A study by British researchers has found that men and women are unable to detect any difference between statements on women made by convicted rapists and those drawn from so-called “lads’ mags.”
More from the University of Surrey:
The research due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology also revealed that most men who took part in the study identified themselves more with the language expressed by the convicted rapists.[ . . . ]
Dr Miranda Horvath and Dr Peter Hegarty argue that the findings are consistent with the possibility that lads’ mags normalise hostile sexism, by making it seem more acceptable when its source is a popular magazine.
Chloe Angyal, a writer for Feministing , tweeted that the results were “shudder inducing,” and I agree. What’s notable, though, is the reluctance of the researcher in the above video to support any restrictions on this material. Instead, he says, we need better sex education that will obviate the need to turn to these sources for sexual information. I am trying to understand how this is anything other than hopelessly naive. While curiosity about the marital act may drive initial interest in pornography, the great majority of consumers are not seeking an explanation of the birds and the bees, let alone pointers on safe sex or how to obtain consent.
In its ” Social Costs of Pornography ” project, the Witherspoon Institute has pressed the case that any society that bans cigarettes because of secondhand smoke should be willing to regulate obscene media with measurable ill effects. This strikes me as eminently reasonable, but that may be due to the fact that I do not share the common and rather curious belief that sexual expression lies at the core of one’s identity and so can suffer no restriction.
