More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.
Next sentence
Also:
Whether pornography contributes to sexual aggression in real life has been the subject of dozens of studies over multiple decades. Nevertheless, scholars have not come to a consensus about whether effects are real.
Also also this study has nothing to do with your claim. Its not about porn preventing violent behaviour, it’s about whether porn causes it or not.
Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.
The last sentence of the abstract (More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.) seems to be adressing this. In the study itself they say:
A third group of studies considers relationships between pornography consumption and sexual violence at the population level (e.g., Diamond et al., 2011; Gentry, 1991). In such studies, changes in the population rate of sexual crimes are associated with changes in the availability of pornography, often due to changes in the law. Cross-nationally, most (though not all) such studies suggest that pornography consumption is correlated with reductions in sexual violence. However, such data are correlational in nature, and third variables at the societal level may also be responsible for these patterns.
You said, at the start of our dialog, that:
Regardless, there are tons of studies showing that consuming this kind of porn actually helps prevent people from acting on these fantasies
“This kind” refers to violent porn, i suppose? Because the study states that:
Our meta-analytic results reveal no relationship between exposure to nonviolent pornography and sexual aggression.
So they are not talking about “this kind” of porn.
The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or “taboo” pornography. It states there’s no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that it’s at least correlated with a reduction instead.
We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that there’s no evidence that it has negative effects, and there’s at least some evidence that suggests it has positive effects.
Violent pornography was weakly correlated with sexual aggression, although
the current evidence was unable to distinguish between a selection effect as compared to a socialization effect.
If anything, this points towards the opposite conclusion. And that is with zero nitpicking.
The inability to distinguish between selection and socialization means there’s no evidence for a causal link. At best, it suggests that people who commit sexual aggression generally like porn featuring it more, but even that is apparently a weak correlation apparently.
I don’t disagree. It also doesn’t prove your point though, so we are back to square one.
Maybe this is of some relevance for us, i came across it in another discussion a while back.
It’s a study that looks at CFSM (Child fantasy sexual material) and tries to determine, if it makes pedophiles more or less likley to assault children in real life.
Unfortunately they arrive at the conclusion, that we don’t have enoth studys to know yet. I would assume the same to be true for violent porn and rl sexual assault. But i am happy to be corrected, if you have the data to back it up.
Next sentence
Also:
Also also this study has nothing to do with your claim. Its not about porn preventing violent behaviour, it’s about whether porn causes it or not.
This is not contradictory.
The meta-study says that pornography contributing to sexual aggression is not proven. Meaning, it doesn’t make it worse.
Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.
The last sentence of the abstract (More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.) seems to be adressing this. In the study itself they say:
You said, at the start of our dialog, that:
“This kind” refers to violent porn, i suppose? Because the study states that:
So they are not talking about “this kind” of porn.
The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or “taboo” pornography. It states there’s no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that it’s at least correlated with a reduction instead.
We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that there’s no evidence that it has negative effects, and there’s at least some evidence that suggests it has positive effects.
If anything, this points towards the opposite conclusion. And that is with zero nitpicking.
The inability to distinguish between selection and socialization means there’s no evidence for a causal link. At best, it suggests that people who commit sexual aggression generally like porn featuring it more, but even that is apparently a weak correlation apparently.
I don’t disagree. It also doesn’t prove your point though, so we are back to square one.
Maybe this is of some relevance for us, i came across it in another discussion a while back.
It’s a study that looks at CFSM (Child fantasy sexual material) and tries to determine, if it makes pedophiles more or less likley to assault children in real life.
Unfortunately they arrive at the conclusion, that we don’t have enoth studys to know yet. I would assume the same to be true for violent porn and rl sexual assault. But i am happy to be corrected, if you have the data to back it up.
deleted by creator