Hacker News Reader

Comment by uyzstvqs | Hacker News Reader

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn

That's disingenuous and false. It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated by pornography. Not to say that it's not harmful to adults too, because it is.

But yes, government control, censorship and centralization of the internet is not the solution. Mandatory ID checks will not protect any kids, it will destroy the free and open internet.

View on HN

That's a weird spin on it. Young people are curious. They watch weird porn out of curiosity, the same way they watch gore. Hiding it isn't going to do them any favours. They'll get it from sketchier places instead. I know the generation before mine often went to trashy hookers way underage, with group collected money, to lose their V card, for example.

Where I'm from, it's a pretty common saying that sex is for prestige and a wank is for joy. Of course, a relationship doesn't primarily consist of your stepsister getting stuck in the dryer, running a 10-man train on your loved one, or whatever else. Even kids aren't that stupid.

It can lead to issues with your thing not being attracted to people you don't find attractive, since you're not desperate, but the opposite is, in my opinion, worse. Many good men and women have fallen for dogshit relationships with mediocre sex out of fear of no sex(ual outlet).

> where I'm from, it's a pretty common saying that sex is for prestige and a wank is for joy.

!!!

Where are you from?

Balkans, to not dox this acc too much.

Most of it promotes incest. They use the word “step” as a workaround, but everyone knows.

As the other user said, plenty of people stated that porn is harmful but none have actually been able to back up their claims.

> government control, censorship and centralization of the internet is not the solution

Why? Porn in magazine or movie form used to be age-restricted. Assume for a moment that was the correct, or at least a reasonable and permissible policy.

Why should it suddenly not be the appropriate policy, only because it's on the internet? Why do you say that laws do not or should not apply when you sprinkle a bit of "internet" over it?

It reminds me of the crypto-bro argument that, don't know, money laundering and tax evasion and offering securities without appropriate disclosure is illegal and tightly regulated, but if you do it with "blockchain", then it is perfectly fine. What sort of mindset is that?

> What sort of mindset is that?

Its the mindset of neckbeards who don't realize its not the 1990’s anymore, that the landscape has changed significantly and people cannot protect themselves let alone their children from it.

Implementation obviously matters and it is indeed a delicate situation, but that does not negate the need for solutions.

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content.

That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm?

> pornography is not representative of real relationships

No shit. Next you'll be telling me that Batman isn't representative of real billionaires.

Love it when you make a statement that porn isnt harmful without referencing any studies, and then demand studies for people to prove it is harmful. You are the one who made the original claim that its not harmful, the burden of proof is on you.

> you make a statement that porn isnt harmful

They did not state that porn is not harmful.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn

Why should they need to reference a study to show the veracity of that statement?

Their side isn't the one trying to ban things. If you want to ban something you have to prove it's harmful. If you don't want to ban something you just have to call out that the other side has to prove it's harmful before they can ban it. It's like how you don't have to prove your innocence against a criminal conviction, merely provoke reasonable doubt (in theory).

Err yeah because everything is harmful by default...

"In talking to the subjects, researchers discovered that high exposure to pornography videos apparently resulted in lower responsivity and an increased need for more extreme, specialized or “k+++y” material to become aroused."[1]

This effect can be clearly seen in that pornography websites promote this extreme, vile and obscure content, such as incest, exhibitionism, and even depictions of non-consensual interaction and physical abuse.[2] Obviously, these matters have no place in a healthy relationship, and it's pretty basic psychology that regular consumption of this content causes the normalization of such practices, especially in impressionable teenagers whom do not yet have legitimate experience in healthy, normal relationships.

A majority of adults watches pornography.[3] And we're dealing with a massive loneliness epidemic under younger generations, together with a significant rise in "hook-up culture" over forming serious relationships. Coincidence?

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5039517/

[2] Just go to one of those websites. I'm not going to do that, neither am I going to link to that here.

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1402222/us-adults-pornog...

Regarding [1], the study itself mentions that stopping watching porn reverses the effect. In layman's terms: watch enough of it and the novelty wears off, but the sexual drive returns. Hardly a harm, it's what happens with every human activity.

[2] makes the big logic jump of assuming that someone who watches kinky porn fails to separate between fantasy and reality. It is the same line of reasoning as the disproven "videogames cause violence" paradigm and it is pushed by the same sort of people (personal hypothesis: they might be projecting). This could ironically point to a problem limited to at least some individuals failing to differentiate the two, but studies find that at the population level, a higher availability of porn correlates with lower rates of sexual assault. My personal reading is that it provides a safe outlet for sexual frustration and moderate desensitization reduces the chance that someone will, so to speak, get aroused over an exposed ankle.

On [3]... you're linking to a single data point, not a series nor a correlation; additionally, even if the correlation actually existed held, people's propension to form stable relationships is a preference, not a harm. It is also not related to minors, and it is not something that the state has any business sanctioning, much less with incarceration.

I'm not sure why legislators aren't trying to address [2], which is the real problem as far as I can tell.

Is it? How many films are there promoting violence, revenge torture, etc? Is "Law Abiding Citizen" acceptable?

Featuring, and promoting, are different things. There's a big difference between Lolita and CSAM, or between Damals war es Friedrich and Mein Kampf.

But, I care about reality, not moral outrage about taboo violations*, so I'd only advocate "do something about [2]" if I believed [2] actually did contribute to a real problem. Combatting ineffective promotion is not on my priorities list. As far as I can tell, [2] is a real problem: though I'm always open to new evidence. (And when people like me take over the world, and it turns out our interventions don't make the problem go away, I like to think I'd have the integrity to reconsider my views in light of that evidence.)

*: That's not to say I don't feel outrage about taboo violations. Some taboos exist for a reason, even if that reason is not immediately obvious. (Of course, some need discarding with prejudice, but Chesterton's Fence applies.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com