No more porn

[morriswalters]

I'll make this short and sweet, let us write a letter to the Governor of Montana and selected representatives in the Montana legislature. If they are okay with it than who am I to complain. In point of fact the student body doesn't make policy on what is acceptable on campus. The animals don't run the zoo. State Universities in particular go to their State Legislators and bargain for dollars. All kinds of things might fly under the radar until they are exposed. If anyone wishes to test this hypothesis it can all be done by email in a matter of minutes. But if you had read what I had written you might of noticed that it was only my opinion, not anything that I care to make as formal policy. I stated that explicitly. I don't care if they show Debbie Does Dallas or My Lover My Horse, as long as they do it in Montana. Once my money is involved in the form of taxes then the situation might be different.

[LaserGuy]

No such thing. But in the absence of any evidence that it is not harmful, I see no reason for centers of higher learning to promote it using state dollars. What you do off campus is your business. In terms of porn generally in the absence of evidence that it is harmful, then the laws should reflect that and err on the side of less is more in terms of legislation.

But that's just the thing, this is a legislative issue, albeit a legislative issue that pertains to a very specific government: The student government is an elected body that collects fees from its members and represents their interests. They have a constitution and the ability to pass bylaws within their jurisdiction, and can have million+ dollar budgets. Many of them operate completely independently of the university. The university itself really probably has nothing at all to do with this dispute to speak of--the Procrastinator Theatre, where this event was supposed to be held, is operated (and probably owned, but I can't confirm) by the student government.

[Azrael]

I'll make this short and sweet, let us write a letter to the Governor of Montana and selected representatives in the Montana legislature. If they are okay with it than who am I to complain. In point of fact the student body doesn't make policy on what is acceptable on campus. The animals don't run the zoo. State Universities in particular go to their State Legislators and bargain for dollars. All kinds of things might fly under the radar until they are exposed. If anyone wishes to test this hypothesis it can all be done by email in a matter of minutes. But if you had read what I had written you might of noticed that it was only my opinion, not anything that I care to make as formal policy. I stated that explicitly. I don't care if they show Debbie Does Dallas or My Lover My Horse, as long as they do it in Montana. Once my money is involved in the form of taxes then the situation might be different.

What an astoundingly self important load of crap. Neither you, nor the politicians of your state, get veto authority over every decision that's made on campus just because it's a state school. The division of responsibility is well established, and it's why you can still have good schools in politically conservative states -- because politicians specifically can't mandate silly things like biology classes teaching creationism. You (and your legislature) don't get to meddle and micromanage like that. Replace the President or Trustees (or relevant equivalent), if you like. But that's as deep as your decisions (representative or not) get to go.

This is especially true regarding activities run by the student body government. While I don't know the exact structure in this specific school, most student governments oversee a student activities fund, which is funded by a fee collected from each student. At which point your "I paid for it" argument is reduced to complaining about the capital amortization of the facility for a couple of hours. Unless, like the case was at my alma matter, the student groups pay for that as well.

Note that the relevant cancellation was in fact performed by the student body government?

[morriswalters]

Yes I am a little self important. However I must assume that you are naive. I would ask you what administrator would put his job on the line for Deep Throat. He might assume that it would be better to suffer the slings and arrows of student disdain then to take the fall for porn. On average the Universities in my state have taken a brutal beating during the current downturn. With significant cuts to their budgets each year which are causing tuition increases that well exceed the rate of inflation. The budget cycle is extremely political and Deep Throat showing up publicly in the Student Activity Center would kill careers, call into question why we spend so much money to let college students watch porn, and almost certainly result in legislation that would forbid the practice. It would also drive a bigger wedge between the community and the University system just at a time when what we need is a closer relationship. You can be certain that in a conservative state like mine the end result would be bad for students and the public. What the legislature lacks in the ability to force through the budgeting process it can do through the legislative process.

As a parent who might be paying for a child's eduction it would be a poor idea to tell me that one of the uses for which I provided funds was Deep Throat. I am well aware of the student activity fee, it is an addition to an already expensive educational process. Ripe to get yanked if pushed to hard. Why in the hell would you take those risks? I don't care if you like my conservative state, Kentucky. But don't try to tell me the dynamics of the politics in my state. This wouldn't fly, not out in the light of day. About the student council canceling the event. Do you mean to tell me that there was no communication with the administration of the school. Do you not think there were quiet phone calls where people might have been told not to rock the boat over something with little or no value. You know don't make a fuss. Not everyone is as accepting as the the previous graduates. And where does the money come from? Unless they are independently wealthy it may be presumed it came from their parents, lending institutions and grants, scholarships, and funds guaranteed by the government.

edit
An article from the Student newspaper.

