Say Anything Blog

I’m sure the NEA has something to do with it.

The National Education Administration?  What does that have to do with it?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Things been kinda slow at work lately?

..because we get to watch?

Because the second example is educatonal?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Rob, I think “free” was referring to the National Education Association--the federal (and unconstitutional) department you refer to is called the “Department of (mis)Education.” In other words, the failure of NEA members to teach logic to students results in prostitution being illegal, while filming hard core pornography is legal.

Which is to say that I also don’t see why one is banned and the other is legal--the root word for “pornography” means “prostitute” in Greek, after all.

I also have a hunch that one could ban the filming of such movies if they wanted to--apparently it’s already heavily regulated.  The ACLU would throw a hissy fit, but what else is new?

Actually, “pornography” means litterally “harlot writing”.

Done a lot of research on that Seth?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Technically more like “writing about prostitutes,” but does that really make a difference?  The root concept of pornography that makes it interesting is not writing (we have George Will for interesting writing), but rather the sex part, no?

Just what they taught me in public school, W.

Just what they taught me in public school, W.

Are you talking about your classes Seth, or more about what you did during your free periods in school?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Absolutely, yes.

The root concept of pornography that makes it interesting is not writing (we have George Will for interesting writing), but rather the sex part, no?

That’s sort of true, except that much of the earliest pornography was erotic stories.

Things been kinda slow at work lately?

Really busy, actually, I’ve just had a lot of driving time lately.

I also have a hunch that one could ban the filming of such movies if they wanted to--apparently it’s already heavily regulated.

I doubt, especially now with the internet, that we could do any such thing.  It’d end up being like the prohibition of alcohol.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But much like alcohol, I think it would be very prudent to regulate its consumption very closely.

We don’t regulate the consumption of alcohol.  You can drink as much as you want.  It’s what you do while drunk (drive, create a nuisance of yourself, etc.) that you’re held accountable for.

Personally, I could care less how much porn people make or look at.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

NEA = National Endowment for the Arts

I disagree Rob:
*you must be a certain age to consume it
*in many, if not most, places it is illegal to be intoxicated in public
*in every state you can be declared unfit to be a parent if you are a chronic drunk
*in every state it is illegal to operate heavy machinery (especially a car) while drunk
*in many places it is illegal to consume it at all in public
*in some places it is illegal altogether (yes, even after prohibition ended on the national scale)
*the advertising of it is regulated
*the production of it is regulated

So, no, it’s not merely what you do while drunk. All those laws taken together are aimed at regulating and moderating the consumption of alcohol.

I’ve often wondered why those who make use of prostitutes don’t just bring a video camera along, or even a still camera, and make it as though they are shooting a porn clip.  As Rob said, you can’t get in trouble for paying women for being “actresses” in porn films…

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

What, really, is the difference between porn and prostitution?

Both participants get paid for porn so…
the answer must be…
two for the price of one?

Seth, I get your point, but it isn’t an exact analogy.

Plus, porn is already regulated.  You have to be of a certain age to appear in it/buy it.  Certain types of porn (simulated snuff and rape films, bestiality, etc.) are banned in some areas.

I guess I’m not sure what regulation would be needed aside from what we’re already doing.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Aside from what we’re doing, I can’t think of anything more either. I didn’t mean to imply I thought we needed more regulation than now necessarily (nor did I think you advocated less).

Just saying there’s a happy medium between absolute prohibition and absolute pervasiveness.

rob, it that Avatar an early picture of you?

Nah, it’s one I was using to tease Freep a bit earlier.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

rob, it that Avatar an early picture of you?

Naw, he was listening to Black Eye Peas and took the song (Let’s get Retarded) literally.

Ooooohhh...good one freeper!

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So, no, it’s not merely what you do while drunk. All those laws taken together are aimed at regulating and moderating the consumption of alcohol.

Completely wrong.  Those laws are aimed at regulating public behavior and private behavior that could affect the public good (such as child welfare). 

Other than driving drunk, you really have to go out of your way to run afoul of the law in any of those cases.  To the point that those that DO, are beyond any normal level of alcohol consumption.  So maybe they are attempting to prevent outright abuse of alcohol, but 99% of people have no problem with that in the first place.

Yes, and how do they regulate that behavior? By attempting to regulate the substance that causes that behavior. So, not completely wrong...and a fairly pointless argument over semantics to boot.

...but 99% of people have no problem with that in the first place.

