I encourage you to read the following review of findings regarding pornography and its correlation with violent sex crimes: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2009-pornography-acceptance-crime.html.
The main point is that increased access to pornography seems to be correlated with decreased rates of violent sex crimes.

Add to it another study correlating fundamentalist religiousness with sex crimes... http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/02/should-we-entrust-children-to-care-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ResearchBloggingAllEnglish+(Research+Blogging+-+English+-+All+Topics)

...and it seems like the more or less intuitive link between suppressed emotions and violent sex crimes is gaining scientific support.

It all makes sense to me. Suppressing violent tendencies is not good. If sports, violent movies and porn allow most people to let off steam, then they are definitely worth the risk of making a few people more tolerant of the portrayed behavior (being more tolerant does not mean you will do it yourself).

To take it a step further, I was wondering if these findings could help in the fight against child pornography and sex crimes against children. What if computer-generated child pornography were widely available? If it were proven that it would help prevent the malestation of even a few children, it would be something I would gladly endorse.

Children suffer at the hands of the monsters that create and distribute child pornography and children also suffer because the suppressed sickos can not defuse their perverse passions. Could this be the solution?

cakrit wrote:It all makes sense to me. Suppressing violent tendencies is not good. If sports, violent movies and porn allow most people to let off steam, then they are definitely worth the risk of making a few people more tolerant of the portrayed behavior (being more tolerant does not mean you will do it yourself).

Unfortunately, this is a Freudian myth - the idea that emotions are like physical things that build up inside us and need to be released otherwise they'll manifest themselves in other ways is simply wrong. Research in the area consistently demonstrates that "expressing anger" (or similar emotions) only reinforces the anger rather than diminishing it, which results in more anger instead of less.

So it would seem that the correlations of the studies above are the result of some other interaction, and not some vague "sexual repression". For example, the increased religiosity resulting in more sexual violence may be the result of the fact that a number of religious texts (especially when interpreted literally) are extremely patriarchal in nature and would encourage the idea that the man can do whatever they like with their wife, or women in general.

A serious concern I have with a number of the studies linked to in that article is that most of them are pre-2000, meaning that access to pornography would have mostly been at a price, and would have required the consumers to purchase the magazines or videos from a store. These pornography users differ from the standard pornography user of the internet-era, obviously, so their behaviors will be vastly different.

However, I haven't read a whole lot on this subject so I could be wrong. I do agree that if it could be demonstrated that things like computer generated images would reduce instances of rape and pedophilia then they should be actively encouraged.

We really need this popcorn on the front page of smileys, for quick thread marking.

I'm With Stupid wrote::popcorn: We really need this popcorn on the front page of smileys, for quick thread marking.

You can just type this into your text box:

Code: Select all

:popcorn:

And you get this

Are you sure that you want to be eating popcorn in a porn thread?

MrFungus420 wrote:Are you sure that you want to be eating popcorn in a porn thread?

Pop porn?

Sorry... [/derail]

cakrit wrote:
...and it seems like the more or less intuitive link between suppressed emotions and violent sex crimes is gaining scientific support.

It all makes sense to me. Suppressing violent tendencies is not good. If sports, violent movies and porn allow most people to let off steam, then they are definitely worth the risk of making a few people more tolerant of the portrayed behavior (being more tolerant does not mean you will do it yourself).

I agree with Mr.Samsa that these conclusions are mostly based on old studies from which (BTW) the movie Clockwork Orange was scripted.

cakrit wrote:
To take it a step further, I was wondering if these findings could help in the fight against child pornography and sex crimes against children. What if computer-generated child pornography were widely available? If it were proven that it would help prevent the malestation of even a few children, it would be something I would gladly endorse.
Children suffer at the hands of the monsters that create and distribute child pornography and children also suffer because the suppressed sickos can not defuse their perverse passions. Could this be the solution?

Absolutely not. Pedophilia is an incurable mental disease, and exposing pedophiles to child pornography would only arouse them. The only treatment for this paraphilia is castration, surgical or chemical.

Just checking in. We had this discussion over at RDF a while back (I think it was the first thread I created). Most meta-analyses (most of which were horrible out of date but included a mix of both self-report and experimental research) indicated the opposite (I only did a brief search on psych info). That is that pornography is associated with greater violent sex crimes.

