Sociology of Pornography
I read an interesting article on pornography earlier today. In it Naomi Wolf claims that the wide availability of pornography in fact contributed to lowering of male libido in recent years.
Sigh… We should really require all these Sociology and Anthropology specialists to take a Statistics class or two at some point during their college career. If I had a penny for every time someone scores an article after making huge generalizations, based on logical fallacy I would be so rich, that I would hire Bill Gates to clean my toilet 
You see, the name of the game here is Correlation vs Causality. Everyone who majored in science knows that Correlation ≠ Causality. To prove anything in science, you need to show the causality relationship. Correlation is absolutely meaningless.
But people in Humanities, and Business related fields usually have a shaky grasp of science. Thus if you are doing anthropology or sociology research, all you need to do is to identify a correlation. The more obvious is the correlation, the better. Once you have one, you can start making big generalizations and draw baseless conclusions.
This is also the case with this article. Did Ms. Wolf do a controlled long term study of effects of porn on relationships? Hell no, she simply assumed that since we have better access to porn these days, it must be affecting people’s relationships. She based this conclusion based on conversations with college students and different couples.
There was no scientific approach, no rigorous data collection, no control group. Naomi Wolf simply talked to few people, and decided that porn makes people unhappy. She doesn’t even try to hide the bias. She asked people loaded questions, which were constructed to support her conclusion irregardless of the response. Most of their conclusions are derived from her personal experiences as a middle-aged woman. Abso-fucking-lutely brilliant.
I believe that the lowering of male libido that she talks about is an illusion created by changing of sexual norms in todays society. Yes, we are much more open about sexuality now. But at the same time, we developed the notion of political correctness, tolerance and professionalism.
It is a huge oversimplification to say that pornography has any effect on relationships, male libido, or anything at all. This is the same as saying that video games cause violence. Or that alcohol causes violence and inflates that crime rate. Prohibition proved that we were wrong about that one. Why do people think that this is different in case of video games and porn???
Again, we need hard evidence supported by controlled tests, and clinical studies. We need reliable results that are possible to verify. Otherwise we are just playing the “what if” game. What if porn is bad for relationships? What if video games cause violence? And what if they do not?
I call bullshit on this article. “Men are less able to connect erotically to women” my ass lady! Show me some hard evidence for this? Selectively interviewing repressed girls who are disappointed with their sex lives, or undereducated, stoners who have no clue about life does not count as evidence. It is coincidental correlation.
Naomi Wolf likes romantic tension and mystery. An undergrad guy from Northwestern on the other hand seems to prefer close intimacy without the awkward tension, and second guessing your partner. Personal preference? Generation gap? Both? No, of course not. The fact that some random guy does not share Naomi Wolf’s sexual preferences must be a proof that evil porn corrupted his mind.
Give me a fucking break!
Related Posts:
September 17th, 2006 at 11:40 pm (1171) [Quote]
I’m sorry, but science starts with correlations. Scientists see correlations all the time, and then they postulate hypothesis based upon the correlations that they note as they look at the world.
Yes, correlation does not prove causality, but this does not stop someone from forming hypothesis to explain those correlations. You are right that Naomi went overboard when she suggested that it has now been demonstrated that porn decreases libido. But as a scientist, I simply reject her “conclusions”, but then take her points for what they really are, provocative hypothesis. Maybe the hypothesis can be upheld someday, maybe it cannot.
And I’m not sure that prohibition “proved” that alcohol is not a factor in crime. Again, correlations versus causality. (And I do hope you are not remembering the movie “The Untouchables” as representative of the crime rates of the 1920s.)
Posted usingSeptember 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pm (1180) [Quote]
Well, whether Ms Wolf has a sound argument or not, I know my sex life has been negatively effected by my use of porn. I don’t get turned on by my partners in the same way i used to, and i know its down to the constant stream of new faces I’m exposed to when masturbating - and the fact that they’re all young, slim and gorgeous of course.
To suggest that the current levels of access to porn have NO effect on modern relationships is as shortsighted as Ms Wolfs assertions.
Posted usingSeptember 19th, 2006 at 3:53 pm (1181) [Quote]
Alright - the prohibition comment was neither here or there. But I stick with my guns.
Yes, research has to start somehwere but the author of the article does not state a hypothesis based on an observer correlation. She does not propose an experimental verification of the hypothesis. She does not encourage scientific research in this direction.
What she does is states the hypothesis, and then presents observed correlations as a proof of the hypothesis. Then she finished up with a call to action.
Anyone can make theories based on correlations - hey, I could say that since most dolphins die in water, then water must be harmful for them. I can produce tons of statistical data that supports this correlation. Is this a valid theory though?
someguy: I suggest moderation. While I do not think that porn negatively affects people’s sex lives in general, I think there might be a relationship between your sex drive, and number of times a day you spankerize it.
There is no rule saying that we need to fap it to pr0n on a daily bais. Take a break or something. Moderation is the key to everything - excess is almost never healthy.
Posted usingNovember 25th, 2006 at 11:15 pm (1760) [Quote]
irregardless is not a word. you think you are way smarter than you are, just because you know terms like “logical fallacy”
Posted usingNovember 25th, 2006 at 11:52 pm (1761) [Quote]
Yes and no. It’s not a standard in formal English, but it is a well documented word existing in the common vernacular.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irregardless
http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0238400.html
While it may not be the best form, it’s use is acceptable in informal settings.
You probably think you are way smarter than you are because the simple term such as “logical fallacy” mystifies you.
Posted usingDecember 13th, 2006 at 4:09 pm (2066) [Quote]
“Selectively interviewing repressed girls who are disappointed with their sex lives, or undereducated, stoners who have no clue about life does not count as evidence.”
a quick request from the author, who is so huge on getting facts to backup their points - please cite where you got your source that these subjects smoke marijuana.
Posted usingDecember 14th, 2006 at 10:11 am (2087) [Quote]
Weird, I never mentioned Marijuana. I’m pretty sure that the term “getting stoned” applies to a wide range of drugs. Funny how you automatically assumed I meant Marijuana. Unconscious mind plays tricks on us sometimes…
Anyways, I don’t think that subjective personal opinions used in deregatory statements have to be justified or backed up by facts. If the dude sounds like a stoner to me, then that’s what I’ll call him. So my empirical evidence on which I base the unscientific, personally biased hypothesis that “this dude is a stoner” is located right here.
You can analyze that text like you did just now, and come to a different conclusion than me. Then you can call me on it, and debunk my hypothesis. This is more than I could say about the linked article which provides no source data.
Posted usingMarch 25th, 2008 at 1:09 am (8587) [Quote]
Did you even read your own rant? If I had a penny for every time people in the sciences made snarky, self-congratulatory comments about people in the humanities….
Posted usingMarch 25th, 2008 at 1:56 am (8588) [Quote]
Well, this was meant more as an insult targeted at the author than anything else - or a tangential snaky remark. I did not build my whole hypothesis around it. I just threw it out there to be more controversial.
Posted using