[CodeSgt]

I'm glad to see someone mention addicts. I feel as if internet addiction, and especially subsets of it such as porn addiction, aren't given enough weight by either the addiction treatment community or the technical community.

Before someone accuses me of being a conservative religious zealot as tends to happen when anyone denounces porn, I'll say that I'm far from a puritan and am extremely liberal in my social views. That said, I firmly believe that easy access porn is one of the worst things happening to the young men and women today. I (23) know many men around my age who suffer from chronic porn addictions to the point that it severely impacts their ability for form real relationships and median age of first exposure is getting lower and lower.

It's an absolutely crucial issue that no one seems to be talking about or taking seriously.

[d110af5ccf]

You claim to be extremely liberal in your social views but then in the next breath make the assumptions that difficulty forming relationships today is significantly greater than in the past and further that this fact is due to effects that are caused (ultimately) by viewing porn. Those are both very socially conservative viewpoints and I have yet to find scientific data (or anything else I'd consider even remotely reliable) that back either of them up, particularly the second one.

If I were to accept (purely hypothetically) that it is significantly more difficult for many people to form relationships today then how do you suppose to show that this change is due to porn instead of, say, the prevalence of dating apps such as Tinder? Or any number of other factors including things like job stability, housing prices (and thus perceived security of living situation), and where people choose to spend their free time (for example going out on the town in the past versus perhaps doomscrolling twitter and watching netflix).

[CodeSgt]

Where did I say that it's harder to form relationships today than it was in the past? I didn't. I said nothing of the sort nor did anything I say imply as much, if that was your takeaway then it exposes your implicit biases more than it does anything about myself.

[rowanG077]

You say this:

> I firmly believe that easy access porn is one of the worst things happening to the young men and women today. I (23) know many men around my age who suffer from chronic porn addictions to the point that it severely impacts their ability for form real relationships and median age of first exposure is getting lower and lower.

Porn(at least in it's current, easily accessible, form) didn't exist in the past. Since you claim that porn use severely impacts the ability to form real relationships it follows naturally that in the past it must have been easier. Since you don't mention any factors that impacted the ability to form real relationships in the past it follows quite directly that your claim is also that it was easier to form real relationships in the past.

In addition if it wasn't easier in the past how can you even know porn use is to blame? Essentially a variable is introduced which you claim has an extreme impact, yet you also don't claim there is change between pre- and post introduction. That makes no sense. Either it has an extreme impact which means it should be trivial to see a pre- and post introduction difference, unless there are other extreme factors that weigh in the other direction. Or there is no (extreme) impact.

[CodeSgt]

No. I know specific people that use porn, and among those that I know who use it excessively, they have a hard time forming relationships. No where does that say or imply that "It's harder for everyone to form relationships today than it was in the past" as you for some reason are consistent on believing I said. Those are two very different statements with very different meanings.

[rowanG077]

I'm not the person that originally replied to you. Besides that's not what that person said. You just conjured the everyone out of thin air. That was not mentioned in your post and neither was it in theirs.

[CodeSgt]

They said:

> but then in the next breath make the assumptions that difficulty forming relationships today is significantly greater than in the past

The implication being that I made the claim that it was broadly more difficult for most people today. I didn't realize that me adding "everyone" would so drastically change the meaning of their sentence. Please give me your interpretation of that if it isn't basically what I said.

Am I crazy? I say that people with chronic porn addictions have a hard time forming relationships and all of a sudden I'm accused of making blanket statements about how difficult it is for people to form relationships today compared to the past.

[d110af5ccf]

> Where did I say that it's harder to form relationships today than it was in the past?

> I firmly believe that easy access porn is one of the worst things happening to the young men and women today.

"one of the worst things happening" is clear enough on its own. "young men and women" refers to the population at large. "today" is in contrast to historically

> I (23) know many men around my age who suffer from chronic porn addictions to the point that it severely impacts their ability for form real relationships

"many men" is not describing a rare phenomenon. "to the point that it severely impacts" is a clear attribution of cause and effect.

> median age of first exposure is getting lower and lower

Obvious meaning in context: things are getting worse over time.

> it exposes your implicit biases more than it does anything about myself

No, you are resorting to disingenuous semantic games because I pointed out the inconsistencies in what you wrote. Namely that you have provided absolutely no evidence for the things you are claiming and I see no obvious reason that they should be the case.

