[haswell]

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.

[dqv]

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/

[syops]

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

[haswell]

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.

[syops]

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.

[haswell]

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.

[syops]

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...