The thoughts/fantasies you harbor while viewing images on a screen do not magically turn off when you step outside. It sticks with you and shapes how you view the world.
It encourages the moral decay of our society and puts our kids (and the future of society) at risk.
You have causation backwards. They look at it because they see children sexually, not the other way around. If it worked how you propose, then homosexuality could be changed to heterosexuality simply by viewing the right porn - and vice-versa.
If you think gender is different than age, try making yourself attracted to 70+ year-old women by viewing porn featuring them.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of...
Update:
See studies referenced at https://fightthenewdrug.org/violence-and-rape-connected-with....
The source the parent provided does not claim what the parent claims. The article starts with a caveat stating "for most people".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...
This has been studied for decades. Please provide some evidence to support your claims.
Anyone familiar with porn can only see that creating porn involves sexual violence in most cases. There is a wealth of litterature showing that watching violent porn will induce more violent sexual behaviors. See for instance the litterature review here:
https://psyarxiv.com/cw24q/download/?format=pdf
Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
In general, I find the idea quite simple that showing a behavior in an enticing form to someone will lead to an adoption of the behavior. Otherwise you ought to explain this to advertisers, I'm sure they'd be happy to save hundred of billions in tv ads in the US.
Again, the same "violent video games cause violence" nonsense is being used here to justify your personal (but wrong) feelings about pornography.
>Otherwise you ought to explain this to advertisers, I'm sure they'd be happy to save hundred of billions in tv ads in the US.
Is this a reference to "sex sells"? Sorry but so far as we know, nobody ever raped someone because they saw a suggestive television commercial. But please go ahead and find some evidence of that.
>PsychologyToday is a pro-porn outlet that likes to cherry pick badly designed studies.
You can say that but your opinion doesn't make that statement true, and you yourself are cherry-picking one out of many other studies that contradict what you want to be true.
>Anyone familiar with porn can only see that creating porn involves sexual violence in most cases.
That's false, that's your opinion and it is quite divorced from reality. There are many studies showing quite the opposite of what you think is going on.
- While one study shows 88% of porn depicts violence against women, *five other studies estimate between 2% and 36%*.
- Studies on the amount of violence against women in porn vary widely because some count consensual BDSM as "violence" while others don't.
- If 2% of porn videos depict violence against women, it could be said that porn depicts less violence against women than TV cop shows.
Yes, I'm using this site again because your personal opinion of the site means absolutely nothing given you're using your feelings to assert a falsehood:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201606...
"New research findings published in the journal Trauma, Violence & Abuse suggest there is no connection between pornography consumption and sexual violence"
https://www.utsa.edu/today/2020/08/story/pornography-sex-cri...
Since the availability of internet porn, rape rates have steadily declined over time.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
Women enjoy watching porn too, in case you're too puritan to realize that. Sure it's easy to find studies that agree with your world view, because other people use their feelings more than evidence too. You want to believe it's true, so you find others that have the same bias. But there's far more studies and evidence that porn does not cause sexual violence, and most porn produced isn't violent in nature although the classification of "violence" can mean different things to different people, and in your case it seems like any sexual act that is filmed would count as "violence".
Studies that look at availability of porn vs rape do indicate that porn is a substitute for rape among those inclined, and not a cause of further desire. There are still flaws because of the existence of confounding factors. But it is the best that we have.
See https://fightthenewdrug.org/violence-and-rape-connected-with... (it links to many different studies, sources at the bottom of the article).
I wrote: "as the availability of porn grew, incidence of rape fell"
The article I linked stated: "The same goes for other countries: as access to pornography grew in once restrictive Japan, China and Denmark in the past 40 years, rape statistics plummeted."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
The mere fact that facial ejaculation is mainstream is good example of this. Inducing taste for CSAM in the mainstream will have devastating consequences as many people won't have the impulse control to refrain from satisfying their fetishes and the victims are powerless.
People aren't born with a set of fetishes in their head. I'm not either arguing for a "think of the children" line or reasoning, creating AI generated CSAM content is a niche activity, so forbidding it won't affect our freedoms significatively.
[Edit] better paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
"… I show them my prick, then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face… That's my passion my child, I have no other… and you're about to behold it."