[Ben-oni]

... says the person who's cited studies didn't support his stance, and who later agreed with morris' paper that trounced any remaining scientific backing for his notions.

I'm confused. Did you not read any of the linked material? In particular, I found the discussion of the role of DeltaFosB to be very interesting. The whole point is that there is a growing body of evidence, incomplete as it is.

Now, what's with all the hate against morriswalters?

But in the absence of any evidence that it is not harmful, I see no reason for centers of higher learning to promote it using state dollars.

I grant that superficially this looks like pretty bad reasoning. But why not finish out the argument for yourselves, would you? To wit:

With a lack of direct causative studies showing a link between pornography and any sort of crime (or at least any that we can dig up right now), a person would be remiss to ignore anecdotal evidence. Now, there has been a knee-jerk reaction to ignore everything that looks like it might come from a biased source, i.e. religious organizations. While I agree that scholarly debate requires scholarly evidence, that's not the nature of the topic: after all, school and student body administrations must use heuristics to make decisions. With that in mind, it would be foolish to ignore the arguments and evidence brought forth by so called "religious organizations" just because of a perceived moral bias. After all, these are the people "in the trenches", so to speak, dealing with the fallout of pornography (and alcoholism, and domestic violence, etc.) on a daily basis. Quite possibly the people within these organizations know better than anyone the pain and destruction (or lack thereof) caused by pornography. Logic, then, insists we listen.

Or does someone wish to dispute what the anecdotal evidence offers? Personally, I tried to provide anecdotal evidence that was simultaneously scholarly, and it doesn't sound like the topic is being contested. Viewed in this light, it seems a valid argument to propose that the burden of proof lies before those who wish to argue that porn (even a particular sub-genre) has no negative consequences distinguishable from those of other tolerated activities.

[HungryHobo]

Logic, then, insists we listen.

that's not logic. if that was logic we'd all be sending kids off to camps to pray the gay away since obviously there's nothing wrong with biased sources and made up facts since they're "in the trenches" and "dealing with the fallout" of all the (in their view)immoral behaviour.

everyone has anecdotal evidence, "I know lots of people who watch porn and live happy normal lives",

congratulations, my exactly equal anecdotal evidence now balances yours.

balls back in your court. have fun.

[LaserGuy]

But in the absence of any evidence that it is not harmful, I see no reason for centers of higher learning to promote it using state dollars.

I grant that superficially this looks like pretty bad reasoning. But why not finish out the argument for yourselves, would you? To wit:

With a lack of direct causative studies showing a link between pornography and any sort of crime (or at least any that we can dig up right now), a person would be remiss to ignore anecdotal evidence. Now, there has been a knee-jerk reaction to ignore everything that looks like it might come from a biased source, i.e. religious organizations. While I agree that scholarly debate requires scholarly evidence, that's not the nature of the topic: after all, school and student body administrations must use heuristics to make decisions. With that in mind, it would be foolish to ignore the arguments and evidence brought forth by so called "religious organizations" just because of a perceived moral bias. After all, these are the people "in the trenches", so to speak, dealing with the fallout of pornography (and alcoholism, and domestic violence, etc.) on a daily basis. Quite possibly the people within these organizations know better than anyone the pain and destruction (or lack thereof) caused by pornography. Logic, then, insists we listen.

If you are willing to accept the validity of the anecdotal evidence offered by religious organizations about the harm caused by pornography, shouldn't you also be willing to accept the validity of the anecdotal evidence offered by all of the many, many, many people who consume pornography with no ill-effects? I mean, the percentage of the population, particularly the population in question (university students) that have consumed pornography previously is probably pretty high, and the number of cases of pornography addiction are extremely low. I mean, there are small numbers of people who have ended up dangerously addicted to World of Warcraft; that doesn't mean that a ban on World of Warcraft is justifiable since the majority of players do not exhibit these sorts of symptoms. We shouldn't take those anecdotes of particular people who have serious problems as any way representative of the whole. Moreover, since many religious organizations who might deal with this issue probably treat any pornography usage as a problem, they probably aren't in a position to be able to accurately diagnose behaviours that might actually be harmful. And I don't know why you'd suggest trusting their "expertise" over that of, say, therapists or psychologists, who are actually trained to deal with these sorts of issues.