And 90% of statistics are made up.

I love porn...porn-y porn porn

Rob, the Internet merely distributes filth.  I’m simply arguing that one could prosecute the production of this filth as prostitution, which is unaffected by the Internet.

It should also be noted that most cities do actively regulate and even prohibit various forms of pornography, including that in the web.  Yes, one can evade the law--otherwise we’d have no need for the police and courts.  That doesn’t mean that we should legalize murder, rape, and theft, though.

I’m simply arguing that one could prosecute the production of this filth as prostitution, which is unaffected by the Internet.

Except that as soon as you did that production would move over the border where we can’t reach it.

I know you have a moral objection to porn, but judging by the amount of money porn makes I’d suggest you’re probably in the minority on that.

What I’m saying is that if you ban porn we’re going to have a prohibition situation on our hands.  As long as there is demand for porn, that demand will be met.

You’d be better off focusing on how to reduce that demand.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Speaking of the moral consequences of porn, sociological studies such as this one seem to indicate that pornography plays a positive role:

The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

There are reasons to expect this, such as pornography providing a legal outlet to individuals who would otherwise victimize women.

Certainly they’d try to go to Canada, Mexico, and even Brazil--was it Don who was into “Brazilian tranny porn”? 

But that said, do we really expect Canadians and such to welcome this sort of thing?  Even the Dutch, Thais, and Germans are starting to crack down on this because it’s inherently exploitative.

And Carrick, let’s not forget that Hugh Hefner founded Playboy in 1953, not 1981, OK?  If you want to compare the availability of porn with rape rates, let’s start with the time when it began to be socially acceptable.

And by that measure, the ready availability of pornography is POSITIVELY correlated with rape, not negatively.

Another victimless action made criminal by the authoritarians in the religious right.

One of the interesting things about the linked study is that states that heavily restrict assess to pornography haven’t seen a decline, and in fact have suffered a modest increase.  Which is to say the inverse relationship is only present in states which are more permissive towards porn.  In other areas, in spite over women’s rape awareness programs, tougher laws, etc, the problem has actually gotten worse.

1972 was the year in which pornography “took off” in this country with the movie “Deep Throat”.

Carrick, if you don’t acknowledge the 1950s as the time when Kinsey and Hefner started to radically change sexual mores, I really don’t think you have a thing to say in this matter.  Blue movies existed, and zoning was being liberalized, long before 1972.  Even if you were correct, you re-emphasize the fact that the “study” you cite uses a grossly wrong time frame for its analysis.

Moreover, you misrepresent the study.  It is not the states most heavily regulating porn that had slight increases in rape, but rather the states with the least internet access.  Even worse, a look at HIS OWN NUMBERS demonstrates that the states with higher internet access still had HIGHER rape rates than those without.  It also demonstrates that none of these eight states shows the 85% reduction in rape rates claimed by the author.

That’s hardly consistent with the idea that porn reduces rape, and reviewers should have noted this.  The reviewers should also have noted that the data provided do NOT uphold his claims in the least.

Even worse, the “study” calls “minor” the fact that ALL violent crime is down by about 50-60% in the past 25 years.  He confuses the 700lb gorilla in the room with a chihuahua!

In other words, the “study” you cite is more or less a strategic cherry-picking of data that is not worthy of the National Enquirer, let alone a serious law or sociology review.  It hardly demonstrates correlation, let alone causation, and is so plagued with methodological problems that even the correlation cannot be taken seriously.

One of the interesting things about the linked study is that states that heavily restrict assess to pornography haven’t seen a decline, and in fact have suffered a modest increase.  Which is to say the inverse relationship is only present in states which are more permissive towards porn. 

do some gogle trend searched and you’d be shocked. ..Utah and Pakistan may surprise you, and perhaps serve as evidence to the point you just made.

Seth:

And 90% of statistics are made up.

got definitive proof of that Seth?

The only thing I have to say Robert is if you think Playboy is pornography (especially in it’s early editions), then you really are a prude.

Nor is the Kinsey’s report pornography.  Why did you even bring that up?  We aren’t debating shifting sexual mores, we’re talking about access to pornography.  Stay on topic.

And it’s a fact that the widespread availability and popularity of pornography (especially hard core) did in fact start with Deep Throat, whatever obfuscation you wish to make about it.  The invention of the VCR helped a lot too.  That’s a well known 1970’s social phenomenon that perhaps you’re too young to remember.  And that’s why high-speed internet is important...it gives ready access to pornographic moves without the filter of local regulations.

