Talk:Effects of pornography

Additional material to be included

This article will be expanded to cover studies which have found that, in the United States, states which have higher rates of sexual assaults also have higher readership of pornographic magazines, and that rapists view pornographic material more frequently than the general public. Other important areas of expansion include findings that the legalization of pornography in some Scandinavian countries was not accompanied by an increase in the rate of sexual assaults, and that controlled studies predating Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [1] have found that limited exposure to pornography over much shorter periods of time than examined in the Zillmann study was not correlated with variables suggesting an increased willingness to engage in sexual assaults or other adverse effects. Readers may evaluate the merits of the methodologies employed by various studies, and draw their own conclusions. John254 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is statistically critical to ALWAYS draw attention to the implicit weakness in correlation studies. When A is correlated with (happens with) B, then did A cause B or did B cause A? See Bayes' theorem. And it could be NEITHER! C might cause both A and B. I hate these correlation studies. Suddenly everybody gets their undies in a bundle and says "THERE NOW! That PROVES it." In fact, it may prove just the opposite.

So, in the above cases. did higher rates of sexual assaults cause (or predated) higher readership or did higher readership cause higher sexual assaults? Many examples throughout statistics can be given (cellphones, lie detectors, feminism, biostatistics, ad infinitum) where people thought one and discovered later that it was the other. THIS HAPPENS IN EVERY POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS TOPIC THROUGHOUT WIKIPEDIA. I really think there should be a STANDARDIZED flag of some sort that says correlation studies tell us NOTHING. Prof. Judea Pearl names some excellent examples. I once asked my grad advisor if I could include some of his examples in my thesis. He said, "You wouldn't want to publish THAT! People wouldn't want to hire you!" I decided to get drunk.

Conclusion? These statistical examples don't help at all. They just confuse the issue. But if the research says one CAUSED the other (given our presuppositions)....then you've got something.

Sigh....we as a world society REALLY need to learn this.

Please, OH please...to the Wikipedia leadership...make this notice/disclaimer a standard no matter WHAT it is.

I think I'm gonna put this rant (apologies) several other places in Wikipedia. It could improve quality everywhere. --StudiousReader (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and not to mention the fact that simple two-way correlational studies miss significant factors (basically, the Cs that might be causal to A and B) that might be picked up in a multivariate correlational study.

I want to also point out that this research was carried out by Dolf Zillmann, who's research on pornography is very controversial, and tainted by bias toward strong socially conservatism that's built into the questionnaires he uses in his surveys. (Basically, Zillmann's ideas about "calousness toward women" don't mean what most liberals would think that means – if you believe in gay rights or that sex outside of marriage is OK, those are indicators of "callousness toward women" according to Zillmann.) If Zillmann's research is going to be quoted in this article, I think some information contextualizing Zillmann is called for. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Introduction Paragraph

I have modified the introduction paragraph to better reflect the content of the page. The previous version, although stating that the current research was inconclusive, implied that more research indicated correlation between availability of pornography and sex crime. This is not true and is inconsistent with the body of the page which describes studies which together indicate the opposite correlation.

I have left the assertion that the current state of research is inconclusive, although to back this up, we really need to describe some research here which does indicate a positive correlation between crime and availability.

Also, the page is called Public Health Effects of Pornography but everything on the page so far is related almost exclusively to sex crimes. There is a brief reference to decreased sexual response, but I feel the article needs a lot more to fairly cover the topic. Other subjects that might be considered for inclusion here:

• pornography as an addiction
• the effects of pornography on couples' sexual health
• pornography's role in mitigating the health risks of sexual abstinence for single males

Epidemiology

Are the first few sentences relevant to this article? it seems that validity should appear in an article on epidemiology, not here. 24.184.133.223 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

In think the article title, "Studies on effects of Pornography" will be more generic and will cover more topics. Bluptr (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Material recently added to this article

Much of the content added by Bluptr is attributed to sources which do not meet the standards for reliability described in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources since they are not peer reviewed and are published by the anti-pornography advocacy website obscenitycrimes.org, which seems to have something of an axe to grind :) Therefore, I am removing the problematic material. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pages which aren't peer reviewed and are published on the websites of other advocacy organizations, such as this one [2], are likewise not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Even portions of mainstream newspaper articles can turn into unreliable sources if they simply restate material which isn't peer reviewed, attributing it to its original authors without any assertion of validity. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and also the same with more recent edits. People's opinions do not count as scientific research - if that's allowed, then equally we ought to be able to cite opinions of people who claim the opposite. Also, much of the material added makes a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, focusing on people known to be violent criminals, and noting that they often happen to use porn. This does not mean that using porn leads to violent crime (anymore than saying all rapists enjoy sex, therefore sex leads to rape; or all criminals breath oxygen, therefore breathing oxygen leads to crime....) Mdwh (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets analyze few of the edits

• How can you explain the removal of material from published from BBC and highly notable magazine like Christianity Today?[3] Both are reliable sources.

