General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPorn. Rape?
I was reading posts on tonight's war-du-jour, porn, and I did a little research. I'm big on looking at outcomes data - in this case, is there evidence that porn causes sexual violence?
Seems to me that porn started becoming reasonably available around 1980, and has steadily increased in accesibility since. I wondered how the incidence of rape has changed during that time. Turns out it's changed a lot: it's dropped by 80%.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
While this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape, it does seem to counter any claim that more porn causes more rape.
If anyone has expertise in this area, I'd appreciate your feedback.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or are you playing games?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)it's empty of any substance. It doesn't take into account demographic changes, any of the disputes about statistics on rape reporting, nor does it make the most minimal effort to isolate variables. You could have at least done a quick search of Google scholar. It's a sad effort.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Because much of the stigma of being a victim has been removed.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or accidentally obtuse.
Or my explanation sucks. Sorry if it's the latter.
Based on those statistics, it's quite unlikely that porn causes a substantial increase in rape. I asked in my post if anyone had confounding evidence, feel free to provide any.
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)South Africa
Main article: Sexual violence in South Africa
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 is the relevant legislation in South Africa. Despite the fact that this act provides modern and progressive laws, that ban rape and other forms of sexual abuse, including sexual violence within marriage, South Africa remains a country where sexual attacks are common. The country has some of the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world with more than 67,000 cases of rape and sexual assaults against children reported in 2000, with welfare groups believing that unreported incidents could be up to 10 times higher.[148] In 2001, a 9-month-old was raped and likely lost consciousness as the pain was too much to bear.[149] Another 9-month-old baby was raped by six men, aged between 24 and 66, after the infant had been left unattended by her teenage mother. A 4-year-old girl died after being raped by her father. A 14-month-old girl was raped by her two uncles. In February 2002, an 8-month-old infant was reportedly gang raped by four men. One has been charged. The infant has required extensive reconstructive surgery. The 8-month-old infant's injuries were so extensive, increased attention on prosecution has occurred.[150] A significant contributing factor for the escalation in child abuse is the widespread myth in HIV-ravaged South Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure a man of AIDS.[151][152] According to official figures, circa 11% of South Africans are infected with the virus.[153] Edith Kriel, a social worker who helps child victims in the Eastern Cape, said: "Child abusers are often relatives of their victims – even their fathers and providers."[151]
One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[154] More than 25% of South African men questioned in a survey admitted to raping someone; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person, according to a new study conducted by the Medical Research Council (MRC).[155][156] A 2010 study led by the government-funded Medical Research Foundation says that in Gauteng province, more than 37 percent of men said they had raped a woman. Nearly 7 percent of the 487 men surveyed said they had participated in a gang rape.[157] Among children, a survey found 11% of boys and 4% of girls admitted to forcing someone else to have sex with them while in another survey among 1,500 schoolchildren in the Soweto township, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that 'jackrolling', a term for gang rape, was fun.[148][154]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Why did you post this?
What does this have to do with my OP?
Have you posted about it before?
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)It's all there, yet you posted one chart at the top of their page.
And no Manny, am not claiming any such thing.
I am just pointing out the misleading nature of that chart and leaving out the whole context of the article.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Last edited Mon May 19, 2014, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)
The government has an entire website dedicated to BJs.
'Merica! 
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)He posted on one topic, in one country. you responded by taking the link, leaving the section that had anything to do with pornography OR rape in the United States, and for some reason decided to post sections about South Africa that have no apparent link to the OP at all, other than the fact that you were able to find it on the same page simply because of the way wikipedia decided to format the page, so that all of the statistics for countries around the world were on one very long page, rather than on separate pages.
So this particular posting of yours is an off-topic trolling post.
rock
(13,218 posts)Manny showed us one graph which strongly suggests rapes do NOT vary with porn and asked for supporting or contradicting insight. A very narrow point which most posts have ignored.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Your link is for the United States but the text you quoted refers to South Africa? That's a whole new low in intellectual dishonesty.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)particularly loathsome.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)then what is your opinion for the declining criminal activity of rape?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)With the birth rate. A PhD criminologist I worked with told me the number one factor influencing crime is the percentage of young men in the population. The birth rate is down and with it the violent crime rate. Homicide is at its lowest rate in a century.
The percentage of the population raped, however, has not declined.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You really want to go with that?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Last edited Mon May 19, 2014, 03:55 AM - Edit history (1)
So don't play. You couldn't even bother to look up a single article on the subject for this OP. This involves human lives, millions of women, children, and men whose lives are devastated. I'm not subjecting this issue or a discussion of those survivors to your ridicule.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That one of us is ignoring evidence, preferring to play games instead.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)From Freakenomics is that crime rates have been decreasing because of legal abortion. The percentage of young men who were not wanted babies has probably decreased a huge amount since abortion became legal.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)You said "The percentage of young men who were not wanted babies has probably decreased a huge amount since abortion became legal."
Where are the stats on the gender of the aborted?
NOT disagreeing on abortion or anything else. I'm only asking where your sentence above comes from.
Thank you!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The percentage of people in general who were not wanted babies has probably decreased a huge amount.
If you'll read his subject line, you might see why I specified "young men."
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)The book is an entertaining read, i'll grant you, and perhaps good fodder for a cocktail party conversation. But to take it as any kind of authoritative analysis of crime (or any other) statistics is, intellectually speaking, highly suspect. The authors point to mere correlation between two factors -- the weakest possible statistical relationship between any two factors, and one which in no way should be construed, absent a whole lot of much more in-depth analysis of many, many other possible factors as well, to be a causative relationship in either direction -- and then proceed to posit their own, explanatory hypothesis of that correlation. It is pretty thin gruel on which to base one's understanding of crime statistics.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)since it's exactly what Manny does in the OP.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Manny clearly says in his OP: "While this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape, it does seem to counter any claim that more porn causes more rape." Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (because there may be other unconsidered factors affecting the incidence of either or both), but causation does necessarily imply correlation (because if A causes B, more of A can be expected to cause more of B). Manny employs that principle perfectly by stipulating that the data in the graph cannot be used to infer a causative relationship between a greater availability of porn and a incidence of rape (because correlation, positive or negative, does not establish causation), but noting that if, as anti-porn crusaders sometimes suggest, the greater availability of porn has a causative relationship to a higher incidence of rape, then as that availability increases, one would expect to see a corresponding rise in incidence.
d_r
(6,907 posts)it is a negative correlation but the chart shows a positive correlation.
