Preaching posts like yours are more dangerous than whatever excess porn consumption may do to people's brains.

True.

While I think that the porn industry has inherent problems and some people get addicted to it. For me its preachers like GP that are doing our society a great disservice by moralizing and putting perfectly normal humam behaviors down as "perversion".

Exactly. People shouldn't be free to do things rusty cans don't approve because our society is at stake here!

There's only one solution to each problem and it's what this wise, moral person is selling because if it works for them, then it's the only possible truth.

It’s acceptable to have a position or opinion, civilly stated.

Any of the common “vices” like gambling, porn, Skinner box games, some drugs are difficult for people to manage. That dopamine hit burns behavioral pathways into the brain and is tough to undo.

Why are you (and others in this thread) grouping porn with drugs and gambling? To me, this does not make any sense.

Watching porn is not a bad thing. Obviously, if you're talking about addiction then perhaps, but do you think people are addicted to porn (on average) to the extent others are to those other vices?

Likewise, gambling and drugs impact you both physically and mentally, whereas the evidence for porn's impact on either is questionable at best.

Watching porn in of itself is no more a bad thing than playing poker or a video game. I’m not making a moral judgment.

Like gambling, it’s easy to fall into a behavior pattern that is similar to gambling. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600144/ ) I’m not sure of the pervasiveness of gambling or porn addiction, it isn’t my field.

There’s a reason why online porn pivoted to a model similar to YouTube — it’s a model that drives engagement, and you very commonly hear evidence that YouTube has a very significant addiction, even for toddlers.

I see, good point about falling into similar patterns regarding gambling.

Although I disagree. I'm not sure if porn has a model that drives engagement?

Let's be honest, are most people really watching porn, having a wank, then watching the rest of the porn? Probably not, so I am not sure how the engagement model of porn is similar to YouTube.

Having said that, with OnlyFans and other such sites, the porn landscape is certainly evolving, and perhaps it is that landscape (than porn hub) that is more engaging because there's the human element, e.g., you can ask an only fans person to say your name whereas you cannot when watching videos.

Anything artificial that directly affects the brain's reward pathways is bound to cause addiction. We can't, in good faith, argue that artificial food is addictive, or that artificial opium is more addictive than regular opium, and then, in the same breath, consider preposterous the idea that artificial sex is. (And let's not argue over semantics here, to pre-empt any argument about what constitutes artificial sex: a restaurant doesn't necessarily serve artificial food any more than a prostitute serves artificial sex)

>Let's be honest, are most people really watching porn, having a wank, then watching the rest of the porn? I'm not sure if porn has a model that drives engagement?

It's very easy, incentivized even, to open 10 tabs and switch through each to "optimize" the orgasm, finding the exact clip to reach orgasm. And much like social media influencers take many different photos and pick the ones that are the best, the same is done with the creation of porn. People don't finish the porn videos, you're right, but a lot of people also don't finish Youtube videos either. I think it's irrelevant whether they're finishing them - what drives engagement here is discovery of novel pornographic content. There are almost infinite possibilities for what one can watch. The problem with porn today is it's artificial and plentiful. So the model is to abuse our psychology to seek novelty as well as our desire to have many sexual partners. The engagement is in the desire to see many new and novel scenes at each session and the user's anticipation of another "porn session".

Apparently everyone is exactly the same and the only people whose lives haven't been ruined buy these vices, as you call them, are the ones who haven't tried them. I am done here

Not sure why you have a hang up about this.

I enjoy drinking alcohol and have no issues with it, but that doesn’t mean acknowledging that alcoholism is a thing is a problem or some judgemental act.

The potential downsides associated alcohol consumption are well understood, and this understanding has permeated most societies.

The same cannot be said for porn consumption. While studies exist, this is not a well understood topic, and big claims are going to be met with skepticism and demands for evidence.

That makes sense, as alcohol use and abuse has been with us for a millennia or more. The internet is a tad bit newer.

If you look, you will find plenty of inquiry, debate and research into the topic.

I don't expect everyone to get it but if my insight helps a few people then it's worth sharing.

What insight, specifically? You make big claims with no citation, and when asked for more info, you dismiss those questions. If you’re interested in helping others understand the insights you claim to have, bring some details to the table!

I’m pretty curious about the topic, and this is an inquisitive community in general. Unfortunately, the way you’ve presented your position is not helpful, especially for a group that tends to demand scientific proof or at least a well formed hypothesis.

Forget about the porn for a moment. Read it first as online habits programming the mind. When you visit certain websites, the content and algorithms tend to program the user's mind. You can see it with Facebook influencing politics and such. TikTok, etc.

Now bring in the porn websites and you will realise how it programs the user's mind in a similar way. Eg. After some time, some people will exhibit cuckold, submission/domination, incest behaviour in real life. Some will look at an older woman and not see a mother but a milf. Hope you get the point. I don't have any scientific proof but I used to be a porn user myself. You are welcome to research the subject further if you are interested.