In all seriousness, though... what pain and destruction do you think pornography causes?

Or does someone wish to dispute what the anecdotal evidence offers? Personally, I tried to provide anecdotal evidence that was simultaneously scholarly, and it doesn't sound like the topic is being contested. Viewed in this light, it seems a valid argument to propose that the burden of proof lies before those who wish to argue that porn (even a particular sub-genre) has no negative consequences distinguishable from those of other tolerated activities.

Anecdotally, there are particular individuals that may have problems. What is disputed is that these anecdotes can in any way be generalized to the population at large. Given a lack of evidence on the subject, I don't think it is unreasonable to take a fairly liberal view that we should allow adults to make their own decisions on these sorts of issues. I mean, let's be honest here: We are perfectly willing to allow people to do things that we know are detrimental to their health, such as smoking or skydiving or driving a car or joining the military, and any of these things are far more likely to result in serious harm than watching pornography is. So why should pornography specifically get targeted with the heavy hand of the state, while other, more serious issues, get a pass?

[Azrael]

... says the person who's cited studies didn't support his stance, and who later agreed with morris' paper that trounced any remaining scientific backing for his notions.

I'm confused. Did you not read any of the linked material? In particular, I found the discussion of the role of DeltaFosB to be very interesting. The whole point is that there is a growing body of evidence, incomplete as it is.

Yes, I certainly did. The first half is actually the rebuttal, the second half being the original editorial.

And while I'm delighted that you found Hilton & Watt's commentary on DeltaFosB to be interesting, allow me to quote Rory Reid's rebuttal:

It was unclear to us, and perhaps some of your readers, why Hilton and Watts elected to reference literature about increased ∆FosB in the nucleus accumbens in copulating laboratory rats. These hypersexual rats were engaged in relational sexual activities with female partners, not in autoeroticism in response to sexually-provocative stimuli. Although the rodent study is interesting, we dispute the notion that it is analogous to humans excessively masturbating to pornography and thus the generalizations of the results cited by Hilton and Watts are questionable.

In fact, Reid's entire article picks apart Hilton & Watt's original editorial quite thoroughly. I mean, honestly:

Hilton and Watts offered little, if any, convincing evidence to support their perspectives. Instead, excessive liberties and misleading interpretations of neuroscience...

Hilton and Watts seem intent on skewing findings from the studies they cite to support their perspectives rather than evaluating several plausible explanations for the various results reported by study investigators...

We are open to the notion that frontal impairment might make people vulnerable to a variety of over-indulgences, which can subsequently lead to substance dependence, maladaptive coping patterns, poor judgment, impulsivity or emotional disturbance, which people may seek to escape by turning to problematic behaviors, such as the case with many pathological gamblers. However, given the lack of studies designed to infer causality, we find it difficult to readily assume the converse - that these diverse dysfunctional behaviors lead to common frontal dysregulation or any cortical atrophy worthy of mention.

Sound familiar?

-----------------------------

With a lack of direct causative studies showing a link between pornography and any sort of crime (or at least any that we can dig up right now), a person would be remiss to ignore anecdotal evidence. Now, there has been a knee-jerk reaction to ignore everything that looks like it might come from a biased source, i.e. religious organizations. While I agree that scholarly debate requires scholarly evidence, that's not the nature of the topic: after all, school and student body administrations must use heuristics to make decisions. With that in mind, it would be foolish to ignore the arguments and evidence brought forth by so called "religious organizations" just because of a perceived moral bias.

You mean biases like "porn is wrong because it is immoral". Yes, those are exactly the kind of biases that must be ignored when trying to reach any sort of objective decision making. Many such organizations are also similarly opposed to contraception, and you can't expect a group trying to come to an objective decision about the effects of contraception to weigh that prohibition as if it were meaningful evidence of anything.

Sure, church groups might have LOADS of relevant cases where they've counseled people with "pornography addictions" -- with a high likelihood of the incidents being people who consume pornography without medical addiction (or even secular social repercussion) that are mislabeled because the religion has a zero tolerance position. All this shows is that the church is trying to "help" people with a "problem" that the church itself has defined as a problem. Vehement, frequent or numerous reactions to long-established assumptions are only evidence that the long-established assumption has been long established.

This is why medical research exists: To identify things that are actually problems.

[Xeio]

Or does someone wish to dispute what the anecdotal evidence offers? Personally, I tried to provide anecdotal evidence that was simultaneously scholarly, and it doesn't sound like the topic is being contested. Viewed in this light, it seems a valid argument to propose that the burden of proof lies before those who wish to argue that porn (even a particular sub-genre) has no negative consequences distinguishable from those of other tolerated activities.

