"rethinking Mormons And Porn"

[frank_jessop]

I found this in a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

It exposes another case of bad or dubious statistics being used to defame Utah and Mormonism, in this case on the topic of porn consumption.

Speaking of "bad or dubious" The "rethinking blog" is not published, does not show methodologies, is about page views of a single website, and refers to timesandseasons and mormonmatters.org as "major blogs".

The 2009 paper is published and the methodologies are shown and is about subscriptions.

[why me]

You obviously did not read the 2009 article. The article said nothing about Mormons watching porn!

It simply showed Utah viewing was high.

It was other people making claims the article never made linking this to Mormonism.

However, the critics claim that it is the Mormons who are viewing porn because the church teaches sexual repression and because of this, Mormons view porn on the internet. The critics glorify in the high porn numbers as an embarrassment to the lds church and the hypocrisy of Mormons.

It has become a standard bean bag directed at the lds church.

[why me]

"In fairness, we cannot be sure that---users are representative of the industry overall."

 

Both sides see what they want to see. That's pretty much what I am saying.

I am not sure that we should have the address on this site. But it is the site where the media goes to to see just what direction ´porn is taken and who is watching it. However the point is rather simple: we can never know if active members are watching porn or if it is being more watched by nonmormons and inactive Mormons. Also, since it is hard to get porn in Utah outside the internet, it just may be more of a standard way to view it

[Bikeemikey]

However, the critics claim that it is the Mormons who are viewing porn because the church teaches sexual repression and because of this, Mormons view porn on the internet. The critics glorify in the high porn numbers as an embarrassment to the lds church and the hypocrisy of Mormons.

It has become a standard bean bag directed at the lds church.

Which has nothing to do with the quality of the 2009 article or the accuracy of the information contained there in.

[BlueDreams]

"In fairness, we cannot be sure that Pornhub.com users are representative of the industry overall."

 

Both sides see what they want to see. That's pretty much what I am saying.

 

Yes, people see what they want to see and I'm sure people will use it inappropriately, expanding it further than it actually goes. Including with this analysis.....but this analysis was specifically trying to get correlation between mormon population and porn use....not simply using a state to represent a population.That was the whole point...to take a crack at the over-application of previous data to see if the ideas actually fit from a different approach at another analysis. It didn't hold. So yeah, an aritcle could state that this at least attempts to reflect mormons....because it actually did attempt that. That was my point.

 

 

 

 With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, people see what they want to see and I'm sure people will use it inappropriately, expanding it further than it actually goes. Including with this analysis.....but this analysis was specifically trying to get correlation between mormon population and porn use....not simply using a state to represent a population.That was the whole point...to take a crack at the over-application of previous data to see if the ideas actually fit from a different approach at another analysis. It didn't hold. So yeah, an aritcle could state that this at least attempts to reflect mormons....because it actually did attempt that. That was my point.

With luv,

BD

Sure. But it can not be statistically significant and the results of the analysis will not be considered accurate because the sample is too small.

[canard78]

I found this in a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

It exposes another case of bad or dubious statistics being used to defame Utah and Mormonism, in this case on the topic of porn consumption.

 

Turns out that the instance in Utah is very probably not nearly as bad as earlier thought, notwithstanding the ruminations of Joanna Brooks and other bloggers. In fact, these new numbers point to an opposite conclusion from the earlier study: that Utah and other states with large percentages of Mormons have abnormally low rates of porn use.

 

Couple of concerns with this new study:

 

- The data is based on a per capita index. That means that states with more under 12s will have an artificially lower index. The 2009 study (though also flawed) at least reported based on 'per 1000 households with broadband.' This would remove the 'big family' effect. Utah has the highest birthrate in USA.

 

- The source of this study is a "hardcore" website. It's an extreme end of the scale to take a sampling from. A while ago I ran an analysis on google insights and Utah over-indexed on softer search terms vs harder search terms. It's possible that there are more filters being applied in Mormon homes to "hardcore" websites which would block the website in this new study completely while still being able to find other content.

 

This study shows that Utah has a low index of visitors to that specific website. The 2009 source was from a single company that operated a wide range of websites.

