I once again thank my opponent for his timely response. Let’s finish this! 😊
I believe that the voters should put much less weight on this India study. As it specifically states, “However, this study has its own limitations as it relies on the data published by NCRB. The results of this study need to be interpreted carefully and cautiously because sexual crimes are likely to be underreported. In addition, the number of internet users was used for analysis because there was no reliable method to establish the number of pornography consumers.” Therefore, it didn’t even consider how pornography specifically related to sexual crimes, while my sources have directly considered porn versus non-porn users.
Additionally, within your own source, it links to a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis combines the results of multiple studies, so its conclusions should be considered with more weight than any one study listed. Its findings align with the conclusions of the previously-mentioned sources that I have provided. It states that: “ contrast to the earlier meta-analysis, the current results showed an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women in nonexperimental studies. In addition, such attitudes were found to correlate significantly higher with the use of sexually violent pornography than with the use of nonviolent pornography, although the latter relationship was also found to be significant.”
It concludes that both hardcore AND softcore pornography use had a SIGNIFICANT relationship with attitudes supporting violence against women. Furthermore, as my UCLA source pointed out in its own regression (which is in America, and therefore more relevant since we have a different culture and demographics), “the pornography variable added to the prediction of sexual aggression”.
My opponent also points out that other violent crimes increased with non-sexual violent crimes. As this source on the causes of crime states “The desire for control, revenge, or power leads to violent crimes such as murders, assaults, and rapes”. The meta-analysis proved that people are increasingly supportive of violence against women after watching both hardcore and softcore pornography. (It is also perhaps coincidental that rape increased at a lower amount than other violent crimes, since the analysis only showed an increase in support of violence against women, who are a fraction of a country’s population. Perhaps not a coincidence…..I’ll let the voters decide). Obviously, becoming desensitized to sexual violence is going to lead to an increase of desire for "control and power". The mere-exposure effect, as previously stated, makes people prefer things they are more familiar with.
Finally, on your last study about violence against women, it noted that hostility and callousness were determinants of sexual aggression. That sounds an awful lot like negative attitudes, and again, my meta-analysis showed attitudes about violence against women became more commonplace because of porn.
I am not sure how text using imagination is a “concession”. I simply stated that I believed that my previous, written arguments did not suggest my plan was to ban that medium. However, once again, my sources did not distinguish between types of pornography, so unless you prove otherwise, it is to be assumed that text pornography is either included in the study or is not considered “pornography” by researchers.
Your Hawaii study was debunked by my earlier study on sexual crimes rates in Denmark. Your source erroneously states that increased availability of pornography either decreases or does not increase sex crimes. It DID increase in Denmark. You say that it increased less than other violent crimes, but again, generally only women are targeted by rape and they are a roughly 50% portion of the population, while murder affects both genders in high amounts. A 26% increase in rape occurred and a 35% increase in assault occurred from 1965-1968 to the period of 1970-1975. At least in the US, .1% of men have been raped and .3% of women have. In the US, violent crimes against men and women are about even in number. So, assuming roughly similar victimization applies to Denmark, this shows that rape should increase at a MUCH lower rate since the “range” of victims is much more limited.
To demonstrate, in the US the rate of rape and the rate of assault in 1980 were 36.83 and 298.49 respectively. In1989, they were 38.07 and 383.38. The rate of assault rose 28.44% and the rate of rape rose 3.37%. In Denmark, the rate of rape rose by 74% as much as assault. In the US, the rate of rape rose by 11.85% of the rate of assault. The difference? The US didn’t pass any major new pornography legalization laws during that time. Also, the US had it legalized longer before and has a higher rate of rape. Could it be that the more lax pornography laws contributed to this higher rape? It would make sense that the US already adjusted to the higher rates of rape caused by pornography proliferation. Again, I will let the voters decide.
As my opponent points out, most people believe that children should be restricted from viewing pornography. As it currently stands, the average age that it is viewed is 8 or 11 because of the wide availability of the material in a pornography-legalized environment. This supports the ban, as kids can lie about their age on pornography sites even if measures were taken to restrict kids’ access.
My opponent points out that my sources show a clear correlation between pornography and violence against women and that I don’t show a direct cause. That is because it influences people subconsciously and not 100% of people that view porn will commit a sex crime. OF COURSE objectifying women increases the likelihood of sexual abuse, and it would be disingenuous of Con to deny this. As soon as you start seeing people not as people, you open the doors for abuse. Just like how in slavery, you must dehumanize the slaves so that you can live with the thought of your abuses. As the mere-exposure effect subconsciously makes you more open to violence against women, you are absolutely more likely to abuse them. Are you more likely to kick a chair or your child? A chair is an object without feelings and exists for your sole service, which is how women are view in the porn industry. I’ll let Con and the voters mull over that question, though.
