Does Internet porn actually reduce rape?

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Agent 204 Agent 204's picture
Does Internet porn actually reduce rape?

 

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

Not sure what to think of this claim:

quote:

Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.


[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais]Source.[/url] I can think of several ways to interpret this:
1. The claim is true- would-be rapists are sublimating their impulses with porn.
2. The statistic is true, and there is a causal relationship between Internet access and a lowered incidence of rape, but the actual causal factor is something other than porn- e.g. more resources being available to the potential victims that allow them to escape a bad situation before a rape occurs.
3. The statistic is true, but there is no direct causal relationship- for instance, better social conditions might mean both more Internet access and less rape. The researcher claims to have corrected for this, but without the actual paper and several of the papers it references, it's hard to say whether this will hold up.
4. The statistic is false. No shocker- badly done studies are conducted all the time (remember the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect]"Lunar Effect"[/url]?)

So, which of these explanations is most probable?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Agent 204:
[b]Not sure what to think of this claim:

[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais]Source.[/url] I can think of several ways to interpret this:
1. The claim is true- would-be rapists are sublimating their impulses with porn.
2. The statistic is true, and there is a causal relationship between Internet access and a lowered incidence of rape, but the actual causal factor is something other than porn- e.g. more resources being available to the potential victims that allow them to escape a bad situation before a rape occurs.
3. The statistic is true, but there is no direct causal relationship- for instance, better social conditions might mean both more Internet access and less rape. The researcher claims to have corrected for this, but without the actual paper and several of the papers it references, it's hard to say whether this will hold up.
4. The statistic is false. No shocker- badly done studies are conducted all the time (remember the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect]"Lunar Effect"[/url]?)

So, which of these explanations is most probable?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ][/b]


I'd go with number 1.

It seems to make a lot of sense, it was my thought on the matter a few years ago long before I encountered these statistics. Pornography yields a means of relieving internal sexual pressure. Men's behavior, both in my own experience and in discussion with others, changes very drastically depending on the frequency of ejaculation. I did an experiment on myself in my teens, to see what would happen if I went a long time without jerking-off. Within a surprisingly small number of days I was extremely testy, and was overthinking about sex. That was at 14 though. I've heard more or less the same from other guys.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Doug

First of all, showing a correlation is never the same thing as showing causation. Two things can change in the same way over time and yet not be related. At best, all this proves is that you can't rape people as often if you're busy doing something else.

remind remind's picture

I doubt it!

Stargazer

If number 1 were true then we should then see a decline in rape in those men exposed to porn yet somehow, and I'm going out on a small twig here, I doubt that is the case.

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

Well, I think what they're claiming is that those men [i]already[/i] inclined towards rape would be less likely to act on that inclination than otherwise. Whether this is true or not is another question, and even if it is true it is not impossible that it's also true that others might be [i]more[/i] likely to act.

Myself, I'm most inclined towards 3, though I could still see 1 or 4 being the right answer. 2 seems least likely.

Fearghail

Interesting question.

Does it relieve sexual tension and reduce rape, or does it breed sexual tension?

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]If number 1 were true then we should then see a decline in rape in those men exposed to porn yet somehow, and I'm going out on a small twig here, I doubt that is the case.[/b]

There is data showing that is the case. The declines followed the greater proliferation of the internet. And the internet very much correlates with access to pornography.

For those who like the trite comment "correlation does not imply causation", well no, it doesn't. However, if two things correlate very well the fair assumption is that there is, in fact, some sort of relationship rather than complete coincidence.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Rape is to sex like getting hit in the face with a frying pan is to cooking.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Sexual assault statistics in Canada:

quote:

51% of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence.

quote:

62% of the victims who reported being sexually assaulted in 1998 were under the age of 18.

quote:

80% of sexual assaults occur at home; 49% in broad daylight.

[url=http://www.metrac.org/new/stat_sex.htm]Source: Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) [/url]

hatman

I know the only thing keeping me from raping someone or something is the internet!

All kidding aside, if you think about the natural impulses men have... Before the days of porn, these impulses made men more likely to behave rather inappropriately. Now, they have easy outlets, and they aren't going to be as sexually frustrated. In other words, no more feeling horny all the time.

Stargazer

Thanks bcg!