 

I'm not saying the new study is invalid and I'm not saying the 2009 is entirely valid. They both have their own flaws. The new study however made a big error by indexing vs per capita. It may be that the index is still low when run on 'per 1000 households with broadband' - but I'd like to see that one.

 

The 2009 study for reference: http://www.people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

[BlueDreams]

Just an FYI... The top 500 porn sites only have about 56% of online porn viewing activity (compared with the top 500 retail sites controlling about 78% of online retail). This is from the 2009 study.

Each major provider controls many many porn viewing websites.

Activity from one porn website is good if I was wanting to advertise to subscribers of that website but statistically meaningless for anything else.

To make claims about mormon porn viewing activity makes us on par with those who made claims about mormon porn viewing activity when the 2009 report came out...

We would be making stuff up.

 

Thanks for the FYI. I'm not saying that the analysis doesn't have limitations. But I don't think this analysis is really going after the article, rather the use of this article to bolster the idea that mormons have a major porn problem...or use porn exponentially more than the rest of the U.S. population. And I would agree that this would be a far stronger analysis if it used multiple reports/data sets from multiple sources/websites. But I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it's completely statistically meaningless/useless. People use studies with obvious demographic problems all the time as probably still useful in painting an idea about society (for example most of the studies I've had to read for my thesis/other research paper have a similar problem of homogeneous demographics: white, young, college students). And unless there's a really obvious bias to why a mormon population or areas with high mormon pops may be far less likely to use this site over another (such as the bible reader survey using a specific website), then it may have skews but there's still a good likelihood that it's fairly representative of the number of porn-users. 

 

For it's intended goal: throwing into question the use of the initial study in making/bolstering various points about LDS and sexuality. In that limited goal, I think the study does pretty well in indicating that there is definite need for more research into porn-use in the LDS community compared to the overall population. I'll be the very first to say there are problems in the LDS community in a wide array of areas pertaining to sex. There's also a number of strengths, IMO. 

 

Also all correlative studies/surveys, by nature, are speculative. Any social-science fields are speculative by nature. It entails humans finding interest in a topic, developing a study that (they hope) hold as many variable as they can, and they then interpret the result to have any semblance of meaning. When all it is, is interesting correlations when holding for a,b, and c in a given sampling demographic.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited April 19, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

For it's intended goal: throwing into question the use of the initial study in making/bolstering various points about LDS and sexuality. In that limited goal, I think the study does pretty well in indicating that there is definite need for more research into porn-use in the LDS community compared to the overall population.

 

This.

[The Nehor]

Didn't read the whole thread. Am I allowed to star in porn films now or do I have to stick to being an extra?

[BlueDreams]

Couple of concerns with this new study:

 

- The data is based on a per capita index. That means that states with more under 12s will have an artificially lower index. The 2009 study (though also flawed) at least reported based on 'per 1000 households with broadband.' This would remove the 'big family' effect. Utah has the highest birthrate in USA.

 

- The source of this study is a "hardcore" website. It's an extreme end of the scale to take a sampling from. A while ago I ran an analysis on google insights and Utah over-indexed on softer search terms vs harder search terms. It's possible that there are more filters being applied in Mormon homes to "hardcore" websites which would block the website in this new study completely while still being able to find other content.

 

Thanks, these 2 limitations are very helpful to note. 

 

Gosh, I hate statistics. 

 

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

In follow-up to previous, I'm not saying there's a direct declining relationship between birthrate and usage.

 

I ran this and there's clearly states with both a high birthrate and a high usage index. But it would still be useful to iron out the birthrate from the results.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks for the FYI. I'm not saying that the analysis doesn't have limitations. But I don't think this analysis is really going after the article, rather the use of this article to bolster the idea that mormons have a major porn problem...or use porn exponentially more than the rest of the U.S. population.

Given that the 2009 article stated very clearly that there was limited variance in porn use when comparing religious with non-religious (other than the day, Christians dont watch porn on Sundays) there is no need for a "new" analysis in order to rebut the assertion that the 2009 article showed higher porn use amongst mormons. The 2009 report did not show this and those who claimed it did were simply bad at statistics.