Just saying.
And look at the numbers for "pirates" it goes 35k, 45k, 20k. But it isn't charted that way. I'm not sure if I even believe those numbers. The golden age of piracy ended in the early 18th century.
Actually the only thing depicted here is temperature x time, not temperature x pirates.
eta: here, this is a better chart:
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Glad you found a way to entertain yourself.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If it was written by his noodley appendage, its good enough for me.
http://www.venganza.org
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)and yet, no decline average temperature!
d_r
(6,907 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Correlations can not be used to demonstrate causation. They can be used to infer the possibility of causation, but you're right a correlation alone will not prove causation. However, that isn't what the OP is trying to do.
"While this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape, it does seem to counter any claim that more porn causes more rape."
What is that you say? Isn't he trying to prove causation, actually no he isn't. He is using the absence of a correlation to provide evidence AGAINST causation. Which is 100% a sound statistical concept. We do it all the time. Correlations don't prove causation, but causation requires a correlation. If one event causes the other, then there will be a correlation between them. However, just because an event is correlated does not mean that one must cause the other.
Now, absence of a correlation doesn't 100% prove there is not causation (few things actually are "proven" in science). Sometimes the effect of a third variable can interfere with a correlational relationship. It does however show that if there is a relationship, it isn't strong enough to overcome that third variable and it provides pretty damning evidence that needs to be addressed if the counter-argument does want to prove causation. There are ways to control for third variables, both statistically and in experimental design, that will reveal that correlation that is, again, required for a causal relationship to exist. Those are beyond the scope of this current post, however.
If there is a correlation, but that correlation is in STRONGLY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE PROPOSED CAUSATION, then that provides even stronger evidence against causation (but again does not prove a causal relationship in the opposite direction.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)No, causation doesn't actually require an observed correlation. In this case, the only thing that matters is whether the amount of rape there is now is more or less than it would have been without the porn. So, yes, porn can increase rape rates despite this trend.
And there's plenty of examples of equally absurd arguments. For example, obesity has been increasing, and so has life expectancy. Does that counter the argument that "obesity reduces life expectancy". No, of course not.
Since nobody believes that porn is responsible for a huge drop in rape, the only thing this chart proves is that other factors besides porn have greatly reduced rape rates. That's it.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Particularly when it is prefaced by "let me teach you something about statistics".
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)There are some free courses that are supposed to be pretty good. EDx has one, I think.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess there are enough scientifically illiterate people on DU that y'all can collectively maintain your illusion...
riqster
(13,986 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Where's your similarly-strong evidence that being overweight reduces life expectancy, or anything along those lines?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's pretty surprising that you don't get this. All the more reason that you should try and avoid the sciency stuff and stick to snarky posts that don't require the capacity for abstract thought.
Yes, obesity reduces life expectancy. That we know. On the other hand, obesity has been increasing at the same time as life expectancy. Which means that splashing up graphs of national trends (i.e. what you did in this OP) can easily lead to the wrong conclusion. The national time series correlation is more obesity and longer lives.
Does that disprove that obesity shortens lives? Of course not.
And, in the same way, the fact that rape has dropped while porn has increased doesn't prove or disprove anything.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Where's your powerful evidence that this is true for the general population?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Did you not even read it?
"Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality."
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And that is the what the study you guys are arguing over used. Percent body fat is a lot better.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The point is, obesity reduces life expectancy at the individual level, but the correlation of national trends would point significantly in the opposite direction. Exactly an example of what Manny asked for -- strong correlation in the opposite direction of the causal effect.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I have zero faith in what BMI tells us. Though, I do agree obesity is probably related to a lower life expectancy.
This is a lot of arguing about nothing honestly, it isn't even remotely related to the purpose of the thread.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Lower-end obese folks had the same mortality as "normals"
But let's suppose that you're right. It's still a pretty small effect. I asked for something with a large anticorrelation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The population-level time-series correlation between obesity rates and life expectancy is enormous. Very similar to the correlation between increased porn and reduced rape. At the individual level, with obesity, there is a significant correlation in the other direction. With rape, we don't know -- all we can really say is that the population level trends don't mean much.
The point of this is to illustrate the dangers of working with national time-series which are influenced by large numbers of factors, and trying to prove or disprove causal links based on long-term trends.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)The reason that evidence isn't compelling is because we've done OTHER research that shows if you control for the third variables at play (improved medical care, work becoming less dangerous, etc...). That obesity does lead to a lower life expectancy.
If we hadn't done that research then that evidence would be compelling and it would need to be explained.
Now show me equivalent research on pornography and rape that has identified the relevant third variables, eliminated them and then demonstrated that people who consume porn are more likely to rape than those who aren't.
I'm certainly waiting.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The only thing that matters is the other research, whether it exists or not, or what it says. So if this OP had said "there is no research linking rape to porn", that would have been fine. But it didn't.
Instead it made a silly argument from national trends, an argument that, as demonstrated by obesity/life expectancy (and it's easy to come up with other examples), is pretty much useless.
I still don't know if any other research examining the link between rape and porn exists, and what it says.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Obviously it isn't the strongest evidence, because as you've said there are a lot of things going on besides just the two variables being measure. However, it can be very interesting and at least worth of debate.
And if the national trend shows the exact opposite of what someone is claiming should be happening, it certainly does need to be explained (not just dismissed off hand, which is what the person my post was directed at in the first place was doing).
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Since nobody believes that porn is actually responsible for a major part of the reduction in rape rates, all that this proves is that non-porn-related factors have caused rape rates to drop significantly over the last few decades.
