Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#41

Post by agumonkey »

damagednoob wrote: post #11

> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…

IMO entertainment wouldn't be very high on the list of reasons. A cultural shift in the perception of sex maybe. Few decades ago it was a goal to liberate your sexuality, nowadays not so much, probably even the opposite.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#42

Post by ar-jan »

cm2012 wrote: post #13
barkingtoad wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforced monogamy, i.e., marriage

That would just be monogamy. The thing people are calling stupid is the idea that low status men should be assigned wives forcefully to prevent them from being sad, which is what some people have actually proposed.

False. That's how how was (deliberately?) misinterpreted. But "enforced monogamy" is a term used in e.g. evolutionary biology to describe, basically, just a societal norm of monogamy, maybe enforced by law (polygamy is illegal in most places). No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#43

Post by elorant »

I was under the impression that the size of the online porn industry is in the billions. And yet, the article states that Thylmann bought pretty much every competitor with just $362 million. That doesn't add-up. What am I missing? Are the rumors for the industry's size overstated?

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#44

Post by erric »

ovao wrote: post #33
erric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Everything is fine in moderation.

Not everything is fine in moderation. Mainlining sulfuric acid, for example. Whether porn consumption is fine in moderation is a subject of fair debate. Unfortunately, the science on this is not sufficiently clear.

>Not everything is fine in moderation. Mainlining sulfuric acid, for example

Extremophiles (Snottite) will be quite happy in sulfuric acid

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

unethical_ban wrote: post #4
danharaj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to elaborate?

Rarely would a non-op-ed refer to a group holding an opinion has blowhards that some people inexplicably take seriously. The New York Times does profiles on White Supremacists that have more respectful tones than this.

> Rarely would a non-op-ed refer to a group holding an opinion has blowhards that some people inexplicably take seriously.

While you are correct that this was (and is) rare in a news rather than opinion piece, this does not at all pretend to be a news rather than an opinion piece.

It's overtly framed as a review, which is a class of opinion piece, and is written with first person references and other structural features typical of opinion pieces.

> The New York Times does profiles on White Supremacists that have more respectful tones than this.

The New York Times has been widely criticized for normalizing white supremacy for those profiles, but in any case, that's an overtly different class of article.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#46

Post by eilyra »

_b8r0 wrote: post #18

From the site here in GDPR-land: "Select 'OK' to continue using our products, otherwise, you will not be able to access our sites and apps." Looks like I'm not reading this then.

Wait, weren't dialogues that force you to give consent for non core parts of the experience forbidden under the GDPR? As in, you can't force people to consent by witholding service if they don't?

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#47

Post by ggg9990 »

erric wrote: post #14
emsy wrote: post #2

>Perhaps the most volatile question: does widely available free porn encourage “incels,” the latest boogeymen from the Internet, and the calls for “enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics who people inexplicably take serious? In a world where objective journalism doesn’t pay, does every site become Vice?

>”enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics Are academics advocating wholesale monogamy? That’s usually the field of organized religion.

Academics certainly study how the end of societal norms such as monogamy impact those societies, although this kind of research is pooh-poohed by the large group of people who believe that all societal norms are worthless.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#49

Post by jhardy54 »

hh3k0 wrote: post #22
erric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>”enforced monogamy” from e.g. blowhard academics Are academics advocating wholesale monogamy? That’s usually the field of organized religion.

They are referring to Jordan Peterson. He said something along those lines in a recent interview. I haven't read the interview, though, so I don't know the context.

Jordan Peterson is a blowhard conservative who's had more success wooing impressionable edgy teenagers than any actual academic pursuits. I don't understand how anyone takes him or his ideas seriously.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#50

Post by digi_owl »

ronnier wrote: post #28
damagednoob wrote: post #11

> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…

There’s also been a shift due to online and apps that give women an unlimited choice of men while giving the majority of men nearly no choice — the dating world for most men has become a lot more difficult over the last couple of years. I see my male friends really struggle and I see my female friends have unlimited options.

Another element that i have noticed locally is that many more men pick up vocational work locally (because many vocational schools were established with support from local industry), while women leave for cities and such for education. And by the time they have finished that they have found a man that is also in that city for work or education.
Post reply on HN