Author Topic: Porn as a public health hazard  (Read 1743 times)

Offline SGOS

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2021, 09:23:26 AM »
I don't think it's a health crisis or a moral crisis.  We have bigger fish to fry.  Look at our country. Riots in the national Capitol, corruption in government, racism, mass murder, and a dysfunctional political system.  I'm not going to worry about naked people.

Offline Hydra009

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2021, 11:12:51 AM »
It 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.
That only makes sense if you're married to the idea that porn is only arousing rather the idea that porn is arousing.  That very slight difference allows for the possibility of multiple properties.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2021, 11:15:42 AM by Hydra009 »

Offline Mermaid

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2021, 11:26:19 AM »
The moral crisis is the puzzling sexual repression of uber religions. People are just so goddamned stupid.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities — all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2021, 10:48:53 PM »
If 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.

There 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?

Offline Hydra009

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2021, 11:34:44 PM »
If 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.
The best porn-blockers in the world can be defeated by the most persistent 12-year-olds (or whatever the normal number is)

Quote
There 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?
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.

Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2021, 12:13:29 AM »
The 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.

In a society whose members internalize the true requirements of Democracy, It is by rational arguments and by persuasion to make other members convinced of your point of wiev on anything and everything. If they disagree with you, they contribute their arguments, and there is no an internal need for settlement. Wide variety of opinions must exist, in a democratic society, so the culture flourishing around a true democracy is the way to true civilization. Every society and even every community has a culture, a culture doesnt necessarily lead to a civilization, in the way we understand civilisation in this age.

But brainwashed radicals who think of their understanding on the best way to live the life, even afterlife, their first approach is to kindly call for joining them. If you disagree with their ideology, other tactics may be adopted.

I dont understand the hysteria that everybody in the world must think in the way i think. And Every way of persuasion either kindly inviting or by threatening or really using force. There is us and Others. This binary dual has two facets, you are either for me or againist me.


Re: Porn as a public health hazard
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2021, 01:01:24 AM »
Sigh... where to start on this

I 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,
That's quite a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. "Anti-porn" has no relation to "Biblical literalist", and porn is never mentioned in the Bible, nor is masturbation ever mentioned directly.

I suppose you think that Iceland - where the majority of people believe in the scientific account of the universe's origin - is "Biblical literalist" now, do you?

"Iceland's strip club ban. A feminist victory?"

https://theweek.com/articles/495682/icelands-strip-club-ban-feminist-victory

"Iceland's porn ban conflicts with the idea of a 'free society', say critics"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society

Quote
such as sex is bad, bad, BAD.
No, unless you're talking about a sect such as the Cathar Perfecti, the Shakers or the Skoptsy - who believed that all sex and childbirth was evil (supposedly because the material world was created by the Devil, or a malevolent or imperfect deity known as the Demiurge). Other than that, the only people I'm aware of who think that "sex is bad" would be heavy porn users, since porn isn't "sex" to begin with but merely titrating images. They'd apparently rather watch than participate.

Quote
“Politicians cite science tactically, not sincerely: ‘You can’t say anymore, ‘We want to get rid of porn because of its wickedness.”
Oh yes you can - there are plenty of obscenity laws on the books not only in the US but in the rest of the world. And nations such as Australia have done prosecutions related to pornography possession in recent history.

Not to mention how rather banal this is, since it doesn't even attempt to touch on the axioms or rationales by which porn would be considered to be "wicked" or "unethical" in the first place. Maybe murder isn't the best comparison, but it's more than apparent what the inherent reasons that murder - as opposed to petting a puppy dog" is considered wicked or unethical.

Quote
But it’s completely legitimate to say, “We want to get rid of porn because it’s a public health crisis like opioids or meth.’” Unfortunately for the prude brigade, there is no good science that proves pornography is bad for individuals or society.
As ambiguous and dishonestly used as subjective popsci terms like "good science" are (as well as dishonestly treating the natural and social sciences as existing "in a vacuum", apart from the philosophical, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, and other issues which are likely more important factors to begin with). I'll wager that science, properly gathered and interpreted does affirm that porn is bad for individuals and society, and that proponents will simply use cherry-picked science, or "studies" funded by porn companies themselves to force their shaky view, while intentionally ignoring the significant scientific, cultural, philosophical, ethical, and aesthetic evidence to the contrary.

For one, porn, masturbation, or banal sex - particularly as a "lifestyle" - is from a socio-cultural perspective antithetical to sciences, arts, innovation or other higher human endeavors. Our earliest human ancestors obviously knew how to masturbate (even without porn), and if they had never shifted their interests away from pleasuring themselves to inventing sciences, mathematics, arts, technology, and so on - we would all still be living as cavemen. So if anything, "repression" of mankind's higher nature and inclination toward civilizational accomplishments is arguably much worse than whatever ambiguously defined notions of "sexual repression" might arise from not looking at porn (and one must be "sexually repressed" and incel-ish beyond all hope if porn, masturbation, or sexual "experimentation" is their only remedy for it).

Quote
Rebecca 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.
Well that's hardly a "scientific" study, but rather a very personally subjective one. And no sane person believes that not masturbating gives them "super powers". If anything it's probably more akin to a "competition", like one of David Blane's exhibitions, where the only goal is to prove how long you can go without doing it. If anything, those incels and professional masturbators who think they'll become "Wizards" if they make it to age 30 without experiencing an orgasm other than from masturbation is a better example.

Quote
I agree with this psychotherapist:
Right, the source has "psychology" in the title, and despite not being in anyway (legally or otherwise) medical, perscriptive, or releveant whatsoever - it must be true because "psychology". (When just a few decades a good, "consensuses" in psychology and psychiatry was that homosexuality was a paraphilia or mental disorder - some opinion I'm assuming you would have opposed even if it was considered psychologically valid at the time.

Quote
- Pornography is not an addiction.
Of course. Pornography is a consumer product, it's usage is the addition.

Quote
- Pornography does not cause sexual, relationship, or mental health problems.
I'd wager that pornography does cause sexual, relationship, and mental health problems (regardless of what idiosyncratic definition of "caused" is so ambiguously being used, or abused, to begin with.

Quote
- The anti-porn movement ignores the science of sexology.
No, I'd wager the pro-porn movement ignores the dynamic and changing science of sexology, as well as sciences of the cultural, the aesthetic, the consumptive, and the more significant issues than whatever isolated little tidbits of "sexology" are being misused to force an inept conclusion while ignoring everything else.

Quote
- If you struggle with your pornography use, seek a therapist who is sex-positive and doesn't work with the addiction framework.
Sigh... "sex-positive" is such a false and erroneous term. What's falsely being called "sex-positive", is in actually "sex-negative", since it's predicated on a banal view of sex as a mere, atomistic form of stimulation, which completely removes the seduction, romance, mystery and greater human and socio-cultural aspects from the process.

The so-called "anti-porn" views are actually the "sex-positive" ones, since they're concerned about the cultural and aesthetic aspects of sex and romance in which sex and romantic love occurs, rather than reducing "sex" to a banal and isolated consumer product. Essentially the "pro-porn" or "sex-negative" side views sex as a dollar menu burger; the "anti-porn" or "sex-positive" side views it as a slice of filet mignon served with a fine glass of chardonnay.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2021, 01:11:31 AM by FreethinkingSceptic »