What harm? Show your work instead of making wild assertions based on the notion that a sky-wizard might be mad that someone knows how their creator wanted them to replicate.

Readily accessible visual porn didn't exist prior to mass publishing of arbitrary content, which was way after the printing press, more like the mid-20th century. First there were magazines, then there were VHS tapes, then there were DVDs and very quickly the internet.

This is a modern social experiment, and while we don't have data on its consequences because so much else changed culturally at the same time, snarkily referring to people concerned about porn at a sociological level as harboring sky-wizard concerns indicates you haven't thought about the issue very much.

I'm non-religious; I have major concerns about modern or organized religions, despite recognizing psychological benefits or even necessities of religion in the abstract. However, I'm still very concerned that porn is causing unrecognized, negative consequences for society.

I don't mean all porn. I think some porn probably has net-positive effects on society and individuals. I'm talking about average, typical porn. If you go to places where lots of porn is shared, and you look at prevailing attitudes and fetishes in those places, and you think the only possible concern derives from sky-wizards, I think you're blind.

The one very recent saving grace of porn in its latest incarnation is that average amateur porn seems to be less horrifically impersonal and non-representative than average professional porn. That's tempered by the massive rise of parasocial relationships and simping for e-girls, which isn't necessarily porn per se but it's porn-adjacent and probably sociologically problematic too.

I don't know what the solution is. Porn bans are impractical, and I don't know what force could counter the ability to hang out on pornhub clicking on each new thing that looks even more enticing than the last, unleashing fetishes and unrealistic expectations. Some people seem to adopt a strong porn aesthetic that keeps them focused on less fetishistic, less absurd, and I would argue healthier porn. However, that's not the majority, and that's merely my personal subjective assessment. I have no idea if what I think is healthier porn is actually net-positive. It just seems that way to me. This is something we need generations of data on with the rest of society not changing much, and we're never going to get that.

“Sky wizard” is a bright red flag for a bad-faith argument, so I’m not going to do a bunch of research for you. Search around for voices of people who have struggled with porn addiction. If you think it’s a purely religious thing, you’re mistaken.

Having followed this space for ~30+ years, I've yet to see any research that shows more than marginal and subjective effects at any kind of scale. Including in meta-studies. Sure, some people can struggle with addiction to porn, just as they can to chocolate and almost anything else. We don't respond with age verification to the vast majority of those other things.

Since I haven't brought up "sky wizard", perhaps if you have any actual evidence of harm you might show me?

>It will harm a kid

*Citation needed

This sounds like a smart response until you think about the possibility of an academic study researching exposure of minors to hardcore porn. Think that would pass ethical muster?

The fundamental questions are

1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

>This sounds like a smart response until you think about the possibility of an academic study researching exposure of minors to hardcore porn. Think that would pass ethical muster?

Well, yeah, it would...

>1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

I'm not sure what this question is asking. Porn usage may or may not 'line up' with patterns of addiction. That doesn't mean that porn always or even the majority of the time is. Can you rephrase this question into something more coherent?

>2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

LOL absolutely not. Children, especially American children, are given huge amounts of sugar, which is actually physically addictive. Many are given huge amounts of caffeine which is again, physically addictive.

Millions of children around the country have tons of access to video games and TV, which can be addictive.

>If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

Well, you're first question doesn't make any sense, and your second question is a resounding no.

The best way to keep your child from becoming addicted to anything is to act like a parent.

I could see ongoing watching harming a kid, but if they stumble upon porn one time by accident and see it? I don't see how that could harm them.

A kid with a peanut allergy who came into contact with peanuts, even accidentally one time, could be fatal.