- Dec 22, 2017
- 2,355
- 2,915
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The following is an academic paper I wrote for Advanced Forensic Psychology. Due to the limit of length of posts, I'll split it up into 2 pieces.
inappropriate contentography’s Influence on Sexual Assault
The question of what, if any, connection exists between inappropriate contentography viewing and sexual abuse has been a long-standing, somewhat complicated question. Many factors have to be taken into account, such as the level of violence in inappropriate contentography, the reaction of the victims in rape inappropriate contentography, cultural effects, and the various traits of the individual who’s watching the inappropriate contentography. While many studies have shown many different results, later studies that analyzed these studies have found important differences in what’s defined as “inappropriate contentography”. When these differences are cleared up, the answers become much clearer. It seems as if violent and degrading inappropriate contentography has a strong effect on attitudes about sexual assault, but non-degrading non-violent erotica has little impact.
inappropriate contentography is becoming an exceptionally prevalent form of entertainment, made exceptionally easy to access by the Internet. As the demand for inappropriate contentography expands exponentially, with so many more people able to access it from computers or smartphones, inappropriate contentography has evolved to become increasingly degrading of women, and increasingly displaying physical abuse, with 88% of the most popular inappropriate contentographic videos showing slapping, spanking, pulling on hair, bondage, and even choking (Foubert et al., 2011). This leads to a worrying question: How is this affecting the people who watch it?
Introduction
Many studies have been carried out, trying to find if there is any link between inappropriate contentography and how people act. Many early studies found wildly different results, largely because of differences in how different studies defined inappropriate contentography. Most notably, a distinction has been made between erotica and inappropriate contentography. Erotica has been defined as being sexually explicit, but nonviolent, non-degrading, consensual sexual interactions between consenting adult men and women. inappropriate contentography, however, portrays actors (usually the woman) as being overpowered, objectified, only there for the enjoyment of the person dominating them, sometimes with use of force or physical violence; in short, inappropriate contentography doesn’t see the actors as individuals, only objects of pleasure (Bartol & Bartol, 2017). Putting this distinction in place clears up some of the discrepancies between studies. Erotica hasn’t been shown to have any impact on sexual assault or any kind of sexually aggressive behavior; inappropriate contentography still yields mixed results, largely based on the individual who’s viewing it, but in general, the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is, the stronger the correlation between inappropriate contentographic viewing and sexually aggressive behavior (Foubert et al., 2011). However, this still doesn’t provide a clear answer, because it may be the case that people who are already more sexually aggressive are more likely to view violent and degrading inappropriate contentography. More evidence is needed before we can make any conclusions.
The Research
Due to the nature of this topic, the research is primarily conducted by passing out surveys. One study conducted in 2011 specifically addressed college men, surveying fraternity men with questions regarding the kind of inappropriate contentography they view, if they view it at all. Along with this, the study used widely accepted tests of assessing potential for sexual assault, rape, and willingness to help in potential rape situations. From this study, and from many other studies before it, it was found that the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography was, the more likely the men were to commit rape or sexual assault, and the less likely they would be to help out in a situation where someone else was in danger of rape or sexual assault. These men that watched more violent and degrading inappropriate contentography, such as sado-masochistic inappropriate contentography and especially violent rape inappropriate contentography, also had much stronger beliefs in rape myths, false ideas that sound like “Women enjoy being coerced” or “When she says no, she really means yes.” (Foubert et al., 2011).
It is fair to point out that no distinction was found between the men who watched “mainstream inappropriate contentography” (explicit, but not particularly violent or degrading) showed no significant difference from those men who watched no inappropriate contentography, although the researchers mentioned that “mainstream inappropriate contentography” is still a broad category that should be measured more precisely. Still, it seems that violent inappropriate contentography, especially rape inappropriate contentography, facilitates attitudes that are more accepting of sexual assault (Foubert et al., 2011).
