of some antiquated notion of chivaly: women need to be protected because they obviously can't do it for themselves.
Besides, you can't compare porn for men to porn for women. You have to compare it to romantic comedies, and romantic movies in general.
For example, watching Nights in Rodanthe, it was just ridiculous how much they mentioned that the guy Richard Gere plays is a doctor. His son was a doctor too. They must mention it eight times. Why? Because for a woman past her mid-thirties, there is no better thing to marry than a guy with a safe and very bankable job. Very objectified.
The vast majority of porn is created for men, and the men in these films are not objectified in the same way women are. This has nothing to do with chivalry.
The prevalence of 'porn for men' [1] doesn't counter the argument. You're just pointing out a (largely historically-biased) discrepancy in the target market.
'Porn for women' exists. The day it sells as well as 'porn for men', will something about 'porn for men' have magically changed?
Frankly, that it's not yet as popular says more about our society's remaining sexism [2] than it does about whether pornography, as a concept, is inherently sexist.
And I'd also argue the point of whether the male actors are objectified in the same way the women are.
There is no shortage of 'porn for men' that revolves around the concept of the 'hapless delivery guy as sexual object'.
The assumption that this isn't equivalent is purely sexist. The argument ("what red-blooded male isn't Ok with that?") presumes that no red-blooded female should be Ok with a 'hapless secretary as sexual object' fantasy.
And there's absolutely no basis for that assertion. Objectification is high on the list of fantasies for any gender and any orientation. Assuming it's something women shouldn't or don't want is sexist repression, pure and simple.
[1] The idea of 'porn for men' vs 'porn for women' is pretty useless. The genres of porn are many and varied and have wildly differing levels of objectification of the parties involved, wholly separate from the concern of who their typical consumers are.
[2] Our society holds women to a far higher sexual standard of chastity and more-harshly represses any exploration they may do, as compared to their male peers. To say nothing of what we imply their fantasies and erotic consumption habits are or should be.
Secretly, most, maybe all, women like be objectified to an extent, it's part of their dna. Find me a woman who says they wouldn't secretly like to show a bit of flesh in a magazine and i'll show a liar.
To some circles, you're sexist if you believe men and women are different at all. I call bs, we are inherently different in some ways. call me sexist if you like.
To the rest of the circles, you're sexist if you put any stock in any of what are usually considered negative stereotypes about women. (the key being for example if you believe women are more kind than men, that is not branded sexist!) This is ridiculous as well, imho. It's like the stereotypes about blacks and guns. Some rapper was arrested a few years ago for having a bunch of guns in his car, and he screams 'you racists'. Dude. You had guns in the car, if anything you're literally living up to the stereotype you're complaining about. You can't complain about being profiled in regards to 'riding dirty' if you were in fact 'riding dirty', imho.
I'm usually pretty bad at illustrating this half of the argument, but as unpopular as it may make me I believe many stereotypes are based on a truth. To apply them to ALL MEMBERS of the group is folly, but the inverse is also true- to assume that it applies to NO MEMBERS of the group, or even ALMOST NO MEMBERS of the group, is folly as well.
I should perhaps start constructing a counter-offense argument... after all, have you considered that the belief that women as a rule do NOT like being a little bit exhibitionist could also be considered sexist?
On the contrary, I don't think it's thrown around nearly often enough, at least in the tech/entrepreneurial community. In the name of rejecting political correctness, the cultural norm has swung in the complete opposite direction -- and virtually no one has been willing to speak out for putting the brakes on. (Those who do seem to end up branded a pariah or whiner.) Top tip: we can enjoy freedom of speech and insist upon basic politeness from our peers; they aren't mutually exclusive.
---
As to your anecdote: So, you're a racist too?
(The above was mostly tongue in cheek, but consider...) :
- There's no law against gun ownership -- the right to bear arms is a guaranteed one -- so why is the fact that this guy had guns named as if it were a valid cause for his arrest? Somehow I have trouble imagining stories of Jeff Foxworthy, a famous white man with a 'redneck' stereotype, being arrested "for having guns in his car" being passed around with the same tone of smug judgement.
