One of the oldest religious rituals practiced in our species is circumcision; this is cross cultural, with variations of how much is cut and at what age being dependent on the culture one is discussing. Some cultures, like ours, only remove the ridged band, which is removing the “excess skin” to where the frenulum and the point of the Glans penis meets the shaft; others slice the love member down the middle so each end hangs like the petals of a flower .The argument for circumcision contains various “reasoning”, but oft times are variations of three major premises. One being that circumcision helps in reducing HIV, STDs, and STIs. Another being for hygiene and the third is penile cancer. Remember, these are the major three; not an exhaustive compendium of listless medical idiocies, but a trilogy of terribly ridiculous quackery.
Besides the fact that any god that asks his people to mutilate themselves for him doesn’t garner worship, I want to discuss how child abuse is child abuse no matter the religious affiliation. Hypothetical example: if I worship Athena and take a knife to my daughter’s arm to create a symbol out of a scar, I could be taken to prison for child abuse or the act could be seen as a precursor to ritual sacrifice. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and a horde of other religionists cut off the ridged band, prepuce (of either sex), or parts of the clitoris; if not the whole thing, for absolutely no medical reason. I feel ultimately that if such acts are performed for a solely religious reason, then the decision should be made at the age of legal adulthood. If this is a secular society, then religious surgery should be treated as body modification and forbidden till one is legally able to make one’s own decisions.
Individuals who justify the compulsory circumcision of their children I call Cutters. Since one cannot ideally use religious reasons in a secular situation, Cutters have sought out medical reasons to cut the kids, such as to prevent HIV in men. According to various studies performed, getting circumcised helped in reducing HIV… so long as condoms were used. The idea is that the membranes in the foreskin make it easier for bacteria or disease to enter and that smegma, or penis cheese, would create a healthier environment for HIV, STDs, and STIs to enter into the body. The research barely reveals a correlation between circumcision and lower HIV rates.
Researchers have warned that they do not know why groups who are circumcised seem to have lower HIV and STD/STI rates than those who are uncut. There are other theories on the limited evidence of correlation, such as low alcohol consumption leading to lower rates of promiscuity, higher condom use, and access to modern health care/hygiene techniques. We can also apply this reasoning to female circumcision in the form of removing the clitoral hood or tip of the clitoris. The excuse in some groups is that dimming sexual pleasure will tamper with the woman’s libido so she is more protected from disease and dishonor. Research on circumcised female prostitutes has shown a lower rate of HIV infection than prostitutes who are not. But, like the research on men, the evidence barely demonstrates a correlation. All in all, a surgery that’s goal is a preemptive strike against an infection or disease of any sort is on par with removing the prostrate or breasts so cancer doesn’t develop. Think of it as cutting out the tonsils or the appendix of a child to battle a future complication in adulthood.
I’ve heard people protest to my assertion that circumcision isn’t necessary on the grounds of hygiene. Reasons included are as follows: prevents urinary tract infections, balanoposthitis, balanitis, phimosis, and a buildup of smegma. Balanoposthitis, balanitis, and phimosis are infections of the penis caused by bacteria; smegma is penis cheese that can accumulate without proper washing. The infections I’ve listed are easily cured with a topical cream or an antifungal medicine. By the Cutter’s logic, I should remove my butt cheeks to prevent a buildup of poop so that I don’t catch any kind of anal infection caused by lack of wiping. Also, my ears should be removed so that ear wax build up doesn’t cause deafness or ear infections. Perhaps I should remove my toes to prevent toe fungus or plantar warts, maybe keep my head shaved so that I don’t catch lice? Hygiene is a poor excuse to remove a part of someone’s genitalia, especially when proper washing prevents these conditions and there is medicine to cure it. Also, in the rare case of an infection needing circumcision, there is a dorsal slit. A dorsal slit is basically a half circumcision, a single incision along the upper length of the foreskin from the tip to the corona, exposing the glans without removing any tissue. This surgery is seen as an absolute last resort for aesthetic reasons.
Circumcision was originally a body modification to show one’s religious affiliation, others had neck or lip extensions. We now back up this religious surgery with flimsy medical reasons in order to keep the tradition alive. I find it somewhat comical when Christians, specifically Catholics, are circumcised because it was once forbidden by the Church; only Jews are circumcised and the thought was once that a good Christian cannot have anything in common with a denier of Christ. Ultimately, the problem I have with circumcision is that I don’t feel as much as I would in a sexual scenario. Whether or not the removal of the foreskin takes 60% of the nerve endings with it, the surgery removes the cover of the glans penis, leading to desensitivity of the head, and removing unnecessary genital parts from either gender to circumvent an instinct, satisfy a custom, or out of sheer hygienic laziness is detestable. There is a body modification culture where far worse is done to a penis or vagina for aesthetic reasons and the same people who profess the necessity of circumcision are the same people who damn this culture. I’m not a big fan of body modification either way, but I do defend the idea of individual’s authority over their own body. That is my ultimate feeling on the matter, there is no reason for circumcision besides aesthetic s or religious reasons; both should be left as option for either gender at the age of legal adulthood.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Everyone is Shallow
Everyone is shallow. Are you really going to sit there and tell me in a pussy-footing voice: “oh, I judge by personality.” BULLSHIT! You are a shallow, greedy, son of a (fill in favorite curse)-, which is a wonderful thing to be. I have no doubt in my mind that personality is a important factor in dating, or in the relationship, for dating is nothing but a series of applications and interviews for a job/role into the others psyche. But lust is the key to attracting another, you must DESIRE the person, you must want to shove two fingers in either end (depending on how “freaky” you are or your orientation), you must want to lick them from toe to forehead and make them scream your name, or vice versa. Everyone is shallow, for everyone wants to be with someone they first want to screw.
Could you really sleep with someone who is so nice, so funny, so wonderful to you, but four-hundred pounds of jiggling McDonalds, hair covering every inch of their body, and acne that puts a pubescent boy to shame? NO- YOU WOULDN’T! Unless those are fetishes, but even then you wouldn’t want a smooth, perfect skin, fit person… they would be ugly to you. Everyone is shallow, because everyone wants to be content with the person they’re pursuing.
Some would challenge this on the grounds that they’ve slept with or dated those who won them over through them being a nerd, dork, degenerate, ect. Well, upon further examination of their protests, you’ll find that those “exceptions” fulfill an archetypical fantasy/psycho-social need. They were physically attracted to these people because of their look.
Ok, lets go into a pet peeve of mine… Pan-sexuality (also known as omnisexual). Pan sexuality is defined by not being attracted to either gender, but a personality present in a human; that since some don’t take a gender title, and they have the potential to love these people, that they must only love personality. They don’t care what you look like, whether male or female, gay or straight, if they love your mind, then they’ll want your body. Ok… these people are sluts for one, sluts without standards; they are for the most part intellectually retarded bi-sexuals for two, and for three they must be blind, deaf, and mute.
Your eyes will lead you to covet, your olfactory will lead you to those sweet (or sour) excretions from the pores, and your ears will shove you in the direction of those heavenly voices. If you’re a pansexual, you must be someone who lacks physical stimulation- you should go get checked out, for your nervous system may be down. You are someone who cannot cope with the fact that you have a hard on, or your “special place” is getting wet for another- oh how disgusting and for shame upon those who express their luxuria.
Sex is not a condition of love; it’s a condition of lust- just like eating. You don’t love the animal you’re eating; you’re lusting after it. I could never stand people who are REAL whores, who go from relationship to relationship… whoring out your heart is far worse than whoring out a hole. And as we all know, a whore is someone who charges for sexual favors, these people charge their emotions… very very cheap (for if sex is meaningless in and of itself, you are more of a slut, or a sale). They use relationships as an excuse to boogie horizontally! Saying “oh, I love him/ her, oh I adore them…”Give me a break. These people don’t know the difference between love and sex; therefore they only know sex as love or love as sex. Talk about dangerous.
Sex is a bonus in the relationship, the reason one should enter a relationship is because you love them and do not want to associate with anyone else in that manner, also one may want to show them as an attribute of your pride (though if this is the sole reason- you’re a weak ass idiot).
I think the only people who are truly capable of giving true love are those who are capable of giving pure lust. Not saying a pre-requisite is a one- nightstand, but allowing yourself to be sexual within the earlier stages of dating is a prerequisite. Think of it this way- saving yourself for marriage and then finding out on your honey-moon that your man or women is absolutely awful in bed… I wouldn’t grant those people divorce- I’d say: “you avoided your bed, now lay in it!”
Could you really sleep with someone who is so nice, so funny, so wonderful to you, but four-hundred pounds of jiggling McDonalds, hair covering every inch of their body, and acne that puts a pubescent boy to shame? NO- YOU WOULDN’T! Unless those are fetishes, but even then you wouldn’t want a smooth, perfect skin, fit person… they would be ugly to you. Everyone is shallow, because everyone wants to be content with the person they’re pursuing.
Some would challenge this on the grounds that they’ve slept with or dated those who won them over through them being a nerd, dork, degenerate, ect. Well, upon further examination of their protests, you’ll find that those “exceptions” fulfill an archetypical fantasy/psycho-social need. They were physically attracted to these people because of their look.
Ok, lets go into a pet peeve of mine… Pan-sexuality (also known as omnisexual). Pan sexuality is defined by not being attracted to either gender, but a personality present in a human; that since some don’t take a gender title, and they have the potential to love these people, that they must only love personality. They don’t care what you look like, whether male or female, gay or straight, if they love your mind, then they’ll want your body. Ok… these people are sluts for one, sluts without standards; they are for the most part intellectually retarded bi-sexuals for two, and for three they must be blind, deaf, and mute.
Your eyes will lead you to covet, your olfactory will lead you to those sweet (or sour) excretions from the pores, and your ears will shove you in the direction of those heavenly voices. If you’re a pansexual, you must be someone who lacks physical stimulation- you should go get checked out, for your nervous system may be down. You are someone who cannot cope with the fact that you have a hard on, or your “special place” is getting wet for another- oh how disgusting and for shame upon those who express their luxuria.
Sex is not a condition of love; it’s a condition of lust- just like eating. You don’t love the animal you’re eating; you’re lusting after it. I could never stand people who are REAL whores, who go from relationship to relationship… whoring out your heart is far worse than whoring out a hole. And as we all know, a whore is someone who charges for sexual favors, these people charge their emotions… very very cheap (for if sex is meaningless in and of itself, you are more of a slut, or a sale). They use relationships as an excuse to boogie horizontally! Saying “oh, I love him/ her, oh I adore them…”Give me a break. These people don’t know the difference between love and sex; therefore they only know sex as love or love as sex. Talk about dangerous.
Sex is a bonus in the relationship, the reason one should enter a relationship is because you love them and do not want to associate with anyone else in that manner, also one may want to show them as an attribute of your pride (though if this is the sole reason- you’re a weak ass idiot).
I think the only people who are truly capable of giving true love are those who are capable of giving pure lust. Not saying a pre-requisite is a one- nightstand, but allowing yourself to be sexual within the earlier stages of dating is a prerequisite. Think of it this way- saving yourself for marriage and then finding out on your honey-moon that your man or women is absolutely awful in bed… I wouldn’t grant those people divorce- I’d say: “you avoided your bed, now lay in it!”
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Nurturing Nature with Psychodramas
In the United States there are 700,000 reported rapes per year, taking into account that 61% of rapes go unreported, one can understand why the desire to rape is a widely researched subject. What is also worrisome is that the United States rape statistics are thirteen times higher than that of England, four times higher than Germany, and twenty- nine times higher than Japan. The major “theories” or ideas on why the rape and sexual assault numbers are so high is that America has the most available pornography, the most violent pornography, is a very male oriented society, and variations of those general statements. These statements are odd since German pornography has a reputation for being very sadomasochistic oriented, Japanese pornography is the most prevalent in the Snuff genre and is the most available on rape play porn web-sites.
In Micheal Goldstein’s and Harold Kant’s book “Pornography and Sexual Deviance: A Report of the Legal and Behavioral Institute”, it is found that among convicted rapists that rapists were more likely to be punished for viewing porn as a youngster, watched less pornography than nonrapists, the porn was less violent than nonrapists, and that they were more likely to have grown up in a repressive and highly religious home. This is a very surprising study since the claim’s of Radical Feminists, who are quite vocal and active in lobbying against pornography, are exactly opposite of Kant’s and Goldstein’s findings. The other side of the argument, that porn is detrimental to women’s rights and incites violence against women, isn’t without its research. According to Dr. Bogle of the University of Delaware and Dr. Bergen of ST. Joseph’s University, there is a positive correlation between sexual violence experienced by women and the rapist’s pornography consumption. Meaning that the rapists reenacted and had the women reenact what they viewed in their favored films.
If violent pornography, or porn in general, is responsible for misogyny and sexual violence then why is it that according to the national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the reported rapes dropped from 1975 to 1995 and in particular in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34; these ages being the most common ages of active rapists. It is interesting to note that pornography became more readily available in this time period. Also, with the advent of the internet, pornography accessibility sky rocketed and is used mostly by the ages previously noted.
In most of the sociological, psychological, and sexological research the results are contradictory, but only in terms of the methodology. The methods used in researching the desire to rape and its connection to porn is usually set in a laboratory and is only administered to convicted sex offenders. This creates a biased report while only showing a correlation, not a connection or cause and effect pattern. This is only one aspect of my argument, besides research supporting or opposing “porn causes sex violence” we must also consider the research in treating sex offenders.
Within this genre of research, that porn and sexual violence may have a connection, there is also the researching of how to treat sexual criminals. The most common treatments are chemical castration, antidepressants, antiandrogens, and psychotherapy. A new wave of treatment is being proposed now which includes the idea of teaching sexual offenders to use mental controls in order to abstain from fantasizing. I should note here that the primary idea behind treating behavioral problems is deleting the behavior itself and not redirecting it. Another idea on treatment is controlling the secretion of testosterone and lowering the libido to a near nonexistent level. Both studies results have a positive result, but for a short amount of time. In psychology and sociology, the origin of many behaviors is greatly debated if not a complete mystery, how can one fix a problem if they don’t know where it comes from? This question leads into a main issue in most behavior oriented sciences, is it nature or nurture? Popular theory now is that it is both, which is part of the reason most therapeutic cycles or treatments also include pharmaceutical therapy. These therapies have a high success rate compared to previous ones, but a horrible success rate when applied to a timeline. Meaning the behavior resurfaces in a more extreme manner. If we cannot delete a behavior as of yet and do not know where it comes from why not simply redirect a behavior that is detrimental to an area where it isn’t detrimental?
There is a therapy with that exact goal, called a Psychodrama. A psychodrama is a group activity where a behavior is acted out with complete awareness of intention and takes great use of imagination in order to facilitate the idea that what one has acted out has actually been accomplished. This is much like a placebo effect or a self fulfilling prophecy. Research in this area shows’ that psychodramas are quite successful in fulfilling a fantasy and redirecting the behavior, the down side to this is that, according to Peter F. Kellerman, “with regard to personality… no significant differences (are shown)”, meaning that there is no hope in making a rapist a non rapist and a pedophile a non pedophile, but it does temporarily stop them from committing the act itself; in popular culture, we could see a more literal type of psychodrama in the “traps” administered by Jigsaw of the SAW movies or aggressive men becoming boxers or fans of the sport. A problem with psychodramas is that we’d have to count on the psychodrama being repeated whenever the fantasy presented itself again. But perhaps with the invention of the robot android Repliee Q1 Expo, one could commit their fantasies and not have to perform a therapeutic ritual. Artifice has always been a staple of human progression and culture; examples would be using sculpture, paintings, and carvings to tell a story or an allegory. I don’t think it’s all that farfetched to use an old method in a new way.
Though the media doesn’t concentrate on it as much, the debate over pornography causing sexual violence hasn’t disappeared from the legal and psychological arena. In the late 1970 ’s Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin proposed an ordinance that would have outlawed pornographic images that were seen as the most degrading and in 1982 the Barnard Conference on Sexuality. During the conference some feminists regarded sadomasochistic sex as inseparable from patriarchal hierarchies. Other than feminists, the Religious Right has also expressed concern over the effects of pornography. They have theorized that it creates dissatisfaction with real sexual experience, causes people to imitate unsavory behavior, and distracts people from pursuing monogamous relationships. There are no studies to be cited that support any of these conclusions. Within the various arguments bent on banning pornography, there are many sub arguments from various groups, and dot the timeline from the present back to the 1960’s. I’m going to start by exploring these various factors that make up the Anti-Porn movement and it’s supporting research.
The most well known arguments against Pornography, comes from what Lynn S. Chancer of Fordham University calls the “Sexism” side of Feminism, which is that pornography helps to cause misogyny, sexual violence, and the continuing of a patriarchal society; This type of Feminism is also known as Radical Feminism.
I must begin by admitting that there is chasm in the Feminism movement between a number of things, here I will concentrate on the area of Pornography. The side of Feminism that considers Pornography reinforcing misogyny and promotes sexual violence towards women would be officially titled “Radical Feminism” and is quite active in pursuing research that supports their views. Since Radical Feminists makes two major claims, which are : porn reinforcing misogyny and promoting sexual violence, I will examine the research that supports each premise and then reveal it’s holes while simultaneously pursuing research that contradicts the conclusions of the Radical Feminists research.
Radical Feminism considers that within sexuality men exercise “the most direct and oppressive form of power over women” (Thorton 28), meaning misogyny. The idea on how pornography in general becomes misogyny practiced can be summarized into simple Imitation Learning Theory. Radical Feminists claim that because women in pornography, even if in the dominant position, are there for the sole purpose of pleasing the male sexual appetite, that the idea becomes practiced. The idea of imitating is well phrased by Robin Morgan in her now commonly used adage “Porn is the Theory, Rape is the Practice”.
There have been studies that support this conclusion in varying degrees, like in Zillmann and Bryant’s experiment in 1982 and 1984. Zillmann and Bryant’s research concluded that men, after viewing heavy doses of pornography, were more likely than women to be less supportive of gender equality and were more lenient in punishing rapists. This experiment’s findings were soon challenged by Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod’s 1988 findings. Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod exposed male college students to nonerotic violent films, unlike Zillmann/Bryant who exposed 36 films over 4 weeks to male college students, and then exposed the same men to nonviolent erotic films. Linz/Donnerstein/Penrod’s findings were that the nonerotic violent films, when the violence was towards women, inspired less sympathy to rape victims in participants than watching erotic nonviolent films. Among the other experiments that find validity in the belief that misogyny is created or reinforced from watching pornography are Donnerstein’s experiment in 1984 and Allen/Emmers/Gebhardt/Giery in 1995 , which found that exposure to pornography increased acceptance of rape myths; But these experiments tend to hold the same holes.
In her research article, Dr. Kimberly A. Davies addresses the various issues with Zillmann/ Bryant experiment. Though she specifically sites the ZIllmann/Bryant experiment, I feel they apply to the rest of the cited experiments, in that they all are performed with the same methods or derivatives of those experimental methods. The main issue with these experiments is that they are performed in the laboratory which creates an “unreal nature”, inhibiting true human behavior without fear of reprisal. All the experiments “lack…punishment or social controls” of any kind- those who would question the relevance of the issue just noted should consider The Stanford Experiment and it’s shedding of light on human behavior. (Davies pg. 132)
In another article entitled “Exploring the Connection between Pornography and Sexual Violence” by Raquel Kennedy Bergen and Kathleen A. Bogle, they perform a survey of past and recent research in the connection between porn and sexual violence. I find with many of the examples they use within the article have a profound error in defining terms, concentrate solely on men, and when studying women they do so only on rape victims while eliciting an emotional response. Allow me to explain, in every experiment cited in the Bergen/Bogle article the definition of pornography, sexual violence, and misogyny is left to common understanding. In the Russel 1984 experiment, she asked questions to women that may be offending depending on personal morality, not sexually abusive, such as “…asked to pose for pornographic pictures…” or “…having been upset by someone trying to get them to enact what they had seen in pornographic picture…”(Bergen,Bogle pg 229). This is not evidence of pornographic consumption creating misogyny; it shows pornographic consumptions as a part of a masculine sexuality.
Although it would appear as if the Radical Feminists have science on their side, it is easily disputed once one examines the research that contradicts the Radical Feminists conclusions. Kimberly Davies’s article, as I noted earlier, spends a great deal of paper ferreting the problems with past research that shows a causational or correlational affiliation between pornography and sexual violence. She has eight “…possible limiting factors of experiments” (Davies pg. 132). Since I listed numbers one, two, and seven above, I shall list the others now. Davies cites the “respondents’ inhibitions while being observed or interviewed”, “the use of willing college students as the norm”, “publication of studies, mainly if they have positive results”, and “the ethical inability to produce real violence” (Davies pg. 132). In her actual experiment, Davies surveys average men who are registered at Adult Video stores in areas around the United States, finding no causational or Correlational evidence between what they viewed and their sexual behavior. Also, among the evidence against the Anti-Porn movement is the Scott and Schwalm 1988 experiment which compared the numbers of Adult Theaters with the rape statistics in over 40 areas of the United States; they found no correlational or causational results. I should mention that the experiments just cited were performed among various ages, ethnicities, religions, and all male; unlike the research that supports the Radical Feminists belief which was performed in a laboratory on convicted rapists or college age males.
I feel it would be pertinent to incorporate into this paper the effects of porn on those who act out the behavior, that since these actors and actresses are acting the sexual violence out, they would get the full effect. In an interview with Monica Mayhem on Jon Faine’s ‘Conversation Hour’ in November of 2009, she was asked a few questions on the effect of her work on her personal life. Monica was asked by Jon “…you believe porn has an ‘important social function’, as it allows people to experience ‘the forbidden’ and thereby achieve sexual release they may not safely find elsewhere.” To which she answered “Absolutely. I get many emails from couples, thanking me for saving their marriage- they watch my movies together…lonely men who can’t find sexual partners, or who are disabled,… and of course the troops fighting overseas.” Though Monica Mayhem isn’t a psychologist, sociologist, or certified in any science, it would seem that her opinion would be a valid one since she engages in the acts weekly, while others watch it on a screen leisurely. Porn lobbyists and Porn Industry Executives make up the Pro-Porn half of the debate, which is officially called The Free- Speech Argument. Monica Mayhem made claim in her interview that it is “empowering” to be able to express one’s sexuality, or fetishes without fear of retribution. That statement is very much the main thread in the Free- Speech Argument, other than Pornography is nothing more than an expression of the human animal’s sexuality. If the Pro Pornography side is correct in their assertion that it is simply human behavior at a raw level, that would mean our very nature is involved and to ban violent porn could have detrimental effects on those who have violent tendencies. This would also mean nurture, or watching porn, has nothing to do with sexual violence, but your genetic predisposition to aggressiveness and libido level.
What I labeled your ‘libido level’ would be called, if too high, the Hypersexual Disorder. Hypersexual Disorder can be translated into basically meaning ‘sex addiction’; although it isn’t listed officially in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders newest edition (DSM-IV TR), the symptoms of this disorder are listed under a miscellaneous diagnosis called “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified”. There is a fairly new theory out in the research world that an overgrown sexual appetite, read hypersexuality, may be part of the cause of Sex Offending. The pursuit of that idea was the goal of Martin P. Kafka in which he attempts to see if medication that curves sexual appetite curves the participant’s paraphilia also. Kafka’s results indicate that it is an area worth researching, but because of methodological restrictions in his experiment, his hypothesis cannot be justified enough to call it a theory.
