This paper goes over the data from Denmark as well as the other countries mentioned and the claims contained therein. It found that violent sexual assault and rape actually increased when porn proliferated as many other sexual crimes such as voyeurism, "peeping," incest, and others were simultaneously decriminalized, which incorrectly demonstrated an overall drop in sex crimes over that period.
It also studies the effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) in a couple of major cities and found:
♦ Austin, TX -- 1986 - in four study areas with SOBs, sexually related crimes were 177%
to 482% higher than the city's average.
♦ Indianapolis, IN -- 1984-1986 - Between 1978-1982, crime in study areas was 46%
higher than for the city as a whole. Sex related crimes were four times greater when
SOBs were located near residential areas vs. commercial areas.
♦ Garden Grove, CA -- 1981-1990 - On Garden Grove Blvd., seven adult businesses
accounted for 36% of all crime in the area. In one case, a bar opened within 500 feet of
an SOB and serious crime within 1000 feet of that business rose 300% during the next
year.
♦ Phoenix, AZ -- 1978 - Sex offenses, including indecent exposure, were 506% greater in
neighborhoods with SOBs. Even excluding indecent exposure, the sex offenses were still
132% greater in those neighborhoods.
♦ Whittier, CA -- In comparison studies of two residential areas conducted between 1970-
1973 before SOBs, and 1974-1977 after SOBs, malicious mischief increased 700%,
assault increased 387%, prostitution increased 300%, and all theft increased 120%.
Virtually all SOBs, regardless of the city in which they are located, have similar negative
effects upon their surrounding neighborhoods. The Indianapolis study concluded that: Even a
relatively passive use such as an adult book store [has] a serious negative effect on [its]
immediate environs. It is difficult to miss the implication that these harmful secondary effects
simply reflect something harmful in the nature of the material.
Further, "high-frequency pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography
(relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they
might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual
aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency
of habitual pornography consumption.The authors noted that the effects of exposure
were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing
pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream
commercial entertainment videos.
The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of
raping after exposure to this material 20.4 percent versus 9.6 percent. Detailed analysis
revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects those
who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and
prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics)."
A lot of data has been parsed more broadly on this subject and it doesn't bode well for the argument in favor of the proliferation of AI child pornography to combat real child exploitation, in spite of Aella's claim of "I Would Change My Mind If: ....We don’t actually have good data for most of this."
‘Violent crime actually increased because peeping , incest and voyeurism were legalised and weren’t counted any longer ‘ is a dumb take , since those aren’t violent crimes .
The argument in the case of Denmark was that legalizing pornography resulted in sex crimes decreasing over the following years. However, rape and sexual assault increased. Ambiguously named "sex crimes" decreased overall because these minor crimes were decriminalized, so the total number of crimes was lower in the following years that the lesser crimes were decriminalized but the actual incidence of rape and sexual assault increased. Thus, "sex crimes" (now excluding peeping, voyeurism, and incest, yes, not violent crimes) went down but rape and sexual assault went up. I specifically stated violent sexual assaults and rapes to delineate those two categories I mentioned from the decidedly non-violent and lesser crimes that were decriminalized.
"This is probably because men don’t watch rape porn very frequently, but they do watch infidelity / harem porn. Hence, they pursue what they see." You do see the flaw in your logic here? This is most likely a problem of reverse causation. It's more likely that it's not the case that we act out what we watch/see but that we watch/seek out what we are or already want. Hence, why comparatively few people watch rape porn, gay porn etc, and a majority of people watch straight people's porn.
Aella actually wrote a very good "Against Aella" piece, addressing a wider range of arguments against her original piece. It's good. And she mostly manages to weaken all of these strong counterarguments against her proposal except for the counterargument that CP will normalize child sexual exploitation and hence gives pedophiles an increasing boldness to act out their dangerous impulses. Her own counter-counterargument is also very good. I just don't find it convincing enough.
It's probably even worse than your article implies since you have to account for the fact that sexual interest is not entirely innate and pornography itself shapes desires
Ok well this study shows that in 1989 when porn became less restricted, rapes increased and a decreasing trend on child sexual abuse softened before starting to go back up. https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y
Importantly, most men don't watch rape porn, so rape rates have little to do with whether porn encourages men to seek out what they see in porn more. Rape could have fallen because porn made men seek out consensual relationships more thoroughly. It's not informative to my case.
