Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does More Porn Make Society Better?
On the subjects of rape, Ted Bundy, and pornography, Rod Dreher writes:
Bundy isn't blaming porn for making him a sex killer. He says it's his own fault. But he also points out that constant exposure to pornography wore down the "very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behavior" that kept the antisocial impulses within him in check. The point isn't that every person who develops a porn habit will turn into Greg Goben or Ted Bundy. That's absurd. But it seems inarguable to me that no good can come of pornography, and whatever weaknesses we struggle with in relation to sexual and emotional health will be amplified by porn. Put another way, can anybody imagine that using pornography makes you a better or more emotionally healthy person?
Leaving aside the inherent problem of determining what makes
someone a "better" person, there is some reasonably good evidence
to suggest that increased access to pornography and violent
entertainment make society better off by providing an outlet for
aggressive, anti-social urges. Here's Steven
Landsburg summarizing the evidence that porn reduces rape
at Slate:
A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.
Landsburg also notes a study by University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna that suggests violent movies produce a comparable effect:
What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.
University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.
I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight-the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning.
Meanwhile, similar trends — albeit somewhat
more broad — exist with regard to violent video games.
Between 1993, when the first video games with explicit violence hit
shelves, and 2002, when they had become common on PCs and game
consoles, murders committed by those aged 14-17 dropped
substantially.
Needless to say, none of this is proof positive. Correlation does not prove causation. And when it comes to human motivations, a measure of uncertainty is inevitable: It's almost impossible to prove definitively why anyone does anything, much less why they don't. But the evidence is strong, and it makes sense that pornography and violent entertainment might serve as exhaust valves for our aggressive impulses — that, in most cases, they would help regulate our instincts rather than amplify them. If there's anything that history has taught us about human nature, it's that it's almost always far better to provide safe, structured, non-destructive outlets for our impulses than attempt to suppress them.
Steve Chapman looked at the connection between rape and violence here. Charles Oliver wrote in praise of porn here.
|7.15.09 @ 1:02PM|#
"Does More Porn Make Society Better?"
Duh - yeah!!! Although it does have tendency to dehydrate me and
make my keyboard sticky ... ;)
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.
I'd say it had some pretty hairy (fuzzy bunnies) violence in it.
And the part at the end where Wallace is nude and standing in the
"nuts" barrel was pretty good.
Lester Hunt|7.15.09 @ 1:03PM|#
The bottom line is that this is the sort of issue about which there can be empirical evidence and people like Dreher are simply not thinking in those terms at all. The mode of thought here is religio-moralistic, not rational.
|7.15.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Considering the number of Falling Down scenarios (mostly starring H&R commenters) that would immediately follow if porn was effectively eliminated, I'm going with "Yes" as well.
|7.15.09 @ 1:07PM|#
I'm tired of the Nanny State notion that anything that some
moron/crazy/criminal might abuse must be denied to every
one of us.
Abusus non tollit usum!
JB|7.15.09 @ 1:07PM|#
People (especially men) have to get their jollies out.
Testosterone produces a fuck or fight reflex and it needs to be
burned off.
Just as repressing political speech encourages more political
violence, repressing porn encourages more rape.
|7.15.09 @ 1:10PM|#
I'll forgo a joke about "wise latina porn" - I don't want the mental image any more than you do.
|7.15.09 @ 1:13PM|#
it seems inarguable to me that no good can come of
pornography,
Unless, of course, you regard personal pleasure that harms no one
as a good thing.
whatever weaknesses we struggle with in relation to sexual and
emotional health will be amplified by porn
Claiming this is "inarguable" is what is known as "assuming your
conclusion."
Urkobold™|7.15.09 @ 1:16PM|#
FORGIVE THE URKOBOLD'S IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, BUT ISN'T 'BATIN' A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? HOW CAN ONE 'BATE WITHOUT PORN? THE URKOBOLD IS CONFUSED.
Billy!|7.15.09 @ 1:16PM|#
What if these things do both, act as a stress reliever for some while whacking out the brains of others? After all those stories about how "24" convinced military officers of the utility of torture I find it hard to believe that no one ever, ever, ever anywhere saw a horror/porn movie and said, "Hey, chopping up people/having violent sex sounds pretty neat-o!"