And I would agree that this would be a far stronger analysis if it used multiple reports/data sets from multiple sources/websites. But I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it's completely statistically meaningless/useless. People use studies with obvious demographic problems all the time as probably still useful in painting an idea about society (for example most of the studies I've had to read for my thesis/other research paper have a similar problem of homogeneous demographics: white, young, college students). And unless there's a really obvious bias to why a mormon population or areas with high mormon pops may be far less likely to use this site over another (such as the bible reader survey using a specific website), then it may have skews but there's still a good likelihood that it's fairly representative of the number of porn-users.

There are a number of reasons as to why this data will not be statistically significant. First, no one Porn site dominates traffic. Porn viewing trends are highly diverse, again based on the 2009 study. It also appears that the 2009 study was provided data from one porn provider (not simply one website) and each content provider tends to run many many many websites, thereby providing broader sampling criteria. No one website will be able to provide a viable sample size, thereby rendering it statistically useless if you wish to make generalizations in consumption beyond the site. (By the way, the same issue is likely applicable to the 2009 study, though as the data source is not known it is hard to say for sure.) The biggest generalization we could draw is that Mormons are less likely to watch porn on the specific website the 2014 data refers to. However, as this is not even 1% of totally avaliable porn it would be impossible to suggest that this was true of other sites.

As has already been raised, it may be a content issue (hard vs soft).

It may also be a marketing issue. Info I can find states this website is newer and Mormons may have been early adopters and therefore already formed solid web affiliations before this one came around. (Eg. all the mormons are busy watching porn on the website that provided data for 2009 study and are therefore to busy to watch on this site also, hence to low correlation in Utah specifically and in Mormon communities specifically.

Just two obvious and simple answers.

Also all correlative studies/surveys, by nature, are speculative. Any social-science fields are speculative by nature. It entails humans finding interest in a topic, developing a study that (they hope) hold as many variable as they can, and they then interpret the result to have any semblance of meaning. When all it is, is interesting correlations when holding for a,b, and c in a given sampling demographic.

With luv,

BD

Yes they are speculative but that does not mean we should exploit that reality to push the notion of speculative into the realm of illusory. Edited April 19, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

In follow-up to previous, I'm not saying there's a direct declining relationship between birthrate and usage.

I ran this and there's clearly states with both a high birthrate and a high usage index. But it would still be useful to iron out the birthrate from the results.

Was the usage from the 2009 or 2014 data?

Could you whip one of these up for both?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Mormons can't have sex before marriage so I definitely believe Utah has a huge porn problem.

[BlueDreams]

And to note....I hate statistics because they are just that malleable and yet most people who end up picking up the generalized results miss that. We view a new study as an end-all-be-all a lot in our society when really is just gives a different way to look at topics of interests....ways that that usually multiple studies are needed to give a "fuller" picture. Though that picture is often still incomplete.

 

And I also hate it on principle of having to use it regularly. Ugh....regressions and strange numerical formats on SPSS and study runs of data that will be ripped apart and reshaped and relooked at over and over again at a million different angles.

 

And I'd hate it less if it wasn't for the problem that stats give this since of authority to an idea....like having knowledge bestowed when they're just limited numbers to the scope it runs based heavily on the assumption made by the people running it.

 

Oh stats...and yet I'm always intrigued when another study pops up, giving potential new insights to a social question.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited April 19, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Bikeemikey]

Mormons can't have sex before marriage so I definitely believe Utah has a huge porn problem.

Great... shame that you belief is not a statistically reliable metric.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mormons can't have sex before marriage so I definitely believe Utah has a huge porn problem.

This presupposes that Church members -- and others for that matter -- are incapable of deferring sexual gratification and controlling urges until after marriage.

That's not only fallacious but one of the most pernicious lies of our age.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Was the usage from the 2009 or 2014 data?

Could you whip one of these up for both?

 

Usage is the 2014 data. I can do one for 2009 if someone has a full list. It seems a little redundant given the 2009 study was based on household and not per capita. The cross-plot was designed to look at the effect of going per capita.