The correlation between rigor and "convincing" to you is probably rather weak, since you seem biased and not very honest or intelligent. To claim this video is better researched than my article is strong evidence of that fact.
Yeah I am sure that someone who masturbates 4 times per day and doesn't have enough energy or motivation to go for a walk isn't going to be raping anyone but it isn't desirable for men to be in an addicted, unproductive and unhealthy state. Most porn users are not like this or can't be like this and we clearly see plenty of data demonstrating otherwise, as Bronski posted above and as have I, demonstrating that it isn't just sexual assault but many, many other negative and undesirable social outcomes.
You don’t need to be addicted to use porn. If you have a gf and jerk off to her nudes your sex tapes with her, congrats, that’s porn
Porn alone CAN decrease incidents of sexual assault and other forms of law breaking. Porn is not the only sedating mechanism within a modern context. Being fat, using your phone, social media, staying indoors to use internet stuff in general etc all have a sedative effect on male behavior.
And the ones who are agentic enough not to get caught in dopamine traps are also going to be the ones less likely to give into base impulses like sexual violence/harassment—whatever
The second one you haven't provided anything new but I will go along with this again like I did in my first paragraph. Having a porn-addicted mass of young men is unproductive, low-trust and is not good for the mental health of our youth and collective well-being, so I do not see this as something desirable at all.
Even then, my data shows that the rates still exploded - one particularly low-down athletic male who may rape but won't because they will lose all motivation in life due to dopamine sedation is still not really reflected in the data, possibly just a few exceptions in the grand scheme of things. I also know people who are absolute geniuses who get stuck in dopamine traps or become compulsive gamblers who would otherwise be far more productive members of society, men and women alike.
For example, I think Singapore has a good deterrent policy for gambling - citizens (but not foreigners) must pay $114 per day or ~$2,300 a year and must be 21 years or older to gamble. As for porn and sedative behavior - codifying spiteful laws based around androphobia is not particularly desirable and is of collective detriment to all members of society, women included.
This also isn't just a "flex" on poor or low class stupid people lacking agency alone; we should try and protect people from themselves, to the benefit of society as a collective whole. Spiteful laws reduce social cohesion, which makes it more difficult to implement high-level and high-efficacy policies necessary for society, especially in the era of GAI and bioengineering, both of which are existential questions which must be addressed effectively.
Yes, these vices do have an impact on you and your daily life whether you have agency or not. And I am more libertarian-minded and do want libertarianism for me but not for most - but we don't live in a world with people only like us and/or we have a way whereby we can verify the end-results of porn usage using brain scans/genetic screening, etc. on an individual basis, so this point is mute.
Another thing about people being "agentic enough" is that most aren't and it is more on a spectrum and you can see the results in my previous post, with the data around SOBs and their impacts (from multiple independent sources cited, mind you). I never stated anything to the contrary, however if you promote porn under the basis that you have agency and that others don't, you are still condoning these second order effects to occur to the detriment of the collective well-being of society.
I don't think arresting people after the fact alone on an individual basis is desirable if we can do more to prevent it in the first place. You didn't offer up any cohesive plan or alternative legislation or ideas and didn't necessary attack the basis of the claims in the article I quoted from, so I don't really see a point to your argument other than to flex, act dismissive and passive-aggressively attack me from a point of political-tribal affiliation with porn due to your compulsions and against perceived prudes.
One can be addicted to porn and still come to agree with the conclusions I have made based on the data - the fact that you did have to back up to a more defensive position and defend porn as a whole speaks volumes to the value of my arguments. Aella already wholeheartedly believes in free access to porn I'm sure, but you've relegated yourself to defending the more stable goalpost of porn accessibility in general, rather than the less defensible, more nebulous position of AI child pornography that this article was putting out feelers for.
If a family member of yours is raped and mutilated because of some belligerent porn-addict who otherwise likely would have not acted on this impulse if porn access were more prohibitive, well, I don't really need to say much more, do I?
