Great research from the indispensible Radley Balko about the alleged link between pornography and rape, teen pregnancy and other bad things. With the attorney general cranking up the porn prosecutions and the religious right foaming at the mouth about the easy availability of porn on the internet (I happen to agree that porn is too accessible online, but not with their solutions) causing every imaginable evil, one would think that the last decade, with the internet becoming ubuiquitous, we'd see increasing rates of such things. In fact, the opposite is true.
As Balko points out, sex crimes against children have dropped 39% in the last decade, and against 12-17 year olds, they've dropped 79%. Teen pregnancy has dropped by a full 1/3. Violent crimes against women have dropped from 41 per 1000 to 17 per 1000, a 60% drop. Rapes have dropped a full 75%. This despite the fact that porn is undoubtedly A) more hardcore and B) more available now than at any other time in our history. Could this be just another invented moral crusade to justify taking away our liberties? You bet it is.
- Log in to post comments
I don't think the anti-porn crowd have much clout anymore. It seems that it was a big issue in the 80s, maybe early 90s, but I don't think it's as important to social conservatives anymore. This is just a personal observation, I might be wrong.
Matthew: I don't know where you are posting from, but here in Utah, porn is still very much an issue for, as you put it, social conservatives, and it is very much a campaign issue. Opposing additional restrictions on adult access to porn [on or off line] can get you branded as "pro-porn" [i.e. immoral, indecent, uncaring about the moral welfare of families, and so anti-family and anti-traditional marriage] in the blink of an eye. Porn is routinely portrayed here on the election trail and in the virtually endless TV sermons aird on the LDS channels [two here] as one of the, if not the greatest threat to the stability of marriages and families. Things may well be changing where you are, but I've seen little change in that regard here in Zion.
Maybe it's more of an issue in your area. I don't read too much about pushes to ban pornography in the national media, do you? Basically that's an impossibly, so I think most social conservatives have accepted defeat on that issue, just like on temperance. I think when I do hear about the issue it tends to be with mormons though, so maybe that's why it's big in Utah.
Out of curiosity, what are some of the solutions you favor? I don't think the consumer should have less accessibility to porn or any other type of internet product, but I think the supplier should not be able to freely advertise at any given place.
The only solution I'm aware of (aside from banning it, of course) is to set up domains specifically for pornography that can only be linked to from other websites with pornography domains, but I don't think this solution is very free-speech friendly.
The Bush administration has decided to make porn a high priority under Gonzales. They have created an FBI team to investigate and a DOJ prosecutorial team to file the cases. The DOJ has prosecuted 10 times as many cases as the Clinton DOJ did in 8 years. It's definitely ramped back up for the first time since Meese wandered the halls of Washington.
Matthew-
I favor stricter requirements on proof of age before a surfer can see anything. As it is currently, you can go to pretty much any porn site and just by clicking "yes, I'm over 18" get access to both images and movies to download. I think a credit card should be required before you see anything (or mailed in proof of age and a check), which would dramatically reduce such access without violating anyone's rights. This would make the internet just like a brick and mortar adult store, where you have to prove your age at the front door.
Since when did being against the sex-trade, of which porn is the most visible aspect, become the domain of the 'social conservatives' or mormon fundies?
That stuff from Balko wasn't 'research'.
Being cool about porn is acquiesing to an exploitative economic system based on rape.
I'm sure you guys just watch the 'nice' stuff, all models over 18 and consenting. But you know damn well what is on the end of your fork.
Don wrote:
I don't really care what one wants to label those on the anti-porn crusade. I care only that the government has no legitimate authority to tell consenting adults that they cannot film themselves having sex and sell those films to other consenting adults who wish to watch them.
Of course it was. You take a basic premise (that viewing porn causes concrete negative effects, including rape and violence toward women) and infer a testable conclusion (that the more access to porn we have in society, the more of such negative effects we should find) and then gather the data to test this prediction. In this case, the prediction fails. During the last ten years, with access to and production of porn at unprecedented levels and with porn tapes being more hardcore than ever, we've seen the rates of all of the alleged negative effects drop dramatically. Hence, the research into the data to test that prediction falsifies the prediction and the premise upon which it is based. This is "research" by pretty much any standard definition.
