site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26274 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Leaving aside the arguments against it you've already mentioned, I am utterly unconvinced that seeing porn is "bad" for kids. The majority of studies on the longterm effects on pornography showed just about zilch in terms of effect, be it on sexual violence or anything else. The fact that conservatives consider it "obvious" is of little consequence to me here. The entire debacle seems to be far more concerned with arguments from moral purity rather than concrete harm, and I have an exceedingly dim opinion of those. Parents who want their kids to not watch porn should invest in parental controls, not a nanny-state, not that either will really work.

Well, at least it might make the little tykes more tech-savvy, at least they'll learn to use VPNs or even just torrent videos. Or else they might just learn to develop a vivid imagination, you don't need porn to jerk it, don't ask me how I happen to know that. I'll pour one out for the poor aphantasics.

I am utterly unconvinced that seeing porn is "bad" for kids.

As others have mentioned, this is going to be almost impossible to study.

I don't need to prove porn leads to rule-breaking or delinquency for it to be a net negative. That's not what I'm concerned about. The hedonistic treadmill available in pornography is astonishing. "Our" generation had the fences of bandwidth and screen resolution around us - and even so there was Goatse, One Guy One Jar, LemonParty.

I would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that moving from a squirreled-away lingerie catalog to piss-bangs was healthy for their sexuality. Of course Close Your Eyes Haha and all that, but asking a teenage boy to do so isn't a historically simple ask.

I don't know where that meme comes from, but the studies I see show negative effects on adolescent exposure:

On the negative side of behavioral patterns, a small number of previous studies have addressed the impact of exposure to pornography on adolescent behavioral problems: rule-breaking or highly delinquent youth [41,70] and youth showing symptoms of borderline or clinical depression have been reported to use pornography more frequently [41,71,72]. Similarly, Ybarra and Mitchel [42] (2005) linked pornographic consumption with behavioral problems and depressive symptoms. Accessing online pornography may be a dysfunctional way to cope with stress or with abnormal mood, and as such, it is reinforced and maintained [73]. Accordingly, Brand, Laier, and Young [74] suggested that problematic internet use is associated with expectations that the internet can positively influence mood, the disappointment of which may in turn worsen preexisting mental health problems. Alternatively, the content of the pornographic material may impact negatively on youth by shaping adolescent beliefs and their attitudes towards sex, which may, in fact, come into conflict with those instilled by their families [75]. Tsitsika et al. suggested that Greek adolescents might develop unrealistic attitudes towards sex through exposure to online pornography. These conflicts need to be addressed in sex education classes. Psychosocial impairment associated with pornographic exposure suggests a need to further explore and address underlying mechanisms reinforcing pornographic use behavior among some adolescents.

Regarding aggressive behavior, Mesch, in his study of the social characteristics of pornography users in a sample of Israeli adolescents aged 13–18 years, found a significant association between pornography consumption and aggressiveness in school, with higher degrees of consumption related to higher levels of aggressiveness [45]. In a similar study discussed previously, Alexy, Burgess, and Prentky [76] found that juvenile sexual offenders who were consumers of pornography were more likely to display forms of aggressive behaviors such as theft, truancy, manipulation of others, arson, and forced sexual intercourse [76]. The effect of androgens in both sexual and aggressive behavior shown in the past could be a possible mediator of these relationships [18]. Testosterone levels are positively correlated with the level of aggressiveness, violent behavior, and sexual offences, particularly among adolescents [77,78]. However, well-designed studies are necessary in the future in order to clarify the causality of this relationship.

If you want the keyword that gets all the salacious articles on Google Scholar, search "“Problematic pornography use.” It is a subset of and is the most common manifestation of CSBD (Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder) in the ICD-11.

In brief, PPU is related to: (a) attentional biases toward sexual stimuli, (b) deficient inhibitory control (in particular, to problems with motor response inhibition and to shift attention away from irrelevant stimuli), (c) worse performance in tasks assessing working memory, and (d) decision making impairments (in particular, to preferences for short-term small gains rather than long-term large gains, more impulsive choice patterns than non-erotica users, approach tendencies toward sexual stimuli, and inaccuracies when judging the probability and magnitude of potential outcomes under ambiguity).

What studies are you looking at that show otherwise?

All of those demonstrate correlation and not causation, but thank you for tracking them down. Certainly I don't care at all if their parents disapprove of them consuming porn, as one of the concerns quoted.

Here's an example of what I recall from Psychology Today

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/talking-apes/202104/does-porn-use-lead-sexual-violence

And:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178909000445

The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated for decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data. Evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual aggression is slim and may, at certain times, have been exaggerated by politicians, pressure groups and some social scientists. Some of the debate has focused on violent pornography, but evidence of any negative effects is inconsistent, and violent pornography is comparatively rare in the real world. Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.

Emphasis added.

The experimental research Ferguson and Hartley mention are mainly varieties of showing a college student a video and asking them to answer a survey immediately after. I would not expect that this experimental design is able to detect the effects anti-porn activists are concerned with. Many of these college students likely regularly engage in porn, muddying the waters.

The studies on pornography showing positive effects on attitudes towards women explicitly exclude violent porn. "It is important to note that in the present paper, the focus of our literature review and research is on pornography represented by examples such as Playboy, sexually explicit but nonviolent videos, and adult movie channels." Garos, Beggan, Kluck, and Easton (2004) Are parents supporting these bills worried that their children might stumble on a Playboy magazine, or are they worried their kids are watching an 18 year old girl in a simulated gang rape?

Research by Scott (1985), however, found no correlation between semi-hard-core pornographic magazine consumption and rape rates, but consumption of more soft-core magazines were correlated with rape.

They were studying such a different phenomena from what we are experiencing today.

Regarding the correlational studies, 98% of men in America have watched internet porn in the last six months. When there are so many people in one group, and so few people in the other group, correlational statistics get wonky. Looking at kids is the only way to get a large sample of people who haven't been exposed yet.

It also seems weird to blame the decrease in violent crime in the US on the proliferation of pornography, when there are so many other things to blame, like decreasing lead levels in childhood, increased abortion rates among impoverished groups, etc. I am not familiar with what happened in Denmark during this time, maybe they had a lead problem as well? But being able to cherry pick three other countries that match the correlation does not hold a huge amount of weight. One hypothesis that fits the evidence could be that we would see even less rape if pornography had not proliferated.

Potential confounds abound and no one is going to be able to conduct an RCT for this.

Anecdotally a lot of men report “porn brain” interfering with their ability to have normal relationships with women. Having decided to be done with porn about a year ago, I do notice a difference. But there’s a also a finding-religion confound in my case.

Self-reports from those who can't access a counterfactual surely would be strongly biased by explanations that are available and believed in our society. Some centuries ago, people would have reported humoural deficiencies as the cause of their problems.

But there’s a also a finding-religion confound in my case.

Would you mind writing more about this, when you have a chance? Religiosity among Motteposters is very interesting to me, as I've been wandering a bit down that path.

I would be interested, if the mods give a green light, in doing a standalone thread for motteizeans to write about religion in their lives.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats