Republicans ♥ porn

I'm not surprised. Not in the least.

A recent study has concluded that people in states that are predominately conservative -- or "red states" -- purchase more pornography than those in "blue states." It's impossible, of course, to determine whether the consumers themselves are Republicans, Democrats, or something else, but you certainly can extrapolate based on the Zip codes where people order the most porn:

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," [says the professor who conducted the study, Benjamin Edelman of Harvard Business School].

[...]

[A company that operates a large number of adult websites] did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida* and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

I've been talking about repression in this context ever since the scandals of Larry Craig and Blowin' Bob Allen. I'm no psychologist, but it seems obvious to me that if religious or moral pressures cause one to repress certain behaviors and urges that are otherwise natural and appropriate (say, sexual activity between consenting adults), it won't stop a person from satisfying those urges secretly ... and in the case of GOP politicians, when their predilections are discovered, it usually makes headlines.

A close cousin of repression is hypocrisy. And that's my biggest gripe about the Right: they're more than willing to condemn, even forbid, activity that they claim to find distasteful (say, non-missionary sex between consenting adults, or marriage between persons of the same sex), but they're still doing those things, or things like them, behind closed doors, as this study suggests. (Especially in hyper-repressed Utah ...)

Anyway, no, I'm not surprised that Republicans are porno fiends. I just think it would be better if they accepted such interests openly ... and if they stopped telling other consenting adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

---

* Well, of course America's Wang™ is in the top ten. Duh.

More fun with Florida law: it's okay for sex offenders to have porn

I'm not really sure how I feel about this particular case or the ruling, but I do know that the comments on the article are laughable.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled today that convicted sex offenders on probation can possess pornographic materials, so long as the porn doesn't pertain to their "particular deviant behavior pattern."

The facts: Donald Kasischke ... pleaded guilty in 2001 to three counts each of lewd or lascivious battery and exhibition on a 15-year-old boy. He was sentenced to a year in prison followed by two years of community control and eight years of probation.

Officers searched Kasischke's home after his release and found pornographic photos and a videotape (the porn contained images of young men, but it could not be proven that they were underage). He was hauled back to jail, which the Third DCA ruled was appropriate.

But the Supreme Court justices read the wording of the law, which included the phrase about relevance to an offender's deviant behavior pattern, and decided Kasischke should be able to keep his porn. (Kasischke, 61, is still in prison, but he will come back to Miami for a new hearing based on Thursday's favorable ruling.)

I mean, I'm not exactly thrilled that a convicted sex offender legally can have pornography, but then again, I can't think of any reason why he or she should relinquish their possessions, even if the possessions in question are a little, um, squicky.

But check out the comments on the article ... especially the third one.

I now know why its called the "High" Court. The only question left is: Which illegal drug is used to achieve the "high" before court is in session...

Posted by: UKnoe | July 10, 2008 at 03:52 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

---

The FL Supr. Court is so out of whack with reality, that you do wonder if they are high on drugs.

Posted by: Ludwig | July 10, 2008 at 04:21 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

---

Is it possible that the Right of Free Speech applies only to the "approved" members of our society? As an evil neo-con I have a hard time with resricting Free Speech in any way. This is why I am hated. If these folks are so sick that they pose a continual danger to our families, there is any easy solution. It only cost .17cents per application. It is called a .357 Magnum.

Posted by: SwampRat | July 10, 2008 at 04:24 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

Typical neo-con. Kill 'em all -- never mind the consequences. Or, for that matter, the Constitution. What a bunch of sick fuckers.

Funny pic of the day

Because we all need a little levity now and then.


(Thanks to comedian Mike Birbiglia for letting me steal utilize the pic, which he probably will never know unless he comes here, which would be cool.)