Thread

Research papers...?

Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2006 01:22:00

Hi there,

Quoting from:

"A quick journal search within the Psych bit using the terms 'violent
pornography' causes harm came up with 28 results saying exactly that -
Gossett & Byrne 2002; Norris et al 2004; Rauch 2001; Malmuth et al 2000;
Cramer et al 1998...I could go on."

This was in response to a request that he prove his claim that people
are "harmed" by "violent porn".

I've posted a couple of examples to show that either these papers were
biased eg Cramer picked abused women and then asked if their partners
had used porn:

or he's just misinterpreted/ misrepresented what they were saying, eg
Gossett and Byrne:

"Of the sample's 16 violent scenes, nine occured in videos marketed to
women; four were set in explicit fantasy environments [...]Only two of
the violent acts come from tapes primarily marketed to straight men."
and Malmuth:

"Contrary to Malmuth\x{2019}s findings, Barak et al. (1999), found that the
amount of self-directed exposure to Internet sexually explicit sites had
no significant effects on post-exposure measures of university men's
rape myth acceptance, attitudes toward women, acceptance of women as
managers, or on a measure of likelihood of sexual harassment.",

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

But if anyone else can come up with counters and post them I think it
would be useful.

Also the links like the ones above could be added to the Backlash file
stores for later reference.

Cheers,
Graham.

rovacs, 05 Sep 2006 01:33:31

Great-the sort of solid stuff that will discredit it.

Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Quoting from:
>
> "A quick journal search within the Psych bit using the terms 'violent
> pornography' causes harm came up with 28 results saying exactly that -
> Gossett & Byrne 2002; Norris et al 2004; Rauch 2001; Malmuth et al 2000;
> Cramer et al 1998...I could go on."
> This was in response to a request that he prove his claim that people
> are "harmed" by "violent porn".
> I've posted a couple of examples to show that either these papers were
> biased eg Cramer picked abused women and then asked if their partners
> had used porn:
>
> or he's just misinterpreted/ misrepresented what they were saying, eg
> Gossett and Byrne:
> "Of the sample's 16 violent scenes, nine occured in videos marketed to
> women; four were set in explicit fantasy environments [...]Only two of
> the violent acts come from tapes primarily marketed to straight men."
> and Malmuth:
> "Contrary to Malmuth’s findings, Barak et al. (1999), found that the
> amount of self-directed exposure to Internet sexually explicit sites had
> no significant effects on post-exposure measures of university men's
> rape myth acceptance, attitudes toward women, acceptance of women as
> managers, or on a measure of likelihood of sexual harassment.",
> http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm
> But if anyone else can come up with counters and post them I think it
> would be useful.
> Also the links like the ones above could be added to the Backlash file
> stores for later reference.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2006 01:39:37

Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2006 01:51:47

Hi there,

graham wrote:

> Quoting from:
>
>

> I've posted a couple of examples to show that either these papers were
> biased

Damn, I've just noticed that it said "Comment Submission Error, Your
comment submission failed for the following reasons: Comments are not
allowed on this entry."

So it looks like that one's been locked down.

But still the links and comments I found should be of use.

Here's what I would have posted:

* * * * *

Altrui:

> I haven't researched any of this, but a brief scan of the papers I
cited do show a link between violent porn and harm to others.

If you had actually bothered to read those papers you cited you'd have
found this:

Gosset and Byrne 2002:

"Of the sample's 16 violent scenes, nine occured in videos marketed to
women; four were set in explicit fantasy environments. These points may
be related: much popular women's fiction is set in melodramatic, or
explicitly fantastic situations. This may be a gendered address in
pornography, where it is material aimed at women that is more likely to
include violence. Rocco Siffredi, whose videos are responsible for three
of the seven physically violent moments, is the most popular male porn
star with female audiences (Albury, 2002b). Only two of the violent acts
come from tapes primarily marketed to straight men. This raises
interesting questions about the relationship between sex, aggression,
and gender in 21st century Western countries. [...]

"The majority of scenes containing violence came from videos which were
explicitly marketed to women. Overall, women were no more objectified
than men in the mainstream of pornography."

Regarding Malmuth: "[...] the researchers note that: "... we cannot
conclude on the basis of these analyses that pornography use is a cause
or an outcome of sexual aggressive tendencies ..." (Malamuth et al.,
2001, p. 79).

"Indeed, even with this caveat many of these findings may be difficult
to replicate. Contrary to Malmuth\x{2019}s findings, Barak et al. (1999), found
that the amount of self-directed exposure to Internet sexually explicit
sites had no significant effects on post-exposure measures of university
men's rape myth acceptance, attitudes toward women, acceptance of women
as managers, or on a measure of likelihood of sexual harassment."

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

As for Cramer:

"To examine violent pornography use and associated violence against
women, an ethnically stratified sample of 198 abused women were asked
about their partners' use of pornographic materials, and if they had
been asked or forced to look at, act out, or pose for pornographic
scenes or pictures."

So they first selected a group of women who *had* been abused, and then
asked them if their partner had forced them to view or act out the scenes".

Curiously enough, they don't seem to have included a control sample of
at least an equal number of women whose partners used porn but did *not*
abuse them.

Can you say "biased research"?!

Is this the best sort of "evidence" you can come up with to back up your
claims?

* * * * *

Cheers,
Graham.

Amelie, 05 Sep 2006 19:24:42

re-introducing the D notice? no reportage allowed of a topic thought to be
prejudicial to law and order?
----- Original Message -----

"graham" , 05 Sep 2006 19:24:42

To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:21 AM

> Hi there,
>
> graham wrote:
>
>> Quoting from:
>>
>>
>
>> I've posted a couple of examples to show that either these papers were
>> biased
>
> Damn, I've just noticed that it said "Comment Submission Error, Your
> comment submission failed for the following reasons: Comments are not
> allowed on this entry."
>
> So it looks like that one's been locked down.
>
> But still the links and comments I found should be of use.
>
> Cheers,
> Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5600
>

Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2006 20:59:34

Hi there,

Amelie wrote:

> re-introducing the D notice? no reportage allowed of a topic thought to be
> prejudicial to law and order?

Probably just locked down by the moderators as it's getting into a squabble.

Cheers,
Graham.

demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:19:50

thanks Graham...

I'm trying to get people to draw up questions we're likely to get asked from MPs, the media, passsers by...

and -- more importantly -- the answers.

this is a good start.