That's basically it. It means that national rape trends are so affected by other variables that they don't carry much information about the relationship between porn and rape.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)He said the fact that porn use has skyrocketed, yet rapes have bottomed out is good evidence against the claim that porn causes rapes. I agree with that, at minimum it is evidence that needs to be explained if your'e going to go with a causal relationship between porn consumption and increased rape.
Actually you're the one who is adopting the unfounded position here. You're claiming that this proves that something else besides porn is responsible for the decrease in rapes. Now I agree with that, but you're using the word "prove" here which is incredibly tenuous given you've supplied absolutely zero evidence to back up that assumption. I wasn't aware that seeming logical is enough for us to say something is proved.
Learn something new everyday, I guess.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure what you mean by "good evidence", but unless your definition of "good" includes evidence that shouldn't alter any rational person's beliefs about the link between rape and porn more than infinitesimally in either direction, than this isn't "good" evidence of anything.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And a massive decrease in the number of rapes.
Are you seriously going to contend that isn't at least worth considering when wondering "gee do you think maybe porn consumption causes rape?".
Again it doesn't prove anything, but anti-porners sure as hell need to explain how on earth that is happening.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're right that I shouldn't have used the word "prove", but I truly think the only thing it, umm, indicates, is that there are significant non-porn factors that have been reducing rape rates.
In fact, unless porn reduces rape (possible, but I don't think many people believe that), then there would have to be other such factors.
So, if we assume the existence of such other factors (which, I agree, I haven't proven), that means that we are looking at a baseline rape time series that drastically decreases. And since we don't know what the other factors are or how strong their effect is, there is effectively no way to try and estimate how much rape there would have been without the increase in porn.
In the end, this means that we are looking at noisy data, and I would stand by the conclusion that a rational person's view of the link between rape and porn should be changed much if at all by this. With maybe one exception -- it does suggest that the link between porn and rape, if it exist, isn't absolutely enormous, i.e. that porn consumption isn't the primary driver of rape. But I don't think many people believed that to begin with.
And that's my problem with the OP. On the surface, it seems to have implications about porn-rape links, but if you think it through, it doesn't.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)That is there is a link causal link between more pornography and more rape, it is nowhere near the largest variable driving the number of rapes in our society.
And possibly that people who support that causal link really need to explain what the other variables that are masking the effect of their theorized relationship are.
Though on this part
"I don't think many people believed that to begin with."
You might be unpleasantly surprised...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That the hypothesis that more porn leads to less rape is not at all ruled out by this evidence.
No?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)While he's correct that the given original chart does not actually prove anything other than that IF pornography is correlative with rapes, there are other factors that overwhelm that correlation, making it largely irrelevant in terms of the overall factors that influence the number of rapes that occur, he's wrong in proclaiming that causation will not show correlation, period. In a correctly controlled study that accounts for other factors, causation WILL demonstrate correlation, as you note.
It's especially ironic that he proclaims poor understanding of statistics a 'pet peeve' after making a sweeping statement denying that causation will show correlation as well.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"No, causation doesn't actually require an observed correlation."
Was especially facepalm worthy.
If at no point in an attempt to prove causation do you every see an observed correlation between the variables, you're never going to find causation.
I kind of get what he means, but it was worded poorly.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You know, correlation:
There are plenty of examples where the correlation is negative but there is a positive causal link.
If you do the right multivariate regression and control for all the other necessary factors, and causal link exists, then, yes, you will get a positive regression coefficient (usually, although even that assumes that the causal link is linear). But to claim that causation requires correlation is simply wrong.
More to the point, I don't see even an attempt by the OP to do any kind of controlling. In fact, I don't think that the OP even knows what it means to control for confounding variables. I mean, as a very first step, at least examine whether rape rates have dropped more or less than overall violent crime rates. The real mystery is why people are trying to defend this OP with bogus pseudo-statistical arguments.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)0 is the lack of correlation, not -1. I think you're trying to figure out ways to nitpick out of admitting that your original sweeping comment was on the sloppy side.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Causation doesn't require correlation. Period. Positive causation can exist with zero, positive, or negative correlation. This isn't very complicated.
On a side note, I like to think of progressives as more scientifically literate than right-wingers, but this thread has been somewhat eye-opening.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)causation that exists with 0 correlation. I simply can't remember ever having come across such.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's, because there's noise in the data. Which is, of course, a completely different issue. The point is, the existence of a positive causal link doesn't require correlation in either direction.
Here, I found an explanation for you. But a better idea would be to actually take a statistics course.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/causation-without-correlation-is-possible/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Their 'real world example' seems to hinge upon choosing a flawed experiment that ignores correlations outside their chosen experimental boundaries.
And I've had statistics courses in the past, thanks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Correlation is a bivariate statistic. It doesn't depend on the "experimental boundaries". It has a specific definition.
When you measure a correlation between X and Y, you are, by definition, ignoring Z. If you are including Z in your analysis, then you aren't measuring a correlation. You are doing something else, most likely a multivariate regression. The flawedness of an experiment has nothing to do with whether causation requires correlation.
In fact, if causation required correlation, then it wouldn't be possible to design an experiment which finds zero correlation when positive causation exists.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is at this website, but their argument seems to hinge upon their specific choice of a limited definition of 'correlation'.
Since x really does have a causal role in determining the value of y we see that causation can exist without correlation. This result hinges on the precise definition of correlation. It is a specific statistic and reveals only a little bit about how x and y relate. Specifically, if x and y are zero mean and unit variance (which we can assume without loss of generality), correlation is the expected value of their product. That single number can’t possibly tell us everything about how x might relate to y. If we didn’t know the true process y=Ax and the statistics of A in advance we might be tempted to say that x cannot cause y due to a lack of correlation. That would be an incorrect conclusion. Correlation and our lack of understanding of it would be misleading us.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's no other choice of how to define correlation that would lead to a different conclusion about whether causation can exist without it. Like he says, correlation is a specific statistic.
It's as if you said "on average, women are taller than men", and I said, no, that's not true, and you would say "well that depends on your definition of 'average'." Yeah, if you use "correlation" to mean some other non-scientific thing, then I'm sure you can get to whatever conclusion you want.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You will always have a correlation.
