SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The age at which males are first exposed to porn significantly impacts their attitudes towards women in later life, a new study claims.
Research presented at the 125th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association claims that the earlier boys are exposed to porn the more likely they are to want power over women.
Meanwhile, later exposure among the men studied was linked to them wanting to exhibit promiscuous tendencies.
"We found that the younger a man was when he first viewed pornography, the more likely he was to want power over women,"said study author Alyssa Bischmann. "The older a man was when he first viewed pornography, the more likely he would want to engage in playboy behavior."
[...] Researchers specifically asked how the participants first came into contact with porn, whether it was intentional, accidental or forced. Participants were asked a series of 46 questions, designed to measure two "masculine norms": one in which men seek power over women, and the other where they take on a playboy persona.
With the results tallied, the average age a boy got his first taste of porn was 13.37. The youngest was a disturbing 5 years old while the oldest was 26. The most common form of first contact was accidental, with 43.5 percent seeing porn for the first time by mistake.
[...] "We were surprised that the type of exposure did not affect whether someone wanted power over women or to engage in playboy behaviors," Bischmann said of the findings. "We had expected that intentional, accidental or forced experiences would have differing outcomes."
Source: https://www.rt.com/viral/398678-mens-first-porn-experience-effect-views-women/
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:59AM (3 children)
Nakid pics of the Mighty Buzzard certainly affected my view of women, later on.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:14PM (2 children)
Please post these pictures so we may determine their value with regard to the psychological development of online-oppressed minorities (twitter accounts with less than 100 followers, people with more than 4 genders, etc.)
(Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:19PM
Disturbing sights indeed. [arkive.org]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:02PM
There's a few out there somewhere from back when I still had my just got out of the army physique. I'll leave it to you to determine which ones are me.
Tennessee has not been kind to my waistline though. I'm about to have to either drop some weight or spend hundreds of dollars on new pants.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:01PM (2 children)
If a boy's first contact with porn is mother/son incest, he will grow up to hate women because his own mother never raped him as a child.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:09PM
Thank you for your amazing incites (sic) into human psychology Dr Fraud!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:36PM
It's been awhile since we've heard from you, Oedipus. You Greeks are a strange lot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:22PM (9 children)
That's an awfully bold statement. A little bias perhaps?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:38PM (7 children)
That's progressive speak, and therefore, it can't be biased. All white people are racist, all men are mysogenists, etc ad nauseum. Any white male who respects women is the exception that proves the rule.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:24PM (1 child)
Have you looked over the linked presentation [box.com]?
If not, please do so and make a simple statistic of the "author count"/"author gender" - then come with a hypothesis on the nature of the bias.
As for the "progressive", the '60-'70-ies were good times, weren't they? Some racism in parts, but sex was good and natural, who the heck had time to split the hair about "power and objectification" instead of actually making love (not war).
Now, here's the interesting question: what side of the politics should we blame for the lack of ways to let steam and increased pressure?
I don't know, like weed and acid on one side and "competition and greed is good" on the other?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:42PM
Also note that this is a poster, not any kind of refereed paper, which typically means it was submitted but rejected and then let in as a poster. And the writeup on it came from Russia Today, the propaganda arm of the Putin administration. I don't want to denigrate the authors' work, but this really isn't something you'd want to lend too much credibility to until it's published in a proper peer-reviewed forum, with followup studies that can verify the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:36PM (4 children)
> That's progressive speak,...
OK, Runaway, did you assume that these researchers were from the left or right coasts, and tested a diverse sample?
Bong--Wrong Answer -- the authors are from University of Nebraska–Lincoln
From the poster https://unl.app.box.com/s/52k40xirbg4exs6xckgpinjm7e80rurl [box.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:02PM (3 children)
You seem to assume that liberals are confined to the left coast, or some such nonsense. Which part of "liberal arts" did you fail to comprehend? http://cas.unl.edu/ [unl.edu]
Unfortunately, there is no physical, or psychological, or metaphysical barrier that confines whacko liberals to one coast or the other. Unless - wait - IS THERE SOME KIND OF BARRIER!?!?! SHARE IT WITH US! PLEASE!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:11PM
http://cas.unl.edu/ [unl.edu]
Your life won’t follow a straight line. Embrace the curves.