Let's factor in all of the women and girls who don't report rape. Let's also factor in all those who report rape but have nothing done about it. Then let's factor in the amount of men who get off on rape charges for reasons other than not guilty.

Who says rape has gone down? Reporting has gone down, but I highly highly doubt that rape has.

jrootham

Stargazer, are you really suggesting that rape reporting does not correlate at all with actual rape?

In particular are you claiming that the introduction of the internet reduces the correlation between rape and rape reporting?

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Rape is to sex like getting hit in the face with a frying pan is to cooking.[/b]

The observations and hypotheses are about the perpetrators and not their victims.

West Coast Greeny

If I were a betting man, I'd say 3, although 1 is certainly plausible.

arborman

Well, though rape involves sex organs, my understanding is that it involves a lot of other ugly stuff - power, violence, aggression, insecurity . Though I would imagine that it varies between perpetrators.

It's possible that some potential rapists do not as a result of internet porn. It's equally possible that others become more likely to rape as a result.

A great many social changes have happened along with the development of the internet. I seriously doubt any causal links in a change like this (if there really is a change in actual rapes). It is possible, but the removal of lead from our paint and gasoline is equally plausible, IMO. Or even, and I'm going on a limb here, the campaigns about date rape etc. over the past 20 years (No means No and the like).

Stargazer

quote:


In particular are you claiming that the introduction of the internet reduces the correlation between rape and rape reporting?

Absolutely not, because personally I really don't think men who view porn are less inclined to rape. There are many many repeat/serial rapists who state just the opposite, in fact. That their thirst for porn just got worse and worse (more and more twisted),they became desensitized to what they were viewing and therefore they could no longer utilize it.

Can I state with absolute assertion that reporting has gone down? No. But can I state the opposite? Again no. So we're left with judging the climate surrounding rape and when I think of that climate I see a climate the deters women/girls from reporting rape. Still.

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Who says rape has gone down? Reporting has gone down, but I highly highly doubt that rape has.[/b]

I don't know. Certainly there are a lot of reasons why rapes don't get reported, but in order for reporting to go down without rape going down, one would have to assume that the cultural disincentives to report rape have actually gotten worse. Do you think this is the case? I could see that being true, but I'd hope not.

quote:

Originally posted by arborman:
[b]It's possible that some potential rapists do not as a result of internet porn. It's equally possible that others become more likely to rape as a result.[/b]

Exactly... that's one of the things that makes a study like this so hard to evaluate. It's also one of the things that make such studies important.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

Maysie Maysie's picture

The internet affects reality only so far as behaviours happen because of the internet, which would be almost impossible to prove causally.

Images of sexualized violence against women are everywhere. The internet, like many other forms of entertainment and information, echoes this.

I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to why, or if, reporting of rape has decreased. Porn has been around for millenia, the internet has changed levels of access only.

I will assume that the incidents of rape have remained constant, at around 2 out of 3, or 3 in 4 women, depending on which stats you look at. That's a fuck of a lot, guys, and I say "guys" deliberately.

If you all can try to remember that women are most likely to be raped by someone they know, and if you pay attention to the ways in which minor or major rape stories get carried in the media, you may understand why women report at a rate of about 10% and as Stargazer said, when women do report, and men are charged, very rarely does it result in a conviction.

I suggest everyone who hasn't to please read Jane Doe's book "The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape". She's one of my heroes.

Stargazer

quote:


I suggest everyone who hasn't to please read Jane Doe's book "The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape". She's one of my heroes.

I double that suggestion. She is one of my heroes as well. That book had a very profound effect on me. I think it should be mandatory reading for every lawyer and police officer who deals with rape victims.

Michael Hardner

quote:


For those who like the trite comment "correlation does not imply causation", well no, it doesn't. However, if two things correlate very well the fair assumption is that there is, in fact, some sort of relationship rather than complete coincidence.

It's not trite. It's very very important to be clear on these things.

It's possible to cook a survey so that two factors are correlated, and then to publish that survey with a heavy implication of causation.

It's a dangerous approach, because you can convince reasonable people of some pretty outrageous things.

I remember reading such a study, by a professor who was trying to 'prove' that women were inferior police officers. His method was to create a statistical model that related female versus police officers. He would speak of the model, saying 'adding more female officers causes this effect'....

It made it seem that if you add more police officers to a force, the results would be negative. But he was speaking about *his* model.