- Don't forget the history of racist double standards when it came to black gun ownership in America, both recent and (comparatively) ancient. Nor the fact that law enforcement is often anything but colorblind.
I forget the details of the arrest, but there are plenty of reasons possessing a gun is illegal. Don't immediately assume he was innocent and rule out the possibilities that concealment laws or registration laws didn't come into play. Maybe he didn't violate any laws after all, but that wasn't his defense so it seems irrelevant to the topic.
I am not being smug or judgemental, and I wouldn't have batted an eye or cared in the least, if he hadn't tried to play the racism card. Maybe it's foolish of me, but let me try to illustrate with a more extreme example.
Suppose a black man was to commit some heinous crime, and we had irrefutable proof he was completely guilty (just suppose, bear with me). Normally, he'd be tried and put away. But what if this black man's defense was 'well, I was being profiled- if it wasn't for the stereotype that blacks are more violent and commit more crimes, I wouldn't have been caught so clearly this is unfair. I should go free.'
IMHO, you can file complaints and suits and get all the damages you like for being unfairly profiled, and I'll generally back you up, but as soon as you're guilty of what they profiled you for, you loose all my support and earn my disgust. He may be right, maybe through racism we catch more guilty blacks than whites or something, but either way the hypothetical man is guilty. The way to fix that flaw is not let him go but start catching the whites too.
re: double standards and corrupt law enforcement, I'll give you that.
A) There's two issues here: whether the incident was racism, and whether the retelling you gave was, due to the assumptions it carried. I was addressing the latter.
B) Of course you were being judgemental; the entire point was to communicate your judgement of the situation as a flagrant race card play. Smug is in the eye of the beholder; I'm certain it wasn't intentional.
C) Re: hypo. It can be true that he is guilty and that he was persecuted due to racism at the same time. Not mutually exclusive; just as in another situation someone fully guilty may be proven so by an illegal search. Its up to the courts to decide whether the violation of equality would prevent a conviction. (Currently: racism no; illegal search yes.)
D) Would you hold the same position if the crime was possession of a recreational amount of marijuana?
Showing a bit of flesh, or all your flesh for that matter, isn't objectification. Objectification is rooted in what's being communicated, so its much more dependent on the subject and publication's reasons and context.
Trite examples:
Picture of Bikini Clad girl visualizing results of weight loss through hard work, healthy eating, and going to gym for purposes of promoting a better lifestyle = not objectifying
Picture of Bikini Clad girl indicating you need to buy XYZ or you'll never be beautiful like this specimen = objectifying.
I don't intend to insult, but to actually answer the question: how about your mom or grandmother? Do you honestly believe they wish to "show a bit of flesh"?
When you stereotype women, don't forget that you're talking about your mother, and your grandmothers, and your sisters and aunts and any good female friends you have. That's all my point was.
I think the idea is that most porn focuses on the woman as the object of sexual gratification. The men involved are merely instrumental to getting the desired reaction out of the woman.
Of course, pornography makes victims of all of its constituents, viewers and participants included.
Yes. Pornography is deeply addictive. Many are drawn to pornography with woefully little warning or information on its dangers. Pornography is "false love". It is a counterfeit. It can destroy real love and hurt many innocent people.
Its producers exploit the human tendency toward it to make a lot of money while simultaneously victimizing and addicting their consumers. Pornography dealers are hard drug dealers.
These are pretty major claims you're making, do you have any data to back them? A lot of factors "can destroy real love", e.g. kids, marriage, TV, etc.
On a different note, why do you think there's an inherent "human tendency toward" porn, if it is such a disgusting and dangerous thing.
"Kids, marriage, TV, etc." can introduce strains or challenges in a relationship that can tear it down if not handled correctly. Pornography by its nature is harmful. It is poison to love. They are entirely different categories.
There is a lot of data to corroborate these ideas. There are many porn consumers who have recognized their addictions, even if they are not actively battling them. You can learn about these things by looking for them. http://obscenitycrimes.org/cline_unabridged.pdf is a 23-page (unfortunately magazine-like) overview of the research of one sex therapist; I couldn't find something more clinical in the brief time I was able to look.
