And what you consider “ethical” is just your subjective opinion.

tu quoque

People are blaming Collective Shout but crazy lobbying groups have always existed. Visa and Mastercard are solely responsible for acquiescing. Maybe it’s time we stop caring so much what people on the political extremes have to say?

Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Can Meta-Analysis Find a Link? - PubMed

Whether pornography contributes to sexual aggression in real life has been the subject of dozens of studies over multiple decades. Nevertheless, scholars have not come to a consensus about whether effects are real. The current meta-analysis examined experimental, correlational, and population studie …

PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Population studies suggested that increased availability of pornography is associated with reduced sexual aggression at the population level

So if a father and daughter consent is that ethical now?

Collective shout finacials year: 2024 revenue: 458043 employee_expenses: 107000 other_expenses: 215488 net_surplus: 135555 employees: total_fte: 2 full_time: 0 part_time: 1 casual: 4 volunteers: 15 donations_and_bequests: 389800 government_grants: 0 commercial_income: 0 expense_to_revenue_ratio: “70.4%” average_expense_per_employee: 39400

Leadership

• name: Melinda Tankard Reist role: Founder, Movement Director public_socials:

  • Twitter: @MelTankardReist
  • Instagram: @collective.shout public_email_address: Not publicly listed salary: Not publicly listed

• name: Caitlin Roper role: Campaigns Manager public_socials:

  • Instagram: @collective.shout public_email_address: Not publicly listed salary: Not publicly listed

• name: Renee Chopping role: Campaigns Strategy public_socials:

  • LinkedIn public_email_address: r******@collectiveshout.org salary: Not publicly listed

• name: Lyn Swanson Kennedy role: Campaigns Strategy public_socials:

  • Instagram: @collective.shout public_email_address: Not publicly listed salary: Not publicly listed

• name: Coralie Alison role: Movement Operations Manager public_socials:

  • Twitter: @CoralieAlison
  • Instagram: @collective.shout public_email_address: Not publicly listed salary: Not publicly listed

Collective shout finacials
year: 2024
revenue: 458043
employee_expenses: 107000
other_expenses: 215488
net_surplus: 135555
employees: 
  total_fte: 2
  full_time: 0
  part_time: 1
  casual: 4
volunteers: 15
donations_and_bequests: 389800
government_grants: 0
commercial_income: 0
expense_to_revenue_ratio: "70.4%"
average_expense_per_employee: 39400

Leadership
- name: Melinda Tankard Reist
  role: Founder, Movement Director
  public_socials:
    - Twitter: @MelTankardReist
    - Instagram: @collective.shout
  public_email_address: Not publicly listed
  salary: Not publicly listed

- name: Caitlin Roper
  role: Campaigns Manager
  public_socials:
    - Instagram: @collective.shout
  public_email_address: Not publicly listed
  salary: Not publicly listed

- name: Renee Chopping
  role: Campaigns Strategy
  public_socials:
    - LinkedIn
  public_email_address: r******@collectiveshout.org
  salary: Not publicly listed

- name: Lyn Swanson Kennedy
  role: Campaigns Strategy
  public_socials:
    - Instagram: @collective.shout
  public_email_address: Not publicly listed
  salary: Not publicly listed

- name: Coralie Alison
  role: Movement Operations Manager
  public_socials:
    - Twitter: @CoralieAlison
    - Instagram: @collective.shout
  public_email_address: Not publicly listed
  salary: Not publicly listed

More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.

Next sentence

Also:

Whether pornography contributes to sexual aggression in real life has been the subject of dozens of studies over multiple decades. Nevertheless, scholars have not come to a consensus about whether effects are real.

Also also this study has nothing to do with your claim. Its not about porn preventing violent behaviour, it’s about whether porn causes it or not.

Absolutely, and the scary part to me is how that projection includes LGBT folks also being child predators all the damn time.

It’s like they are a bunch of bisexual pedophiles who are repressed and angry, and they get jealous when they see other people giving in to the same desires. Or, as we see all the time, they assume somebody “giving in” to their homosexuality or gender dysphoria is also “giving in” to their pedophilia.

There is a clear power disparity between a father and a daughter. It’s debatable if the daughter could even realistically consent in that case.

But a depiction of it in porn is in my view not inherently unethical. I can disapprove of it personally, but that doesn’t mean we should start banning it based on feelings of inappropriateness.