On the other hand, the argument of some people that pornography leads to violence towards women is not sustained by the raw numbers.  You admit yourself that overall violence crime has gone down by 50%, and the same time that rape has gone down by 85%. 

Yes, there is an overall trend towards a decrease in violent crime.  But the fact that the rate is greater for sexual assault at the least puts the “porn causes rape” meme on its ear.  I agree that it doesn’t establish the inverse relationship...which is why I said “studies suggest”.

Even the Dutch, Thais, and Germans are starting to crack down on this because it’s inherently exploitative.

I’m not sure you can say that porn is inherently exploitive.  Certainly it can be exploitive and has been in the past what with the talent often being duped into performing in exchange for drugs or what not, but I think the enterprise has become less exploitive as it has become more mainstream.

Certainly you’d have a hard time explaining to someone like Jenna Jameson, who has made millions from her porn career and crossed over into the mainstream entertainment industry, that she’s being exploited.

You may not like porn from a moral standpoint, but I don’t think that many of these actresses are being forced to perform any more.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Carrick, I’m old enough to remember the VCR, and also have the amazing ability to read.  Like it or not, Playboy was and continues to be what is called “soft core” pornography, and various “advances” in what Hefner did were scandalous at the time they were presented. 

Again, like it or not, the transition point in pornography began with Kinsey and Hefner, who was more or less inspired by Kinsey.  And again, like it or not, your own comments demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of this “research”.  The author chooses the wrong time frame and grossly misrepresents the data.

Let’s face facts; the eight states for which data are provided demonstrate, all in all, about the same rape rate in 2005 as in 1980.  If indeed the overall reduction is 85%, we must assume that the 42 other states had a 90-95% reduction in rape (false), and that analysis of what happened in the other 42 states would be statistically far more significant than what happened in the eight he looked at.

And yes, Rob, it’s inherently exploitative.  Something must happen before someone is ready to have sex in front of a camera with a stranger--or multiple strangers.  In the case of Jenna Jameson, it was being orphaned, poverty, and finally being raped several times.  So please don’t repeat this garbage about there being no correlation between porn and exploitation.  A quick look at Wikipedia tells what really went on.

For every story of a porn actress who was abused, there are dozens more who weren’t.

Robert: Excellent point.  I was also around to read Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy”.  One of his main premises was that sexual repression(his term) caused all the social ills from which we were suffering at the time.  He was a crusader against what he called “Victorianism”, which he blamed for crime, among other things.  It is instructive to now look back and see what his “philosophy” has accomplished, since it has been largely implemented since the Sixties.  We have not eliminated any of the things he blamed on “sexual repression”, even though we have sexuality in the public discourse to an extreme degree, IMO.  Has all this public sexuality increased our quality of life?  If not, we might want to reconsider this huge social experiment in the light of truth, not the fantasy projections of Hugh Hefner.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert:

Carrick, I’m old enough to remember the VCR,

I was obviously talking about the “It’s a fact that the widespread availability and popularity of pornography” and not the VCR when I was describing “That’s a well known 1970’s social phenomenon”.  The “VCR helped too” comment didn’t describe a phenomenon in itself, merely qualified the one given in the thesis statement of the paragraph.

and also have the amazing ability to read.

Well that wasn’t a particular good example, given that your reading ability is so amazing.  LOL

Given your willingness to be selectively dense...discussing this with you is a waste of time.

Something must happen before someone is ready to have sex in front of a camera with a stranger--or multiple strangers.  In the case of Jenna Jameson, it was being orphaned, poverty, and finally being raped several times.

Well I wasn’t aware of Jenna’s childhood woes, but I don’t think every porn star who appears on screen has suffered through molestation, assaults or abuse.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Robert, apparently Jenna herself doesn’t feel that the one incident of rape and abuse in her childhood (at least according to Wikipedia) didn’t impact her decision to become an adult film actress.

This is a quote from her book:

Was I in this business because I was victimised or because I wanted to succeed at something? I examined it from every angle I could, and every time came to the same conclusion: that it didn’t make a shred of difference. It occurred too late in my development to be formative. Whether it had happened or not, I still would have become a porn star. I’ve been to enough therapists to know that.