You could try and posit some sort of policy suggestions, as it seems you do at least partially accept the basis of the cited articles I posted. For example, in countries like Israel they require porn users to sign up to a public registry to use porn, which deters its' use significantly.
This could be cited as a possible policy example to follow with data, but I don't see free access to porn as desirable on the societal level (and I believe in tech advancement, transhumanism, genetic engineering, environmentalism, colonizing the stars, civilizational greatness, etc.), regardless of what I may use in my bedroom with my wife or not.
It seems to me that you can't control yourself and your vices and are defensive about it, which only really reflects poorly on you and makes me question your agency with regards to porn usage and in general. Do you have any better arguments to share? I am very passionate about this and am willing to engage if you come up with something more to back up reasonable arguments and engagement with my response, perhaps with actual data instead of heresay (but in reality just poorly-baked hypotheticals) this time. A cursory look at the male sedation hypothesis says these effects "[are]... reducing their natural drives for status-seeking and reproduction." Doesn't sound desirable to me. Maybe someone lettered actually made an argument in favor of it reducing rape or something of that sort as you speculate but I'm not seeing it at a glance, as you suggested I should.
I will also remind you that I never made any argument in favor of banning porn outright and I am open to any sort of middle-approach, in line with the data shared and any other possible data you may have, but I am not really expecting much from someone named, "OldManFlappyNuts."
No, in states where broadband internet porn was introduced it was specifically rape that went down , not other forms of crime . See ‘Pornography , rape and the internet ‘ by Todd D Kendall
The evidence that this was causal is much better than the evidence that you provided, since it was a natural experiment. Those are the best for providing causal links .
You are a insanely overconfident and totally incorrect, I cited experiments. Your "natural experiment" (marketing term) is a broken IV model. Broadband access clearly will not effect rape only through porn. Better broadband leads to more time inside which simply lowers the chances of rape happening.
The experiments that you cited were laboratory experiments, those are not experiments showing the subjects committing rape or sexual child abuse in the lab but showing some non criminal behaviour. We’re interested in the question whether porn leads to increase in rape or child sexual abuse , not some non criminal behaviour , and that can only be shown in natural experiments. The US study i linked showed a decrease in rape , and the German study I linked showed a decrease in child sexual abuse .
If you use the marketing term "natural experiment" one more time I will ban you for dishonesty. These are observational studies that depend on an unjustified IV. It's a coin toss as to whether these analyses are confounded.
The flaw in your reasoning is as follows: most men are not pedophiles or rape enthusiasts; they were raping children out of opportunity and lack of sex. If porn has anything to do with the decline in rape, (it might be other factors correlated with broadband rollout), it's consistent with the idea that porn redirects them towards pursuing what they really want, like prostitutes or similar. Consider the following: when normal men have no porn, there is some background rate of child rape and maybe homosexual incidents. These fall when normal men get normal porn -- demand for female prostitution and similar goes up in turn. When gay men get gay porn, what happens? An increase of homosexual incidents. When pedophiles get pedophile porn, what happens? Think about it. If you don't grasp the reasoning, I'll ban you for stupidity.
You clearly didn’t read my earlier comment and you clearly didn’t read the actual research I linked . If it was about ‘more time inside ‘ , other crimes would also have gone down . But only rape went down .
She is just making excuses for her perverted friends. Nothing more.
Damn, which friends are these? I'm genuinely curious now.
This paper goes over the data from Denmark as well as the other countries mentioned and the claims contained therein. It found that violent sexual assault and rape actually increased when porn proliferated as many other sexual crimes such as voyeurism, "peeping," incest, and others were simultaneously decriminalized, which incorrectly demonstrated an overall drop in sex crimes over that period.
It also studies the effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) in a couple of major cities and found:
♦ Austin, TX -- 1986 - in four study areas with SOBs, sexually related crimes were 177%
to 482% higher than the city's average.
♦ Indianapolis, IN -- 1984-1986 - Between 1978-1982, crime in study areas was 46%
higher than for the city as a whole. Sex related crimes were four times greater when
SOBs were located near residential areas vs. commercial areas.
