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.
Would you like your daughter, wife or son to be a porn "STAR"?
What people want - or do not want - for their off spring is irrelevant. I would not "want" my children to be toilet cleaners for a living either. That does not mean there is anything wrong with being a toilet cleaner - or the cleaning industry.
You are making a hollow "Argument from Emotion" essentially. Attempting to link two things that are not linked which are "I do not want my kids to go into a career doing X" with "Therefore X is a bad bad thing".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Porn is just so inherently wrong
Why? Because the only reason I see coming from you to support such an assertion - is your own decree that it is so. You are welcome to your opinion - but not to passing your opinion off as fact.
I see no reason to think it is any more (or less for that matter) inherently wrong than any other aspect of the entertainment industry.
I posted documentation earlier on studies finding that exposure to pornography can increase men's acceptance of the rape myth
Except the links you gave support no such thing.
The first link you posted was to the "Social Costs of Porn" website. This link is awful. It starts out with the writer declaring a bias and opinion. Studies and papers should be impartial but this one is openly - from literally the first sentence - declaring the authors bias and position. The author simply asserts - based on nothing at all - that people learn sexual behavior from pornography. This is as much apocryphal nonsense as declaring people learn how to live their life while watching James Bond. It simply assumes people are genuinely incapable of separating fact from fiction. Upon what, exactly, does this author presume to declare that people watching porn are unable to determine that they are as much engaged in watching fiction as when watching any other television show? Does the author assume that when sex is involved the average critical faculties of the watcher are magically switched off for no reason other than the author wants it to be so?
“ We also learn better when aroused” declares the author. Do we? How do we know this? The author cites no references or support for this “factoid”. It is simply asserted. Even if it IS true – lets assume it is for one moment – that in no way means we simply accept everything we see as “true” or “right” simply because we are – at that moment – more open to “learning”. If I tell you 2+2=5 you are no more likely to believe nonsense while getting a blow job than you are were I to stop you in a coffee shop having a latte.
The entire link simply asserts and assumes that the watching of porn is a learning experience – one that by its very nature of being erotic is doubly enforced. It is assertion backed up by assertion – all laid on a foundation of assumption.
But what more can we expect from a link that is basically an entry on a Blog with an agenda rather than a peer reviewed journal?
The second link you provide is at least as bad yet it is one you cite often on this forum.
This also is an opinion piece and not a paper or study in and of itself. It is merely a review of the literature which cherry picks the results that conform with what the author believes and does not cite or address or mention any other literature that does not support those ends. The link is basically a series of compiled references for the anti-pornograhy campaigner to use.
Rather than simply dismiss the link entirely given your clear investment in it I instead therefore tried to invest the time to go and find the source that this PDF mentions that you have quoted from many times now. In other words the PDF is not really what you are linking to here but one particular source that this PDF happens to reference.
Specifically the text you keep quoting is a reference to a book: Elizabeth Oddone-Paolucci, Mark Genuis and Claudio Violato, The Changing Family and Child Development, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 48-59. Unfortunately I am not finding the text of this book on line and the book itself on amazon is over 100 dollars. I am not about to spend 100 dollars to read 11 pages of a book to check if it supports your claims or not. Especially as when one paragraph is lifted out of a book like this you do not know the context of the quote. The next line in the book could be for example "... but not one other study we have read has supported the claim of this one meta analysis" in a similar way to how creationists cite only half the sentence Darwin wrote about the eye to make it look like Darwin was calling his own work inprobable nonsense but when you re-attach the rest of the paragraph he is suddenly saying the _exact_ opposite.
A previous attempt to actually pin you down on what the alleged Meta Analysis actually claimed was even worse. It turned out in the end that the meta analysis the writers of the book found so convincing was written by - wait for it - themselves. Shock horror.
First issue here.
The Analysis however suffers from one of the most basic errors I can think of. It does not mention the selection criteria for how the studies included in the Meta were picked. Found yes. Selected no.
If for example I have 100 studies and I do a meta analysis of 40 of them - I should pick my studies randomly. What I should not do - for example - is find the 40 that most support the claim I want to make - and only include them in the Meta. THAT is why selection criteria need to be mentioned in any Meta. They are not mentioned here. That is NOT good.
For example in the document they say openly that studies that do not support their postition were left out.
Quote:
Though studies from Denmark tend to be cited to support the contention that availability of pornography is related to lower rates of sexual offending, those located by the researchers did not meet the criteria for inclusion for the present meta-analysis.
.... but convieniently we are not told what that criteria was. Was it "papers that agree with US" for example?
Second issue here.
Worse I randomly looked at some of the studies they did include. These are not great. Take for example: "Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression. Journal of Research in Personality".
The first one basically asks people who have looked at porn if they personally feel any subjective increase in a tendency towards thinking about rape. So the hell what? THINKING about it is not the same as an increased chance of engaging in it.
Further they speak not just of rape but "Twenty-seven percent of subjects indicated some hypothetical likelihood of raping or using sexual force against a woman". Thats pretty vague is it not? What about consensual violence such as in S&M? Saying you would like to engage in a violent but consensual sexual encounter is not a bad thing but it sounds like such is included here.
Finally even if a correlation is established between those who engage in violence in sex and those who watch violent porn - how does this establish the latter led to the former? Perhaps it is an interest in the former led them to the latter?
Third issue here.
"The effect of polygraphy on the self report of adolescent sex offenders: Implications for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research" is worse again as this is not even a study of the effects of porn on agression. It is a study of the effects of using polygraphy on people who were already sexual perpetrators!!!
Hardly fair to base an assesment of pornography as a whole on the basis of a report only looking at sexually deviant covincted sex offenders is it?!?!?!?
Further this stufy makes the same correlation-causation error where they found that there is a correlation between the number of victims and the kind of porn used. Again it is just assumed that the latter led to the former and that the former has nothing to do with the latter. Perhaps whatever gave them the propensity to offend more also gives them a propensity towards violent pornography.
Summary
The methodology of this paper is suspect, especially how they chose the studies to include. As are the papers within it - such as including a study about polygraphy, not pornography, which studies ONLY sex offenders and not your common joe on the street - or any such control.
At best the Meta establishes a weak and tenuous correlation between VIOLENT pornography and violent acts. There is nothing addressing whether one is the cause of the other or share root causes however. Nor does establishing a correlation to VIOLENT pronography support your contention that pornography AS A WHOLE is dangerous.
You didn't start by asking them anything, however. You immediately called it a "non sequiter" (which I assumed to be a close cousin of "non sequitur", correct me if I'm wrong) which is why I offered my interpretation of what he meant which was surely no less logical and no more unfounded than your own.
Then, you said the OP would know more about what he meant than I would... Instead of saying "more than we do", you said "more than you do", that is all. You can follow the quotes back through the thread if you don't believe me...
And if you're wanting to debate the whole pornography thing (again), at least post the links you are debating against before your argument in the future, so we can all more easily identify which ones you're dismissing, and judge for ourselves whether your arguments are reasonable or unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
The first link you posted was to the "Social Costs of Porn" website. This link is awful. It starts out with the writer declaring a bias and opinion. Studies and papers should be impartial but this one is openly - from literally the first sentence - declaring the authors bias and position.
Actually, he didn't declare a bias; you assumed he had a bias (because I guess everyone who says anything negative about pornography must have always had a problem with it?). For all you know, the opinions of those who contribute to this website who oppose pornography were formed after they had personally had a good look at the research. People tend to summarize the gist of their articles and documents in the first paragraph in writing. That's actually standard procedure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Does the author assume that when sex is involved the average critical faculties of the watcher are magically switched off for no reason other than the author wants it to be so?
You make it sound as if this is a new argument. I do wonder what exists to counterargue here, as well...
The second link you provide is at least as bad yet it is one you cite often on this forum.
This also is an opinion piece and not a paper or study in and of itself. It is merely a review of the literature which cherry picks the results that conform with what the author believes and does not cite or address or mention any other literature that does not support those ends. The link is basically a series of compiled references for the anti-pornograhy campaigner to use.
I cite this paper "often" on this forum specifically to show that there is research suggesting very specific harms of pornography, and I made sure to follow with "I will freely admit that there are studies finding contradictory results to some of this (e.g., an effect on the inclination to rape due to pornography exposure)". Still, not all of it has been addressed and countered, especially not here, and I've identified a couple of these arguments more times than I should have to on this thread alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Further they speak not just of rape but "Twenty-seven percent of subjects indicated some hypothetical likelihood of raping or using sexual force against a woman". Thats pretty vague is it not? What about consensual violence such as in S&M? Saying you would like to engage in a violent but consensual sexual encounter is not a bad thing but it sounds like such is included here.
Not at all. Being forced to do something and consenting to it are 100% opposites.
I still say the lack of experimental studies even claiming to find no relationship between exposure to pornography and rape myth acceptance and the trivialization of rape (Do you know of any?) is more than enough reason to steer clear of it, or at least inform others of this odd imbalance in the world of research on the topic. Because we both know other points regarding the debate on pornography have research supporting contradictory arguments.
But then, given the following quote...
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
The first one basically asks people who have looked at porn if they personally feel any subjective increase in a tendency towards thinking about rape. So the hell what? THINKING about it is not the same as an increased chance of engaging in it.
...it would seem you're not interested in how it can affect our thoughts, because you do not personally believe our thoughts can affect our behavior.
The experts say that pornography can be highly addictive, with some researchers and therapists even likening it to crack cocaine. People who indulge in pornography often cover up their habit. They are secretive and deceitful. Not surprisingly, many suffer from feelings of isolation, shame, anxiety, depression, and anger. In some cases, some even develop suicidal tendencies.
