Mistaking thoughts and preferences for real actions

From The pleasure is momentary…the expense damnable? The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault by Christopher J. Ferguson and Richard D. Hartley.

From the Abstract:

The effects of pornography, whether violent or non-violent, on sexual aggression have been debated for decades. The current review examines evidence about the influence of pornography on sexual aggression in correlational and experimental studies and in real world violent crime data. Evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual aggression is slim and may, at certain times, have been exaggerated by politicians, pressure groups and some social scientists. Some of the debate has focused on violent pornography, but evidence of any negative effects is inconsistent, and violent pornography is comparatively rare in the real world. Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates. Data from other nations have suggested similar relationships. Although these data cannot be used to determine that pornography has a cathartic effect on rape behavior, combined with the weak evidence in support of negative causal hypotheses from the scientific literature, it is concluded that it is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behavior.

From 2009 but representative of the great balance of such research here and internationally.

The claim made in some third-wave feminist circles is that consumption of pornography reflects real world behaviors. In other words, if you enjoy pornography, you must therefore demonstrate objectifying, demeaning and potentially violent behavior towards women in real life.

From a pure logic basis, it is is appealingly plausible. It makes seductive sense.

The problem and challenge is that such an argument represents a real threat to human rights. If we presume that consumption of X (pornographic, violent, non-diverse, demeaning, etc.) materials such as books, films, discussion, painting, etc. leads to misogyny, violence, racism, demeaning behavior, etc. then it becomes not only arguable but perhaps compelling that we should strip people of their first amendment rights in order to "protect" people.

A plausible argument becomes the foundation for the exercise of power by groups or advocates via the State over others, stripping them of their human rights.

It is obviously not just third-wave feminists making this type of emotionally plausible argument. Social Justice Warriors are doing the same thing when they try and discern racism or misogyny in stereotype threats or implicit attitude tests. Christian fundamentalists are doing the same thing when they try to ban Harry Potter books because of witchcraft. John Birchers are doing the same thing when they try and ban Karl Marx. Parents are doing the same thing when they try and ban violent comics or bad language in children's books. Racists are doing the same thing when they try and censor or bowdlerize old texts or introduce racial considerations into new productions (via diversity quotas).

Everyone has an exaggerated idea about what exposure to X might do. Everyone ignores that thinking and doing are different domains. Everyone ignores the fact that a plausible argument is not a proven argument.

It is plausible, but is it real?

The hypothesis has to be tested against real world conditions. When we do, in nearly all cases, for the overwhelming majority of people, consumption of X is completely separate from their demonstrated behaviors and actions. As reported above, people who enjoy pornography do not cause increasing sexual violence and misogyny. In fact, the data demonstrates a negative correlation. Countries with greater access to pornography have lower levels of sexual assault and greater egalitarianism.

Violent comics are unassociated with violent behavior. The race of characters in books is unassociated with demonstrable racism. Children reading Harry Potter are no more prone to practicing the dark arts than those who have not read Harry Potter. Reading Karl Marx will not make you totalitarian or authoritarian. Reading morally ambiguous books does not cause children to fail to understand the moral weight of their own decisions. Studying philosophy does not foster ethical behavior. Reading or watching sports is uncorrelated with athletic behavior. Ad infinitum.

It is an almost primitive faith-based religion. If exposed to X then necessarily degraded resultant behavior.

Why does this belief system persist despite repeated refutations across multiple countries over multiple decades? One might argue that the claims are merely a fig-leaf for the real objective of establishing power and control over others by attacking freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. You can't attack those human rights directly so you undertake a flanking maneuver to make them appear dangerous. I suspect that that is most of the issue.

However, I don't think that that is the complete explanation. Non-authoritarians make these arguments all the time as well. I think there is some evolutionary kink in our cognitive processes somewhere which disposes us to conflate thoughts and preferences into assumed demonstrated actions despite there being no evidence to support that claim.