Feeds

back to article Study: Gay marriage support linked to pr0n consumption

A research paper by two American academics has concluded that one of the key factors in the increasing support among straight men for same-sex marriage comes down to how much pornography they consume. The research, published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Communication Research, is based on a six-year study of 500 US …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Meh

Hold on a second...

If it can also be shown that an increase in IE market share leads to an increase in web developers targeting IE, then I might be able to get behind that last graph.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hold on a second...

So perverts support perversions. What a surprise!

1
1
Bronze badge
Pint

Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

"Support for same-sex marriage did not prospectively predict pornography consumption, but pornography consumption did prospectively predict support for same-sex marriage," the abstract reads. "Education was also positively associated with support for same-sex marriage."

And by the transvestite...er...transitive property of equality (or something like that...it's been a loooong time since high school), one could surmise that pr0n makes you smart...or that only smart people use pr0n, or...oh bother! It's beer-thirty, already.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

Perhaps surprisingly, there is actually a well established correlation between intelligence and libido.

4
0
Paris Hilton

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

"'Allo darlin' - 'ave you seen the size of my IQ?"

And what does this say about Paris...?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

Do you mean "scientists need to get laid more"?

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

Frankly all intelligent people need to get laid more. Here's to fending off the future predicted in Idiocracy.

2
0
Gold badge
Meh

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

Perhaps surprisingly, there is actually a well established correlation between intelligence and libido.

I suppose this means that Viagra could be a study aid? Then again, taking an exam while afflicted with a monumental boner is bound to be rather uncomfortable and distracting, so it may be a zero-sum game.

0
0
Happy

Re: Lies, Damn lies, and... well ,you know the rest...

A correlation thoroughly contradicted by the first 5 minutes of that thoroughly well researched and peer reviewed movie, Idiocracy.

0
0
Bronze badge
Coat

It could be argued that a browser like IE 6 could not only trigger homicidal rages, but encourage those in such a state outdoors!

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Indeed. IE has certainly driven me into a blind rage on more than one occasion. Although my impulses tend to be directed more at the poor monitor than homicidal. Each to his own I suppose.

Makes me wonder if the IE/homicide correlation is more worthy of examination than this other crap. ;o)

4
0
Silver badge

Games don't kill people. Internet explorer kills people.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

and I thought it was only me who felt the urge to kill when I use IE.

I am not alone :)

2
0
Pirate

Death to statistics

Statistics* show that Firefox browsing NRA members are the most unlikely to go on murderous rampages.

*NRA poll - 200 out of 500 Firefox browsing NRA members agreed with the statement "just cos I have the god given right to kill people doesn't mean that on any particular day of the week I would go on a murderous rampage"

PS the other 300 shouted - "get off of my property ya commie homo Firefox browsing pinko liberal" while liberally spraying fully automatic assault rifles everywhere in accordance with their 2nd amendment rights to kill every damn thing that moves . No one knows if they agreed with the statement so we put them down as "don't know"

5
1
FAIL

Re: Death to statistics

Enough, our "assault" rifles are NOT fully automatic. "Mine certainly isn't" Full auto has been illegal in the US for anyone except a very few owners of very expensive, old register hard to get weapons. And no, gang members need not apply. "You could get a very nice car for what it costs to even START in in that hobby, assuming you ever got past the Federal background checks."

And for the record. My shooting friends and me are Liberal Democrats, so take your phobia, and your bigotry and stick it.

2
3
Mushroom

Re: Death to statistics

Where's the sense of humour metldown icon?

O - here it is

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Well, if Darwin was right, being queer should eventually wipe out queers.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Effect ≠ cause.

Open legs lead to open minds

Really?

Or do open minds lead to open legs?

Or are both trends the result of other causes?

Or is the apparent connection a quirk of the tiny sample?

The only potential "discovery" I can see in this "research" is a prude is a prude.

I do wish data miners would stop presenting themselves as anything other than halfwits.

17
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Effect ≠ cause.

Yes!

People who are open-minded about one thing are more likely to be open-minded about another thing.

News at 11.

11
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Effect ≠ cause.

> People who are open-minded about one thing are more likely to be open-minded about another thing.

In other news, nobody seems to know what being "open minded" on an issue means.

Most of the people I hear about who support gay marriage seem very closed-minded on the issue.

