The paper citing the 25-year decline was dated 2006, so the base year would have been 1981. I’m having a hard time finding comparable 1981 and 2006 data, though: I can find “forcible rape” stats for 1981, and “rape/sexual assault” stats for 2006.
I think the real point is that, if the stat about the decrease in rape is accurate, it demolishes the theory that more porn leads to more rape.
Whether more porn leads to fewer sexual assaults is much tougher thing to prove.
Others have already questioned the existence of a multibillion-dollar child porn industry. I’ll just mention that of course there’s an explosion of convicted sex offenders being registered at about that time: when did such registries come into being?
I’ll also note that many state legislators are as dumb as a box of rusty nails, and many state laws setting up registries made little distinction between sex offenders and sexual predators.
These are just the first few notes I found. A friend of mine was deputy consul to Moldova for a while. Working on this problem was one of his chief duties.
Mods, if this is cause for a new thread, just let me know. I’m not asserting that this is in any way tied to pornography–just addressing the point.
Thats not true. If you go back and read history, lots of rapes were reported, and men caught, and hanged. They could not have been hanged if it hadnt been reported in the first place. Of course they admitted it. Why do you think they gave chase after rapists in the first place?
Secondly, 150 years ago, unlike today, almost all criminals were caught, well into the 90’s percentile (Almost the oppositte of today)
According to my “Encyclopedia of Lawmen and Badguys of the 1800’s”, its really hard to find a criminal, any criminal, who wasnt caught or killed.
No. You are trying to use the attitude of todays public government police against the anger and revenge that regular citizens had for motivation in the old days.
It wasnt a matter of “convenience”, and it wasnt any “trouble” to go after the guy who did it. We arent talking about public police who dont give a darn, we are talking about citizen posses who were mad and who dropped everything to go get the one who did it.
If a rape occurred in Taylor Nebraska, or Dogden North Dakota, it wasnt “trouble” for the men to go out and get the rapist, they didnt care about “convenience”, you couldnt stop the town from going out and getting him.
If you go back and read history of scores of women getting raped, the universal reaction of the people back then was to go out and get him.
Its convenient for people to say that it used to be very common but nobody reported it, is like saying that it was very common for flying saucers to land in cities last year except that nobody reported it. Ill go along with incest not being reported, then or now, but other than that, crimes WERE actually reported back in the 1800’s.
But how would you know about the unreported ones? Even today, many women when polled admit that they have been raped or assaulted but often didn’t report it. Obviously we can’t go back and poll the women from the 1800s, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that there were women who were too ashamed back then to report a rape.
It’s really hard to find criminals, who weren’t known to be criminals, being caught and killed. And quoting sources that don’t exist hardly cements your argument.
How do you know that they went after the “right” guy in the first place? What with police forensics being so advanced and all back then.
False accusations of rape are a real problem today (do not construe that to diminish honest accusations of rape). Is there some reason to suppose that didn’t happen back then?
Further, you have things like spousal rape today which, I am pretty sure, was a concept that simply did not exist back then.
So you’d execute the 18 year old who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend? Or the guy caught up in the “Satanic cults in day care centers are molesting our chilllldreeeen!!” hysteria that was all over the country some years ago?
Innocent people get convicted; people get convicted under immoral, badly written or badly enforced laws. And if you kill them for it there’s nothing you can do to make up for it.
Which women? Could a prostitute be raped, or a black woman? I’m not saying things are leagues better now (just look at how many prostitutes can be killed before someone raises a brow, or how women’s sex lives are still brought up in rape investigations), but I imagine not all women’s virtues were considered equally valuable throughout history.
We even had a poster mention in a thread that he wouldn’t consider a prostitute’s rape to be as tragic as that of a young virgin. Sexist and misogynist attitudes aren’t as bad today, but they’re still around. One of my friends told me that she was date raped and that some people in whom she’s confided have tended to not believe her/not consider it rape. If there are still so many bad attitudes today, I can’t imagine a woman would feel all that comfortable discussing her rape in the 19th century.
