some guy said the Baptists who raised him were adamantly against premarital sex because it may lead to dancing.

Wow. Shocking.

That was my husband's question as he is working from home this week and heard me play this.

Then he walks over and says "she looks like a church lady."

The ending is the best and twisted part...something about how normal men who view porn start having affairs, treating their partners and daughters differently...wow.

ETA: Also loved the part about comparing porn to other drugs...you know since there's no detox it's always with you. An alcoholic/addict can detox 20 times and they're still an alcoholic and an addict.

Seems to make shit up as she goes along with little or no scientific basis for her hypothesis (bullshit monger).

Follows Judith Reisman around on the erotoxin tour, begging for millions in federal grant money to fund their shit for brains "studies"

Appears to receive funding and support from homophobic groups

Which of course means that I'm unwilling to hear the other side of the 6,000 year old Earth "debate" because I'm bigoted against church-goers.

or clearly has to grind their teeth angrily while uttering the phrase.

I'm like, excuse me. I had relatives die in Buchenwald. So sure, tell me this is some abstract intellectual exercise. Because I can manage to get those words out around Nazis marching in Skokie, and even manage to donate to the ACLU in the process. Why? Because I lurrrrv Nazis? No. Because I understand that the 1st Amendement and Free Speech - no scare quotes, even - is a far more potent weapon against Nazi shitheadism than any bans or censorship could ever be.

Someone wants to have a fit because they can't put a stop to films of "physically aggressive acts" such as blowjobs?


Give me a break.

At least this time it's a peer reviewed study instead of a homophobic shitbag group sponsoring a far right wing social conservative slut-shamer's self-published "study".

Their standards seem to be improving a little although not by much it seems. This time it's a group of self-identified anti-pornographers that nobody has heard of sitting around watching a stack of porn DVDs they self selected with a clicker incrementing each time someone got a hummer, published in an obscure women's studies journal with an impact factor of 1.3. Kinda reminds me of the "family" groups watching prime time TV and marking each time someone said "damn". One can only wonder what the peer review process consists of.

Counterpunch published an interesting article on how objective one of the authors is and I don't think any of the rest are any better. Appears to be a group of influence peddlers bumming for anti-porn grants and not making much headway.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/02/02/feminists-for-porn/

This is the #2 most frequent "physically aggressive act" in the study, and combined with "spanking" pretty much comprises the lion's share of that 88% figure, as near as I can tell.

So here's the definition they used:

categorizing ALL insertion of anything into a mouth (and concurrently, "obstructing breathing&quot as "physical aggression"?

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

So it's not as if you have a non-biased evaluation of any of the criteria they specified. Who knows what they mean, but clearly they already had an idea of what they wanted to say and they patterned everything to fit that notion. The study, if you can call it that, does nothing more than feed red meat to anti-pornographers and completely ignores all the relevant questions they should be trying to answer, but aren't.

The methodology of this study has obvious flaws, and even if it didn't it provides no useful information to anyone who is interested in answering questions about cause and effect. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if dozens of similar "studies" exist, but the impact factor demonstrates that even among Women's Studies journals, few are citing what's in it and those who do are probably a small circle of others who are producing similar studies of dubious methodology.

So why would someone produce a study that isn't answering the right questions? I have no idea, but the simplest answer is influence peddling. People like Reisman are hot tickets on the speaking circuit and if they are able to snag grant money with your tax dollars, they can sit back comfortably and make all the junk science they want. It's a racket if there ever was one. The scientific community realizes they have a serious credibility problem with exactly this kind of thing and it isn't just limited to anti-pornographers. There is currently an effort underway to filter out all of the gibberish masquerading as science, but given the thousands of scientific journals out there with more appearing every day, the task is not an easy one. Until then, if then, there's going to be no end to this garbage and laymen and even policy makers who have no idea how to tell a relevant study from one that isn't are going to be holding these things up pretending they mean something. Even among Women's Studies journals, this one ranks at the bottom of the pile. That alone should tell people something.

Edited to add:

One more thing. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 88% figure is correct. Hell, let's just say it's 100%. Think about how the dots connect here. Remember the hypothesis is, 'porn causes rape'.

So if

A) All porn is violent
B) Correlative evidence is inversely proportional to the hypothesis
C) Causal evidence is inconclusive or supports (B)

What is this telling us?

I'm not sure the anti-pornographers are going to like where the logical conclusion leads us.

The very best you can say about it is it's banal nonsense. I can make a better case for Rock-n-Roll causes devil worship.

"Wheelock College" is known for.

Which is fascinating because her primary, sole credential as an anti-porn luminary is the bit on her resume about being a "Professor at Wheelock College"

Nice deal for both of 'em, apparently.

The Wicked Witch of the West.....

I'm not kidding.

But having gone to school in Boston I knew the college. My alma mater played them in sports.

It's all banal nonsense that hasn't changed since Brownmiller, Dworkin, et al were trying to get Playboy banned. Point out the worst of it, pretend it's all that way, ignore cause and effect data, lather, rinse, repeat. Back then they were promising if internet porn took off, sexual assault would go through the roof. Now Hefner is lauded as a central figure in the sexual revolution, which did have a significant role in the sexual freedoms of women and men, while Brownmiller and Dworkin are on the ash heap of history.

Of course, an incurious or perhaps careless mind might see the peak in 2000 and say "SEE!!! END TIMES!!! DEVIL WORSHIP AT AN ALL TIME HIGH RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MILLENIUM!!111!11!!"

my penis (or anything else) into any woman's mouth: rather, there were many times when a woman acted to surround, gather in, or purse her mouth around my member. To be clear, there was no coercion, payment or even persuasion involved. Perhaps I was just irresistible or maybe defenseless in the face of such unbridled female aggression.

have ever been laid. If they had, they might know something about what they were watching.

Note that there was no closed fist hitting or weaponry, as there is in much real abuse. And most women I've known let you know in short order whether that slap on the ass was a turn-on or not. You think porn directors made that part up?

Penetration with a finger is aggression? Most people call it foreplay, but to each his own when making a point.

And what's with that tiny percentage of times they couldn't tell who was the aggressor?

Wouldn't you just love to see any of them in a room with Nina Hartley?

Sometimes I wonder if those behind these "studies"... have ever been laid.

I think that is the trouble - they may have been in a dark room, no lights, fully dressed and only to procreate - absolutely no fun is allowed

I guess birds of a feather applies.