Now I just have to decide whether it would be quicker to go back through the RDF archives and find the papers in question or just do a new search.

Checked out the links (EDIT: in the op). The first is a review article that is sort of ok the second link is alarmist nonsense.

I looked around a bit, and found a newer study on the effect of the internet of sex crime rates. http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

The author seems to agree that porn decreases sex crime rates. I am not a scientist and can not judge the methodology. Even if the opposite is proven to be true, it just seems to me that this is far too serious an issue to leave unresolved for so long. Then again, all violent crimes are serious.

To be a bit pragmatic, I expect that even if scientists were to agree that exposure to violence increases violence, the economic interests involved would manage to maintain the status quo. Of course, there are always other ways one could use to prevent violence, but they are also expensive. If it were proven that pornography actually helps, we could have our cake and eat it too.

In any case, no crime is more abhorrent to me than violence against children and I don't understand why the issue is still open. Is it because children can neither vote nor buy stuff? Or are these studies really that difficult and time consuming?

cakrit wrote:I looked around a bit, and found a newer study on the effect of the internet of sex crime rates. http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

The author seems to agree that porn decreases sex crime rates. I am not a scientist and can not judge the methodology. Even if the opposite is proven to be true, it just seems to me that this is far too serious an issue to leave unresolved for so long. Then again, all violent crimes are serious.

I would suggest looking more closely at the psychology and sociology literature, as this really is not within the field of expertise of lawyers (no offence to any lawyers). If you are going to go with law journals I would suggest you check out the quality of the sources. The papers you are citing appear to come from rather idiosyncratic sources.

To be a bit pragmatic, I expect that even if scientists were to agree that exposure to violence increases violence, the economic interests involved would manage to maintain the status quo. Of course, there are always other ways one could use to prevent violence, but they are also expensive. If it were proven that pornography actually helps, we could have our cake and eat it too.

In any case, no crime is more abhorrent to me than violence against children and I don't understand why the issue is still open. Is it because children can neither vote nor buy stuff? Or are these studies really that difficult and time consuming?

Plenty of research is done, less now than previous perhaps, but it takes time for a sufficient number of studies to come together to provide a decent picture of what is and is not happening. In addition, such research IS difficult given the ethical and personal sensitivities involved.

cakrit wrote:
In any case, no crime is more abhorrent to me than violence against children and I don't understand why the issue is still open. Is it because children can neither vote nor buy stuff? Or are these studies really that difficult and time consuming?

You mention the issue of [sexual] violence against children as being still open and I don’t understand what you mean since in most developed Countries it's a severely punished crime either by jailing and/or castrating the culprit.
Actually, the only issue in doubt, IMHO, is the use of castration as a sure fire means of preventing further sexual violence, since liberal minded people having more at heart the wellbeing of criminals rather than that of the potential victims, are vociferously objecting to even chemical castration.

Federico wrote:

cakrit wrote:
In any case, no crime is more abhorrent to me than violence against children and I don't understand why the issue is still open. Is it because children can neither vote nor buy stuff? Or are these studies really that difficult and time consuming?

You mention the issue of [sexual] violence against children as being still open and I don’t understand what you mean since in most developed Countries it's a severely punished crime either by jailing and/or castrating the culprit.
Actually, the only issue in doubt, IMHO, is the use of castration as a sure fire means of preventing further sexual violence, since liberal minded people having more at heart the wellbeing of criminals rather than that of the potential victims, are vociferously objecting to even chemical castration.

I think he/she is referring specifically to the empirical question of whether porn would reduce or increase incidents of violent sexual crime against children. In others words I believe cakrit is of the opinion that more research must be done.

Exactly, thanks Lazar.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

cakrit wrote:It all makes sense to me. Suppressing violent tendencies is not good. If sports, violent movies and porn allow most people to let off steam, then they are definitely worth the risk of making a few people more tolerant of the portrayed behavior (being more tolerant does not mean you will do it yourself).

Unfortunately, this is a Freudian myth - the idea that emotions are like physical things that build up inside us and need to be released otherwise they'll manifest themselves in other ways is simply wrong. Research in the area consistently demonstrates that "expressing anger" (or similar emotions) only reinforces the anger rather than diminishing it, which results in more anger instead of less.

