Is porn actually harmless, or are we just pretending?

[Infinity16]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Legal systems are also not about what is true, but about what is fair. But this is entirely besides the point.

Why do you think somebody has a "burden of proof" if they make a claim but you don't?

Because I don't want arbitrary laws and I want to preserve personal freedoms. When the burden of proof gets shifted, bad things happen. 

• "These people must be witches because they couldn't prove that they weren't"
• "Communists must have infiltrated out government. There is no proof to the contrary"
• "We should keep an eye on those Muslims. Just to be safe, of course"
• "Iraq must have weapons of mass destruction because there's no proof that there isn't"

Shifting the burden of proof also leads to conspiratorial thinking. You can't understand how a tragedy happened, so there must have been a conspiracy behind it. No thought is given to how plausible the conspiracy is.

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

MSc in neuroscience.

That's not a source.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

That's not a source.

My guy, I was speaking from my understanding of basic concepts in neuroscience. If you want a source for that, there are various books on basic concepts in neuroscience.

I gave you a theoretically plausible account of how porn and masturbation can lead to lower energy levels. If you want a highly specific empirical account, go to Google Scholar or something.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Infinity16 said:

Because I don't want arbitrary laws and I want to preserve personal freedoms. When the burden of proof gets shifted, bad things happen. 

• "These people must be witches because they couldn't prove that they weren't"
• "Communists must have infiltrated out government. There is no proof to the contrary"
• "We should keep an eye on those Muslims. Just to be safe, of course"
• "Iraq must have weapons of mass destruction because there's no proof that there isn't"

Shifting the burden of proof also leads to conspiratorial thinking. You can't understand how a tragedy happened, so there must have been a conspiracy behind it. No thought is given to how plausible the conspiracy is.

We're not talking about the law here, you're lost in a different discussion. We're talking about whether porn is harmful or not. Why are you concerned about the "burden of proof" in this context?

[bazera]

I don't think people who watch porn occasionally experience any negative side effects. It's only those who use it daily and compulsively, who notice that they have energy or libido problems, or they can't maintain erection, or that they require more extreme stuff to get off.

It's the same with every other compulsive behavior.

 

[Basman]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

My guy, I was speaking from my understanding of basic concepts in neuroscience. If you want a source for that, there are various books on basic concepts in neuroscience.

I gave you a theoretically plausible account of how porn and masturbation can lead to lower energy levels. If you want a highly specific empirical account, go to Google Scholar or something.

Don't you think you should state when you make an unproven hypothesis? I can't find anything that corroborates what your saying that isn't anecdotal reddit echochamber slop. 

[Basman]

Don't you think a lot of guys who struggle with sensitivity and deathgrip from jerking off are all mostly circumcised Americans. Ofcourse your ruining your dick turbocharging it because you have a mutilated penis.

Like this whole lotion thing. It's considered a posh fap everywhere with healthy and normal foreskin ratio. 

[Someone here]

for me personally the objective part is that porn is obviously unhealthy and toxic but let’s not pretend that we are angels because almost everyone watches it. 
the subjective part for me is it makes you feel like you don’t need to find a girlfriend or wife because you can have an infinite harem at your fingertips..so why bother?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

Don't you think you should state when you make an unproven hypothesis?

I did, after the fact, because you seemed to not know the difference. If you can't judge what is a theoretical rationale / hypothesis and what is a scientific research result, that's on you.

I said "so you want a mechanism?" (that can explain a relationship), not "so you want a scientific study that has been done on specifically that relationship?".

But the thing about especially this question, is that the mechanisms are so basic that specific scientific studies are basically only tests of the strengths of the relationship; i.e. the relationship between porn/masturbation and lower energy probably definitely exist, but does it matter (or how much does it matter)? And if that is the case, my position of "it depends" is a quite justifiable position, because it says "increase the 'how much' " is what matters.

 

2 hours ago, Basman said:

I can't find anything that corroborates what your saying that isn't anecdotal reddit echochamber slop. 

I did, but it doesn't matter that much if it's not well-studied. What statement specifically are you concerned about?

Edited just now by Carl-Richard