Xeones|7.15.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I find it hard to believe that no one ever, ever, ever
anywhere saw a horror/porn movie and said, "Hey, chopping up
people/having violent sex sounds pretty neat-o!"
Someone who would come to that conclusion already has something
pretty fundamental wrong with them, Billy!.
Stagman|7.15.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Put another way, can anybody imagine that using pornography
makes you a better or more emotionally healthy person?
Let me ask you something, Mr. Dreher. What's better,
cheating on you wife or squeezing one out in your home office in
the middle of the night?
Ben|7.15.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Better to ask: Does a constant search for rationales to censor
make society worse?
Yes. Absolutely. Repression of any form of expression is still
repression; this isn't dependent upon if some people like the
expression under consideration, or not.
Particularly in the case of our society, which enables
completely free speech based upon the now highly-eroded first
amendment (meaning that the amendment clearly allows for no
exceptions; our out of control government has implemented very
badly-reasoned exceptions [fire in a crowded theater, slander,
etc., ad nauseam] in an unauthorized fashion, being that the
constitution is the authorizing document for any power they
legitimately get to wield.)
For the case of immature minds, parents bear the responsibility for
choosing what those minds are exposed to based upon how they choose
to raise the child. If you let your kid on the net without
supervision, you've said, plain as day, that you are ok with your
kid seeing anything and everything, and that's fine -- that's your
right as a parent to decide when and where or if that should occur
while the child is in your care -- in no way does it imbue society
with the need or responsibility to do your job for you if you are
so stupid to have done so without thinking it through.
You know, there's "stuff" in the grass. It's to be expected. Dog
shit, broken glass, stones, the occasional sprig of poison ivy,
bees, spiders, ants and so on. It's your responsibility to
be aware of where you sit and walk and play, and to check the
condition of the grass before you let your children in it, if you
can't be sure they'll check first and that they understand what you
wish them to understand about what they may find there. We still
want grass, not astroturf.
|7.15.09 @ 1:22PM|#
It's all about brain chemistry, despite what the jesus lovers would have you believe.
shriek!|7.15.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I watched the whammy burger scene from Falling Down just now and I don't think porn really could temper that rage. Also, if you have an internet connection and you are paying for porn I question your intelligence.
Snarky|7.15.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Maybe Rod Dreher's whole "Crunchy Con" thing is actually the sound his teeth are making when they're grinding together because he's not using enough porn.
Barry Loberfeld|7.15.09 @ 1:23PM|#
The feminist anti-pornography campaign was notable for several
reasons: its insistence that modern pornography was the "theory" to
the ancient evil of rape's "practice"; its adopted Marxian disdain
for liberty and evidence (e.g., Kathleen Barry: "It is costly for
us to be diverted to false issues like freedom of speech or ...
trying to prove through research what we already know through
common sense."); its alliance with authoritarian conservatives and
the Reagan Administration; and most striking, its eventual eclipse
by the campaign against the "rape culture," which by 1993 led to an
anthology of essays by such American feminists as Gloria Steinem,
bell hooks, Andrea Dworkin, and Susan Griffin.
What is the "rape culture"? Considering how the writers point to
everything from religion to sports to (of course) capitalism, we
should really ask: What isn't the "rape culture"? To which
only one answer emerges: the feminists themselves. It is only they,
their ideas, and their actions that are not in any way indicted.
They find guilt everywhere but in the mirror.
On the face of it, the very concept of a "rape culture" is an
absurdity. How does one logically contend that the crimes of
sociopaths reflect the values of society? Are we similarly a
pedophilia culture, a murder culture, etc.? What, then, do
feminists gain from this demonization of everyone else?
THE WHOLE
STORY
Ben|7.15.09 @ 1:24PM|#
The Problem with Porn
That is one of the lamest, most poorly (and self-referentially)
reasoned blog posts on the subject I've had the misfortune to read.
Seriously.