So it would seem that the correlations of the studies above are the result of some other interaction, and not some vague "sexual repression". For example, the increased religiosity resulting in more sexual violence may be the result of the fact that a number of religious texts (especially when interpreted literally) are extremely patriarchal in nature and would encourage the idea that the man can do whatever they like with their wife, or women in general.

A serious concern I have with a number of the studies linked to in that article is that most of them are pre-2000, meaning that access to pornography would have mostly been at a price, and would have required the consumers to purchase the magazines or videos from a store. These pornography users differ from the standard pornography user of the internet-era, obviously, so their behaviors will be vastly different.

However, I haven't read a whole lot on this subject so I could be wrong. I do agree that if it could be demonstrated that things like computer generated images would reduce instances of rape and pedophilia then they should be actively encouraged.

Are saying that masturbating does not provide some relief from sexual frustration? Surely not, that would be daft. Repressed anger and and frustrated horniness ain't exactly the same thing. Slinking off to the bedroom with a porn mag, when you return, if you are feeling even more craving, you're not doing it right.

Studies on the harm resulting from pornography have quite a jaded history, going back even before the laughable Meese Commission. I would hazard a guess that, while having the stated objective of finding out how behaviour changes after viewing pornography, many, if not most, of the researches actually are trying to demonstrate the harm caused by viewing pornography. The subtle biases this can lead to are obvious.

Common sense is a poor guide, but is it likely that one who masturbates often is more likely to commit a sex crime than that same person who is denied even that outlet?

cakrit wrote:Exactly, thanks Lazar.

I still have not got around to finding those meta-analyses on pornography and violence sorry. I will go find theme eventually.

crank wrote:
Are saying that masturbating does not provide some relief from sexual frustration? Surely not, that would be daft. Repressed anger and and frustrated horniness ain't exactly the same thing. Slinking off to the bedroom with a porn mag, when you return, if you are feeling even more craving, you're not doing it right.

hmm no I don't think you have read that post right at all.

Studies on the harm resulting from pornography have quite a jaded history, going back even before the laughable Meese Commission. I would hazard a guess that, while having the stated objective of finding out how behaviour changes after viewing pornography, many, if not most, of the researches actually are trying to demonstrate the harm caused by viewing pornography. The subtle biases this can lead to are obvious.

Of course but science does not require that researchers are free from bias (I know of very few instances where a researcher would not have an expectation of the result before carrying out an experiment) only that they be willing to revise their opinions if the evidence does not match.

Common sense is a poor guide, but is it likely that one who masturbates often is more likely to commit a sex crime than that same person who is denied even that outlet?

Don't know the research well enough to comment but frankly I would be surprised that lack of access to porn promoted sex crimes, though clearly restricting access to porn does not stop sex crimes.

crank wrote:
Are saying that masturbating does not provide some relief from sexual frustration? Surely not, that would be daft. Repressed anger and and frustrated horniness ain't exactly the same thing. Slinking off to the bedroom with a porn mag, when you return, if you are feeling even more craving, you're not doing it right.

No, the claim is sort of at a different level than what you're thinking. Whether consistent masturbation provides relief, or whether going to the gym to take your anger out on the punching bag calms you down or not, is besides the point. The argument is that if you masturbate a lot or take your anger a lot then you will desire sex less or get angry less. And this simply isn't the case. Performing those behaviors consistently won't reduce the behaviors because they are reinforced by the very act, thus actually increasing the behaviors.

crank wrote:Studies on the harm resulting from pornography have quite a jaded history, going back even before the laughable Meese Commission. I would hazard a guess that, while having the stated objective of finding out how behaviour changes after viewing pornography, many, if not most, of the researches actually are trying to demonstrate the harm caused by viewing pornography. The subtle biases this can lead to are obvious.

Potentially. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, and I know there has been some bad research on this issue (perhaps even to the extent of fraud) but there are also some good studies that propose valid mechanisms that are consistent with psychological theory. As it stands, there is no valid reason why denied access to pornography (and consistent masturbation) would increased rates of sexual crime.

crank wrote:Common sense is a poor guide, but is it likely that one who masturbates often is more likely to commit a sex crime than that same person who is denied even that outlet?

I think so. If you're denied the opportunity to take your anger out in some situation (say you're at work where such behavior is unacceptable), then would this make you more likely to kill someone?

I fail to see how I read Mr. Samsa's post incorrectly. Can either of you point out how? It implies that expressing an emotion reinforces that emotion, I countered that the exact opposite happens when one masturbates. Then I hear, no you are misreading it, it is deeper, it reinforces the desire for that behaviour overall, long term, is that it? And there is an analogy made to anger, well, WTF, really, so anger and sexual desire are similar? I must be a real freak, then.

Now, as to masturbation increasing desire, how strong an effect is that, really? The sex drive is a very deep, primal urge, can it really be substantially increased by masturbation? This idea "Performing those behaviors consistently won't reduce the behaviors because they are reinforced by the very act, thus actually increasing the behaviors. ", how well is that supported in the literature, and I mean literature on sex drive, not anger?

And, this whole topic is about sex crimes, something that occurs now, not over time. Right now, if I masturbate, you guys are implying that makes me more likely to go and commit a sex crime, again, I say daft. If one is getting a sexual urge, the idea that masturbation will increase that urge, I would require heaps of very good data before I would believe that. Maybe masturbation has an increased desire overall(I don't believe it will be substantial), but overall ain't right now, show me real world data, not students watching videos and filling out forms.

Then we have the idea that all researchers have an idea of how an experiment will come out beforehand and that they don't let this color their findings. I don't believe this at all when it comes to research on sex, it is one thing to think experiment X will find Y, it is another when to expect experiment X will prove support of a moral and religious viewpoint the experimenter holds deeply. Let's see, have we seen any evidence of religious view coloring objectivity? Hmmmm.........

crank wrote:I fail to see how I read Mr. Samsa's post incorrectly. Can either of you point out how? It implies that expressing an emotion reinforces that emotion, I countered that the exact opposite happens when one masturbates. Then I hear, no you are misreading it, it is deeper, it reinforces the desire for that behaviour overall, long term, is that it? And there is an analogy made to anger, well, WTF, really, so anger and sexual desire are similar? I must be a real freak, then.

Well one could argue that the two are connected in violent sex crime but that is not the point your making (though I think it is kind of central to the thread itself so maybe it is worth coming back to). I read you to be positing a physical release (ah that feels better) vs. what I read Samsa talking about was the Freudian idea of pent up emotions twisting and turning in the sub-conscious and finding a way to be released (my sexual repression as a child has built over the years, its all my mothers fault and hence I hate all women).

Now, as to masturbation increasing desire, how strong an effect is that, really? The sex drive is a very deep, primal urge, can it really be substantially increased by masturbation? This idea "Performing those behaviors consistently won't reduce the behaviors because they are reinforced by the very act, thus actually increasing the behaviors. ", how well is that supported in the literature, and I mean literature on sex drive, not anger?

And, this whole topic is about sex crimes, something that occurs now, not over time. Right now, if I masturbate, you guys are implying that makes me more likely to go and commit a sex crime, again, I say daft. If one is getting a sexual urge, the idea that masturbation will increase that urge, I would require heaps of very good data before I would believe that. Maybe masturbation has an increased desire overall(I don't believe it will be substantial), but overall ain't right now, show me real world data, not students watching videos and filling out forms.

Hardly. Knock yourself out. I don't think masturbation will make you more likely to commit a sex crime, nor will it make you blind, or will you grow hair on your hands. I just don't think not having access to porn is going to turn anyone into a rapist, which is what the OP is about.

Then we have the idea that all researchers have an idea of how an experiment will come out beforehand and that they don't let this color their findings. I don't believe this at all when it comes to research on sex, it is one thing to think experiment X will find Y, it is another when to expect experiment X will prove support of a moral and religious viewpoint the experimenter holds deeply. Let's see, have we seen any evidence of religious view coloring objectivity? Hmmmm.........

hmm scientists hold very clear views about whatever they research. Sex is surely more emotional I suppose but then again I have been to conferences where people have almost come to blows over whether one should use statistical fit or relative fit measures in statistics. The point I was making was that there is no condition within science that scientists are unbiased, that is just silly, what the method does mean though is that when confronted with contradictory evidence they should change their views. I have not seen any really credible evidence that less porn = more violence and I don't think this is just because such a position is unpopular.