You can have a causal relationship without the APPEARANCE of a correlation if you don't design your experiment right, but at the heart of every casual system will be a correlation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "appearance of a correlation". Either X and Y are correlated or they aren't. The only meaningful sense of "appearance of correlation" would be a correlation that shows up in sample data simply by chance but doesn't exist in the underlying population, but that's obviously not what we're talking about.
Just as the fact that X and Y are correlated doesn't imply a causal relationship, the fact that X and Y are uncorrelated doesn't imply that there is no causal relationship. In other words, "correlation does not imply causation" and "lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation" are both true.
If you are talking about a "well-designed experiment", then you are talking about a regression coefficient, not a correlation. Yes, you can interpret the coefficient as a correlation, but in that case it won't be a correlation between X and Y, but a correlation between two variables that are derived from X and Y after removing the effects of A, B, C, etc. So, at best, you can claim that "a causal relationship between X and Y implies that a correlation exists somewhere between some two other variables that are related to but not necessarily equal to X and Y".
Of course, if we're talking about the kind of correlation between adjusted variables that come out of a "well designed experiment", then not only does causation imply correlation, but correlation also implies causation (although it doesn't imply the direction of the causation). This is because a well designed experiment is precisely an experiment that controls for all possible confounding variables that could produce the "appearance of correlation" without a causal link. Which means that the argument that "causation requires correlation" is on equal logical footing as the argument that "correlation implies causation".
In any case, since the data presented by the OP doesn't come anywhere close to a well-designed experiment, then, for the purposes of the present discussion "causation does not require correlation" is 100% accurate.
On edit: come to think of it, it even possible that a causal link can exist even if no correlation exists anywhere, even after controlling. This could happen if X has a positive causal effect on Y, while Y has a negative causal effect of equal strength on X. In this case, even after controlling, there still wouldn't be an observed correlation because the causal effects will cancel out. In the current example, this would mean that porn viewing could cause more rape while rapes cause a reduction in porn viewing (or vise versa).
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"Now, absence of a correlation doesn't 100% prove there is not causation (few things actually are "proven" in science). Sometimes the effect of a third variable can interfere with a correlational relationship. It does however show that if there is a relationship, it isn't strong enough to overcome that third variable and it provides pretty damning evidence that needs to be addressed if the counter-argument does want to prove causation. There are ways to control for third variables, both statistically and in experimental design, that will reveal that correlation that is, again, required for a causal relationship to exist. Those are beyond the scope of this current post, however.
If there is a correlation, but that correlation is in STRONGLY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE PROPOSED CAUSATION, then that provides even stronger evidence against causation (but again does not prove a causal relationship in the opposite direction).
What a joke, I addressed exactly the point you made. Maybe if in your rush to be snarky you actually read my post you'd know that.
Except you're wrong. Because there is no correlation between pornography and rape, then it is up to the people who are asserting the causational relationship to explain why there isn't one. This technique is used all the time to argue against causation. It is a valid use of statics.
I'm an experimental psychologist, this is part of my job. If you're seriously going to contend that people don't use absence of correlations (or correlations in the opposite direction of the proposed causation), as argument against causation then I really should laugh and walk away. That assertion is absurd.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)His condescension implies it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you are actually an experimental psychologist, you would know that comparing national time series is an extremely poor method of trying to draw any kind of conclusion. There are always all kinds of trends and other factors, and there is serial auto-correlation, and so on. I have no idea why you would be making excuses for this kind of scientifically illiterate OP.
The inverse correlation over time between porn and rape doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is nothing more than an interesting observation. Period.
BTW, I have no idea whether porn causes rape or not. But I do have an idea about whether tossing up some random charts and drawing conclusions is a good way to draw
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Again, these are more mistakes you could have avoided if you actually read my post, buddy.
If you'd be kind enough to reread my post, and perhaps actually read it this time, you'd find I said that this provides evidence against a causational hypothesis. It is certainly evidence that at least should be addressed and explained by people asserting a causal relationship. My post was directed toward a person who was simply dismissing it out of hand, because "correlation does not prove causation." I was simply explaining why that sentence makes no sense in this context.
You're of course right that this doesn't prove anything and it isn't the strongest evidence in the world, because it doesn't control for other variables. However, this is also a freaking post on a discussion forum so I don't exactly expect academic writing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're right, the poster you are responding to should have said "negative correlation doesn't disprove positive causation". But, like you said, this is a freaking post on a discussion form, so I don't exactly expect academic writing.
The claim you made that "causation requires a correlation" is basically wrong too. OK, it's technically true that causation requires a correlation to show up after you've controlled for everything else. But it certainly doesn't require a correlation of national time series. Which is what we are really talking about here.
In general, splashing up two graphs of national statistics that move in the same direction, and drawing conclusions, is a dangerous endeavor.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And it is worthy of consideration. Not proof of anything, but something worth discussing and something that does need to be explained given just how negative the correlation is.
"it certainly doesn't require a correlation of national time series."
I never once claimed this. You're inferring things from my post I never implied.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sorry for the snark coming from me, it was over the top. Statistical illiteracy is a pet peeve of mine, but you clearly know what you are talking about, I jumped the gun.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You were a bit snarky, but you didn't really do anything wrong. I put information out there and you challenged it. I feel the information is only stronger given that challenge.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)In fact, Manny seemed to be saying pretty much what you have, to wit: it doesn't prove anything by itself, but it's interesting data don't you think?
And it is.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess if we take "seems to counter" to mean "is an interesting coincidence which has no bearing on" then, yeah, I guess we might be on the same page. An odd choice of words, though...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or no effect, or it reduces rape incidence.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If so, yes, this casts doubt on that hypothesis. Other than that we are left with the possibility that porn either increases, or decreases, or does not affect rape incidence. Which is pretty much where we started.
