gcdk: faxxmachine: antiporn-activist: Disgruntled and confused porn users demanded the hard research
gcdk: faxxmachine: antiporn-activist: Disgruntled and confused porn users demanded the hard research data, so I went into the basement to find my dusty copy of Zillmann and Bryant’s book. It will take me a while to screenshot, caption, and post it all.The two photos above reference a 1982 experiment which measured the effects of prolonged pornography consumption on test subjects’ recommendations for rapist prison terms.Male and female subjects were divided into three groups and exposed to either 6 regular films (control group), 3 regular films and 3 porn films (intermediate exposure), or 6 porn films (massive exposure).Three weeks later, they took a variety of questionnaires and inventories. One asked them to recommend the prison sentence for a hypothetical rapist. The chart above shows the difference in what they recommended by group. Conclusion: both men and women exposed to porn recommended reduced sentencing for rapists compared to those in the control group.Consider that in 1982, watching 6 porn films was considered “massive exposure.“ Also consider whether the judge and or jury members deciding your rapist’s fate may have watched more than 6 or more porn films.Source: Zillmann and Bryant, ”Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations.“ 1989 Based on this, I think that, in the case of rape trials, potential juries AND ESPECIALLY THE JUDGE should be screened for porn use. I don’t know how we could do that, but it would be a start to have all-woman juries I think. -- source link