• This Edit, adds "however these focus on whether violent criminals viewed pornography, rather than whether viewing pornography leads to violent crime." which is a original research. I want the above statement from a reliable source.

• another edit, which removes material from a reliable source, can somebody prove that the book Journey Into Darkness is unreliable?

• The summary of this edit , "what's wrong with fueling fantasies of consensual BDSM? misleading and pov; remove wikilink for violent porn - no evidence that the material he viewed is related to the UK law" is itself a POV. Read carefully , "What's wrong" :) And these are research figures from a highly notable person . And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?

• This Edit removes material from a prostitution research center, can someone prove that the research center is unreliable? And note that this organization is supported by government and the researcher is Melissa Farlay, a highly notable researcher, this cannot be removed.

• This edit is not valid, as per WP:LEAD, a lead is very necessary which provides insight into into the article.

• This edit gives more weightage to Berl Kutchinsky... needless to say, this section is missing what his opponents say, and draws from a single source.

• This edit removes the magazines, while it retains the other stuff... The person is a highly notable researcher.

• This edit is plain vandalism, a well referenced material from an international journal was removed. "Snip stats" is not a correct summary, even the "graphs" are stats drawn from a single source... applying the same analogy, even the graphs can be remove.

The edits which removed BBC, research organizations supported from governments, International Journals are not valid, nor is the removal of the lead. I will add them later, and needless to say, the same can be confirmed at the noticeboard. This article gives undue weightage to Kutchinsky... And applying the same analogy of the edit summaries of the ones I have listed above, Kutchinsky can easily be removed., but he is a reliable source and has a place in the article.

There is no way a research, survey can be removed, see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves which particularly addresses it...Let the facts speak for themselves...

Bluptr (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the BBC and Christian Today is in the sense that "These people had these experiences". That is not in dispute. However, the Wikipedia text claimed that the authors were "researchers" who "have reported direct correlation between usage of pornography and visiting prostitutes". No they have not, as far as I can see? To generalise from a few anecdotal cases to a direct correlation is original research.

I think the anecdotes can be removed., agree with you, I will read these links in detail and see if it really makes sense. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"I want the above statement from a reliable source." - the sources are those given yourself, which look at pornography usage and crime (e.g., "pornography has influenced several sex-related crime"). If you dispute the reliability of the sources, then we should remove them. It is also original research to make assumptions of a "link". If this is in dispute, then I suggest we remove the statement altogether and do not say anything one way or the other.

The "link" has been said by the FBI agents, referenced through out the section

"[opinion on BDSM] is itself a POV." - no, the burden is upon the one who wants to add material to the article, i.e., you. My point isn't that Journey Into Darkness is unreliable, but it is off-topic (and POV) to place tendencies towards BDSM under "Violent crime"! I have no problem with moving it into a neutral section (although "people who use BDSM porn are more likely to be into BDSM" seems a statement of the bleeding obvious to me, and could be said of any kind of material...)

If a reliable FBI researcher argues that sadomachism and BDSM leads to violence, this definitely has a place here. And I am sorry for the personal attack, it was in the heat of moment, sorry for that. This is not correct on my part. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"And how can violent porn be equated with UK law and unwikified?" - read the article its linked to. It's about a UK law. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't wikilink every word that might have an article, we wikilink articles that are relevant to the word in context.

Agree with this one. Bluptr (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re [4], read my edit summary - I am not disputing the reliability, I am saying this is off-topic for effects of porn. I don't mind if you want to put it in an article on prostitution. (If sex slaves were forced to work at knifepoint, this clearly would not be an "effect of knives", or placed in a knife article - the appropriate place would obviously be an article on sex slavery.)

will check this, if the article been, "Studies on Pornography", this section makes sense.

Re: the lead, where is Wikipedia policy that states individual opinions should be in the lead as if they are representative of the article?

Yes, I have removed individual opinions.