♦ Garden Grove, CA -- 1981-1990 - On Garden Grove Blvd., seven adult businesses
accounted for 36% of all crime in the area. In one case, a bar opened within 500 feet of
an SOB and serious crime within 1000 feet of that business rose 300% during the next
year.
♦ Phoenix, AZ -- 1978 - Sex offenses, including indecent exposure, were 506% greater in
neighborhoods with SOBs. Even excluding indecent exposure, the sex offenses were still
132% greater in those neighborhoods.
♦ Whittier, CA -- In comparison studies of two residential areas conducted between 1970-
1973 before SOBs, and 1974-1977 after SOBs, malicious mischief increased 700%,
assault increased 387%, prostitution increased 300%, and all theft increased 120%.
Virtually all SOBs, regardless of the city in which they are located, have similar negative
effects upon their surrounding neighborhoods. The Indianapolis study concluded that: Even a
relatively passive use such as an adult book store [has] a serious negative effect on [its]
immediate environs. It is difficult to miss the implication that these harmful secondary effects
simply reflect something harmful in the nature of the material.
Further, "high-frequency pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography
(relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they
might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual
aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency
of habitual pornography consumption.The authors noted that the effects of exposure
were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing
pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream
commercial entertainment videos.
The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of
raping after exposure to this material 20.4 percent versus 9.6 percent. Detailed analysis
revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects those
who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and
prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics)."
A lot of data has been parsed more broadly on this subject and it doesn't bode well for the argument in favor of the proliferation of AI child pornography to combat real child exploitation, in spite of Aella's claim of "I Would Change My Mind If: ....We don’t actually have good data for most of this."
https://www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf
‘Violent crime actually increased because peeping , incest and voyeurism were legalised and weren’t counted any longer ‘ is a dumb take , since those aren’t violent crimes .
The argument in the case of Denmark was that legalizing pornography resulted in sex crimes decreasing over the following years. However, rape and sexual assault increased. Ambiguously named "sex crimes" decreased overall because these minor crimes were decriminalized, so the total number of crimes was lower in the following years that the lesser crimes were decriminalized but the actual incidence of rape and sexual assault increased. Thus, "sex crimes" (now excluding peeping, voyeurism, and incest, yes, not violent crimes) went down but rape and sexual assault went up. I specifically stated violent sexual assaults and rapes to delineate those two categories I mentioned from the decidedly non-violent and lesser crimes that were decriminalized.
You can probably literally debate her or have conversation with her on her channel. She’s very open
"This is probably because men don’t watch rape porn very frequently, but they do watch infidelity / harem porn. Hence, they pursue what they see." You do see the flaw in your logic here? This is most likely a problem of reverse causation. It's more likely that it's not the case that we act out what we watch/see but that we watch/seek out what we are or already want. Hence, why comparatively few people watch rape porn, gay porn etc, and a majority of people watch straight people's porn.
Aella actually wrote a very good "Against Aella" piece, addressing a wider range of arguments against her original piece. It's good. And she mostly manages to weaken all of these strong counterarguments against her proposal except for the counterargument that CP will normalize child sexual exploitation and hence gives pedophiles an increasing boldness to act out their dangerous impulses. Her own counter-counterargument is also very good. I just don't find it convincing enough.
>Aella actually wrote a very good
I see the flaw. Were you at her gangbang? Maybe her disgusting germs got into your brain and now you're simping for a 120 IQ prostitute. Who knows.
It's probably even worse than your article implies since you have to account for the fact that sexual interest is not entirely innate and pornography itself shapes desires
There was a similar study done in Germany where broadband internet porn was also introduced at different times in different regions . In regions where broadband internet porn was introduced , it was specifically child sexual abuse that went down. https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp17050.pdf?_gl=1*j0i2zk*_ga*OTgxMDc3LjE3NDUwODU1NjM.*_ga_KFD4G5CY27*MTc0NTA4NTU2Mi4xLjAuMTc0NTA4NTU2Mi4wLjAuMA..