All snark aside, it would be interesting to see if rates of rape have dropped more or less than rates of other violent crimes. Under the assumption that the other factors affecting rape also affect violent crime rates in general, it would at least be a step towards trying to isolate the effect of porn. It still wouldn't be enough to draw any real conclusions, in either direction, but it would be a little closer.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think anyone who gives any critical thought to the issues is going to realize that sexual violence arises from a multitude of factors. I would also suggest that while the increasingly sexualized depiction of women in media over the last half century does influence societal attitudes, it probably is less a driver for rape than other, supposedly 'non-pornographic' media.
Violent rape by strangers has never been considered a 'positive' in media, and so is less likely to increase as a result of media portrayals of it. But... there are a lot more rapes of the type portrayed in scores of B movies of the last generation. These 'teen party movies' are not considered pornography, but they have sent years of repetitive messaging that the way 'hookups' in college work is that men get women drunk and then have sex with them. And we don't teach 'relationship ed' in schools, only 'sex ed'.
So young people see dysfunctional messaging about how the sexes should interact in such settings, and we wind up with an epidemic of young women being sexually assaulted and even raped while incapacitated, then not reporting the vast majority of such assaults because they have been taught by movies, television and songs that this is simply 'the way it is'. Media that specifically teaches young men to be sexually aggressive, glorifies such as being 'manly', and constantly ties sex to intoxication has been far more damaging to society than, for instance, depictions of actual sex between adults that occur when both parties are able to give consent and do so.
So I'd say movies like 'Revenge of the Nerds' or songs like 'Blurred Lines' are more damaging to society than many sorts of pornography. (There's certainly an argument to be made that pornography that depicts women as victims or unequal and lesser partners in relationships is damaging, and I would agree with that argument.)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)You know who you are. 
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars.[208] From 2000 to 2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement.[209][210] One factor relating to this is the misconception that most rapes are committed by strangers.[209][211] In reality, studies indicate the following varying numbers:
snip
80,000 American children are sexually abused each year. But unreported cases are higher, due to the fear among children.[223]
snip
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.[226] But other government surveys, such as the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, critique the NCVS on the basis it includes only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim, and report a higher victimization rate.[227] Despite a decline of 60% since 1993, the US still has a relatively high rate of rape when compared to other developed countries.[228]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
Rape and sexual violence is not funny. The one chart you picked does not tell the story.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They simply say that all data have noise.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They don't even address the topic. He/she merely took advantage of the fact that wikipedia displays all the rape statistics from around the world on a single page to splash up some horrific numbers from South Africa on rape in general, but say nothing about the statistics in the United States and don't even mention pornography.
It's as if you wrote a post on flu viruses, and the counter argument offered was about viruses that attack the digestive system.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)1) Porn degrades women and thus contributes to rape culture.
2) Porn reduces rape because people who would otherwise rape can live out those fantasies via porn rather than acting on them.
I think that there's some truth to both of them. Personally I'm fine with porn, but not so much with the porn industry and how the complete objectification of the woman is the standard 95% of the time.
I also think that there'd be a lot more consensus on this topic on DU, if more DUers listened to and read Dan Savage. But most here probably only know him for the definition of Santorum.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)If you have rape fantasies you can fulfill them by watching porn rather than acting on them.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,580 posts)Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sun May 18, 2014, 11:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Porn. Rape?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024971202
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is disgustingly dismissive of the horrors of rape. "While this doesn't prove - at all -" And yet the poster tries to use "this" as proof. This post is incredibly insensitive, inappropriate and obviously posted with intent to flame. As a rape survivor, reading this passive aggressive shit day after day at DU is really starting to get old.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 19, 2014, 12:08 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing wrong with this post. YOU just don't like it because it's opposite of what you preach. And, this rape survivor says the truth, and asking questions, is okay sometimes. This will probably get hidden though since you had to make it personal with your passive aggressive shit.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have NO problem with this post. I don't mean to make light of the alerter's trigger, but I think the alerter is really overreacting to the post. Manny is not being dismissive of the horrors of rape.
I would suggest that the alerter use the tools we have to hide threads of this sort by keyword.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It tests my objectivity to adjudicate a Manny-post but the alerter admits to a somewhat less than objective perspective in the accompanying remarks. I'll have to find in favor of Manny in this particular instance. LEAVE IT
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Why is this jackass on DU? Enough with his trolling. How about showing third way manny the door? Disgusting post by an unfunny shit stirrer.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter - the data is valid, and the manner of discussing it is dispassionate and entirely reasonable. Such being the case I can't agree to hide it.
On a more personal note - I see no basis in this post, as a stand alone artifact, for the intense reaction you are sharing in your alert. I hope sincerely that you find a way to rebuild your life, and that you avail yourself of every avenue for healing. I truly understand how an earth shattering horror can enter our lives and alter the world as we knew it beyond what we might have believed possible. I also know that time heals if we let it and that the shattered world eventually comes back together in a different but no less normally configured reality.
I found strength by looking for the small good I could do - every day - for those around me. It isn't perfect, but finding my smile in that of another somehow seems a better strategy for finding my center than any other.
You didn't ask for advice, but since I couldn't give you what you did ask for, I hope you'll accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing " incredibly insensitive, inappropriate (or) obviously posted with intent to flame in this post. If one disagrees with the poster, refute it with objective scientific studies, don't try to ban it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That's an incredibly offensive alert. How can people feel that they can just accuse others of horrific stuff?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...either that or figure out how to use the "Ignore" function...
Skittles
(153,142 posts)if people are inclined to LEAVE IT ALONE can't they do it without their pathetic comments?
edited to say - the potshot at Manny is disgusting too - can't they stick to the subject at hand, which is the POST?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,580 posts)Skittles
(153,142 posts)of course they have a RIGHT but is it really necessary to be so hateful to a rape survivor?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,580 posts)I certainly felt sorry for her, and that motivated my remarks.
And I think this was true for the other jurors. Nobody was there to hurt her further.
Now maybe I have forgotten some of the remarks. I haven't looked at the jury results in over an hour. But my overwhelming impression was that everyone who did comment did so trying to help her.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)The alerter's comments seemed much more measured in comparison.