Seems like a well-reasoned statement to me.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Robert Perry, I will concede that the study failed to prove the case that an inverse relationship between porn & sexual assault exists.  You made some good points about that.  Other than that, you appear unwilling to cede any point that would weaken your argument, even what are to me obvious ones.  That doesn’t suggest there’s much point of a discussion, if you are entirely intractable in your position.

Robert108, the thing to do would be to look at states that are sexually more permissive versus those that are less so.

It’s interesting that you say “We have not eliminated any of the things he blamed on ‘sexual repression’”.

I really doubt that Hugh was claiming that we would eliminate violent crime and such.  However, there is little doubt that crime rate over all has dropped dramatically since those days.

From his perspective the precipitous drop in the crime rate might be ascribed to “improve social mores” that resulted in less sexually repressed feelings.  And to the extent that repressed sexuality was leading to violent behavior, it has mollified that crime.

Personally, I think it has much more to do with the drop in poverty due to the increasing social affluence of our society.  But that’s just an opinion.

I’m with Robert Perry on this, but not for his reasons. I’m really bothered by the public acceptance and widespread promulgation of pornography, particularly in America. But it’s not because I think sex is bad; it’s because I think sex is wonderful--it represents the supreme expression of human love. “Cum Guzzling Whores” is the exact opposite of what sex is; it shouldn’t even really be called “sex” in the meaningful sense of the word. Pornography devalues the sex, making the most sacred part of our existence just another commercial product. It sickens me. (All that said, I’m still opposed to censorship. In the court of public opinion, my view lost. I think one day it will triumph.)

Carrick, the reason I don’t cede any points is because I don’t think your source, or you, made any worth conceding.  Porn became societally acceptable and available in the 1950s, not the 1970s, and certainly not in the 1980s.  So whatever time frame this guy is using is a priori flawed.

Moreover, a quick research of the relative rates of rape claimed by your author demonstrates that his central claim--85% lower rape--is completely false.  It’s about the same as it was in 1980, just as a look at HIS OWN ARTICLE demonstrates for the eight states he analyzes.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html

http://hawaii.gov/ag/cpja/main/rs/sp_rpts_9499/25yrUCR.pdf

http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/why/2sec12.pdf

http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204608/page6.html

Dave, you do not find me in disagreement on the point you made. 

And Rob, take a look at the rest of that Wiki article. She makes one claim, but let’s be serious; the cost of the drugs she took are as good a reason as any to stay with a horrible job with high pay instead of getting her next best option, a clerk’s job at 7-11.  Look also at articles on Linda Lovelace and John Holmes and follow the links.  You won’t get an eyeful, but you’ll learn what the industry is all about.

Like you noted at the top, it’s prostitution, horrible degradation, and coercion--combined with a wealth of excuses by those who know that they were there because of easy money, drugs, and coercion.

I really doubt that Hugh was claiming that we would eliminate violent crime and such. Actually, he was pretty hyperbolic on the subject.  He was actually claiming that eliminating prudery and repression of sexuality would improve society in an overall sense. However, there is little doubt that crime rate over all has
dropped dramatically since those days.

From his perspective the precipitous drop in the crime rate might be ascribed to “improve social mores” that resulted in less sexually repressed feelings.  And to the extent that repressed sexuality was leading to violent behavior, it has mollified that crime. I think it’s necessary to demonstratate a quantifiable cause and effect relationship, rather than claim it on a statistical basis.

Personally, I think it has much more to do with the drop in poverty due to the increasing social affluence of our society.  But that’s just an
opinion.

I find two things interesting; when you examine births out of wedlock, youth crime and the general degeneration of society, it is a hard case to make that Hefner’s values have led to any improvement, and the claim could be made that things have gotten worse.  Not conclusive proof, but not a great endorsement, either.
The second thing is, if Hefner believed his freer sexual expression was for social purposes, now that he has obviously “freed up” society, why doesn’t he retire?  After all, his work is done, isn’t it?  He obviously has more than one agenda, it seems.

--

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I think Rob makes a good observation here. What precisely is the difference between pornography and prostitution? I’ve wondered this myself for quite some time. One does not need to take a stand on either prostitution or porn to recognize this for a rather curious inconsistency.

Okay, come on guys, let’s get right down to the root of this evil.  It’s all Clinton’s fault and if Hilary is elected she’ll legalize it all.

Robert, I didn’t say that the porn industry hasn’t been exploitive.  I’m pointing out that it has gotten less exploitive as it has gone more mainstream.

