Olives @olives@qoto.org

I'm taking the opportunity to think about what new porn citations I could add to the new post. Do you have any good ideas?

I'm actually intending to write a post about how the "realism" of some taboo doesn't matter in porn, only the "real"*, but I never get around to it, because there is too much nonsense to deal with.

* In a nutshell, by arguing about "realism this or realism that", it shifts attention towards arbitrary boundaries of realism, and discourse along those lines, rather than actual ethics. That is what makes it garbage. There is more to it though.

On second thought, I'm gonna delete that post, as that was a bit too speculative, but I think that rather than wondering whether porn actually decreases crime, it is worth thinking about how it is abundantly clear that it doesn't increase it.

It also appears that Milton Diamond is dead. He died a few months ago, that is very unfortunate.

With the understanding that it can take years for something to get published, I'm okay with a preprint (and I did that with Von Andrian-Werburg's study until that got published last year, or rather, I noticed it had been), I just don't want the whole thing to be preprints.

Castleman referenced it at one point in his article, but if I'm going to cite it in the experimental post, I'm going to have to know what it's doi is (or other details).

I'm trying to locate a doi for "Diamond & Kontula".

"Diamond, M., & Kontula, O. (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in
Finland."

Even if you didn't make the first Australian consultation, you can still respond to the second broader one with the same points as it also touches on content (among other things).

There was also someone who expected me to read his mind, uh, I can't answer questions which haven't been asked, lol. It's also probably not possible / practical to pre-answer every question which could be asked.

I'm willing to experiment with a new style but I'm not going to write ten lengthy pieces of the same thing for social media, lol.

The reason I'm experimenting with a new style is that I keep thinking "maybe, it would be useful to add this bit of context, or to add that bit of context" and it gets tacked onto the end and the text becomes harder to maintain.

I think something like that might be easier to follow than a numerical citation format on here, particularly as you can't really hover over the numbers to get more context. The downside is that it's a bit more wordy.

The links are a bit less accessible (they're at the end which someone needs to scroll to) but there is also a bit more context there than a lone link can provide and it avoids littering the text with a lot of links.

To give you a draft excerpt, I'm going for something like this:

"There are quite a few pieces of science which call online porn being spooky into question.

A Canadian study showed more gender egalitarian attitudes among users of porn (Kohut et al., 2015). A German study failed to find a link between porn use and sexism or "social dominance orientation" (Von Andrian-Werburg et al., 2023)."

"Kohut, T., Baer, J. L., & Watts, B. (2015). Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427

Von Andrian-Werburg, M. T. P., Siegers, P., & Breuer, J. (2023). A Re-evaluation of Online Pornography Use in Germany: A Combination of Web Tracking and Survey Data Analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(8), 3491–3503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02666-8"

While trying out a new citation style (this is going to take a while for me to write, I'm not just copy-pasting older posts of mine), I'm also doing a spot of double-checking of links / sources.

Since it's been published, I'll make a post about it.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02666-8
"A Re-evaluation of Online Pornography Use in Germany: A Combination of Web Tracking and Survey Data Analysis"

"Our analyses were based on data from a large-scale German online web tracking panel (N = 3018) gathered from June 2018 to June 2019. The study we present here has two parts: In the first part, we looked at group differences (gender and age) in tracked OPU."

"while relationship status, sexist attitudes, and social dominance orientation were not associated with OPU"
#sexology #Germany

Speaking of which, I might have to update one of the links in one of my science posts, although that is more to do with using a preprint until the paper got published. I didn't notice that got published until I reviewed the links.

I might try a new citation style in a few posts to make it easier to visually tell which map to which links.

Should I use a link to the publisher or the DOI URL in posts? The DOI URL might be more resilient to URL changes, although the link to the publisher is usually a bit more informative.

It might be a bit long though, and you will see why I sometimes like to stick to a bullet point style.