Always always always take the time to point out to the uninformed that correlation and causation are very different things.

500_Apples

The more complicated the model, the more parameters, the easier to prove just about anything. That's a very simple lesson in undergraduate science. However, that lesson does not apply here as there are only two parameters. The spread of the internet, and the trend in rape cases known by authorities.

Additionally, there is a great deal of difference between letting the numbers speak for themselves, or constantly manipulating how parameters are weighed and which are used to reach the desired conclusion.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Solid_Choke

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Sexual assault statistics in Canada:

[url=http://www.metrac.org/new/stat_sex.htm]Source: Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) [/url][/b]


1/2 of all women? That seems kind of high. I hope this isn't like the American study where they included women who didn't actually feel that they had been raped but instead had said that they had "regretted having sex" with someone after an act was completed. Would 1/2 of those women actually feel that they had been raped or was that the decision of the person doing the poll based on their answers?

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Solid_Choke ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Solid_Choke:
[b]1/2 of all women? That seems kind of high.[/b]

51% is not accurate, it is too low, though it is those who have reported it officially, not through a poll, do you not read links?

quote:

[b]I hope this isn't like the American study where they included women who didn't actually feel that they had been raped but instead had said that they had "regretted having sex" with someone after an act was completed. [/b]

You know what, you need to leave this forum.

quote:

[qb]Would 1/2 of those women actually feel that they had been raped or was that the decision of the person doing the poll based on their answers [qb]

Really, you need to leave this forum, you did not even bother to view BCG's link and see where the stats come from. as such you have no interest in the topic other than baiting.

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Solid_Choke:
[b]1/2 of all women? That seems kind of high. I hope this isn't like the American study where they included women who didn't actually feel that they had been raped but instead had said that they had "regretted having sex" with someone after an act was completed. Would 1/2 of those women actually feel that they had been raped or was that the decision of the person doing the poll based on their answers?[/b]

Hi. Stay out of the feminism forum from now on. You clearly have nothing constructive to add to this discussion.

Stargazer

quote:


Additionally, there is a great deal of difference between letting the numbers speak for themselves, or constantly manipulating how parameters are weighed and which are used to reach the desired conclusion.

This is qualitative research. The numbers never speak for themselves. Ever.

Maysie Maysie's picture

quote:


Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]...manipulating how parameters are weighed and which are used to reach the desired conclusion.[/b]

Desired conclusion? WTF is that supposed to mean? Like, what? Feminists [b]want[/b] the rape stats to be high? This is an ignorant hurtful dumbass thing to say.

My desired fucking conclusion is to have no more rape. Jesus fucking cripes.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Desired conclusion? WTF is that supposed to mean? Like, what? Feminists [b]want[/b] the rape stats to be high? This is an ignorant hurtful dumbass thing to say.[/b]

Yes, I read that as well, but have been through a recent similar conversation about rape with him in another thread and had decided to walk away from this thread with 10 men participating to the 4 women.

And again, I ask why is a thread regarding female issues not in the feminist forum? I had thought we had agreed after the last go around in the Duke threads, all such things would be moved immediately to the feminist forum.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

remind remind's picture

Could this thread be moved?

Michelle

Sure. The answer is because I didn't notice that it wasn't already there.

1234567

Rape is about power. I don't think a man feels that kind of power when sitting in his underwear in front of a computer. It may give him some ideas but I don't think it would stop him from going out and raping a woman.

Michael Hardner

Rape may be about power, but that doesn't say anything about the actions and motivations of the rapist...

Michael Hardner

That is - maybe the internet would help, maybe not.

Saying 'rape is power' doesn't get inside his head...

Michael Hardner

quote:


The more complicated the model, the more parameters, the easier to prove just about anything. That's a very simple lesson in undergraduate science. However, that lesson does not apply here as there are only two parameters. The spread of the internet, and the trend in rape cases known by authorities.

Prove what ?

Correlation ?

Who cares ?

Nobody should be publishing information for wide consumption about correlations; the information is too prone to misunderstanding.

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]

Desired conclusion? WTF is that supposed to mean? Like, what? Feminists [b]want[/b] the rape stats to be high? This is an ignorant hurtful dumbass thing to say.

My desired fucking conclusion is to have no more rape. Jesus fucking cripes.[/b]


The term "desired conclusions" was obviously alluding to the police officers study.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]

Prove what ?

