Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steam's new censorship rules in victory against 'porn sick brain rotted pedo gamer fetishists', and things only get weirder from there
-
This is not contradictory.
The meta-study says that pornography contributing to sexual aggression is not proven. Meaning, it doesnβt make it worse.
Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.
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:
-
This is not contradictory.
The meta-study says that pornography contributing to sexual aggression is not proven. Meaning, it doesnβt make it worse.
Meanwhile the population study seems to suggest porn usage reduces sexual aggression, or is at least correlated with it.
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
βThis kindβ 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 βthis kindβ of porn.
-
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 donβt watch it with thirst for murder and violence and they donβt get off to it either. The problem with porn is itβs 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 isnβt as satisfying anymore. It has been shown to affect the same area of the brain as meth and cocaine. It doesnβt cause harm physically but mentally. Sure a thing existing doesnβt make it inherently wrong but it more the effect it has on the people consuming the content. Itβs also why drugs are bad. You could say the drug is just a plant, that itβs 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 donβt care but the problem comes when that thing gets shared with others and affects them negatively.
We donβt 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 isnβt 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.
-
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
βThis kindβ 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 βthis kindβ of porn.
The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or βtabooβ pornography. It states thereβs no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that itβs at least correlated with a reduction instead.
We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that thereβs no evidence that it has negative effects, and thereβs at least some evidence that suggests it has positive effects.
-
The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or βtabooβ pornography. It states thereβs no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that itβs at least correlated with a reduction instead.
We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that thereβs no evidence that it has negative effects, and thereβs 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.
-
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 thereβs 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.
-
Itβs the wrong way to go about it though. Private companies should not dictate legality and morality.
I wouldnβt mind if Valve did. Itβs the unaccountable payment processors deciding morality thatβs spooky, because thereβs no meaningful alternative.
-
That logic falls apart real fast. Hitting children, for example. Legal, but is it right?
Some places have legal laws that are horrifying. You can see the other implementation of your logic there. Like, is being gay a bad thing, as long as it is illegal?
I have no obligation to follow your moral compass - which is nothing more than your opinion. The only common denominator binding both of us, is codified law.
-
I have no obligation to follow your moral compass - which is nothing more than your opinion. The only common denominator binding both of us, is codified law.
Ah, the german approach (used mainly between 1934 and 1945)
-
The inability to distinguish between selection and socialization means thereβs 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 donβt disagree. It also doesnβt prove your point though, so we are back to square one.
Maybe this is of some relevance for us, i came across it in another discussion a while back.
Itβs a study that looks at CFSM (Child fantasy sexual material) and tries to determine, if it makes pedophiles more or less likley to assault children in real life.
Unfortunately they arrive at the conclusion, that we donβt have enoth studys to know yet. I would assume the same to be true for violent porn and rl sexual assault. But i am happy to be corrected, if you have the data to back it up.
-
I wouldnβt mind if Valve did. Itβs the unaccountable payment processors deciding morality thatβs spooky, because thereβs no meaningful alternative.
Oh yeah, I agree. That is what I meant to meant to say. The payment processors are acting like a cartel here.
-
They werenβt pushing for credit card processors to block payments for specific games. They were pushing for the payment processors to block money to Steam entirely, which is why Steam caved and instead removed a small list of games. It was a compromise to allow credit card companies to keep doing business with them. Overall itβs pretty small potatoesβa small but vocal group, a small and worthless collection of games. People are understandably worried about the precedent of giving in to censorship at the demand of a group like this, but there are enough things to worry about right now that Iβm not going to give it much thought until I hear the slope has slipped further than this.
-
We donβt 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 isnβt 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.
Hmm yes porn actually can alter your brain look it up.
-
We donβt 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 isnβt 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.
Here I found something for you, you wonβt need to search for it now. https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/
-
Here I found something for you, you wonβt need to search for it now. https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/
This article is overly sensationalist/alarmist and doesnβt match the study behind it.
This is the study theyβre referencing: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388
It primarily focuses on internet addiction and video game addiction. Pornography is mostly mentioned in passing as βlikely similarβ.
