Hacker News Reader

Comment by trident1000 | Hacker News Reader

Ive watched porn all my life (like most). I dont have a moral vendetta against it. But it seems to be a no-go topic for discussing the serious societal issues from porn. As I've grown older ive realized its really very toxic and probably the most widespread addiction in the US causing real issues.

When you watch porn all day or even just a few times per week, your testosterone and hormonal balance as a man changes. You do not go after women and start a family. You are more likely to be depressed. It causes brain fog and mood disorders. Etc. Theres some good TED talks on this which are easy to find. This is never talked about and should be. Little off topic maybe but just wanted to state this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

View on HN

"You do not go after women and start a family."

One of the many benefits I have received from porn and sex positivity in general. Imagine thinking you're supposed to "go after" a woman because of some requirement to start a family? Absolutely dystopian.

The OP didn't phrase this elegantly for sure, but the general idea that a life spent alone, consuming pornography all day is unfulfilling should not be controversial, and porn like any addiction / vice can become a trap.

> the general idea that a life spent alone, consuming pornography all day is unfulfilling should not be controversial

1). I don't see why that's not controversial. It doesn't seem self-evident. If a person can fulfill the need by watching porn, then by definition, it is fulfilled. If a person finds it unfulfilling, well, such a person will be motivated to branch out and start doing something else.

2). OP claimed that regardless of whether you watch it all day for a few times a week, porn hinders you down from pursuing females. I'd argue that the latter doesn't.

3). Not forming a family doesn't mean a life spent alone. The only people I know who's determined to not ever get married, has a very active sex life and parties all the time. The idea that one can't be happy without a family is fairly outdated.

4). Addiction is a real thing, but one has to recognize that there is a wide gap between pathologically addicted to porn, and just enjoying watching porn.

> If a person can fulfill the need by watching porn, then by definition, it is fulfilled. If a person finds it unfulfilling, well, such a person will be motivated to branch out and start doing something else.

Depends on what we are "fulfilling". Just think about an extremely overweight person who cannot stop overeating. Yes, they are fulfilled in terms of food, but (sometimes) they are self-loathing and consider the fact that they cannot stop eating a personal failure, so in that sense they are the farthest from "fulfilled".

Same is true for porn, you might be fulfilled in a sense that you get to orgasm in 10 minutes, but there are other facets of life where regular porn consumption or masturbation might have a negative effect.

Sure, nobody would expect porn to fill desires other than sexual. But, one can do other things to fulfill other desires.

> there are other facets of life where regular porn consumption or masturbation might have a negative effect

If there is a pathological addiction, yes, it will have a negative effect on one's life, just like most other addictions. (Addiction to sex, for instance)

But, otherwise, I can't really think of masturbation interfering with life that much. People frequently waste away 10 minutes in all kinds of ways.

Perhaps we could let a man decide for himself what he might wish to do with his life.

For me, it's neither pornography nor “going after women”, a practice that thankfully isn't common in my culture, I find having debates on the internet and consuming quality fiction to be more rewarding than either.

You wouldn't even be here if your dad didn't go after your mom. What's dystopian about the drive to perpetuate the species? That's the most basic function of any lifeform.

I am extremely driven, but due to various methods of birth control I am completely unsuccessful.

Many species, including higher mammals, frequently engage in infanticide as part of their quest to perpetuate their genes, so maybe let's all try to do a bit better than the default of the natural world.

> Many species, including higher mammals, frequently engage in infanticide as part of their quest to perpetuate their genes, so maybe let's all try to do a bit better than the default of the natural world

Infanticide is conducted routinely in human societies in the form of abortion. Even though, abortion IS the right choice.

It is a completely different infanticide, even if you give it this name.

The result is the same.

The result is not the same either. The described infanticide serves a goal of undoing other gene’s reproduction. Abortion is a smarter form of not spending resources on a weak/dead-end offspring (or just throwing it out of nest), if you want these analogies.

Would you condone the post-birth infanticide of a weak/dead-end offspring as a smarter form of not spending resource someone probably does not have ?

I’m not talking morals here and not arguing for or against abortion. Our morals have nothing to do with competition infanticide in mammals vs abortion diff.

Is it wise to stretch other species’ defaults to this issue? It is our behavior that is discussed, not that of some “higher mammals”. If that was natural to us, it would be a known widespread phenomenon in “feral” areas. Nothing adds more tension to the society than depriving most fundamental drives. Thank god these do not include opposing each other by forming large groups or not giving respect or food to someone because they don’t look better than us.

> the drive to perpetuate the species

Maybe that's a good thing - we're facing an overpopulation crisis in the relatively near future.

We certainly are not. The thing about Malthus is that he was wrong.

Birth rates are below or barely above replacement level in most of the world anyway, the only place with high birth rates is Africa and they’re not listening to you.

I'm curious as how this misconception subsists in 2020. Where did you come up with this idea?

Porn is like the junk-food of sex. McDonald's french fries are engineered to disintegrate on the tongue and deliver that hit of salt and fat. It hijacks our evolved taste buds in a way that's pleasurable - but not healthy.

Porn is like that but with sex. A little bit won't hurt you, but too much can ruin your sexual health and distort your ideas of what sex should be.

And who is the arbiter of "what sex should be"? Perhaps porn is providing the much needed service of expanding our definitions of sex, which had been brutally restrained by prudish mores for most of Western civilization.

