Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand that last part. Their skills (what they actually hit with darts) were not measured, just their inclination to throw darts at pictures of human faces (women's faces, in particular) rather than pictures of inanimate objects. But you could be right about the differences in culture. I still can't help but take a step back and see a pattern in all of these studies, and it's not hard to reason that they could be finding exactly what they've claimed: One primitive instinct (sex) is awakened but not gratified, and another (aggression) follows. Who knows, maybe what they're doing wrong is not having the subjects gratify themselves while watching?
I don't see how we can just assume any of this about (or how it's relevant to) any of the studies in any of the links I've given. But yes, generally, that is a problem concerning both studies showing some effect and studies showing no effect.
This same study we're talking about (and many others I've referenced) is finding that "regardless of the content", pornography has an effect. And I guess by "specific circumstances", you're talking about laboratory testing?
Some of your examples make me only want to ask one question, and that's "How are you defining pornography?"
I always answer "Who decides..." questions with "No one. But some discover." But some of the studies have included female viewers. I was surprised to find that one reported even women showed an increase in acceptance of the rape myth. But yeah, I get what you're saying. It's an intriguing question on its own.
Many reasons (though I won't argue any of them are good ones). Fear of porn addiction, the strong denial of any evidence (comparably few have resisted reports of evidence that violence in the media is harmful; people tend to just agree with that, by comparison to what's been found on pornography).
I certainly do not think pornography should be illegal, and I don't think it ever will be in the U.S. There's almost absolute consensus that cigarettes are harmful to one's health, and I don't see them going anywhere either. I think most researchers on either side (though they may not be the loudest) genuinely want to explore the effects for discovery's sake.
I often disagree with you, but I always appreciate your posts. They are thoughtful, relevant, and respectful.
The reference to darts was a, perhaps misguided, attempt at humor (I hate using emoticons!).
You may well be right about the connection between sexual arousal and generalized aggression. However, are such connections not also possible (just as likely?) in heterosexual females and in homosexuals of both sexes? Going further, might those aggressive tendencies not also be just as likely to arise via sexual arousal of any kind--including mutually satisfying lovemaking which involves no sources of arousal beyond the two lovers themselves?
When I refer to "specific circumstances", I mean that arousal patterns are never consistent. A given person may well respond differently to the same external stimuli, dependent upon other factors (for example, are they having a good day or a bad day). In fact the Yang/Youn study touched on that factor in regards to looking at subjects who were treated rudely, as opposed to other subjects who were treated respectfully.
How I'm defining pornography is very simple. It is material, the purpose of which is to create sexual arousal.
Here is the primary definition provided by Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
This in itself is even problematic, since delineating "pornography" from material which is "erotic" or even "romantic" is a very subjective process. The point in my prior post is that a full exploration of pornography should rationally include how written pornography, for example, affects various demographic groups (male/female, straight/gay, young/old, etc.) Without that information as a benchmark, it's hard to make any legitimate conclusions in regards to the relationship between sexual arousal and aggression.
I'm glad we're in agreement about the censorship of pornography, although I think I'm much more skeptical of the motives of most researchers.
And I see someone likes to assume things about people with no reason to do so.
I see someone missed my point, which is that someone, namely you, conveniently neglected to mention the conflicts and limitations of the study, which the rest of us, should we bother to look, would see in the section marked "Discussion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
No no. I'm pretty sure... she(?) meant me, rogead.
I see someone is not familiar with the female icon right below my name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
If so, my apologies to Lilac10 for jumping to conclusions are in order, and are given.
For the record, I do think the study is problematic regardless of who is doing the interpreting.
It should be noted that a majority of women find a majority of men to be below average in looks, which is a statistical impossibility. So at the least it works both ways.
How this might influence men's view of women is one thing. The point was, are woman able to accept that men are naturally driven to look at porn. Are women learning to accept our basic nature, or are we expected to be something that we're not.
Was your problem with your mate really his view of you, or your view of him? Be honest? Did his viewing of porn bother you in addition to how it affected his view of you?
Yep, according to surveys 80% of men are below average looking, which points directly at the problem. And the problem isnt mens looks...haha. I think that if not for very common insecurities, most would not have a problem with porn. I have personaly watched quite a bit of porn when i was single, but rarely do when in a relationship. It has never caused a problem in any of my relations, so im not paying a whole lot of attention to it. Its simply reality of modern world, and pretty much every man with a sexual drive, will have experience with porn, some more than others. Porn is not THE problem, insecurities, close mindedness and poor communication between partners ARE.
Yep, according to surveys 80% of men are below average looking, which points directly at the problem. And the problem isnt mens looks...haha. I think that if not for very common insecurities, most would not have a problem with porn. I have personaly watched quite a bit of porn when i was single, but rarely do when in a relationship. It has never caused a problem in any of my relations, so im not paying a whole lot of attention to it. Its simply reality of modern world, and pretty much every man with a sexual drive, will have experience with porn, some more than others.
I don't get this, doesn't average mean average for a reason?
How can 80% be below "average"? If lots of men are ugly then being ugly is the average.
I don't get this, doesn't average mean average for a reason?
How can 80% be below "average"? If lots of men are ugly then being ugly is the average.
I know that, this is why these results are astounding. It simply means that perceptions of the thousands of women surveyed are very far removed from reality, where average does not in fact mean average at all. In fact, its nowhere close.
I see someone missed my point, which is that someone, namely you, conveniently neglected to mention the conflicts and limitations of the study, which the rest of us, should we bother to look, would see in the section marked "Discussion."
You said I read the abstract and skipped the Discussion. I pointed out that was a baseless assumption. Nothing in that section disqualifies this study from being evidence. Might disqualify it from being proof, but I didn't say I would bring proof, now did I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110
I see someone is not familiar with the female icon right below my name.
I don't get this, doesn't average mean average for a reason?
How can 80% be below "average"? If lots of men are ugly then being ugly is the average.
9,9,5,4,4,4,4,4.4,4,4
average = 5.5, 8 out of 10 (80%) are below average
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
