>Isn't that a biased selection? It's a bit like finding that swimmers are more likely to drown or vice versa.
How is it a biased selection? Study 10-15 year olds, and ask about their porn use. Those who say they intentionally view violent materials are more likely to report aggressive behavior. True, this doesn't mean porn causes sexually aggressive behavior - but that's not the claim being made anyway.
>If you look up the first author on the study the first keyword that appears is "gender studies". All of this kind of stuff has to be looked at with extreme skepticism, especially when it's a politically charged topic.
I agree, and the field does have other problems too (in particular, the variation in how "pornography" is defined between studies) - but to call it BS science needs more than just an accusation. Homeopathy is BS, but that doesn't make the scientists criticizing it BS scientists, nor does it discount their research because the topic is politically charged. Malamuth, for instance, is a highly respected sociologist/psychologist. Either way, there's plenty of stuff out there for this, both "for" and "against". Open Google Scholar and do a search for "pornography and violence" or "pornography and attitudes on women", and select whatever date you want (after 2010, or after 2015, etc.)
It's important to remember that science does not prescribe "oughts", it just makes it harder for people who hold certain "oughts" to hold their views consistently.
How is it a biased selection? Study 10-15 year olds, and ask about their porn use. Those who say they intentionally view violent materials are more likely to report aggressive behavior. True, this doesn't mean porn causes sexually aggressive behavior - but that's not the claim being made anyway.
>If you look up the first author on the study the first keyword that appears is "gender studies". All of this kind of stuff has to be looked at with extreme skepticism, especially when it's a politically charged topic.
I agree, and the field does have other problems too (in particular, the variation in how "pornography" is defined between studies) - but to call it BS science needs more than just an accusation. Homeopathy is BS, but that doesn't make the scientists criticizing it BS scientists, nor does it discount their research because the topic is politically charged. Malamuth, for instance, is a highly respected sociologist/psychologist. Either way, there's plenty of stuff out there for this, both "for" and "against". Open Google Scholar and do a search for "pornography and violence" or "pornography and attitudes on women", and select whatever date you want (after 2010, or after 2015, etc.)
It's important to remember that science does not prescribe "oughts", it just makes it harder for people who hold certain "oughts" to hold their views consistently.