Here’s the study . In US states where broadband internet porn was introduced, rape went down but other forms of crime didn’t go down : http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/conf/sic/papers_2007/kendall.pdf
https://youtu.be/gc7Dh1KH-nE?si=ykvO8_QX1X-Kq0ys
I’m sorry but I find this argument much more convincing and better researched
Ok well this study shows that in 1989 when porn became less restricted, rapes increased and a decreasing trend on child sexual abuse softened before starting to go back up. https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y
The Denmark data is inconclusive and not fully relevant. It's been critiqued here: https://sci-hub.se/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00368.x
Importantly, most men don't watch rape porn, so rape rates have little to do with whether porn encourages men to seek out what they see in porn more. Rape could have fallen because porn made men seek out consensual relationships more thoroughly. It's not informative to my case.
The correlation between rigor and "convincing" to you is probably rather weak, since you seem biased and not very honest or intelligent. To claim this video is better researched than my article is strong evidence of that fact.
It’s not rape porn, it’s porn in general decreases sexual assault incidents (see ‘male sedation hypothesis’)
After jerking off, you do not feel the need to indulge in whatever intrusive thoughts one may have. How is this not intuitive
Yeah I am sure that someone who masturbates 4 times per day and doesn't have enough energy or motivation to go for a walk isn't going to be raping anyone but it isn't desirable for men to be in an addicted, unproductive and unhealthy state. Most porn users are not like this or can't be like this and we clearly see plenty of data demonstrating otherwise, as Bronski posted above and as have I, demonstrating that it isn't just sexual assault but many, many other negative and undesirable social outcomes.
https://www.protectkids.com/effects/justharmlessfun.pdf
You don’t need to be addicted to use porn. If you have a gf and jerk off to her nudes your sex tapes with her, congrats, that’s porn
Porn alone CAN decrease incidents of sexual assault and other forms of law breaking. Porn is not the only sedating mechanism within a modern context. Being fat, using your phone, social media, staying indoors to use internet stuff in general etc all have a sedative effect on male behavior.
And the ones who are agentic enough not to get caught in dopamine traps are also going to be the ones less likely to give into base impulses like sexual violence/harassment—whatever
I agree with the first paragraph.
The second one you haven't provided anything new but I will go along with this again like I did in my first paragraph. Having a porn-addicted mass of young men is unproductive, low-trust and is not good for the mental health of our youth and collective well-being, so I do not see this as something desirable at all.
Even then, my data shows that the rates still exploded - one particularly low-down athletic male who may rape but won't because they will lose all motivation in life due to dopamine sedation is still not really reflected in the data, possibly just a few exceptions in the grand scheme of things. I also know people who are absolute geniuses who get stuck in dopamine traps or become compulsive gamblers who would otherwise be far more productive members of society, men and women alike.
For example, I think Singapore has a good deterrent policy for gambling - citizens (but not foreigners) must pay $114 per day or ~$2,300 a year and must be 21 years or older to gamble. As for porn and sedative behavior - codifying spiteful laws based around androphobia is not particularly desirable and is of collective detriment to all members of society, women included.
This also isn't just a "flex" on poor or low class stupid people lacking agency alone; we should try and protect people from themselves, to the benefit of society as a collective whole. Spiteful laws reduce social cohesion, which makes it more difficult to implement high-level and high-efficacy policies necessary for society, especially in the era of GAI and bioengineering, both of which are existential questions which must be addressed effectively.
Yes, these vices do have an impact on you and your daily life whether you have agency or not. And I am more libertarian-minded and do want libertarianism for me but not for most - but we don't live in a world with people only like us and/or we have a way whereby we can verify the end-results of porn usage using brain scans/genetic screening, etc. on an individual basis, so this point is mute.
Another thing about people being "agentic enough" is that most aren't and it is more on a spectrum and you can see the results in my previous post, with the data around SOBs and their impacts (from multiple independent sources cited, mind you). I never stated anything to the contrary, however if you promote porn under the basis that you have agency and that others don't, you are still condoning these second order effects to occur to the detriment of the collective well-being of society.
I don't think arresting people after the fact alone on an individual basis is desirable if we can do more to prevent it in the first place. You didn't offer up any cohesive plan or alternative legislation or ideas and didn't necessary attack the basis of the claims in the article I quoted from, so I don't really see a point to your argument other than to flex, act dismissive and passive-aggressively attack me from a point of political-tribal affiliation with porn due to your compulsions and against perceived prudes.