Correlation ?

Who cares ?

Nobody should be publishing information for wide consumption about correlations; the information is too prone to misunderstanding.[/b]


That's a nice idealistic perspecttive, however, it's not very practical. Most scientific conclusions these days are based on a combination of mechanisms and correlations. For example, smoking and lung cancer. There's a correlation, and there's a mechanism, and at some point the scientific authorities and the public decided a reasonable degree of confidence had been reached. Just as in this study, there is a correlation and a mechanism. Ultimately, things like mechanisms, motives and such are never enough to prove a claim on their own as they're written up and conjured theoretically. Theory always works - in theory. In practice, people expect numbers to back them up. If, hypothetically, you saw a study which drew a strong correlation between how much milk men drink and how many daughters they have, would you say "correlations are irrelevent!!!" or would you find that kind of interesting, and wonder what's going on?

Secondly, and this is a thread drift, I disagree with your last sentence. I don't think we should put vast amounts off knowledge as being off-limits because someone somewhere might make a harmful conclusion.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

1234567

quote:


Rape may be about power, but that doesn't say anything about the actions and motivations of the rapist...

Here's what's in the mind of a rapist.
"She is there, she turns me on, I will have her, she is weaker than me so I will take her, she is mine for the moment, I don't care who she is, how old she is, what her earning power is. I just want her and because I am bigger and stronger I can and will have her"

Scout

quote:


Yes, I read that as well, but have been through a recent similar conversation about rape with him in another thread and had decided to walk away from this thread with 10 men participating to the 4 women.

And why is always the same handlful of guys that don't get it, who get into shit for the same things everytime that can't stop putting in their two cents in these threads. It's pretty obvious that they aren't learning if they aren't approaching these threads differently so why are we tolerating them? I don't mind educating but I do mind having to deal over and over again with the usual suspects and covering the same ground.

500_apples - that was a quick edit you did there on that swipe at BCG. It was also kinda sexist telling her to calm down and that it isn't all about her, but then again maybe you have just learned something, you have learned enough to not get banned.

We should all really know better by now than to engage you at all in this forum. By engaging you we end up making the threads in this forum about you, and about educating you and that's not what we are here for. Anyone with a real interest in the subject does more listening to us discuss issues about us than hijacking.

So often the focus of the thread shifts to men's understandings of Feminism or the issue at hand and that's utterly un-progressive and just plain unfair.

Michelle

500_Apples, stay out of the feminism forum from now on. You've had so many chances in here, but you just can't seem to keep from sticking your foot in your mouth, no matter how many times the women here try to explain why you're being offensive. I can understand being a bit clueless if you're a young man who hasn't had a lot of exposure to feminist ideas, but at this point, I think it's time for you to just read the feminism forum instead of posting in it, and then perhaps you'll get a clue.

Sorry for being harsh, but this is a forum - and rape is a topic - that is full of sensitive issues for a lot of people, and chiming in with insensitive (even inadvertently insensitive) remarks is not okay.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

500_Apples

quote:


Originally posted by Scout:
[b]
500_apples - that was a quick edit you did there on that swipe at BCG. It was also kinda sexist telling her to calm down and that it isn't all about her, but then again maybe you have just learned something, you have learned enough to not get banned.

We should all really know better by now than to engage you at all in this forum. By engaging you we end up making the threads in this forum about you, and about educating you and that's not what we are here for. Anyone with a real interest in the subject does more listening to us discuss issues about us than hijacking.
[/b]


This was not originally in the feminist forum. It was a discussion of male behavior in the body and soul forum. Generally, in an online discussion forum, people often share their opinions, especially in a generally public forum like body and soul. And on a thread which is about male sexual behavior and thought-patterns, it might even be interesting to read what male posters think. On two other Canadian left forums, I read, and here I read and post. How that division happened is kinda random.

If I want to learn properly, I'll go read some books and journal articles, as I have, or review some archived threads, as I have, or speak to real-life people and workers, as I have, and maybe financially and visibly contribute to awareness, as I have; and even continue to do these things, as I will.

