Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

[Cov]

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different, ...

says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by, ...

Edelman says.

Political divide

Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000.

The differences here are not so stark, ...

Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Old-fashioned values

Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement

I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage, ...

bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement

AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.

One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more, ...

Edelman says.

source

[LodeHacker]

After the first four words in the subject/title I lost interest

[Greg F.]

I would have to agree with this as I am very conservative and a decided fan of certain kinds of porn. Gawd Bless America.

[silchris]

A well-versed, high-ranking individual told me that during the Cheney-Bush years, the porn industry literally exploded in both size and power (coincidence? But of course!)

The "official" numbers were about 15 billion a year (a years ago) but I was told that the actual figures were more along the lines of 60-80 billion annually for that industry (more than Microsoft...)

Let's give credit where credit is due. It'd be fair to say that PORN IS AN AREA WHERE CONSERVATIVES HAD TREMENDOUS SUCCESS.

[Sylph-DS]

Here's my theory. Everybody loves porn. But only the conservatives are stupid enough to pay for it

No srsly. I think that every group consumes porn more or less equally, the difference is more likely in the group's look upon actually spending money on it versus getting it for free over the internet.

Maybe the tech-savvyness of people in said areas should be looked at and compared? Computers/populace? Internet traffic? (ie. people who don't use the internet much are less likely to go look for free porn)

Something else I just thought of is that conservatives may be more inclined to abstain from sex before marriage, which will of course generate a lot of fappers.

[Ch0z3n]

Here's my theory. Everybody loves porn. But only the conservatives are stupid enough to pay for it

I totally agree. Also, on average, the more religiously conservative, and often therefore politically conservative, someone is, the less education they have.

Note: there are all sorts of reasons for this, I am NOT saying conservatives are stupid, please do not flame me.

Something else I just thought of is that conservatives may be more inclined to abstain from sex before marriage, which will of course generate a lot of fappers.

I have a bit of a problem with this, I don't think it is actually true. I think there are more conservatives who might try to abstain before marriage, or say they are abstaining, but I don't think there is any great difference. Also, people who live in more conservative areas get what is known as "Abstinence-Only Sex-Education" where they basically tell you that this thing called sex exists but you can't do it until you are married, nothing more (i.e. worse than no sex-education). It has been statistically proven to increase rates of premarital sex over not having any sex education. It also decreases the use of contraception which in turn increases premarital pregnancies and STDs.

Ok, ok, I'll get off my soapbox now before I start ranting too much.

[croddie]

I have a bit of a problem with this, I don't think it is actually true. I think there are more conservatives who might try to abstain before marriage, or say they are abstaining, but I don't think there is any great difference. Also, people who live in more conservative areas get what is known as "Abstinence-Only Sex-Education" where they basically tell you that this thing called sex exists but you can't do it until you are married, nothing more (i.e. worse than no sex-education). It has been statistically proven to increase rates of premarital sex over not having any sex education. It also decreases the use of contraception which in turn increases premarital pregnancies and STDs.

What is the statistical evidence for these surprising conclusions?

[croddie]

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider

The study controls for broadband use - likely to be highest in big cities which are less conservative - but not for paid use/piracy ratios, education, economic factors. So it seems rather selective in what it controls for, maybe chosen to create the biggest effect. That's just looking at the news article though. You also are dealing with a proportions of approx 0.3% and you can't tell whether within a state that is distributed among churchgoers/secular people - you need to rule out an effect of state culture on individual of fixed political/religious affiliation.

[Ch0z3n]

Please use the edit button instead of double posting.

What is the statistical evidence for these surprising conclusions?

Really? It surprises you? Ok, here is ~30 seconds on google.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7613/217
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/pol ... tm?id=1334
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... /108/2/498
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/Positio ... ograms.pdf
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... lth_ed.pdf
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7232643/

There is a little reading.

The study controls for broadband use - likely to be highest in big cities which are less conservative - but not for paid use/piracy ratios, education, economic factors. So it seems rather selective in what it controls for, maybe chosen to create the biggest effect. That's just looking at the news article though. You also are dealing with a proportions of approx 0.3% and you can't tell whether within a state that is distributed among churchgoers/secular people - you need to rule out an effect of state culture on individual of fixed political/religious affiliation.

