What a piece of crap. He runs roughshod over the distinction between correlation and causality. He draws conclusions that are not well supported by the data to which he refers. He completely neglects to address the issue of selection bias on his own part (why *these* particular three studies?). He doesn’t address the “social desirability” effect (people over- or understating their own opinions and behaviors to conform with social norms) which I guess would be considerable when the survey topic is sexuality. We don’t learn whether a subset of the samples were homo- or bisexual, which could have a considerable effect on the correlation between porn consumption and cross-gender attitudes.

And these are just the flaws that immediately sprung to mind; I’m sure I’d find more if I gave the post any more thought (which I don’t plan on doing). Its pretty sad that this is the work of a grad student and editor. Maybe his work on other topics is more thoughful – I certainly hope so – perhaps part of his brain shorts out only when the topic has to do with women or sexuality or porn (or some combo thereof).

No joke. As I wrote over there, comparing porn to shoes make sense if you don’t consider for a second that filming a crime against a woman constitutes an additional, ongoing crime against that woman, just like child pornography constitutes an additional crime against the raped child. This is exactly the way that a pair of shoes does not constitute an additional crime against a child.

Now, imagine if they were videotaping the children working, distributing those videos because people got off on the idea of children forced to make shoes. Then add that a huge fraction of the population had been forced to make shoes as children. Many of them had been videotaped making shoes. They’d been forced to pretend they liked making shoes.

And if their boss or political enemy or parents ever saw those videos, their reputations could be ruined at minimum. They could be labeled “shuts.” Children known for being shuts could be forced to make shoes and videotaped with impugnity. Everyone knows some children LIKE making shoes. My kid likes it so why can’t he get paid for it? He’s really good!

But oh no, porn is just like shoes. Right.

The other way these dudes are seriously confused, is they imagine (or expect us to believe they imagine) that most or all porn is performed by paid actors. They insist this despite the huge amount of “cam girl” porn, much of it of underaged, nonconsenting teen girls, that is available and advertised on so many non-porn related websites it makes me puke.

Many of these girls have been threatened physically if they don’t perform, sometimes even by people they’ve never even met, forced to strip in these videos, which are then labeled as ‘My stupid ex slut girlfriend shows her sweeeet a$$$$$’ and posted on ebaumsworld.

From Phil Bronstein, Executive Vice President and Horndog-at-Large, San Francisco Chronicle, a charming article called “BP — Beneficent Porn — Can Fix the Oil Spill Crisis. Who’s With Me?” I thought it was “Comedy” at first but no, he appears to be serious:

“adult business probably still out earns Yahoo, Apple, NetFlix, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and eBay combined. Every second they bring in anywhere from $38 to $3,000, depending on which research you read, and 28,258 users. Now that’s change that matters. And some great mobilization (among customers, not performers).”

(snipped)

“We need a Franklin Roosevelt, New Deal-style, bootstrapping Public Works Administration. Except it’s the Porn/Private Works Administration.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-bronstein/bp—beneficent-porn—ca_b_590966.html

You could be right though I suppose.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1137973

The article is jam-packed full of references and a discussion on sex trafficking and a whole handy-dandy section on “The Vulnerabiltity of Pornography Performers Aged 18 and Over.”

So that would get me off the hook right?

The only reason Jason took the “anecdotal” info out of his “article” was because he didn’t appreciate being called on his dipshittery, not because he wanted it to be free of editorializing.