Does Web porn help prevent rape?

[Pure]

zeb, sweetie,

P: no, the Proto Campesi study does not convince me, nor does it provide good evidence for your claim. Clearly it involved looking at what the authors ALREADY decided were myths, and seeing what the students agreed with.


Z Would a study done at the University of Ohio suit you?

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/highSchoolMyths.html

 

[Pure]

zeb,

you're cute too... esp. when you're mad.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Reference books

Smith, M. D. (2004). Encyclopedia of Rape. USA: Greenwood Press.
Macdonals, John (1993). World Book Encyclopedia. United States of America: World Book Inc.
Kahn, Ada. (1992). The A-Z of women's sexuality : a concise encyclopedia. Alameda, Calif.: Hunter House.
The Columbia encyclopedia. Sixth edition, 2001-04.
Leonard, Arthur S. (1993). Sexuality and the law : an encyclopedia of major legal cases. New York : Garland Pub
Kazdin, Alan E. (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association ; Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press
Sedney, Mary Anne, "rape (crime)." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Scholastic Library Publishing, 2006 <http://gme.grolier.com>
Kittleson, M., Harper, J., & Hilgenkamp, K. (2005). The Truth About Rape. USA: Facts on File
Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (2004) Rape as a Method of Torture Edited by Dr Michael Peel

Research resources on sexual assault and rape
AARDVARC: An Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection - includes male survivor information
Dispatches from the Front Lines- current events articles
History of Child Abuse, Neglect and Sexual Abuse/Assault Laws
The Awareness Center, Inc. (Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault)
Male Survivor: Overcoming Sexual Victimization of Boys and Men
MenWeb: Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse
National Criminal Justice Reference Service article database
RAINN - The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
Rape Crisis Information Pathfinder - Find journal articles, statistics and online resources on rape and sexual assault. Includes male survivor information
Sexual Offences Research Initiative
Sexual Violence Facts from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Sexual Violence Research Initiative\
SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
The History of Rape: A Bibliography

 

[Pure]

P: my, that's a lot of reading. why don't you, as such an expert, just pick out and post excerpts from one or two empirical studies by psychologists--especially those with no ax to grind-- which support your claim that 'rape is not about sex.'

zeb said
You are all forgetting that rape has nothing to do with sex! Rape is not about sex, it's about control.

P: the information sheet you posted said,

INFO SHEET MYTH: The primary motivation of rape is sexual.

FACT: Rape is an act of violence where sex is used as the weapon. Rape occurs in a situation where one person has power over another and finds this satisfying.

P: Note that this excerpt denies that 'the primary motivation' is sexual. This does not to preclude a secondary motivation from being sexual, does it?

P: Further, you yourself said,

zebThere is sometimes sexual gratification but not always.

P: Well, if there is sometimes sexual gratification in rape, it's plausible that, in these cases, it is one of the motives (part of the motivation), no? (To say otherwise would be to claim that gratification was not on the fellow's mind beforehand and happened as a by-product: "OH my, I'm coming, what a surprise.")

 

[Pure]

to zeb and others,

just so that i'm not accused of just criticizing zeb's alleged evidence and avoiding the task of presenting evidence for a view differing from zeb's, here's a reference.


There is some canvasing and links to theories of rape at.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/theories.html

These include the following. That rape has a number of motives and causes, some biological, some cultural, some cognitive, is a position of many studies.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1955599&dopt=Abstract

1: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Oct;59(5):631-42.

A synthesized (biosocial) theory of rape.

Ellis L.

Division of Social Science, Minot State University, North Dakota 58701.

Features of contemporary theories of rape are integrated with information on neurohormonal variables to formulate a synthesized theory of rape. It consists of four propositions:

(a) Rape is motivated by two largely unlearned drives (a sex drive and a drive to possess and control).

(b) Natural selection has favored men who more readily learn forced copulatory tactics than women and women who are more inclined than men to resist forced copulations.

(c) The tendency to use forced copulatory tactics is largely a function of the strength of an individual's sex drive plus estimates of the probability of success minus the probability of being punished, divided by sensitivity to aversive stimuli.

(d) Genes that have evolved primarily on the Y chromosome affect neurohormonal functioning in ways that alter the strength of the sex drive and sensitivity to aversive stimuli and thereby affect individual probabilities of committing rape.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

(a) Rape is motivated by two largely unlearned drives (a sex drive and a drive to possess and control).