- The 120 Days of Sodom, 1785
"My dick will go through the middle of boys and the middle of girls, but with bearded men it will aim only for the top."
- An epigram of Priapus from 1st Century AD.
- Yeah, Greeks had such tendencies. They had slaves too. What is the meaning here? Since we're discussing ancient greek culture, did you know that the real meaning of Oedipe's myth was that you'd be handsomely punished for being a pedophilic rapist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laius
There's a separate issue, which is that it's highly uncivilized and dangerous to imprison people for what is essentially thought crime (the important caveats here being that he did not distribute the images and that they were not produced by harming anybody), but also his behavior is highly disturbing because of the emotional nature of the crime that it might indicate a preclusion to. Those two factors come into very strong conflict.
Personally I think codified punishment of being "disgusting" or "appearing to want to do something illegal" is a vastly greater evil than looking at fake child porn, both morally and practically. Of course, ultimately the people constituting a society decide (indirectly) what is illegal, and their morality-emotions will unavoidably be expressed in laws as far as their framework allows (e.g. the constitution).
However, if enough members of the society align on the same morality-emotions, you can reach a critical mass that allows for changing the framework, which is the real terror I feel when I see stories like this.
Stop moving the goalposts and your transparents appeals to emotion all over the discussion. If you have data or sources, show them.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
Also, would you argue that culture has no effect on behaviors? What a strange take.
Hey here’s one for you: Every porn addict, pedophile, and rapist drinks water.
If you drink water then you’re a rapist!!!
See how ludicrous your statements are… all over this thread. You keep repeating the same correlative results as causative and the causation has been debunked by the entire world’s scientists.
Doom didn’t make kids shoot up a school. Mission impossible didn’t create an entire generation of super spies. And porn didn’t create rapists.
Quit with your complete BS, @kretinsky
Do you not have any kinks?
I have a fair amount and the ones I like in porn, I don’t like in real life. The ones I like in real life I don’t really like in porn.
So, specifically concerning your first sentence, which in my opinion is intended as an argument, even though it’s just a question and doesn’t offer any backing, the answer is no.
https://www.koreaboo.com/lists/kpop-idols-youngest-currently...
(and she's now slightly over 14, and I do mean slightly. Long way to her 15th birthday)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2_5AZjAoMi0 (you might want to watch this one in incognito mode. I mean it's youtube, so it's "not sexual", but calling it SFW is lunacy. you'll see what I mean)
At least she looks like she might be 16 ...
In short: I feel like this society is long past the idea of sexualizing kids being perfectly OK.
Obviously, I have kids, I'd like this guy to stop. But I do think, uh, could this whole young girls KPOP thing stop too, the whole thing? Obviously it is creating guys like this. In fact the guy is at least not using, and not hurting, real girls.
Because yes, KPOP has lead to suicides by the "artist" girls, whereas this guy (correct me if I'm wrong) so far has not hurt a fly.
There’d be 0 reason to produce or share real one anymore or even sell it.
Important thing, you can generate CGI or AI images without them being trained specifically by the thing you want.
Like you need banana cake just train them with bananas and also cakes. The equivalence of what “bananas” and “cakes” are for this argument, are left to the reader of this comment, who I assume intelligent, as I think it’s gross and unnecessary to make it explicit.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
No causation, only correlation.
Hey here’s one for you: Every porn addict, pedophile, and rapist drinks water.
If you drink water then you’re a rapist!!!
See how ludicrous your statements are… all over this thread. You keep repeating the same correlative results as causative and the causation has been debunked by the entire world’s scientists.
Doom didn’t make kids shoot up a school. Mission impossible didn’t create an entire generation of super spies. And porn didn’t create rapists.
Quit with your complete BS, @kretinsky
Don't think about Mickey Mouse.
Is this a crime? Things that are inside your head, who else can say what can exist there, other than you yourself?
Thoughts are not crimes.
I disagree, Neo. Everything starts with a decision.
I get what you are saying, but this quote could be changed to reference viewing adults as sexual objects. Thus eliminate all porn.
*But*, I believe people who use child porn have some "wires" crossed in their brain. Too bad they could not voluntary get treatment in a good facility as opposed to being sent to prison.