I find it curious that you criticise "undue weight", when your edits have placed vast amounts of undue weight in the opposite direction... I also did not remove or add material - I simply moved it. Do you think that anecdotal experiences should be before scientific studies?

Please do not make accusations of vandalism - my reason for [5] is given in the summary. Again, there is no evidence that this is an effect of pornography.

I feel that this is not off-topic, see the effect part, "most frequent users of pornography were also the most frequent users of women in prostitution."

I agree with "Let the facts speak for themselves" - I am not disputing the facts, the problem is that facts (such as individual experiences) are being represented as scientific research (this article is supposed to be about "studies") and generalised claims (e.g., claims of a direct correlation, and causative links). Nor should we have a lead which makes conclusions about effects from porn from a handful of people. Remember that this article is not "correlation with porn and other things", it is "effects of porn", thus things which are caused by porn. Correlation does not imply causation, so including correlations in an article about effects is POV.

I will say that, "Studies on Pornography" is more apt, why cover only "effects"?

The alternative is that we dig out opinions from anyone who disputes these links (for which there must be plenty, especially if anecdotal experiences are allowed), and present them too.

Another possibility is that we rename this article from "effects" of pornography, to something that is less strong a word? Similarly drop the "Studies" - how about Opinions on pornography or Criticism of pornography? In these articles, it would be more appropriate to include the criticisms and opinions of anyone notable, without worrying that this is being presented by Wikipedia as a study that shows an actual effect of pornography.

Fine, "Studies on pornography" or even "Opinions on pornography", no probs.

I do not have time right now, so I have tagged this article until these problems can be resolved. What do other editors think? Mdwh (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with what you say related to the lead part, and I have rewritten it with a more neutral word usage, from WP:WTA, for other things I will look into them and comment/make changes when I get time., Bluptr (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

It is abundantly clear that much of Bluptr's content comes nowhere close to meeting the standards of source reliability articulated in our verifiability policy. An inordinately large portion of said content is referenced directly to obscenitycrimes.org, a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website, which is a reliable source only for the views of anti-pornography activists, and should not be cited for evidence of legitimate scientific research. All material that holds itself out as scientific research and is supported solely by references to obscenitycrimes.org should be excised from the article. A more difficult question is presented by quotations of medical professionals or law enforcement agents in mainstream newspapers. While such newspapers are generally reliable sources, such reliability extends only to claims which the newspaper has itself endorsed. Thus, when a newspaper reports that a professional has claimed that pornography produces certain health effects, we may not transform their representations of third-party claims into material on which the newspapers themselves have placed their imprimatur. Consequently, newspaper reporting of professionals' claims with no endorsement thereof should not be included in this article for the purpose of representing it as legitimate scientific research, since the reporting does not establish that the claims themselves have ever been endorsed by any peer-reviewed reliable source. Finally, theological publications, such as Christianity Today, are reliable sources only for religion, not scientific research. John254 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John254: we aren't trying to turn this article into an abridged mirror of obscenitycrimes.org :) As bad as it is to use content from that site in which academics provide alleged "research" which hasn't been validated by the peer-review standards of academia, it's even worse to use their quotations of FBI agents and other LEOs based on their subjective personal experiences, with no pretensions to research at all. I might as well write an essay about the benefits I've received through working in porn, how I've supported myself through college with just a few hours of work each week, the intense exhibitionistic pleasure that I feel from knowing that there are tens of thousands of people watching me having sex on video, then have it published on the pro-porn Free Speech Coalition's website, and include it in the article as an example of the economic and psychological health benefits that young women derive from working in porn :) Well, my experience might be atypical, and if the article is going to describe the effects of porn on young female actresses, it needs to be based on research conducted in a systematic and statistically controlled manner, and validated through academic peer review. Otherwise, the article will decompose into a megabytes-long compilation of message board postings :( Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article also still seems like it's giving lots of undue weight to the anti-porn position. And we really need to do something about an introductory paragraph filled with linguistic aberrations such as "The Epidemiological studies and Controlled studies have provided inconculsive insights into the problem of linking pornography with Sex Crimes." :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with John254, regarding removal of material from obscenitycrimes.org ( and thanks for pointing out ). Yes I must add material from reliable publishing houses and journals... Bluptr (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, when asking for input on WP:RS/N [6], it's helpful to mention the article to which you wish to add the sources and provide a link to the talk page discussion. For determining source reliability, context is important :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To briefly address Bluptr's comments at WP:RS/N, the sources he proposes to include in the article are inappropriate as they do not reflect research on the effects of pornography which has been validated through academic peer review. Yes, as Bluptr's sources are a major newspaper and books by major non-academic publishers, they are reliable sources for the purpose of stating that "these academics and LEOs made these claims", but for an article entitled "Studies on effects of Pornography", we can and should require more, since Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Material that isn't legitimate research validated through academic peer review should not be dignified through characterization as "studies" :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: in academia, peer review (when conducted under the auspices of a respected publisher) is the touchstone of research legitimacy. From our own article on peer review:

