Topic: sex & violence theory
Clarke-stewart started this discussion 10 years ago #56,102
In both men and women, sexual stimulation produces strong, generalised psychological arousal, the arousal happens in the sympathetic nervous system, okey. Now, if 'arousal in general' can make a person more likely to be aggressive (hum, given a reason, opportunity, or target, hum), could stimuli that create sexual excitement be, hum, dangerous ?? Would a particular person become sexually violent ?? In other words does viewing pornographic material make the person more likely to be aggressive ?? Over the years numerous scientific scholars have concluded, that there is NO evidence for an overall relationship between any type of antisocial behaviour and mere exposure to pornographic material. Yay.There was some dude, in 1986, of the US Attorney General's Commission on Pornography that said that there is a causal link - between viewing erotic material and several forms of antisocial behaviour. HMM, including sexually related crimes. In effect, he wanted to prove the case by trying to provide evidence that rapists are unusually heavy consumers of pornography; and that child molesters, hum, often view child pornography before committing their atrocious crimes (see, Marshall, 1989). In addition, the commission cited experimental evidence, that men who are most aroused by, aggressive themes in pornography are also the most potentially sexually aggressive (Malamute & Check, 1983).
To understand the relationship one needs to know that the pornography that led to increased aggression contained violence as well as sex. Thus, the subsequent increase in aggression could have been due to the transfer of sexual arousal; the effects of observing violent behaviour; or the effects of seeing sex combined with violence (Donnerstein, Slaby & Eron, 1995).
However, hmm, Donnerstein, Linz & Penrod (1987) proved and have found in several careful experiments that highly arousing sexual themes in and of themselves do not produce aggression. Pleasant arousal leads that the subject their subsequent aggression is actually less than when they watched no film at all.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #724,551
Good to know!
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,552
@OP
> In both men and women, sexual stimulation produces strong, generalised psychological arousal, the arousal happens in the sympathetic nervous system, okey. Now, if 'arousal in general' can make a person more likely to be aggressive (hum, given a reason, opportunity, or target, hum), could stimuli that create sexual excitement be, hum, dangerous ?? Would a particular person become sexually violent ?? In other words does viewing pornographic material make the person more likely to be aggressive ?? Over the years numerous scientific scholars have concluded, that there is NO evidence for an overall relationship between any type of antisocial behaviour and mere exposure to pornographic material. Yay.
>
> There was some dude, in 1986, of the US Attorney General's Commission on Pornography that said that there is a causal link - between viewing erotic material and several forms of antisocial behaviour. HMM, including sexually related crimes. In effect, he wanted to prove the case by trying to provide evidence that rapists are unusually heavy consumers of pornography; and that child molesters, hum, often view child pornography before committing their atrocious crimes (see, Marshall, 1989). In addition, the commission cited experimental evidence, that men who are most aroused by, aggressive themes in pornography are also the most potentially sexually aggressive (Malamute & Check, 1983).
>
> To understand the relationship one needs to know that the pornography that led to increased aggression contained violence as well as sex. Thus, the subsequent increase in aggression could have been due to the transfer of sexual arousal; the effects of observing violent behaviour; or the effects of seeing sex combined with violence (Donnerstein, Slaby & Eron, 1995).
>
> However, hmm, Donnerstein, Linz & Penrod (1987) proved and have found in several careful experiments that highly arousing sexual themes in and of themselves do not produce aggression. Pleasant arousal leads that the subject their subsequent aggression is actually less than when they watched no film at all.
yeah that guy from 1986 was Ed Meese and was full of shit in the Reagan administration
> In both men and women, sexual stimulation produces strong, generalised psychological arousal, the arousal happens in the sympathetic nervous system, okey. Now, if 'arousal in general' can make a person more likely to be aggressive (hum, given a reason, opportunity, or target, hum), could stimuli that create sexual excitement be, hum, dangerous ?? Would a particular person become sexually violent ?? In other words does viewing pornographic material make the person more likely to be aggressive ?? Over the years numerous scientific scholars have concluded, that there is NO evidence for an overall relationship between any type of antisocial behaviour and mere exposure to pornographic material. Yay.
>
> There was some dude, in 1986, of the US Attorney General's Commission on Pornography that said that there is a causal link - between viewing erotic material and several forms of antisocial behaviour. HMM, including sexually related crimes. In effect, he wanted to prove the case by trying to provide evidence that rapists are unusually heavy consumers of pornography; and that child molesters, hum, often view child pornography before committing their atrocious crimes (see, Marshall, 1989). In addition, the commission cited experimental evidence, that men who are most aroused by, aggressive themes in pornography are also the most potentially sexually aggressive (Malamute & Check, 1983).
>
> To understand the relationship one needs to know that the pornography that led to increased aggression contained violence as well as sex. Thus, the subsequent increase in aggression could have been due to the transfer of sexual arousal; the effects of observing violent behaviour; or the effects of seeing sex combined with violence (Donnerstein, Slaby & Eron, 1995).
>
> However, hmm, Donnerstein, Linz & Penrod (1987) proved and have found in several careful experiments that highly arousing sexual themes in and of themselves do not produce aggression. Pleasant arousal leads that the subject their subsequent aggression is actually less than when they watched no film at all.
yeah that guy from 1986 was Ed Meese and was full of shit in the Reagan administration
Clarke-stewart (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 25 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,553
Edwin "Ed" Meese, III (born December 2, 1931) is an American attorney, law professor, author and member of the Republican Party who served in official capacities within the Ronald Reagan Gubernatorial Administration (1967–1974), the Reagan Presidential Transition Team (1980) and the Reagan White House (1981–1985), eventually rising to hold the position of the 75th Attorney General of the United States (1985–1988), a position from which he resigned while under investigation from a special prosecutor.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Clarke-stewart (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,554
There was some dude, in 1986, of the US Attorney General's Commission on Pornography that said that there is a causal link - between viewing erotic material and several forms of antisocial behaviour.(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,556
yeah he was full of shit and everyone at the time knew it too, especially given the study from Nixon's time concluded the exact opposite
ｔｈｅ ｐｕｓｓｙ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,594
ｇｒａｂ ｔｈｅｍ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｓｓｙ
anonymous R (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,998
bump