If you could not link here is the article from The Times of India Online
'Rape cases down in US because porn use is up' [ 26 Sep, 2006 2103hrs ISTAGENCIES ]
WASHINGTON: An academic has claimed that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption.
In a study for Northwestern University's Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series titled Porn Up Rape Down , Anthony D'Amato, professor of Law at Northwestern University, argues that the proliferation of pornography has lead to a decline in rape across US.
According to a 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey, the national rate of rape decreased from 2.5 to 0.5 for every thousand people over a 30-year span from 1973 to 2003.
The explanations offered include less lawlessness associated with crack cocaine, women being taught to avoid unsafe situations, that more potential rapists are already in prison for other crimes, and sex education classes telling boys that "no means no."
But D'Amato argues that these are minor factors and do not explain the decline in rape.
"Suppose you distribute free condoms to a country, and you find, five years later, that the birth rate has gone down 85%. Would you say that it's just a cosmic coincidence or would you say that the distribution of condoms caused the drop in the rate of birth? The reasoning is the same for my position on rape: the causation factor is reasonably inferred," said D'Amato.
In Porn Up Rape Down , D'Amato compiled data from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. In 2001, the four states with the lowest access to the net were Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia.
The four with the highest per capita access were Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, and Washington.
When compared to Disaster Centre's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape.
"Critics argue that exposure to depictions of violence causes violent behaviour," said D'Amato.
"They say that rape is just a subcategory of this principle. They couldn't be more mistaken. Exposure to violent movies, TV programs, or video games has not produced more social violence. It has produced the opposite.
The amount of social violence per capita in the year 1900 when street gangs attacked pedestrians and murders were common far exceeds the incidence of violence today. Sure, there is violent behaviour, but when it happens it makes headlines.
Back then it happened so often that it wasn't newsworthy." "It's not a big mystery," says Bruce David, editorial director of Hustler magazine.
"It's consistent with all the research data we've seen. In countries where adult material is legal, generally speaking there is a decline in instances of rape and abuse and we have also seen in places where adult material is illegal that the abuse of women can be rampant, like Afghanistan where women are shot in soccer stadiums."
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (mixed with a little cum hoc, ergo propter hoc):
Just because one thing precedes another thing does not mean the first causes the second to happen. The idea of access to pornography actually reducing the number of rapes per capita is so counterintuitive, more evidence needs to be shown than simply "well, the two are often found together".
Weak analogy:
Condoms and the birth rate have a very observable and physical connection--we understand exactly why providing condoms to sexually active couples would reduce the reproductive rate. Porn and rape have a non-physical non-observable connection. We DON'T know why consumption of one affects committing of the other (we have ideas, but no hard science as in the former case).
The other analogy, that of violence in the 1900's being so much worse than today, and TV having reduced violence is so faulty (how many other things in our society have changed in the past 100 years that might have affected the level of violence???) that I'm not going to take the time to address it because it would take too long. Let's just say the interviewee singlehandedly invented a new logical fallacy: "laughably weak analogy"
Oversimplification:
The reasons for the decrease in violence since the 1900's or the change in rapes per capita over the past 30 years are no doubt multifaceted. It is highly unlikely that one thing affects either of them. This article reads as though TV singlehandedly reduced violence and porn singledhandedly reduced rape. My gut tells me TV and porn have done nothing to reduce either, but even if there is some shred of truth to these claims, it is ridiculous to say they are the major factors in reduction of violence and rape.
In fairness, this is a summary of a study, not the study itself. The study itself may have more "substance" to it, but if this is the best they have, it's appalling in its gross assumptions.
Oooh....it's fun to put the logical smack down on someone with whom I disagree....
i claim that the increase of cell phone usage can be tied to the decline in sales of doo-wop music. cosmic coincidence? i think not. the causation factor is reasonably inferred.
mdog, that is such an obvious fallacy it's laughable. clearly, an *increase* in cell phone usage has led to a *decrease* in human sacrifice -- and i know how counterintuitive that seems. but how many societies where cell phone usage is rampant regularly practice human sacrifice? the evidence is IN.
Someone left out a logical fallacy. Isn't there a bit of a definition problem there? They didn't define "pornography consumption". Also, they didn't define "violent" and "violent behaviour".
I don't remember the exact title of that logical fallacy, but I'm pretty sure it's got to be something to do w/ the stasis of definition (or place).