Also, IIRC, current medical research says people using child porn will eventually act-out, so if there was a place they can go and not have their name revealed, maybe things will get better.
But I doubt that will ever happen, just about all Mental Diseases have stigma attached to them and this is the most stigmatized condition to have.
Just contemplate the long, long history of moral decay panics and what they were panicking over. That's why that is no longer taken seriously.
Understanding that people deal with some dysfunction or the other is the cost of living in a free society. Everyone struggles with some inner demons. Some much more than others. But we largely trust that they can keep these impulses in control. I don't advocate at all that we must empathise with those having this sort of disorder but we must allow people to deal with these issues privately.
Better, more vigilant policing is the answer. The impulse to stop crime from happening at the point it takes root in someone's mind is just the road to the worst kind of tyranny.
We certainly don't know what drives sexual attraction in our brains. But we do know that it is darned hard to change. People can't choose to be straight vs gay. Gay people remain gay people even when they hate themselves for it, and even in places where they face the death penalty for it. (True, bisexual people do wind up choosing to only act on heterosexual interest in such places. But again the wiring does not get affected by society's approval.)
There have been decades of research into pornography and sexual violence. As https://www.utsa.edu/today/2020/08/story/pornography-sex-cri... says, the overall conclusion is that pornography does not increase sexual violence.
So to this topic. I no more believe that people have a choice about being pedophiles than I believe that people have a choice about being gay. The significant difference is that gay people can be consensually gay with other gay people. Pedophiles cannot consensually abuse children.
Disclaimer. This is a personal topic. I was homosexually abused as a child. I deeply understand the importance of the topic. Which is why I care that people think clearly about it.
Because I value clarity of thought, I consider arguments about encouraging moral decay, or encouraging pedophilia to be complete and utter bullshit. Arguments should be rooted in reality. Those arguments just use revulsion to shy away from the painful truth.
Here is the painful truth. Some fraction of (overwhelmingly) men have a strong sexual interest in children that they struggle with acting on. Nobody really knows what makes someone have that interest. It almost certainly is an orientation that is fixed before puberty. We know of no way to change it. Therefore we have the same four rational choices that we do with every other such "unnatural sexual desire".
1. Kill those men. 2. Lock those men away permanently. 3. Accept that they are among us, protect ourselves in some ways, and only punish those who prove unable to resist their impulses. 4. Make what those men want as normal.
While many of us would be OK with the first two options, as a society we've chosen the third. With gays, opinion has swung over my lifetime towards taking the fourth option with gays. (I'm for it, but this is definitely a change.)
Given that we're choosing the third option as a society, this jailing makes no sense to me. The guy found a harmless outlet for his perverse desires. Yay him? Don't let him work in childcare, but let's save jail for, I don't know, someone who actually ACTS on his desires?
See the litterature review here: https://psyarxiv.com/cw24q/download/?format=pdf
Or here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
Also, "people are born gay" is quack science. If it's true, what else are people "born" into? Yes, sexual suggestion exists, either through social circles, or through culture, or advertising. Alternative sexual behaviors have exploded since porn went mainstream - did we experience a major genetic change?
Anyway, just like you can entice people to smoke by showing Marylin Monroe smoking on the screen, you can entice people to develop an taste for pedophilia by showing them enticing CSAM. And because the consequences of pedophilia are one of the worst things for society, CSAM is forbiden.
Your first article is not so much a "literature review" like you claim as an article claiming that the following theories imply the following conclusion without any data of their own supporting that conclusion. The strongest result was that cultures which normalize violence against women also normalize sexual violence against women. Yes, we can change how people behave towards their objects of sexual interest. We don't change who they are interested in when we do.
Your second article is an example of what I discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37718038. It proves a correlation between being interested in both porn and sexual activity. It does not show causation. The result is exactly what we should expect if people come wired with certain interests, and therefore does not qualify as evidence for or against those theories.
On "people are born gay" being quack science, we literally are discovering the genetic linkages to being gay. https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biologi...
We're also finding factors that set sexual orientation in the womb, independent of culture. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/womb-gay/
Since porn went mainstream, and acceptance of homosexuality went up, we've seen more openness to teenage experimentation. But do you know what we haven't seen? We haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay in polls. Research on pedophilia is harder to do, but I doubt that has changed either.