That sex should look more like porn is quite a dystopian future for women. I think expanding our definitions of sex is a good thing, but that doesn't mean there should be no restraints either.

You should meet some of the women I hang out with. And obviously no one is calling for "no restraints".

> And obviously no one is calling for "no restraints".

I've been with a couple of women I couldn't find limits of, and it's not for the lack of attempts at otherwise considered disgusting practices... and I know for a fact that I'm sexually pretty mild compared to what's out there.

What I'm saying is reevaluating bedroom norms and moors is fine, but let's also not make the mistake of thinking our prudish ancestors had it all wrong.

I think porn has both good and bad influences - but it is definitely not benign.

I couldn't disagree more. Our prudish ancestors had it all wrong. Ask the uncountable millions and millions of gay men and women who suffered their whole lives at the hands of those prudes. And what did the prudes gain in return? Bad sex and shame. There is nothing redeeming in an anti-sex perspective.

Whenever you find yourself saying someone is totally wrong, is a good indication you don't understand them.

I'm not going to argue with someone who can't see the other side. Presumably you can find some value in some of the values and traditions from the past? You have to acknowledge that our current values are merely an incremental change on what came before. You can't say they were all wrong without saying you're also wrong then.

> That sex should look more like porn is quite a dystopian future for women

Oh believe me, women have wicked fantasies you wouldn't consider being "good things".

None of that is a problem. Porn can be quite degrading to women and young women should not feel pressured that they have accept that because it's now more normalized because of porn.

> [...] should not feel pressured that they have accept that because it's now more normalized

Would you say the same thing about homosexuality or transgenderism ?

Can you phrase your question completely? I don't want to guess at it.

Should people feel pressured to accept normalized behavior which used to be seen, or are still seen, negatively ?

> Should people feel pressured to accept normalized behaviour which used to be seen, or are still seen, negatively - such as homosexuality or trans?

I find that a bit of an odd question. I think people do currently feel societal pressure to be accepting of LGBTQ people. I don't think that's necessarily good or bad by itself - it just reflects the changes in society.

Should parents feel pressure to be accepting of their children's lifestyle if they come out as LGBTQ? Yes.

Should parents feel pressure to be accepting of their children's desire to transition if they identify as a different gender? No, because that's permanent, there's a good chance they'll later come to view that as a mistake. If they still want to do that as an adult - then that's when they can do it.

To try and get back to what I think you're digging at - should girls be pressured into sex acts in porn which used to be seen, or are still seen, negatively because they're more normalized now thanks to porn? - No. I don't think people should be pressured into sex acts.

> too much can ruin your sexual health and distort your ideas of what sex should be.

If men actually believed that what they saw in porn was real, the only jobs they'd ever want would be plumber and pizza delivery guy.

Yet sex has been changing to more closely resemble porn and teenage girls feel pressure to do things depicted in porn.

I don't think you can dismiss it so flippantly.

> You do not go after a woman and start a family

Almost all male friends of mine who had admitted watching porn, are either in a relationship or married. I don’t know if they “went after women”, though; it doesn’t sound like the right way to pursue love.

Some admitted to watching porn even after marriage.

I know plenty of couples who watch porn together, married and otherwise.

> I don’t know if they “went after women”, though; it doesn’t sound like the right way to pursue love.

I did, and I'm not afraid to say it. Love came after.

"going after women" just means being motivated to go out and form relationships.

pavel_lishin I didnt say they didnt. I was addressing the phrase.

I don't know what porn are you watching, but there is not much about relationships (in fact, lot of porn is specifically about fantasies of being unfaithful).

And that's the main problem with OP's post. If you have unsatisfied sexual needs, it's awful to suggest that you should attempt at relationships (or even start a family) for that reason. No, people should do these things because they genuinely want to have them, and not to pretend they want them just for a bit of nudge nudge.

I am grateful for porn existing, because it lets me not to have a (sexual) relationship if I don't need the emotional component. I think it's more honest that way, actually.

Right. And these people did.

I think this is a case where correlation does not imply causation.

Heres that ted talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

TEDx is not exactly the same as TED. Just about anyone can organize a TEDx, and lots of cranks give "TEDx talks". There are dozens and dozens of "TEDxes":

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events

I understand its not hard to get on the platform. Id just judge it on the content and presentation over the platform banner.

Let me guess, next you are going to tell me that my first person shooter game makes me a violent thug and should be banned

These types of "studies" in gaming have been debunked for years, I image the porn "studies" will be as well

Why are you so sure that the psychology of sex and violence are identical, especially in such a specific context? They're totally different things. It seems ridiculous to point to the studies on one and say, "surely the studies on the other shall have the same result". Personally, I have no idea, but your premise doesn't make sense.

It's much more likely than senseless violence is far worse for the psyche of an individual than senseless sex is. I'd rather 10 year old timmy see sexual content instead of terminator.

I'm most likely in the minority - but I'm also convinced that I'm living in a clown world where our society tolerates and encourages senseless pain and violence from the very beginning (through routine male circumcision of hundreds of millions as just a single example), so being in the minority makes me believe that my chances of acting ethically are higher, not lower.

Basically, porn is far less bad than violence from a very early age.

It's the psychology of human moral panics that's identical. If there's a new pastime, whether it's novels or Pokemon Go, people will get up in arms saying it's ruining the youth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2154881-did-pokemon-go-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus

Reply on news.ycombinator.com