Urkobold™|7.15.09 @ 1:25PM|#
SADLY, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO QUALITY PORN. NATIONAL PORNCARE CANNOT BE DELAYED ANY LONGER! THE FREE MARKET HAS FAILED ONCE AGAIN.
shriek!|7.15.09 @ 1:26PM|#
but isn't religious/moral repression just a another form of
expression? When will it end? You can't silence the silencers lest
you admit you ought to be silenced as well! I say offend and let
offend. Just don't violate my property or my orifices.
@Xeones
You wanna see my what!?
Billy!|7.15.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"Someone who would come to that conclusion already has something
pretty fundamental wrong with them..."
Possibly. I'm not 100% convinced of that. The people who fell in
love with torture via "24" don't fit my definition of mentally ill.
But let's say that it's true that person has something
fundamentally wrong with them.... so what? If more than an
insignificant percentage of people have something fundamentally
wrong, which seems quiter possible to me(say 3% of people do) then
massive exposure to something that makes fundamentally fucked
people act out their fundamental fucked-ness might be really
bad.
Excuse my horrible syntax/grammar.
Scott|7.15.09 @ 1:29PM|#
That is one of the lamest, most poorly (and self-referentially) reasoned blog posts on the subject I've had the misfortune to read. Seriously.
Aw, Shirley, you jest.
Isn't masturbation just self-referential sex?
|7.15.09 @ 1:30PM|#
What, then, do feminists gain from this demonization of
everyone else?
Smug sense of self importance?
Wicks Cherrycoke|7.15.09 @ 1:31PM|#
mr. Suderman writes: "Here's Steven Landsburg summarizing the
evidence that porn reduces rape at Slate:"
I didn't know Slate had a rape problem. But I am happy that porn is
helping reduce it.
Urkobold™|7.15.09 @ 1:35PM|#
NATURALLY, PORNCARE WILL BE PROVIDED BY A NATIONAL CADRE OF GOVERNMENT PORNSTARS. . .THE PIECE CORPS.
shriek!|7.15.09 @ 1:35PM|#
I looked at the psychobabble link.
I'm just glad a woman set herself on fire to stop porn. How dumb
can you be? Trying to stop snuff films (which may or may not exist)
by snuffing yourself? Ahhh, THAT's THE SNUFF!
Lowdog|7.15.09 @ 1:37PM|#
So, Billy, even if only 10% of the those 3% are "incited" to
rape by watching porn, you still think that porn should be banned
for the rest of us because a few nut jobs can't handle it? Even if
it was closer to 100%, why should that make any difference. If
people act upon their fucked-ness, as you say, then the criminal
justice system comes into play. Not that there's anything good
about someone being sexually assaulted, but 3% is not a high enough
number.
In addition, what about those who are helped by having access to
porn? Can that number possibly be higher than 3%? If so, doesn't
that grant a net benefit?
|7.15.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Even if you believe everything Dreher is saying, he misses the point. So what if porn is bad. Dreher is free to abstain from it and encourage others to do the same. Even if there is nothing good that can come from porn, there is certainly a lot bad, in the form of increasing the police power and reducing our privacy, that comes from banning it. Ultimately, I don't really care whether porn is good or bad for you. No one has ever made the case that it is so bad that it justifies use of the police power to stop it.
!</a></|7.15.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Does More Porn Make Society Better?
Yes.
BTW, Suki is forced to make porn video in Suki II and Suki
III.
No, I have not heard from her directly latey either but sh did make
a recent blog post.
shriek!|7.15.09 @ 1:48PM|#
No one has ever made the case that it is so bad that it
justifies use of the police power to stop it.
The same cannot be said about the half gram of pot you were going
to smoke before using the porn though.
Someday marijuana will be as acceptable or more acceptable than
pornography. Moralist assholes will still object.
|7.15.09 @ 1:49PM|#
The feminist complaint against pornography is that no one wants to watch pornography staring them. And any quisling man that agrees either watches porn and is a hypocrite or says he doesn't watch porn and is a liar.
!</a></|7.15.09 @ 1:51PM|#
The feminist complaint against pornography is that no one
wants to watch pornography staring them.
I never met a person in porn who did not like watching their own
movies. However, I have only met a few. Sample size is pretty
small.