In short the thing that, based on available evidence, actually is quack science is your claim that, "Anyway, just like you can entice people to smoke by showing Marylin Monroe smoking on the screen, you can entice people to develop an taste for pedophilia by showing them enticing CSAM."
We have zero data supporting such a conclusion.
> we literally are discovering the genetic linkages to being gay
Well you should have read your article, which says: "With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists."
Intelligence is determined at 80% by genetics, and polygenic. All of this says that there can be a predisposition toward homosexual tendencies ("gay" is related to american homosexual culture and is a prime example of cultural imperialism), however no one is "born" homosexual. Some people with the related genes may end up becoming so, others may mary women, some may just remain alone. This is a strange, calvinist projection on human existence. Would you say that people are born criminal too? There are genes for this as well. Or let's talk about race? So yeah, sorry, this is quack science.
> we've seen more openness to teenage experimentation
This sounds really like what an enabler would say to help sexual predators targeting young people. Teen years are not a good time to "experiment" too much things in sexuality (doesn't mean it's not possible to have sex), as consequences are long-lasting and they are very easily influenced and vulnerable.
> We haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay in polls.
Given that "gay" is the number one thing being advertised and promoted in the US lately, especially at the vulnerable youth, yes that's not very surprising. But I think we're past self-determination now anyway, and more in some kind of weird propaganda. Same goes with transgenderism, with devastating effects (castration of fertile people among others). The US has also currently a mental health crisis, with no sign of stopping, so "data" currently shows that your remedy is either ineffective, or destructive.
Anyway, I'm not suprised here to see the crossroads between gay, porn and pedophilia. The connection is documented and quite old actually: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13...
All of this disgusting thread makes me pretty happy to live away from the US to be honest.
The bit you quoted said that multiple gene candidates are linked to homosexuality. You failed to understand that this implies that we are finding gene linkages. You instead focused on no single gay gene. And then jumped to intelligence, where we ALSO have found no single intelligence gene. Without noticing the flaws in your logic.
You simply ignored the evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by conditions in the womb. Specifically that large families mean greater odds of gay sons. Instead you latch on to a phrase like "teenage experimentation" and accuse me of being a groomer. Which, of course, I am not. I merely happen to know that gay children are more likely to never try to pretend or experiment with being heterosexual. However the age at which teens first have sex has gone later. And the more "liberal sex ed" they get, the later that they start having sex! (Conservatism breeds hypocrisy...)
Your comments about "haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay" suggest you read that sentence as the exact opposite of what I actually said. If I'm wrong, then you're arguing against your own position!
Your article about historical alliances due to legal discrimination notwithstanding, there is little link between pedophilia and homosexuality. As https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep... says, to the extent that pedophiles have adult sexual interests, they are heterosexual. Even if they pursue boys. That certainly was my experience. That is also the case in countries where such abhorrent practices remain, like Afghanistan's "dancing boys".
I've not looked for the statistics, but I'm sure that the figures change for post-pubescent victims. Still, far more heterosexuals than homosexuals focus on porn categories like "barely legal". Not homosexual. Other than the coincidence that homosexuality and pedophilia involve sexual interest in biologically inappropriate targets, there is no particular connection between them. Which is there is no contradiction in my being OK with homosexuality, but not pedophilia.
There appear to be only three things that we agree on. That pedophilia is bad, that the current radical transgender ideology is pushing bad ideas, and that we're both glad that you live away from the US.
It's exactly what I said, intelligence is polygenic (not a too complex word for you I hope). Intelligence is a proxy here for the general mind. Homosexuality tendency is probably the same, which means it's not "on" or "off" as you initially said. You are not "born gay", there is 0 evidence that a one day newborn is homosexual. Epigenetics also probably play a role here. Twins studies, which are the golden standard, are not conclusive on this matter.
Large families have mean different education environment, which could mean different outcomes toward sexuality as well. All of this evidence is non-conclusive.
> And the more "liberal sex ed" they get, the later that they start having sex!
haha this made me giggle - I went through those horrible classes, really borderline traumatising, removed all the fun and erotic aspects of sex yeah. Sad by the way that they don't teach stuff about fertility to women, who now flock into fertilty cliniques in their late 30's.