Now, since I find this argument moronic, and more than that, it's repetitive, I'll no longer be posting on gender issues. I won't post links to studies which seek to quantify how men discriminate against women in the work place (see "Salary, gender and the social cost of haggling"), nor will I post articles on the obstacles of women in politics (see: "We should abandon the idea of finding the 'perfect' female candidate - Janet Bagnall") It's a complete waste of time. Yes, that includes BCG, who thought I was being an "asshole" when she assumed my comment was related to her post rather than to the post I was responding to.

Michelle

Great, you've had your say. Now, as you've promised, please stay out of discussions on rape and/or feminism, no matter which forum they happen to be posted in.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Here's what's in the mind of a rapist.
"She is there, she turns me on, I will have her, she is weaker than me so I will take her, she is mine for the moment, I don't care who she is, how old she is, what her earning power is. I just want her and because I am bigger and stronger I can and will have her"[/b]

Yes, sadly that is it in a nutshell.

A really terrific example of the mindset occured recently with my daughter.

Having recently split with her partner of 8 years, she was at a schools reunion where some friends of her ex-partners were attending. They were making all sorts of inappropriate remarks about her now being single and they are happy that she is on the "market" again. One after being re-buffed by her several times already, grabbed her by the hair as she walked passed and pulled her up to him, by the hair of course, and stated: "I can hardly wait to make you mine, I have wanted you for years".

She freaking lost it, as really that is sexual assaultand and there is no doubt if it was in a less public spot she would've have been raped by him. "Leave me alone" was not enough to dissuade him apparently.

Michael Hardner

I feel like replying to 500 Apples, but he can't reply now that this thread was moved...

Not sure what to do - I'll reply anyway. 500 - start a new thread if you want to reply to this, on the topic of statistics.

quote:

That's a nice idealistic perspecttive, however, it's not very practical. Most scientific conclusions these days are based on a combination of mechanisms and correlations. For example, smoking and lung cancer. There's a correlation, and there's a mechanism, and at some point the scientific authorities and the public decided a reasonable degree of confidence had been reached. Just as in this study, there is a correlation and a mechanism. Ultimately, things like mechanisms, motives and such are never enough to prove a claim on their own as they're written up and conjured theoretically. Theory always works - in theory. In practice, people expect numbers to back them up. If, hypothetically, you saw a study which drew a strong correlation between how much milk men drink and how many daughters they have, would you say "correlations are irrelevent!!!" or would you find that kind of interesting, and wonder what's going on?

Secondly, and this is a thread drift, I disagree with your last sentence. I don't think we should put vast amounts off knowledge as being off-limits because someone somewhere might make a harmful conclusion.


What would I say ? I would say 'Correlations are irrelevant'.

As I said, nobody should publish these things for wide consumption. There's no good reason for it. Research scientists should go to the academic community for their information, not the Toronto Sun.

I didn't say that we should put this 'off limits'. There's a difference.

For example, people shouldn't lie, but that doesn't mean lying should be illegal.

noisymonkey

Hmmm. I could not say which of the four explanations is more plausible. Perhaps 3, but I would refuse to come to a conclusion prior to reviewing the methodology and data collection methods of the study. Personally, I like to adhere to the maxim of "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" and question all such presentations of "facts" because frequently one finds that they have not been accurately reported, or there is something in the method that disqualifies it.

As people have mentioned, there is a lot missing from what is presented. The conclusion is that more net access deters rape, but we can't say whether it is online porn as opposed to anything else online that is leading to the deduction without any objective evidence to support it, nor of course can we say with certainty that net access is the cause.

My intuition would be roughly the opposite of the data presented in the Slate piece, so I find this data interesting. If there is more porn than ever before then there may be an [i]increase[/i] in sexual assaults. Mainstream heterosexual porn of the type that dominates what is available on the internet objectifies women and in some instances trivializes their very humanity. I would posit that increased distribution of such material could increase sexual assault, as well as any other behaviours that objectify women.

If someone asked me to hypothesize on what I would expect to happen, I wouldn't say there is anything about the internet that would lead to a decrease in sexual assault, any more than I would say that an increase in net access has decreased other anti-feminist or anti-woman behaviours, for example the constant harangue of online feminist spaces by people who are threatened by them (I may be new, but it doesn't take much lurking to see that this board is no exception). Nothing about the spread of the net as far as I can tell has fundamentally challenged patriarchy -which in my opinion will be necessary to completely eradicate all forms of sexism against women, from the comparatively small yet pervasive forms such as the trolling of feminist spaces, to those that threaten our bodily and mental integrity and indeed our very survival, such as sexual assault.