[Bikeemikey]

Usage is the 2014 data. I can do one for 2009 if someone has a full list. It seems a little redundant given the 2009 study was based on household and not per capita. The cross-plot was designed to look at the effect of going per capita.

Too true!

[BlueDreams]

Given that the 2009 article stated very clearly that there was limited variance in porn use when comparing religious with non-religious (other than the day, Christians dont watch porn on Sundays) there is no need for a "new" analysis in order to rebut the assertion that the 2009 article showed higher porn use amongst mormons. The 2009 report did not show this and those who claimed it did were simply bad at statistics.

 

I think there is. Yes, those who've purported this are bad at stats. But it's an idea that stuck and built up a life of its own. In order to really answer the inferred question that these ideas run on, I do think it would take more statistical research that is more nuanced than the 2009 study. This analysis (2014) definitely has areas that could make it stronger and publishable. But the initial results indicate that it could actually be worthwhile to do so in the first place.

 

With luv,

BD

[Bikeemikey]

I think there is. Yes, those who've purported this are bad at stats. But it's an idea that stuck and built up a life of its own. In order to really answer the inferred question that these ideas run on, I do think it would take more statistical research that is more nuanced than the 2009 study. This analysis (2014) definitely has areas that could make it stronger and publishable. But the initial results indicate that it could actually be worthwhile to do so in the first place.

With luv,

BD

Don't disagree with any of that. The initial results suggest that more work is needed... I'd be interested in seeing the results of a more comprehensive study.

Its a shame that there is a need to try to correct assumptions made by those uninformed in statistical analysis by providing them with more statistical analysis.

If they didn't get that religion has limited impact on porn usage it in a report that said, "religious belief has limited impact on porn usage" the first time I have limited hope in them getting it the second.

[webbles]

- The source of this study is a "hardcore" website. It's an extreme end of the scale to take a sampling from. A while ago I ran an analysis on google insights and Utah over-indexed on softer search terms vs harder search terms. It's possible that there are more filters being applied in Mormon homes to "hardcore" websites which would block the website in this new study completely while still being able to find other content.

It isn't a "hardcore" website. It is apparently very similar to youtube with user uploaded videos that range from soft to hard and it appears to be used as a portal to many sites that are both paid or free. It is also is one of the largest porn sites. So I would think that its sampling is fairly broad.

In addition, we have no idea if the 2009 study was "hardcore" or "softcore". Considering that they were paid websites, I would expect free/paid blocking services to block them.

[Kenngo1969]

And to note....I hate statistics because they are just that malleable and yet most people who end up picking up the generalized results miss that. We view a new study as an end-all-be-all a lot in our society when really is just gives a different way to look at topics of interests....ways that that usually multiple studies are needed to give a "fuller" picture. Though that picture is often still incomplete.

 

And I also hate it on principle of having to use it regularly. Ugh....regressions and strange numerical formats on SPSS and study runs of data that will be ripped apart and reshaped and relooked at over and over again at a million different angles.

 

And I'd hate it less if it wasn't for the problem that stats give this since of authority to an idea....like having knowledge bestowed when they're just limited numbers to the scope it runs based heavily on the assumption made by the people running it.

 

Oh stats...and yet I'm always intrigued when another study pops up, giving potential new insights to a social question.

 

With luv,

BD

Or, to be more succinct, whoever said it first had it exactly right when he said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!"

 

(Sorry; Couldn't resist!)

[SeekerB]

When the original porn story came out I didn't believe it then, either.  The one I'm referring to actually posted the top ten zip codes for porn in Utah.  I never saw any article about it that wasn't negative, implying Utah has a huge porn problem, so I actually looked up the zip codes.

 

My memory is a bit hazy about it, but the top zip code for porn was for a small town of 134 people.  The next one was for the University of Utah student housing, approx 18,000.  If you leave out the U, all the other zip codes had a combined population of about 1000, hardly a huge porn problem.  The study was bogus and contrived to make Utah look as bad as possible, but no one appeared to look into it, simply accepting the results as fact.