> Your comments about "haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay" suggest you read that sentence as the exact opposite of what I actually said. If I'm wrong, then you're arguing against your own position!
You're right, I misread, probably because it's false: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-tick... Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
> Your article about historical alliances due to legal discrimination notwithstanding, there is little link between pedophilia and homosexuality. As https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep... says, to the extent that pedophiles have adult sexual interests, they are heterosexual. Even if they pursue boys. That certainly was my experience. That is also the case in countries where such abhorrent practices remain, like Afghanistan's "dancing boys".
There is an extensive culture of ephebophilia among homosexuals, ancient Greece being one of the oldest recorded example. I do agree however that it's less clear-cut, as many sex offenders are bisexuals too.
> Still, far more heterosexuals than homosexuals focus on porn categories like "barely legal".
There's an extensive supply of specific content, such as "twink" that caters to the homosexual public.
Here is a clue-by-four.
Find where I said that it is "on" or "off". Find where I indicated that I thought people are necessarily "born gay". Find where I indicated that epigenetics can't play a role.
Good luck. I said none of those things. I said nothing indicating that I believe any of those things. And I actually don't believe those things. As should be obvious from the fact that I identify "bisexual" as a category.
You're right, I misread, probably because it's false: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-tick... Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
The headline figure there is that 7.1% of adults classify themselves as LBGTQ.
https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical... gives various historical polls. Hunt in 1974 found that 7% of men had spent at least 3 years in a homosexual relationship, and about 2-3% of men are exclusively homosexual and under 1% of women. Let's see, that's around the same that are LBGTQ today, and about the same percentage that are gay today!
You can compare with other polls over the decades. Depending on how the poll was done and who did it, you get different percentages. But they are all in the same range.
Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
Most zoomers have not actually had sex, and most of the ones that I know have been walking back their trans declarations. So I don't take that figure seriously. Let's wait and see what they say when they are 30.
This is why porn tends to produce ever more harcore content, to satisfy the ever increasing cravings of the watchers. Just look at a 70's porn movie and the average one today. Much more enticing and hardcore.
As a result, allowing people to develop a taste for CSAM is pandora's box we shouldn't open.
I was actually happy this guy got arrested and sentenced until I read the images were not even distributed. Now I'm conflicted about it, and lean towards this being repressive and wrong. I mean, how did the cops even find out about this? Seems like a privacy violation has occurred in order for the arrest to happen in the first place.
In most cases, like many other pedo arrests: by going through his devices for a separate criminal concern.
Maybe he was caught downloading CSAM, maybe he was being investigated for fraud, who knows.
As a comparison point, New Zealand has made it illegal to possess or distribute the anime Puni Puni Poemy for sexualized gags involving child characters; and owning lolicon manga can get you arrested on child porn charges in Canada. South Korea is not breaking new ground here, even among industrialized democracies.
Nah. You're citing old data. "On 8 June 2021, the Classification Office re-classified Puni Puni Poemy R16 after granting a request from a member of the public to reconsider the classification of the series."
Here's a screenshot of the current NZ classification board's website regarding it, 16+. https://i.imgur.com/aXHtsVd.png
Search for yourself: https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/
Here's a list of where it is/isn't legal to have lolicon. There's notable countries on both sides of the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
there is a lot of stuff that is obscene at face value but not disallowed by SK law.
most depictions of gore and violence would be considered obscene by definition, yet 'realism shooters' are hugely popular and legally allowed most anywhere.
it's illegal because it's illegal. I don't know enough about SK law reformation to tell you how that came about, but 'obscene' isn't the bar to judge from; plenty of legal obscenity exists most everywhere you look.
But I agree. Let’s stick to attacking real crime instead of fictional content whether porn or first person shooters. Just sounds like moral panic over Doom rehashed.
Of course we can't run that study, so it comes down to a judgement call. I am perhaps more conservative in nature and feel that a government which allows AI-generated CP is sending a disturbing message. However, I recognize the difficulty in assessing which policy would actually have the best (or rather least bad) outcome, so I don't hold this view strongly.
One of us misunderstands what “conservative” means here. I was under the impression that it meant the government shouldn’t meddle in private affairs if it doesn’t have to.
