Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by freedomben 1412 days ago
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."

3 comments

> 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.

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.

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

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. :-)

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.

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