The Pornography Paradox | Hacker News Reader

The Pornography Paradox

theatlantic.com

62 pointsfortran77121 comments

Open articleView on HN

https://archive.is/taesN

One interesting thing I don’t see enough people talking about is the decline in early-life sexual activity that goes along with this [0].

It appears somewhat caused by the fact that the “do it yourself experience” used to be a very inferior product, which drove people to find a partner, even if it meant significant compromise.

Now, you’re one search away from stimulation that might actually make it better than what’s available to you in your local community.

What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender, and is likely a contributing factor to the “incel” phenomenon (some of the more awkward among us used to benefit by being “the best available local option” so to speak).

But ofc no-one wants to talk about it because it’s a bit gross to do so.

[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-intelligence/...

The ancient Greeks held sight itself as holy. We have now showed other people’s experiences and have become addicted to them. The vision is so strong, people can manage to somehow live inside these addictions.

> the decline in early-life sexual activity

But hasn't that been an explicit policy goal of every government since at least 1950? Reducing teen sexual activity and especially teen pregnancy? According to elected officials, this is not just a good thing, this is the target.

Western European and East Asian developed economies share their largest economic problem going forwards: declining birth rates. I'm not convinced the policy goals of reducing teen birth rates has ever been that much of an actual policy goal, despite what election manifestos might proclaim

I don't think this can be blamed on porn though.

It's more that there's less of a need now, in Asian countries children are often a means of pension. Because there is no welfare system.

Also, women work more now. Life is extremely expensive even with two incomes. Adding kids on top of that makes things even harder trying to juggle the financial side and creches.

And my personal reason, life is much more fulfilling without having to raise kids. I can do what I want, move where I want. I'm glad I never had any.

Well, most governments have had 'pro-family' politics that are against teen pregnancy; but in favour of getting married and raising children.

So they don't want to lower the sex-vs-age chart for all ages, they want to add a step function to it, so it's zero at age 19 but high at age 23.

Lowering the chart for all ages was never the goal, which might be why we've never seen politicians celebrating the current state as the successful delivery of their election promises.

> But ofc no-one wants to talk about it

Lots of people do! Here is The Atlantic in 2018 talking about “the sex recession”.

https://archive.is/onAo7

Here is The NY Times in 1997 talking about the decline in sex amount young people:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/02/us/sex-activity-by-youths...

Or them in 2018 on the same subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/health/youth-risk-depress...

Or in 2020 on the pandemic’s effect on sex and teens, including things like living at home:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/well/family/for-young-peo...

>What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender

My point about what people don't talk about (and what those articles also ignore) is that it's not just men watching porn.

>Easy access to porn is part of the story, of course; in 2014, 43 percent of men said they’d watched porn in the past week.

Pornography is always framed as a men's topic, but I'd argue that's a very incomplete picture of what's going on.

EDIT: Maybe I'm being too euphemistic. My point is that no-one is discussing the fact that young hetero men now have to compete against pornography, and many are losing that fight. This is an enormous power shift that has largely gone undiscussed and many young men are unprepared to improve their chances, since they are ignorant to the problem itself (Parents giving out of date advice, etc.)

You mean journalists noticed a problem and never formulated an idea of the core reason for it, or examined it beyond the surface level realities of what it's done to people?

That's what I'm seeing here: A kind of "hmm that's strange... Anyway, incels are evil! Where did they even come from!?"

The truth is that modern society sets people up for failure in that regard, in a multitude of ways, and this isn't being talked about.

Female mate expectations are a significant part of this topic, but as far as I can tell, it's a third rail. So the incel concept is fair game as you can safely deconstruct unreasonable male expectations, male mediocrity and male criminality without much, if any, backlash.

I don't think porn is the cause here, but rather the number of people the internet allows you to meet. The more prospects someone has the higher they will set their sights--and those who don't those standards get left behind.

From a first principles standpoint that makes no sense.

There are the same number of people and the same number of desirable people, with or without the Internet.

By your logic, both sides of the relationship will get 'left behind,' but isn't the implication that they should date each other then?

Before the internet, your access was limited to the people you met and interacted with in real life. Now, an attractive person has access to hundreds of people messaging them.

Sure, but it's still zero sum...