We depict murder and violence in movies and video games too. Actual murder is of course not exactly ethical, but we have no problem accepting it in a movie, because nobody is actually being murdered. You might not like to watch a movie like Saw or something (I personally don’t), but it doesn’t make the movie itself unethical. To me, porn is no different. There’s a clear separation between fiction and reality.

Where imo a line is crossed, is if said media actually makes a clear effort to promote these acts IRL. But that’s not the case here.

What if the daughter is in their 20s or 30s? As for depiction, yes there are depiction of violence and murder in movies and games but it is not done in a way that glorify it and most people don’t watch it with thirst for murder and violence and they don’t get off to it either. The problem with porn is it’s made with that in mind, it only exist for people to lust after and get off to it. In many circumstances they are always trying to look for more extreme content because the normal stuff isn’t as satisfying anymore. It has been shown to affect the same area of the brain as meth and cocaine. It doesn’t cause harm physically but mentally. Sure a thing existing doesn’t make it inherently wrong but it more the effect it has on the people consuming the content. It’s also why drugs are bad. You could say the drug is just a plant, that it’s natural and that there is nothing wrong with that plant existing. But the problem is the effect that plant has on people who consume it. And I am not against you drawing something in private at home or anything, in fact I am strictly against spying and mass surveillance and people should all have privacy in their own home and place they live. So whatever you do on your own time by yourself alone I don’t care but the problem comes when that thing gets shared with others and affects them negatively.

This is not contradictory.

The meta-study says that pornography contributing to sexual aggression is not proven. Meaning, it doesn’t make it worse.

Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.

I am really fucking old, to be fair, but every time I hear about violent video games being censored it’s Australia.

Talk about braindead / misguided legislature.

Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.

The last sentence of the abstract (More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.) seems to be adressing this. In the study itself they say:

A third group of studies considers relationships between pornography consumption and sexual violence at the population level (e.g., Diamond et al., 2011; Gentry, 1991). In such studies, changes in the population rate of sexual crimes are associated with changes in the availability of pornography, often due to changes in the law. Cross-nationally, most (though not all) such studies suggest that pornography consumption is correlated with reductions in sexual violence. However, such data are correlational in nature, and third variables at the societal level may also be responsible for these patterns.

You said, at the start of our dialog, that:

Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.

The last sentence of the abstract (More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome.) seems to be adressing this. In the study itself they say:

A third group of studies considers relationships between pornography consumption and sexual violence at the population level (e.g., Diamond et al., 2011; Gentry, 1991). In such studies, changes in the population rate of sexual crimes are associated with changes in the availability of pornography, often due to changes in the law. Cross-nationally, most (though not all) such studies suggest that pornography consumption is correlated with reductions in sexual violence. However, such data are correlational in nature, and third variables at the societal level may also be responsible for these patterns.

You said, at the start of our dialog, that:

Regardless, there are tons of studies showing that consuming this kind of porn actually helps prevent people from acting on these fantasies

“This kind” refers to violent porn, i suppose? Because the study states that:

Our meta-analytic results reveal no relationship between exposure to nonviolent pornography and sexual aggression.

So they are not talking about “this kind” of porn.

We don’t have a specific cordoned off section for meth and cocaine in our brains. Many things trigger those areas of the brain, including some pretty innocuous stuff.

Porn isn’t physically addictive like meth and cocaine. It can be psychologically addictive though, but that goes for a lot of things out there.

Stuff like meth and cocaine can actually alter your brain, porn does not.

Anyone can develop an unhealthy relationship with porn, but that goes for just about anything out there.

The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or “taboo” pornography. It states there’s no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that it’s at least correlated with a reduction instead.

We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that there’s no evidence that it has negative effects, and there’s at least some evidence that suggests it has positive effects.

Violent pornography was weakly correlated with sexual aggression, although the current evidence was unable to distinguish between a selection effect as compared to a socialization effect.

If anything, this points towards the opposite conclusion. And that is with zero nitpicking.

The inability to distinguish between selection and socialization means there’s no evidence for a causal link. At best, it suggests that people who commit sexual aggression generally like porn featuring it more, but even that is apparently a weak correlation apparently.

I wouldn’t mind if Valve did. It’s the unaccountable payment processors deciding morality that’s spooky, because there’s no meaningful alternative.