People and organizations who want to ban pornography usually claim that porn causes sex crime. This seems unreasonable to many of us, since porn is a safe outlet. And it seems to me that the typical rapist is a very repressed individual, not a permissive one.
Pascal pointed me to this article, which is the most scientific coverage of this issue I've seen yet. It has some focus on Japan, since the data from there are more abundant and clearer than most of the world. Quote:
"It is certainly clear from our data and analysis that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes..."
Remarkable: the best data available points to pornography helping to decrease sex crime!
I am sure that when those ultraconservative pressure groups hear about this, they will change their mind. They will. I'm sure. They must. Surely.
6 comments:
Rape, child predation, and other crimes of that nature have precious little to do with sex. They are about power,control and domination. The more something is suppressed, the more interesting and compelling it becomes. Rather than supress pornography. openly discuss and analyze it. Show what it is and let each person decide if there is an interest in it. Young boys (girls.too) have urges to explore everything. Guide the exploration, not suppress it.
Very true.
I would add that I do not believe in any form of honesty on the part of extremists, be them bigots or other. Sexual crimes are just an excuse for their crusade, and should you prove beyond doubt that they are wrong, they will simply find some other "moral high ground" to fight their battle. Or more likely lapidate you to death for trying to prove them wrong. All in the name of righteousness, of course.
I agree with you Bert, and with the politicians around, things tend to get worse for sure.
"They will change their mind. They will. I'm sure. They must. Surely."
Dream on. :-(
You're forgetting their scientifically established centuries-old expertise at denial.
"All in the name of righteousness, of course."
Nah. Why settle for righteousness, when you have exclusive representative rights on the name of God? :-(
I frankly don't think that the item we call "pornography" exists. There are sexual images designed to titillate, arouse, or simply astonish; then there are pictures of other things which do the same; and then there are sexual images which fail to do the above; and any other mix of the many characteristics. This notion that "porn" is a category in itself, is the thing which I question.
Final,
Why is it that a sensible anf thinking mind like you isn't a prominent member of media monitoring commissions?
That's because:
- they're not notorious for thinking subtly
- they prefer to sanction rather than classify and enforce age categories
- basically, they don't like broad minds among them using up all the seating room
So I guess your brilliant predestined career lies elsewhere... :-/
Post a Comment