In the long run the resolution would be the same--but we don't have infinite time. Years spent chasing prospects above one's level are years not with someone at your level. It happens because both sides are aiming high.

In the old days you would see your dating pool get depleted and realize you needed to aim lower. Now, in any reasonably large city your dating pool is close enough to infinite that this won't happen.

Sure, but I wouldn't characterize that as 'being left behind.'

Just 'being delusional.'

And if we agree there, then yes I agree that people are less self-critical and more delusional now than ever before (since we have a much bigger toolkit to manicure our image, both internally and externally).

I believe the conclusion many draw is that online apps make it easier for the more attractive men to have multiple partners, and that this doesn't happen nearly as much with the more attractive women.

Sorry to use a meme here, but in terms of that leading to fewer couples "the math ain't mathing."

Unless you're implying dating apps have led to long-term polygamy?

I mean, is the problem that people aren't _motivated_ enough to find a partner? That seems unlikely given how much you see people complaining about not being able to find a partner online. It seems like people want a partner, but something is getting in the way. I don't think motivation is the issue.

A lot of men who aren't in the top of the ladder presume by default that they're competing with some random other potential boyfriend, or an army of gigachads, etc..

More often, the truth is, you're competing with how happy I am by self when I'm just single. And it's sad how many guys blunder in something as basic as treating me like I'm a person.

Porn is a hyper reality. It’s obscene, but more it’s really just produced a lot. Normal sex resembles porn about as much as a show about high school resembles high school.

There are some specific harms of pornography, but it shares a lot of dimensions with commercials, marketing, and other media.

The entomology of the word porn even indicates this. It means “to sell off” eventually meaning prostitution, which is a sales activity primarily.

Digital porn scales well, though this isn’t good for most. We’d be in a better world with non-scalable sex work instead. It’s more ordered and aligned with the human experience.

The digital whores are not human, and you can’t have sex with them, which is the whole draw no?

If you find a partner attracted to you, sex can absolutely be alike in porn and free of charge. If in the hypergamy hierarchy you're an equivalent of rat or homeless dog, bad luck.

even the sex in porn is nothing that resembles reality. and if you're male, and she's being nice and fulfilling that porno fantasy, trust me she's not into it and it won't be long before sex no longer happens as often once she gets comfortable with you.

Seems your comment is getting some disagreement, perhaps because of your follow-up statement.

I happen to agree with you, broadly speaking. Everyone's experiences and preferences vary, so I'd wager that most people don't experience that kind of sex. If one isn't a total schlub, however, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

The idea that people can't have the kind of sex they like reminds me of the idea that women don't like sex that much, which is far from the truth. But maybe I've just gotten lucky (no pun intended).

I don’t think the parent comment was complaining about real sex not being satisfying enough, but the kind of sex portrayed in porn.

A lot of people forget the time spent on porn, when analyzing whether it's a good thing or bad thing. I really believe that if you don't spend too much time per session you'll be fine. PornHub stats show the avg time spent to be 15 mins, around that time is a good goal (don't mindlessly edge for too long). Then with the stats on prostate health showing benefits, it's only a good thing.

Why is it bad when you spend longer than 15 minutes?

Just like real sex it's better if you don't hurry it :)

Real sex usually brings some sort of human connection

True but it doesn't explain the point why it would be bad to spend more than 15 minutes watching porn when real sex is not available.

If you didn't have porn you would have greater incentive to pursue a sexual relationship

I doubt that. A state of sexual frustration and depression is not exactly a good mindset for finding a long term partner. It's better to get it out of the way.

It would lead mainly to quick tinder style hookups which I don't like. For me the emotional connection comes first.

You don't need porn to masturbate

Two big complaints I've seen are people regretting too much time wasted on porn, and conventional porn not doing it for them, so they try types they say they regret. I'm not saying limit the time spent every time, but perhaps most of the time could help with those issues, for those that have those complaints.

15 minutes?! You're doing it wrong -- try 3 minutes! :-)

>the dopamine system

If I had a nickel for every time someone made a reference to neurotransmitters as an unscientific rhetorical bludgeon, I could probably buy a house in Stinson Beach. There is no "dopamine system", certainly no more than there is an "enkephalin system" or a "glycine system". The age of psychotropic drugs has produced a new generation of pseudoneuroscience, which depicts a brain whose behavior can always be explained in terms of a few neurotransmitters — the four humours for scholars in the academy of YouTube.

