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 …
This topic is closed for new posts.
a fairly farcical study.
Shirley the study could also demonstrate a relationship between people who are conservative types who abhor pornography (and therefore won't admit to watching it in a survey/interview) and, being conservative types, abhor gay marriage (and therefore won't support it)?
A more accurate conclusion to the study, I believe, would be "conservative prudes who say they don't watch porn have a tendency to be opposed to gay marriage as well".
Which more or less tells us what we already know. Ultimately though, the study seems fairly broad and nonsensical - conducting a survey about what many perceive to be sensitive personal stuff will only ever produce a result that demonstrates people's refusal to be truthful in such matters - the way the questions are presented will, as always, have a large impact on the result of the study, and people have a tendency to give answers that show them in the light they want to be shown in, rather than how they actually are.
This article just tells me that if you get rid of Microsoft altogether then the US gun laws don't need to be modified.
Actually...
Shouldn't that be 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc'?
My favourite in this line of statistical analysis:
http://xkcd.com/925/
correlation ≠ causation etc.
Correlation between autism and organic food sales
http://imgur.com/1WZ6h
Physical to virtual
The acquittals of Simon Walsh and Michael Peacock might seem to support this hypothesis in Britain, but I believe there’s a better Internet-related explanation. In the past, communities would be based on physical locality. People would want to be physically surrounded by other like-minded individuals. With the move to virtual communities, especially now we have mobile connectivity, it matters less what others around you are doing.
I think I caught Peter Tatchell on the telly saying how parliament’s vote to legalise same-sex marriage shows that we give gay love the same value as straight love. The truth may be less affirming. Is it consensual? Yes? Just get on with it, we’re not that interested any more.
Not the most reputable.
A little googling shows Paul j Wright is a nobody - I can't find any other paper he has written at all, or even any mention of him. Ashley k Randall has done a little more, but only got her PHD in 2012. It looks to me like two newcomers to the field confronted with the great problem of graduate researchers trying to establish themselves by studying something a little controversial.
Has anyone here - including the author of this article - actually read the study in question, or is this all based on an undoubtedly farcical distillation of the paper created for the Examiner? If I had a dollar for every time a mass media outlet has mistaken the data of a study for its conclusion, either deliberately in order to poke fun at dumb scientists, or in error out of confusion, I'd be able to start my own university.
Does everybody here really think that these guys really did all of this work and got PhDs without understanding the difference between correlation and causation? Or is it perhaps just a tiny bit more likely that the people reporting on the study couldn't be arsed to do a good job of it, and instead went for the low-hanging fruit of mocking researchers for discovering the obvious?
Even if the whole point of the study *was* to find a correlation, that doesn't mean that it's pointless: It's easy to say, "Yup, makes sense there is one" - it's another entirely to prove it, and to do so in a rigorous way that might be useful to other researchers - or to do so on the off chance that there's a counterintuitive result.
Is it possible that the study is indeed a load of bull? Sure. Is it the most likely option in this situation? I doubt it.
Either way, I am consistently depressed by the utter failure of people to comprehend some of the most basic principles of science - that in what way is as important as is, and in the utility of actually rigorously testing and proving the "obvious". And, doubly so, as these blinkered attitudes are often evident most in those who consider themselves respectful of logic and reason - and who exhibit the same fallacies of false 'common sense' as the pop-culture demagogues they disdain.
I'm sure you're correct. However, I often get the feeling that studies are set up for the very purpose of being media-bait, knowing that the media will seize on the wrong conclusion.
For example, "porn watchers tend to be well-educated" leads to a couple of incorrect conclusions:
1) porn watching results from having a good education
2) a good education is what leads you to the conclusion that watching porn is good.
When in fact it could be that educated people tend to be at university, universities are in cities, cities tend to create anonymity, anonymity reduces inhibitions which would prevent you form watching porn; or, universities are full of hormonally charged, inexperienced people who have recently left an environment with parental guidance; or even that watching porn/supporting gay marriage is a moral issue and quite independent of how many facts you know about engineering or comp-sci.
"watching porn/supporting gay marriage is a moral issue and quite independent of how many facts you know about engineering or comp-sci."
But, generally, a better all-round level of education stimulates more progressive approach to resolving morality issues...
"But, generally, a better all-round level of education stimulates more progressive approach to resolving morality issues..."
Though that makes me wonder - what if you have absolutely no education at all? IE, no input from society, no nothing. Is there a kind of inverse-tolerance bell curve, where societies with the least education and intergenerational tradition and societies with the most education and historical knowledge are more tolerant than some nadir of a knows-enough-to-be-dangerous culture?
Someone needs to do a study on that. Then newspapers can run stories saying, "Stupid scientists discover that the middle ages sucked." :P
Perhaps...
it shows that people who oppose gay marriage are more likely to lie about their porn usage?