A paraphilia as defined by the DSM-IV-TR are sexual disorders characterized by “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) non human objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of six months.” (Criteria A). The rest of the definition that is prudent to my use of the term involves Criteria B- “causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” Paraphilias include voyeurism, sadomasochism, rape, pedo/pedraphilia, and about fifty others. The idea that these two areas of human psyche interact to create sexual violence is becoming a heavily interested research area; mostly because of the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders being compiled, soon to be known as DSM-V. Due to the controversy over what sexual act should be considered a mental disorder, the new debate is sparking new research.
Also what is leading to this new area with the connection between pornography, paraphilia and sexual violence is the legal arena. In Colorado v. Masters in 2001 the defendant, who had no history of violence, was accused of the sexual mutilation and murder of a woman. The prosecutor used research data that indicated a connection between porn consumption and acting out what one watched, the reason he used this avenue of argument is because the defendant watched pornography similar to what was performed on the victim. The defense attorney called on expert witness John C. Yuille of the University of British Columbia, who warned that this type of pornography is quite common among non-offenders also. This led Yuille to begin an experiment to see if one actually acts out their viewed paraphilias, his findings were that although there is a correlation- it is a very small subset of individuals. He states “the vast majority of participants reported at least one deviant sexual fantasy, though rates varied widely across categories. Within categories… substantial correlations between fantasy and behavior tendencies… behavior rates were much lower, consistent with the notion that only a subset of individuals act on their deviant sexual fantasies” (Williams et al. Pg. 213). The idea that that one’s sexual fantasies lead to the action is a basic Radical Feminist idea, and though the research agrees, it only agrees in a small way. People may have violent sexual fantasies, but that doesn’t mean they will act them out, and if they do it doesn’t immediately mean it will be on individuals who don’t consent. Cue the paraphilia of sadomasochism, which is being considered as no longer a paraphilia in the currently being compiled DSM-V. This is a widely practiced and represented Sexual Community, it is also known as S&M, Bondage Discipline Sadomasochism or BDSM, and includes flogging, rape, humiliation, urine play, enemas, infantilism, voyeurism, and many other acts which most would find offensive.
In Kenneth Sandnabba, Pekka Santtila, Laurence Alision, and Nilas Nordling’s research article “Demographics, Sexual Behavior, Family Background, and Abuse Experiences of Practitioners of Sadomasochistic Sex: A Review of Recent Research”, they call need to reexamine sadomasochistic sexual practices as a social phenomenon based on a personal predilections rather than a psychological disorder derived from childhood sexual abuse or lack of proper psychological adjustment. In their work they notice that in research on sadomasochism, it concentrates solely on sexual offenders and not those who practice it legally, meaning with consenting partners. Stating also that “previous studies have not taken account of the potential preferences that may exist among individuals when engaging in one set of S&M-sex behaviors over another” (Sandnabba et al Pg. 40), also citing research by Spengler in 1977, Weinberg in 1987, and team Moser/Levitt in 1987 as showing massive evidence of S&M-sex practitioners as being generally well adjusted. The research reviewed by Sandnabba’s team also examined family histories of the participants, noting that the type of attachment the participants had with their parent, based on attachment theory, barely predicts the sexual behavior. Also, in examining the participants, all who practice noncriminal S&M, the great majority of them are well adjusted, have high income, and are very well educated individuals. This research does beg another question, if one tends to engage in violent sex without committing an illegal act or hurting anyone that doesn’t want to be hurt, why can’t rapists engage in the same acts as those of Sadomasochism Community?
So far, the research on violent porn creating misogyny is quite small in support and is filled with holes where methodology is concerned. The research on violent pornography creating violent sex, while isn’t completely conclusive, does lend support to that idea; though there is a community of people who happily engage in a fulfilling sexual experience by committing what rapists and sexual offenders are in prison for. The only difference between these two groups, rapists and S&M practitioners, is rapists commit these acts against someone’s will and S&M practitioners have very willing participants. Since Sadomasochists do not need therapy, for there isn’t a personal issue in their sexual life, we can forgo that research avenue. But how does the majority of the psychological community treat sexual offenders and what is the success rate of curving that behavior?
I find that in Behavioral Psychology and therapy that the basic idea of treatment is to delete the behavior by ferreting out its root. The issue with that premise of treatment is that all the research on the origins of rape and sexual violence is contradictory and inconclusive. Most treatments of sex offenders include medicine and therapy, the therapy meant to discover the root and to overcome it or how to deal with the fantasies from becoming action and the medicine to lower or control the sexual drive in the sex offender.
In Lucy Johnston, Stephen Hudson, and Tony Ward’s research article “Deviant Sexual Thoughts: Mental Control and the Treatment of Sexual Offenders”, they examine how effective medicine has been on keeping sex offenders from repeating the offense and how teaching sex offenders mental control tactics may fare better, stating that previous “research has shown some sexual offenders to be able to inhibit their penile erections to sex related stimuli in the laboratory” (Johnston et al. Pg 122 / Freund, Wats, &Rienzo, 1988; Hall, 1989). The Johnston Team uses examples in everyday life of thought suppression to support the mere notion of this technique being able to carry over into treating sexual offenders. The issue with this notion is that not only is the success short lived, “ success in one tasks leads to a greater use of those thoughts in a second…”, “successful suppression of sexually deviant thoughts in one situation… leads to increased likelihood of sexually deviant behavior…”, the failure is inevitable. The Johnston Team state in their research that “…unwanted thoughts still recur” and “…lapses in suppression especially frequent, for offense or addiction related thoughts.” This research further endorses the idea that violent sexual behavior may not be as easily categorized as a cause of the pornography one watches.
What of medicinal treatment that is used with therapy? What is used mostly in treating men with paraphilias are antidepressants, antiandrogens, and progestins, with very low success rates; nearly ineffective. Dr. Ariel Rosler and Dr. Eliezer Witztum performed an experiment to find if preventing testosterone secretion by using medication will make a dent in the actions and fantasies of sexual offenders. This seems to be an avenue of punishment, a long held belief that if a sexual behavior is deemed socially wrong or a mental illness one must render the individual incapable of performing it. They found that all thirty of their participants had a “prompt reduction in all paraphilic activities during therapy” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 418). But the side effects were horrendous, the “bone mineral density…decreased after 6 to 12 months of therapy…” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 419), they also had “transient pain…persistent hot flashes… decreased growth of facial and body hair… asthenia… and diffuse muscular tenderness.” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 420). But the treatment was fairly successful “21 reported progressive erectile failure… lack of sexual interest toward women… inability to achieve or maintain an erection or perform sexual intercourse…” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 420). Comparing the Rosler and Witztum experiment to other forms of therapy, the success rate if much better, but when compared to the failure rate of the therapy, it doesn’t fare much better. The two cases of therapy and medical experimental therapy noted is meant to delete a behavior, but how does one delete what doesn’t have a clear origin? Combine this question with the fact that many people practice all violent paraphilias in a healthy and safe way, what would be a better therapy? If the difference between criminal men with paraphilias and men with paraphilias is the direction of the behavior, than why not redirect the men who criminalize their paraphilias? I say they criminalize their paraphilias because rape is only a crime when it is forced, Rape Role Play is strictly fantasy and yet if one keeps to character, it plays out the same way it is reported to a police officer.