Libertarians being called conservatives is a peculiar US Cold War phenomenon stemming from the fact that both found themselves opposing Marxism. Libertarians really belong on the left.
Todays National Conservative movement is largely about breaking this alliance and rejecting small government conservatism/libertarianism in favor of something closer to Viktor Orban. Ron DeSantis is an example.
I typically favor liberalism from an analytical perspective of which ideology yields better outcomes, but perhaps the emotional weight of this particular topic makes it hard for me concede.
It does violate the principle of "where there is no victim, there is no crime" (which seems to derive from malum in se).
Perhaps modern reasoning might be that becoming desensitized and attracted to such imagery would lead to the same in the realm of real action.
"'Public welfare offenses' are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often 'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'
"...Examples of offenses that are generally regarded as mala prohibita include disorderly conduct, gambling, possession of a controlled substance, prostitution, public intoxication, resisting arrest, speeding, and vagrancy."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/may/08/secondlif...
There is no technical reason the models could not in principle produce child porn from non-victim material. And if it is possible I bet somebody will do it.
What I was responding was the argument about why AI-child porn should be illegal, and I think the argument is false.
And please, don't construe it as me saying whether it should be legal or illegal. AFAIK, in most of the world, the depiciton of child sexual acts is illegal, regardless of the form. So a drawing or animation is also considered illegal, regardless of how it was produced.
The software was downloaded to his laptop, so I doubt the Midjourney restrictions are relevant here. It was probably your run-of-the-mill Stable Diffusion UI with one of the many pretrained models available online, trained on normal (legal) porn.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of...
I'm guessing a lot more research needs to be done, but it seems possible that pornography of all types reduces the need for certain behaviors. Given society's current anti-science bent, I don't hold out any hope this research would be done or followed, if it yielded a correlation.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
This thread has made me lost my faith in humanity.
You don’t seem to care about facts, only spreading misinformation.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not equal causation; ever. Never-ever.
There's a lot of research necessary on this subject, but very little of it is ethical. You can't take two large groups of paedophiles and let them go unchecked to measure how many kids they abuse over the years.
What doesn't help is that the general population is very much of the opinion that all paedophiles should be killed/locked up for life; no paedophile not already under treatment will ever partake in these types of research. If you show up at a random university study and come in saying "Hi, I'm Bob the paedo", you're going to be arrested.
Are there any studies that prove this?
To be honest, this sounds like the whole “violent video games cause more violence”, which has clearly been debunked.
much like any digital experience, I have a hard time believing that it is somehow a practicing ground.
As you’re presenting no evidence you’re also just relying on what you ‘feel’ to be true.
Thankfully the sibling comment to this one shows that porn can and does actually influence behaviour.
And whilst “think of the children” is often used in a pearl clutching manner it doesn’t obviate the need to sometimes think about the impacts of the adult world on kids.
The sibling comment is also completely wrong, suggesting that "porn invented the facial". I commented with a citation demonstrating how that is false.
>And whilst “think of the children” is often used in a pearl clutching manner it doesn’t obviate the need to sometimes think about the impacts of the adult world on kids.
You're pearl clutching. If you don't want your kids watching porn, then maybe be a more attentive parent and don't let them watch porn. This really isn't about children though, because I am not responsible for what your kid watches. There is nothing wrong with an adult watching a video of two consenting adults having sex. You're just trying to make it seem wrong because you're too prudish to want to watch it yourself, so you think nobody else should be able to watch it either. Sorry, but the world doesn't work the way you want it to.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant."
How do you explain the fact that facial ejaculation, which has been invented by porn, is now mainstream, if not due to porn being itself mainstream?
This was not "invented by porn" and to suggest so is beyond ridiculous.
>Predating the modern age of pornography, facials were described in literature. As an example, the French aristocrat Marquis de Sade wrote about performing facials in his work The 120 Days of Sodom, written in 1785. One passage of the novel reads "… I show them my prick, then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face… That's my passion my child, I have no other… and you're about to behold it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_(sexual_act)
>"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant."
Most women would be lucky to have a partner that learned a few techniques to please them in bed, it doesn't really matter where it came from. Or they could just have missionary only for the rest of their lives?