
Is porn good for us? - dirtbox
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/
======
jessriedel
"Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit
materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the
incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly
seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the
Internet."

The article is filled with statements like this without telling us if
researchers controlled for any of the infinite possible confounding factors.
This may be just a bad article, and the research may actually support the
hypothesis of a causal link (perhaps even through a controlled experiment,
rather than a statistical survey). But as it is, there's really no strong
evidence at all in this article. Unless someone writes a more competent
article, one would need to go read the actual studies.

EDIT: Wait, they are giving the internet credit for reducing rape between 1975
and 1995? The first graphical web browser, Mosaic, wasn't developed until
1992. OK, this article is total baloney.

~~~
wooster
VHS was released in the mid-1970's. Betamax was released in 1975. They are
widely considered to have popularized (or been popularized by?) video porn.

~~~
jessriedel
First, Playboy and other print pornography were available long before VHS and
Betamax. Is the claim that _video_ pornography is the key product which
reduced sexual violence?

Second, what fraction of young men _regularly_ viewed pornography on videotape
from 1975-1990? It has to be much, much lower than the (near-ubiquitous)
viewing of online pornography today. (Then again, maybe those most at risk to
commit sexual violence were much more likely to purchase pornography on
video.)

------
autarch
The problem with this article, and those that assert the opposite, is that
it's barely science.

There's no good control, and there are so many possible confounding factors
that it's impossible to know what's really happening.

Even worse, if you read the comments, it seems that people can't even agree on
whether or not sexual violence has increased or decreased in the US over the
past 40 years or so!

Has anyone actually done any real science in this area? It seems like all we
see are a bunch of ideologically motivated people selectively interpreting the
data for their preferred viewpoint.

------
mvandemar
The only issue I contend with personally on porn is the number of women who
create it in order to support a drug habit, thus removing a portion of the
voluntariness from it. I know that factor does not apply to all women creating
porn, not by a long shot, but by knowing the stories of women in the exotic
dancing industry, where many porn actresses are recruited from, it's hard to
ignore the reality once you become aware of it.

Also, like any fantasy based pasttime porn has it's own addiction dangers that
would not necessarily be considered 'healthy'. Although this of course would
not apply to people who are not prone to fantasy addiction in the first place,
there is a reason that internet porn is a multi-billion dollar industry.

>Note: Just to clarify, I don't have any issues with the act of making,
staring in, or viewing porn itself. I do watch porn. And I know that addiction
occurs across _all_ industries and walks of life. It does happen to have a
higher occurrences in certain industries though, such as, for example, adult
entertainment or telemarketing. I personally do not view porn as either bad or
immoral.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Couldn't that be an issue with virtually any job? Do you take issue with
factory jobs, due to the number of alcoholics working there just to support
their beer-purchasing habits?

It is an issue for sure, but not one specific to pornography.

~~~
dgabriel
The social stigma applied to porn actresses is enormous. Working a factory job
will not exclude you from other lines of work later in your life, nor is it
necessary to hide former factory work from your parents or acquaintances. Even
a brief stint in porn can cause long lasting deleterious effects in a woman's
life.

~~~
Jun8
I think that may be outdated. There are intelligent, interesting actresses
that are covered in main stream media, best known current example is Sasha
Grey but there are many others.

How do you know that "even a brief stint in porn can cause long lasting
deleterious effects", have you talked to them? As in any job, e.g.
programming, IT, etc. there will be people who hate their job. I think the
relevant question is whether someone is _forced_ to a job they hate or has
"deleterious effects"?

The idea that all porn actresses are clueless feather brains who were tricked
into this trade and continue to be victimized is condescending.

~~~
dgabriel
> The idea that all porn actresses are clueless feather brains who were
> tricked into this trade and continue to be victimized is condescending.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You are not a realist if you think a resume
that includes porn or other sex work will not very much damage a woman's life.
Find me one instance of a factory worker facing these kinds of consequences:

<http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2009/07/08/mzberlin/>

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/08/31/2009-08-...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/08/31/2009-08-31_bikiniclad_teacher_tiffany_shepherd_turns_to_porn_after_being_fired_from_florida.html)

~~~
Jun8
The conclusion I deduce from these news stories is that there is still quite a
bit of prejudice against porn workers (one can argue esp. in the US; in Europe
I have the feeling that they are more accepted). This, of course, doesn't make
their profession inherently bad.

You cannot have it both ways: You are either (i) against the widespread
stigmatization of porn workers (female _and_ male, you don't see the male
stories because they don't make for juicy journalism) and fight for them to
become legitimate members of the society; or, (ii) you hold that porn is a
dirty thing that should be eradicated (along with its workers). In the end,
you can't be _against_ porn and _for_ porn workers (this actually was/is? the
self contradictory stance of feminist activists against porn in the 70s). A
lot of them see that as their job.

~~~
dgabriel
I'm not taking a stance on the inherent goodness or badness of porn at all,I'm
merely pointing out that sex work is in no way equivalent to factory work.

------
j_baker
The idea that pornography _only_ objectifies women is inherently sexist. There
are men in porn too. I think people take this point of view out of some
antiquated notion of chivaly: women need to be protected because they
_obviously_ can't do it for themselves.