You're ignoring that these are the same people who would have decried interracial marriages contributing to the moral decay of america years ago, or homosexual marriages today. Clearly they provide just as many bullshit anecdotes as they do valid ones, so you're assuming we should just 'trust' them that they're right about this one?

[morriswalters]

Ben-oni be assured there is no data either pro or con. The links I posted were about the lack of data. They proved nothing. I take my position because of the way I feel about it, based on my experiences. Since there is no data that's all I have to go on. Contrary to positions presented here. I have no legislative agenda just opinions. With billions at stake and given the technical issues it is going to remain that way.

[Tinman42]

What do you think about the numbers showing that since porn became mainstream rape and sexual assault has decreased by 85%?

Completely meaningless one way or the other. Hasn't that already been explained?

Some colleges have dress codes and what not. I think it's well within the right of the school to disallow certain student events. However, in this case, it would be a clear reversal of a situation already made, and I think they would need a compelling reason. So long as the event is not watching a film of rape (and as an aside your attitude about rape is part of what made me feel against the event - you didn't seem to take it seriously or have anything close to the correct definition), I don't see a compelling enough reason to stop allowing it. Unless there is something I don't know about. Perhaps that college has more instances of sexual assault around the time of the porno?

I am not certain when this was discussed, but my point here was to present this similarly to the way that Azreal suggested I represent the other references to the porn and sexual assault correlation (I guess that there really isn't one). I think the overall drop in rape/sexual assault is a different enough statistic that it should be mentioned along with the other statistics.

As far as my attitude towards and definition of rape, I am not sure what you are referring to.

Was it when I said "technically rape?" I did not mean this to come across as, "well, its TECHNICALLY rape, but it's not REALLY rape." I meant this to be informative and probably should have said something like "She claimed that she was forced into making the film by her husband, which, for those of you who don't know, is rape." That being said, I think, that if what Linda (the woman in the film) said happened, actually happened, that it is just as evil as any other form of rape. I also believe rape in general to be despicable. The only point I was trying to make was, that in regards to this particular film, rape was never proven. I am not saying it didn't happen or that it did happen, but there are witnesses other then the woman involved that claimed that she was not being truthful. I had not planned on mentioning this during the arguments with my student government at all because I realize how people could take offence to this.

I realize that people are probably going to respond to that as me being sexist and/or chauvinistic but I said that only based on outcome of the court case, not based on personal opinion (my personal opinion is that she probably was forced into a lot of stuff she didn't want to do, and that her husband should have been arrested and convicted).

[Azrael]

Ben-oni be assured there is no data either pro or con. The links I posted were about the lack of data... Contrary to positions presented here.

You're going to try to pretend that your position is novel? The thread has been challenging Tinman's (and then Ben-oni's) completely flawed use of data from the outset.

Ben wasn't after your assurances that there is no data: He was trying to show that there is data.

What do you think about the numbers showing that since porn became mainstream rape and sexual assault has decreased by 85%?

Completely meaningless one way or the other. Hasn't that already been explained?

I am not certain when this was discussed, but my point here was to present this similarly to the way that Azreal suggested I represent the other references to the porn and sexual assault correlation (I guess that there really isn't one). I think the overall drop in rape/sexual assault is a different enough statistic that it should be mentioned along with the other statistics.

Yes, we covered this. Just because two nation-wide statistics changed starting at the same time does not mean the changes are related. Especially not when more detailed information (i.e. the comparisons at the state level) explicitly disprove the notion.

Worse still, the 85% reduction was between 1973 and 2003 (Damato). So what's your "mainstream" threshold? He was trying to make point about the internet (1993) which is especially difficult given the window.

[Tinman42]

What do you think about the numbers showing that since porn became mainstream rape and sexual assault has decreased by 85%?

Completely meaningless one way or the other. Hasn't that already been explained?

I am not certain when this was discussed, but my point here was to present this similarly to the way that Azreal suggested I represent the other references to the porn and sexual assault correlation (I guess that there really isn't one). I think the overall drop in rape/sexual assault is a different enough statistic that it should be mentioned along with the other statistics.

Yes, we covered this. Just because two nation-wide statistics changed starting at the same time does not mean the changes are related. Especially not when more detailed information (i.e. the comparisons at the state level) explicitly disprove the notion.

Worse still, the 85% reduction was between 1973 and 2003 (Damato). So what's your "mainstream" threshold? He was trying to make point about the internet (1993) which is especially difficult given the window.

"Deep Throat" premiered in 1972 and was the first mainstream porn film, it lead the way for the acceptance of pornography we have now. That would line up with the drop starting in 1973. However, I simply meant to use this like "Porn became mainstream in 1972/1973, which is around the same time rape and sexual assault started to drop, again, showing that porn does not increase sexual assault." I had not planned on saying "When porn got popular, rape decreased, so porn = less rape." You have already shown me how that is wrong, I don't plan on trying to bring that point back up.

[Azrael]

However, I simply meant to use this like "Porn became mainstream in 1972/1973, which is around the same time rape and sexual assault started to drop, again, showing that porn does not increase sexual assault."

Go look at the trend data again:

If you look at a window between 1973 and 2003, there is a drop. But there is no drop starting in 1973.

Those are two very different statements.

[Tinman42]

You are correct, the data shows the decrease start in 1974, but I think a delay would be expected. Along with that, there is this study

According to the ABS data, between 1995 and 2005, there was a drop from 0.6 per cent to 0.3 per cent of persons aged 18 years and over who were victims of at least one sexual assault. That is a 50 per cent reduction.

that lines up with the internet. Again however, I would not use this data to show that porn causes a decrease in rape, simply that it does not cause an increase.

Also, what about mentioning what the doctor stated?

Professor D’amato suggests there are two predominant reasons why an increase in the availability of pornography has led to a reduction in rape. First, using pornographic material provides an easy avenue for the sexually desirous to “get it out of their system”.

Second, D’amato points to the so-called “Victorian effect”. This dates back to the old Victorian era where people covered up their bodies with an immense amount of clothing, generating a greater mystery as to what they looked like naked. D’amato suggests that the free availability of pornography since the 1970s, and the recent bombardment of internet pornography, has de-mystified sex, thus satisfying the sexually curious.

You may well ask while this positive correlation between an increase in pornography (specifically internet pornography) and a reduction in rape has been demonstrated in the United States, do the statistics in Australia present a similar positive correlation? They certainly do.

I realize that what he is saying goes against what you have said the statistics show, but being able to quote a doctor, and the man that did the research seems valid.

[Azrael]

You are correct, the data shows the decrease start in 1974, but I think a delay would be expected.

Man, stop trying so hard. No, the data doesn't show a drop starting in 1974. While there is a lot of subjectivity in trending data like this, you're looking at 1980 (if not 1984) before you see a trend downward. And the huge slide? Started before widespread web access in 1993.

I told you pages ago that the data contradicts a "more porn = more rape" conclusion. But you're still not getting the analysis (or the 2nd order bits) right.

"You may well ask while this positive correlation between an increase in pornography (specifically internet pornography) and a reduction in rape has been demonstrated in the United States, do the statistics in Australia present a similar positive correlation? They certainly do."

We've covered this. This correlation is only there if you ignore the granular data that contradicts the premise. Lots of states had increases in rape incidence, despite the increase in internet access. Damato is full of shit.

You want to tie anything into porn? Find the 1945-1973 data. Show that the 1973-2003 actually demonstrates a meaningful selection window.

[krogoth]

Another problem for many of the surveys that they couldn't find a control group wasn't it?

http://gawker.com/5420211/scientist-tries-to-find-man-who-has-never-watched-porn-cant

As well as Azrael's arguments against that data, isn't there also the issue of [apparent correlation does not equal cause]

[LaserGuy]

You are correct, the data shows the decrease start in 1974, but I think a delay would be expected. Along with that, there is this study

According to the ABS data, between 1995 and 2005, there was a drop from 0.6 per cent to 0.3 per cent of persons aged 18 years and over who were victims of at least one sexual assault. That is a 50 per cent reduction.

that lines up with the internet. Again however, I would not use this data to show that porn causes a decrease in rape, simply that it does not cause an increase.

Also, what about mentioning what the doctor stated?

Are these studies corrected for population? Because certain demographic age groups are more likely to commit certain types of crimes than others. For example, 55% of rapes are apparently committed by people aged 18-29. So, if the percentage of the population were decreasing relative to the size of the overall population, then we would expect the number of rapes to go down independently of other variables. Naively, then, we'd expect that the number of rapes as a percentage of the population to be fairly high around the year 1975 (roughly 20 years after the peak of the baby boom) and to steadily decrease as the baby boomers get older, and continue to decrease due to lower birthrates of subsequent generations.