Women in porn films are not raped. All such sex is consensual. And the women in porn make ten times what the men make, so who exactly is the victim of economic exploitation, the men or the women? The fact is that adults have every right to sell their sexuality just like they sell any other talent. They may well be making a bad decision by doing so, but the law doesn't protect people from bad decisions.
I don't think anyone here has even said that they consume porn. It doesn't follow that if one defends the legality of it that therefore they view it. I think smoking should be legal, but I don't smoke. I think doing drugs should be legal, but I don't do drugs. In fact, I only do a very small fraction of all of the things that I think should be legal to do. And on the end of my fork, shortly, will be country fried steak and sawmill gravy.
Being cool about porn is acquiesing to an exploitative economic system based on rape.
"Based on rape"? What planet are you living on? Aside from the fact that performing in porn in the US is usually voluntary (you might have an argument if you are talking about porn from the far east), but it is also the case that it can be quite lucrative--for the female performers.
Ed,
I'm not on any crusade. Just trying to point out that for every adult wishing to share their intimate moments there are several thousand being abused and exploited. That's how the industry works.
On balko's post as research; don't be ridiculous.
What planet are you living on?'
Planet Earth. Where real people are treated as spitoons by their fellow citizens, but that's ok because at some point in the industry some women can find it lucrative.
'performing in porn in the US is usually voluntary'. How reassuring.
Don-
You seem to specialize in conclusionary rhetoric and unsupported assertions, and you don't seem the least bit interested in defending those assertions with reason or evidence. "Don't be ridiculous" and "what planet are you living on" are not arguments, they're just sneers. Come back when you have something of substance to add to the conversation.
Don at October 1, 2005 09:47 PM
I said: What planet are you living on?'
You said: Planet Earth. Where real people are treated as spitoons by their fellow citizens, but that's ok because at some point in the industry some women can find it lucrative.
Planet Earth? Not really. Apparently, you have a problem with the fact that some women work in the porn industry voluntarily, and profit quite handsomely from it. Characterize it however you want. They do it--voluntarily--and your fellow males make them rich. Your tut-tutting about this is quite ludicrous.
"This despite the fact that porn is undoubtedly A) more hardcore and B) more available now than at any other time in our history."
I'd like to read a study discussing why this is the case. Not so much the fact that it is more available (everything is more available with the internet), but why is it more hardcore?
ed,
'You seem to specialize in conclusionary rhetoric and unsupported assertions'. Do you mean this kind of thing?;
'Could this be just another invented moral crusade to justify taking away our liberties? You bet it is.'
And how about this as an unsupported assertion;
'Women in porn films are not raped. All such sex is consensual.'
'the women in porn make ten times what the men make'. So what? That's evidence that the sex trade in non-exploitative?
I quite agree that "what planet are you living on" is not an argument. I was responding to the question, not posing it. If you find that kind of rhetoric to be unacceptable sneering, take it up with raj.
I didn't raise any issue about legality.
Balko's 'research' simply presented a few demographic numbers. Rates of teen pregnancy and divorce in the USA appear to be down. Glad to hear it. A lot of factors involved, real research would have addressed those and demonstrated a correlation to the point you are trying to make.
Raj;
Apparently, you have a problem with the fact that some women work in the porn industry voluntarily,'
Did I say that? Or did I say that the glossy, mainstream end of the sex trade is just that; one visible aspect of a world wide trade based on exploitation and coercion?
I'll try not to tut-tut in future.
"Or did I say that the glossy, mainstream end of the sex trade is just that; one visible aspect of a world wide trade based on exploitation and coercion?"
You can say that, but it would sure help if you'd actually provide some support for it. I hope you don't expect us to accept it based on your say-so.
