Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!cbd
From: cbd@iham1.UUCP (deitrick)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Open Letter to Kenn Barry
Message-ID: <456@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 08:56:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.456
Posted: Tue Oct  1 08:56:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 03:54:41 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 59

>>Oh, and the Tobacco industry has maintained for years that no causal
>>relation between cigarrette smoking and lung cancer has ever been medically
>>demonstrated.  Sure, the sociological studies have only shown a high 
>>statistical correlation between pornography and rape in neighborhood-
>>by-neighborhood studies.
>
>the recurring porn discussion has always seemed starved for facts when
>relationships between porn and violence are asserted. Other than repeated
>
>>read, analyze and question.  It's not the sellers of porn
>>that are indirectly causing rape, it's the buyers who 
>>allow their values to be influenced by pornography.
>>
>>Anyone care to disagree?
>
>an earlier generation of feminists? The motives seem similar; the feminist
>argument against liquor was based on the role that liquor plays in such things
>as family violence, and violence against women, generally. The biggest
>difference I can see between the anti-porn and anti-liquor movements is that
>the temperance folk had a much solider case. The connection between excessive
>alcohol consumption and such crimes as rape and spousal abuse *does* seem
>obvious to me, while the connection between rape and porn does not.
>	Perhaps there is a point to be made here. Suppose someone *did*
>document a correlation between porn and sexual violence, similar to the
>obvious (to me, anyway) correlation between alcohol abuse and violence of all
>sorts. Would this be sufficient grounds for banning it? If so, should this
>logic be extended to alcohol?
>
>						Kenn Barry

The quoted article is based on the notion that "correlation" is the same as
"cause and effect". They're not. Correlation is an abstract mathematical
relationship that assesses the tendency of one measure to vary in concert
with another.  Nothing in the idea of correlation implies that one factor
causes the other. I can show a positve correlation between my age and the
number of computers in use in this country, but that doesn't mean that an
increase in my age *causes* an increase in the number of computers in this
country.

It is false reasoning to conclude that the supposed correlation between porno-
graphy and rape (I want to see the data before I remove the qualifier from
this statement) means that exposure to pornography causes a person to commit
rape. The more likely explanation for the (supposed) correlation is that
whatever personality flaw makes a person want to view pornography also makes
that person want to commit crimes of violence against women (I believe rape
is a crime of violence/domination, not a sexual outlet).

Similarly, whatever mind set disposes a person to alcohol abuse probably
disposes that same person to behavior more violent than that of the "average"
person. But, again, the (supposed) correlation between alcohol abuse and
increased violence cannot be taken to mean alcohol abuse *causes* increased
violence.

See Stephen Jay Gould's _The Mismeasure of Man_, pp. 239-243 for more
discussion of the mis-application of correlation.


					Carl Deitrick
					ihnp4!iham1!cbd


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com