That sounds like mysogenism to me. Embrace the curves. No woman ever said that, ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:06PM
The Liberal Arts, quoth the Runaway! The "arts" (skills) of a "liberal" (free) person. What would you know of these, since you are enserfed to right-wing propaganda, Runaway?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:43PM
You've already been mocked enough, guess I don't need to point out any more of your flaws :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:44PM
No, obvious and deliberate misrepresentation. Healthy relationships are based on mutual respect, demanding this from a partner is an expression of self-esteem, not of the insecurity behind abusive and controlling behaviour. Individuals with cluster B personality disorders who pathologically abuse and control others tend towards promiscuity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:05PM (5 children)
So a "paper" which is not published in any reputable journal makes outrageous claims that would be expedient towards certain hot button political goals? I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is probably "confirm our own biases" junk science.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:10PM (2 children)
Show us your junk.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:52PM (1 child)
Don't touch my junk [youtube.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:53PM
How was that not a link to this [youtube.com]?
When I was a child Bill Nye spoke of an worked towards increasing knowledge and education about chemistry, physics, and all sorts of science. Not really sure what he's doing now. I'm sure every older generation reaches a point where they look back on the next generation and wonder what in the world is going on, but really - what in the world is going on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:59PM
Also a junk university? From previous post, see their home page,
http://cas.unl.edu/ [unl.edu]
Under the headline, "Latest College News" is a link to this paper/poster, right on the front page! The attached photo is weird, cleancut white kid in a hoodie, with a puzzled expression, looking at a tablet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:54AM
The most likely explanation has to do with boys that get access to these kinds of materials earlier haven't had the full course of feminist propaganda that teaches that men should be ashamed of any sexual urges they have towards women. Since they haven't been fully indoctrinated, they're probably just following a healthier view of things than they would if they were exposed later on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:12PM (15 children)
"Participants were asked a series of 46 questions, designed to measure two “masculine norms”: one in which men seek power over women, and the other where they take on a playboy persona."
I **REALLY** hope they keep this up. No middle ground. No measure of affective sentiment. No questions about poetry written, songs sung, flowers given. Just these two.
More and more men with spines who are educated enough to know what the DSM is will begin to discount and ignore the suggestions, and later, desperate urgings of the psych community at large and refuse to put stock in their "professional" opinions (e.g. the story here about the armchair diagnoses of the President) due to announcements like these. No stats on whether or not they have healthy long-term marriages and relationships, just that they're either playboys or sadists. Don't forget men, this is paid for by your tax dollars!
My favorite aspect of this situation is that already many gun owners who have mental ailments refuse to attend counseling due to the fact that liberalism infects the area of study and they fear their firearms being taken due to "psychological" reporting.
Liberals created Trump, and continue to create more educated young men with nowhere to go, tons of stress, and no space for release. When it is complete, their monster will consume them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:23PM
But, they didn't do a study based on how much their poetry improved after viewing pornography.
They also did not do a study of how many males went on to become one-issue voters after viewing pornography, or how many times they had to vote to feel like they accomplished the expression of their issue attachment, or what have you, or if they were frustrated when their candidate of choice made many promises and then cut away after taking what he wanted and leaving them feeling cold and emotionally empty.
Liberals, unfortunately, didn't create Trump. He'd been a misogynistic salesman jerk for a long time -- probably set on that path not long after first finding his father's playboys as a tween. He's rich, coddled, wants power as an executive, and wants power over women in that Hugh Hefner way.
Porn isn't needed to explain much of this behavior in him, but there is no denying his ability to use his wallet to appear attractive to models suspectible to that sort of masculine charm.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:01PM (13 children)
I went for counseling when I felt suicidal after my first gf dumped me. My counselor was a based, conservative rabbi who told me to man up and find another girlfriend, and that I'd feel better after sleeping with my second gf. He was right.
