"Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet."
The article is filled with statements like this without telling us if researchers controlled for any of the infinite possible confounding factors. This may be just a bad article, and the research may actually support the hypothesis of a causal link (perhaps even through a controlled experiment, rather than a statistical survey). But as it is, there's really no strong evidence at all in this article. Unless someone writes a more competent article, one would need to go read the actual studies.
EDIT: Wait, they are giving the internet credit for reducing rape between 1975 and 1995? The first graphical web browser, Mosaic, wasn't developed until 1992. OK, this article is total baloney.
First, Playboy and other print pornography were available long before VHS and Betamax. Is the claim that video pornography is the key product which reduced sexual violence?
Second, what fraction of young men regularly viewed pornography on videotape from 1975-1990? It has to be much, much lower than the (near-ubiquitous) viewing of online pornography today. (Then again, maybe those most at risk to commit sexual violence were much more likely to purchase pornography on video.)
Comments
"Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet."
The article is filled with statements like this without telling us if researchers controlled for any of the infinite possible confounding factors. This may be just a bad article, and the research may actually support the hypothesis of a causal link (perhaps even through a controlled experiment, rather than a statistical survey). But as it is, there's really no strong evidence at all in this article. Unless someone writes a more competent article, one would need to go read the actual studies.
EDIT: Wait, they are giving the internet credit for reducing rape between 1975 and 1995? The first graphical web browser, Mosaic, wasn't developed until 1992. OK, this article is total baloney.
After reading the paper, I find it just as bad as the article. (The article is a surprisingly good summary of the paper)
VHS was released in the mid-1970's. Betamax was released in 1975. They are widely considered to have popularized (or been popularized by?) video porn.
First, Playboy and other print pornography were available long before VHS and Betamax. Is the claim that video pornography is the key product which reduced sexual violence?
Second, what fraction of young men regularly viewed pornography on videotape from 1975-1990? It has to be much, much lower than the (near-ubiquitous) viewing of online pornography today. (Then again, maybe those most at risk to commit sexual violence were much more likely to purchase pornography on video.)
Also, why do those metrics matter? We could dramatically decrease the murder rate by removing everybody's limbs.
They matter because anti-pornography activists typically cite these statistics as proof or supporting evidence for the negative impact of pornography.
Sure, I can see that, but not every modes ponens is a modus tollens.