[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]

> I say that people with chronic porn addictions have a hard time forming relationships

Well originally you used wording that would imply a significant subset of the population. But even ignoring that it remains a completely baseless claim. How are you eliminating all of the other potential explanations that exist? And how are you arriving at the conclusion that the porn addiction is the cause of the problem as opposed to one of the effects?

[rowanG077]

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

A pedant would say that a extreme impact on a subset of a group means there is also a significant impact on the average of the entire group. But that's not the point.

This statement calls back to your claim that (excessive) porn use severely impacts their ability form relationships. It's not a blanket statement you now make it out to be. Someone doesn't need to repeat back to you word for word the entire context of the conversation.

[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.