A classical psychodrama, according to a review of its effectiveness research by Peter Felix Kellerman, “refers to a method of group psychotherapy in which clients are encouraged to continue and complete their actions through dramatization, role playing, and dramatic self presentation.” Meaning the therapy is completely acted out, from verbal engagement to realistic scenes, all under the direction of a qualified Psychologist. The method of a psychodrama is summed up well by Dr. Adam Blanter, “…a warming- up process, the selection of a main ‘protagonist’, the exploration of a problem in action, and a closing process that includes sharing by the group.” (Pg. 23) This could be likened to Jigsaw of the SAW movie series, he has his subjects break themselves from a machine that would kill them, and the machine is a symbolic representation of the vice that keeps them from “cherishing” their life. A more positive example of a Psychodrama would be that aggressive men go to the gym, box, play football, or wrestle in order to express their aggression. It is a fact that the Human species has negative behaviors and tendencies, but why delete a behavior if one can redirect it into a positive avenue. We wouldn’t have warriors if we deleted violence from our genetic pool, our “dark” artists, or athletes.
The problem with Psychodramas is that one would need to continually practice them whenever a strong need to fulfill a fantasy manifested mentally. One could simply utilize masturbation, as most of the population does, but for someone who needs the audio stimulation and the imagined lack of consent, a simply mental picture wouldn’t work as well. We couldn’t of course watch all pedophiles and rapists to make sure they fulfilled their weekly obligation of performing a Psychodrama, nor would it be feasible to force someone to engage in a therapeutic ritual meant to give vent to a predilection that wasn’t arising at the time. So, if one wasn’t in “the mood” to perform rape and he was obligated to perform one in a psychodrama, it would emotionally and sexually defeat the purpose of it.
There has been a recent invention in the step of robotics, the Sex Android of Japan named Repliee Expo 3. This robot comes in both genders and is able to move, although slowly, in all positions associated with sexual positions, also has the ability to record so that it may talk to you during your use of it. This would enable anyone to act out anything on a very life like individual without fear of committing any possible illegal act, except of course public exhibitionism. One might think of the Bruce Willis movie “Surrogates”, without the human being connected to its’ robot. If this android was made available to the public, there would be endless opportunity to express whatever paraphilia one wanted without the guilt or shame necessary for it to be considered a psychological disorder. There will of course always be humans that will venture to violate one’s rights in regard to body and mind; these people will remain to be held accountable and will have less of an excuse because they have the option of politically correct slavery.
Human behavior isn’t necessarily so easy to follow that one can simply say “oh that’s the cause, get rid of it”. We live in a culture that is alien from our natural instincts and our instincts haven’t bowed out. Evolutionary Psychology states that rape may have had its purpose 200,000 years ago and if that is correct, rapists are going to be around for awhile. I can see why in the beginning of my research every journal article I read began with “the data is contradictory”. When delving into a topic that is emotionally charged, politically hot, scientifically illusive, one must be quite careful in discovering as much truth in experimental suggestions as one can.
Radical Feminists believe pornography causes misogyny and sexual violence, and some research supports their conclusions. Yet, other experiments show that it isn’t necessarily eroticism in cinema that causes these thoughts and behaviors, but the violent aspect of it. Yet further, there are cultures that practice Erotic Violence in a healthy, safe way, and show no signs of psychological distress or disorder. The members of these cultures practice what is reported to the police officers in various parts of this country by rape or sexual assault victims; so what is the difference? Consent, the whole idea of rape and sex violence is based on consent. This is what the Radical Feminists seem to forget, that just because a man likes a position and has seen it in a favored pornographic film, precedes to ask you to indulge him- he is a misogynist!? From the arguments of Radical Feminists, they seem to be angrier that women like some of these kinks and fetishes rather than it is dangerous to them; they remind me of their supposed enemy, Fundamentalists. If the whole idea of consent is what separates someone who practices Sadomasochism or Bondage Discipline Sadomasochism from a rapist, then why not provide the rapist with a fantasy? I mentioned before the Sex Android is being perfected in Japan, yet there is also the booming industry of Virtual Reality. Two avenues to let the rapist fulfill any paraphilia in a way that wouldn’t harm anyone else; these ideas may sound unsavory, but they would be ethical and based on psychodrama research- effective. More effective and “humane” than castrating a sex offender through chemical torture or the good ole’ fashioned way, more humane than pumping the sex offender with drugs meant to kill his libido but ends up taking his body with it.
How can one stop a behavior that may be evolutionary necessary at one point, but is no longer useful and is now dangerous? My answer is to redirect it, much like science has done with insomnia or athletes have done with their aggression. If the current theory of Nature AND Nurture is correct, than we must find ways to nurture our nature in new ways.
In Micheal Goldstein’s and Harold Kant’s book “Pornography and Sexual Deviance: A Report of the Legal and Behavioral Institute”, it is found that among convicted rapists that rapists were more likely to be punished for viewing porn as a youngster, watched less pornography than nonrapists, the porn was less violent than nonrapists, and that they were more likely to have grown up in a repressive and highly religious home. This is a very surprising study since the claim’s of Radical Feminists, who are quite vocal and active in lobbying against pornography, are exactly opposite of Kant’s and Goldstein’s findings. The other side of the argument, that porn is detrimental to women’s rights and incites violence against women, isn’t without its research. According to Dr. Bogle of the University of Delaware and Dr. Bergen of ST. Joseph’s University, there is a positive correlation between sexual violence experienced by women and the rapist’s pornography consumption. Meaning that the rapists reenacted and had the women reenact what they viewed in their favored films.
If violent pornography, or porn in general, is responsible for misogyny and sexual violence then why is it that according to the national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the reported rapes dropped from 1975 to 1995 and in particular in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34; these ages being the most common ages of active rapists. It is interesting to note that pornography became more readily available in this time period. Also, with the advent of the internet, pornography accessibility sky rocketed and is used mostly by the ages previously noted.
In most of the sociological, psychological, and sexological research the results are contradictory, but only in terms of the methodology. The methods used in researching the desire to rape and its connection to porn is usually set in a laboratory and is only administered to convicted sex offenders. This creates a biased report while only showing a correlation, not a connection or cause and effect pattern. This is only one aspect of my argument, besides research supporting or opposing “porn causes sex violence” we must also consider the research in treating sex offenders.
Within this genre of research, that porn and sexual violence may have a connection, there is also the researching of how to treat sexual criminals. The most common treatments are chemical castration, antidepressants, antiandrogens, and psychotherapy. A new wave of treatment is being proposed now which includes the idea of teaching sexual offenders to use mental controls in order to abstain from fantasizing. I should note here that the primary idea behind treating behavioral problems is deleting the behavior itself and not redirecting it. Another idea on treatment is controlling the secretion of testosterone and lowering the libido to a near nonexistent level. Both studies results have a positive result, but for a short amount of time. In psychology and sociology, the origin of many behaviors is greatly debated if not a complete mystery, how can one fix a problem if they don’t know where it comes from? This question leads into a main issue in most behavior oriented sciences, is it nature or nurture? Popular theory now is that it is both, which is part of the reason most therapeutic cycles or treatments also include pharmaceutical therapy. These therapies have a high success rate compared to previous ones, but a horrible success rate when applied to a timeline. Meaning the behavior resurfaces in a more extreme manner. If we cannot delete a behavior as of yet and do not know where it comes from why not simply redirect a behavior that is detrimental to an area where it isn’t detrimental?
There is a therapy with that exact goal, called a Psychodrama. A psychodrama is a group activity where a behavior is acted out with complete awareness of intention and takes great use of imagination in order to facilitate the idea that what one has acted out has actually been accomplished. This is much like a placebo effect or a self fulfilling prophecy. Research in this area shows’ that psychodramas are quite successful in fulfilling a fantasy and redirecting the behavior, the down side to this is that, according to Peter F. Kellerman, “with regard to personality… no significant differences (are shown)”, meaning that there is no hope in making a rapist a non rapist and a pedophile a non pedophile, but it does temporarily stop them from committing the act itself; in popular culture, we could see a more literal type of psychodrama in the “traps” administered by Jigsaw of the SAW movies or aggressive men becoming boxers or fans of the sport. A problem with psychodramas is that we’d have to count on the psychodrama being repeated whenever the fantasy presented itself again. But perhaps with the invention of the robot android Repliee Q1 Expo, one could commit their fantasies and not have to perform a therapeutic ritual. Artifice has always been a staple of human progression and culture; examples would be using sculpture, paintings, and carvings to tell a story or an allegory. I don’t think it’s all that farfetched to use an old method in a new way.
