Charlie Glickman points to this graph to illustrate how the fight over porn needs to get more specific (enlarged image here). The data is from a 2000 article in the Review of Sex Research, where researchers examined the link between porn consumption and sexual aggression. The results: For men determined to have a low risk of sexual aggression, frequent use of pornography was not correlated with higher rates of actual aggression. But for men determined to already have a high risk of sexual aggression, frequent porn use was correlated with an increase in acting out that aggression.

Glickman's take: "the thing that I find so interesting about this study is that it shows a possible reason why some people say that porn is harmless and others say that it causes real harm. Different people have different experiences, so of course, porn has different effects on different people." [Via Kink on Tap].

Last week, this graph accompanied a Wall Street Journal story on "The Unemployable Man," which delivered the "arresting" news that one in five men aged 25 to 54 are currently unemployed. "Women have suffered less in this recession," WSJ says. "They were more likely to be in health care and other jobs that weren't hit as hard as construction and manufacturing. They are increasingly likely to have the education so often required to get or keep a good job these days." As long as we're turning the unemployment crisis into an epic battle of the sexes in which men and women jockey for position over Bureau of Labor Statistics turf: Doesn't it bear mentioning that women in the same age group are still significantly less employed than men are?

According to a recent Pew Research study, the District of Columbia has the lowest marriage rate in the country. Only 23 percent of women and 28 percent of men and in D.C. are married, compared to 48 and 52 percent nationwide. The rates in D.C. are so low that they lie entirely off the Pew map's color key. The closest states to D.C.'s numbers are Rhode Island, where 43 percent of women are married, and Alaska, where 47 percent of men are married.

Why aren't D.C. residents getting hitched?

The Pew poll offers up one possibly related figure: residents of D.C. get married significantly later in life than do the residents of the 50 states. In D.C., the median age at first marriage is 30 for women and 32 for men. In contrast, the median age for a first marriage in the state of Idaho is 24 for women and 25 for men.

Additionally, marriage rates are generally lower in urban areas than they are in rural areas. A quick review of the Pew map shows that states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas have the highest concentration of married couples, whereas the states which host the nation's biggest cities—like New York and California—generally have a lower percentage of married people. D.C., which is all city, all the time, would clearly trend toward singledom.

But the District also has another demographic issue working against high marriage rates. In the 2000 "gay census," the District of Columbia ranked first in the nation for its percentage of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples, of course, cannot currently be married in D.C., and their out-of-state marriages became recognized in the District only recently.

If D.C.'s gay marriage bill is successful, it won't just ensure equality for all. It will also, strangely enough, make D.C. look a lot better in the eyes of conservative defenders of traditional marriage. When those people glance at a report on the strength of marriage in this country, they probably think that us heathens in the District of Columbia are singlehandedly rejecting the institution. But in a couple years, D.C. may appear significantly more married. I'm not a big proponent of the institution myself, but I can appreciate the irony there: in D.C., at least, the tradition's remaining relevance may just depend upon same-sex couples wanting to opt-in.

Depressing Feminist Graph #1:

According to the Economist, safe abortions worldwide decreased markedly between 1995 and 2003. Unsafe abortions, though—holding strong as ever! The good—and totally obvious—news is that banning and restricting abortion does not decrease abortions, so you might as well just make them legal and safe. In fact, in places where abortions are legal and safe, women have fewer safe abortions, too, probably because the contraception is flowin' freely there as well. [Depressing Feminist Graph hat tip to Pukeimmediately].

Depressing Feminist Graph #2:

Unfortunately, when that contraception flows all the way into the strip club, it can have some negative economic effects for exotic dancers. The second depressing feminist graph comes courtesy of Julie Sunday, who notes a recent study which found that "women on the pill are attracted to more 'boyish' features in men." The feminist blogs are all over the study's more widely reported findings. But Sunday read, like, the whole fucking thing, and mined this interesting economic tidbit:

Strippers who are not taking the pill report an increase in lapdance revenue around ovulation whereas pill-taking strippers (who are thus not ovulating) do not see a spike in their revenue and earn less throughout the cycle. No, really.

Dotted line: strippers on the pill; solid line: strippers not on the pill.

Damn, girl. That's a 50-dollar-per-shift difference during the menstrual cycle, and a full 200-dollar-per-shift-difference at the stripper's most fertile. Somebody should do this study on women in other professions and see what they can shell up. Julie Sunday suggests that strippers looking for safety in the bedroom and success in the workplace ought to just go hormone-free, but not every type of contraception works for every woman. Would you change your method of contraception to get more tips?