…as theorized by a statistical analysis here (mentioned in this thread at T&S)  How should one react to that?

First things first, as with many statistical trends it is difficult to prove true causation versus simple correlation when dealing with trends among millions upon millions of people through different countries and decades.  It is certainly true that according to statistical accounts rapes are down about 60% in the US over the last 15 years, which (coincidentally or not) coincides with the rise of the Internet and easy access to online pornography.

In addition, countries such as Japan and Denmark found that the reported sex crime rate dropped significantly (from 50-85%) after liberalizing pornography laws, usually in areas unrelated to the Internet (movies and printed material).  If that’s merely circumstantial evidence, it certainly represents some suspiciously strong correlation.

The logical train of thought says that many men who have the propensity to commit rape may find sexual satiation through wider access to pornography, thus reducing the likelihood of being compelled to commit a sexual assault.

The opposite train of thought says that on the contrary pornography increases the likelihood of rape, as for many porn users constant exposure to pornography will naturally tend to ‘lose its edge’ over time, forcing them to turn to more and more desperate and extreme ends to find pleasure, in a manner similar to drug addicts.

Certainly, one can find anecdotal evidence for people in both groups, but since the statistical trend is clearly down for rapes rather than up, the evidence—assuming there’s a link between pornography and rape at all—seems to indicate that the former group is a lot larger than the latter.

There are other factors to consider:

Greater liberalization in attitudes towards sex:  Strictly speaking, for a rape to occur you have to not only have a guy who doesn’t accept a ‘no’, but a girl who says ‘no’ in the first place.  (And note that contrary to the typical 'randomly in a dark alley' stereotype of rape, the majority of rapes are of the 'date/acquaintance' variety, where the victim already knows their attacker) 

If in recent decades (as is easily arguable) there has been a general societal trend towards more liberal and open sexuality—even and especially among young women—then we have another factor which may explain a reduction in rape rates that's unrelated to pornography.  Simply that more women are perfectly accepting of sexual activity on dates, therefore the opportunities for date rape are reduced, because there are fewer “no’s” to be ignored.

(The opposite train of thought, of course, may say that, following societal trends, guys may thus be more likely to expect sex on a date and be more disappointed if it doesn’t happen, thereby increasing the risk of taking it by force.)

Rape is about power, not sex:  ...therefore pornography has no relevance to the rape rate at all.  This is a commonly held assertion, especially from feminist groups, but unfortunately the stats don’t back this up.  An estimated 80% of female rape victims are under the age of 30, which coincidentally or not represents the period of time where female attractiveness is usually at its peak.  Add in the above-mentioned fact that most rapes today are of the 'date/acquaintance' variety where attractiveness is often the reason the victim and assailant were together in the first place, and we have some solid evidence that while ‘power’ may still be a factor, ‘sex’ is clearly still a big part of the equation.

But back to the original question:  how should we react if, in fact, this theory is correct—that more access and acceptance of pornography really does result in a lower sexual assault rate over all countries?

We accept it, of course.  Why?

(1)    It would be the truth, and we should always accept things that happen to be true.
(2)    More importantly, it does not ‘excuse’ pornography.

The trap is that a significant number of people who are naturally opposed to pornography will automatically discount the theory that pornography may reduce rapes, saying: "That *can’t* possibly be true…because pornography is ‘bad’ and thus can’t have any 'good' consequences, even as a side-effect."

But that’s irrelevant.  Pornography is still ‘bad’—there are plenty of other reasons to be opposed to pornography even if “increases rapes” doesn’t turn out to be one of them.  Bad things don’t have to be bad in *all* cases—in fact, they rarely are—in order to be opposed.  Even at its peak, the percentage of men who would turn out to be rapists is very small—the number of potential rapists who are influenced by porn is dwarfed by the number of men who were never going to turn out to be rapists to begin with, but are still exposed to and influenced by porn.  What about the possible effect of pornography on infidelity, mentioned in the original T&S post, that’s completely irrelevant to the rape issue?

Likewise, the number of women victimized in the porn industry itself can easily dwarf the number not victimized through any reduction in sexual assaults.  After all, in the words of anti-pornography activist Andrea Dworkin: ”The question is not: does pornography cause violence against women? Pornography *is* violence against women…”

Basically, there are still lots of reasons to oppose pornography—if it turns out there is a direct correlation between recent reductions of sexual assaults and easier access to pornography, that does not automatically mean pornography is excusable any more than small amounts of alcohol being beneficial to the heart automatically excuses the damage it does to the liver…or the 100,000+ deaths alcohol causes in the U.S. each year.  Anti-pornography activists shouldn’t fall into the trap of requiring all possible positive consequences of pornography to be rejected and disproven if/when the statistics clearly say otherwise.  That just sacrifices credibility for ideological purity--it's not worth it.  If it’s true, accept it, and just go on to the next argument.