Though the media doesn’t concentrate on it as much, the debate over pornography causing sexual violence hasn’t disappeared from the legal and psychological arena. In the late 1970 ’s Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin proposed an ordinance that would have outlawed pornographic images that were seen as the most degrading and in 1982 the Barnard Conference on Sexuality. During the conference some feminists regarded sadomasochistic sex as inseparable from patriarchal hierarchies. Other than feminists, the Religious Right has also expressed concern over the effects of pornography. They have theorized that it creates dissatisfaction with real sexual experience, causes people to imitate unsavory behavior, and distracts people from pursuing monogamous relationships. There are no studies to be cited that support any of these conclusions. Within the various arguments bent on banning pornography, there are many sub arguments from various groups, and dot the timeline from the present back to the 1960’s. I’m going to start by exploring these various factors that make up the Anti-Porn movement and it’s supporting research.
The most well known arguments against Pornography, comes from what Lynn S. Chancer of Fordham University calls the “Sexism” side of Feminism, which is that pornography helps to cause misogyny, sexual violence, and the continuing of a patriarchal society; This type of Feminism is also known as Radical Feminism.
I must begin by admitting that there is chasm in the Feminism movement between a number of things, here I will concentrate on the area of Pornography. The side of Feminism that considers Pornography reinforcing misogyny and promotes sexual violence towards women would be officially titled “Radical Feminism” and is quite active in pursuing research that supports their views. Since Radical Feminists makes two major claims, which are : porn reinforcing misogyny and promoting sexual violence, I will examine the research that supports each premise and then reveal it’s holes while simultaneously pursuing research that contradicts the conclusions of the Radical Feminists research.
Radical Feminism considers that within sexuality men exercise “the most direct and oppressive form of power over women” (Thorton 28), meaning misogyny. The idea on how pornography in general becomes misogyny practiced can be summarized into simple Imitation Learning Theory. Radical Feminists claim that because women in pornography, even if in the dominant position, are there for the sole purpose of pleasing the male sexual appetite, that the idea becomes practiced. The idea of imitating is well phrased by Robin Morgan in her now commonly used adage “Porn is the Theory, Rape is the Practice”.
There have been studies that support this conclusion in varying degrees, like in Zillmann and Bryant’s experiment in 1982 and 1984. Zillmann and Bryant’s research concluded that men, after viewing heavy doses of pornography, were more likely than women to be less supportive of gender equality and were more lenient in punishing rapists. This experiment’s findings were soon challenged by Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod’s 1988 findings. Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod exposed male college students to nonerotic violent films, unlike Zillmann/Bryant who exposed 36 films over 4 weeks to male college students, and then exposed the same men to nonviolent erotic films. Linz/Donnerstein/Penrod’s findings were that the nonerotic violent films, when the violence was towards women, inspired less sympathy to rape victims in participants than watching erotic nonviolent films. Among the other experiments that find validity in the belief that misogyny is created or reinforced from watching pornography are Donnerstein’s experiment in 1984 and Allen/Emmers/Gebhardt/Giery in 1995 , which found that exposure to pornography increased acceptance of rape myths; But these experiments tend to hold the same holes.
In her research article, Dr. Kimberly A. Davies addresses the various issues with Zillmann/ Bryant experiment. Though she specifically sites the ZIllmann/Bryant experiment, I feel they apply to the rest of the cited experiments, in that they all are performed with the same methods or derivatives of those experimental methods. The main issue with these experiments is that they are performed in the laboratory which creates an “unreal nature”, inhibiting true human behavior without fear of reprisal. All the experiments “lack…punishment or social controls” of any kind- those who would question the relevance of the issue just noted should consider The Stanford Experiment and it’s shedding of light on human behavior. (Davies pg. 132)
In another article entitled “Exploring the Connection between Pornography and Sexual Violence” by Raquel Kennedy Bergen and Kathleen A. Bogle, they perform a survey of past and recent research in the connection between porn and sexual violence. I find with many of the examples they use within the article have a profound error in defining terms, concentrate solely on men, and when studying women they do so only on rape victims while eliciting an emotional response. Allow me to explain, in every experiment cited in the Bergen/Bogle article the definition of pornography, sexual violence, and misogyny is left to common understanding. In the Russel 1984 experiment, she asked questions to women that may be offending depending on personal morality, not sexually abusive, such as “…asked to pose for pornographic pictures…” or “…having been upset by someone trying to get them to enact what they had seen in pornographic picture…”(Bergen,Bogle pg 229). This is not evidence of pornographic consumption creating misogyny; it shows pornographic consumptions as a part of a masculine sexuality.
Although it would appear as if the Radical Feminists have science on their side, it is easily disputed once one examines the research that contradicts the Radical Feminists conclusions. Kimberly Davies’s article, as I noted earlier, spends a great deal of paper ferreting the problems with past research that shows a causational or correlational affiliation between pornography and sexual violence. She has eight “…possible limiting factors of experiments” (Davies pg. 132). Since I listed numbers one, two, and seven above, I shall list the others now. Davies cites the “respondents’ inhibitions while being observed or interviewed”, “the use of willing college students as the norm”, “publication of studies, mainly if they have positive results”, and “the ethical inability to produce real violence” (Davies pg. 132). In her actual experiment, Davies surveys average men who are registered at Adult Video stores in areas around the United States, finding no causational or Correlational evidence between what they viewed and their sexual behavior. Also, among the evidence against the Anti-Porn movement is the Scott and Schwalm 1988 experiment which compared the numbers of Adult Theaters with the rape statistics in over 40 areas of the United States; they found no correlational or causational results. I should mention that the experiments just cited were performed among various ages, ethnicities, religions, and all male; unlike the research that supports the Radical Feminists belief which was performed in a laboratory on convicted rapists or college age males.
I feel it would be pertinent to incorporate into this paper the effects of porn on those who act out the behavior, that since these actors and actresses are acting the sexual violence out, they would get the full effect. In an interview with Monica Mayhem on Jon Faine’s ‘Conversation Hour’ in November of 2009, she was asked a few questions on the effect of her work on her personal life. Monica was asked by Jon “…you believe porn has an ‘important social function’, as it allows people to experience ‘the forbidden’ and thereby achieve sexual release they may not safely find elsewhere.” To which she answered “Absolutely. I get many emails from couples, thanking me for saving their marriage- they watch my movies together…lonely men who can’t find sexual partners, or who are disabled,… and of course the troops fighting overseas.” Though Monica Mayhem isn’t a psychologist, sociologist, or certified in any science, it would seem that her opinion would be a valid one since she engages in the acts weekly, while others watch it on a screen leisurely. Porn lobbyists and Porn Industry Executives make up the Pro-Porn half of the debate, which is officially called The Free- Speech Argument. Monica Mayhem made claim in her interview that it is “empowering” to be able to express one’s sexuality, or fetishes without fear of retribution. That statement is very much the main thread in the Free- Speech Argument, other than Pornography is nothing more than an expression of the human animal’s sexuality. If the Pro Pornography side is correct in their assertion that it is simply human behavior at a raw level, that would mean our very nature is involved and to ban violent porn could have detrimental effects on those who have violent tendencies. This would also mean nurture, or watching porn, has nothing to do with sexual violence, but your genetic predisposition to aggressiveness and libido level.
What I labeled your ‘libido level’ would be called, if too high, the Hypersexual Disorder. Hypersexual Disorder can be translated into basically meaning ‘sex addiction’; although it isn’t listed officially in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders newest edition (DSM-IV TR), the symptoms of this disorder are listed under a miscellaneous diagnosis called “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified”. There is a fairly new theory out in the research world that an overgrown sexual appetite, read hypersexuality, may be part of the cause of Sex Offending. The pursuit of that idea was the goal of Martin P. Kafka in which he attempts to see if medication that curves sexual appetite curves the participant’s paraphilia also. Kafka’s results indicate that it is an area worth researching, but because of methodological restrictions in his experiment, his hypothesis cannot be justified enough to call it a theory.