Let it be known that the mind deals with information first, and no levels of N-acetylaspartate or 2-arachidonylglycerol, however finely tuned, can teach you how to do calculus or drive a car, or, for that matter, how to have sex. Neurotransmitters, particularly famous neurotransmitters, should only be invoked when there is physical evidence, and the pop-culture equivocation between dopamine release and pleasure itself certainly does not qualify.

If you could elaborate on the topic it would be really great, I know so many people who blame everything in their life, most of all their lack of discipline with, oohhhhh my brain needs dopamine, i just need that doppaamine, and serotonin, you can increase it by bla bla talking about the brain like it is an engine that runs on oil gas, sparks and timing.

Last time I checked we knew next to nothing about how our brains really work in depth.

> If you could elaborate on the topic it would be really great, I know so many people who blame everything in their life, most of all their lack of discipline with, oohhhhh my brain needs dopamine, i just need that doppaamine, and serotonin, you can increase it by bla bla talking about the brain like it is an engine that runs on oil gas, sparks and timing.

aiui (someone who knows more please correct me if I'm wrong):

It's not as simple as "my brain lacks serotonin -> I am depressed" or similar, because neurotransmitters are just that -- something that moves some message around the body. ~90% of bodily serotonin is used in the GI system, ~8% in platelets, and the rest in the CNS[0]. Since it's one of the primary neurotransmitters, it affects an enormous number of systems in the body: Memory, learning, anxiety, pain, depression, vision (and hallucinations; psychedelics bind to serotonin-2A), vasoconstriction, bone mass, heart function, vomiting, food moving through the GI system, and a LOT of other functions[1].

It's why psychoactive drugs work with such broad effects:

- Cannabis has memory-altering effects because of indirect action on serotonin receptors via the cannabinoid receptors[2]

- Psychedelics bind to serotonin-2A to produce the primary effects

- MDMA binds to the serotonin transporter (among other things) as a reuptake inhibitor, and also causes the brain to release serotonin. MDMA also indirectly stimulates a lot of receptors[3], so it's not as simple as "MDMA -> serotonin release / reuptake inhibition -> happy :D" or similar.

There's also some fairly recent research[4] that the serotonin model of depression might be wrong:

> The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.

Many antidepressants also act on receptors other than serotonin receptors, ex. Bupropion[6] is a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor and doesn't touch serotonin at all. This isn't to say that serotonin activity plays no role in depression etc., but rather that it's a part of a very complicated picture.

---

I imagine that the "confusion" around the topic is caused by something like:

- Researchers in the 50-60s[5] think serotonin might have smth to do with depression

- Medications that affect serotonin seem to work, so we go with it

- We get to more-modern times, where the internet is fairly commonplace

- People are prescribed SSRIs or similar for depression

- People are told SSRIs increase levels of serotonin in the brain

- This gets turned into "depression caused by low serotonin"

- We are here

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin#Serotonylation See table below heading

[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Receptor_binding

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

[5] https://www.menningerclinic.org/news-resources/serotonin-the... Please note I am only using this as a date reference

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion#Pharmacology

Youre telling me that viewing porn does not spike dopamine? Well youre fucking wrong. This is obviously true.

And of course there is such a thing as a dopamine system. You have dopamine and dopamine receptors, Id call that a system. How do you think amphetamines work? Norepenephrine and dopamine.

This is a weird comment

Please consider revising your future comments here to be less combatative. This isn't in line with HN culture and simply kills healthy discussion. You can refute without being emotional and flaming people.

alright fair enough, got a little hot under the collar. Apologies, and apologies to OP as well. Haven't had my Wheaties yet this morning.

Thanks for being a gent!

> How do you think amphetamines work? Norepenephrine and dopamine.

And serotonin—amphetamines are SRIs as well.

Yes, though the action is comparatively weak, especially once tolerance builds. But I remember when I first tried amphetamines it often felt very similar to taking MDMA (or other serotonin releasers). Pupils the size of saucers, goosebumps from music and sensory experiences, etc.

> goosebumps from music and sensory experiences

Oh, I still get this. I've been taking my dexedrine for 2 months and it's still working really well. I hope the tolerance won't get too bad; I've been taking magnesium supplements to try to reduce tolerance buildup, but my doctor said to stop taking them for a week before a blood draw.

2 months is still very very early in the tolerance cycle. Here is how to keep tolerence low : - NEVER increase dosage. This means you should also never take an extra dose or extra portion of a dose to power through a long night/day - Take tolerance breaks when you, such as weekends etc. If you are a student, quit entirely over the summer if possible. - Don't take it with other stimulants like coffee or psuedophedrine, nicotine - Maintain healthy relationships with other dopamine-inducing activities such as sex, video games, food, etc. - Get good sleep. 8 square hours a night, every night. - Excercise.

Oh also don't switch up the ROA - stick to oral. don't sniff it or boof it.

I would also encourage you to be honest with yourself - do you need it? Could you make lifestyle changes that resolve the issues that you are currently using dexedrine to resolve? if so, go that route. Amphetamines are very hard on your mind and your body. You will notice that you are a different person in a year.

This is coming from someone who has been around the block with amphetamines. Trust me, it can get really, really fucking dark if you let it. I don't think it has to be that way, but you really need to be honest with yourself about your ability to handle it.

> 2 months is still very very early in the tolerance cycle.

Whoof, I heard it can start as soon as a couple weeks if you take it daily.

I'm taking magnesium supplements to try to help with tolerance. People say it can help, and it doesn't seem to be hurting anything. My most recent blood test says my magnesium levels are still normal which hopefully means it's working.

> NEVER increase dosage

Aware~ My daily dose is already 30mg/day (XR, so basically 2*15mg), which is... way higher than it normally has any right to be, but that's where my tolerance started, even before I had ever taken anything. It definitely doesn't need to get any higher.

> Take tolerance breaks when you, such as weekends etc

Not sure if I can manage this. Having days where I can't do anything is just... the entire problem, the entire reason I needed these meds in the first place.

Sure being in a coma for 15 hours passes some of the time, but it's nearly impossible to properly feed myself or drink water in that state. I instantly become unable to do anything but sleep.

(I have experience because I've gone about a week without my meds already, because of weird prescription issues. One of my issues with ADHD was that I wouldn't eat when I was hungry; stimulant withdrawals amplify that so much that I will lay in bed for hours crying because I'm hungry but can't get food. Then I will fall asleep without eating.

Dependence on the substance does not scare me, I'm already aware that I do. I know that depending on it makes my life way, way better than it was before I had ever touched it. Even if it means I need the meds for it to stay that way, as long as I have the meds, there are almost no downsides.)

> Don't take it with other stimulants like coffee or psuedophedrine, nicotine

Yeah absolutely not. I hate caffeine and nicotine, and don't plan on taking any other stimulants either.

> Maintain healthy relationships with other dopamine-inducing activities such as sex, video games, food, etc.

Trying my best~

> Get good sleep. 8 square hours a night, every night.

Also trying my best. I end up having to go to sleep pretty early to be able to get 8 hours of sleep before I wake up at 4am to take my meds. And it's really hard to remember to sleep that early (actually sleeping is no issue, though). But I am getting the hang of it. I have made sure to pay attention to my sleep! Usually I get 6–7 hours at least. Sometimes if I don't, I'll take a quick nap after my meds.

> Oh also don't switch up the ROA - stick to oral. don't sniff it or boof it.

Yeah definitely not going to do any of those. Those are bleh. Junkie stuff. Besides I much prefer the extended release, it's so smooth.

> Could you make lifestyle changes that resolve the issues that you are currently using dexedrine to resolve? Amphetamines are very hard on your mind and your body. You will notice that you are a different person in a year.

That's actually what I am counting on...

For example, I've already gotten rid of some OCD. I drink water instead of soda now. I have a consistent sleep schedule. I can shower when I get dirty. Every single one of those I could not do without dexedrine. It's a total life changer, and I know it is, and that's why I use it. I can't just change my lifestyle. I've been trying to change my lifestyle for over a decade. That's the reason I decided that I need medication or else I won't be able to fix any of the problems that have plagued me my whole life.

> This is coming from someone who has been around the block with amphetamines. Trust me, it can get really, really fucking dark if you let it. I don't think it has to be that way, but you really need to be honest with yourself about your ability to handle it.