Skittles
(153,142 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)The comments by juror 5 were bad enough that they'd justify alerting Skinner to it as jurors aren't supposed to use the jury system to be abusive to other DUers.
JI7
(89,244 posts)especially when looked at the comments from the person who alerted.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Jury 1 and 5 probably would have been hidden as well.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The only line that might be a problem is a quote from the alerter.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I see nothing in this post that even addresses the horrors of rape, so I'm not sure how it could be 'dismissive' of those horrors.
If I were to write a post that disputed a link between, say, drone strikes and "24", would I likewise be accused of being dismissive of the horrors of drone strikes when it wasn't even the topic on which I was writing?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)rather than for it's intended purpose, they should link to this. Congrats to those on the jury (well, most of them) for not putting up with this horseshit.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Now, that's the ticket, right there! Obesity rates have doubled since 1980!! Fat rapists cannot run as quickly...their victims get away. Or maybe they have a harder time finding their fiddly bits amongst all that avoirdupois! The increase in obesity corresponds with the decrease in rape!
Game-set-match!
Extreme
for the irony impaired....
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But it does tend to refute the inverse hypothesis, as I also acknowledged in my post.
Do you not like math? Have limited understanding of it? Or are you trying to take a whack at me?
MADem
(135,425 posts)And I'd say that my example "tends to refute the inverse hypothesis" as well--surely present-day successful rapists aren't a bunch of wheezing, unfit, flabby, big-bellied, can't-run chubbies? Hmmmmmm? Why is only YOUR refutation deemed valid or worthy of discussion here, and all others subject to your deliberate dismissal and disdain?
I like math just fine--but speaking of taking whacks at people, you do that plenty, don't you, Manny?
One thing I don't have "limited understanding of" (to use your condescending and blatantly insulting term) is human nature, and I know precisely what your game is. Your schtick is getting old.
Really, for someone so high-handed when it comes to maths, if you were any good at the scientific method, you'd do the work first to prove your theory before you posted your vague musings on a message board that discusses politics.
Surely there's got to be a more productive use of your time than goading people that you know will take the bait on a Democratic board with tangential and certain-to-be-divisive topics, that offer no resolution? You know, there's a new board up and running, but maybe this sort of topic, if you posted it over there, wouldn't produce all the drama and agita it does here. It would probably earn you a heap of quick high fives, a few "not cools," and then sink like a stone.
Now that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?
Thank you MADem.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I've about had it up to here, as you can see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4975227
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I wanted to see if that made sense.
Also, the following thread:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/125543560
Was originally named "How Porn Fuels Rape Culture" IIRC, and the Google seems to back me up:
rape site:democraticunderground.com (set Search Tools to past 24 hours)
I'm tired of people being slammed for what seems to me to be anything that certain people "just know" causes sexual violence or descrimination against women. It's terrible to accuse people of contributing to sexual violence without good evidence.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because, HEAVEN FORFEND, if you did that, your post might only get the attention IT DESERVES, and no more!!!!!
I really think these "offshoot threads" are rude and unhelpful. They don't seem to be the product of anyone who cares about honest debate--otherwise they'd be associated with the PARENT thread, or at least REFERENCE it.
People who are immature and attention-seeking WANT to leave people saying "What the fuck?" and replying out of context, so they can then jump and play the Cool Kid In The Know, but they really say far more about the person creating them than they realize.
People who want to have conversations with others have them. WITH OTHERS. They don't start separate, portentous threads with flame bait titles.
Keep stirring, if that's what you need. It's all you seem able to do of late, and I am noticing--I'll bet I'm not alone. Lights, camera, action! The camera is on YOU!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and creepy.
Feel free to use ignore.
MADem
(135,425 posts)How curious that you'd make even THAT "all about you!" That's what's "creepy" here!
You are so unintentionally revealing!
undeterred
(34,658 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I'll deal with that second part at the end.
Your claim is more porn = less rape but you all you can produce in support is a heavily disputed graph from a Wikipedia article which doesn't even examine the question at all! Do that in a high school paper and you would rightly receive an "F"
The reduction in rapes as defined by the FBI does seem to be real - see the following article about the reduction in sexual assault as a whole from RAINN but there is at present no explanation for the effect.
In your hypothesis you claim a single cause might be the source of the decline, ignoring the equally valid explanations. There is also a perception of both a greater chance of capture for the rapist together with a similar perception regarding conviction. Another cause might the slight reduction in the percentage of adolescents (particularly males) in society. Personally I think the base for the reduction lies in the ownership of mobile phone, particularly smartphones. It is much easier for the vulnerable to call for assistance, be that a cab, a friend, family or the police. I even (easily) found a graph to support this idea (at this site) - but I don't make any pretense that the effect is real or that I am "just asking"
With that we come to the real offense in your OP, the way you have put this forward. What you have done is concern trolling (Just askin' questions, no offense meant). Instead of actually going out there and looking at research (there has been such research, heavily flawed research but it is still out there) you have thrown out flame bait. Go away do your research and don't ask us to do your work for you.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Please read it again (or for the first time):
"this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape"
Is that unclear?
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)you actually said. There are certain topics wherein any post which is insufficiently fierce in support of the preferred narrative, let alone attempts to offer a bit of nuance to same; will result in immediate castigation. Your words will be twisted if not outright fabricated; and then the whole thing will be tossed to a jury in the hope that four individuals are empaneled who will vote to hide your words ... not because of any violation of a rule or standard, but merely because they can.
(Hell, now that I think about it, that could very well happen to this post! We'll see.)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Yes, there is a denial of causation but it is implied
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #40)
Post removed
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And the one who agreed simply attacked me for being me.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)So now you indulge in the fallacy of the argumentum ad populam - so what?
Now would you care to act on the substance of what I am saying, which is that what you are implying regarding rape and porn is false on the fragmentary and flawed evidence you have presented.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'd say that I didn't intend to do that, and either zero or one of seven jurors seems to have seen it that way.