While it is certainly possible that the criteria could have been cherry-picked, I kind of doubt it. The problem you run into is lack of available information. In general people are not especially open about their sex lives, much less their masturbatory habits and pornographic preferences. There is no way to reliably track who uses free porn or who buys magazines or DVDs or whatever if they use cash. Also, when you start combining multiple populations, how do you prevent them from overlapping? It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone who has a subscription to a porn site also has a subscription to a magazine and buys DVDs and watches free porn.

Also, you are saying that it is biased towards big cities which are more liberal. If that is true, why wouldn't it show the opposite? That New York and California have the highest rates because they have the biggest cities. Unless you are saying that in states with a smaller percent of the population in "big cities" have sufficiently low instances of broadband internet use to cause unreliable statistics, I am kind of lost as to what is your point.

[croddie]

Please use the edit button instead of double posting.

Separate posts with separate points responding to separate people.

What is the statistical evidence for these surprising conclusions?

Really? It surprises you? Ok, here is ~30 seconds on google.
...

There is a little reading.

You said that there was evidence that showed that abstinence-education decreases abstinence compared to no sex education. (Actually I misread that, I read too quickly and thought you said compared to regular sex-education. Nevertheless it's still an interesting point with policy relevance.)
Does one of your links show this? I checked the first and it doesn't.

There is no way to reliably track who uses free porn or who buys magazines or DVDs or whatever if they use cash.

If you have weaker data then you get weaker conclusions and should state them in the correct form. But I haven't studied the paper itself, it was in a peer-reviewed journal and maybe journalists exaggerated the conclusions as usual.

Also, when you start combining multiple populations, how do you prevent them from overlapping? It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone who has a subscription to a porn site also has a subscription to a magazine and buys DVDs and watches free porn.

Downloaders are much more numerous than paid users so this is not much of a problem for estimating total users.

Also, you are saying that it is biased towards big cities which are more liberal. If that is true, why wouldn't it show the opposite?

No that big cities have more broadband connections per population* and are also more liberal. Their usage numbers have been reduced by adjusting for broadband use. In other words quoting "subscriptions per broadband connection" rather than "per population" diminishes the figure for more urban states compared to more rural ones.
*mainly because of availability of broadband and also smaller households I would guess.

[Ch0z3n]

You said that there was evidence that showed that abstinence-education decreases abstinence compared to no sex education. (Actually I misread that, I read too quickly and thought you said compared to regular sex-education. Nevertheless it's still an interesting point with policy relevance.)
Does one of your links show this? I checked the first and it doesn't.

If by "regular sex-education" you mean comprehensive sex-education, then pretty much all of them say that. As per specific statistical studies, I don't have them off hand, I would have to look in my sexual behavior text book when I get home, even then, it might have just been studies that my professor referenced in class. Either way, I will see what I can dig up.

Aside from statistics, think of it this way. Put a big red button on your on a keyboard that says "Don't Push" and nothing else, how long would it take before someone pressed it?

There is no way to reliably track who uses free porn or who buys magazines or DVDs or whatever if they use cash.

If you have weaker data then you get weaker conclusions and should state them in the correct form. But I haven't studied the paper itself, it was in a peer-reviewed journal and maybe journalists exaggerated the conclusions as usual.

Downloaders are much more numerous than paid users so this is not much of a problem for estimating total users.

Ok, how are you going to find the total number of unique people who have downloaded porn?

No that big cities have more broadband connections per population* and are also more liberal. Their usage numbers have been reduced by adjusting for broadband use. In other words quoting "subscriptions per broadband connection" rather than "per population" diminishes the figure for more urban states compared to more rural ones.
*mainly because of availability of broadband and also smaller households I would guess.

My guess is subscriptions for non-broadband users would be quite low, it would take quite a long time to download a 100mb video on 56k dial-up, somewhere in the range of 8-9 hours is my guess.

I think the moral of the story is this isn't meant as a comprehensive article on porn usage in the US, it is only showing a very small sample and should be taken as such. There is no real point to arguing the validity of the article because it is valid for specifically what it tested, nothing more. It is not a sufficiently representative sample of the porn-viewing population to make any generalizations, only that there is a higher rate of broadband users who have porn subscriptions that are paid via credit-card in what are generally considered to be more conservative states.