More recently, a 2018 study showed that any media that objectifies women leads to higher acceptance of rape myths and a lower desire to seek consent before sex. inappropriate contentography was seen to have this effect, but far beyond that, acceptance of rape myths and decreased desire for consent was also aligned with regular watching of sports programming, men’s magazines, reality TV, soap operas, sexual music videos, and even just TV in general. It seems as if any media that portrays women as objects for pleasure, even if it’s cheerleaders at a football game or actors in a reality show, reinforces ideas that women can be dehumanized and makes the idea of sexual assault much less distasteful (Seabrook et al., 2018).
When looking specifically at the content of inappropriate contentography, Bartol and Bartol (2017) have found 3 key factors that lead to acceptance of aggressive sexual behavior: the amount of arousal brought about by the inappropriate contentographic videos, how aggressive it is, and the reactions of the victims. A higher amount of arousal generates more aggressive behavior, regardless of what causes the arousal; the particular issue with this in inappropriate contentography is the connections made between aggression and sex. Likewise, the amount of aggression in inappropriate contentography further strengthens the connection the viewers make between violence and sex, and further shows that aggression is acceptable, and consent isn’t necessary.
Perhaps the most interesting of these criteria is the least discussed, and that is the reactions of the victims. While some rape inappropriate contentography shows the victims suffering, most of it shows the victim enjoying the rape. It’s not hard to imagine how continually watching rape victims enjoy their treatment generates an acceptance of rape, and thus an increased likelihood to commit it (Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
While not everyone who watches inappropriate contentography becomes a sex offender, inappropriate contentography has been shown to be the strongest correlate for sex offenses. Again, the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is, and the more frequently it’s watched, the more likely the viewer is to commit sex crimes. It’s also fair to point out that sex offenders often have court-mandated bans from inappropriate contentography as part of their rehabilitation, and research on sex criminals shows that inappropriate contentography doesn’t have a cathartic effect as many have said and hoped, but instead, inappropriate contentography seems to reinforce their sexual desires, including the use of force to coerce someone into having sex (Johnson, 2015).
A 2017 study of Peruvian boys, a third of whom said they’d committed sexual aggression of some kind, analyzed specifically the roles of gender dominance and rape supportive attitudes in relation to sexual assault. They found that gender dominance had little to no effect on likelihood of sexual assault, citing their own research as well as other similar studies that found the same conclusion. It seems as if men believing themselves to be superior to women isn’t sufficient for facilitating sexual aggression. However, rape supportive attitudes, such as beliefs in rape myths and an acceptance of violence for coercion of sex, had a strong correlate with the likelihood of sexual assault (Moyano et al., 2017).
All these studies also demonstrate another key factor in inappropriate contentography’s link with sex crimes: the individual. It seems as if all inappropriate contentography affects some people, and violent inappropriate contentography affects most people. While not everyone who watches inappropriate contentography becomes a sex offender, most sex offenders regularly watch inappropriate contentography, and inappropriate contentography is the strongest correlate for predicting sexual offenses (Johnson, 2015). Even in people who watch inappropriate contentography but don’t commit sexual offenses, watching inappropriate contentography seems to facilitate rape supportive attitudes, and makes the viewer less likely to intervene in rape situations (Foubert et al., 2011). Furthermore, media that isn’t explicit, but still objectifies women, leads to greater acceptance of rape myths and coercion for sex (Seabrook et al., 2018). Finally, gender dominance (men are greater than women) seems to have little impact on sexual assault, but attitudes that make sexual assault more permissible seem to have a strong impact on the likelihood of committing sexual assault (Moyano et al., 2017).
Implications
Society
As always, it’s difficult to rule out reverse causation, the idea that inappropriate contentography doesn’t lead to sexual aggression so much as sexually aggressive people watch inappropriate contentography. To properly test this would require serious ethical violations; we would have to find people who aren’t sexually aggressive, make them watch various levels of inappropriate contentography, and measure how sexually aggressive they become. This sort of study will never be allowed to happen, so we may never have a conclusive answer.