In it, they review evidence that these things can be addictive, and that people experience pleasure doing them (this is the whole βsame-areas-as-coke-and-methβ thing btw; the brain is happy playing video games, and it is also happy doing coke). However, they distinctly mention that behavioral addiction is not necessarily the same as substance addiction:
Together with studies on Internet addiction and Internet Gaming Disorder we see strong evidence for considering addictive Internet behaviors as behavioral addiction. Future research needs to address whether or not there are specific differences between substance and behavioral addiction
The exact quote about areas of the brain thing:
Georgiadis and Kringelbach concluded, βit is clear that the networks involved in human sexual behavior are remarkably similar to the networks involved in processing other rewardsβ
The brain rewards sexual behaviour. Makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, so not exactly a shocking conclusion.
And regarding the βbrain-alteringβ thing, the study also directly mentions that this is simply what happens when the brain is activated through its reward systems. This βalteringβ happens for everything that triggers some kind of dopamine hit. Itβs not the case that porn does something special here; a model train hobby for example would do the same to enthusiasts for example.
I remember this study actually, Iβve seen it before. It is frequently misquoted or represented in an extremely alarmist way, mostly by people with a dislike for pornography. But the study doesnβt back up their assertions that porn is anything special when compared to any other behavioral addiction, it actually expressly doesnβt.
-
This article is overly sensationalist/alarmist and doesnβt match the study behind it.
This is the study theyβre referencing: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388
It primarily focuses on internet addiction and video game addiction. Pornography is mostly mentioned in passing as βlikely similarβ.
In it, they review evidence that these things can be addictive, and that people experience pleasure doing them (this is the whole βsame-areas-as-coke-and-methβ thing btw; the brain is happy playing video games, and it is also happy doing coke). However, they distinctly mention that behavioral addiction is not necessarily the same as substance addiction:
Together with studies on Internet addiction and Internet Gaming Disorder we see strong evidence for considering addictive Internet behaviors as behavioral addiction. Future research needs to address whether or not there are specific differences between substance and behavioral addiction
The exact quote about areas of the brain thing:
Georgiadis and Kringelbach concluded, βit is clear that the networks involved in human sexual behavior are remarkably similar to the networks involved in processing other rewardsβ
The brain rewards sexual behaviour. Makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, so not exactly a shocking conclusion.
And regarding the βbrain-alteringβ thing, the study also directly mentions that this is simply what happens when the brain is activated through its reward systems. This βalteringβ happens for everything that triggers some kind of dopamine hit. Itβs not the case that porn does something special here; a model train hobby for example would do the same to enthusiasts for example.
I remember this study actually, Iβve seen it before. It is frequently misquoted or represented in an extremely alarmist way, mostly by people with a dislike for pornography. But the study doesnβt back up their assertions that porn is anything special when compared to any other behavioral addiction, it actually expressly doesnβt.
I mean video game addiction is real thing to and it can be pretty bad like some people play games and stay up for days and it affects them badly but video games and porn are two different things. Not even comparable. Also I donβt think anyone βdislikesβ pornography. But some recognize its harmful effects on the brain and on society so they do their best to not watch it and to quit it. They are not working hard to quit that habit for nothing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Because you have allowed the social discourse to be dominated by authoritarians, and have not supported the voices of your fellows that fight against fascism, you are now being overrun by fascists.
Enjoy. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
-
Thereβs ample evidence that a lot of recent self-identifying βfeministβ grassroots organisations worldwide are fronts for (or sponsored by) christo-fascist organisations.
After gay marriage passed to widespread popular support in multiple countries, there was a whole considered and deliberate regrouping, where they identified trans rights and porn as wedge issues that they could present their bigoted view as a progressive one. Thatβs why weβre suddenly inundated with orgs like this one; theyβre posing as feminists and progressives but theyβre actually bigots trying to occupy progressive or mainstream spaces, and give shelter to bigotry in others.
And yet when you call them out for co-opting the feminist label, instead of being outed by actual feminists, their detractors are publicly lambasted as being anti-feminist.
Mission accomplished