4
8
Stop

Re: Effect ≠ cause.

@P.Lee, "Most of the people I hear about who support gay marriage seem very closed-minded on the issue"

Yup, it's called "making a decision" or "having an opinion". You could say a similar thing for most of the people who are against equal marriage. Or about most of the people who want tax cuts. Or about most of the people who enjoy football.

Or most anything where you have to state a preference one way or another.

Few of us have absolutely no opinion about whether or not we should all have equal rights and responsibilities under the law, and I think equally few of us can be persuaded from one stance to another *over a short period of time* such as during a 15 second TV interview, or even over a few weeks of debate.

Changing "closed-minds" as you put them, takes a long time, whether you're trying to change them towards or away from intolerance.

3
0
Silver badge

Mechanism please.

This is absolute BS. Without a mechanism you have nothing more than a pretty graph from SPSS that highlights a coincidence (at best). There is a strong correlation between opposition to gay marriage and c**tishness. Marriage predates Christianity ergo they have no claim over the usage of the word.

2
0
Silver badge

re: Mechanism please.

Q1, Do you consider yourself an open minded liberal type

Q1a do you view porn

Q1b do you support gay marriage

Q2, Do you consider yourself a conservative christian

Q2a do you oppose porn

Q2b do you oppose gay marriage

Then only publish the correlation between 1a/b and 2a/b

2
0
Silver badge
Devil

Anything can be shown to correlate to anything

All you need to do is chose the _CORRECT_ scale.

Correlation coefficient is the probability of two functions being linearly dependent on each other. So, for example, if you have y = x^2 and you try to compute the correlation coefficient directly off the values from that you will get that the two variables are independent when in fact they are not. So you have to chose the correct scale/conversion - root, log, exp, etc before you compute it. And here be dragons...

When there is no obvious reasons to use a particular one you can pretty much chose anyone you like ending up with a graph of AOL vs Good Cholesterol. Just like in this case.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: re: Mechanism please.

What about open minded, liberal Christians? (Yes, they do exist. They're just a relatively quiet bunch.)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: re: Mechanism please.

I think being quiet is the problem :) Most topics these days (of the social kind) are debated by the extremes and those of us in the middle are too quiet. We need to be louder and then we might end up with more sensible, practical compromises.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: re: Mechanism please.

It's not that the christian left is quiet, it's just that the Christian right is much louder. When it comes to the media angry crazy man tends to get more air time.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge
Meh

Re: Wise up?

If only you'd had the courtesy to stay out of our awareness.

12
1
Silver badge

Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Re: Wise up?)

Shall I prod it? I think I shall ...

So, typically anonymous Xtian Coward, please tell me which version of Genesis you believe in/have faith in? The one that starts at Gen 1:1, or the one that begins at Gen 2:4? They are clearly quite different versions of the creation myth, and can't both be completely true & accurate accounts of creation, now can they?

Flaw in the Bible, starting right from the git-go. Whodathunkit?

Another Xtian who has never actually read it's own "good book" for content, but rather trusts it's shamen to explain said book to it in a way that benefits the shamen, at the expense said Xtian. There is a reason the early Xtian leaders though of themselves as shepherds, and the congregation as flocks.

PDFO, ignoramus sheep. There are educated adults typing here.

9
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

See this is problem with westerners. They think everything that they align with religion has a religious source. However, in other parts of the world not controlled/influenced by your religions, your presumptions are highly likely to be incorrect. In other parts of the world there are different religions that have different social impact.

DISCLAIMER: I am assuming you are a westerner because you cite religion and religious books.

"There are educated adults typing here." FYI, I am not one of them. ;)

0
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Wise up?

"If only you'd had the courtesy to stay out of our awareness." I do try my best - honest.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

"PDFO, ignoramus sheep. There are educated adults typing here."

Pity that you're not one of them.

6
6
Silver badge

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

"FYI, I am not one of them."

We (tinw) can tell. Go away until you are both of them. Ta.

3
4
Mushroom

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

"Oh, lookie! An Xtian!"

Am I missing something here, or is Jake yelling at the wall?

To jake: The OP is a homophobe and a jerk, but there's no indication whatsoever of Christianity - or of any religious bent whatsoever. Or in your shriveled mind are the two one and the same? Wait, don't answer that - let me guess.

