In college I read a book called "Pornography And Censorship" by David Copp and Susan Wendell.
It's whole slant was that porn caused violence and they used statistics to try to prove it.
If you actually read the book and think about the statistic they present you then you realize that a quarter century of feminism was based on these studies and then you realize how flawed the studies actually are.
This stuff is silly. It is the foundation of all these so called studies on aggression that motivates idiots like Hannover/Ghouliani administration. One of the stupidest studies involved showing a violent pornographic film to both a male and then a female. They noted that the woman got as aggressive as did the male. Biased they speculated that the women were identifying with the victim and were incensed. Talk about projection eh? If there is one thing I know from living with my girl it is that she has more violent thoughts towards women then I ever did. Feminism takes some data and distorts it. It is a game. It is the ultimate stalker. It is stalking the male sex. It is a control mechanism to return us to Alpha Male mentality of the Gorillia herds of one male and nine females. If these morons can show that men are somehow objectiviely more violent... then you can justify a police state. Anyone who lived in New York City in the 90's and saw Ghouliani go after the Porn industry like he did would see the real aggression. And it wasn't coming from Porn. The aggression came out any way it could... racism... you name it. It was just a good old Alpha Male standing up for the Gorilla harem of overstimulated Gorilla women. The fact is that women have as many violent feelings towards women as men do. and the data that was interpreted in the study was overlooked so that they could come to they're own conclusions. The women were not feeling victimized by the aggressive Porn... the women were enjoying the high of a virtual power. But this is not related to our issue exactly... (but it kind of is) The reason I bring it up is because it is an illustrated example of feminist literature based on so called "scientific studies" where the data is interpreted the way the scientists want it.
Anyone who has been to high school knows that the girls tease and the boys hit. No self righteous study like the ones by Susan Wendell can change my memory of 33 years of my life. "CALL A SPADE A SPADE". The reason psychoanalysis is so lost these days is we are turning it into a statistical science. It just is not that kind of thing. People don't test the way they act in life. The reason Freud's analysis is so useful even today (even when he is wrong) is that he just went out there and wrote what happened. He never creates controlled environments.
When we start with the institutional statistics and experiments, the end result will always be what the institution wants to prove. Is it no wonder a generation of young boys were forced on Prozac. I guess the studies said that they would behave better.... but the studies could not see the long term result. They couldn't realize that these little boys were just being little boys... not girls. In the case of Prozac the industry wanted to sell drugs... and the studies proved what they wanted to see.
That is my first point. My second point is how could there be studies of violent offenders when by nature offenders would not be able to be observed.
Have you ever seen the way Hilary Clinton conducts herself on T.V.. Do you think G.W.Bush would get away with behaving like she does? We accept her behavior as being feminine and then she pushes back a double standard of claiming she is there to break boundaries. Your not allowed to say anything. and the elitists online will tease me endlessly for pointing this out. But when the people go to that polls in November you will see who feels a certain violence coming from certain parties.
I'm not claiming that violence isn't a more male crime. What I'm claiming is that in the same vein Cyberbullying is a female trait. It is "TEASING" magnified. Our culture just does not have the history with the internet to deal with it yet legally and sociologically. But it is an offense that is happening.
To project violence into the male conscience in relation to porn is foolish. There are plenty of less direct acts of violence perpetrated by women and they are destructive and unrelated to visual sexuality, but rather related to power. If anything porn gives power to men and therefor makes them less desperate to commit an act of violence.
(also to note) There were studies that I think I del.icio.us -ed that showed that women are more apt to respond to body posture then a person's face. This would explain why our gender developed a more likeable childlike face on the female persuasion then the male. It would seem that body posture are the primary influences in the so called more emotional stimulation. The idea that men are simple more "Visual" is a bit of a myth; men are more visual to the emotion of a woman's acceptance and approval and psychological studies of men show that 9 times out of ten the element that excites the male is the actual face of a woman. He might check at first for proportions, but once that is taken care of sexual stimulation for men both on video studies and in reality go directly to a woman's face, while women look for posture to attain if the mate is strong enough to support her community interests in her libidinal nature