Regarding the default tendency, there are many things that humans naturally prefer that are much, much worse than the alternatives. There is a default inclination toward drugs and other seriously harmful solutions, but that doesn't make heroin good, does it? Our attraction to these things is a very complex issue which I'm not fit to explain scientifically. That doesn't mean it's not real.
So I was reading through the PDF you linked to and I came to this:
Consider also the spread of sex education courses through schools in the United States. The assumption is that you can change attitudes and behavior about sex through some form of teaching and instruction. If you assume that this is so (still a controversial issue among researchers) ...
Still a controversial issue among researchers? Yeah, kind of like how evolution is still a controversial issue among researchers. So this guy is a sex therapist who doubts the value of sex education in schools? I then realised that this document is actually just thinly veiled social conservative propaganda. I then stopped reading and dragged it to the trash.
This Dr. Victor B. Cline obviously has a massive personal bias, I assume stemming from his own religious beliefs, though this in only a hunch. You're going to have to do better than this ready for Fox News crap.
This kind of binary, authoritarian view of any subject really gets my goat up. Who are they (the writer you cite) or you to be judging and telling anyone else how they should be living their life? Because face it, that's exactly what they're/you're doing.
There is a default inclination toward drugs and other seriously harmful solutions, but that doesn't make heroin good, does it?
Doesn't make it all bad either. Opiates are used as effective pain killers. The legal status of drugs seems to correlate very loosely with how harmful they are.
Right, sex isn't all bad, the things that make us attracted to naked bodies are good. Tearing those things out of context and exploiting them for personal enrichment (pornography) is just as wrong as tearing opiates out of their context in medical treatment and exploiting them for personal enrichment.
I don't know why you're coming in here talking about law because I never brought that up. It's a different issue.
I'm not telling anyone how to live his/her life. I'm just informing people and giving them facts I know. Each person is free to make his/her own choices and I don't endeavor to remove or abridge that freedom.
None of what you've said changes the fact that you're arguing for an absolute viewpoint. Porn == bad, no exceptions (unless I misunderstand you) and absolute viewpoints oversimplify the issues they pertain to.
I also don't agree with you that "tearing opiates out of their context in medical treatment" as you so negatively frame it is a bad thing either. Who are you to say that's the only legitimate context for them to be in? If people want to take smack or any other drug recreationally, then that should be up to them[1]. I trust you can see how I would look at this analogy relating to your view on porn.
I put in the line about law because it's a point I was reminded of as I was writing. I do that sometimes, including a thought that occurs to me in my writing. Even in replies I don't always feel the need to limit my prose to issues specifically raised by others.
These things you're informing people about may be something you "know" however you wish to define that, but I don't see many objectively verifiable facts. I will read the PDF you linked to when I get the time (I have only been able to scan over it at this point), but I don't expect to find anything that will persuade me that your absolutist view is justified.
[1] It's another thing entirely if they endanger others by e.g. driving while under the influence of said drug, but this as you have said to me on another matter, is a different issue.
No, but responsibility is a cure for the negative effects of drinking, like running over a kid or dissolving your marriage. Some people are just too retarded to be responsible. That's the point.
"According to the conservative media watchdog group Family Safe Media, the porn industry makes more money than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon."
No way. Let's keep things in perspective.
These four companies had combined revenues of almost $150 billion (2009).
All porn total revenue estimates are maximum in single digit billions.
Even the smallest company in Fortune 500 had at least $18.5 billion revenue.
It's interesting how much of HN comments are devoted to media criticism, often focusing on the sad state of science journalism. Maybe with the demise of Editor & Publisher there's room for a start-up here.
"As the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down"
This is a perfect application of "Correlation does not imply causation". It's very likely that over time (during which internet porn has skyrocketed and made consumption frictionless) the awareness for supporting victims of sexual assault as also gone up.. from completely unrelated trends like rises in feminism and an overall decrease in crime over the last 15 years.
No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women.