The study sounds plausible
"many men watch gay porn if it involves two women"
Doh! It's called "l e s b i a n".
Overall, this study supports the conclusions I've made for myself long ago. Basically, watching pr0n clearly showed to me that sexual orientation and preferences are quite solidly set and cannot be changed (without involving perhaps a brain trauma) just by watching something. Once you then realise that you cannot become homosexual through being influenced by something or someone you stop seeing homosexuality as a threat.
Re: The study sounds plausible
"watching pr0n clearly showed to me that sexual orientation and preferences are quite solidly set and cannot be changed"
Hmmmmm.
Married men who use rent boys.
Clergy fancying kids.
Gay men with children.
Bisexual.
Not so sure about that.
Maybe the fear you can become homosexual through being influenced by something or someone comes from the individuals true (and sometimes unknown) feelings and not what society has taught them (from religious beliefs?) from the age you learned to speak.
Re: The study sounds plausible
Sexual orientation is not the same as fertility. Gay men can father a child just as easily as heterosexuals.
None of the examples you use requires conversion from one sexual orientation to another.
I don't fear of becoming a homosexual, I am convinced that it cannot happen, but I put it to you that homophobia in general is caused by such fear.
Re: The study sounds plausible
Sadly no. Most "two women" porn aimed at guys has two straight women it it pretending to be gay, and after they do their routines for the camera, a guy saunters in and does both of them. (To show the "Natural" order of things of course)
I've hung out in a few Lesbian bars in my day, and these guys come rolling in thinking they are going to pick up two women who will go home and perform for them then show them a three way. Its always fun to see if they leave in horror before they get tossed out on their ear.
It seems that a lot of Lesbians don't meet their hetrosexist standards of approved appearance "IE: Bleach blondes with rubber boobs" REAL lesbian porn tends to leave straight men both turned off and a bit threatened.
Re: The study sounds plausible
In other words, they In common with many grade schoolers are terrified of "cooties".
(Don't touch me! Ill get gay on me!)
Science v Religion
So occasionally a few trick cyclists gather some data and draw conclusions which may or may not be stretching the truth.
At least they don't claim to represent God and have every single one of their conclusions based on a wild leap of faith in something totally unprovable.
< religious down vote in 3,2,1,....>
I would like to put forward an alternative hypothesis
All men watch porn.
Those that are too prudish to admit it are also likely to have conservative views about gay marriage.
Ignobel right there.
Conservatives are generally conservative, and men generally like women. Is this where US students' massive debt is being spent?
More like it
Education was also positively associated with support for same-sex marriage
Good and Bad
I remember one study used to tell us how bad pornography was, by noting that people who view more porn are less likely to support as severe penalties for rapists. Instead of drawing strange conclusions, though, isn't it simpler to expect that people with a more negative or judgmental attitude to sex will be less likely to support gay marriage, more likely to regard rape as a very serious crime (unless they blame the victim; look at the attitudes unearthed in India, which aren't dead here), and less likely to permit themselves to watch porn?
Re: Good and Bad
We should treat sex offenders severely. We should be careful who we consider a sex offender.
Re: Good and Bad
John, I'm not quite sure I understood all of your post ... I read it as implying that people with a reasonably open and positive attitude to sex will tend not to regard rape as a serious crime. I don't believe that was your intention - certainly, I would regard rape as very serious.
Re: Good and Bad
Not as serious as someone who is very close-minded regarding sex.
So
Watching a man and a women have sex makes me sumpthatetic to gay people. Scratches head .
From the guy who used the F word and got his post deleted.
A lot of you talk about tollerance. I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like homosexuals to stay away from me. Is there anything bad about that? Is there anything wrong with disliking homosexuals? Yes. It's politically incorrect. Though it's OK to dislike children. BTW, where I live, those places (Israel, Saudi, etc) are west. I used to work in Hollywood. One director I used to work with said that over 80% of script writers are homosexuals. He was explaining his experiences at a then recent script writters conference. Do you think that perhaps popular entertainment and news media have an affect on your perceptions?
My main point was:
Limitations empower us to be creative: the limit of the lens on a camera, the limits (rules, instructions) a computer operates by, the limitations of time, etc. Those who understand that limitations are an intrinsic part of the universe limit themselves.
Re: From the guy who used the F word and got his post deleted.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
And that's "tolerance", youngster. Again, grow up & get educated. Then come back. Ta.
Re: From the guy who used the F word and got his post deleted.
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like Jews to stay away from me."
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like black people to stay away from me."
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like Asians to stay away from me."
Re: From the guy who used the F word and got his post deleted.
What is so intollerant about that? I don't think it is intollerant to want old people to stay away from me or bankers or drunks or any other group of people or animal. *whipped much?
This topic is closed for new posts.