Even a fleeting or accidental brush with pornography can have a negative impact. Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, Dr. Judith Reisman, a leading researcher on pornography, said: "Pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail that is difficult, even impossible to delete."
You didn't start by asking them anything, however.
I did not realise questions were only valid if you ask them at the outset. Again: I asked them a question, I think they are better suited to answer it than you, alas an answer is not forthcoming. Turning into a grammar nazi and correcting peoples spelling does not exactly help. I am sure you have never mistyped a word ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And if you're wanting to debate the whole pornography thing (again), at least post the links you are debating against before your argument in the future
You write your posts. I will write mine. You already posted the links. I see no reason to repost them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Actually, he didn't declare a bias; you assumed he had a bias
False. He declares his bias right there in the text. Go read it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You make it sound as if this is a new argument.
I never said it was a new one. I said it was an unfounded assertion. Nothing to do with the age of the argument at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I cite this paper "often" on this forum specifically to show that there is research suggesting very specific harms of pornography
If there is then it is not that link. For the reasons I have outlined which you have not addressed. If there is research showing the harms of pornography then by all means present links to it. The two links you provided here - arent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not at all. Being forced to do something and consenting to it are 100% opposites.
My point exactly, go read what I wrote again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I still say the lack of experimental studies even claiming to find no relationship between exposure to pornography and rape myth acceptance and the trivialization of rape (Do you know of any?) is more than enough reason to steer clear of it
And does the lack of any stufies showing that eating brussel sprouts is not connected to alien abduction make you steer clear of them too? You are shifting the onus of proof here like a theist. It is up to people suggesting a link to support that link. Not for people to create studies denying such a link. No one has to prove a negative here. The onus of evidence lies at your feet if you want to suggest pornography is harmful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
it would seem you're not interested in how it can affect our thoughts, because you do not personally believe our thoughts can affect our behavior.
There is a chasm of difference between "thoughts can affect behaviour" and "These specific thoughts will affect behaviour in these specific ways". I have never at any point suggested thoughts do not affect behaviour. I just see nothing from you to suggest that the thoughts in question are harmful or will result in poor or dangerous behaviour.
The experts say that pornography can be highly addictive, with some researchers and therapists even likening it to crack cocaine.
I would doubt that. Which experts? Which papers? Which links? Citations please.
Cocaine is truely highly addictive. I have no doubt porn can be addictive. _Anything_ can be addictive. But I would take a lot of convincing to believe it is _That_ addictive.
Addiction is a bad thing - and our society is rife with it. Gambling, Alcohol, Drugs, Sugar, Fast Good, Television - and much much more. Our species has a problem of addiction. And addiction is a problem.
But I would not indict any one thing - like porn - with the problems of addiction. If we were to rant against everything that was potentially addictive - I am truely not sure what we would have left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated
People who indulge in pornography often cover up their habit. They are secretive and deceitful.
Only because society decrees that it should be so. It is not that the people are deceitful per se - but that society is not a place that welcomes hearing about the porn you watched last night in the same way as "Did you see the game last night".
If society cajoles people into acting a certain way - it is a bit disingenuous to call people conform to that "deceitful". No - they are merely conforming to societal norms and expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated
a leading researcher on pornography, said: "Pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail that is difficult, even impossible to delete."
Have your actually read that sentence and parsed it? It basically says nothing at all. If I walked into your room right now and showed you a super over sized tea cup that was red with purple pokka dots all over it I would "imprint and alter your brain" and "trigger and instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trailed that is difficult, even impossible to delete".
What is your "Dr." saying in other words - in plain simple english? "If you see something - you are likely to remember it - and unlikely to be able to force yourself to forget it".
She just says it with long sounding ominous words that make it sound like something awful when really she is saying nothing more than "If you see it - youll likely remember it". You are basically falling for someone using long words to scaremonger.
He declares his bias right there in the text. Go read it again.
Or you could quote it... You know, because you must know exactly where it is... If it's really there. My bet is that you read something you personally interpreted as an admission of a bias, when it really wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
And does the lack of any stufies showing that eating brussel sprouts is not connected to alien abduction make you steer clear of them too?
If there existed so much as 20 studies being claimed to find that it was, then yes, the lack of studies to find something different would be a curious thing. That's what researchers do. There is an inherent system of checks and balances in it all. If there is anything worthy of questioning, it will be questioned and the findings will be published.
As for the whole onus of proof thing, I get to decide what convinces me of something and just how to interpret the absence of studies contradicting any given finding (or if it suits you better, claims) from other studies. Not you. And I will forever find it curious how research has apparently found several contradictory findings on other arguments in the pornography debate... but not when it comes to acceptance of the rape myth.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,688,919 times
Reputation: 3689
The only downside of porn to me is desentization. Studies prove that long term porn makes you look for more graphic and violent porn because its harder to get off. Or even it being harder to get off with out porn
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.