[freedomben]

I'm not GP, but you first say:

> Those are both very socially conservative viewpoints and I have yet to find scientific data (or anything else I'd consider even remotely reliable) that back either of them up, particularly the second one.

but then go on to yourself list many probably reasons why that's the case:

> how do you suppose to show that this change is due to porn instead of, say, the prevalence of dating apps such as Tinder? Or any number of other factors including things like job stability, housing prices (and thus perceived security of living situation), and where people choose to spend their free time (for example going out on the town in the past versus perhaps doomscrolling twitter and watching netflix).

Completing a study to prove GP's claims is a herculean effort that may not even be possible due to ethical concerns. (i.e. you'll have to take a person who has never been exposed to porn and then get them addicted, so you can see if it ruins their life).

Any claim without data should definitely be looked at skeptically (including in this case), but it's also important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also there's a lot of life experience out there of people who will tell you that they have a porn addiction that is causing them problems with relationships. One of my friends just got divorced from his wife of 20 years because he has developed a porn addiction and won't give it up or get any treatment (his wife is not ok with it).

I'm about as socially liberal as they come, (and I would never support a ban on porn nor pretty much anything, but that's a topic for another day), but I've seen and heard way too many anecdotes about the devastation that porn can have on a person to ignore it.

I don't think there's a big difference between a social conservative (who typically want to use government force to restrict access to "bad things") and someone who sides with liberty and tolerance but would advise friends and family not to do "bad thing."

[lrvick]

> Also there's a lot of life experience out there of people who will tell you that they have a porn addiction that is causing them problems with relationships. One of my friends just got divorced from his wife of 20 years because he has developed a porn addiction and won't give it up or get any treatment (his wife is not ok with it).

I have the opposite life experience.

His wife not being okay with it is her right, but speaking personally I would never want to be in a relationship so fragile that one or both partners looking at legal pixels on a screen could compromise it.

I have been in relationships in a conservative universe where adult content was consumed in secret or restricted... and it is toxic. Not everyone is in the mood all the time and other outlets can be healthy when paired with honesty and moderation.

Way better for all to learn to be honest about their needs and curiosities without judgement. That is how stronger relationships are built. Happily married to my best friend for a decade.

[_carbyau_]

You rightly point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But then neither is it evidence. Which leaves both sides at: we don't really know.

Anecdotes are worth crap all, because people will bring up examples for either side thus cancelling each other out.

But your last sentence irked me.

If you side with liberty and tolerance and advise friends and family not to do "bad thing", they can say they appreciate your advice, tell you to GTFO and do it anyway.

Once government steps in and makes such things illegal, there are much bigger stakes at play.

To me, that is a big difference.

[freedomben]

OH NO!!!! I couldn't figure out why it irked you because I totally agreed with what you said, and then I realized I typo'ed in the worst place. It would have irked me too. I said:

> I don't think there's a big difference between

But I meant:

> *I DO think there's a big difference between

[_carbyau_]

A minor misunderstanding easily cleared up then.

It gives me a little bit more faith in humanity when I agree with a random stranger on the internet. :-)

[d110af5ccf]

Yes, this is precisely my point. I see no obvious reason to believe the claims that were being made and no evidence for them is provided. I'm not saying "that's not the case" I'm saying "you couldn't possibly know that".

> I don't think there's a big difference between a social conservative (who typically want to use government force to restrict access to "bad things") and someone who sides with liberty and tolerance but would advise friends and family not to do "bad thing."

The socially conservative part is baselessly attributing various ills to porn. Admittedly anyone can commit such an error in logical reasoning but (in my personal experience) this particular one exhibits a very high correlation with being socially conservative.

[freedomben]

Apologies, I typo'ed in the worst place. I said:

> I don't think there's a big difference between

But I meant:

> I do think there's a big difference between

[semiquaver]

No true Scotsman would claim to be liberal!

[MomoXenosaga]

Yeah it was so much easier for a homosexual in 1950s Nebraska I'm sure.

[Zababa]

> It's an absolutely crucial issue that no one seems to be talking about or taking seriously.

Most men communities talk about it in one form or the other. However, most men communities on the internet are usually close in one form or another to the right politically.

[CodeSgt]

I suppose I should have said it's not being talked about by any mainstream authorities or outlets in the same way a lot of women's or equity issues are (not to say porn isn't also a women's issue, it very much is, but seems to disproportionately impact men).

It is a shame that any group which advocates men's issues tends to get labeled as right-wing or incelish, which then attracts those types and makes those labels a reality. And of course many were admitedly that way from the start.