Not everyone in psych is a libtard.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:14PM (12 children)
S'true. Mine is something between a conservative and a libertarian. That wasn't one of my qualifications though. I just wanted someone at least almost as smart as me so they could somewhat understand what it might be like having to associate with people sixty or more IQ points below you every single day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:45PM (9 children)
lololol
TMB thinks he's a genius? Wow oh wow, *checks weather* nope hell hasn't frozen over yet. I am happy to see you got yourself a therapist though, about time!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:19PM (1 child)
It's pretty well established at this point that the cluster B personality disorders mentioned upthread, which include narcissism, come with a heaping helping of malignant Dunning-Krugeritis. Witness exhibit A, who thinks that because he's avoided a couple of obvious sociocultural pitfalls, he's the next Einstein.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 07 2017, @10:34AM
Not that you're actually interested but my entire diagnosis is forty some-odd years of untreated ADHD. A little bit of Adderall every day and I'm perfectly functional. You might want to look into seeing someone yourself though if being a miserable cunt for the rest of your life isn't something you look forward to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:43PM (6 children)
I'm 3 to 4 standard deviations above the mean, which is an IQ of 145 to 180 depending on the conversion factor. Traditionally, "genius" is only 140.
He might mean he is at 160. He could just mean 140, having to associate mainly with the 80 to 120 crowd since other people are rare. (and 140-80 is 60)
He mostly thinks like me. So yeah, I can pretty much believe it.
FYI, many smart people are conservative. I'm really fond of Trump. I hated Clinton with a burning passion, hated Sanders a little bit, and hated Cruz a little bit. Regarding the choices Trump is making, I can only really complain about net neutrality and the failure to lock up Clinton. Oh, I guess I could ask him to crank things up a notch. He's too moderate on things like muslims and mexicans. Automated gun turrets would help. Mandatory pork consumption would help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:58AM (5 children)
Yes, but just having a high IQ doesn't guarantee one is smart in any reasonable sense. I've got a high IQ that puts me round about that 3 standard deviations out there, but it's a lot of work being smart. It's really easy to become intellectually lazy and then addled if you aren't constantly working on it. The other geniuses in the family are no longer particularly bright. A lot of that has to do with environmental factors where they haven't been particularly stimulated.
Also, if you wind up not examining any of your beliefs or validating them, it can cause a person to reach idiotic conclusions in a fraction of the time that it would take somebody of lesser intellect.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 07 2017, @10:39AM (3 children)
No, it just means hanging out with average people is worse than an average person living in a world populated primarily by Forrest Gump clones. It's not about knowing more than them, it's about them being so abysmally slow at thinking anything through and missing blindingly obvious things along the way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:08PM (1 child)
Sometimes fast thinking is not so much a sign of intelligence, but of sloppy thinking. And pretty obvious things are quite often false. Also note that things being obvious are not so much a function of your intelligence, but of your existing knowledge and prejudices (and don't say you don't have prejudices, everyone has them; you'd not be able to live if you didn't have them).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 07 2017, @04:18PM
S'true, being smart is no guarantee of being right. It does, however, let you evaluate more potential answers to any given question much faster and/or more thoroughly than those of lesser intelligence. If you're willing to consider every possibility you can think of on a subject, including the possibility that your preconceived notions are horribly wrong, you're much more likely to arrive at a better answer than a normal person. Which is why I make a conscious effort to do so. When I actually bother to speak on a subject it's one I've put quite a lot of thought into at some time or other. Unless I'm just winding someone up, which is a distinct possibility even though it's not the case a majority of the time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ncc74656 on Tuesday August 08 2017, @02:52PM
If you haven't already, you might want to look into Curse of the High IQ [amzn.to].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:04PM
According to the original definition, the IQ is intelligence age over real age. So if you're over 40 and have a high IQ, it might just mean you're already senile. ;-)
(Score: 3, Funny) by slap on Monday August 07 2017, @03:58AM (1 child)
"so they could somewhat understand what it might be like having to associate with people sixty or more IQ points below you every single day"
So you work in a Morgue.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 07 2017, @10:28AM
Nice one. +1 Funny.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:24PM (3 children)