A paraphilia as defined by the DSM-IV-TR are sexual disorders characterized by “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) non human objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of six months.” (Criteria A). The rest of the definition that is prudent to my use of the term involves Criteria B- “causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” Paraphilias include voyeurism, sadomasochism, rape, pedo/pedraphilia, and about fifty others. The idea that these two areas of human psyche interact to create sexual violence is becoming a heavily interested research area; mostly because of the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders being compiled, soon to be known as DSM-V. Due to the controversy over what sexual act should be considered a mental disorder, the new debate is sparking new research.
Also what is leading to this new area with the connection between pornography, paraphilia and sexual violence is the legal arena. In Colorado v. Masters in 2001 the defendant, who had no history of violence, was accused of the sexual mutilation and murder of a woman. The prosecutor used research data that indicated a connection between porn consumption and acting out what one watched, the reason he used this avenue of argument is because the defendant watched pornography similar to what was performed on the victim. The defense attorney called on expert witness John C. Yuille of the University of British Columbia, who warned that this type of pornography is quite common among non-offenders also. This led Yuille to begin an experiment to see if one actually acts out their viewed paraphilias, his findings were that although there is a correlation- it is a very small subset of individuals. He states “the vast majority of participants reported at least one deviant sexual fantasy, though rates varied widely across categories. Within categories… substantial correlations between fantasy and behavior tendencies… behavior rates were much lower, consistent with the notion that only a subset of individuals act on their deviant sexual fantasies” (Williams et al. Pg. 213). The idea that that one’s sexual fantasies lead to the action is a basic Radical Feminist idea, and though the research agrees, it only agrees in a small way. People may have violent sexual fantasies, but that doesn’t mean they will act them out, and if they do it doesn’t immediately mean it will be on individuals who don’t consent. Cue the paraphilia of sadomasochism, which is being considered as no longer a paraphilia in the currently being compiled DSM-V. This is a widely practiced and represented Sexual Community, it is also known as S&M, Bondage Discipline Sadomasochism or BDSM, and includes flogging, rape, humiliation, urine play, enemas, infantilism, voyeurism, and many other acts which most would find offensive.
In Kenneth Sandnabba, Pekka Santtila, Laurence Alision, and Nilas Nordling’s research article “Demographics, Sexual Behavior, Family Background, and Abuse Experiences of Practitioners of Sadomasochistic Sex: A Review of Recent Research”, they call need to reexamine sadomasochistic sexual practices as a social phenomenon based on a personal predilections rather than a psychological disorder derived from childhood sexual abuse or lack of proper psychological adjustment. In their work they notice that in research on sadomasochism, it concentrates solely on sexual offenders and not those who practice it legally, meaning with consenting partners. Stating also that “previous studies have not taken account of the potential preferences that may exist among individuals when engaging in one set of S&M-sex behaviors over another” (Sandnabba et al Pg. 40), also citing research by Spengler in 1977, Weinberg in 1987, and team Moser/Levitt in 1987 as showing massive evidence of S&M-sex practitioners as being generally well adjusted. The research reviewed by Sandnabba’s team also examined family histories of the participants, noting that the type of attachment the participants had with their parent, based on attachment theory, barely predicts the sexual behavior. Also, in examining the participants, all who practice noncriminal S&M, the great majority of them are well adjusted, have high income, and are very well educated individuals. This research does beg another question, if one tends to engage in violent sex without committing an illegal act or hurting anyone that doesn’t want to be hurt, why can’t rapists engage in the same acts as those of Sadomasochism Community?
So far, the research on violent porn creating misogyny is quite small in support and is filled with holes where methodology is concerned. The research on violent pornography creating violent sex, while isn’t completely conclusive, does lend support to that idea; though there is a community of people who happily engage in a fulfilling sexual experience by committing what rapists and sexual offenders are in prison for. The only difference between these two groups, rapists and S&M practitioners, is rapists commit these acts against someone’s will and S&M practitioners have very willing participants. Since Sadomasochists do not need therapy, for there isn’t a personal issue in their sexual life, we can forgo that research avenue. But how does the majority of the psychological community treat sexual offenders and what is the success rate of curving that behavior?
I find that in Behavioral Psychology and therapy that the basic idea of treatment is to delete the behavior by ferreting out its root. The issue with that premise of treatment is that all the research on the origins of rape and sexual violence is contradictory and inconclusive. Most treatments of sex offenders include medicine and therapy, the therapy meant to discover the root and to overcome it or how to deal with the fantasies from becoming action and the medicine to lower or control the sexual drive in the sex offender.
In Lucy Johnston, Stephen Hudson, and Tony Ward’s research article “Deviant Sexual Thoughts: Mental Control and the Treatment of Sexual Offenders”, they examine how effective medicine has been on keeping sex offenders from repeating the offense and how teaching sex offenders mental control tactics may fare better, stating that previous “research has shown some sexual offenders to be able to inhibit their penile erections to sex related stimuli in the laboratory” (Johnston et al. Pg 122 / Freund, Wats, &Rienzo, 1988; Hall, 1989). The Johnston Team uses examples in everyday life of thought suppression to support the mere notion of this technique being able to carry over into treating sexual offenders. The issue with this notion is that not only is the success short lived, “ success in one tasks leads to a greater use of those thoughts in a second…”, “successful suppression of sexually deviant thoughts in one situation… leads to increased likelihood of sexually deviant behavior…”, the failure is inevitable. The Johnston Team state in their research that “…unwanted thoughts still recur” and “…lapses in suppression especially frequent, for offense or addiction related thoughts.” This research further endorses the idea that violent sexual behavior may not be as easily categorized as a cause of the pornography one watches.
What of medicinal treatment that is used with therapy? What is used mostly in treating men with paraphilias are antidepressants, antiandrogens, and progestins, with very low success rates; nearly ineffective. Dr. Ariel Rosler and Dr. Eliezer Witztum performed an experiment to find if preventing testosterone secretion by using medication will make a dent in the actions and fantasies of sexual offenders. This seems to be an avenue of punishment, a long held belief that if a sexual behavior is deemed socially wrong or a mental illness one must render the individual incapable of performing it. They found that all thirty of their participants had a “prompt reduction in all paraphilic activities during therapy” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 418). But the side effects were horrendous, the “bone mineral density…decreased after 6 to 12 months of therapy…” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 419), they also had “transient pain…persistent hot flashes… decreased growth of facial and body hair… asthenia… and diffuse muscular tenderness.” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 420). But the treatment was fairly successful “21 reported progressive erectile failure… lack of sexual interest toward women… inability to achieve or maintain an erection or perform sexual intercourse…” (Rosler/Witztum Pg. 420). Comparing the Rosler and Witztum experiment to other forms of therapy, the success rate if much better, but when compared to the failure rate of the therapy, it doesn’t fare much better. The two cases of therapy and medical experimental therapy noted is meant to delete a behavior, but how does one delete what doesn’t have a clear origin? Combine this question with the fact that many people practice all violent paraphilias in a healthy and safe way, what would be a better therapy? If the difference between criminal men with paraphilias and men with paraphilias is the direction of the behavior, than why not redirect the men who criminalize their paraphilias? I say they criminalize their paraphilias because rape is only a crime when it is forced, Rape Role Play is strictly fantasy and yet if one keeps to character, it plays out the same way it is reported to a police officer.
A classical psychodrama, according to a review of its effectiveness research by Peter Felix Kellerman, “refers to a method of group psychotherapy in which clients are encouraged to continue and complete their actions through dramatization, role playing, and dramatic self presentation.” Meaning the therapy is completely acted out, from verbal engagement to realistic scenes, all under the direction of a qualified Psychologist. The method of a psychodrama is summed up well by Dr. Adam Blanter, “…a warming- up process, the selection of a main ‘protagonist’, the exploration of a problem in action, and a closing process that includes sharing by the group.” (Pg. 23) This could be likened to Jigsaw of the SAW movie series, he has his subjects break themselves from a machine that would kill them, and the machine is a symbolic representation of the vice that keeps them from “cherishing” their life. A more positive example of a Psychodrama would be that aggressive men go to the gym, box, play football, or wrestle in order to express their aggression. It is a fact that the Human species has negative behaviors and tendencies, but why delete a behavior if one can redirect it into a positive avenue. We wouldn’t have warriors if we deleted violence from our genetic pool, our “dark” artists, or athletes.
The problem with Psychodramas is that one would need to continually practice them whenever a strong need to fulfill a fantasy manifested mentally. One could simply utilize masturbation, as most of the population does, but for someone who needs the audio stimulation and the imagined lack of consent, a simply mental picture wouldn’t work as well. We couldn’t of course watch all pedophiles and rapists to make sure they fulfilled their weekly obligation of performing a Psychodrama, nor would it be feasible to force someone to engage in a therapeutic ritual meant to give vent to a predilection that wasn’t arising at the time. So, if one wasn’t in “the mood” to perform rape and he was obligated to perform one in a psychodrama, it would emotionally and sexually defeat the purpose of it.
There has been a recent invention in the step of robotics, the Sex Android of Japan named Repliee Expo 3. This robot comes in both genders and is able to move, although slowly, in all positions associated with sexual positions, also has the ability to record so that it may talk to you during your use of it. This would enable anyone to act out anything on a very life like individual without fear of committing any possible illegal act, except of course public exhibitionism. One might think of the Bruce Willis movie “Surrogates”, without the human being connected to its’ robot. If this android was made available to the public, there would be endless opportunity to express whatever paraphilia one wanted without the guilt or shame necessary for it to be considered a psychological disorder. There will of course always be humans that will venture to violate one’s rights in regard to body and mind; these people will remain to be held accountable and will have less of an excuse because they have the option of politically correct slavery.
Human behavior isn’t necessarily so easy to follow that one can simply say “oh that’s the cause, get rid of it”. We live in a culture that is alien from our natural instincts and our instincts haven’t bowed out. Evolutionary Psychology states that rape may have had its purpose 200,000 years ago and if that is correct, rapists are going to be around for awhile. I can see why in the beginning of my research every journal article I read began with “the data is contradictory”. When delving into a topic that is emotionally charged, politically hot, scientifically illusive, one must be quite careful in discovering as much truth in experimental suggestions as one can.
Radical Feminists believe pornography causes misogyny and sexual violence, and some research supports their conclusions. Yet, other experiments show that it isn’t necessarily eroticism in cinema that causes these thoughts and behaviors, but the violent aspect of it. Yet further, there are cultures that practice Erotic Violence in a healthy, safe way, and show no signs of psychological distress or disorder. The members of these cultures practice what is reported to the police officers in various parts of this country by rape or sexual assault victims; so what is the difference? Consent, the whole idea of rape and sex violence is based on consent. This is what the Radical Feminists seem to forget, that just because a man likes a position and has seen it in a favored pornographic film, precedes to ask you to indulge him- he is a misogynist!? From the arguments of Radical Feminists, they seem to be angrier that women like some of these kinks and fetishes rather than it is dangerous to them; they remind me of their supposed enemy, Fundamentalists. If the whole idea of consent is what separates someone who practices Sadomasochism or Bondage Discipline Sadomasochism from a rapist, then why not provide the rapist with a fantasy? I mentioned before the Sex Android is being perfected in Japan, yet there is also the booming industry of Virtual Reality. Two avenues to let the rapist fulfill any paraphilia in a way that wouldn’t harm anyone else; these ideas may sound unsavory, but they would be ethical and based on psychodrama research- effective. More effective and “humane” than castrating a sex offender through chemical torture or the good ole’ fashioned way, more humane than pumping the sex offender with drugs meant to kill his libido but ends up taking his body with it.
How can one stop a behavior that may be evolutionary necessary at one point, but is no longer useful and is now dangerous? My answer is to redirect it, much like science has done with insomnia or athletes have done with their aggression. If the current theory of Nature AND Nurture is correct, than we must find ways to nurture our nature in new ways.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Engaging the Fantasy
We are a species obsessed with things that don’t exist. Think about it, language is a system of symbols to represent sounds we make; stories are artfully crafted lies in order to communicate a lesson, experience, or idea. We operate through our imagination, why should sex be any different? Well folks, it is not any different. Fantasy, in my opinion, is the most important ingredient in sexual activity. Most people don’t connect with what they’re doing, but the thought of it. Play on that fact.
In S&M, BDSM, and just plain ole’ role playing, participants are expected to fulfill a specific archetype or character in order to fulfill a situation with sexual connotations. The most extreme of which is rape, although there are others such as incest, doctor/patient, Good Samaritan turned into a quickie, cop/prisoner, and various other situations or dynamics, the list is almost endless.
Over all research in these matters, has shown that sexual fantasies act much like masturbation, that it simply gives release to a psychosexual need that may stem from a variety of things (not to say that this is the sole reason for masturbation, that is another essay). Where these needs and wants come from, although an interesting subject to study, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that fantasy can be played out in a safe, secure, and responsible manner without endangering anyone.
Yet, I’ve come across a repeated issue among people who participate in violent fantasies with a loving and respectful partner- it doesn’t fulfill them. They know that their loved one is not truly submitting to the violence or humiliation, or the other way around- he or she isn’t truly disrespecting or hurting them. Because the individuals care deeply for one another, it is difficult to feel the necessary emotions in a violent fantasy, i.e. - shame, fear, loss of control, humiliation, or sense of punishment. This can lead to adultery in order to fulfill the fantasy; that in turn fulfills the sexual “neurosis”. It may also lead to sexual death with the partner, in which case, separation is eminent.
Some would blame this on the individual who needs the fantasy, for they are the one who requires the disrespectful behavior, and that they shouldn’t. Others would blame it on the individual inflicting the disrespect and violence, for they aren’t convincing enough. I feel both are illogical answers, if the individual(s) requiring these fantasies isn’t being fulfilled – no matter if they are inflicting or being inflicted- they may not be engaging the fantasy.
People who attempt role play tend to think their sheer acting is sufficient- it isn’t. You have to let yourself slip into this alternate reality, dismiss your lover as your lover. He or she is someone new, someone breaking in, someone you picked up at a bar, ect. One must suspend this reality; look at it this way, you get to live your fantasy, but like life itself- it’s an active role. Passivity will only earn you a passive experience, and I’m assuming that if you want this fantasy, you aren’t a voyeur.
Engaging the fantasy covers all aspects necessary to making the experience a realistic one, acting is what you’re supposed to say… in a fantasy- this is what you are saying, what you are doing, and what you want to do.
Here are some tips gathered from various sources, mostly first hand:
- Set up your surroundings: this is supposed to be a different world where what is about to happen makes sense. It’s an organic process, life, it should make sense in retrospect… at least in the fantasy.
- Research the fantasy: look up the lingo of your role, the “dress code”, the tactics, and tools
- Have a safe word: this word should always be one that isn’t said, like “click” or “phone”, and never, EVER, stop just because the word is said. Just stop what was being performed when the word is said, don’t acknowledge it, and try a different avenue. DO NOT BREAK THE FANTASY!
- You are not on stage: self consciousness is your enemy in this game… unless that is apart of it. But even then it makes sense to say that you shouldn’t get embarrassed about being humiliated. We all have our quirks.
So bear your Scarlet A proudly my lusty comrades. You only live once, and if you’re engaging the fantasy, can live many lives in this brief span of years.
For more information, I heavily suggest the author Gloria Brame, specifically her book Different Loving: The World of Sexual Dominance and Submission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)