Yes. To say that rape is JUST about power and control would be false.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

P: my, that's a lot of reading. why don't you, as such an expert, just pick out and post excerpts from one or two empirical studies by psychologists--especially those with no ax to grind-- which support your claim that 'rape is not about sex.'

zeb said
You are all forgetting that rape has nothing to do with sex! Rape is not about sex, it's about control.

P: the information sheet you posted said,

INFO SHEET MYTH: The primary motivation of rape is sexual.

FACT: Rape is an act of violence where sex is used as the weapon. Rape occurs in a situation where one person has power over another and finds this satisfying.

P: Note that this excerpt denies that 'the primary motivation' is sexual. This does not to preclude a secondary motivation from being sexual, does it?

P: Further, you yourself said,

zebThere is sometimes sexual gratification but not always.

P: Well, if there is sometimes sexual gratification in rape, it's plausible that, in these cases, it is one of the motives (part of the motivation), no? (To say otherwise would be to claim that gratification was not on the fellow's mind beforehand and happened as a by-product: "OH my, I'm coming, what a surprise.")

All I said is it's mainly about "power, control, violence". And the only reason there is a sexual element is that the perp, in some cases does get his pathetic little rocks off by being violent and controling. Therefore it is not truely about the sex, just that the sex is used as a weapon to control and hurt the victim.

 

[Pure]

just wondering

zeb, has it occurred to you, if your view is correct, that there would likely be NO effect of internet porn availabilty on rape, since 'rape is not about sex, it's about control'?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

zeb, has it occurred to you, if your view is correct, that there would likely be NO effect of internet porn availabilty on rape, since 'rape is not about sex, it's about control'?

Duh!

So what other factors could have or do have an effect on the number of people who are or would have become rapists?

 

[Grushenka]

Mr. Carter is correct. Go to any library (vs. Google) and you'll find extensive references and documentation over the past 30+ years! on the subject, beginning with Susan Brownmiller's groundbreaking book, Against Our Will, published in 1975. I do believe most studies focus on rape of women, and not so much with statutory rape; nevertheless, it is about power and control.

Witness too the world's history of rape as a 'strategy' in war (still going on throughout the world today).

It is not about sex, lust, libido, eroticism, sensuality, etc., etc.

As for the original posit, pornographic materials were easily available long before the net. IMHO: the study loosely put forth at the beginning of this thread sounds nearly stupid.

Grushenka

 

[shereads]

Maybe sex is about control, and control is about rape, and rape is about porn, which is about sex.

But what about implicit nonconsentual sex? That's just sex, right?

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

Maybe sex is about control, and control is about rape, and rape is about porn, which is about sex.

But what about implicit nonconsentual sex? That's just sex, right?

I don't know, let's try it and see.

 

[shereads]

I don't know, let's try it and see.

You always consent and ruin it.

 

[Grushenka]

Maybe sex is about control, and control is about rape, and rape is about porn, which is about sex.

But what about implicit nonconsentual sex? That's just sex, right?

I'm going to take you seriously, Ms. Reads, though your first sentence reads a weak attempt at humor.

Rape fantasies (implicit nonconsensual sex), even when enacted (consensually) are not rapes. Yep, it's just sex.

I would stake much that there are studies about the meaning of rape fantasies with regard to both participants' desire for "control".

Interesting topic.

Grushenka the Newbess

 

[Grushenka]

You always consent and ruin it.

That's a brilliant remark. Seriously.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

If you didn't know shereads before, you do now.

 

[shereads]

I'm going to take you seriously, Ms. Reads, though your first sentence reads a weak attempt at humor.

It's not Reads, dear. It's Ds. An anglicized version of an old Welsh name, Dds.

 

[Pure]

to zeb and grushenka

Zeb, And the only reason there is a sexual element [in rape] is that the perp, in some cases does get his pathetic little rocks off by being violent and controling. Therefore it is not truely about the sex, just that the sex is used as a weapon to control and hurt the victim.

P: Well, if someone gets their rocks off by being violent and controlling, that sounds like a sexual motive (in part) to me.

To see this, apply what you said, to 'foot worship.' Suppose someone said, 'foot worship' is not about sex. it's just that, "in some cases the person "gets his pathetic little rocks off by worshipping a woman's feet."

If you were to look at "Sexual Sadism" in DSM IV, it would be defined in terms of carrying out acts of violence or pain infliction on nonconsenting persons, in connection with sexual arousal [and orgasm]. Some rapists are sexual sadists. Case closed.
---

Hi Grushenka,
Yes I've read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon. They supply important insights and called for changes which I support. But they were not researchers, and they were not always right about things. While power is surely an element in rape, divorcing power from sex just doesn't work. Slogans about 'it's power, no[t] sex' are at best half truths.