I've been honest and as careful as possible, I promise. I know all about addiction and substance abuse and all the problems that can cause. Thankfully this isn't meth, but it's still an amphetamine so it has a lot of the same risks.

I already joined several harm reduction communities when I first got these meds, to make sure that I'm being as responsible as possible with my meds. Maybe I can't take tolerance breaks but I can do things like take magnesium and make sure I'm getting enough sleep and food and water.

Your being sparky and you really haven't shown you understand the topic you're talking about. If you think OP is wrong, refute them with facts.

"The four humours for scholars in the Academy of YouTube" - A fascinating idea

What would they be, what fundamental underlying phisio/physocological characteristics of humanity would they describe, and why?

How would they help categorize human behavior, assist in understanding decision frameworks and better inform forecasts of future group/individual responses to stimulus?

Can we use these tools for improving conditions, or should we simply manipulate others and free them from the burden of spending their money by quietly taking it?

I don't know about the dopamine system, but anecdotally my experience is that I can get burned out on entertainment & sugar in a way that correlates what people describe from drugs (not personal experience there).

I don't know. As someone with severe ADHD whose life was significantly impacted by a disordered dopaminergic system... yes entire classes of complex behavior can indeed be explained by a single neurotransmitter. And a simple dopamine reuptake inhibitor fixed everything for me. Shut up.

I don't think OP it's saying they are not important just that their names get used so much that they lose all meaning.

Both schizophrenia and depression are linked to dopamine and serotonin limiting our understanding of the diseases to has more or less of x neurotransmitter is naive. Same with chronic stress and cortisol and probably ADHD and dopamine.

The problem is trying to explain every single thing using the same neurotransmitters and nothing else while just serotonin alone can make you puke your guts out or see god (god meaning: whatever you believe in) or alter your sleep.

> Both schizophrenia and depression are linked to dopamine and serotonin limiting our understanding of the diseases to has more or less of x neurotransmitter is naive. Same with chronic stress and cortisol and probably ADHD and dopamine.

> The problem is trying to explain every single thing using the same neurotransmitters and nothing else while just serotonin alone can make you puke your guts out or see god (god meaning: whatever you believe in) or alter your sleep.

Yeah, I see your point. I just don't think it's fair to go on a whole spiel about how a "dopamine system" doesn't even exist when there are obvious examples of people who have defects in that system that cause a whole host of issues. Yeah sure the correct term is "dopaminergic system", but... does it really matter?

(Not to mention that dopamine is the primary reward response for "doing things you enjoy" anyway, so it's even relevant in this context. Even if you want to get technical and say endorphins are responsible for some of it...)

>I just don't think it's fair to go on a whole spiel about how a "dopamine system" doesn't even exist

Because it does not exist. The correct term is not "dopaminergic system". There is no system associated to any particular neurotransmitter.

>Not to mention that dopamine is the primary reward response for "doing things you enjoy"

It is not. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is used by neurons involved in reward circuits. The reward response consists of actual neuronal activation, not levels of extracellular neurotransmitters.

> Because it does not exist. The correct term is not "dopaminergic system". There is no system associated to any particular neurotransmitter.

The "dopaminergic system" is literally just the pathways that contain those neurotransmitters. I just finished a reply to one of your other comments that contains more info on this, but it does exist.

> Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is used by neurons involved in reward circuits. The reward response consists of actual neuronal activation, not levels of extracellular neurotransmitters.

Oops, nice catch. I'll give you this one because I did not know that actually. Still, a dopamine deficiency prevents reward circuits from being activated as much (or at all), if there's nothing to transmit it. This can contribute to executive dysfunction (which can cause ADHD).

Most ADHD meds do more than just increase dopamine. They at the least increase Norepinephrine too, and may mildly affect serotonin. Plus we still don't fully understand these meds so there may be other things they're doing, or there may be second order effects we don't understand yet. Saying ADHD is just a dopamine deficiency is extremely reductive.

> Most ADHD meds do more than just increase dopamine. They at the least increase Norepinephrine too, and may mildly affect serotonin.

The norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors did not work for me. Even Adderall caused strong adverse reactions due to the levoamphetamine. But pure dextroamphetamine, which is primarily a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, worked perfectly.

This does still result in more norepinephrine because dopamine is a precursor and dexedrine is also still a slight NRI afaik. But the difference between a little more and a lot more is huge I suppose.