If you're fundamentally opposed to porn, then it would naturally follow that you would believe the women who appear in it are exploited. However, this conclusion assumes that the women who appear in porn have no concept of what porn really is, are deceiving themselves about their reasons for appearing in it and the reasons of those who pay them to do so, etc. And honestly, that's pretty insulting to them. Are there a lot of people in the sex trade being harmed or deceived in some way? Sure, and that's a problem that needs to be fixed. But that's no reason to declare the entire industry to be "based on rape," for goodness sake. Such blatant hyperbole will only cause people to tune out and disregard any legitimate beefs you may have because you sound, as Ed said, like an anti-porn crusader.
Don at October 2, 2005 08:14 AM
Did I say that? Or did I say that the glossy, mainstream end of the sex trade is just that; one visible aspect of a world wide trade based on exploitation and coercion?
I am a lawyer. I make inferences from what people say (or write). That is the logical inference from what you wrote previously.
You previously wrote
You have been unable to present any evidence for your claim.
Moreover, I will let you know. I am gay, and any porn that I might be interested in would be male/male. In what fashion is that based on rape?
I'm generally a libertarian. If you don't want porn, don't purchase it. But what is it to you that others want to perform, and that others want to purchase it.
Do you object to Desperate Housewives too? That is nothing but softcore porn (a cross between Sex In The City and Six Feet Under).
Don wrote:
But you see, that was a conclusion, at the end of a long and detailed argument that led to it. You keep asserting the rhetorical conclusion without bothering to present any evidence or logical argument for it. Surely you can recognize the difference?
I already did that. The point I was trying to make is that there is no data to support the contention that porn causes all of those bad things because while the amount of porn has been going up, all of the alleged negative effects have been going down. Of course there are multiple factors involved, but surely we wouldn't expect THAT, if the argument I'm responding to is true. It's not absolute proof against the anti-porn assertion, of course, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it's pretty compelling.
Do you have any actual evidence that anyone working in the porn industry in the US is being coerced? There certainly is an illegal sex trade around the world that needs to be shut down, particularly throughout Southeast Asia with forced prostitution and underage prostitution. But there is no connection between that and the mainstream porn industry, which is now mostly controlled by women. Do you regard the women who decide to do porn as incapable of making their own decisions?
What about women like Nina Hartley or Asia Carrera, both highly educated people with college degrees who own their own production companies and have been a part of the industry for the better part of two decades now? They will be the first ones to tell you that the porn industry today is dramatically different from the one that developed 30 years ago. Today, women are in charge. The women decide who to work with or not work with, what they'll do and don't do, and they make far more than their male counterparts. Women also own many of the large production companies and produce and direct the films. So are these women being "coerced"? Is their work "based on rape"? If so, provide the evidence rather than merely repeated the unsupported assertion.
And please drop the "exploitation" argument. Coercion is all that matters. Everyone is exploited for their labor. I've heard the argument that a poor woman who goes into porn because she needs the money is being "exploited" for her sex, but this is true only in the exact same sense that a poor man who takes a job digging ditches is being "exploited" for their labor. We all sell our labor.
I don't doubt that there is a dark and seedy side to the porn industry, but as long as those who go into it are not forced - by another person, not by circumstances - then there is no justification for trying to outlaw it.
Don, you REEEALLLLY should look at the extremely extensive research done on pornography since the 1970s and 80s. There has been absolutely no correlation between porn and violent behavior, and this is from case studies, experimental studies and longitudinal studies. Balko's work is simply the latest research that reconfirms that (and, in fact, rests upon that earilier work).
Ed: To your examples of Nina Hartley and Asia Carrera can be added Jenna Jameson (real name Jenna Massoli), who lives here in the Phoenix area, in the town of Paradise Valley. Paradise Valley is on the Forbes "most expensive zipcodes in the U.S." (85253, average home price $565,000 in 2002; it's probably close to $1M today). She recently bought a south-Scottsdale strip club called "Babe's" which she intends to turn into a more upscale club; this has some locals up-in-arms (stories on azcentral.com).
Maybe it was mentioned already and I missed it, but was the question ever raised that maybe it is because of porn and its availability that we see this huge decrease in sex related crimes?
Grog wrote:
No, no one has tried to make that argument. I suppose one could come up with a plausible argument that the ready availability of such material allows an outlet for a portion of those who might otherwise commit sex crimes. But I'm not aware of any evidence for that hypothesis.