The BDSM lesbians and feminists have written extensively about the problem, e.g, P. Califia. Exercise of power OR being subject to power, is a turn-on for some men and no small number of women. And those scenes are sought out for partly sexual reasons.

What do you think the women are after who advertize/ask to be spanked by 'loving doms'? Might not part of it be sexual gratification? (Well, that's what some say; maybe you don't believe it).

 

[Grushenka]

Hi Grushenka,
Yes I've read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon. They supply important insights and called for changes which I support. But they were not researchers, and they were not always right about things. While power is surely an element in rape, divorcing power from sex just doesn't work. Slogans about 'it's power, no sex' are at best half truths.

The BDSM lesbians and feminists have written extensively about the problem, e.g, P. Califia. Exercise of power OR being subject to power, is a turn-on for some men and no small number of women. And those scenes are sought out for partly sexual reasons.

What do you think the women are after who advertize/ask to be spanked by 'loving doms'? [/B] Might not part of it be sexual gratification? (Well, that's what some say; maybe you don't believe it).

Mr Pure: I really do not want to be rude, but I honestly cannot follow your argument with me, especially when you begin by such weighted name dropping.

I think you must be refering to researchers who perform "clinical trials", and obviously giving them more weight than others. If you look at the bibliographies and academic backgrounds of the writers mentioned above I am certain no qualified person in any literate community would reject them as 'researchers'. Not one of those women's works (not even Dworkin ) can be so cavalierly classified as sloganeering.

I've read Califa too and I well understand what's going on re. power and control in BDSM. There is nothing that makes it contrary to my and Zeb's assertion, though.

I don't know you, I don't know if you're merely careless or lazy, but I won't discuss this further with you, simply based on the way you've gone about expressing yourself in this thread.

Again, no offense meant,

Grushenka

 

[Pure]

Gr: I don't know you, I don't know if you're merely careless or lazy, but I won't discuss this further with you, simply based on the way you've gone about expressing yourself in this thread.

P: i don't know anything about you either except your subscription to the same slogans as zeb. but, hey, if you're like zeb and really have nothing to back up your position, any excuse will do.


---

PS. your statement utterly misrepresents what I said:

Grush Not one of those women's works (not even Dworkin ) can be so cavalierly classified as sloganeering.

pure had said: //Yes I've read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon. They supply important insights and called for changes which I support. But they were not researchers, and they were not always right about things. While power is surely an element in rape, divorcing power from sex just doesn't work. Slogans about 'it's power, no sex' are at best half truths. //

 

[Pure]

bump.

question: internet porn facilitates masturbation. does that 'fire up' the person (after the refractory period), or does it abate their desires?

if the latter, are N. American *couples* declining in their sexual intimacies because of the energies channeled into the 'net?

is there a direct connection of porn to rape? does the author claim that Joe Nasty, about to go out and rape--for his various reasons and motives-- instead 'googles' for rape related porn, and finds pictures that look rape like; so he jerks off, and goes to sleep.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Regarding the first question about couples, my answer would be "yes." Whatever can be said about the television screen being the modern 'hearth', the Internet screen is, by its interactive nature, a solitary experience. It can be a shared solitary experience, such is this message board, but it doesn't lend itself very well to a shared personal experience.

As for the second question, about masturbation and rape, I would reiterate what I said early in this thread. I don't think the porn, per se, is what sates the would-be rapists' appetites. Sexual predators are caught in chat rooms, not browsing porn sites. However much you might divide a rapist's motivation between sexual fantasy and dominance or control, I think it's being very selective to say that freer access to porn, which mainly addresses just the sex and fantasy part of the pathology, is the factor which leads to a decline in rapes. Again, there doesn't seem to be a decline in homocides simply because people can engage in online killing fantasies. There is a corellary between cyber-stalking and the appetite for dominance and control that can motivate a rapist.

Just about everyone experiences sexual frustration at some point or other, and just about everyone looks at Internet porn at some point or other, but the vast majority of those people aren't ever going to be rapists. On the other hand, people who cyber-stalk are not common - it's clearly aberrant behavior. That, it seems to me, would be where the would-be rapists are channeling their efforts.