So either:
1. That jury was very different than people in general, or
2. Your thinking is on the fringe of what others are thinking who read the thing, or
3. You know it's fine, but you're attacking me for some other reason
Use your head. You're smarter than this.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)as, presumably, did the person who alerted on your post.
1) All the excuses in the world do not make the fallacy of the argument from popularity valid
2) Obviously not
3) Nope, only this particular piece of foolishness
Now answer what you were asked, please
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)One of us is either ignoring the obvious or playing some sort of stupid game, or both.
"Imply" means to create a thought in people's mind without stating that thought. The only way to test this is to see if people get that thought.
In the only trial that was run, they did not.
That's it.
Have a nice day.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)He is claiming that the lack of a correlation between rape and porn is an arguement AGAINST a causal relationship between rape and porn, which is an entirely valid argument.
Causation does not prove correlation, but a lack of a correlation is evidence AGAINST causation (or a correlation in the opposite direction such as here for the matter).
I posted up thead if you're interested in this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024971202#post48
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The argument is that increasing access to porn decreases actual occurrences of rape; i.e. porn is good
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)What you said the OP said: "The argument is that increasing access to porn decreases actual occurrences of rape; i.e. porn is good".
What the OP actually said: "While this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape, it does seem to counter any claim that more porn causes more rape."
If I've quoted out of context or missed the passage elsewhere that you were relying on for your statement, please enlighten me, but please do it by quoting the OP verbatim instead of using a paraphrase. Thank you.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)For the occasional crazed loon that porn gives ideas to, there are a dozen that are too busy trying to watch it all before they die or someone takes it away.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'Gotta watch it all!' (Before someone takes it away!)
I think we're already long past the point where any human being, even staying awake 16-18 hours a day, could ever view even a significant fraction of all the porn being produced and distributed, so those poor 'watch it all' types are doomed to failure 
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Rape has been around far longer than porn. Rape does not happen as a result of porn existing or even from watching porn. Rape comes from the evil mind and body that decides to do it. Rape has been around for ages now, literally. Rape is not sex. Porn is sex. Rape is about control. Rape is violence. Sex is not violence, in and of itself. There is a huge difference between sex and rape. Rape is not about sex. It is about control, dominating, hurting, destroying, violence.
Rape has been around far longer than porn.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)often won't find "relief" from porn (unless it happens to be be rape porn). I am curious how many guys who commit date rape also watch porn.
For the OP:
As far as statistics sighting that rape has decreased, I don't care about the source, but I don't buy it...it's too easy to "cook the books" so to speak.
When a college woman reports a rape to police, it does not often result in a prosecutor pressing charges. Sexual assault is consistently both an underreported crime and one that rarely leads to an arrest, let alone a conviction. However, it may be hard to track exactly how many rape reports are made to begin with.
One study by Corey Rayburn Yung, an associate law professor at the University of Kansas, concluded nearly 1 in 4 police departments responsible for populations of at least 100,000 persons are undercounting rape reports. The undercounting occurs when officers designate a report "unfounded" after little or no investigation, mark down a report as a lesser crime, or mislabel it as "investigate persons" or another noncriminal matter. Separate research by Kimberly A. Lonsway and Joanne Archambault suggested that sometimes police close a case without investigating and simply describe it as "call to service," meaning that it is omitted from the count.
Even among cases categorized as rape, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report indicates that only a quarter of police reports result in an arrest.
...
"We just see this, unfortunately, in a lot of situations where the police seem very eager to dismiss these cases," said Sandra Park, an attorney with the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/college-sexual-assault-police_n_5213384.html
I'm sure this isn't the only article or source for this information, I know I've seen similar stories on DU in the past when it comes to police departments changing crime designations (i.e. cooking the numbers) to make it appear as though violent, or other crimes in general, have gone down when they really haven't.
You can also see how in some municipalities how important solving rape cases are to them by the backlog of rape kits. A certain Alaskan town comes immediately to mind.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)because most rapes are not even reported. The few that are reported are not taken seriously. To me, that is the bigger problem, that women who are raped are not taken seriously and given justice.
I doubt very seriously the number of rapes has gone down. If anything, it seems to have remained about the same. Porn really is an entirely different topic than rape. Porn is mostly about sex, except for rape porn, which I am against. Regular run of the mill porn, though, is about sex, not force/control. Rape is about force/control. Rape is violent, but run of the mill sex on video is not. Rape and sex are two different things entirely.
But rape was here before porn and would still be here after it, if it was banned.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There were some unreported rapes in each year covered by the chart. Is there an independent reason to believe that the rate of nonreporting of rape has increased? In other words, if throughout the period covered by the chart, only a quarter of all rapes are reported, then for each year the actual number of rapes per capita is four times what's shown -- but that would still mean that the per capita rate of rape has tended to decline during this period.
Someone speculated upthread that the rate of nonreporting, far from increasing, has probably declined during this period, because the stigmatization of victims (while still too prevalent) has decreased. If the rate of nonreporting has in fact declined, then the decline in the rate of actual rapes is steeper than what the chart suggests.
You write, "I doubt very seriously the number of rapes has gone down. If anything, it seems to have remained about the same." If you start with the premise that the number of rapes has remained the same, then your explanation for the chart is that the rate of nonreporting has increased. That's why I asked if there's any independent evidence for that assertion. Otherwise the whole argument is circular.
On what basis do you state that the number of rapes seems to have remained about the same? The chart shows per capita rates, not total number, so the number would stay the same if population were increasing quickly enough, but my guess is that it's not. In any event, the per-capita rate in the chart in the OP seems to be the most logical measure to use.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I once heard that a poll of men asking if they look at porn resulted in around 50% saying that they do. Another poll shows 50% of men lie on polls. Bottom line, little or no correlation.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)In the reduction of rape stats are the use of modern forensics as an investigative tool. I would be interested in stats analyzing the number of rapes committed by rape convicts and the average prison sentence for convicts. Most rapists have multiple victims, if they are apprehended quicker and imprisoned longer, the incidence would be lower.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If rape kits would be investigated rather than allowed to sit on shelves for years on end, and if rapists would be charged and convicted and given reasonable sentences, I agree it would make a difference.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Investigate rape kits that should be remedied. I also suspect that the investigation of rape is a higher priority now than in the 60s or 70s, even if it isn't what it should be now.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're right that it doesn't prove that more porn equals less rape. It also doesn't disprove that more porn equals more rape. In order to do that, you'd have to have another chart with the amount of rape there would have been without porn, so you can compare them. And that other chart doesn't exist.
