Onlyfans banning pornography (Update: OF reverses decision.)

[Torillian]

Jaicee said:

Torillian said:

That is fantastic evidence for the fact that there's a link between child abuse and prostitution, but then you make a big ol' leap with no evidence that it'll just be the same for porn actors.

I am not willing to ignore the only study that we have because the second author is involved in the porn industry. Having written a number of scientific articles myself I know that the second author rarely has major input on the writing of the article or design of the scientific study and I would take a guess that this person is how they got access to the subjects given the survey and had little else to do with the study. I could be wrong but we're both just guessing at this point so we're kind of stuck. 

I don't understand what you mean by "broadly considered incredulous among experts" and then you send me to a blog post with some commenters talking about how they don't trust the study. Am I to understand that lindsay beyerstein, a Canadian journalist that I can't find any indication of having any training in sociology studies, is an expert? Most of the other commenters aren't even kind enough to provide their full names so they're as much experts as youtube commenters in my eyes. What are we qualifying as experts here? I have seen studies where experts disagree, and it's done in letters to the journal or subsequent studies, not comments on a blog. 

The 2012 study would indicate there's no difference between the control group and the porn actor group because when they were asked the same question they answered in statistically indistinguishable ways. You can't take the 36% and compare it to the overall number for the entire population when you only survey 177 people, that is why there's a control group included, to determine if there is a difference between those that are porn actors and those that aren't.  

I don't know, it seems like you're telling me what I can and cannot use the survey data as a comparison to. A survey of 177 porn performers is valid in as far it indicates women in pornography are less often molestation survivors than prostitutes, but invalid in as far as it indicates they're also more often molestation survivors than women overall are. It seems as though you're just arbitrarily cherry-picking where the data here is applicable and isn't in such a way as to fulfill a predetermined, self-serving narrative. I'm pointing to a clear connection between childhood abuse and sex commodification and it seems like you're just trying to find any way you possibly can of weaseling around it.

What I'm telling you is that the study of 177 porn performers in question highlights the MINIMUM rate of childhood sexual abuse among them, not the maximum plausible, and that even this minimal estimate is extraordinary. This is the point.

The issue is what the study was designed to look at. This was not a representative sample designed to arrive at an absolute % of porn actors who were molested over the entire country. It would have too many issues such as only getting respondents from a single geographical area. You could state that this is representative of the city the survey was done in but you would only be able to compare that to other data about that city. Even if you did that you would still have to concern yourself with the wording of the survey itself and any other factors that may differentiate it from the survey you are trying to compare its results to.

What the study was designed to do, however, is to try and tell the difference between two groups (porn actor vs "civilian") which takes away almost all of these issues because your experimental and your control groups are subjected to the same conditions. 

To me this is a question about math and science, I honestly could have accepted your claim originally but I googled it and this is the only study I found and it went against your claim. You can think that I'm trying to weasel around something if you want, but the only study we have on this is on my side so I'm comfortable in my stance here. 

The issues you are stating with underreporting should affect the control group in the same way so I wouldn't be overly concerned about it affecting the analysis of this study. 

If you want to improve your case I would suggest trying to find proof that a large percentage of porn actors are prostitutes. I tried to find something on that after you made the claim but didn't have any luck. If you could find that you might have an argument for applying all those studies on prostitutes to porn actors. Unsure what percentage it would have to be for it to affect the data meaningfully, I'd have to think about that, but based on a guesstimate I'd think 20% or more would be a significant amount.