Puzzle, thanks for again for yet another one of your thoughtful, well-written comments.  We all appreciate your input so much.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No problem, Rob, it was only a matter of time before one of the right wing wacks here wrote that Clinton was to blame.  Rob, clearly, you have the market cornered on well written comments.  And your input is greatly appreciated as well.

Robert108:

when you examine births out of wedlock, youth crime and the general degeneration of society,Any idea how you quantify “degeneration of society”?  I’m sure that oldtimers thought society had degenerated when men quit wearing hats in public.  But is that true degeneration or just shifting mores?

"I’m sure that oldtimers thought society had degenerated when men quit wearing hats in public.”

This makes me smile.

But is that true degeneration or just shifting mores?

You think there’s a difference?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Well, duh.

Not wearing hats in public anymore is not a sign of degeneration.  Perhaps you disagree.

Rob, perhaps it’s gotten less exploitative, but if you take a look at Wikipedia’s profiles of those involved in the industry (again, can be done without getting too much visuals), you’ll find that an awful lot of them report rape and drug use, or that someone “is a vocal opponent of drug use.”

In other words, exploitation is still a massive problem, despite the fact that the industry has been more or less accepted for 50 years now.  I’d argue that the drug use and abuse is simply indicative of what kind of business it is.  It’s simply not natural to want to have sex with a stranger in front of a camera, and you’ve got to do something to a person before they’re willing to do that--especially as Wiki indicates that a great portion of that garbage involves homosexual, bisexual, and other deviant kinds of behavior.

I would again suggest that drugs and abuse overcome reluctance for many/most of the “actors” there.  The Wiki bios really don’t allow another conclusion.

Robert Perry, sorry that it took me a bit of time to get back to you.. my conference just finished up.  Here is a shot out of the window of my hotel, in case anybody is interested:

Anyway, I’ve come to agree with you---the paper I cited is a complete mess.  I though D’Amato was better than that...a full professor at Northwestern, very well regarded in his field.  I would have expected better from him.

Regarding the precipitous drop in crime rate---I did have a bit of a chance to research that. 

The 85% number comes from the DOJ, not from D’Amato, as reported here.  I went through the raw numbers and couldn’t make it work.  I suppose the right thing to do is find the DOJ report and work out where their numbers come from.  At the moment, like you I think, I’m getting an overall increase in victimization rate.  I’m guessing the difference is the DOJ numbers are “adjusted victimization rate” whatever that is (I’m guessing crimes normalized by the population group being victimized...but who knows???)

In any case D’Amato is looking at the victimization rate, which isn’t even the right number to be looking at!  He should be looking at the rate at which the adult population responsible for rapes is committing those rapes.  Since the demographics of our population shifts over time, that’s the least one needs to do, if you’re going to try and use statistics to ferret out an effect like this.

A controlled, well-thought-out study is needed.  Unfortunately, D’Amato I think was just trying to provoke people to think and ended up making a sloppy mess of things in the process.  That’s unfortunate.

Robert Perry:

I would again suggest that drugs and abuse overcome reluctance for many/most of the “actors” there.  The Wiki bios really don’t allow another conclusion.

I think you’re arguing more than can be proven from the known facts.

In any case, even if we were to stipulate that the only reason that people ever become porn stars is because of childhood experiences, drug use or whatever, I still don’t agree with laws that protect people from themselves.  Outlawing porn to prevent women from being “victimized” is I’m afraid that sort of law. Just as outlawing alcohol to prevent people from becoming alcoholics doesn’t work, neither would this.

If anything, it would probably lead to greater victimization of these porn stars, due to the removal of any regulation of this industry.  At least now, there is regular HIV testing, requirements of documentation on file proving that they are of legal age, etc.  If you make it illegal, you’re not going to stop it even in the US, you’ll just drive it underground, and remove many barriers that would only increase their victimization.

I’d agree it would drive the industry underground, but I simply don’t view it as a bad thing.  If prospective actors had to walk through a back alley and speak a password to get through the door, and if films were distributed by couriers instead of by registered mail of FedEx, I think people might to start catching on to what kind of business this really is.

Yes, the victimization of those who stayed would be hidden, but on the other hand, when someone was caught in such a studio, there would be no need to check the guy to see if he had a condom on, or if their records were up to date.  15 seconds of film would suffice to convict them, and more importantly, those behind and around the cameras.