Porn is beneficial to society

[Bumperlicioso]

Posting and running as finally off to bed but I found an excerpt from this article in The Week.

A really shit analysis even from my untrained perspective I think.

That article is so much garbage it's hard to know where to begin. Too late for me to tackle it properly though, but marking my place.

Christ what a stupid man he is. He doesn't even make a reasoned argument. Shoddy and ill thought out.

I may as well say 'I agree with Dittany' before she even sees this thread.

utterly devoid of anything like a serious analysis. just a provocative piece to catch the eye of sales.

is the Tribune short on sales recently? - is the only question.

Ugh. Marking my place.

I just think the premise is completely flawed

'Their argument is that pornography causes sexual violence, molestation of children, sex trafficking and other maladies.'

I don't believe that porn causes all of these things (outside if the industry itself). I don't know any figures but I wouldn't expect porn to increase the incidence of stranger rape (apparently down). Maybe rape within partnerships which I imagine is little reported. But it's more that porn affects attitudes towards women, and about women of themselves, and I imagine the type of sexual activities women are expected to participate in.

'Based on the evidence, it would be easier to make the case that adult entertainment is beneficial than that it's harmful. Harvard economist Benjamin Edelman even found that in places where porn subscriptions are most popular, you find more people "donating blood, engaging in volunteer activities or participating in community projects."' this is just a correlational link with no explanation (at least from this journo) as to why there might be a correlation, certainly not evidence of porn use causing community behaviours.

'In any case, what business is it of Hatch or Holder what adults choose to view on their home computers? If we can tolerate racist literature, slasher videos and the Westboro Baptist Church, we can put up with adult entertainers at their most indiscreet.' but most decent people do not tolerate the above! Again, flawed premise!

That's just my initial, inexperienced analysis of why it is a pile of shit.

Bump

There is so many studies that have been carried out over the years that show that there is a strong correlation between pornography and rape/sexual violence/ violence/low view of women. When I have the time I'll link them on here.

Haven't seen any studies but i don't doubt you. What I mean by the premise is flawed is that the author is saying increase in porn may mean a decrease in these behaviours. The point that I am (trying badly) to make is that I think just looking at rape/sexual violence is overlooking other damaging aspects of a porn tolerant culture. Does that make sense?

Yes I think so. Are you talking about how it promotes gender stereotypes, inequality, sexualisation ect?

Yes, I just think that the writer (or the original researcher maybe) is spectacularly missing the point of the harm porn does. You can't measure it by rape incidence.

What about literary pornography - the written word? The discussion often centres around the visual/online versions which are most popular with men but there are great swathes of sexually graphic literature (if that's not too grand a word) in existence, which is extremely popular with women in search of stimulation. Is this harmful to the women that read it in the same way as visual pornography is alleged to be harmful to men?

As I see it there are three types of anti-porn arguments

1. It hurts the people who watch it, and those they are close to - it harms their relationships, and therefore, their close friends (the evidence for this is mixed), and it can lead to rape, etc (again the evidence is pretty mixed on this)
2. It hurts those who are in it - the evidence for this is mixed
3. It's just wrong in theory - this is something that can never shown to be right or wrong, it involves philosophical and religious arguments.

Interesting that he didn't once mention attitudes to women in that article.

Like attitudes to half the population really aren't worth discussing.

"'d like to see where he gets his figures on rape too. Ms Magazine are currently running a campaign about rape because the FBI systematically refuses to record rapes as rapes. It's easy to get rid of a crime if you redefine it out of existence."

How come thats happening?

If they have always used what is now an outdated/narrow definition why would they records change now?