Billy!|7.15.09 @ 1:54PM|#
I am not arguing for censorship. At all. My horror-movie heavy rental history, my mounds of death metal albums, and my browsing history would show that I consume plenty of questionable material. But I get a little tired of the people who say that no matter what media you consume and how much of it you pour into you brain it can't have any ANY bad effect on you. I just think that's false. Sorry.
Abdul|7.15.09 @ 1:59PM|#
I used to work with juvenile offenders, and in the line of that
work, I met a psychiatrist who specialized in treating juvenile sex
offenders.
As I recall, part of his therapeutic program was to encourage
healthy sexual fantasies in his patients and to discourage
fantasies that involved non-consensual sex. He worked at a
residential treatment center where they had a libary of soft-core
porn mags (I forget if it was Maxim type stuff or Playboy, or
harder) for the kids.
Anyway, to hear him tell it, the type of porn is what mattered.
Patients who fixated on certain non-consensual scenarios were more
likely to re-offend. Violent porn helped them to fixate on those
scenarios and encouraged the drive to act them out for real. If the
patient could be diverted to non-aggressive porn, they were more
likely to develop appropriate behaviors.
!</a></|7.15.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Anyway, to hear him tell it, the type of porn is what
mattered. Patients who fixated on certain non-consensual scenarios
were more likely to re-offend. Violent porn helped them to fixate
on those scenarios and encouraged the drive to act them out for
real. If the patient could be diverted to non-aggressive porn, they
were more likely to develop appropriate behaviors.
Good thing I don't illustrate my books or the feds would be all
over my computer.
shriek!|7.15.09 @ 2:02PM|#
So, SNUFF = bad, even simulated snuff
But,
Consensual Doggy Style will save us all!
HOORAY!
|7.15.09 @ 2:05PM|#
NATURALLY, PORNCARE WILL BE PROVIDED BY A NATIONAL CADRE OF
GOVERNMENT PORNSTARS. . .THE PIECE CORPS.
So we need a porn czar, right? I nominate me. I will delegate all
the homo and transexual porno to Lonewacko. Or i might to a
Clockwork-Orange on him and make him watch "Hot Latina Ass #10."
Thats the one where they open Coronas with their ass.
Skip Trace|7.15.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"If more than an insignificant percentage of people have
something fundamentally wrong, which seems quiter possible to
me(say 3% of people do) then massive exposure to something that
makes fundamentally fucked people act out their fundamental
fucked-ness might be really bad."
So let's hear about your plan to ban alcohol.
ejay|7.15.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Ultimately, I don't really care whether porn is good or bad
for you. No one has ever made the case that it is so bad that it
justifies use of the police power to stop it.
I assume this means that no one has made a "persuasive" or
"compelling" case, etc. Certainly the feds are persuaded that the
police power is an appropriate cudgel to use against these
"pleasure pimps" (a favorite term of a SoCal right-wing pastor).
The feds have made a FEW cases, actually, and quite recently. Max
Hardcore is in the pen right now (got four years), and Bob Zacari
and Janet Romano, owners of Extreme Associates, entered guilty
pleas to bring their years-long case to an end. We don't yet know
how much time they'll do, but one day is 24 hours too long.
War on poverty, war on drugs, war on porn ... As a liberty-loving
wag said a long time ago (and how sad it is that it's still
apropos), "Everything the government does now is called a war,
except for war, of course."
Abdul|7.15.09 @ 2:15PM|#
What about simulated forced triple penetration? Bad or
good?
It's function of how many ingrown hairs are visible when viewing in
Hi-rez.
|7.15.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Even if you believe everything Dreher is saying, he misses
the point. So what if porn is bad. Dreher is free to abstain from
it and encourage others to do the same. Even if there is nothing
good that can come from porn, there is certainly a lot bad, in the
form of increasing the police power and reducing our privacy, that
comes from banning it.
I think you're the one missing the point. Dreher *is* abstaining
from it and is "encouraging others to do the same." He is *not*
advocating "increasing the police power and reducing our privacy."
Or do you just assume that anyone who says porn is bad is
implicitly calling for its legal prohibition?