Con then states that relationship problems can be fixed merely with “education”. I disproved this notion in round 1, when I compared the SEM-alone, SEM-together, and no-SEM groups, that found that groups that don’t use “sexually explicit materials” are much more likely to have healthy relationships. Unless Con can prove that somehow the non-SEM group had better relationship education, my point stands
I am not sure why Con provides this huge quoted block of text, the conclusion of which is “focusing on pornography alone” is a problem. I have nowhere in this entire debate stated that the only cause of rape is pornography. I 100% agree that we need to solve every core cause of sex crime. Pornography is simply one facet of the problem and it must be dealt with. As with my source about the connection about porn and human trafficking, it stated that porn isn’t the only cause, yet it is still connected and needs to be dealt with. Sure, we need better sex education. We also need to ban pornography.
While my opponent may believe that quote about a small study not showing harms of pornography hurts my case, I would disagree. He says that these kids are learning about anal sex from online sources. Obviously, the wide availability of pornography to children of all ages will result in potentially harmful sexual activity. When 88.2% of pornography scenes depict physical violence, you’re obviously going to have naïve kids engaging in more violent behavior. Furthermore, while my opponent tries to deny the connection between kids watching porn and committing violence, he is ignoring my teen dating violence and Swedish adolescent study that both showed that kids that viewed porn were more likely to engage in sexually coercive behavior[20,23].
As I stated, the purpose of the film is quite evident. If there is a five-minute video of graphic sex, that is incredibly different than a 20-second sex scene (where you might see a butt at the worst) in a 2-hour movie. The main purpose of watching pornography is masturbating. I don’t know about you, but I’d assume that nobody watching Terminator is wanking off in their living room. There is clearly nuance to this classification. You decry the supposed “resources” used to rate these films. It would be no different than what we have now. You would simply compare current R-rated standards to all online videos. If there is too much sexually-related vulgarity, sexual violence, and explicit sexual content to be in an R-rated film, then the pornographic material would be banned.
The “masterpieces” that you are referring to all were allowed under the current rating systems, so why would they be banned? From the beginning of my argument, I have specifically stated that I was referring to nudity too lewd to be allowed in rated-R films. Individuals at age 17 can watch R-rated films, but they have to legally be 18 to watch pornography. There is a clear distinction there. So, no “masterpieces” would be lost. Even if sex scenes needed to be removed from GoT under extreme and unlikely circumstances, I have watched the show. Very little plot would be lost. Are you arguing that GoT wouldn’t be a “masterpiece” without sex scenes? Is that what sold you and millions of people on it? Or was it the complex plot and character development? I'm going to guess that it was the latter.
a) Con believes that somehow film regulators are going to not understand what the average viewer thinks in terms of what is "obscene". However, I disagree. The ratings are made explicitly for the general public. “PG” means “parental guidance” after all. These ratings are always made with the general public in mind.
b) I’m not for banning all nudity. I am for banning pornography, which I believe I have described quite well. I think we can trust regulators to determine what material is meant to sexually arouse people (five minutes of explicit sex) and which isn’t (a few frames of moderate nudity in a long movie). As for “reforming pornography”, I will again dispute this in my conclusion.
Pornography, once again, is an industry that objectifies women (and men). My opponent conceded that the pornography industry is abusive to its actors. This is already illegal, but as I stated, this is an unavoidable result of an industry that treats women as sexual objects used for the pleasure of others.
Con also conceded in Round 1 that pornography is bad for relationships. I have proven that porn increases the likelihood of cheating, having less commitment, and having more negative communication. These were the top three listed reasons for divorce according to my study. Divorce then leads to poverty, crime, suicide, and many negative health outcomes.
Again, I believe that I have proven that sexual violence is directly related to porn. Teenagers who have used porn in two studies from two different countries were found to be more sexually violent than those who hadn’t watched it. Denmark increased in rape very quickly after legalization, and its rates increased much more than they had during the 1980-1989 time of rising crime in the US when we didn’t have any such legalization that I could find. Just because rape rates didn’t increase in amount as much as other violent crimes by no means suggests that the rates wouldn’t be lower without legalization, especially since, as I showed, women are much more likely to be victims and they are ~50% of any country’s population.
Porn is linked to the sex trade.
Con never disputed that gray matter is reduced in your brain after porn consumption, and the amount of gray matter in your brain is significantly negatively correlated with the number of hours of porn watched per week.
Con points out that sexual education is important. I agree. Sex education will in part lower sex abuse. Banning pornography will as well.
But let’s examine the case assuming that Con is 100% correct:
He admits that porn is bad for relationships, porn stars, and hasn’t contended the gray matter point.
Putting all of that aside, don’t the hundreds of thousands of children, now in broken homes and much more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, matter more than losing a few films and TV shows? Because that is the only supposed benefit I have scene Con propose from keeping porn legal: keeping a few movies and shows that contain sex scenes as part of our “culture”. There are plenty of movies, books, games, and other forms of entertainment that don’t have any nudity. I believe that materially improving the lives of these children is much more important.
To combat these vast societal ills, I once again affirm my belief that pornography needs to be banned in this country. The very serious, tangible harms caused by pornography use are much more serious than what Con has proposed as a benefit of not banning pornography, which was keeping some films and shows. Con’s case solely relied on attempting to mitigate the sex-crime relationship while neglecting most other points of negativity. For this reason, I ask voters to vote Pro!
Thanks for anyone reading this and thank you to Con for the fun debate!