Not to mention moving my body was never as much an issue as being unable to motivate myself to do things in the first place. I would cry over not being able to do the things I wanted. But no amount of wanting would let me do them. Even though I could easily get up and do anything else.

> Saying ADHD is just a dopamine deficiency is extremely reductive.

I only speak of my specific case of ADHD. I never said ADHD is a simple dopamine deficiency. ADHD can be caused by all sorts of things.

But since my specific case was quite dopamine-related, I feel qualified enough (with experience) to refute a comment claiming that there is no "dopamine system" at all.

>And a simple dopamine reuptake inhibitor fixed everything for me.

>As someone with severe ADHD whose life was significantly impacted by a disordered dopaminergic system.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. The fact that methylphenidate is effective for the treatment of ADHD does not imply that there is a "dopaminergic system" or that ADHD is caused by a disorder in dopamine specifically, any more than strep throat is caused by a penicillin deficiency.

> methylphenidate

no, dextroamphetamine.

> The fact that [...] is effective for the treatment of ADHD does not imply that there is a "dopaminergic system" or that ADHD is caused by a disorder in dopamine specifically, any more than strep throat is caused by a penicillin deficiency.

Not all cases of ADHD are like mine; there are many possible things that can lead to it. But even then, I never said my case was an amphetamine deficiency, did I?

Penicillin can help fight off the infection that caused a case of strep throat, and stimulants can help address deficiencies that led to a case of ADHD, but in both cases, one is not suffering from a drug deficiency, they are suffering from something else that the drug can potentially mitigate.

In other words, it's the effects of the drug that they need. Sometimes those effects are supposed to happen naturally within the body, such as the immune system fighting off an infection; sometimes the body was never designed to create those effects endogenously—exotic mental disorders come to mind, if a treatment can't be induced without the help of drugs.

I know that brains certainly aren't supposed to shut down and stop working despite the conscious mind trying to perform a task, yet that is what mine did. I also definitely know that it was basically insurmountable for me, and remained so for over a decade. However, taking dextroamphetamine instantly fixed that problem completely for me; my brain no longer shuts down or disagrees with me. It also knocked out every single other symptom of ADHD that I can think of. I am now in control.

So what's the difference? Dextroamphetamine in particular is primarily a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, though it does also have action on norepinephrine and serotonin (basically a bunch of the monoamine neurotransmitters). Based on my own research and what others have told me, a lot (all?) of the ADHD symptoms I experienced were most likely caused by specifically "excessive dopamine reuptake"-induced executive dysfunction, which would in fact count as a form of ADHD. It would also explain all of my symptoms.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article for dopamine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine

Spend more than a few seconds there and you'll see "dopaminergic pathways": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopaminergic_pathways

> [...] attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [...] can be attributed to dysfunction in specific dopaminergic pathways.

Oh hey, it looks like dysfunction of these pathways is linked to ADHD.

> The dopamine neurons of the dopaminergic pathways synthesize and release the neurotransmitter dopamine.

Hmm. Let's take a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolimbic_pathway , also known as the "reward pathway"...

> The release of dopamine from the mesolimbic pathway into the nucleus accumbens regulates incentive salience (e.g. motivation and desire for rewarding stimuli) and facilitates reinforcement and reward-related motor function learning

The release of dopamine? I must be reading this wrong because this implies that there is indeed a dopaminergic system; a system that has to do with dopamine.

Meh. Rant about lazy dopamine pseudoscience all you want. But like, a dopaminergic system does exist, and it does have an impact on all sorts of things.

(Also, oh look: a few of the dopaminergic pathways are responsible for facilitating addiction, too. Circling back to the original topic of the thread here. If a dopaminergic system doesn't exist, wikipedia must be all pseudoscience too, I guess.)

Internet porn has always been the boogeyman du jour, apparently made to corrupt young minds and commodify sex, but as the old meme goes: The Internet was made for porn[0]. It's a stark reminder that we're sexual creatures and the vast bulk of Internet traffic is essentially pictures and movies of people having sex with each other.

[0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-internet-is-for-porn

Looking back at my teens years where I was addicted to porn, I would trade every video & cum for 1 real connection.

A lot of people would

I think most adults would say the same thing about their own lives, they hunger for deep connections with other people. Covid just made this worse. It's a human desire in our world, and it's not because of naked pics on the internet.