[Tinman42]

You are correct, the data shows the decrease start in 1974, but I think a delay would be expected.

Man, stop trying so hard. No, the data doesn't show a drop starting in 1974. While there is a lot of subjectivity in trending data like this, you're looking at 1980 (if not 1984) before you see a trend downward. And the huge slide? Started before widespread web access in 1993.

I told you pages ago that the data contradicts a "more porn = more rape" conclusion. But you're still not getting the analysis (or the 2nd order bits) right.

"You may well ask while this positive correlation between an increase in pornography (specifically internet pornography) and a reduction in rape has been demonstrated in the United States, do the statistics in Australia present a similar positive correlation? They certainly do."

We've covered this. This correlation is only there if you ignore the granular data that contradicts the premise. Lots of states had increases in rape incidence, despite the increase in internet access. Damato is full of shit.

You want to tie anything into porn? Find the 1945-1973 data. Show that the 1973-2003 actually demonstrates a meaningful selection window.

I can't find any data before the 1960's unfortunately. That data shows a pretty steady incline from year to year though.

I understand the statistics and what they represent. When I claimed that "a delay would be expected" I was defending a point I don't even believe because I felt like that was what was being attacked, even though that's not what I said. Either way, my overall understanding of it, and my main point now is:

According to statistics, since porn became mainstream there has been an overall drop in sexual assault cases, proving that there is no positive correlation between porn and sexual assault.

I never intended to bring when the decline started into light. Truth be told, the exact start date seems irrelevant, I used 1973/4 as a general reference point, not as the official beginning of the decline.

Also, while I understand that you disagree with the doctors presumptions, do you really think it would be a bad Idea to say "Doctor so-and-so said porn probably leads to less rape because of (insert doctors quotes here)." The point of quoting the doctor would be to show that an expert on the matter had views that support my case. They could refute the doctors findings on their own, but who are they (have done no studies of their own, are not professionals) to argue with a doctors hypothesis. The other argument is that they could quote a doctor of their own, but that wouldn't disprove "my doctor," it would simply bring another point of view into the light, which they could do regardless of whether or not I quote anyone.

Isn't this a similar tactic used in court cases? They have "experts" say what they think. The lawyers and the other witnesses can't really try to disprove them because they are not experts in that field? Again, I realize that his hypothesis may be wrong and is not necessarily supported by the data, but I don't think it would hurt to quote him (unless I find out he has some super shady background).

[Azrael]

Also, while I understand that you disagree with the doctors presumptions, do you really think it would be a bad Idea to say "Doctor so-and-so said porn probably leads to less rape because of (insert doctors quotes here)." The point of quoting the doctor would be to show that an expert on the matter had views that support my case. They could refute the doctors findings on their own, but who are they (have done no studies of their own, are not professionals) to argue with a doctors hypothesis. The other argument is that they could quote a doctor of their own, but that wouldn't disprove "my doctor," it would simply bring another point of view into the light, which they could do regardless of whether or not I quote anyone.

Isn't this a similar tactic used in court cases? They have "experts" say what they think. The lawyers and the other witnesses can't really try to disprove them because they are not experts in that field? Again, I realize that his hypothesis may be wrong and is not necessarily supported by the data, but I don't think it would hurt to quote him (unless I find out he has some super shady background).

Damato isn't an expert in the field. He's a law professor who wrote a paper.

Also, you're making a classic appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Just because Damato might be (he isn't) an expert in the field does not mean his hypothesis can't be questioned. And in this case, the questioning is clear and straightforward. Even expert witness undergo cross examination.

[morriswalters]

Interesting thing of note. After causing so much grief about this topic I kept looking at the statistics and found an interesting, I'll call it a correlation. Rape according to the FBI's crime data base increased until 1994 at which time it went into decline. Oddly enough so did the rest of the crimes reported by the database including murder. This is my data. After thinking about this for a while I looked at the degree of internet usage, one such source being the Wikipedia entry here. As well as this. I conclude from this that so much time is spent using the internet that there is a reduced amount of time to commit any type of crime. Just kidding. However the data matches pretty well. Just to be clear I am making no claims of any sort.

[Роберт]

Interesting thing of note. After causing so much grief about this topic I kept looking at the statistics and found an interesting, I'll call it a correlation. Rape according to the FBI's crime data base increased until 1994 at which time it went into decline. Oddly enough so did the rest of the crimes reported by the database including murder. This is my data. After thinking about this for a while I looked at the degree of internet usage, one such source being the Wikipedia entry here. As well as this. I conclude from this that so much time is spent using the internet that there is a reduced amount of time to commit any type of crime. Just kidding. However the data matches pretty well. Just to be clear I am making no claims of any sort.