So people who grew up in shitty families, bad , neighborhoods, hookers on the street, pregnant teens in highschool, niggas shooting each other and getting stabbed and robbed were exposed to porn at a younger age as well as growing up move violent to match their surroundings. They needed research for that? They could have just put on the news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:05PM (2 children)
Except these folk are recklessly promiscuous which contradicts the summary of the research in TFA. We all know the "vagenda" behind this study is "law abiding white heterosexual males must be evil" because this is the same nonsensical, Marxist dogma being spewed by every rotting orifice the leftist establishment has at its disposal.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:18PM
I see the guy on here who doesn't take his pills is up early. Your logic is like watching a clown perform - one who believes they are an actual clown. How's that basement autism treating you? Did you know people with limited intelligence are more likely to become clowns? Except they're not, because clowns like makeup, and people of limited intelligence are not always into makeup. I didn't read the rest.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:47PM
in a "special" head - one that's got all kinds of fucked up basement-dwelling ugly nerd loser malfunctioning brain cells , words like "vagenda" and some weird conspiracy crap form. us normal people just go "watch less porn = chase more after real-world women" - makes perfect sense. hey - you see those clouds outside? how the hell did those form overnight? and why does it usually rain afterwards? they're coming to get you. stay in your safe basement.
your disease prevents you from forming basic logical obvious thought, and instead of seeing the simple explanation, you come up with really retarded complex shit. do us all a favor and take your pills before you post your retard-nonsense, you ugly shut-in weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:25PM (2 children)
How about some REAL news?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
Oh come on. It's fun to rip on stupid shit once in a while.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:34PM
Yes.
However: I am not sure clickbait qualifies as stupid shit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:30PM (7 children)
The same weak natured sissies that are afraid of women to the point of obsessing over controlling them were traumatized by their first porn viewing and ended up remembering it. This, while the more manly men just want to score by the dozens and can't even recall the first time they had sex let alone the first time they saw tittles on the tele.
Regardless, must be a tough read for monogamous heterosexual feminists considering the study suggests it's either domineering males or cheating ones. After all, it's now plain to see being an obedient wife is the best guarantee to having a faithful husband.
Disclaimer: The social sciences are all hokey nonsense with weak correlation and no causation. If it wasn't so funny to poke holes at this dribble by switching cause and effect to demonstrate the exact opposite of what the researchers believe in, I wouldn't have even humored this so called "study" with a comment. And if it's not obvious, consider everything written up to the disclaimer satire.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:58PM (1 child)
Yes I was traumatized when I viewed porn and I saw women just don't have penises. It's unnatural.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:23PM
Try http://www.bustystraponbootypirates.com/ [bustystraponbootypirates.com]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:31PM (3 children)
This isn't Troll -1. This is Troll +1.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
you have scores enabled? but that wastes screen space. what exactly does a value judgement of random people on the internet give you besides wasted screen space?
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Sunday August 06 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)
++good
(Score: 1) by Mechadon on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:04PM
Sorry I know this isn't the best place to do this. But Vortex, if possible, could you get in contact with me?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @07:59PM
>dribble
the word is "drivel"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:32PM
Is this for real?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:41PM (2 children)
What about my 7000th time viewing porn? Does that have an impact on how I view women?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:23PM
Assuming straight \ lesbian content, the way you view women is through a monitor and as composed of pixels.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:18PM
Yes. It means you still have your amateur standing and can compete in the porn watching events of the Olympic Games.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:46PM (6 children)
Seems to me the researcher thinks that they are more or less one and the same, the difference between the two seems to be minimal at best as in 'playboy behaviour' is power over women. The conclusion seems to be that there is no, or minimal, difference between the two "different" norms, they are in some way actually the same thing as far as this research is concerned. As soon as "man" (or boy) is touched by porn he is ruined as a man from their point of view, considering that more or less every single man on the planet has seen or experienced some kind of pornography then half the species is just damned. No further study needed really.