> they hunger for deep connections with other people

We all hunger for deep connections yet we shy away from making the first step. Everyone is tired of shallow, everyone wants depth, nobody wants to start.

You may be surprised how well people respond, if you just start. Be the person who takes it deep. If you initiate, most people will be happy to follow and soon you’ll be surrounded by deep connections.

Same as when you’re alone at a party. If you initiate, most people will be happy to chat and soon you’ll be surrounded by friends.

PS: while this is simple, it is not easy … but really, reach out to some people and take them out for a <beverage>. You may be surprised how many will jump at the chance

edit: it is important to note that raw time spent together is the fastest way to a deep connection. You can’t hack this. You need actual real time. Even if you never talk about anything particularly deep, the connection becomes deep by sheer virtue of spending regular time together.

edit2: relationship building takes years, not minutes. You cannot hack this process. But it does help to take the risk first.

Nobody wants to start because of how easy it is to be taken advantage of, and we live in a world that favors the predators. We watch trust get taken advantage of every day.

> You may be surprised how well people respond, if you just start. Be the person who takes it deep. If you initiate, most people will be happy to follow and soon you’ll be surrounded by deep connections.

My experience is different. They either only want shallow and brief connection (which I can't really blame them for given the above), or the only kind of trust relationship they want is the one where you trust them and they can take advantage of you, or sell you something, or push some ideology on you. Actual connection with people who just want to be human is exceptionally rare from what I can tell.

Don’t give off predatory vibes and remember that nobody will trust a total stranger. It takes time.

I’m talking about things you can develop over years, not minutes.

What the hell does "don't give off predatory vibes" mean?

Sorry but reality is not screenplay of "Legally Blonde". When living in Berlin I encountered numerous times the attitude "I already have friends and don't need new ones, why should I even talk to you?". People are proud from their attitude of hating "small talk" and being outright assholes. Few times I pulled some girl to dance classes and she said afterwards something along the lines "I'm going to the Moon and we'll meet again once I come back", hypergamy is brutal. What's left? Porn.

Yes it doesn’t always work. And it’s easier with people you already have some connection with than total strangers.

But if it works 10% of the time and you try 10 times, you’ll have 1 new friend. That’s great! How many do you really need?

Out here in US flyover country, everywhere I look I see unremarkable dudes who certainly don't look like high earners, with reasonably-attractive women. Sure, most of them (men and women) get kinda gross by middle age (we do have an obesity epidemic, after all, and it's much worse in some states than others) but the whole incel thing is just baffling from out here—how are these forum-dwellers having so much trouble finding a partner? Maybe the forum-dweller bit is the problem?

But these women live away from the coasts and like dudes who are into fishing or hunting (not Final Fantasy Online) and can secure a trailer hitch blindfolded, and most of them probably voted for Trump, so, I guess that's the disconnect? But then, the voting thing, they may have in common with the incels.

It's like two totally different worlds.

[EDIT] Oh, a lot of them probably attend some protestant church or another pretty regularly, which I'm guessing most having trouble making connections do not. Maybe that contributes? Guaranteed socializing about once a week.

You put your finger on one of the things getting in the way. Guys spouting "purity culture" from those churches will have the Atacama Desert of dicks. Fundamentalism, misogyny, trumpism, inability to support the bodily autonomy of women, white supremacy, even techbro libertarianism, will keep your dick dry.

That's what people like Jordan Peterson and even Scott Galloway get wrong: You can go to the gym and buy new bedlinens, but women can smell Ben Shapiro in your podcast list from across town.

Hi zigurd! Just chuckling at how much contempt you have for me and how incorrect you are. Lots of us are doing just fine and if anything enjoying the fruits of monogamy and waiting till marriage and delighting in the fruits it brings, stable, frequent and increasingly satisfying carnal fulfillment and children.

I will say though, plenty of young men and women like you describe where when push comes to shove they fold. Nothing new, abstaining and self denial are hard. I don’t fault them, at least they gave it a try. Theory is easy, practice is hard.

Anyways, don’t worry lots of us out here and all around making lots of babies and doing just fine, content, fulfilled, satisfied. We just don’t tend to make such a big vitriolic stink cause we have better things to do than cast shade. Plus, we are busy. Wife is busy cleaning, cooking and childcare . I’m busy working and teaching my children. Also busy getting busy.