Referring back to the parent comment, as the stimulation of vanilla porn becomes boring, the user will need to watch more and more hyper stimulating material. Not dissimilar from a drug user. Some lose the interest in regular real life sex altogether or need to incorporate their porn habits into it.

I don't mean to generalize so if you don't think it applies to you then move on, but if you are interested in self improvement then tread these waters carefully.

I suspect that many of the people responding haven't read any research into the topic.

What kinks do you think are unhealthy? I’d wager that truly unhealthy kinks are uncommon.

>I’d wager that truly unhealthy kinks are uncommon.

The algorithm on PornHub promotes incest videos so heavily that creators of regular porn have started putting words like "stepmom", "step-sister" and "step-daughter" in the title of their videos even when the actual content has nothing to do with that.

It's one of the reasons I stopped using the site and went over to Reddit.

Not just the Algorithm. Each major company has a family-xxx studio for their content. They have significant production value & popular performers, which feeds the optimization cycle. God only know's what societal effect it has when you fetish step children like that at scale.

Beyond that there are categories that I believe normalize behaviors such as transgenders, where the reasons for their increased visibility in wider society cannot be uncoupled. So it muddies the waters whether the porn, is playing any role, and prevents critical questioning of root causes. which in this case “sissy hypno genre” within trans porn directly tells viewers they want to be a girl and get fucked over and over. This is a large portion of transgender porn genre that viewers will eventually rabbithole to w the algorithm.

Personally I’d be very skeptical of supporting my child transitioning if it was rooted in blatant porn brainwashing such as this.

I would be beyond surprised if trans porn was a significant factor in peoples' decision to transition.

Virtually all sex acts can be done in a healthy way provided both parties are truly into it. Porn has created expectations in men as to what women normally want and as a result a lot of women do sex acts that they don't truly like. Porn has distorted the view of what is 'normal' and the expectations of what a woman should consent to.

expectations is perhaps a personality problem and lack of honest communication. normal is subjective even if it is inherited from societal norms. communication and being able to talk freely is key.

Humans have trouble communicating freely and honestly. They do better when they have fewer misleading assumptions to work through.

The parent comment asks for specifics, but you go back to generalizing porn in response.

> Porn has distorted the view of what is ‘normal’

Surely you mean some porn, but you have not clarified which types. What do you say to plain, “vanilla” porn that pushes no boundaries? As with so many things, this is not a black or white issue, and statements like your final sentence do nothing to advance a nuanced conversation about the subject.

It's kind of like how social media warps our perception of what people (should) look like. Or how many vacations we should be going on [0,1]. Porn can affect how long we think sex should last and the positions we think we should be in [2]. Yes, even vanilla porn. While I think the anti-porn movement started with a religious-purity undertone, the secular explanations for why porn isn't such a great idea are convincing [3].

I would also ask anyone engaging in this discussion to replace the word "porn" with "alcohol" and see if it makes sense. Examine if it is useful to respond "well not everyone gets addicted to alcohol" when discussing the problems with alcohol. At least with me, there is an implied understanding that it's possible to use porn without getting addicted (even if I am becoming more skeptical of this assumption).

[0]: https://www.travelpulse.com/news/features/how-the-decades-ri...

[1]: https://www.travelpulse.com/news/features/traveling-for-soci...

[2]: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/25/723192364/what-we-dont-talk-a... (Consider whether the violence argument is useful in this discussion. I personally don't believe violence activates as many neural pathways as arousing images and orgasm.)

[3]: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/

It's easy to find research on the topic. The research supports my view.

So share the research that supports your view…

As the person making claims without evidence, the onus is on you at this point. You’re not going to change minds if you’re not willing to share where you’re coming from.

A person sufficiently interested in exploring whether or not I'm right can easily use a search engine and find the research. If a person can't be bothered to do that on their own then I think nothing I post will change their mind. An intellectually curious person will delve into the issue once they see dissenting opinions being expressed.

Someone else in the thread was kind enough to share what they felt are good sources, so I’ll take a look at those.

I can only conclude that you have nothing to back your position, and you are postulating based on 2nd hand information. Of course I can go google something, but the value of a community like HN is that the sources shared by members here tend to be good ones (or at least better than average). Your refusal to contribute followed by a No True Scotsman argument are pretty disappointing.

There is another possible conclusion. Namely, that what I wrote is indeed true as to why I didn't post links. This topic is sort of like an anti-vax topic. I can post lots of links that vaccines are safe and worth taking but if someone is too obtuse to even bother to look up the relevant information themself then nothing I post/say will sway them. Hence, posting links to scientific research to an anti-vaxxer is meaningless. It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument because I'm not making an argument. I'm simply stating why I didn't post links. That isn't an argument it's just a rationalization for why I didn't post links to the research.

It's really quite easy to find stuff written about the destructive aspects to porn.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201...

There are a few, but what about sexualization of teenagers and children. Do you think it's uncommon?

You don't need to wager, just look at the amount of content available for a kink and you can establish demand.