I could go rob somebody. Or just look at some pictures of cats. Hee hee they're so cute. LOL, it DOES like like he's riding an invisible bike.

EDIT: This may be morriswaters point, and if so I agree with him. Using the internet availability as a proxy for porn availability would be a terrible idea and completely undermines any arguments you might have, because there's so much more to the internet, regardless of the jokes.

[HungryHobo]

honestly I wouldn't consider internet access to be the best proxy as it could also indicate that access to the the craigslist (or similar) casualencounters section has such an effect.

Are there any datasets for communities or countries where pornography has actually been legalised or made illegal?

[morriswalters]

Even though I belittled the point, crime takes time. Knowing the involved demographics could clear the picture. How much time is spent on the internet doing anything, in the demographics responsible for crime. But I don't know enough about statistics to say much more. The point, what little of it there is, is that it introduces noise burying the effect your looking for.

[Azrael]

Interesting thing of note. After causing so much grief about this topic I kept looking at the statistics and found an interesting, I'll call it a correlation. Rape according to the FBI's crime data base increased until 1994 at which time it went into decline. Oddly enough so did the rest of the crimes reported by the database including murder. This is my data.

Spiffy.

That trend utterly destroys the "internet ~ less rape" correlation, unless one is actually willing to hypothesis that the internet is also the causative factor in a decrease of all major crime categories.

Furthermore, if you'll pardon my terribly sloppy excel chart (data):

Note that murder and rape were moved to the right-hand axis for scaling purposes. Trend-wise, the internet *also* cured larceny.

[HungryHobo]

It actually wouldn't be that crazy to hypothesize that more teens and young adults sitting inside using the net (for anything) means less teens and young adults outside committing crimes.

again though, tough one to prove.

[Azrael]

What is it about the internet, though? Plus, we're talking about a sudden drop in 1992 -- the web had jack shit back then. Plus, cultural penetration and social lag has to be accounted for. Wouldn't the TV have provided the same 'idle minds' distraction?

[HungryHobo]

Looks more like 93 or 94 to me but odder things have happened.

Could be the kids who watched robocop around about age 5-10 were just reaching the teenage years

[Azrael]

Look at the peak of the raw data -- 1992.

[morriswalters]

The computer infrastructure had to built up first, look at video games as a possible trend starter with the interactive internet completing the trend.

[Tinman42]

Damato isn't an expert in the field. He's a law professor who wrote a paper.

Also, you're making a classic appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Just because Damato might be (he isn't) an expert in the field does not mean his hypothesis can't be questioned. And in this case, the questioning is clear and straightforward. Even expert witness undergo cross examination.

As far as the cross examination is concerned, I thought that since he couldn't undergo cross examination (he isn't actually there) that it would be a safe bet. But now, after understanding that he is not a professional (Thank you for that) I will probably not bring it up.

[Azrael]

The computer infrastructure had to built up first, look at video games as a possible trend starter with the interactive internet completing the trend.

The derivative of those curves in the years preceding the peak aren't indicative of that sort of lead in. And again, the watershed moment was before the internet was available. You guys are grabbing at straws.

Especially so, considering that there are loads of people who've been studying that decrease (example, another and one more). Funny that "the internet did it!" doesn't seem to cross any of those assessments.

[Tinman42]

Note that murder and rape were moved to the right-hand axis for scaling purposes. Trend-wise, the internet *also* cured larceny.

Amazon!

[morriswalters]

The computer infrastructure had to built up first, look at video games as a possible trend starter with the interactive internet completing the trend.

The derivative of those curves in the years preceding the peak aren't indicative of that sort of lead in. And again, the watershed moment was before the internet was available. You guys are grabbing at straws.

Especially so, considering that there are loads of people who've been studying that decrease (example, another and one more). Funny that "the internet did it!" doesn't seem to cross any of those assessments.