OO========D|7.15.09 @ 2:18PM|#
"What about simulated forced triple penetration? Bad or
good?"
Works for me.
Lizzy Borden|7.15.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Bob Zacari and Janet Romano, owners of Extreme Associates,
entered guilty pleas to bring their years-long case to an end. We
don't yet know how much time they'll do, but one day is 24 hours
too long.
Year and a day if i remember correctly
|7.15.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Why dont feminists complain about the REAL problem with hetero
porn:
All the guys ARE HIDEOUSLY UGLY.
And beyond sleazy looking...making porn films must be the day job
of every pit boss in Vegas.
Zeb|7.15.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Trying to learn anything (beyond the fact that such people exist) applicable to society in general from exceptional psychopaths like Bundy is stupid and pointless. Almost no one who looks at lots of porn of any type goes out and commits a violent sexual crime. The only reason why people like Bundy do what they do is that they are crazy psychopaths.
|7.15.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!
- "Smut" by Tom Lehrer
Tricky Prickears|7.15.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Porn is only good if you have a thick, 50 IU shot of coke to go with it!
|7.15.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Anectdotal evidence at best. I, as some of you may be aware, am
a little touched in the head at times. I view/have viewed a hole
lotta porn in the last 30 years. With and without the wife and
various girlfriends before marriage. Does it get me all riled up?
yup. Do I force myself on the wife? nope. Do I then run out the
door and rape the shit outta the first orifice that wanders by?
Nope. never have. It never crossed my twisted mind that it was an
option.
My conclusion: some people are just fucked up in the head. Bundy
was a brilliant psycopath that may well have said those things just
to fuck with more people.
highnumber|7.15.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Billy!: I am not arguing for censorship. At all.
Skip Trace in response to Billy!: So let's hear about your plan
to ban alcohol.
Skip, let's hear about your plan for banning all political
speech.
JB|7.15.09 @ 2:54PM|#
All the guys ARE HIDEOUSLY UGLY.
Porn is generally for guys and that is part of the fantasy. If that
hot chick will bang ugly guys for money, imagine what she will do
for a guy she actually likes!
Which is why I find it hilarious to hear women talk about all the
things they won't do. I tend to tell them: "What a significant
number of women will do for money, you won't do for love? That
shows how little your love is worth."
They tend to not like hearing that.
Tricky Prickears|7.15.09 @ 2:55PM|#
I remember my first year of college; Kent State '84, the campus
woman's group was all upset that the campus bookstore carried
Playboy. They successfully got it banned. They cited the campus
rapes that had been occurring (every university's dirty little
secret). Did the rapes stop? Nope.
Camera got them images
Camera got them all
Nothing's shocking...
Showed me everybody
Naked and disfigured
Nothing's shocking...
And then he came
Now sister's
Not a virgin anymore
Her sex is violent...
The T.V.'s got them images
T.V.'s got them all
It's not shocking!
Every half an hour
Someone's captured and
The cop moves them along...
It's just like the show before
The news is
Just another show
With sex and violence...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent!
I am the killer of people
You look like a meatball
I'll throw away your toothpick
And ask for your giveness
Because of this thing!
Because of this thing!
Because of this thing!
That's in me
Is it not in you?
Is it not your problem?
A baby to a mother...
You talk too much
To your scapegoat
That's what I say
He tells you everyone is stupid
That's what he thinks!
Snapshots
Make a girl look cheap
Like a tongue extended
A baby's to a mother
Sex is violent!
Sex is violent!
Sex is violent!
Sex is violent!
- Perry Farrell
Fascitis Necrotizante|7.15.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Quick scroll through the feministing link turned up:
I agree there's a social stigma against female
masturbation.
!</a></|7.15.09 @ 3:18PM|#
FN,
"Quick scroll through the feministing link turned up:
I agree there's a social stigma against female
masturbation."
No stigma against it in my house. Now, if I could just get a new
one to come over and do it . . .
|7.15.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Quick scroll through the feministing link turned
up
Go back and read the KSM posts. Being married to her must be like
punching yourself in the nuts every half-an-hour.