Alyssa, Christina, Justine, Meghan and Sarah are all surprised by their results, or the no difference in results. Perhaps Marco should have told them what being a man is all about? This seems to be one of them issues that women have and not a man-problem. Man is a simple creature -- we see naked woman at some time and most of us just wants more of it -- age of exposure doesn't seem to matter all that much really. Women should learn and know better by know. But somehow that study isn't going to get any grant money.
I don't even know how old I was, perhaps around 10ish or so when I found some magazines I probably wasn't supposed to have found. Damned before I was even allowed to have a drink or vote.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:04PM (4 children)
I was puzzled in TFA by what they meant by the "type of exposure". First thought it meant difference between soft, hard, gay, dom etc, but no, it seems they mean "intentional, accidental or forced experience". WTF difference would they expect that to make?
I don't know how the first ever experience could be "intentional", like booking a trip to see the Grand Canyon. No kid says one day "I'll go and look at some porn; that might be interesting, I've never seen any before". In 99.9% of cases it will have been from seeing other kids looking at it or finding their Dad's stuff. I first saw "Art" nudes in my Dad's mainstream photographic magazine, then it was kids gathering around a pin-up mag in the school playground. "Forcing", whatever that includes, must be a very minority thing too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Sunday August 06 2017, @08:14PM (3 children)
I would say that there is a lot of things about their study that is puzzling. While I have not actually read it, one can from the summary in the first link gather more or less probably all that is useful about it. It's a mishmash of the usual problems when students tries to do statistics. A belief in if we just use numbers and do the tests in the program what we did is science. The experiment in that regards ends in the normal way: "The unexpected direction of regression results may be related to unexamined variables". So there is an (or more) unknown variable(s) that we don't know about or failed to check that is or are explaining everything. That is probably the only thing about the entire study that is normal and at least they do admit it.
I guess the most surprising thing of all is that they found at least one male of age 26+ before he saw pornography for the first time. That must have been one sheltered life, or he lied. That a five year old find some by accident is far less surprising. Plus the usual stat that 87% of young men watched or watch pornography (and common sense tells us then that at least 13% of the young male species are liars).
They don't really go into a depth in the summary what those forms of exposure actually include or are. I guess one would have to read the paper to find out exactly what they are but they seem to be somewhat unclear. One would think most first exposures are as noted by accident. Forced exposure seems odd, what is that? Some accidental and innocent Googling decides to show you some hardcore weird shit? Intentional seems equally weird, perhaps less so today tho with the Internet of porn. You might just feel that it's time to see what it's all about -- compared to a pre-Internet time when you had to visit some special store or somehow be able to reach the top-shelf at the store to see the interesting magazines with the naked ladies on the covers.
So their initial guess was that age of exposure and type of exposure would be valid sorting mechanisms into a binary norm setting -- (1) Playboy masculine norms (i.e., men’s desire for multiple sexual relationships and heightened sexuality) or (2) POW masculine norms (i.e., men’s belief in male superiority over women). In some regard I would say that both of them seem normal and there is just to much overlap. There isn't enough to differentiate the two different settings. The playboy norm is also the power norm and vice versa. It is somewhat surprising that they failed to grasp that. But what this boils down to is that they are overly surprised that they guessed wrong and then wrote an entire paper about it. At least they conclude that age of exposure and / or method of exposure had no impact what so ever on the male sexual preference in their binary world.
I'm left to wonder if this has more to do with the fact that 5 out of 6 creators are female then anything else, they seem to have a very poor grasp on male sexuality, desires and behavior. The lone male in the group seems to have been the token male view since he was the one with the lowest academic degree, three females with masters, two females with PHDs and one BA male. Either he is the token male or he possibly though that this was a great way to try and hook up with at least one of the five ladies.
