Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[RobinFinderson]

RF, did you even read the article? First, it's not even published, let alone subject to any peer review. Second, it's a thesis on the correlation of internet access and violent crime. He threw pornography into the title just for show, I guess, but pornography itself appears nowhere in any of his research.

Dr. Kendall, on his personal web page, lists the article under the category "Working Paper Manuscripts." It has been 'published' as such, which is why I can link to it for all to read for themselves. The title of the article is "Pornography, Rape, and the Internet." As several people here have already pointed out, including you, there are serious challenges to collecting hard-science about the questions that we are discussing here. This working paper manuscript gets as close to addressing some of these issues as anything linked to in this entire thread. It is a hell of a lot closer than your link to a summary having to do with the relationship of pornography use and recidivism in pedophiles. Anyone who cares to read the working manuscript can decided for themselves the extent of it applicability.

Anyhow, whether it is peer reviewed or not, it presents research that people may consider. My point:

What little science I have been able to find suggests that access to pornography, on the whole, tends to accompany decreases in violent sex crimes.

This is a piece of scientific research (presumably still in progress), it has been published as a working paper, and it is reviewable by all here and can be judged on its merits. I think my own claim, "what little science I have been able to find... suggests..." is appropriate. This is also a hell of a lot more than you have offered to support your theses, including your mind boggling claim that science supports your premise that women's primary drive is to seek security and emotional support.

[Babs]

This is also a hell of a lot more than you have offered to support your theses...

tsk tsk. No need to get testy, RF. It's not my fault you're arguing from an untenable position.

See my post above. You want me to go through all my claims one by one and pull out the sources? I can do it if you want, but do you really want me to take you to the cleaners? Really?

Common sense: Never spit in the wind. Never engage in a land war in Asia. Never post nude pictures online. And never, ever try to outcite a reference librarian with a lot of free time.

[RobinFinderson]

tsk tsk. No need to get testy, RF. It's not my fault you're arguing from an untenable position.

See my post above. You want me to go through all my claims one by one and pull out the sources? I can do it if you want, but do you really want me to take you to the cleaners? Really?

Common sense: Never spit in the wind. Never engage in a land war in Asia. Never post nude pictures online. And never, ever try to outcite a reference librarian with too much free time on her hands.

Women's primary drive is for security and emotional support? Really?

I hope you can some day share the science behind this one too.

I would love to take a closer look at your sources. Why don't you just post links to them so I can read them myself.

[YOhio]

Common sense: Never spit in the wind. Never engage in a land war in Asia. Never post nude pictures online. And never, ever try to outcite a reference librarian with a lot of free time.

If more people had common sense then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Babs]

Women's primary drive is for security and emotional support? Really?

I hope you can some day share the science behind this one too.

I would love to take a closer look at your sources. Why don't you just post links to them so I can read them myself.

Because, Robin, legitimate research isn't free. It's not posted on wikipedia or answers.com. You have to pull it up from proprietary databases, to which you have access through your institution. I've provided the citations for your convenience.

Since you insist, I'll get started on another set of sources.

[Babs]

If more people had common sense then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

EXACTLY! It defies reason! It should be outlawed on those grounds alone!

[RobinFinderson]

Because, Robin, legitimate research isn't free. It's not posted on wikipedia or answers.com. You have to pull it up from proprietary databases, to which you have access through your institution. I've provided the citations for your convenience.

Since you insist, I'll get started on another set of sources.

And apparently legitimate research about pornography holds zero interest to the public, because it is never cited in popular media, nor on wikipedia, and basically has zero google presence.

Babs, I'm happy to defer to your expertise when it comes to research and sources, but for myself and almost everyone else here, we are going to need a bit more help. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2000;11:26-91. just isn't nearly as useful to the rest of us as it seems to be to you. It looks like gibberish to me. What is Annu Rev Sex Res? I don't mind embarrassing myself by asking. I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees your citations as a bigger obstacle than a help.

[SeattleUte]

I've lost the thread of this discussion. Can someone update me? Are any of these studies university based? How can we tell if the author has an agenda or not? Are they all social scientists?

[RobinFinderson]

I've lost the thread of this discussion. Can someone update me? Are any of these studies university based? How can we tell if the author has an agenda or not? Are they all social scientists?

The general thrust of the thread at this point is that Babs is trying to CRUSH donut's dream of a CUFfie by rendering the discussion so dull, that only people with access to to a university research database can follow along. She is probably doing this because she hates donut. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

I, on the other hand, am trying to get Babs to support her claim, allegedly backed by science, that women's primary drive is to seek security and emotional support.

[myboynoah]

The general thrust of the thread at this point is that Babs is trying to CRUSH donut's dream of a CUFfie by rendering the discussion so dull, that only people with access to to a university research database can follow along. She is probably doing this because she hates donut. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

I, on the other hand, am trying to get Babs to support her claim, allegedly backed by science, that women's primary drive is to seek security and emotional support.

The only thing dull, and even pathetic about the latest discussion is how badly BatGirl is kicking Robin's ass. I can see why you want to change the subject.

[RobinFinderson]

The only thing dull, and even pathetic about the latest discussion is how badly BatGirl is kicking Robin's ass. I can see why you want to change the subject.

It would be nice if she could point to something where any of us could evaluate the merits of the research without simply taking her word for it. As it stands we have a handful of abstracts that refer to aggressive sexual behavior. We don't know what 'aggressive sexual behavior' means, we don't know how it was measured, and we don't know if pornography was shown to be the cause of the aggressive behavior, or if, on the other hand, these studies are pointing out the obvious, namely that sexually twisted people are likely to use pornography (and not that pornography makes people sexually twisted).

[wuapinmon]

If more people had common sense then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

=A!

[Babs]

It would be nice if she could point to something where any of us could evaluate the merits of the research without simply taking her word for it. As it stands we have a handful of abstracts that refer to aggressive sexual behavior. We don't know what 'aggressive sexual behavior' means, we don't know how it was measured, and we don't know if pornography was shown to be the cause of the aggressive behavior, or if, on the other hand, these studies are pointing out the obvious, namely that sexually twisted people are likely to use pornography (and not that pornography makes people sexually twisted).

I take it you didn't even read the abstract. This is like trying to discuss literature with SU.

I'm working on your other thing. This one's more time-consuming because it's interdisciplinary.

[Babs]

The only thing dull, and even pathetic about the latest discussion is how badly BatGirl is kicking Robin's ass. I can see why you want to change the subject.

very boring.

[creekster]

I've lost the thread of this discussion. Can someone update me? Are any of these studies university based? How can we tell if the author has an agenda or not? Are they all social scientists?

You know how annoying it is when your spouse walks into a room where you are watching a movie that is 2/3 of the way done and asks "what's going on" or expects you to explain in detail about the plot and the characters right in the middle of the movie? Really annoying.