~~~
dgabriel
The vast majority of porn is created for men, and the men in these films are
not objectified in the same way women are. This has nothing to do with
chivalry.

~~~
marshallp
Secretly, most, maybe all, women like be objectified to an extent, it's part
of their dna. Find me a woman who says they wouldn't secretly like to show a
bit of flesh in a magazine and i'll show a liar.

~~~
crux_
I don't know about any of that stuff, but I think you've successfully shown me
a sexist.

~~~
sliverstorm
'Sexist' is thrown about too much, imho.

To some circles, you're sexist if you believe men and women are different at
all. I call bs, we are inherently different in some ways. call me sexist if
you like.

To the rest of the circles, you're sexist if you put any stock in any of what
are usually considered negative stereotypes about women. (the key being for
example if you believe women are more kind than men, that is not branded
sexist!) This is ridiculous as well, imho. It's like the stereotypes about
blacks and guns. Some rapper was arrested a few years ago for having a bunch
of guns in his car, and he screams 'you racists'. Dude. You had guns in the
car, if anything you're literally living up to the stereotype you're
complaining about. You can't complain about being profiled in regards to
'riding dirty' if you were in fact 'riding dirty', imho.

I'm usually pretty bad at illustrating this half of the argument, but as
unpopular as it may make me I believe many stereotypes are based on a truth.
To apply them to ALL MEMBERS of the group is folly, but the inverse is also
true- to assume that it applies to NO MEMBERS of the group, or even ALMOST NO
MEMBERS of the group, is folly as well.

I should perhaps start constructing a counter-offense argument... after all,
have you considered that the belief that women as a rule do NOT like being a
little bit exhibitionist could also be considered sexist?

~~~
crux_
> 'Sexist' is thrown about too much, imho.

On the contrary, I don't think it's thrown around nearly often enough, at
least in the tech/entrepreneurial community. In the name of rejecting
political correctness, the cultural norm has swung in the complete opposite
direction -- and virtually no one has been willing to speak out for putting
the brakes on. (Those who do seem to end up branded a pariah or whiner.) Top
tip: we can enjoy freedom of speech _and_ insist upon basic politeness from
our peers; they aren't mutually exclusive.

\---

As to your anecdote: So, you're a racist too?

(The above was mostly tongue in cheek, but consider...) :

\- There's no law against gun ownership -- the right to bear arms is a
guaranteed one -- so why is the fact that this guy had guns named as if it
were a valid cause for his arrest? Somehow I have trouble imagining stories of
Jeff Foxworthy, a famous white man with a 'redneck' stereotype, being arrested
"for having guns in his car" being passed around with the same tone of smug
judgement.

\- Don't forget the history of racist double standards when it came to black
gun ownership in America, both recent and (comparatively) ancient. Nor the
fact that law enforcement is often anything but colorblind.

~~~
sliverstorm
I forget the details of the arrest, but there are plenty of reasons possessing
a gun is illegal. Don't immediately assume he was innocent and rule out the
possibilities that concealment laws or registration laws didn't come into
play. Maybe he didn't violate any laws after all, but that wasn't his defense
so it seems irrelevant to the topic.

I am not being smug or judgemental, and I wouldn't have batted an eye or cared
in the least, if he hadn't tried to play the racism card. Maybe it's foolish
of me, but let me try to illustrate with a more extreme example.

Suppose a black man was to commit some heinous crime, and we had irrefutable
proof he was completely guilty (just suppose, bear with me). Normally, he'd be
tried and put away. But what if this black man's defense was 'well, I was
being profiled- if it wasn't for the stereotype that blacks are more violent
and commit more crimes, I wouldn't have been caught so clearly this is unfair.
I should go free.'

IMHO, you can file complaints and suits and get all the damages you like for
being unfairly profiled, and I'll generally back you up, but as soon as you're
guilty of what they profiled you for, you loose all my support and earn my
disgust. He may be right, maybe through racism we catch more guilty blacks
than whites or something, but either way the hypothetical man is _guilty_. The
way to fix that flaw is not let him go but start catching the whites too.

re: double standards and corrupt law enforcement, I'll give you that.

~~~
crux_
On my phone,so pardon the terseness.

A) There's two issues here: whether the incident was racism, and whether the
_retelling_ you gave was, due to the assumptions it carried. I was addressing
the latter.

B) Of course you were being judgemental; the entire point was to communicate
your judgement of the situation as a flagrant race card play. Smug is in the
eye of the beholder; I'm certain it wasn't intentional.

C) Re: hypo. It can be true that he is guilty and that he was persecuted due
to racism at the same time. Not mutually exclusive; just as in another
situation someone fully guilty may be proven so by an illegal search. Its up
to the courts to decide whether the violation of equality would prevent a
conviction. (Currently: racism no; illegal search yes.)

D) Would you hold the same position if the crime was possession of a
recreational amount of marijuana?