However, it makes sense that rape inappropriate contentography would facilitate ideas that rape isn’t that bad, especially when the viewer gets used to seeing the victim enjoy the rape. And as the Moyano article mentioned, the likelihood of sexual assault is closely tied to the acceptance of rape supporting attitudes, and if violent inappropriate contentography facilitates rape supportive attitudes, then that would make strong evidence that violent inappropriate contentography leads to sexual assault.
With this in mind, perhaps the case for the illegalization of inappropriate contentography should be reopened. When the presidential commissions to determine if inappropriate contentography should be illegalized were first conducted, in 1967 and 1984, inappropriate contentography was very different than today. The most obvious difference lies in availability; people simply didn’t have access to it like they do today. Without the Internet, inappropriate contentography was much more limited, and much easier for parents to control. However, with the exponential increase in availability came an exponential increase in the demand for inappropriate contentography; more has to be made to meet the growing market, and a growing market develops a growing variety of tastes. The increase in demand has led to a surge of human trafficking victims forced into inappropriate contentographic videos and pictures, and as viewers want more and more inappropriate contentography, it has become increasingly violent; the official studies from 1967 and 1984 wouldn’t have involved such aggressive inappropriate contentography as exists today.
At a societal level, this information should still be closely analyzed; there has always been a lot of backlash from any attempt to restrict inappropriate contentography, and we need to make sure we know what we’re talking about if another presidential commission will be called. Also, we need to make sure that this is something that actually poses a threat to society; while all the information I’ve found has pointed to violent inappropriate contentography as a facilitator of sexual assault, later studies could still reveal flaws in what I’ve found. And as the articles themselves mentioned, the type of inappropriate contentography has a dramatic impact on how damaging it may be; perhaps only a ban on violent inappropriate contentography should be carried out.
Even ruling out the legal implications of this research, increased awareness should still be made of the potential harms brought about by watching violent inappropriate contentography. Perhaps this could be worked into education curriculums at schools. In any case, it’s best that people know that, even if we can’t definitively say that violent inappropriate content facilitates sexual assault, it’s a very good possibility. Even if not everyone is affected in the same way by watching violent inappropriate contentography, it definitely facilitates sexual assault for some people. Raising awareness will at least make people more aware of the dangers of inappropriate contentography, even if they still choose to watch it.
Individual
As an individual, I already don’t watch inappropriate contentography of any kind. However, as long as I’m calling for increased awareness of the harms of violent inappropriate contentography, then I suppose that my job is to begin raising that awareness. I find it interesting that I came to such a solid conclusion as to the connection between violent inappropriate contentography and sexual assault; I carried out my research without leading questions, only looking up “inappropriate contentography and sexual assault”, and all of this is just what I found when leaving my search query generic.
It’s hard to say too much about the implications of this research for myself, because this has been a lot of information to take in during a short period of time, and I’m not entirely sure what to do about all this. Still, this has led to interesting discussion with people, most of whom never knew that there was fairly clear evidence that violent inappropriate contentography leads to attitudes that support sexual assault. I suppose the implications for myself are something I’ll better understand as I have more of these discussions.
Insights
This paper has certainly provided a lot of interesting information for me, but it’s hard to say much more than what I’ve said in the Research section. Perhaps the biggest insight I’ve seen in writing this paper is how strong the connection is between rape inappropriate contentography and sexual assault. I’ve never done much research into inappropriate contentography before writing this paper, but I’ve heard it both ways as to whether or not inappropriate contentography has any connection with sexual assault.
However, reading through these recent studies that dissected previous studies provided valuable insight as to this question of how inappropriate contentography affects behavior. The distinctions between types of inappropriate contentography is something I haven’t thought of before, and seeing how these distinctions are analyzed in relation to behavior is certainly an important piece of information to know.