It's people (and I use the term loosely) like you who give atheists and the non-religious the reputation of being intolerant, arrogant, childish twits. Congratulations, genius - you yourself have probably done more harm to your own 'cause' than all the typically-anonymous 'Xtian Cowards' in the world put together. Look, I'm an archaeologist - I've discovered a primordial, nearly-sentient Richard Dawkins!

On the bright side, I suppose you have done one good thing - you've given the most intolerant on the Christian right, the unsurest of the fence-sitters, and the most open-minded and accepting of progressives something to agree on: None of them would like you.

Since you seem fond of acronyms, let me add a couple more for you. And please, take this personally: STFU and FOAD.

13
3
Silver badge

Re: Wise up?

"It seems in our modernism us humans have forgotten that it is actually limitations that empower us to be creative."

Oh, c'mon. Lead by example then - cut off your legs and arms and show us your new burst of creativity...

0
0
Silver badge

Nice rant, David W. (was:Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?))

Hopefully it was cathartic.

I have no cause, other than the (probably) impossible hope of encouraging people to think for themselves. Sarah Bee was known to accuse me of tilting at windmills ...

I'm not here because I want you to like me. Narcissism in the online world is an ugly thing.

As a side note ... what part of my tilting at Xtians in this case really gets your goat? I can do the same for any other religion you specify ... And for the same reason.

5
4
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

"See this is problem with westerners. They think everything that they align with religion has a religious source. However, in other parts of the world not controlled/influenced by your religions, your presumptions are highly likely to be incorrect. In other parts of the world there are different religions that have different social impact."

Ah, never heard of Israel ,have we?

Or Saudi?

or . . . .

(or are they in the West this week?)

Good Grief

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

"or are they in the West this week?"

I guess that depends entirely on where you stand.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nice rant, David W. (was:Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?))

"I'm not here because I want you to like me. Narcissism in the online world is an ugly thing."

Nope, you're here because you think you're great and want to tell everyone that in as supercilious a way as possible. Your narcissism is indeed ugly.

"As a side note ... what part of my tilting at Xtians in this case really gets your goat?

Dunno about the other guy, but in my case it's the repeated use of Xtian wherever you can. Think you score points against something by not spelling it correctly? Childish. Or do you think that by repeating it enough others will pick it up and you can claim credit for adding to the language? (The repeated use of "manglement" in other posts seems to be the same behaviour. Tiresome.)

"I can do the same for any other religion you specify ... And for the same reason."

Yep, and the reason's been pointed out above.

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

most intolerant on the Christian right ... and the most open-minded and accepting of progressives

For the most part I agree with your post, but you've got a couple things wrong: progressives aren't, as a whole, a very accepting bunch. If they were then you wouldn't see near the level of scorn thrown at conservative Christianity that we do. If I had a dollar for every time I've been belittled or dismissed simply for the crime of being a Christian I could retire right now. And I'm not even against the current hot button topic (yeah, my religion has some things to say on the issue, but it has no place in either your bedroom or the legal system). In order to be called accepting you have to be accepting of people who disagree with you. That's not something that progressives do very well.

Nor are Christians, as a whole, a particularly intolerant bunch. Those of you outside our community get to see a vocal minority, but the fact of the matter is that most of us realize that Christ gave us an example of tolerance. He spent most of his time on Earth with the kinds of people that vocal minority are so quick to condemn.

Not to say that there aren't truly open minded and accepting progressives or intolerant Christians. They're just not the rule.

AC because I've been flamed to death just for being a Christian often enough to have learned my lesson.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

progressives aren't, as a whole, a very accepting bunch. If they were then you wouldn't see near the level of scorn thrown at conservative Christianity that we do.

Hence my specifically stating 'the most open-minded and accepting of' and 'the most intolerant of', rather than just 'progressives' and 'Christians'. And the entire point of the post was to call out Mr. Jake on his automatically correlating 'homophobe' with 'christian' despite a complete lack of evidence to suggest that the target of his ire had any particular religious bent whatsoever.

That point, unfortunately, appears to have been lost entirely - but as far as the inability to pound some sense into him goes, I can at least take some solace in the knowledge that I am surely far from alone in my failure.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

Now now. A lot of Christians, beginning at least with St Augustine, would totally agree that Genesis is a collection of myths. They might just disagree with you on the significance of myths.

