The benefits of Internet porn

August 5, 2013

This link between an increase in web porn and a decrease in rape was first noted in 2006 by Clemson economist Todd Kendall. Kendall’s study, which was supported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, concluded that “Internet access appears to be a substitute for rape; in particular, the results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in Internet access is associated with a decline in reported rape victimization of around 7.3 percent.”
Recent statistics indicate that Kendall’s research was no fluke. In fact, as Internet access — as well as the amount of cheap or free online porn — has further increased, incidences of rape and sexual assault have continued to plummet.
According to the National Crime Victimization survey, an annual report published by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rape/sexual assault rate fell from 5 per 1,000 American women over age 12 in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 in 2011.
“Over the past two decades, as pornography has become much more easily accessible over the Internet, the rate of rape and sexual assault has declined by about 60 percent,” according to Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent at Reason magazine.
Even one 2009 Texas A&M study that began with an assumption that easy access to porn led to more rapes found that the opposite was true. The study’s authors admitted that “the increasing availability of pornography appears to be associated with a decline in rape.”
While crime rates are on the decline for all types of offenses, “it’s only rape (and sexual assault) that appears to be pegged to online connectivity,” Bailey reports.
Besides reducing the horrendous crimes of rape and sexual assault, online porn also appears to reduce several societal ills, as well. Over the last dozen years, since Internet pornography use first became widespread in the U.S., rates of divorce and teen pregnancy have also fallen.
Read more:

So I guess that book they pushed at Carnegie Mellon University by Susan Wendell was bullshit. It is a shame the school treated men so poorly based on the fraudulent data of a feminist


So much for #feminist porn studies of Susan Wendell

January 14, 2013

Porn is exciting to females (unless it feels like the females are being the object of humiliation)

Porn addict: Gina the chimpanzee (not pictured) favoured the adult channels on her TV over all others. Stock image

(The chimpanzee who’s addicted to porn: Spanish scientist’s astonishment at female ape who won’t stop watching adult TV) A Spanish scientist says he has discovered a female chimpanzee who is addicted to watching porn.Gina, a resident of Seville Zoo, chose to solely watch adult entertainment channels when a Freeview television and remote control was placed in her enclosure.Primatologist Pablo Herreros, writing in Spanish newspaper El Mundo at the weekend, told how he made the discovery some years ago on a tour of the nation’s chimpanzee enclosures.


“Current Laws on All Forms of Pornography and Obscenity Need to Be Vigorously Enforced”

