We don’t know that. There’s a perfectly sane argument that it’ll amplify it by increasing availability and allowing more people to “dip their toes” so to speak.
I think this is something researchers should try to figure out rather urgently. If it can destroy incentives then great, if it amplifies then, obviously, not great.
If people can "dip their toes" into something and then develop a proclivity towards it, doesn't that imply sexuality is not innate? If it is innate then this is not a concern, and if it is not innate, the prevailing views we have on this topic are going to challenge that conclusion.
You're wondering whether preferences and tastes can develop or shift over time and with exposure? Obviously they can and do.
Presumably you’re pointing to “ahh so we CAN pray the gay away!” or whatever other ridiculous intervention you can imagine. The pushback on this mode of thinking has little to do with whether people’s preferences can hypothetically change and more to do with 1) who the fuck cares outside of theological arguments which have no standing in developed legal systems, and 2) the “interventions” are generally barbaric and across the board not shown to be effective.
Obviously people who want to voluntarily attempt these interventions are more than welcome to (and do). But that’s never what the conversation is about.
It is commonly accepted in our time that you're born with your sexual proclivities, and it is a sensitive topic, saying otherwise can get you into serious social trouble. So, the idea that "preferences and tastes" as you put it with regard to sexual orientation can change is widely a taboo in modern western society. To me, this directly conflicts with the concept that someone can develop a sexual attraction via exposure to pornography; the two beliefs are mutually exclusive. I'm just pointing out the difficult social consequences of investigating and confirming whether exposure can alter someone's attractions in that way.
> I’m just pointing out the difficult social consequences of investigating and confirming whether exposure can alter someone’s attractions in that way
Not true. You’re mistaking that for “the difficult social consequences of forcing other people to be studied to confirm whether exposure can alter someone’s attraction that way.”
You’re more than welcome to conduct such experiments on yourself. And sure, some people might disagree with it, but some people will disagree with anything someone does.
Nope, as explained they’re balking at the social and political implications of someone who is hostile to LGBT existence suggesting that.
Justifiably, given that historically people trying to “enact” this belief through political and social means have reliably resorted to incredibly awful (and again, ineffective) “interventions.”
Do you expect a huge marketing campaign from BigCSAM focused on convincing pedophiles that only real CSAM proves their husband/wife truly cares about them?
This particular case is very well known and proven to be caused directly by the marketing, yes.
There is no justifiable difference like beauty, durability or function between "real" and "artificial" diamonds. Only an expert can tell, and only because the "real" ones are less perfect. And of course - both are real diamonds.
I think this is something researchers should try to figure out rather urgently. If it can destroy incentives then great, if it amplifies then, obviously, not great.