Women's view of men and pornography (Christian, beautiful, Korean, difference)

[Kyle43]

Who cares?

If someone wants to be addicted to porn, that is their right.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Kyle43

Who cares?

If someone wants to be addicted to porn, that is their right.

They can exercise their right as long as they don't mind their wife serving them with divorce papers. Or their gf leaving them.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

They can exercise their right as long as they don't mind their wife serving them with divorce papers. Or their gf leaving them.

Assuming that they have GF's and wives to begin with.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Bucktownbabe

I'd have given up hope far sooner than you have. Your attempts to educate are admirable, but he's not showing any signs of wanting to know the truth.

Thank you. I do try to invest time in actually reading the links people provide on threads like this. Otherwise people can just link to anything as if simply _having_ links in your post is enough to support your claim.

Alas all too often I find that the links to do not support the claim they are being attached to. Or - worse - as with one of the links I read so far in this thread - actually claim the exact opposite. Quotes cherry picked and quote mined out of a synopsis is always an alarm bell for me. As are links to studies that turn out not to be studies at all - but opinion pieces written in blogs as two of the 4 links I have addresses so far turned out to be.

More often than not people links and citations are not their own - but lifted from websites supporting their views. Those who are anti pornography for example simply go to anti pronography propoganda sites and live off a series of quotes and citations from those. Their hope is that the owners of the site have put in the effort that they themselves are unwilling to. Alas quite often the owers of the site have not put in that much effort either.

So all in all I try - time permitting - to really look at peoples citations. Quite often in doing so I have changed my position on things because the citations have convinced me entirely. In the case of THIS thread however this appears not to be the case. At all.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

"A meta-analysis of 46 published research studies on the effects of pornography on sexual perpetration, attitudes regarding intimate relationships, and attitudes regarding the rape myth found that exposure to pornographic material puts one at increased risk for committing sexual offenses, experiencing difficulties in one’s intimate relationships, and accepting rape myths (i.e. beliefs that trivialize rape or blame the victim for the crime). Specifically, there is a 22% increase in sexual perpetration; a 20% increase in negative intimate relationships; and a 31% increase in believing rape myths. A total sample size of 12,323 people comprised the present meta-analysis. The studies confirmed the link between increased risk for negative development when exposed to pornography." http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/pdf/Resea...ornography.pdf

Link 5

I have invested more time in this link than your others for the simple reason that you have cited the exact same quote from it on this thread not once but _three_ times so you clearly feel this link is your strongest one in the set.

Disappointing to find that 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. So there really is nothing IN this link for me to read or evaluate.

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 three 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.

Therefore I am merely forced to declare your link inconclusive and vague. You have used this link to repeat the claim about this "meta-analysis of 46 published research studies". Is it possible you can find out what meta analysis it is you are referring to and I can instead invest the time in reading THAT to evaluate your claims?

Summary: Your link is to an opinion piece which references a book (also an opinion piece really) which references an entirely unnamed and uncited study which I therefore can not read and check. Seeing as I am not about to simply take their word (or yours) for it I can do no more with your link at this time other than dismiss it until such time as you identify the study in question to which they refer.

[BradPiff]

Originally Posted by Ro2113

Assuming that they have GF's and wives to begin with.

Exactly lol.

What most women don't realize is that the guys who are excessive porn users more then likely don't have women in their lives anyway. So my question is.... Why should you care what a man who you were never going to be with does in his own personal time?

[Kyle43]

Originally Posted by BradPiff

Exactly lol.

What most women don't realize is that the guys who are excessive porn users more then likely don't have women in their lives anyway. So my question is.... Why should you care what a man who you were never going to be with does in his own personal time?

Because it means they will unwittingly be in some other guy's harem.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

Is it possible you can find out what meta analysis it is you are referring to and I can instead invest the time in reading THAT to evaluate your claims?

This is the best I could find at the moment. If it's not enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

http://ccoso.org/library%20articles/Meta-analysis.pdf

The "opinion piece" quoting the meta-analysis also quotes another right afterward, though I didn't give it a mention due to its relatively small size.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

This is the best I could find at the moment. If it's not enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Somehow it never occured to me to check if the research their book was quoting was their OWN research. I probably would have found the Meta Analysis myself had I thought to check that. I just assumed if they were citing research in a book then they were citing someone elses.

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....

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.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by monumentus

Thank you. I do try to invest time in actually reading the links people provide on threads like this. Otherwise people can just link to anything as if simply _having_ links in your post is enough to support your claim.

Alas all too often I find that the links to do not support the claim they are being attached to. Or - worse - as with one of the links I read so far in this thread - actually claim the exact opposite. Quotes cherry picked and quote mined out of a synopsis is always an alarm bell for me. As are links to studies that turn out not to be studies at all - but opinion pieces written in blogs as two of the 4 links I have addresses so far turned out to be.

Of course they don't. No amount of cherry-picking can prove a false claim. I, too, admire your effort to educate, but you're wasting your time with this guy. Spend it with someone who wants to be educated.