Although of course, if those data are to be believed, my intuition may be incorrect. . .

Solid_Choke

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]

Hi. Stay out of the feminism forum from now on. You clearly have nothing constructive to add to this discussion.[/b]


Being truthful is being constructive. Just because we are feminists doesn't mean that we can exaggerate stats to make our case better. The issue of rape is bad enough as it is. We don't need to mislead people to make them see things our way.

Things like [url=http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/IWF_One_In_Four_Rape_Stat_27APR06.ht... statistics[/url] and [url=http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1719]false reporting of rape[/url] are two serious issues that should be discussed. I still stand by the idea that 50% seems much to high and many studies show that 25% might be too high. I have read the link that was posted earlier. Do accuracy a favor and read the links I have posted.

It saddens me that I was asked to leave so quickly without even being given the benefit of the doubt. I thought open honest discussion was a value all liberals shared? Perhaps I was wrong.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Solid_Choke ]

Michelle

You're not being given the benefit of the doubt because in the feminism forum, we're not interested in hearing about false reporting of rape. You don't get to set the agenda here.

I'll tell you one more time to stay out of the feminism forum. If you post in this forum again, you'll be banned from the whole board. Fair warning.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Solid_Choke:
[b]Just because we are feminists doesn't mean that we can exaggerate stats to make our case better. The issue of rape is bad enough as it is. We don't need to mislead people to make them see things our way.[/b]

Wonder what the "we feminists" is in the xyness of his reality?

I know, I know, he was asked to stay out of the feminist forum, but this again goees to males who say they are "feminists" or progressive and then commence to tell women how it is,or isn't, especially in regards to sexual assault and rape.

He thinks 50%is too high, as male, and will not accept women's words that 50% is too low. Like we have some agenda or something for over stating rapes, as if anyone would. I mean, how can peoplelike him fucking 'correlate' that in their brain, that women would overstate such a thing.

Bacchus

Because people, will overstate things for a particular 'agenda'. Im not saying thats happening here, but since we have seen it happen (certainly with mr Bush if no other example) that could account for the disbelief.

Plus no one wants to think bad of her or her group, race, gender, orientation, country, religion, political ideology, etc

Tommy_Paine

500 apples observation that the more frequent release of ejaculate reduces the build up of testosterone in men, thereby reducing violent tendencies, is tempting. But we should also see a reduction in things like road rage, bar fights and such, if this is true, and the study is mum on that.

I think the study doesn't take into account that victims and potential victims of rape are also exposed to the internet. Exposure to information, the realization that the rapist is not as often the stranger behind the bushes as it is a friend or aquaintence, has enabled women to be more proactive in protecting themselves. I'm not saying this explains all the apparent changes in the statistics, but it could explain some, and the study doesn't take this into account, at least not as it is reported in Slate.

The study also assumes that the rate of reporting of sexual assaults in relation to unreported sexual assaults has remained constant in spite of the advent of the internet. While I think this a very reasonable assumption, I could see scenarios where the internet may skew that relationship either way. Again, while it is a reasonable assumption that I'm willing to subscribe to, I would not just take it as empirical fact.

My own "gut" feeling is that the tighter controls we put on the definitions and statistics gathering, the smaller the observed effect. This happens quite often in such studies. Unfortunately, I don't have the guts of the study, nor the proper education to examine them properly.

I think, in the end, that we would find that the internet has had no effect one way or another on the incidences of rape.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Bacchus:
[b]Because people, will overstate things for a particular 'agenda'. Im not saying thats happening here, but since we have seen it happen (certainly with mr Bush if no other example) that could account for the disbelief.

Plus no one wants to think bad of her or her group, race, gender, orientation, country, religion, political ideology, etc[/b]


Bacchus, you switch from the inclusive use of "people" in your first paragraph to the exclusive use of "her" in the second. Which frames it as; women/grrls do not want to think bad of their "group, race, gender, orientation, country, religion, political ideology, etc" and excludes males from this.

Now, that makes a male biased conjecture, as it is men, apparently, who have the issues with what they perceive as elevated rape or sexual assault numbers, while women feel the public numbers are short of the actual figures.

Unless of course you are stating that women do not want to believe other women are lying about being raped.

Which is it....

Pages