8 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] thread
Even if porn destroys you slowly, doesn't mean it's enough to justify that porn has to be banned.

It has its purpose and people should be free to choose.

It should be banned, because it's impossible to enforce age limits on access in the way that it's distributed now. At least people should have to validate their identity with a credit card before gaining access.

Curious young children/teens with their first smartphone are in no position to make an informed choice here, and they are likely the most vulnerable group in terms of potential damage from porn use.

I was willing to read the article with an open mind. After 10 paragraphs of preamble and nary a fact in sight, I gave up. Get to the effing point already.
Having read the whole thing, it's basically a Gladwellisation of anecdotes and correlations into implied causations.

> We can’t prove a direct causal link between porn addiction and the “sex recession,” [continues rambling on as if a direct causal link was proven]

He also seems (wilfully?) oblivious to any other factors - e.g. as a tiny example, when talking about how Japan's "sex recession" might destroy society, he mentions that these "herbivores" tend to live with their parents (that -probably- impacts their sex life), prefer spending time alone (again, impacting sex life), and are uninterested in professional careers (ok, no relevance here.)

The article is too long and too wordy, but it provides many links to published studies on the effects of porn on the brain.
Re: studies and reviews of brain impacts of pornography, I'm interested in the sources for the data referenced in this article.
Awful lot of coomers here, apparently.