As other commenters have stated, it is really difficult to conduct a good experiment given the difficulty controlling for other variables. However, I'm not even sure it is the right question. I'd be more interested in men's attitudes towards themselves given habitual exposure to porn.
The same experimental difficulty exists, but I think it is more "upstream" from negative attitudes towards women. That is, in the course of the hypothesized man turned sexual predator, there is probably a period of sexual frustration that may be exacerbated by the non-reality of porn. This then develops into the deviant.
The only thing I think anyone can tell you about porn for certain is that it is, literally, everywhere (I'd say around 95% of the computers I poke around inside of contain porn).
I am on the pro-porn side since my job and company is built on its existence. Luckily, our technology works well and if you don't like pornography, you can easily buy products/services that will block porn (and other harmful content, e.g., hate, drugs, abortion, etc).
Leveling-up I see pornography as content that will exist irregardless of laws, restrictions, etc. It is human nature that is simply exploiting the Internet medium to the fullest. I.e., it won't go away that easy.
Well, as a parent, I want to protect my children from seeing the Internet in the raw form. Seriously, look at the content on the Internet. There is an amazing amount of content, not all of it is safe for children to view. Heck sometimes I see stuff that I would rather not. Don't confuse the issue here - it has nothing to do with rights.
Can you define "child"? At what age is it safe for a child to see a soft porn act, a hardcore one? Who makes up these rules? If you say every parent should make up the rules for their own family I'd support that; sadly, in real life it seldom works like that, e.g. see the recent misguided Australian attempt to ban access to porn for everyone.
I am not going to argue definitions, since my view to this is irrelevant. The point is there are many people that do care and don't mind paying my company and others for this service. For those that care about rights, freedoms, etc, this is optional - no one is forcing you, it is for parents to make that choice.
As for rules, there are groups (e.g., 6-10, 12-14) for children and seeing hardcore porn at age 6 is not appropriate, nor is seeing someone's head cut off at 10 on ogrish. Some material I wish I had never seen.
I am not talking about nudity here. Pornography is more than just nudity. Other content that is considered not good for children is abortion photos, hard core porn, murder, etc. You know stuff that makes an normal adult go wow, that is messed up (go to stile project, or ogrish for stuff)
I would recommend photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders's book, "30 Porn-Star Portraits" (http://www.amazon.com/XXX-Porn-Star-Portraits-Timothy-Greenf...) to gain a better understanding of how and why people choose to work in the porn industry. In addition to nice photos (of course) it includes essays by porn workers, e.g. Nina Hartley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Hartley) and biographical information. This comes in handy next time you encounter someone who claims all porn actresses are drug addicted victims who are either brainless or over-sexed.
The question in the article's title is "is porn good for us?" That's not the question they actually answer.
The question they actually attempt to answer is "does porn availability increase sex crimes or lead to unhealthy attitudes about women?" Their answer is that it actually improves both situations, though it's poorly supported by the data. (As others have noted, it's a mere statistical survey with no good control and many confounding factors.)
If they wanted to answer "is porn good for us", they'd have to investigate a number of situations -- porn use within a relationship, for example. I suspect they'd find it has some serious downsides.
I suspect they'd find it has some serious downsides.
Gaaah, this comment was so good until you whiffed at the end! You point out that their methodology was sloppy, that the title is not apropos, and then assert your own unfounded opinion right at the end.
I've done enough marriage counseling to know of the existence of serious downsides to pornography, which is all I asserted. This is not an unfounded opinion.
Had I expressed some statistical conclusion (say, that the downsides outnumbered the upsides, or that under some particular weighting scheme the downsides were 62% worse than the upsides) your criticism would be valid.
And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.
The article is filled with statements like this without telling us if researchers controlled for any of the infinite possible confounding factors. This may be just a bad article, and the research may actually support the hypothesis of a causal link (perhaps even through a controlled experiment, rather than a statistical survey). But as it is, there's really no strong evidence at all in this article. Unless someone writes a more competent article, one would need to go read the actual studies.
EDIT: Wait, they are giving the internet credit for reducing rape between 1975 and 1995? The first graphical web browser, Mosaic, wasn't developed until 1992. OK, this article is total baloney.