The fact that rape is down while porn is up is an interesting observation, that's pretty much it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
dawg
(10,622 posts)I don't know whether porn increases, decreases, or has no effect at all on the number of rapes.
But the chart is essentially meaningless. There are too many other variables, and no way of knowing what the number of rapes would have been with everything else other than porn held constant.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)For example , one could start eating more and still lose weight ... If one also starts to exercise more to deal with increased calories.
So we have to carefully consider ALL factors.
It is like the gunners conclusion that moe guns leads to less crime because more guns are being sold and crime in some areas in on the decline.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)ancianita
(36,017 posts)When all, or even most, women make the same as men and have wealth in proportion to their numbers, then and only then can anyone convince me that women engage in porn of their own volition.
I'm not a porn expert, but I've read up on it, see it and have had enough acquaintance with porn watchers to weigh in.
Orrex
(63,199 posts)So there's that...
ancianita
(36,017 posts)Orrex
(63,199 posts)I agree that it's not saying much.
maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)Orrex
(63,199 posts)they show 60% to 84% less of his body.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)work here. It's not just rapes that have plummeted according to stats.
I don't trust violent crime stats over the last 20 years. In NYC pressure came from the mayors office on down to bring down the number of violent crime reported. Officers were encouraged to dissuade people from filing reports or to file them into a lower category. Their performance was rated on this, at precinct and individual level, the pressure was intense to show an improvement in the "quality of life" in NYC. The officers I knew back then were disgusted and are now retired, and I think the city pretty much denied the whole thing even though I heard many talk about it openly. I wonder how much this has impacted the stats vs birth rates because I had seen reports of the same thing happening in other cities.
And rape stats are even worse, jeeze. I meant the unreported stats are used not when she doesn't report it, but when LEO declines to file a report, I think. I think it is very difficult to get reliable samples on truly unreported rape. And it is hard to find studies that are sampling using the same categories for direct comparison. It's hard to say how much they reflect reality.
That said, I don't think porn causes anyone to be a rapist, I think if they are already on that road they may find materials that stoke their interest. But I think plenty of those kinds of materials can be found in the news, popular films and true crime reporting too. Our culture is saturated with violence, and often seems to celebrate it. I am not sure how they would prove any potential rapes were prevented by the availability of porn. The porn users themselves would be unaware they were diverted.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"While this doesn't prove - at all - that more porn equals less rape, it does seem to counter any claim that more porn causes more rape. "
The last section of your comment needs to be changed in order to make it accurate. As it stands, your statement is false.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's statistics. What I said is about all that can be said from the data at hand.
The most accurate thing to say is that the effect of porn on rape is either quite small compared to other factors, or there's no effect, or porn actually decreases rape by somewhere between a little and a lot.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #140)
MannyGoldstein This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some of the responses in this thread would be appropriate if the OP had said "conclusively refutes" instead of "does seem to counter" -- but that's not a reasonable interpretation of the vague phrase.
As a lawyer, I tend to look at these things from the perspective of a trial. Suppose, somehow, one issue in a trial was whether increased availability of porn causes an increase in the incidence of reported rapes. When you have a fact (e.g., incidence of reported rapes is down 80% from 1973 to 2003, during which time porn became more available) and a proposition (e.g., increased availability of porn does not cause an increase in the incidence of reported rapes), here are some standards that are not the legal standard for admissibility of evidence:
1. The fact conclusively establishes the proposition.
2. The fact establishes the proposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The fact makes it more likely than not that the proposition is true.
Here's the actual legal standard of relevance:
4. The fact makes the truth of the proposition more likely than it would be without the fact.
At this hypothetical trial, the chart in the OP would be admissible. (More precisely, an objection of irrelevance would be overruled. I'm not considering whether there are other objections that might be sustained.) Also admissible would be countervailing facts such as the influence of demographics on incidence of major crimes, the decline in other major crimes, the increasing tendency of police departments to distort the statistics to make themselves look good, etc.
If one takes "does seem to counter" in this sense -- treating it as just one piece of evidence -- then the statement is true.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's like showing paternity through DNA testing. One can't prove or disprove paternity this way, but one can show that it's pretty likely or unlikely.
That's the way it is in statistics.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The OP phrasing has apparently been interpreted, by different people, as meaning different ones of the four standards that I enumerated in my post. My point was that the fourth is the most sensible interpretation and that, on that interpretation, the statement in the OP is true.
Much of the seemingly disputed statistical analysis in this thread seems to me to arise from different understandings of what thesis was being advanced on the basis of the statistics, rather than from different understandings about whether the statistics support that thesis.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)I'm talking no special taxes and no rules just full legalization.
If consenting adults want to pay each other for a moment of ecstasy, why not?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm fine with the concept of legalising prostitution, because it's no business of mine if someone voluntarily chooses to rent their body out. But without rules, it opens teh door to massive abuses. At the very least, you'd need age regulation and STD checks.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Legalizing it removes the fear, stigma and puts an end to these stupid police "vice" programs.
Obviously prostitution should only be legalized for those over age 18 but I disagree with government forcing mandatory STD checks, if people want to do business with a prostitutes who don't want to disclose their STD status then so be it. Eventually people will do business with prostitutes who practice safe sex and disclose their status while the others who abuse drugs such as meth, heroin and crack will be put out of business.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)People simply do not think straight when it comes to sex (or politics or, well, most of the time).
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If prostitution solved rape, it doesn't seem like that would be the case.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)As I had drummed into me.
Also, it neglects that rape (or rather, the rapist's decision to rape) is affected by many factors, some of which we probably don't know exist.