5 comments:
If you could not link here is the article from The Times of India Online
'Rape cases down in US because porn use is up'
[ 26 Sep, 2006 2103hrs ISTAGENCIES ]
WASHINGTON: An academic has claimed that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption.
In a study for Northwestern University's Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series titled Porn Up Rape Down , Anthony D'Amato, professor of Law at Northwestern University, argues that the proliferation of pornography has lead to a decline in rape across US.
According to a 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey, the national rate of rape decreased from 2.5 to 0.5 for every thousand people over a 30-year span from 1973 to 2003.
The explanations offered include less lawlessness associated with crack cocaine, women being taught to avoid unsafe situations, that more potential rapists are already in prison for other crimes, and sex education classes telling boys that "no means no."
But D'Amato argues that these are minor factors and do not explain the decline in rape.
"Suppose you distribute free condoms to a country, and you find, five years later, that the birth rate has gone down 85%. Would you say that it's just a cosmic coincidence or would you say that the distribution of condoms caused the drop in the rate of birth? The reasoning is the same for my position on rape: the causation factor is reasonably inferred," said D'Amato.
In Porn Up Rape Down , D'Amato compiled data from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. In 2001, the four states with the lowest access to the net were Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia.
The four with the highest per capita access were Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, and Washington.
When compared to Disaster Centre's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape.
"Critics argue that exposure to depictions of violence causes violent behaviour," said D'Amato.
"They say that rape is just a subcategory of this principle. They couldn't be more mistaken. Exposure to violent movies, TV programs, or video games has not produced more social violence. It has produced the opposite.
The amount of social violence per capita in the year 1900 when street gangs attacked pedestrians and murders were common far exceeds the incidence of violence today. Sure, there is violent behaviour, but when it happens it makes headlines.
Back then it happened so often that it wasn't newsworthy." "It's not a big mystery," says Bruce David, editorial director of Hustler magazine.
"It's consistent with all the research data we've seen. In countries where adult material is legal, generally speaking there is a decline in instances of rape and abuse and we have also seen in places where adult material is illegal that the abuse of women can be rampant, like Afghanistan where women are shot in soccer stadiums."
Let's play "I spy the logical fallacy!"
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (mixed with a little cum hoc, ergo propter hoc):
Just because one thing precedes another thing does not mean the first causes the second to happen. The idea of access to pornography actually reducing the number of rapes per capita is so counterintuitive, more evidence needs to be shown than simply "well, the two are often found together".
Weak analogy:
Condoms and the birth rate have a very observable and physical connection--we understand exactly why providing condoms to sexually active couples would reduce the reproductive rate. Porn and rape have a non-physical non-observable connection. We DON'T know why consumption of one affects committing of the other (we have ideas, but no hard science as in the former case).
The other analogy, that of violence in the 1900's being so much worse than today, and TV having reduced violence is so faulty (how many other things in our society have changed in the past 100 years that might have affected the level of violence???) that I'm not going to take the time to address it because it would take too long. Let's just say the interviewee singlehandedly invented a new logical fallacy: "laughably weak analogy"
Oversimplification:
The reasons for the decrease in violence since the 1900's or the change in rapes per capita over the past 30 years are no doubt multifaceted. It is highly unlikely that one thing affects either of them. This article reads as though TV singlehandedly reduced violence and porn singledhandedly reduced rape. My gut tells me TV and porn have done nothing to reduce either, but even if there is some shred of truth to these claims, it is ridiculous to say they are the major factors in reduction of violence and rape.
In fairness, this is a summary of a study, not the study itself. The study itself may have more "substance" to it, but if this is the best they have, it's appalling in its gross assumptions.
Oooh....it's fun to put the logical smack down on someone with whom I disagree....
i claim that the increase of cell phone usage can be tied to the decline in sales of doo-wop music. cosmic coincidence? i think not. the causation factor is reasonably inferred.
also: i'm a moron.
mdog, that is such an obvious fallacy it's laughable. clearly, an *increase* in cell phone usage has led to a *decrease* in human sacrifice -- and i know how counterintuitive that seems. but how many societies where cell phone usage is rampant regularly practice human sacrifice? the evidence is IN.
Someone left out a logical fallacy. Isn't there a bit of a definition problem there? They didn't define "pornography consumption". Also, they didn't define "violent" and "violent behaviour".
I don't remember the exact title of that logical fallacy, but I'm pretty sure it's got to be something to do w/ the stasis of definition (or place).
Post a Comment