[croddie]

My guess is subscriptions for non-broadband users would be quite low, it would take quite a long time to download a 100mb video on 56k dial-up, somewhere in the range of 8-9 hours is my guess.

That wasn't my point. It was that the results were framed in a way (per broadband connection rather than per population - or even per broadband user which would have been somewhere in the middle) to be suggestive of conclusions that are not supported (e.g. title of this thread, statements made in the linked news item).

It is not a sufficiently representative sample of the porn-viewing population to make any generalizations, only that there is a higher rate of broadband users who have porn subscriptions that are paid via credit-card in what are generally considered to be more conservative states.

Absolutely, although the interest is relatively diminished if you put it like that.

[Ch0z3n]

That wasn't my point. It was that the results were framed in a way (per broadband connection rather than per population - or even per broadband user which would have been somewhere in the middle) to be suggestive of conclusions that are not supported (e.g. title of this thread, statements made in the linked news item).

I think they are working off of the premise that porn subscribers have broadband connections. Kind of like you assume that drag racers have fast cars. While you can certainly drag race with a stock model T, you aren't going to win any races.

How would you determine the number of broadband users? The number of people in a house? Would you include infant? the 5 year old? the 16 year old? I guess it could be number of unique people in the house with a credit card.

What about non-residential connections? or connections for entire apartment complexes or something? Would you include everyone that has access to them?

What if you leech wifi from your neighbor and you both have porn accounts?

The point is it would be pretty much impossible to get accurate information regardless of how the population was defined.

Absolutely, although the interest is relatively diminished if you put it like that.

Lol, sorry to de-sensationalize it, I am not a journalist.

[AZBrandon]

I'd be curious to see an overlay of the data against STD rates. I saw a news story last year that 26% of New Yorkers have herpes versus 19% nationally. I'm curious if it works something like this:

Higher usage of porn = less real sex = fewer STD's

There could be some kind of correlation there. Everyone has heard the phrase the lesser of two evils. Perhaps conservatives on the whole are more likely to use porn and less likely to have risky, unprotected sex? It may take a totally separate study to tell for sure though so it's not just an overlay of totally separate surveys.

[blackworx]

I'd be curious to see an overlay of the data against STD rates. I saw a news story last year that 26% of New Yorkers have herpes versus 19% nationally. I'm curious if it works something like this:

Higher usage of porn = less real sex = fewer STD's

or perhaps higher population concentration => higher incidence of communicable disease, STD's or otherwise?

[AZBrandon]

or perhaps higher population concentration => higher incidence of communicable disease, STD's or otherwise?

Well it would make an arguement against big cities, that's for sure. Everything seems to be worse in big cities - murders, robbery, education, infrastructure - it seems like the opposite of what you would expect. Instead of getting the leverage of having everything close at hand and a large number of people to average costs over, it seems that the higher the population density, the worse everything gets. Maybe this is why there's no correlation study? It's just too big and complex to identify exact causality without bias from the person doing the study.

[jhhoffma]

I'm sorry but did I miss something that actually showed that it was CONSERVATIVES viewing more porn or are we just assuming that because the states voted for a conservative candidate that they were the ones viewing it?

One thing to remember is that if you look at a county-by-county map of the entire US, the vast majority of those counties will be conservative. However, in the areas of highest population densities (the major cities), you will find a much higher liberal-voting population. Because the population of these areas are so highly populated it tends to even out the overall popular vote. However in many of the rural states there tends to be one large population center that is not quite large enough to offset the conservative base of the rest of the state. So the end result is a "conservative state".

However, in those areas, even though the area may be liberal-leaning, the moralities of the majority might impact the ability of the more "sexually-liberal" to indulge in their vices in a more public or personal fashion. In other words, if you're into hardcore S&M, you're not likely to find a good spot to pick up a like-minded individual in a club in downtown Topeka. Therefore, where else is such a person going to go for satisfaction? Directly to the web, where they have more opportunity with less chance of persecution.

I'm not saying that these thoughts hold any merit in the real world, but nor does the original point being made, unless they polled at least a small portion of the "pr0nsters" to find out their political leanings. Here an analogy of the argument being made. There are 10 animals in a cage. 5 cows and 4 lions and 1 sheep. One day the sheep ends up dead and has been eaten. Because there are more cows left in the cage than lions, it must be that one of the cows killed and ate the sheep.

