“I think forget the protest about linking port to violence against women”

But the entire point of the post was to discuss the specific protest – and as a result, the appropriate link will be, how does the event lead to increased porn consumption.

As advertising it might (although I feel it is more about him enjoying the attention than anything else) – but even then does that lead to more violence. If porn does lead to violence, then the protestors had a point – but that link does not necessarily exist.

The question is should pornography(erotica) be advertised to the entire public or should advertising for pornography be directed at those who are of legal age to purchase pornography (attend erotica)?

I think forget the protest about linking port to violence against women. That is a stupid protest because they are protesting all porn. That is a matter of opinion and therefore not something the law can rule on; hence the reason the parade went ahead; who are we to judge? Those against the parade should have instead come up with a specific argument about the specific event, (such as advertising porn to the underage) and the protest would have been more successful in the eyes of the law.

I seem to remember seeign something about access to high speed broadband leading to less cases of rape and violence against women, as those who might have been prone to it were about to ease their frustrations over a bit of redtube.com rather than in real life.

And the world would be much better off if these guys were just fantisising over something over a couple of dirty movies, rather than acting it out in real life.

It is also interesting that these women do not protest against these countries where such violence is common (i.e islamic states, parts of india, pacific islands etc).

I wonder if these protesters understand the concept of unintended consequences.

“It seems like a pretty clear link to me”

The link between the porn industry and the parade is clear – but we are discussing the link between the parade and the consumption of porn itself. This link is not as clear.

“Obviously it’s not a case of everyone who watches porn commits violence and sexual abuse, but those who have latent desires/problems in this area can have it exacerbated by viewing porn”

Maybe, maybe not. This is the complementarity vs substitutability argument.

Porn shows people degrading things which they may want to act out, which makes it a complement to these activities. However, it also provides a medium to consume these types of activities without the externality (which is where you actually go and do it to someone) – which is where porn and male violence to women may be substitutes.

Ultimately, it is a question for the data methinks – however finding causation in such a dataset would be difficult. More links to research will help us figure things out.

“My argument against the Boobs on Bikes is from a completely different angle: I think the fact that on one day so many people get excited by the public display of breasts shows that there clearly isn’t enough public breast display on a daily basis”

How very true 🙂

Hi Bryan,

“Who needs to go home to watch porn ? 🙂 That’s what free wifi at Esquires Cafe is for!!!”

I think that some people, who wish to consume large quantities of porn, may wish to do so in private rather than in a public cafe 😛

Who needs to go home to watch porn ? 🙂 That’s what free wifi at Esquires Cafe is for!!!

I don’t think it’s so weak.
Who organised the parade? Steve Crow
What is his business? Pornography
Who took part? Porn stars

It seems like a pretty clear link to me. However, I’m reserved on whether or not the parade directly increases porn revenue – but I’m pretty sure that’s his intention, not some philantropic cause.

The link that’s harder to make is the one between porn and sexual violence, but I have heard there is some research that suggests causality. Obviously it’s not a case of everyone who watches porn commits violence and sexual abuse, but those who have latent desires/problems in this area can have it exacerbated by viewing porn. To put it really simply: some men become so obsessed with what they view in porn that they want to live it out. Now, they’ll obviously have some trouble finding a consenting participant without money – so for some men, I would argue watching porn does lead to rape. I don’t have research results on hand to support this, but I’m quite confident previous studies have drawn this conclusion. Also, it’s no mystery why psychiatrists interviewing males entering institutions have the stock questions of “Do you watch pornography? How often? What type?” etc.

Now for the value judgement. I still don’t think this is enough reason to ban or prohibit pornography, I’m fairly liberal in my views – but in my opinion, it’s naive to assume it doesn’t cause any social problems. I think some really clear parallels could be drawn between the increase in sexual offending among teens and the prevelance of the internet today.

So the argument against Boobs on Bikes goes:
Parade -> + revenue for porn industry -> industry causes social harm

But I’m opposed because if we adopt that argument then we come back to the classic of shouldn’t we also prohibit alcohol, tobacco, fast food etc.

My argument against the Boobs on Bikes is from a completely different angle: I think the fact that on one day so many people get excited by the public display of breasts shows that there clearly isn’t enough public breast display on a daily basis – but then of course we need to regulate the displays to maintain quality issues. I’m also opposed to the blatant waste of fossil fuel – those boobies should be running down queen street, or least riding moon hoppers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais”

Interesting – isn’t that guy an economist 😛