Disturbing report published in Journal of Urban Health
Emily Rothman, professor of community health sciences, and her colleagues surveyed 328 females ages between 14 and 20 who had visited community or school-based health clinic in the Boston-area and published their results in the Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. They wanted to find out, how many of them ever had sex with multiple partners — either consensual or forced. 7.3 percent of the girls said they participated in group sex. More than half of those reported that they were pressured or forced to participate. 45 percent said that no condoms were used during the latest case of group sex.
The researchers also found, that there is a “strong association between exposure to pornography, having been forced to do things that their sex partner saw in pornography, and MPS” (= multiperson sex). Those who had seen pornography in the past month were about five times as likely to have taken part in multiperson sex, than those who had not.
Obviously it is as simple as this: Teenagers tend to do and judge as normal, what they see in internet.
The conclusion of the research team: Multiperson sex among youth is an “important public health topic that has received very little attention to date,” says Rothman. “It’s time for parents, pediatricians, federal agencies, and community-based organizations to sit up, pay attention, and take notice. Group sex is happening, and we need to be prepared to address it.”
Read this interestring news item from the University of Sydnes (original here) on a new research, which I will quote in the next edition of my book against internetpornography (available here in German, Russian and Romanian).
A major study from the University of Sydney has shed light on the secret world of excessive porn viewing and the devastating effect it has on users and their families.
Dr Gomathi Sitharthan of the Faculty of Health Sciences and Professor Raj Sitharthan from the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Sydney conducted an online study of 800 people who watch porn to gain an unprecedented insight into who suffers from porn addiction and how their addiction affects them.
Preliminary results from the study have revealed that 43 percent of those surveyed started to view porn between the ages of 11 and 13, 47 percent spend between 30 minutes and three hours a day watching porn. More than half of porn users surveyed were married or in de-facto relationships and 85 percent were male.
The researchers found excessive users had severe social and relationship problems and had often lost their jobs or been in trouble with the law as a result of their addiction. Some users escalated their viewing to more extreme and often illegal material. “We all know what porn is, but until now we haven’t known much about its impact,” says Dr Gomathi Sitharthan. “Gone are the days when you had to go to a shop, pay for the merchandise, and come out with a magazine in a brown paper bag. You can now download anything, anytime, anywhere – at home, in your bedroom, in your office, in the car, in the park, on the way to work.”
The survey also shed light on extreme cases. For example, about 20 percent of participants said that they preferred the excitement of watching porn to being sexually intimate with their partner. About 14 percent had formed a relationship with other online users, 30 percent acknowledged that their work performance suffered due to excessive viewing, and about 18 percent were preoccupied with fantasising when they were not online. “The reality is that porn is here to stay. What we need is a balanced view of the potential dangers of porn addiction, supported by good evidence,” says Professor Raj Sitharthan. In the last five years, he has seen an increase in people presenting with problems associated with excessive porn viewing in his clinical practice.
Tellingly, 88 percent of those surveyed reported they were willing to seek professional help, but would prefer to seek it online. Dr Gomathi Sitharthan and Professor Raj Sitharthan are currently preparing a treatment program that can be offered online. “Watching porn is a learned behaviour and we believe it can be unlearned. We are finding that people do understand that their excessive porn viewing is impacting on their lives and they want to change,” Dr Sitharthan says.
A Critique of Milton Diamond’s Thesis
The professor emeritus of medicine from the University of Hawaii and head of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, Milton Diamond, together with two Czech researchers Eva Jozifkova and Petr Weiss, maintains in an article “Pornography and Sex Crime in the Czech Republic“ in the online edition of the prestigious professional journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published by Springer and dated November 30, 2010 (location: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21116701 and location: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v046j3g178147772/; location of summary: Springer. „Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark.“ ScienceDaily 30 November 2010. 10 February 2011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm) that the number of cases of child molestation in the Czech Republic has dropped with the acceptance of child pornography. For this reason child pornography should be legalized. Given the steep and controversial demand, the article is astonishingly superficial, and a broad international discussion is simply skated over. I have four points to criticize:
1. The statistical basis is very unreliable. If one considers that Diamond builds the idea of the legal acceptance of child pornography upon it, it is astonishing that for all practical purposes he does not discuss the unreliability and indeed the incomparability of the statistical basis. Can one really assume that recording all the cases of child molestation in the decades of communism, in the time after reunification, and today has taken place in a similar and reliable fashion? And that such is the case when it comes to an offence where the estimated number of unrecorded cases is very high and fluctuates widely? Yet if one wants to know how the data was compiled and controlled, and whether it is comparable, the only thing one reads is the following: “Data on the number of crimes reported were obtained from the Ministry of Interior.“ This excludes any possibility of scientific review.
2. Can a person actually produce a linear connection between the legalization of child pornography and a reduction in the number of recorded cases of child molestation, in particular when within the long term reduction there are fluctuations, with even a peak in 1995ff that lies above the number for the time prior to 1989? It is actually too simplistic if one looks at the basic political transformation the Czech Republic experienced, how complex modern societies are, and how difficult it is to receive reliable numbers in areas such as child molestation where the estimated number of unrecorded cases is high. However, Diamond does not even discuss other explanatory approaches or try to align other factors or subtract out what is an unacceptable method of sociological research. Diamond also indicates that the number of cases of child molestation first climbed from 1989 to 1995, and then fell from 1998 onwards. He does not provide an explanation as to why the legalization of child pornography first of all led to a decade of increase in child molestation and only thereafter to a decline.
3. Even if there were to be a connection between the acceptance of child pornography and the frequency of child molestation: The logic that one legalizes an evil because it helps to reduce another evil is very dangerous. Should we allow women to be beaten, in case it would demonstrably reduce the number of murdered women?
4. The viewpoint that child pornography is harmless and should be allowed, indeed even promoted, if its acceptance reduces the frequency of child molestation, breaks down with the fact that the production of child pornography is almost always associated with the molestation of children and all too often with child trafficking (and trafficking in women). This begins with parents who sell their children for temporary use and goes all the way to organized criminal rings and networks across all continents. It appears that the author does not know this or consciously omits it, although there is broad international discourse on this topic.
How naïvely Diamond argues is demonstrated in his conclusion: “We do not approve of the use of real children in the production of child pornography but artificially produced materials might serve.“
How can one speak in such a way that plays down the situation? And what does such nonsense have to do with science? And what does “artificially produced material mean? In adult pornography there is a large amount that is retouched, but genuine pictures and recordings as a point of departure are much cheaper than virtual productions. Whoever deals with the topics of child trafficking and sex tourism knows that enslaved children are available so cheaply that a high tech graphic artist would never be affordable.
5. Diamond is very biased over against colleagues who believe differently. At the very beginning of his article, he indeed finds a place to disparage other researchers who publish articles critical of the relationship between the use of pornography and sexual offenses (“extremists”) and to negatively label people who consider Playboy to be pornography (which has nothing to do with his topic). However, there is no place for a word against child molestation per se, or against child trafficking, child prostitution, child sex tourism, or other offences. In my opinion, this alone demonstrates how biased Diamond is – academically as well as ethically – and that in the end he has only found what he always considered correct.
My book on internetpornography (‘Internetpornografie’, SCM Hänssler, 2008) has been published in Russian.
Thomas Schirrmacher. Prawda o pornografii. übersetzt von I. W. Proswirjakowoj, Lek-torat W. S. Rjagusowa. Copyright: Ewangelskij aljans. Moskau: Wjatka, 2009. 224 S.
It is available in Russian internet book shops, eg:
(But as I do not know Russian, I better do not provide any links.)
I am in discussion with another publisher to provide an edition in Western Europa.