Fluffy|7.15.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Haven't the last 10 years pretty much conclusively debunked the
feminist theory that porn is about the domination and
objectification of women?
Because as soon as digital cameras and camcorders became
broad-based consumer items, millions of women started letting
people photograph them nude and record them engaging in sex acts
for free.
Porn was supposed to be the way patriarchal capitalism exploited
poor and vulnerable women in order to demean and objectify all
women, blah blah blah. How did patriarchal capitalism get all these
women to put themselves into free porn?
I would have to ask Dreher: if it's "inarguable" that porn doesn't
do anyone any good, how do you explain "sexting"?
!</a></|7.15.09 @ 3:33PM|#
F,
Because as soon as digital cameras and camcorders became
broad-based consumer items, millions of women started letting
people photograph them nude and record them engaging in sex acts
for free.
If I recall the feminist answert ot that it is because the male
dominated society has brainwashed some women into thinking they
must do that for others.
|7.15.09 @ 3:39PM|#
We must be damned good at brainwashing, huh? Going by what all
of these women are doing on the Internet.
What's funny is how sexual inhibitions and promiscuity are
simultaneously praised as liberating and condemned as victimizing
by feminists.
Skip Trace|7.15.09 @ 3:46PM|#
"Skip, let's hear about your plan for banning all political
speech."
Billy, " If more than an insignificant percentage of people have
something fundamentally wrong, which seems quiter possible to
me(say 3% of people do) then massive exposure to something that
makes fundamentally fucked people act out their fundamental
fucked-ness might be really bad."
Skip, "So let's hear about your plan to ban alcohol."
About 10% of Americans are alcoholics (or so I've often heard), way
above Bliiy's 3%.
I would posit that massive exposure to alcohol makes fundamentally
fucked people act out their fundamental fucked-ness.
Granted, Billy didn't advocate banning all alcohol, but that's
where this shit is heading vis-avis porn and violent movies given
that studies are being conducted and concluding these activities
are bad...
Billy!|7.15.09 @ 4:20PM|#
I didn't advocate banning anything. I was just saying that
watching Cannibal Holocaust while jerkin' it to Super Facials 37,
as your afternoon after-work relaxation, might not be the best
thing even if your in tip top mental health. (If your screwy in the
head it's probably even worse.) I think it'd be good for fans of
free speech to admit that.
But hey i could be wrong. Perhaps a good Cannibal/Facial jerk s
Fluffy|7.15.09 @ 4:38PM|#
If I recall the feminist answert ot that it is because the
male dominated society has brainwashed some women into thinking
they must do that for others.
You know, that mindset reflects a dated, 1950's view of female
sexuality where pretty much the only reason hetero females engage
in anything sexual is out of a sense of duty to men.
It's also belied by the sheer slutterific joy in
exhibitionism that appears endemic among American females
below the age of 25.
If you read the "late feminist" complaints about, say, "Girls Gone
Wild", they bitch quite a bit about the fact that if you strip for
the camera for laughs and attention when you're 19, it might come
back to haunt you during a job search when you're 30. This pretty
much confirms that they know that "Digital Generation"
women like to do this stuff, and they're trying to
discourage them from it by urging prudence. But they are unwilling
to acknowledge what this means for the rest of their worldview and
paradigm of heterosexual activity.
highnumber|7.15.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Well, Skip, I guess what you just gave us was your plan for banning all intellectual inquiry, possibly to be followed by banning all morals.
|7.15.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Yeah, YouPorn doesnt help Dreher's argument.
But it sure helps mine, i.e. that all men in porn--paid or
volunteer workers--are UGLY.
In fact if you click through enough Youporn, which I did one day
because I was told a co-worker had submitted a video-- you get the
impression the women are the ones doing the directing.
Not that it really helps; talk about unintentional comedy. I
haven't seen such inept sex since high school.
In fact, regular YouPorn viewing may actually neutralize all the
bad things Dreher is worried about.
Fluffy|7.15.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Actually, amateur porn goes a long way towards proving that
anyone convicted of obscenity back in the day deserves to have
their conviction vacated.