Genesis goes wrong at word 3, because Elohim is a plural form. It has to be either borrowed from a pre-Hebrew myth, or it reflects an original 'in the beginning, the God's...', which is quite likely.

I love asking Jehovah's witnesses how the first sentence of the Bible goes, because I am a smartarse. But a theologically educated smartarse.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Nice rant, David W. (was:Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?))

"Think you score points against something by not spelling it correctly?"

What's wrong with "Xtian"? The OED says it's correct, from about the 1630s. The modern "Christian" is actually incorrect. Really. Look it up. And here I thought I was being polite ... educated Englishmen used to know their Greek.

"repeated use of Xtian wherever you can"

Uh. No. Fewer that 0.01% of my posts here on ElReg contain that ASCII string.

Manglement is manglement. It's a descriptive term for a particular set of leaches.

I scare you, don't I, AC 14:23 ... Afraid I'll start you thinking for yourself?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nice rant, David W. (was:Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?))

"What's wrong with "Xtian"? The OED says it's correct, from about the 1630s. The modern "Christian" is actually incorrect. Really. Look it up. And here I thought I was being polite ... "

The hell you did. The sole purpose of your post - as evidenced by the opening "Shall I poke it?" - was to offend. And when called out on it you reply with a 'defense' that is itself obviously tailored to be absurd, condescending, and insulting.

And then you follow that up by deliberately misinterpreting "repeated use" to mean "in anything you post on this forum" rather than the rather obviously intended "in this post" or perhaps "in the context of Christianity". Unless far more than .01% of your posts are about Christianity, the statistic is meaningless - and, per your own "I thought I was being polite" statement above, why would you try to contest the statement to begin with?

You're a jackass. An inconsistent, obnoxious, self-defeating, arrogant jackass - hell, you can't even make a neutral statement ("...contain that ASCII string") without wrapping it up in "look-at-me-I'm-so-smart-because-I-referred-to-this-technically" rather than just saying, "use the word" or "contain that term". Hint, boy-genius: Most people here know what an ASCII string is. We're not impressed. Your feigned precision does not give your argument more weight.

At any rate, I suppose now I'm the one talking to the wall, so I might as well shut up before I'm accused of hypocrisy. But hope springs eternal - I was once, a long time ago, somewhat like you (though thankfully not quite that bad) and at some point I either wised up, or grew up, or both, realizing that I was essentially copying the worst aspects of the people I hated the most. With any luck, Jake, you're not too far gone either - and maybe, just maybe, a few dozen or hundred more browbeatings from people who in many ways agree with you will eventually result in the message sinking in.

In the meantime, it's just as well that you're not here because you want people to like you; I'm pretty sure that not many people do. But that does make me wonder why you bother showing up at all - what pleasure or satisfaction do you derive from showing up and being hated? Do you think you're performing some noble act of self-sacrifice? Having come to the conclusion that most other people are idiots, do you take their disdain for you as proof of your own correctness?

Oh well - enjoy, I guess. But the longer you go on like this, the more embarrassed you'll be when you wake up, blink, and actually see yourself when you look in the mirror. And the more horrified you'll be when you realize that your friends and family never actually agreed with you, but had just given up on trying to get through, and tolerated you behind gritted teeth and rolled eyes.

Believe me. I know.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?)

Yes, but those parts of the world are mostly pretty uncivilised / under developed and really don't matter very much...

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Nice rant, David W. (was:Oh, lookie! An Xtian! (was: Wise up?))

I guess you really need a catharsis outlet, David W.

I hope I helped. Now spit the hook, little fish. You're making yourself look silly.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

@David W.

If I had a sock puppet army I'd be activating it now to up vote you to a gold badge

Jake is a troll of the worst/best sort depending on how your scales work, the one thing he doe shave going for him is an active and evidently well used imagination

0
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

re. prospectively predicting stuff

'prospective' means relating to the future. So, 'prospectively predicting' means predicting things about the future.

I thought that predicting was always about the future. Is there another kind of predicting?

2
0
Holmes

Re: re. prospectively predicting stuff

"Is there another kind of predicting?"

Indeed there is. Retrospective prediction - where the oracle contrives the prediction after the event, looks back and says "there, told you so". Commonly exhibited by both "climateologists" and more traditional politicians.

3
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.