Let me see if I get this straight . . .

Ho told police he streaked in the girls’ dormitory because he failed to control his sexual desire after watching adult films.

You know, somehow I’m not just buying it.  If he was living in the girls dorm (I lived in the basement of the girls’ dorm when I was an undergrad, that’s where they put the honors boys, so it is possible) then maybe in a fit of porn induced lust he stripped off and ran around naked masturbating with glee . . . but he doesn’t live in the girls dorm.  The story says he walked his butt over there, sneaked in, and then undressed.  When some poor girl freaked and locked herself in her room he stood there naked pounding on the door demanding she let him in while he masturbated all the while.

He didn’t do this because of porn.  He did it because he’s a bit left of center on the ol’ common-sense-o’meter.  Sure, he may watch porn, but porn does not create exhibitionistic masturbators.  If he really were overcome with lust of the moment, then he could have stayed at home and masturbated.  Methinks his rationalization bucket has a hole or few or several dozen in it.

He knew very well that the girl locking herself in her room was scared and still persisted.  His porn-induced lust did not cause him to persist, he wanted to continue and made that choice himself.  He certainly was thinking clearly enough to know that when he saw her on the phone she must have been calling the police and so he fled.  Some folks are shaking their heads with wonderment and buying into the porn-induced temporary insanity defence as the boy has a fiancee and therefore must be normal.  I would respond that the two things have nothing to do with one another.

He is using the porn as an excuse for what was obviously poor judgement, not sure if there were drugs involved as none were mentioned but definately impaired judgement but that can’t be blamed on the porn.

Millions of people happily watch porn without detrimental effects or stripping off their clothes and harrassing young girls in dorms.  In fact, porn very likely has far more positive effects upon folks than it has negative effects on a very very few individuals . . . I would definately NOT put this case in the anti-porn evidence pile though as when porn has been shown to have any sort of direct (usually very secondary) relationship to a crime it is a direct relationship in time, not delayed.  If a person has time to think about an act or must prepare for it then porn is definately not the cause as porn, at best, would only create a temporary arousal state . . . anything beyond that is NOT due to the porn.

In this case, the porn as stimulate and the act committed are simply not connected other than the one serving as a very flimsy excuse for the other.