September 3, 2012

(Eugene)So says the Republican Party Platform, and this leads me to questions I asked in 2004, when the Bush Administration called for a pornography crackdown.
As we know, there’s lots of porn of all varieties out there on the Internet, including porn that might well be seen as offensive to “community standards” in at least one American state (the standard that would be applicable under the plurality view in Ashcroft v. ACLU (I) (2002), if prosecutors choose to bring a case in that state), or perhaps even under some “national community standard” (the alternative standard urged to varying extents by the other opinions in that case). In principle, the government might well be able to prosecute many American pornography producers and distributors under current obscenity laws.
But even if every single U.S. producer is shut down, wouldn’t foreign sites happily take up the slack? It’s not like Americans have some great irreproducible national skills in smut-making, or like it takes a $100 million Hollywood budget to make a porn movie. Foreign porn will doubtless be quite an adequate substitute for the U.S. market. Plus the foreign distributors might even be able to make and distribute copies of the existing U.S.-produced stock — I doubt that the imprisoned American copyright owners will be suing them for infringement (unless the U.S. government seizes the copyrights, becomes the world’s #1 pornography owner, starts trying to enforce the copyrights against overseas distributors, and gets foreign courts to honor those copyrights, which is far from certain and likely far from cheap).
And even if overall world production of porn somehow improbably falls by some substantial amount, will that seriously affect the typical porn consumer’s diet? Does it matter whether you have, say, 100,000 porn titles (and live feeds) to choose from, or just 25,000?
So we have three possible outcomes:
(1) The U.S. spends who knows how many prosecutorial and technical resources going after U.S. pornographers. A bunch of them get imprisoned. U.S. consumers keep using the same amount of porn as before. Maybe they can’t get porn on cable channels or in hotel rooms any more, but that’s so twentieth century; instead, consumers will continue to be able to get more than they ever wanted on the Internet. Nor do I think that the crackdown will somehow subtly affect consumers’ attitudes about the morality of porn — it seems highly unlikely that potential porn consumers will decide to stop getting it because they hear that some porn producers are being prosecuted.
The only potential benefit: If you think the porn industry is very bad for porn actors, you’re at least sparing Americans actors that harm, and shifting it off-shore instead. But that has little to do with “Making the Internet Family-Friendly,” which is what the platform bills the “vigorous[] enforce[ment]” policy as relating to. And as to changing what’s available on the Internet, the investment of major prosecutorial resources yields a net practical benefit of roughly zero.
(2) The government gets understandably outraged by the “foreign smut loophole.” “Given all the millions that we’ve invested in going after the domestic porn industry, how can we tolerate all our work being undone by foreign filth-peddlers?,” pornography prosecutors and their political allies would ask. So they unveil the solution, in fact pretty much the only solution that will work: Nationwide filtering.
It’s true: Going after cyberporn isn’t really that tough — if you require every service provider in the nation to block access to all sites that are on a constantly updated government-run “Forbidden Off-Shore Site” list. Of course, there couldn’t be any trials applying community standards and the like before a site is added to the list; that would take far too long. The government would have to be able to just order a site instantly blocked, without any hearing with an opportunity for the other side to respond, since even a quick response would take up too much time, and would let the porn sites just move from location to location every several weeks.
Sure, that sounds like a violation of First Amendment procedural rules, even when the government is going after substantively unprotected obscenity. Sure, that would make it easier for the government to put all sorts of other sites on the list. Sure, it’s a substantially more intrusive step than any of the American Internet regulations we’ve seen so far, and is substantially more intrusive in some ways than nearly all speech restrictions in American history. (I say in some ways, not in all ways, since it would have a limited substantive focus — but the procedure would be highly restrictive, and First Amendment law has always recognized the practical importance of procedure.) But it’s the only approach that has any hope of really reducing the accessibility of porn to American consumers.
(3) Finally, the government can go after the users: Set up “honeypot” sites (seriously, that would be the technically correct name for them) that would look like normal offshore pornography sites. Draw people in to buy the stuff. Figure out who the buyers are. To do that, you’d also have to ban any anonymizer Web sites that might be used to hide such transactions, by setting up some sort of mandatory filtering such as what I described in option (2).
Then arrest the pornography downloaders and prosecute them for receiving obscene material over the Internet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462; see, e.g., United States v. Whorley (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that such enforcement is constitutional, and quite plausibly so holding, given the United States v. Orito Supreme Court case). As best I can tell, this statute has recently been used only as an adjunct in child pornography prosecutions, where the prosecutors think the person is trying to get child pornography but add a receipt of obscenity charge just in case they can’t prove the child pornography charge. But it is a “current law[] on … obscenity,” out there to be used.
Heck, lock each pornography viewer up for several years like you would a child porn buyer. Make him register as a sex offender. Seize his house on the theory that it’s a forfeitable asset, since it was used to facilitate an illegal transaction. All because he, or he and his wife, like to get turned on by watching pictures of people having sex (or perhaps just pictures of people having sufficiently kinky sex, or pretending to have sufficiently kinky sex). Then repeat for however many people it takes to get everyone scared of the Smut Police.
So we really have three possible outcomes:

  1. The crackdown on porn is doomed to be utterly ineffective at preventing the supposedly harmful effects of porn on its viewers, and on the viewers’ neighbors.
  2. The crackdown on porn will be made effective — by implementing a comprehensive government-mandated filtering system run by some administrative agency that constantly monitors the Net and requires private service providers to block any sites that the agency says are obscene.
  3. The crackdown on porn will turn into a full-fledged War on Smut that will be made effective by prosecuting, imprisoning, and seizing the assets of porn buyers.

Seriously, I don’t see many other alternatives. The government could try to put pressure on financial intermediaries, for instance requiring Visa and MasterCard to refuse transactions with certain locations; but unless that’s made just as intrusive as option #2 above, it will be hopelessly ineffective, since sites can easily just periodically change their payee names, or use various offshore intermediaries.
The government might also try to persuade foreign countries to join its campaign, but I’m pretty sure that won’t work, either. First, the Europeans are apparently fairly tolerant of much porn. Second, I highly doubt that we can persuade every poor third-world country, some of which have thriving trades in real flesh, to spend its resources creating and actually enforcing anti-porn laws, in the face of whatever payoffs the porn industry is willing to provide.
So, supporters of that plank of the platform, which do you prefer — #1, #2, or #3? Note that I’m not asking whether porn is bad, or whether porn should be constitutionally protected. I’m certainly not asking whether we’d be better off in some hypothetical porn-free world (just like no sensible debate about alcohol, drug, or gun policy should ask whether we’d be better off in some hypothetical alcohol-, drug-, or gun-free world).
I’m asking: How can the government’s policy possibly achieve its stated goals, without creating an unprecedentedly intrusive censorship machinery, one that’s far, far beyond what any mainstream political figures are talking about right now?

my primary concern is protecting the young from compromising their dignity. It might be worth passing a law if we were to go after porn producers to demand that people who would leave the country to perform pornographic acts for pay would not be invited back in the country. Obviously self benefit is being plaid here and maybe we should take the incentives of foreign porn out. It’d be nice to know that less sluts were living in my neighborhood. I’m sure the sluts will get along swimmingly in countries that don’t share our moral sense aka the boundary between us an the apes. Maybe the moral-less would like to live with the apes. you can’t kill the demand for sex, but you can kill the incentive to meet the demand. non paid sex I have no problem with. This is all moot if we don’t prosecute present porn laws.