While it still remains somewhat ambiguous to measure inappropriate contentography’s influence on sexual assault, linking together research from these articles provides strong reason to believe that violent inappropriate contentography leads to sexual assault, at least for some people. Most of these articles showed that inappropriate contentography, especially violent and degrading inappropriate contentography, leads to (among other things) an increased acceptance of rape myths and other beliefs that make sexual assault seem more permissible. The Moyano article showed that rape supportive attitudes are a strong correlate with likelihood of committing sexual assault (Moyano, 2017). So, if violent inappropriate content leads to rape supportive attitudes, and if rape supportive attitudes lead to acceptance and increased likelihood of sexual assault, then it stands to reason that violent inappropriate contentography leads to acceptance and increased likelihood of sexual assault.
Another serious implication that isn’t talked about much is the idea that, even if people who watch inappropriate contentography never commit sexual assault, regularly watching inappropriate contentography significantly reduces the likelihood that the viewer will help out in any situation where someone may be raped, and may be less likely to take any talk about sexual assault more seriously. (Again, this depends on how violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is). It also seems to increase the viewer’s acceptance of rape myths, and lead them to be less interested in getting consent before engaging in sex, in theory or in practice (Foubert et al., 2011). Even if someone who watches inappropriate contentography never acts out what they see, if they see someone else doing it, they would be much less interested in stopping it; why would they stop something they watch on their computer every day? And if rape is something they watch every day, as is the case with some brands of violent inappropriate contentography, then is it really that bad of an action? Surely cognitive dissonance plays a role; someone who watches violent rape every day has to convince themselves that violent rape really isn’t that big of a deal. This mentality would naturally lead to a lack of motivation to intervene in situations of sexual assault, and it would make rape myths much more palatable.
Another interesting point I found is that media leading to greater acceptance of sexual aggression isn’t limited to inappropriate contentography. Sports programming, reality TV, or just TV in general is associated with greater acceptance of sexual aggression; the researchers argued that this is because of the mainstream media’s habit of objectifying women. Even though a shot of cheerleaders in a football game isn’t a sexual scene, it still displays women as objects for pleasure, facilitating the objectification of women. Reality TV may show men trying be sweet to women solely for the purpose of “winning” sex from them; again, showing women as objects for pleasure, removing their humanity, and furthering attitudes that accept sexual aggression as not being a big deal. Viewers seem to get used to people treating women as something to pursue for personal gain (Seabrook et al., 2018).
inappropriate contentography’s Influence on Sexual Assault
The question of what, if any, connection exists between inappropriate contentography viewing and sexual abuse has been a long-standing, somewhat complicated question. Many factors have to be taken into account, such as the level of violence in inappropriate contentography, the reaction of the victims in rape inappropriate contentography, cultural effects, and the various traits of the individual who’s watching the inappropriate contentography. While many studies have shown many different results, later studies that analyzed these studies have found important differences in what’s defined as “inappropriate contentography”. When these differences are cleared up, the answers become much clearer. It seems as if violent and degrading inappropriate contentography has a strong effect on attitudes about sexual assault, but non-degrading non-violent erotica has little impact.
inappropriate contentography is becoming an exceptionally prevalent form of entertainment, made exceptionally easy to access by the Internet. As the demand for inappropriate contentography expands exponentially, with so many more people able to access it from computers or smartphones, inappropriate contentography has evolved to become increasingly degrading of women, and increasingly displaying physical abuse, with 88% of the most popular inappropriate contentographic videos showing slapping, spanking, pulling on hair, bondage, and even choking (Foubert et al., 2011). This leads to a worrying question: How is this affecting the people who watch it?
Introduction
Many studies have been carried out, trying to find if there is any link between inappropriate contentography and how people act. Many early studies found wildly different results, largely because of differences in how different studies defined inappropriate contentography. Most notably, a distinction has been made between erotica and inappropriate contentography. Erotica has been defined as being sexually explicit, but nonviolent, non-degrading, consensual sexual interactions between consenting adult men and women. inappropriate contentography, however, portrays actors (usually the woman) as being overpowered, objectified, only there for the enjoyment of the person dominating them, sometimes with use of force or physical violence; in short, inappropriate contentography doesn’t see the actors as individuals, only objects of pleasure (Bartol & Bartol, 2017). Putting this distinction in place clears up some of the discrepancies between studies. Erotica hasn’t been shown to have any impact on sexual assault or any kind of sexually aggressive behavior; inappropriate contentography still yields mixed results, largely based on the individual who’s viewing it, but in general, the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is, the stronger the correlation between inappropriate contentographic viewing and sexually aggressive behavior (Foubert et al., 2011). However, this still doesn’t provide a clear answer, because it may be the case that people who are already more sexually aggressive are more likely to view violent and degrading inappropriate contentography. More evidence is needed before we can make any conclusions.