One can be addicted to porn and still come to agree with the conclusions I have made based on the data - the fact that you did have to back up to a more defensive position and defend porn as a whole speaks volumes to the value of my arguments. Aella already wholeheartedly believes in free access to porn I'm sure, but you've relegated yourself to defending the more stable goalpost of porn accessibility in general, rather than the less defensible, more nebulous position of AI child pornography that this article was putting out feelers for.
If a family member of yours is raped and mutilated because of some belligerent porn-addict who otherwise likely would have not acted on this impulse if porn access were more prohibitive, well, I don't really need to say much more, do I?
You could try and posit some sort of policy suggestions, as it seems you do at least partially accept the basis of the cited articles I posted. For example, in countries like Israel they require porn users to sign up to a public registry to use porn, which deters its' use significantly.
This could be cited as a possible policy example to follow with data, but I don't see free access to porn as desirable on the societal level (and I believe in tech advancement, transhumanism, genetic engineering, environmentalism, colonizing the stars, civilizational greatness, etc.), regardless of what I may use in my bedroom with my wife or not.
It seems to me that you can't control yourself and your vices and are defensive about it, which only really reflects poorly on you and makes me question your agency with regards to porn usage and in general. Do you have any better arguments to share? I am very passionate about this and am willing to engage if you come up with something more to back up reasonable arguments and engagement with my response, perhaps with actual data instead of heresay (but in reality just poorly-baked hypotheticals) this time. A cursory look at the male sedation hypothesis says these effects "[are]... reducing their natural drives for status-seeking and reproduction." Doesn't sound desirable to me. Maybe someone lettered actually made an argument in favor of it reducing rape or something of that sort as you speculate but I'm not seeing it at a glance, as you suggested I should.
I will also remind you that I never made any argument in favor of banning porn outright and I am open to any sort of middle-approach, in line with the data shared and any other possible data you may have, but I am not really expecting much from someone named, "OldManFlappyNuts."
No, in states where broadband internet porn was introduced it was specifically rape that went down , not other forms of crime . See ‘Pornography , rape and the internet ‘ by Todd D Kendall
There's no evidence this is causal
The evidence that this was causal is much better than the evidence that you provided, since it was a natural experiment. Those are the best for providing causal links .
You are a insanely overconfident and totally incorrect, I cited experiments. Your "natural experiment" (marketing term) is a broken IV model. Broadband access clearly will not effect rape only through porn. Better broadband leads to more time inside which simply lowers the chances of rape happening.
The experiments that you cited were laboratory experiments, those are not experiments showing the subjects committing rape or sexual child abuse in the lab but showing some non criminal behaviour. We’re interested in the question whether porn leads to increase in rape or child sexual abuse , not some non criminal behaviour , and that can only be shown in natural experiments. The US study i linked showed a decrease in rape , and the German study I linked showed a decrease in child sexual abuse .
If you use the marketing term "natural experiment" one more time I will ban you for dishonesty. These are observational studies that depend on an unjustified IV. It's a coin toss as to whether these analyses are confounded.
The flaw in your reasoning is as follows: most men are not pedophiles or rape enthusiasts; they were raping children out of opportunity and lack of sex. If porn has anything to do with the decline in rape, (it might be other factors correlated with broadband rollout), it's consistent with the idea that porn redirects them towards pursuing what they really want, like prostitutes or similar. Consider the following: when normal men have no porn, there is some background rate of child rape and maybe homosexual incidents. These fall when normal men get normal porn -- demand for female prostitution and similar goes up in turn. When gay men get gay porn, what happens? An increase of homosexual incidents. When pedophiles get pedophile porn, what happens? Think about it. If you don't grasp the reasoning, I'll ban you for stupidity.
You clearly didn’t read my earlier comment and you clearly didn’t read the actual research I linked . If it was about ‘more time inside ‘ , other crimes would also have gone down . But only rape went down .
Murder tends to be more premeditated than rape. Your article didn't mention other crimes.
All violent crime went down after 90s. Probably not related to porn.
how do you know what is a crime of passion and what is premeditated? Murder tends to be premeditated. Rape less so.