Or a lesbian; I understand that not so long ago “corrective rapes”, where one or more men would rape a lesbian to try to “turn her straight” were ignored by the police. Assuming that it wasn’t the police doing it. A practice widespread even these days in places like South Africa.
Prostitution, pornography, and strip joints vividly illustrate men’s evolved motivation for higher partner number without paternal investment. These are popular with men because they provide sexual variety without commitment.
So porn, strip joints, and prostitutes are awesome for men.
For women? Not so much.
It’s more of an symptom of the disease though, not a major driver of cultural attitudes in and of itself. You can see the pornification in stuff like the wildly popular act of bikini waxing/shaving (which is mind boggling common even compared to 5 years ago), breast implants, plastic surgery, 12 year old girls dressing like strippers, increased ignorance of young men regarding the opposite sex, women seeing sex not as a mutual act but as a performance, and so on. But that’s minor when held up to more important gender issues.
marshmallow, your stance is common among people opposing porn, and I used to be one of them. However, you are voicing an opinion, and it seems that the scientfic evidence (I liked to it in the OP) says differently. The idea was that porn harms women. If that were true, a rise in porn shoudl show us a rise in rape, or in other mysogynic trends. But the statistics don’t make that likely.
You point to the trend of bikini waxing and boob jobs, as I did. But women have always done unpleasant things to themselves in the name of beauty, even when porn was almost unavailable. Bikiniwaxing may be painful, but so was sleeping in curlers, wearing uncomfortable shoes and wearing tight corsets. It just doesn’t hold up.
No. They don’t provide any real sexual variety because you’re not actually having sex with strippers or porn DVD’s. They do provide a variety of sexual stimulation, but it’s not really about that either. It’s just about watching attractive people doing awesome acrobatic stuff with their genitals and such. It’s not any more about “sexual variety without commitment” than bodice rippers are for the women who read them.
Virtually every single girlfriend I’ve ever had would strongly disagree with you about porn. Wait, scratch that. Every single girlfriend I’ve had would strongly disagree. And judging by the popularity of things like Chippendales, I’d say that a non-zero number of women like to see attractive men stripping too. And being that women generally have an easier time of finding random people to have sex with than men do if they have an itch to scratch, women have less of a need for prostitutes.
You’re confusing Raunch Culture with “pornification”.
You’ll also missing the fact that porn doesn’t determine trends in a vacuum or anything and societal trends also influence porn. That’s why you’ll see much more of certain types of, shall we say ‘different strokes’ in German or Japanese pornography than American.
Hell, I’d also point out that shaving/waxing doesn’t have to be due to any “pornification”, but due to the fact that it makes oral sex a good bit easier and allows men to be more ‘enthusiastic’ in the act itself (I already floss twice a day, thanks). And I’ve heard the rumor that perhaps a tiny percentage of women enjoy having their partner go down on them.
There was a time when young men were more clueless about women than they are now? When, exactly, was this? Young guys are generally pretty clueless because they’re immature, they’re inexperienced, and they’re half-crazy with hormones.
It’s also worth pointing out that “clueless about women” is a bit of an overdone abstraction, as there are quite a few different ‘types’ of women who think and act quite differently.
Performance anxiety is not a recent phenomena brought on by pornification.
And sometimes, yeah, it is a performance. Blowing a guy isn’t really all that ‘mutual’ of an act (if she’s doing it right :D).
This point ends the discussion. There is no reasonable way to argue that access to porn makes people more likely to objectify women in the face of such obvious evidence to the contrary.
In the article porn is available until 1991, but theres no major change for 20 years (as in it starts at 2.4 and is 2.1 in 1991), and then suddenly a massive drop starts from 1991 to the low in 2003.
Ie in 11 years theres a drop from 2.1 to 0.3
This smells, heavily. The biggest drop seems to be from 1991 to 1996, when the web was barely getting going. I guess an argument could be made for DVD’s, but overall, the results in my view strongly suggest other factors at work that are being unacknowledged by the theory, whether its incarceration, education, I dunno.
