Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118

March 9th, 2010

Science you can use! @ 10:10 am

Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 (2009) 304-314

Studies by other investigators, female as well as male, (Barak, Fisher, Belfry, & Lashambe, 1999; L. Baron, 1990; Davies, 1997) essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship of the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes.
Findings by Goldstein and Kant (1973) can also be relevant here. These investigators found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to having been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster. And such was by no means common among the rest of the prison population. In fact, as reported above, the non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age. These investigators also found that what does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing (Goldstein & Kant, 1973). Green too reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of "normal" males (Green, 1980). This is certainly a thought-stimulating finding.
Share  |  Flag |


Date:March 9th, 2010 08:32 pm (UTC)
from the land of statistical correlation reinterpretation, it's dimly possible that one's parents punish one extra hard when one's parents are gripped by deep and unflinching impulses to do dark violent despicable acts, and you've inherited your parents' guilty secret lusty genes, so biology that they were able to repress, you fail at repressing and you grow up to be a promising young felon with a bright future in extended sentences, much like this one!

and/or, at least as likely, parents who punish for pron are generally punitive and authoritarian for everything. you grow up violent because your parents treated you violently. now you're punishing people just like they did.

I'd be curious to see if they rated punishment for porn against punishment for non-sexual offenses, and used that difference as their comparator.

or maybe you just posted this to laugh at the weirdly editorial "thought-stimulating finding"?

Journal of No. 118