Edit: And to add to this, being right or left leaning isn't inherently bad. And maybe this is my personal bias coming into play here, but I find that people are much quicker to associate right-leaning movements/communities as "bad" than they are left-leaning ones. Again I accept that could be personal bias and it isn't a hill I'd die on.

[Zababa]

I share the same view of the situation as you. A consequence of the increase in demands for justice, political correctness, and stuff like that seems to be that every community has to be focused on a oppressed group or it will be considered right-wing and thus attract people like you said.

The incel label is a good example of how bad men are treated sometimes. If you treated poor people like this by saying they're involuntarly not rich and then proceeded to say that it's mostly their fault because they don't work enough, think they can just show up to work, do their job and become rich, shouldn't expect money to be given to them, most people would react by saying that you're wrong. And when some parts of the population have trouble having sex/companionship like some trans people, it's called discrimination. But the same rules don't apply to incels it semms.

[majormajor]

My recollection of the term incel is that it was a self-applied label, not one created from outside the group like your "involuntarily not rich" hypothetical. (Even in that example, though... who's going to tell you you're wrong if your theory is "nobody should simply expect to get rich for showing up and not putting in the work", exactly?)

As to whether or not that group is popular... this is an interesting one since the bonding factor is a lack of relationship success (which is closely related to, but not the same as, popularity) in the first place. But if you look at a lot of how the group that has gathered under that label interacts with the rest of the population... it's hard to say it's just something like mocking them for not being able to get laid. There are a lot of frankly offensive and violent theories pushed by people out there.

It's deeply ironic actually - "I'm not having sexual success, I'm going to start listening more to other men who also have the same problem, they're the ones who will be able to tell me about women." Back when it was a more ironic, non-violent "foreveralone" meme I was in the club... it wasn't increasing my exposure to men that eventually got me out of it.

[flappyeagle]

What does it mean to be addicted to porn? Daily viewing? Hourly? Constant?

[CodeSgt]

Typically viewing to the detriment of your emotional/mental/physical health. If you consistently choose porn over real intimacy or if you overly desensitize yourself (porn-induced ED is a real, and quite common thing). The biggest concern is choosing porn over physical intimacy/attempts at physical intimacy. It's super easy for someone who maybe already isn't a social superstar to just find themselves choosing the easy option of porn rather than forcing themselves to go out and put effort into meeting people.

[smsm42]

You yourself recognize porn is an "easy option". Then no wonder people for whom it is hard to successfully form relationship that would lead to sex use it. It's like saying "cars are bad because it's too easy to just drive 100km instead of walking the same distance", ignoring the fact that for many people walking 100 km is either completely impossible or massively harder. That doesn't mean cars make you unable to walk (though in some very extreme cases it could happen). It means some people that previously had no options, now at least have this inferior one.

[CodeSgt]

Very, very few people truly have no options other than porn. But I'm sure many people have convinced themselves they don't since they can content themselves with porn.

Regardless, it's a feedback loop. People who deal with depression/anxiety are more likely to develop drug addictions. A "normal" person can usually try a given drug once and be fine. Someone with a predisposition to addiction can't do the same.

Likewise a lot of people can casually use porn without much of an issue, but some people allow their consumption to develop into an addiction that negatively impact their life.

[freedomben]

Just my opinion of course, but (like drugs and alcohol) putting a reasonable and generic metric on it is really hard, so I would instead ask generic questions that I would ask about other things like:

1. Do you find yourself craving it?

2. Do you continually feel the need to increase your intake? (i.e. developing a tolerance)

3. Would you be embarrassed if a like-minded friend knew about your habit?

4. If you were suddenly cut off from it for a few days, how would it make you feel?

[smsm42]

3 is really a societal measure - many addictions, like tobacco addiction and to some measure alcohol addiction, or caffeine addiction, are well accepted by the society and usually carry little shame to the addict.

[elwell]

I feel like addiction is a complicated label; this is a natural[0] desire. If it is agreed to be destructive to the pursuit of forming healthy relationships: any amount is harmful, or at least the start of something that will be more and more harmful.

[0] - natural like how we crave sugar for our health, yet harmful like I eat candy all day

[b3morales]

Granting the facts, your hypothesis is equally plausible if reversed, to wit:

People who have difficulty forming intimate relationships will often turn to habitual pornography viewing.

[jasonfarnon]

Not really. Unless you want to claim that the # of people having difficulty forming intimate relationships is spiking.