You really appreciate the actual craft of pre-internet
professional porn when you compare it to the amateur stuff. How
could that kind of display of craft be held by our courts to have
no redeeming value?
The amateur stuff makes the pre-internet pro stuff look like
Barry Lyndon by comparison.
Skip Trace|7.15.09 @ 5:14PM|#
"Well, Skip, I guess what you just gave us was your plan for
banning all intellectual inquiry, possibly to be followed by
banning all morals."
Or I could just fuck your mother again.
Invisible Finger|7.15.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Does More Porn Make Society Better?
Absofuckinglutely.
Think of the 10 shittiest countries. None of them have porn.
|7.15.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I view/have viewed a hole lotta porn in the last 30
years.
Best. RC. Ever.
Beat me to it, Sug.
highnumber|7.15.09 @ 6:14PM|#
Witty, Skip. Nice burn. You got me. I am devastated. Ouch. It
really smarts. I am sobbing as I type this. My keyboard is reborn
in a baptism of tears. Shame. Shame is my new name. This is even
worse than my weekly taint withering. Far, far worse. Far worse.
Far. Worse. Far, far, far worse. It's bad.
Tell Mom, "hi!" for me, would ya?
|7.15.09 @ 6:14PM|#
I'm sure you're right, Fluffy. The Golden Age of Porn has
passed.
This new generation of filmmakers just can't EDIT.
They'll waste five minutes of video trying to figure out how the
condom works (some will even stop to READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!) or
theyll accidentally fall into the crack of the pushed-together twin
beds, or some cheesy lamp will fall on the guy's head.
Then there's always the guy who takes forever to find the correct,
uh, "receptacle" and his exasperated co-star gets pissed and starts
yelling at him!
Clearly, the cutting room floor never needs to be swept in the new
millennium.
|7.15.09 @ 6:59PM|#
What kind of porn did Bundy watch? Mainstream porn has no violence at all, so how could it have worn away at his inhibitions to commit violence? Even the more extreme BDSM stuff isn't violent. If Bundy really did say that, and this isn't some fabrication of the feminist echo chamber, it suggests he's either lying or clueless.
|7.15.09 @ 9:03PM|#
Bob Smith
The State of Florida gave some fundamentalist preacher on an
anti-porn crusade access to Ted Bundy just before he was executed.
Bundy played the guy like a pro angler with a trophy marlin.
I don't know what Ted actually told the guy but the story he (the
preacher) told basically said that Bundy would never have murdered
all those women if it hadn't been for porn.
Ted Bundy was a skilled manipulator to the last.
Casual Encounters Blog|7.15.09 @ 9:14PM|#
I think this is the value that ancient Romans saw in the circus.
David|7.16.09 @ 4:32AM|#
No. I think it's psychologically unhealthy and way too
accessible to children.
I don't think censorship is necessary, but I wish there was basic
age verification. It's the difference between selling alcohol to
anyone and IDing them at the counter.
From my own experience, I think the idea that men NEED sex is a
myth. I'm fine without it, just as I was as a boy.
|7.16.09 @ 12:23PM|#
David | July 16, 2009, 4:32am | #
From my own experience, I think the idea that men NEED sex is a myth. I'm fine without it, just as I was as a boy.
Unfortunately, your parents didn't feel the same way.
|7.17.09 @ 7:04AM|#
nice post..
___________________
Britney
The
best place for the best ENTERTAINMENT
Iamcuriousblue|7.23.09 @ 5:43AM|#
"Needless to say, none of this is proof positive. Correlation
does not prove causation."
Yep, that's exactly right. And before being too quick to embrace
the Dahl study, one needs to note that studies using *exactly* this
line of reasoning back in the 80s were trotted out to "prove" porn
increased rates of sexual violence. I believe the claim was states
with the highest porn sales were the ones with the highest rates of
reported rapes. I believe it also turned out that these were also
the states with the highest percentage of single men.
Melissa Farley did a similarly dodgy correlational study a couple
years ago to "prove" that legalized prostitution had caused
increased sexual violence in that state.
In other words, correlational studies cut both ways, but in
themselves, don't really tell you much, in any event.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245