What this "study" or argument should really be titled is: "I think conservatives are a bunch of morally promiscuous hypocrites." It's more accurate than the postulate of the study.

[judge56988]

Firstly, I think that the statistics here are a bit iffy to say the least, as has already been pointed out by a few posters. However if the supposition is true, perhaps the more conservative types would prefer to get their jollies on the internet rather than risking their marriage and compromising their moral beliefs by going out and indulging in one night stands/affairs? Does wanking count as being unfaithful?
It might be interesting to see some figures for divorce rates comparing conservatives to liberals, showing whether adultery was cited as cause...and then I think, do I really care?

[stromgald]

I'm sorry but did I miss something that actually showed that it was CONSERVATIVES viewing more porn or are we just assuming that because the states voted for a conservative candidate that they were the ones viewing it?

One thing to remember is that if you look at a county-by-county map of the entire US, the vast majority of those counties will be conservative. However, in the areas of highest population densities (the major cities), you will find a much higher liberal-voting population. Because the population of these areas are so highly populated it tends to even out the overall popular vote. However in many of the rural states there tends to be one large population center that is not quite large enough to offset the conservative base of the rest of the state. So the end result is a "conservative state".

Hmm, you're right on what the study is doing, they didn't seem to factor in the population densities and broadband access of different areas within states. They just corrected for broadband access differences between states.

This could actually reverse the 'results' that conservatives tend to consume more pornography. Despite improvements, broadband access is still quite limited to large cities. Even in a very conservative state like Texas, the major cities are relatively liberal.

The major fallacy in this study is the assumption that broadband usage and the political leanings of each state are spread evenly throughout the state.

[AZBrandon]

That's a good point. In fact look at this statistic:

Washington D.C.: 92% vote for Obama
Washington D.C.: #1 highest crime rate in America

It turns out that Obama supporters are more likely to be criminals than anyone else!! In fact this seems true even when I broke it down to a county by county level. Obama counties have higher crime than McCain counties. Thus the statistics prove Obama voters = criminals. That's statistics for you!

[Ch0z3n]

I'm not sure how many logical falicies you have in there, but the answer is too many. You can have valid statistics, yours just aren't even close. Granted, the op's clame is also invaled based on the statistics. But, broadband users in the united states is a much more representative sample of the population than dc is to obama supporters.

Also, when basing it off of crime rate... felons can't vote, so they can not even be part of the population of people in dc who voted for obama.

[stromgald]

Also, when basing it off of crime rate... felons can't vote, so they can not even be part of the population of people in dc who voted for obama.

Not completely true. For DC, felons can vote once they're out of prison.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresou ... urceID=286

But, broadband users in the united states is a much more representative sample of the population than dc is to obama supporters.

I think his statement would still hold true if looked at over the whole US. On average counties that voted for Obama almost certainly will have a higher crime rate. This is true because most dense population centers are 1) more liberal and 2) have higher crime rates than rural areas. It doesn't mean liberals are more likely to commit crimes, it just means that liberals tend to be concentrated in cities and crimes are also concentrated in cities.

I'll admit AZBrandon's example is a little more obvious in it's fallacy, but the OP had the same type of fallacy.

[Ch0z3n]

learn something new everyday, havent looked at the site tho, im on my phone.

well, if you revised your statement to "obama supporters live in places with higher crime rates" then i would be inclined to agree with you

[stromgald]

well, if you revised your statement to "obama supporters live in places with higher crime rates" then i would be inclined to agree with you

Well then, I would say that the original statement about conservatives should follow what the actual report says:

Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality

IMO, it seems like a big jump from 'slightly more prevelant' to 'biggest consumers'. In fact, the reason for the conservative legislation could be because of the large porn consuming population.

Considering the fact that Utah and Mississippi, which consume MUCH more porn on average, could sway an even distribution across red and blue states to more in red states. It also seems like conservative states have much more variation, since Montana, the state with the least porn consumption is a conservative state.

Now, if you actually look at the report, it seems to me that the states that consume the most porn are places where there's 1) a moderately dense population (excludes places like Tennessee, Oregon, Montana, etc) and 2) not much to do there (no beach, no major attractions/tourism). The only exception I see to these criteria is Florida, which was an outlier mentioned in the OP as well.