cross-posted from: https://aussie.zone/post/36086049

Research that has analysed thousands of randomly chosen videos from popular pornographic websites found that physical aggression like strangulation, slapping and hair-pulling was present in 35-45% of scenes, depending on the website.

It’s important to be wary of clutching our pearls about porn here – there is no evidence to suggest that watching ethical porn results in an upswing in violent behaviour, but research released last year by the Australian Institute of Criminology does indeed show that more frequent intentional viewing of violent pornography is associated with a “small but statistically significant” increase in violence against women by men after they watched violent porn.

Couple this with the knowledge that one in three Australian children have seen online porn and that the average age of initial consumption of porn is 13 – and we can all feel a desperate kind of sorrow for adolescents navigating this world. Girls thinking this is what boys want, boys thinking that this is what girls want. The confusion, the painful wanting to be wanted, that perennial need to be thought of as cool that comes with teenagehood, all of it is now shadowed by the normalisation of something that is clearly dangerous – as any medical expert will tell you, there is no safe way to lose oxygen to the brain.

…I know from personal experience how hard it is to have the conversation about porn with young children. You look at your sweet prepubescent boy child and think he is definitely the only child on the planet not being exposed too early to things he definitely shouldn’t see. He is. They are. Not talking about it is no longer an option.

  • jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m sorry, but this sentence cracks me up:

    found that physical aggression like strangulation, slapping and hair-pulling was present in 35-45% of scenes, depending on the website.

    This sentence means nothing if it varies depending on the website. To show its prolific we’d need to know how frequently it appears across websites. Otherwise a single “bad” website out of millions would still make their statement technically correct.

    • eureka@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago
      1. I don’t think that’s what the statement means. I believe it’s saying the sites they surveyed each have between 35 and 45%. A “bad” site would be closer to 45% and a “better” site closer to 35%.

      2. Even if it were talking about a mean (average), it would take far more than a single site out of hundreds, let alone millions, to offset the average that far. The mean of [ 0 , 2 , 0 , 5 , 3 , 12 , 3 , 8 , 10, 4 , 7 , 4 , 5 , 3, 99 ] (one extreme out of fifteen) is only 11, not up in the 30s