Let’s just say there is enough reasons to get Obama out and ignore something stupid the GOP is saying. But the holes in the problem are now documented. Obviously going after the supply is hard if people can always come back into the country.


Will Porn Be Banned in Egypt? That Arab Spring is LIMP!

February 21, 2012

(Challah) @ Bikya Masr

Arab SexEgypt’s ultra-conservative al-Nour religious party said on its Facebook page on Monday that the party’s MP Younis Makhioun has put forward a request for an “urgent briefing” to ban pornography websites from the Internet in Egypt.
The request is expected to be discussed shortly in Egypt’s lower house.
The news saw praise and condemnation alike from Egyptians as many commentators showed support and urged for the ban to be passed, while others objected on the loss of personal freedoms.
Others feared that it would not stop at pornography sites, but would go on to crackdown on other websites conservatives believe go against their creed.
In 2011, Egypt landed in the number five spot globally in searching for “sex” online, joined by Algeria and Morocco also in the top 10, according to Google trends. Arabic language is used second only to English as the language of search choice for adult content online.

Some of those feminist leftists are going to be happy about this… they were the ones that pushed this Arab Spring. When the men start getting repressed and break into rape marathons… I doubt anyone will feel enlightened. Send in the pretty Western journalists to get groped in Tahrir Square again.


Firefighter Porn: LAFD Employees Being Investigated For Adult Videos That Used Fire Trucks as Props

October 1, 2011
(Digital Spy)(LAWeekly) Los Angeles firefighters have come under attack for allegedly filming pornographic movies while on duty. Emergency workers in Venice Beach are due to be investigated for allowing their vehicles to be used in adult pictures, NBC reports. If the allegations are proven to be true, the guilty firefighters will have violated LAFD policy by failing to “operate apparatus in a way that does not compromise the reputation of the department”. “The fire chief is adamant about addressing the issue, finding out what took place,” LAFD spokesperson Captain Tina Haro said. “The professional standards division is following all leads, all reasonable leads, leaving no stone unturned. “The fire chief absolutely will not tolerate the type of thing that might have happened in that videotape.” However, a department insider claimed that the entire station was aware of the firefighters’ actions and considered them to be “good, clean fun”.The LAFD are also investigating firefighters from another station in Hollywood over similar allegations. One fire official tells the station there is “zero tolerance” for the use of official LAFD apparatuses that way. “Look at this fire truck,” actress Charley Chase is quoted as saying: “Isn’t that nice.” charley chase com.JPG

Legal Experts: Casey Anthony Will Be Released From Jail

July 7, 2011
kids are not talking about Lady Arberlin.

…I got scared when I called my seven year old son on the phone at his Grandparents house and the first thing out of his mouth was Casey Anthony. I don’t know much about it… but I guess I’m going to learn. Casey’s looking at four misdemeanors, which she could stack or run concurrent, but she’s already served most of the time, An adult entertainment company offered Anthony a deal to star in porn movies. Later, Steve Hirsch, the chief of Vivid Entertainment, withdrew the offer. TMZ h/t USAToday


Gloria Steinem’s Anti-Christ!

June 27, 2011

He has one of the largest collections of pornography and erotica in the world, but don’t call Clifford Scheiner a dirty old man.
The former Brooklyn emergency room doctor with a Ph.D. in sexuality has amassed an enormous hoard of 350,000 books, films and photos – from 13th century manuscripts to every issue of Playboy and Screw magazine ever printed.
“It is certainly one of the largest collections of erotology and sexology in the world,” he says.
Scheiner, 61, of Flatbush, has been collecting since the late 1960s, but he insists his fascination is purely academic.
“I became interested because of the mystery involved,” he said. “To hear people talk about it – nobody bought it, nobody sold it, nobody owned it, nobody printed it, nobody illustrated it and nobody bound it, but the books were there and that intrigued me.”
He dove headfirst into books that took great effort to decipher.
“I taught myself to recognize most of the dirty words in most of the languages that use the Roman alphabet,” he said. “I don’t have huge language skills, but I get a pretty good idea of what is going on.”
Ultimately, he went into the book business, starting a mail-order company, C.J. Scheiner Books. “I never paid retail for anything,” he said.
Scheiner, born in Clifton, N.J., studied molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale, got a medical degree from SUNY Downstate and later earned a Ph.D. from the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco.
By the 1980s, the collection swelled, with people selling him rare texts, stacks of magazines, photographs, prints and film reels. All the while, he worked as an emergency room doctor at Kings County Hospital – a job he kept until 2003.
“I supported myself entirely from the book business. I wasn’t spending any of my salary from being a doctor on the cost of daily living,” he said. “I was dealing in things ranging from $5 to $85,000.
“Of course, I took a lot of money I made selling books and used it to buy more books,” he added. “That’s why I now have more than 350,000 items.”

Flatbush Jewish doctor has the largest porn collection? I love this guy!