The Research
Due to the nature of this topic, the research is primarily conducted by passing out surveys. One study conducted in 2011 specifically addressed college men, surveying fraternity men with questions regarding the kind of inappropriate contentography they view, if they view it at all. Along with this, the study used widely accepted tests of assessing potential for sexual assault, rape, and willingness to help in potential rape situations. From this study, and from many other studies before it, it was found that the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography was, the more likely the men were to commit rape or sexual assault, and the less likely they would be to help out in a situation where someone else was in danger of rape or sexual assault. These men that watched more violent and degrading inappropriate contentography, such as sado-masochistic inappropriate contentography and especially violent rape inappropriate contentography, also had much stronger beliefs in rape myths, false ideas that sound like “Women enjoy being coerced” or “When she says no, she really means yes.” (Foubert et al., 2011).
It is fair to point out that no distinction was found between the men who watched “mainstream inappropriate contentography” (explicit, but not particularly violent or degrading) showed no significant difference from those men who watched no inappropriate contentography, although the researchers mentioned that “mainstream inappropriate contentography” is still a broad category that should be measured more precisely. Still, it seems that violent inappropriate contentography, especially rape inappropriate contentography, facilitates attitudes that are more accepting of sexual assault (Foubert et al., 2011).
More recently, a 2018 study showed that any media that objectifies women leads to higher acceptance of rape myths and a lower desire to seek consent before sex. inappropriate contentography was seen to have this effect, but far beyond that, acceptance of rape myths and decreased desire for consent was also aligned with regular watching of sports programming, men’s magazines, reality TV, soap operas, sexual music videos, and even just TV in general. It seems as if any media that portrays women as objects for pleasure, even if it’s cheerleaders at a football game or actors in a reality show, reinforces ideas that women can be dehumanized and makes the idea of sexual assault much less distasteful (Seabrook et al., 2018).
When looking specifically at the content of inappropriate contentography, Bartol and Bartol (2017) have found 3 key factors that lead to acceptance of aggressive sexual behavior: the amount of arousal brought about by the inappropriate contentographic videos, how aggressive it is, and the reactions of the victims. A higher amount of arousal generates more aggressive behavior, regardless of what causes the arousal; the particular issue with this in inappropriate contentography is the connections made between aggression and sex. Likewise, the amount of aggression in inappropriate contentography further strengthens the connection the viewers make between violence and sex, and further shows that aggression is acceptable, and consent isn’t necessary.
Perhaps the most interesting of these criteria is the least discussed, and that is the reactions of the victims. While some rape inappropriate contentography shows the victims suffering, most of it shows the victim enjoying the rape. It’s not hard to imagine how continually watching rape victims enjoy their treatment generates an acceptance of rape, and thus an increased likelihood to commit it (Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
While not everyone who watches inappropriate contentography becomes a sex offender, inappropriate contentography has been shown to be the strongest correlate for sex offenses. Again, the more violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is, and the more frequently it’s watched, the more likely the viewer is to commit sex crimes. It’s also fair to point out that sex offenders often have court-mandated bans from inappropriate contentography as part of their rehabilitation, and research on sex criminals shows that inappropriate contentography doesn’t have a cathartic effect as many have said and hoped, but instead, inappropriate contentography seems to reinforce their sexual desires, including the use of force to coerce someone into having sex (Johnson, 2015).