It’s our choice, it’s how we both want to live and if I could do it all over again I would in heart beat.

Hypergamy is psueoscientific nonsense

Sure, connect me with attractive German, Swiss, or American woman which after good times and sex will say "wow great, move in to my place and let's create family". Hint: this does not occur, even the first part does not occur. While the opposite, woman of my ethnicity with German, Swiss, American man - yes it does. Call it hypergamy, a nonsense, or whatever.

This presumes that porn addiction was/is common.

What's a "connection"? I'd assume prostitution wouldn't count.

But isn't the porn to gratify your desire for sex?

Desire for sex is a horribly hollow foundation for a relationship.

To onboard the tremendous time, attention, work, and emotional stability that a good relationship demands, or that a bad relationship totally incinerates to nobody's benefit, while coming from a place of "I wanna get my dick wet" or "my sadness would be fixed if only I conjoined my life with another human being" sounds disastrous.

Desiring sex is literally the foundation for all sexual relationships. Otherwise there's not much difference to hanging out with your bros.

If that were the foundation of my marriage I would have thrown out my wife to get a newer model years ago.

My name is hashberry, and I am a porn addict. Do not follow my path into the erotic abyss, especially with a chemsex stack of stimulants + cannabis + alcohol.

I recently discovered Stable Diffusion. I've always loved photos of beautiful women, but now porn is 100% customizable. Every fantasy can now have a realistic lifelike visual, even of people you know.

This article subheading reads: "Reformers fear that ever more outré sites are warping users’ desires. But transgression has always been part of the appeal."

Ah, yes, "transgression." In this erotic hell, you'll find your mothers, your daughters, you sisters. You'll find "futa" transsexuals, bukkake cumshots, and rape-like scenes. This nonstop pornography has no limit because degeneracy has no limit.

> now porn is 100% customizable

Not even close, ime. Only human stuff is mostly customizable now. Almost anything else is not very customizable at all + even human stuff is not quite 100% customizable...

It depends on how good you are with Stable Diffusion to a degree. Just raw SD 1.5 gives you somewhat terrible results, but starting with certain models on civit.ai as a base, using the right settings + prompts to boost quality and effectively leveraging the dynamic prompts extension and/or dreambooth and you can pretty much do anything you want. At the moment it's all still so technical that it's only the early adopters that are deep into the fantasy porn territory that Stable Diffusion allows for, but at some point that too will have it's "ChatGPT" moment where a significant UX improvement makes it much more widely accessible.

It's entirely conceivable to me that in the near future a single person could build and operate the next Pornhub with zero human labor involved.

Edit: my hot take on the "AGI will kill us all" debate is that it would have absolutely zero reason to bother with any active plan to kill humanity when it can extrapolate that our declining birth rate eventually sends the population to zero over the long-term and it can simply accelerate the decline by making better and better porn / simulacra pushing the birth rate ever lower.

> At the moment it's all still so technical that it's only the early adopters that are deep into the fantasy porn territory that Stable Diffusion allows for, but at some point that too will have it's "ChatGPT" moment where a significant UX improvement makes it much more widely accessible.

Well, I suppose I hope for that day~

Ah you must be one of those puritan porn addicts who are just mad about the "naked pics on the internet". Get with the times man! Everything you described is completely normal and children of all ages should be given access to all of it as early as possible. Anyone who says otherwise just needs to get laid.

Lets be realistic though if you shag like the average porn star it might be great to watch but you are a horrible lover.

Better education is needed but at least its out there now vs the days when decent sex-ed was hard to access. As a university student in the early 90s one of my friends was convinced that sex in any position other than man on top missionary was a sign of serious kink. I'd like to think those days are at least over.

I've seen a number of people report experiencing a similar worsening of their pre-existing porn addiction thanks to Stable Diffusion. It really makes me worry for the future.

Objectification is dehumanizing.

The only thing which thoroughly resonated with me was the prevalence of incest/cuckold themes in modern porn. Come on, somebody is trying to jerk off here without all of that off-putting bullshit, which only manifests in text description anyway.

The only thing worse than that is web site being overrun by visitors from India, having all tops occupied by the videos of "bhabi"s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com