To be perfectly honest they didn't say much of anything, a little maybe it was this, maybe it was that , but gee we don't really know. And to be perfectly honest with their access it would seem that they could do just a wee better. However I don't seriously propose anything other than interesting fun correlations. But I'll quit after this because it's starting to wear a little thin. In the years leading up to 1992 here are some of the things that were happening. The Apple II is introduced in 1977. Cable TV gets CNN, MTV, and HBO in 81 and 82. The VCR is commercialized and gets cheap over this period. The PC is introduced in 1983. 1985 the NES is introduced. And in 1992 Castle Wolfenstein is released. Being the first game to require a Intel 286 processor, by the way, causing me to expend funds. Hopefully you see where this is going. Diversions with a capital D, leading up to the biggest capital D of all, the internet. My narrative is probably wrong but it is certainly better than, we locked up a lot of people up so there were fewer people to commit crimes, which was news to the Canadians since they are not quite as jail happy as we are.

[Azrael]

To be perfectly honest they didn't say much of anything, a little maybe it was this, maybe it was that , but gee we don't really know.

Really? You read them all? Because Item 11&12 of the second link specifically discusses (and disproves) any involvement of incarceration rates and increased policing, and then makes the case for demographic changes and economic prosperity. Heck, it even makes the point that the pre-1992 spike was just that -- an anomalous spike in urban gun violence. Congrats, you only read the intro.

Suggesting that those links didn't say much suggests that you didn't actually read (or even click) that far. But spend 30 seconds of your own on google and you'll find hundreds more scholarly papers. I dare you to find a single one that puts diversion (never mind specifically digital diversion you're proposing) anywhere in a causative chain.

In the years leading up to 1992 here are some of the things that were happening ...

... crime was rising. You can't make a case that all those preliminary digital steps were reducing crime when the rate of change (remember derivatives?) was constant and positive.

Unless you mean to suggest that none of the precursors had any effect whatsoever until a saturation value / tipping point was achieved in 1992, after which major change occurred. And, um, that's pretty much crap.

[morriswalters]

Actually they recap about 10 or so things depending on which scholarly paper you choose. I have one that uses the prison concept. One of yours mentioned the disparity in prison populations when compared against Canada, which I pointed out, and who are pretty much in lockstep with the US in this trend. The sum total of the information in all of them was zero. I loved the propaganda piece from the Justice Department. And unless you can quantify all of the possible masking effects then looking at the curves that you have don't really help. The prison population one arises from the fact that it shows a oppositional curve rising to a peak in 2000 where it flat lines(maybe) supposedly matching the trend. I suspect one of the things that causes the jitter in the curves for the data for which you posted the diagram of, is individual age groups moving along the curve. I saw some data on the demographic spread of crime but it was much too complex for making sense of here. In addition to everything else there is a large number of legal immigrants whose cultures vary over time so that you have those in the mix. Having said all that, the idea that technology is responsible for the drop in the crime rate probably is crap, if I was prepared to propose it seriously than I would write something and try to get it published, I have been known to do that. It generally causes amusing snickers and polite refusals, but I don't mind.

[HungryHobo]

Unless you mean to suggest that none of the precursors had any effect whatsoever until a saturation value / tipping point was achieved in 1992, after which major change occurred. And, um, that's pretty much crap.

Why would you need a saturation point?
If we, for example, blamed the NES then you wouldn't expect it to have any immediate effect: 5-10 year olds who stay inside instead of out on the streets, who get interested in games rather than gangs wouldn't show up as much of an effect on crime until years later.

You'd expect to see nothing for a while, then a drop in petty or more minor crimes committed by young teens first then a dropoff in more serious crimes committed by older teens and young adults.

Is there any data on what age groups were committing what crimes the most at different times?

(actually if there are such stats theyed be quite interesting to see)

[morriswalters]

This is at least one set. This is for one year only. There is another that I can't find right now.

Back on the OP for a brief moment, here is a story about a sister school, the story is interesting only in its timing related to this thread.

[Azrael]

If we, for example, blamed the NES then you wouldn't expect it to have any immediate effect: 5-10 year olds who stay inside instead of out on the streets, who get interested in games rather than gangs wouldn't show up as much of an effect on crime until years later.

I assume this is only an academic question about the tipping point? Because holy shit, I may just punch babies if anyone is still trying to point to digital distraction as a massive reduction in overall crime.

Unless there were incredibly sharp delineations in the age of participation, I'd expect the transition point for that scenario to have a flat (or flatter) peak roughly the width of the age group.

[HungryHobo]

purely academic, when there's no good explanation there's nothing wrong with throwing out guesses then figuring out exactly why they're wrong.

Got anthing which corelates well with the 1980's drop in less serious crime and the early 90's drop in more serious?

holy shit, I may just punch babies if anyone is still trying to point to digital distraction as a massive reduction in overall crime.

here's no need to get worked up, people are just playing with an idea.