A 2017 study of Peruvian boys, a third of whom said they’d committed sexual aggression of some kind, analyzed specifically the roles of gender dominance and rape supportive attitudes in relation to sexual assault. They found that gender dominance had little to no effect on likelihood of sexual assault, citing their own research as well as other similar studies that found the same conclusion. It seems as if men believing themselves to be superior to women isn’t sufficient for facilitating sexual aggression. However, rape supportive attitudes, such as beliefs in rape myths and an acceptance of violence for coercion of sex, had a strong correlate with the likelihood of sexual assault (Moyano et al., 2017).
All these studies also demonstrate another key factor in inappropriate contentography’s link with sex crimes: the individual. It seems as if all inappropriate contentography affects some people, and violent inappropriate contentography affects most people. While not everyone who watches inappropriate contentography becomes a sex offender, most sex offenders regularly watch inappropriate contentography, and inappropriate contentography is the strongest correlate for predicting sexual offenses (Johnson, 2015). Even in people who watch inappropriate contentography but don’t commit sexual offenses, watching inappropriate contentography seems to facilitate rape supportive attitudes, and makes the viewer less likely to intervene in rape situations (Foubert et al., 2011). Furthermore, media that isn’t explicit, but still objectifies women, leads to greater acceptance of rape myths and coercion for sex (Seabrook et al., 2018). Finally, gender dominance (men are greater than women) seems to have little impact on sexual assault, but attitudes that make sexual assault more permissible seem to have a strong impact on the likelihood of committing sexual assault (Moyano et al., 2017).
Implications
Society
As always, it’s difficult to rule out reverse causation, the idea that inappropriate contentography doesn’t lead to sexual aggression so much as sexually aggressive people watch inappropriate contentography. To properly test this would require serious ethical violations; we would have to find people who aren’t sexually aggressive, make them watch various levels of inappropriate contentography, and measure how sexually aggressive they become. This sort of study will never be allowed to happen, so we may never have a conclusive answer.
However, it makes sense that rape inappropriate contentography would facilitate ideas that rape isn’t that bad, especially when the viewer gets used to seeing the victim enjoy the rape. And as the Moyano article mentioned, the likelihood of sexual assault is closely tied to the acceptance of rape supporting attitudes, and if violent inappropriate contentography facilitates rape supportive attitudes, then that would make strong evidence that violent inappropriate contentography leads to sexual assault.
With this in mind, perhaps the case for the illegalization of inappropriate contentography should be reopened. When the presidential commissions to determine if inappropriate contentography should be illegalized were first conducted, in 1967 and 1984, inappropriate contentography was very different than today. The most obvious difference lies in availability; people simply didn’t have access to it like they do today. Without the Internet, inappropriate contentography was much more limited, and much easier for parents to control. However, with the exponential increase in availability came an exponential increase in the demand for inappropriate contentography; more has to be made to meet the growing market, and a growing market develops a growing variety of tastes. The increase in demand has led to a surge of human trafficking victims forced into inappropriate contentographic videos and pictures, and as viewers want more and more inappropriate contentography, it has become increasingly violent; the official studies from 1967 and 1984 wouldn’t have involved such aggressive inappropriate contentography as exists today.
At a societal level, this information should still be closely analyzed; there has always been a lot of backlash from any attempt to restrict inappropriate contentography, and we need to make sure we know what we’re talking about if another presidential commission will be called. Also, we need to make sure that this is something that actually poses a threat to society; while all the information I’ve found has pointed to violent inappropriate contentography as a facilitator of sexual assault, later studies could still reveal flaws in what I’ve found. And as the articles themselves mentioned, the type of inappropriate contentography has a dramatic impact on how damaging it may be; perhaps only a ban on violent inappropriate contentography should be carried out.
Even ruling out the legal implications of this research, increased awareness should still be made of the potential harms brought about by watching violent inappropriate contentography. Perhaps this could be worked into education curriculums at schools. In any case, it’s best that people know that, even if we can’t definitively say that violent inappropriate content facilitates sexual assault, it’s a very good possibility. Even if not everyone is affected in the same way by watching violent inappropriate contentography, it definitely facilitates sexual assault for some people. Raising awareness will at least make people more aware of the dangers of inappropriate contentography, even if they still choose to watch it.