This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

Now, it's no surprise that purveyors of bogus "research" would do anything other than submit their work for legitimate academic peer review, that they would rather provide it to a newspaper reporter or non-academic publisher totally unqualified to evaluate it. We, however, should refrain from republishing such deficient material. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, views of a single FBI agent, cannot be a "study", and we need information from well researched psychiatry journals. Bluptr (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Important studies left out/Sketchy sections

First, there are two very important meta-analyses of pornography effects studies that are left out of this article, and I think have the point of calling the overall factual accuracy into question:

• Malamuth NM, Addison T, Koss M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual Review of Sex Research, 11:26–91. PMID 11351835

• Fisher WA, Grenier G. (1994). Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. Journal of Sex Research, 31:23–38. (abstract)

Basically, these are the largest scale reviews of pornography effects studies to date. Fisher & Grenier conclude there is no reliable behavioral correlation established. Malamuth et al conclude that there is a valid effect, but that its largely restricted to violent pornography in the most violent subset of men. Leaving out this later meta-analysis also has the effect of presenting Malamuth's views entirely based on his studies during the 1980s rather than the more modest claims he made as his research progressed.

Also, there are two very problematic sections at the end of the article. "Physical and psychological effects" – the first study, as I remember it, was more about explicit lyrics rather than pornography per se, and seems to be rather partisan take on the issue. Insofar as this study is even relevant to this article, it needs to be looked at in the context of similar studies (if they've been carried out) on the same topic. My suspicion is that this is a cherry-picked finding that may not reflect a larger body of research. The second piece of research dates back to the 1960s, and hence is date – has this finding been supported by later research? And the use of the term "perversion" is very loaded and POV.

The second section, "Prostitution" is largely based on one study by Melissa Farley, who's not exactly an unbiased source on the topic and who's methodology has been called into question. Also, use of the term "pornography" is decontextualized here – Farley defines the private photographing or taping of sex acts with prostitutes as "pornography". The vast majority of this material does not make its way onto the commercial pornography market, hence, the implication that porn performers are a significantly overlapping population with prostitutes (especially the highly marginalized prostitutes that are the subject of Farley's research) is inaccurate. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lab experiments" in "Controlled studies" section

There was a lot of really odd wording about "lab experiments" in the section about Controlled Studies. It seemed disingenuous; it conjured images of people watching porn under supervision at some lab or classroom location and then taking a survey, or something of that sort. I got that impression especially from one of the quotes from one of the sources, where a lot of stuff was removed by an ellipsis. But from what I can tell, the actual complaint isn't the setting but not having choice of exposure duration, type, etc. From how the experiments were presented to me (in a psychology of entertainment media class), they would have at least allowed them to take the videos home to watch in whatever place they'd want; nothing as outlandish as what was implied. I've changed it to try to remove the focus on "settings", and more on the main idea of the argument of experimental imposition not matching effect due to selection. —AySz88\^-^ 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Source "Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review"

hawaii.edu <quote>Abstract:

A vocal segment of the population has serious concerns about the effect of pornography in society and challenges its public use and acceptance. This manuscript reviews the major issues associated with the availability of sexually explicit material. It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults. The only consistent finding is that adults prefer to have the material restricted from children’s production or use.</quote> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.229 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

human evolution and the effects of pornogarphy on the world wide web.

It is apparent that we humans are subject to the dictates of our nature, that is somewhat different to all other forms of nature. We have evolved huge teeth namely the H BOMB and GUIDED WEAPONS, also large and most effictive hearing and sight - RADAR and MICRO TECHNOLOGY. We hve evolved these external to ourselfs . never the less we have evolved them. Now we are in danger of moveing into an even more worring evolution through the use of the internet. Mans inate and on the whole beneficial interest in sex is been perverted by the most intrusive pornography entering the subconscious and thus warping our evolution. It is interesting to note that much of the pornography on the internet is initialy free. Man above all creatures is most suseptable to conditioning, 80.6.6.117 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) .