 

[Tuomas]

Oh, isn't it so fun when politics pokes it's nose into science

Anyway, thanks to political movements, I guess we will never know the truth about this little speculation -and perhaps millions of innoncent little people wil be raped, because we were more interested in pushing our political agenda over actually studing the facts.

And women do a lot of raping.

And I, technically, was raped.

And, finally, if someone really doesn't want to have sex, but they do it as a favor to their partner... is that rape? And if prostitution is rape, then sleeping with your boss is rape, too, no? And what about lying to obtain sexual favors? Like a girl lying about being 18 so a 20-odd will sleep with her, but had he know the truth, he wouldn't have.. wouldn't that be rape? Or is it just fraud?

 

[Pure]

hi tuomas,

i want to agree with part of what you said, "we will never know the truth." There have been a few attempts to study the effects of porn, and 'porn commissions' (in the US). One of the latter found 'no effect,' and the other, appointed from the right, found an effect.

Add to that, rape, another area where 'myth' and counter myth duel it out. IIRC, there once circulated the myth that on the Superbowl weekend, wife assaults skyrocketed. But after years, no evidence has been found.

I suppose we'd like science to deal with well defined things: the mating habits of the bonobo monkey. everyone knows what 'mating' is and what a 'bonobo' is. But extend that one step, and you've got politics. "Do bonobos ever rape [a female]" with the seemingly clear definition "forced intercourse."

The famous issue of 'date rape' brought the politics out, in full. At the furthest, it seemed some of the most extreme feminists wanted 'regret' to be key. If you woke up and wished it hadn't happened or hated yourself (or that you hadn't done it.). BUT of course there are quite NONgray areas where clearly an acquaintance/date was *forced* to sex.

The effects, if any, of internet porn may never be known. Too many political agendas are involved. As an example of the difficulties of research or science: The 'child porn' debate is proceeding without science; what is 'harmful to minors'? Such a simple question. Can there be a scientific answer?

It was and is clear that film involving molestation [actual] were evidence of crimes and that selling them encouraged crimes. Children must be protected.But as brought up in another thread, there is the case of 'childlike' (young looking) performers -- as on TV, for 'high school' dramas. Does the image of two age-15-looking persons engaged in sex, corrupt anyone? We may not know this. Clearly there's a difference between a film *involving the corruption of minors*, i.e., underage persons were induced to person, and a film allegedly *promoting corruption of minors who watch it*, i.e., made with 'teen looking actors' who are adults. The US is moving toward the latter with assumption that showing sex to teen minors IS corrupting them.

The debate is thus extended to cartoons. Does a 'sex cartoon' of (apparent) 14-year-olds corrupt; i.e. make a 14 year old reader get horny, or even 'do something.' I think the trend in the US will be to INclude cartoons, drawings, computer created or modified images, 'young-seeming' actors-- extend the def. as far as possible. *promoting corruption* will be the criterion, where it's axiomatic that arousal is corruption.

We had a case here, involving a private set of drawings, involving children in sex acts; they were drawn for the person's own use. Eventually, this being Canada, he was exonerated. Not sure how he'd fare in the US.

Remember the 'flap' about 2257; how it would curb free expression, i.e., porn. Well, it didn't. The 2257 statement is on all mainstream-aspiring porn sites. I don't suppose the 'right' or the 'Xtian values' folks will be at all happy that 'proof of being 18' was a simple requirement that forced out some bad actors, but has allowed a wide variety of stuff objectionable to good baptists.

Guess i'm getting incoherent. Better stop.

 

[Tuomas]

Well, you did get kind of incoherent there at the end Pure, but I of course agree with the first part.

Politics really doesn't have anything to do with facts, science or even what is good for people. It goes more with what people want, or think they want. What they "feel".

For example, in many places, it was not only accepted, but quite common for 13-year-olds to get married, and have children at age 14. Most of the old folks where I live were born to "minor" parents, and many of them had children as "minors". Of course, to even suggest something like this on our world makes you "sick".. I mean, how can you want to have sex with someone who is under 18? (or 21, depending on which state you are in) *rolls eyes*

The thing is, biology does not go with law. Human beings are able to reproduce and become sexually active around the age of 13 ... but that's swept under the table when it comes to porn. It comes to the fore when talking about sex ed, or the distribution of condoms. Putting condom dispensers in Highschools clearly is an acknowledgement that under-18s engage in sex, and having one of those machines is telling the kids, "go for it; put a condom on and it's OK." But a vaguely youngish face is wrong to seen in a "provocative" pose.

I guess the difference is that the people who vote don't see the condom dispenser, but they do see the commercial