Individual
As an individual, I already don’t watch inappropriate contentography of any kind. However, as long as I’m calling for increased awareness of the harms of violent inappropriate contentography, then I suppose that my job is to begin raising that awareness. I find it interesting that I came to such a solid conclusion as to the connection between violent inappropriate contentography and sexual assault; I carried out my research without leading questions, only looking up “inappropriate contentography and sexual assault”, and all of this is just what I found when leaving my search query generic.
It’s hard to say too much about the implications of this research for myself, because this has been a lot of information to take in during a short period of time, and I’m not entirely sure what to do about all this. Still, this has led to interesting discussion with people, most of whom never knew that there was fairly clear evidence that violent inappropriate contentography leads to attitudes that support sexual assault. I suppose the implications for myself are something I’ll better understand as I have more of these discussions.
Insights
This paper has certainly provided a lot of interesting information for me, but it’s hard to say much more than what I’ve said in the Research section. Perhaps the biggest insight I’ve seen in writing this paper is how strong the connection is between rape inappropriate contentography and sexual assault. I’ve never done much research into inappropriate contentography before writing this paper, but I’ve heard it both ways as to whether or not inappropriate contentography has any connection with sexual assault.
However, reading through these recent studies that dissected previous studies provided valuable insight as to this question of how inappropriate contentography affects behavior. The distinctions between types of inappropriate contentography is something I haven’t thought of before, and seeing how these distinctions are analyzed in relation to behavior is certainly an important piece of information to know.
While it still remains somewhat ambiguous to measure inappropriate contentography’s influence on sexual assault, linking together research from these articles provides strong reason to believe that violent inappropriate contentography leads to sexual assault, at least for some people. Most of these articles showed that inappropriate contentography, especially violent and degrading inappropriate contentography, leads to (among other things) an increased acceptance of rape myths and other beliefs that make sexual assault seem more permissible. The Moyano article showed that rape supportive attitudes are a strong correlate with likelihood of committing sexual assault (Moyano, 2017). So, if violent inappropriate content leads to rape supportive attitudes, and if rape supportive attitudes lead to acceptance and increased likelihood of sexual assault, then it stands to reason that violent inappropriate contentography leads to acceptance and increased likelihood of sexual assault.
Another serious implication that isn’t talked about much is the idea that, even if people who watch inappropriate contentography never commit sexual assault, regularly watching inappropriate contentography significantly reduces the likelihood that the viewer will help out in any situation where someone may be raped, and may be less likely to take any talk about sexual assault more seriously. (Again, this depends on how violent and degrading the inappropriate contentography is). It also seems to increase the viewer’s acceptance of rape myths, and lead them to be less interested in getting consent before engaging in sex, in theory or in practice (Foubert et al., 2011). Even if someone who watches inappropriate contentography never acts out what they see, if they see someone else doing it, they would be much less interested in stopping it; why would they stop something they watch on their computer every day? And if rape is something they watch every day, as is the case with some brands of violent inappropriate contentography, then is it really that bad of an action? Surely cognitive dissonance plays a role; someone who watches violent rape every day has to convince themselves that violent rape really isn’t that big of a deal. This mentality would naturally lead to a lack of motivation to intervene in situations of sexual assault, and it would make rape myths much more palatable.
Another interesting point I found is that media leading to greater acceptance of sexual aggression isn’t limited to inappropriate contentography. Sports programming, reality TV, or just TV in general is associated with greater acceptance of sexual aggression; the researchers argued that this is because of the mainstream media’s habit of objectifying women. Even though a shot of cheerleaders in a football game isn’t a sexual scene, it still displays women as objects for pleasure, facilitating the objectification of women. Reality TV may show men trying be sweet to women solely for the purpose of “winning” sex from them; again, showing women as objects for pleasure, removing their humanity, and furthering attitudes that accept sexual aggression as not being a big deal. Viewers seem to get used to people treating women as something to pursue for personal gain (Seabrook et al., 2018).
