Started by GSOgymrat, April 22, 2021, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 09:24:38 PMIt would logically cease to be porn; pornography only refers to, in the definitions I've seen, things that solely are produced to get a sexual response; so if it is also produced with the intention of being found aesthetically pleasing it would no longer be pornography as it has more than one certain goal.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 05, 2021, 10:48:53 PMIf you are againist porn, and want to protect your children from porn; explain the evils about it and simply install a protection barrier on your browser.
QuoteThere is a huge social engineering, and re-constructing of minds. Is it their moral duty to protect the public health? PUBLIC HEALTH. Who are you and what is your capacity to take this moral duty?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 05, 2021, 11:34:44 PMThe best porn-blockers in the world can be defeated by the most persistent 12-year-olds (or whatever the normal number is)Indeed, it is a heavy load that I'm not so sure these people can quite take. Shaky conclusions built on even shakier premises. Real health crises are self-evident; this is more like outlawing something on the grounds that someone doesn't approve of it, which is the exact same reasoning the Taliban uses. They need to prove that porn is harmful, (and on the other hand, that masturbation is harmful) and next, that it can be blocked for everyone, and finally, that this is a desirable outcome.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 22, 2021, 05:07:16 PMI noticed that anti-porn activists have recently been citing pornography as a "public health crisis." As Rebecca Watson points out, these Biblical literalists have no problems with science as long as it doesn't challenge their cherished beliefs,
Quote such as sex is bad, bad, BAD.
Quote â€œPoliticians cite science tactically, not sincerely: â€˜You canâ€™t say anymore, â€˜We want to get rid of porn because of its wickedness.â€
Quote But itâ€™s completely legitimate to say, â€œWe want to get rid of porn because itâ€™s a public health crisis like opioids or meth.â€™â€ Unfortunately for the prude brigade, there is no good science that proves pornography is bad for individuals or society.
QuoteRebecca Watson also discusses people, some of whom are atheists, who believe "no fap" gives one superpowers. I'm not on Reddit but I vaguely remember reading something about this fad. I confess back when I was a sophomore in college I did this experiment after studying addictions and wondering if I would have trouble not masturbating. I initially decided to stop for a month but then kept going. After five months I had sex with someone and that ended the streak. Not masturbating wasn't difficult and I noticed no changes in my mood, focus, physical ability and sadly didn't acquire telekinesis.
QuoteI agree with this psychotherapist:
Quote- Pornography is not an addiction.
Quote- Pornography does not cause sexual, relationship, or mental health problems.
Quote- The anti-porn movement ignores the science of sexology.
Quote- If you struggle with your pornography use, seek a therapist who is sex-positive and doesn't work with the addiction framework.