------
bd
" _According to the conservative media watchdog group Family Safe Media, the
porn industry makes more money than the top technology companies combined,
including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon."_

No way. Let's keep things in perspective.

These four companies had combined revenues of almost $150 billion (2009).

All porn total revenue estimates are maximum in single digit billions.

Even the smallest company in Fortune 500 had at least $18.5 billion revenue.

Despite appearances, porn is niche.

------
jackfoxy
It's interesting how much of HN comments are devoted to media criticism, often
focusing on the sad state of science journalism. Maybe with the demise of
Editor & Publisher there's room for a start-up here.

------
erickerr
"As the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down"

This is a perfect application of "Correlation does not imply causation". It's
very likely that over time (during which internet porn has skyrocketed and
made consumption frictionless) the awareness for supporting victims of sexual
assault as also gone up.. from completely unrelated trends like rises in
feminism and an overall decrease in crime over the last 15 years.

Source 1995:
[http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/9...](http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime3.pdf)
2008: <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_25.html>

------
chasingsparks
_No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes
towards women._

As other commenters have stated, it is really difficult to conduct a good
experiment given the difficulty controlling for other variables. However, I'm
not even sure it is the right question. I'd be more interested in men's
attitudes towards themselves given habitual exposure to porn.

The same experimental difficulty exists, but I think it is more "upstream"
from negative attitudes towards women. That is, in the course of the
hypothesized man turned sexual predator, there is probably a period of sexual
frustration that may be exacerbated by the non-reality of porn. This then
develops into the deviant.

------
ErrantX
The only thing I think anyone can tell you about porn for certain is that it
is, literally, everywhere (I'd say around 95% of the computers I poke around
inside of contain porn).

------
brianobush
I am on the pro-porn side since my job and company is built on its existence.
Luckily, our technology works well and if you don't like pornography, you can
easily buy products/services that will block porn (and other harmful content,
e.g., hate, drugs, abortion, etc).

Leveling-up I see pornography as content that will exist irregardless of laws,
restrictions, etc. It is human nature that is simply exploiting the Internet
medium to the fullest. I.e., it won't go away that easy.

~~~
jrockway
Legal rights protected by the supreme court are "harmful content" now? I
didn't get that memo.

~~~
brianobush
Well, as a parent, I want to protect my children from seeing the Internet in
the raw form. Seriously, look at the content on the Internet. There is an
amazing amount of content, not all of it is safe for children to view. Heck
sometimes I see stuff that I would rather not. Don't confuse the issue here -
it has nothing to do with rights.

~~~
Jun8
Can you define "child"? At what age is it safe for a child to see a soft porn
act, a hardcore one? Who makes up these rules? If you say every parent should
make up the rules for their own family I'd support that; sadly, in real life
it seldom works like that, e.g. see the recent misguided Australian attempt to
ban access to porn _for everyone_.

~~~
jrockway
Hey... if God had intended for us to see each other naked, we wouldn't have
been born with clothes.

~~~
brianobush
I am not talking about nudity here. Pornography is more than just nudity.
Other content that is considered not good for children is abortion photos,
hard core porn, murder, etc. You know stuff that makes an normal adult go wow,
that is messed up (go to stile project, or ogrish for stuff)

------
Jun8
I would recommend photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders's book, "30 Porn-
Star Portraits" ([http://www.amazon.com/XXX-Porn-Star-Portraits-Timothy-
Greenf...](http://www.amazon.com/XXX-Porn-Star-Portraits-Timothy-Greenfield-
Sanders/dp/0821277545)) to gain a better understanding of how and why people
choose to work in the porn industry. In addition to nice photos (of course) it
includes essays by porn workers, e.g. Nina Hartley
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Hartley>) and biographical information.
This comes in handy next time you encounter someone who claims all porn
actresses are drug addicted victims who are either brainless or over-sexed.

------
lotharbot
The question in the article's title is "is porn good for us?" That's not the
question they actually answer.

The question they actually attempt to answer is "does porn availability
increase sex crimes or lead to unhealthy attitudes about women?" Their answer
is that it actually improves both situations, though it's poorly supported by
the data. (As others have noted, it's a mere statistical survey with no good
control and many confounding factors.)

If they wanted to answer "is porn good for us", they'd have to investigate a
number of situations -- porn use within a relationship, for example. I suspect
they'd find it has some serious downsides.

~~~
drunkpotato
_I suspect they'd find it has some serious downsides._

Gaaah, this comment was so good until you whiffed at the end! You point out
that their methodology was sloppy, that the title is not apropos, and then
_assert your own unfounded opinion_ right at the end.

~~~
lotharbot
I've done enough marriage counseling to know of the _existence_ of serious
downsides to pornography, which is all I asserted. This is not an unfounded
opinion.

Had I expressed some statistical conclusion (say, that the downsides
outnumbered the upsides, or that under some particular weighting scheme the
downsides were 62% worse than the upsides) your criticism would be valid.

------
breck
Google thinks so.

> adheresToDontBeEvil("incognito mode") > true

------
rogermugs
And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography
has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or ___not
increased._ __

ridiculous

------
TechStuff
no