(Score: 2, Informative) by dvader on Sunday August 06 2017, @09:18PM (2 children)
So it is not a published study but from a poster session. A non-RT interview here:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/pornography-exposure.aspx [apa.org]
Some kind of abstract is over here. There is some data but not much:
http://apps.apa.org/convsearch/article.aspx?id=171638&type=abstract [apa.org]
It seems like they didn't account for any confounding factors at all which make the results extremely weak and uninterpretable. For example, religiosity should be strongly linked to both porn exposure and views on women. The good thing is that they admit it themselves:
The bad thing is that they use words suggesting causality in the abstract:
They should be more carefull with the wording, especially when they haven't examined any confounding factors. Reversed causality is an obvious possibility ("Power over Women" men may seek out porn earlier).
Does anyone know what the F(1, 311) = 6.656 numbers mean? I was hoping to find some info about the strength of the relationship but can't see any "average norm score".
I really wish there was more good research on porn. There is just way to much bad research and even worse interpretations of the bad research.
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Monday August 07 2017, @02:13AM
As they say -- it's complicated. But it's used in null hypothesis testing. It's a shorthand for finding the critical value in an F-distribution, it's a sort of grid reference. In this particular case it's a reference to the intersection of col 1 and row 311 which is where you'll find the critical value (6.656). You then compare it with a calculated F-value from your data set. You are normally looking for the calculated value to be larger then your distributed value for something to be significant, note the word something since this is not exactly bulletproof since you will only know that something is significant but not exactly what is significant. But as mentioned without the actual data there isn't that much to do except to trust them when they say it's significant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @02:37PM
The word "predict" does in no way claim a causal link. The positions of the hands of my clock predict the traffic on the road (because the traffic has a strong time dependence). That doesn't mean the position of the hands on my clock in any way influences the traffic on the road, nor the other way round.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @03:02AM
They must live in a world where women don't actively punish attributes they claim to want in order to go out with the only jerk in the county.
Or more likely, they're completely lacking in any sort of self-awareness or observational skills.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:35PM
They were all true stories, starting at age 14 when my older sisters hot slim blonde friend cornering me in my bedroom and stripping off her clothes. Way better then anything in print.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:51PM (2 children)
Value judgment anywhere?
There are cultures where sex is not considered a nasty Pentagon-level secret, and kids as young as infants routinely see adults engaging in normal adult behavior. Rather than being traumatized and turning into gay serial killer rapists, these kids grow up with a calmer and more balanced view of people and sexuality in general.
We will, for now, not bother pointing out that
* correlation is not causation
* you don't do science by starting with the answers you want to find and then gathering your data
* human subjects research is notoriously difficult because the humans generally know they're being observed
* where are your controls, your tests for null hypothesis, the placebo porn, etc.........
In short, this "research" is not fit to line a birdcage. Or to clean up after my porn viewing.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday August 06 2017, @06:40PM
Having seen others having sex, whether you are calm or not depends on how much (if any) you get yourself.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @01:56AM
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a statistically significant sample size of men who have not viewed porn?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:57PM
It obviously wasn't femdom porn then. The feminists will tell you that that still objectifies women but I think you'll find if it does, it objectifies and exploits men just as much, if not more.
Really? Those are the only two options for classification? : (
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:56PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:03PM
Sears catalog bra section. Those models were buxom. *Ah, relief!*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
yes, this study also accounts watching twerking on MTV muted as porn
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday August 07 2017, @03:35AM
So basically pictures of women not belonging to your mother or sister.
(Score: 1) by slap on Monday August 07 2017, @04:12AM
National Geographic. Porn for the "educated" young kid.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 07 2017, @12:56AM
A sticky subject, this.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:47PM
Could it be that porn exposure just make it obvious that sex is just a lusty interaction. And that there is no special mystique attached to a particular sex? Being romantic or powerful is not a fixed quality. Mainstream media seems to distort the issue more.
Being exposed to sex before puberty is likely to cause the same reaction as seeing snails have sex. It won't compute more than any other animal study. But the relevance of seeing humans having sex will later at puberty be obvious and just serve as an outlet. If there's a low investment outlet. then by market logic other outlets have to come down to the same level of investment. That causes other stakeholders to have less investment.
Don't underestimate organizations wanting to implant dependency and distorting the attachment of value in the name of self interest.