Porn up, rape down.

Many official statements for the decline of rape in the US say that women are more educated in dangerous situations, that there's less crack-cocaine fueled crimes, that proper sex education has successfully taught boys that "no means no", and that a lot of people who would be out raping, if given the chance, are already in jail for something else. This does not explain the decline of rapes in this country by 88.999% over the past 31 years. However, what does directly correlate with the decline of rape is the increasing availability of porn here. It's an inverse relationship; the easier it is to obtain porn, the less rape there is. Interestingly enough, in areas of the country without decent internet access, rapes have gone up. I will note that correlation does not mean causation, but there may be some truth to it. We've gone from 2.7 rapes per 1000 people in 1980, down to .3 rapes per 1000 people today. Over that period of time, porn has become much more easily attainable. With the advent of the World Wide Web, the porn industry exploded, and coincidentally, rapes began to rapidly decrease.
I based my post on this, this, and this. Unfortunately the latest data is from 2007, and I have no idea how the stats between the four year discrepancy will affect the overall calculation. What's notable is that if you only select female targets, the rapes per capita nearly double, from .3 to .591. As a supporter of female equality, I suggest rapists do men more.

 

Duly noted.

 

I am interested in the prior statements purely from a hetrosexual perspective.

Consider this an advertisement.

Please PM for further details.

 

(Please note I am expressing opinion not fact.)

People have a biological need to reproduce. Just like we have a need to eat, drink and breathe. But with the advent of civil society, we have forgotten our more animalistic instincts. So we longer understand our own desires and drives.
Hunger is pain that we experience as babes and our parents feed us ending both pain and hunger. So we learn that food dulls hunger early in life. But sexual hunger doesn't arrive until after we have learned shame. So many are unwilling to admit to their parents that they have developed a sex drive. Add repressive sexual attitudes, and parents become unwilling to admit that their children will become sexual beings and so fail to teach them, hence sex ed.
However, sex ed is as valuable to teens as teaching a starving man how to cook. What good is knowing how to cook if you have nothing to cook? What good is sex ed without the means to satisfy our needs?
I now understand the value of arranged marriages. It is the parent's responsibility to take of their children's needs. By arranging the marriage, the parent makes sure that the child's need to reproduce is taken care of in a moral manner. Not that I would advocate arranged marriages, but perhaps they have a place for those that can't find their own spouses? What is better, being alone and dateless or being forced to marry someone for reasons of duty? I doubt that all would be willing to marry a stranger, but I also doubt that all would be unwilling.
Not that my point is the value of arranged marriages, rather my point is that people have a need that we, as a "civil" society, don't consider as a need. But how to go about changing society while simultaneously dealing with those that maintain present society's attitudes of sexual repression? And what attitude(s) should society have that can be accepted by the moral and the social conscientious?
I believe that some people raped for same reasons that starving people steal food. Or rather, those whose hunger for sex is such that they would be driven to rape are instead being satisfied by porn. However, porn does not satisfy the need to have children only the need for sexual release; therefore without a child to raise, porn only works for so long before it no longer has any effect. If that opinion is true, then maybe the age at which the rapist starts raping has also increased from the early adult years to the late 30's and 40's. Of course, this also gives young males more years to find a mate, so fewer will reach the point where they will become rapists in order to satisfy immorally what hasn't been satisfied morally. And I am bound to have forgotten other considerates, but then my opinions have never been written in stone.


Too wordy for opinion piece?

 

Rape is about power, humiliation and the joy of inflicting physical and psychological pain.

If it were simply about sex, rapists would save themselves the trouble and hire hookers instead.

 

Then it becomes a theft thing: why pay for sex when you can steal it?

 

I always like telling Chomsky I'm going to rape him. His responses and gormless face crack me up.

 

Haha! I did NOT see that one coming. Good job.

 

There's porn that caters to that, though. Not all porn depicts vanilla sex, there's a lot that will put one sex (predominantly men) above another (most often women). There's even "forced sex" porn, and "hypnosis" porn. Not to mention the countless fetishes that will put one person in a psychologically more powerful role than another. Watching situations like that play out, someone who would rape another person may have certain urges satisfied. However, I'm not going to straight up say that porn is preventing rape, in fact I did say in my first post that just because there is a correlation, that doesn't mean rape and porn are definitively tied. I'm just a guy who has the internet, and I figured I'd look stuff up. Interestingly enough, the total amount of rapes hasn't really decreased within the time-frame of the statistics; the total population of the country has simply gone up by a great deal. But, I will definitely note that all rape statistics deal with reported events, and the real number may be higher. The trauma can be so great to a victim that they may never report the crime, or if they do, they may decide not to go through with the case. It's been estimated that only 16% of all rapes perpetrated in this country are reported, and that as many as 1 out of 6 women are attacked in such a way. Alright, well, I've already blown my first post apart at the seams. As if it wasn't bad enough, the FBI only considers it rape if it was an act of penetration on an unwilling female victim, and then only if it occurred in the anus or vagina (though some states add the mouth as a possible rape-point).

