Posted on 11/06/2007 9:05:58 AM PST by SubGeniusX
In the 1980s, conservatives and feminists joined to fight a common nemesis: the spread of pornography. Unlike past campaigns to stamp out smut, this one was based not only on morality but also public safety. They argued that hard-core erotica was intolerable because it promoted sexual violence against women.
"Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice," wrote feminist author Robin Morgan. In 1986, a federal commission concurred. Some kinds of pornography, it concluded, are bound to lead to "increased sexual violence." Indianapolis passed a law allowing women to sue producers for sexual assaults caused by material depicting women in "positions of servility or submission or display."
The campaign fizzled when the courts said the ordinance was an unconstitutional form of "thought control." Though the Bush administration has put new emphasis on prosecuting obscenity, on the grounds that it fosters violence against women, pornography is more available now than ever.
That's due in substantial part to the rise of the Internet, where the United States alone has a staggering 244 million Web pages featuring erotic fare. One Nielsen survey found that one out of every four users say they visited adult sites in the last month.
So in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault. But all the evidence indicates they were wrong. As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.
This is part of a broad decrease in criminal mayhem. Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.
Nor can the decline be dismissed as the result of underreporting. Many sexual assaults do go unreported, but there is no reason to think there is less reporting today than in the past. In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be.
No one would say the current level of violence against women is acceptable. But the enormous progress in recent years is one of the most gratifying successes imaginable.
How can it be explained? Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.
In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use. What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape -- and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.
That, of course, is only a theory, and the evidence he cites is not conclusive. States that were quicker to adopt the Internet may be different in ways that also serve to prevent rape. It's not hard to think of other explanations why sexual assaults have diminished so rapidly -- such as DNA analysis, which has been an invaluable tool in catching and convicting offenders.
Changing social attitudes doubtless have also played a role. Both young men and young women are more aware today of the boundaries between consensual and coercive sex. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, thinks the credit for progress against rape should go to federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act and to education efforts stressing that "no means no."
But if expanding the availability of hard-core fare doesn't prevent rapes, we can be confident from the experience of recent years that it certainly doesn't cause such crimes. Whether you think porn is a constitutionally protected form of expression or a vile blight that should be eradicated, this discovery should come as very good news.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Three users out of four are lying!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I am not a libertarian, but what is government according to you supposed to do about porn? Ban it? What are the penalties? How do you define porn? Would we end up banning underwear catalogues too?
Libertarians don’t see externalities. They see pot use and looking at porn as individual recreational pursuits and the government should just bugger off!
_________________
OK. But are you quarreling with the statistics Chapman brings to the party? Porn access way up and rape/sexual assaults way down.
wow...so, more kiddie porn for the child molesters is the answer...
Great freeper name to be posting on this thread with. :)
Viewing pornography does make some people want to beat something.
I have visited the Playboy web site.
But only to read the articles.
Just more Libertarian (Libertine) propaganda. This wasn’t worth even reading.
Libertarians don't see externalities. They see pot use and looking at porn as individual recreational pursuits and the government should just bugger off!
What do you propose the government do about people who want to look at porn?
hmm I’d rather have the NY after Rudy closed the sex shops than the crime ridden NY before Rudy
Japan has always been the example - the most hard-core and violent pornography in the world, and yet a surprisingly low violent sex crime rate...despite a society that remains male-dominated at a level right out of Gloria Steinem’s nightmares. ;)
and there is somthing wrong with that?
Gee, the BENEFITS of porn, LOL.
Perhaps the author should ponder the impact of DNA testing.
LOL good catch!!
There is already a legal definition of obscenity, so if porn is obscene, then it is not protected by the first amendment and can be banned. Accepting money for sex acts is prostitution even if you film it, so the producers of pornography should be charged with prostitution. This is the way it was always done before deviant perverted liberals corrupted our legal system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.