Hacker News Reader

Comment by farinasa | Hacker News Reader

I never claimed it was primarily empathy. But imagine watching porn where there was no emotion expressed. Uninterested faces and motions. Absolutely no expression from the face, not even flexed muscles or anything to indicate enthusiasm. Pure and simple intercourse. It would look like nature, simple utility. That is not arousing.

View on HN

Nope. Maybe you're young and you allways had porn available at your fingertips (internet). When I was a teenager, I'd come accross just a couple of movies on VHS a year. Beyond that, I'd have to watch the blacked out, static filled, almost unwatchable image from the unsubscribed-to porn channel on cable. Couldn't see their faces, couldn't see expression, but could still see outline of bodies. Still got aroused.

Kids have less capacity for empathy and a starving man will always eat crumbs. I did my fair share of cable box hacking/noise sifting/etc, but usually adults tend to mature in their preferences. Would you still be aroused by that content?

I also probably had a lot more testosterone in my body back then... but if I was still starving, then maybe. I guess I won't know, since there's the internet now...

Really, you're declaring your own porn preferences as a universal human constant?

I didn't say anything about my preference. I said the emotions expressed will be invoked in the viewer.

Nature can be arousing. People are aroused by mannequins, photocopiers cars, other things without emotion. I don't think empathy is at all necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com