 

The mouth seems a poor choice as a rape-point for an unwelcome penis.

 

Really? Imagine that a man much larger and stronger than you has got you isolated and alone on your knees in front of him, and is waving his cock in your face. Are you really going to bite down on it and see how that turns out for you?

 

Sure, I bite his prick off and see what happens.

I hope DarkFool moves this to the Roleplaying Forum.

 

At that point you need to put your priorities in line. Priorities being;
fighting for your life, or living with having been raped. Some people can get past it, even if the perpetrator isn't caught, but it's not everyone who can. One of my female friends told me she'd kill herself if she was ever raped, so I hope with all I can that it never happens.
Now I'm wondering how effective removing a penis can be in preventing harm in that moment. At the point of erection, there's a decent amount of blood in the penis. To top it off, it's directly attached to the groin, which has a high concentration of arteries and veins. The loss of a penis can kill you, eventually, and I'm sure the shock would stop most attackers. Rapists tend to go for targets easy for them to subdue, and will stop when they realize they can't bring you down without getting seriously hurt. Hell, most don't carry weapons because the sentence is five times more severe when you carry one. With this in mind, if the first place the rapist puts his penis is in the area of the mouth, I say bite it off. However, I think anyone who's mouth raped has, at that point, been drugged or otherwise coerced into the situation. In this light, they may not know they're being attacked, or are convinced the rapist has all of the power.
Oh, and I just found out, there's a new bill being drafted by the leaders of the republican party that will attempt to delineate between forcible rape and plain old rape. If you were raped in any way that wasn't forcible, you can't get government funding for an abortion. See, my problem is this; forcible implies violent in this context. Is there such a thing as a non-violent rape? They're saying rape by coercion, drugging, or even while the victim is unconscious, is not forcible. So the only time you're really being raped is while you have to actively fight off your attacker, which is about 30% of all reported rapes. Everything else is sex you had under questionable circumstances.

 

Republicans are just trying to appease the Right-to-Lifers by reducing the available federal funds for the abortions that they are against. But this Right-to-Lifer thinks that they are idiots. I received a mailing from one of the Pro-life organizations that isn't the Right to Life organization (can't remember which) that informed us Pro-Lifers that the fastest way to end abortion in America is to have Congress pass a law that defined when one acquired the Right to Live as Roe-vs-Wade's court ruling stipulated such. Every other attempt to reduce the availablity of abortions is just politics and for show (aka elections). And anyways, numerous Pro-Lifers are pro-abortion in the cases of rape, saving the mother's life, or ... I forget the third.
So if they actually pass the law, they will likely lose the votes of those that for the exemptions, but by trying to pass the law, those Republicans that vote for it might actually gain Right-to-Lifer votes, even if the law fails to pass. So based on the politics of the situation, I wonder, do the Democrates control one or both Houses? To ensure that the law fails?

But those that are sexually repressed won't willing admit to having a sex drive that they can't control until they can't control it. So the situation is that you have a sexually repressed male in a situation with a unwilling female that is already under the male's control and he loses control. For example, when they are on a date and she is willing to make-out, but not go all the way. I would expect that in such circumstances, even the guy didn't know that he lose control. Which is why it was considered unseemly for a young, virtuous lady to be caught alone with a man that wasn't family.

 

The law targets women specifically. Even if a woman is a pro-lifer, she'll probably argue that all rape is violent, regardless of whether or not there is a physical injury. An example of this is that, if a woman is raped, she didn't want to have sex at that time, in that the act at least made her psychologically uncomfortable to the point of trauma. Unless it's statutory rape, in that case the perpetrator is a pedophile and has a different set of problems. Still, this leads to about half of the population of the US not liking that the government has decided what rape is for them.

 

I'm surprised xyle hasn't blamed rape on his understandings of physics.

 

Thought that was a given you angry man you!