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

X has new rules that officially allow porn

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#81

Post by arandomusername »

thriftwy wrote: post #72
arandomusername wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

14 year olds can date other 14 year olds, but it also damages their relationships in the future. Porn is an addiction that is damaging.

If you think that general dating is skewed against men, but also against older women; just watch that one of 14 year old boys. It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you. As a 39 years old I believe that this experience has irrepairably damaged my expectation of interactions. It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romantic life at 14! But what if…

> just watch that one of 14 year old boys.

If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates.

> It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you

I disagree. Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers!

> It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romantic life at 14! But what if you're not?

So if you're not you're supposed to resort to pornography? How will that help?

> WRT "damages their relationships in the future" - I can't imagine that

Do you believe either of the two below?

- Watching pornography creates a false expectation/perception of actual relationships & sex?

- Regular pornography consumption can lead to erectile dysfunction / pre-mature ejaculation?

> why would you owe anything to your future selves?

Why not sell your extra kidney, get some dough. You don't owe that kidney to your future self.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#82

Post by seadan83 »

akkad33 wrote: post #17
wkat4242 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's kinda tough now. A lot of companies still do their own comms on Twitter. For the same reason we have spotify blocked at work, but not youtube because we publish our comms there. Which results in... people listening to music videos and wasting a ton of bandwidth for no reason (because they're downloading the video just for the music). A bit stupid but the powers that be are unwilling to unblock spotify.

You can use YouTube music for just listening to music

"can" - I'm personally very disappointed with YouTube music. The playlist/recommendations are even worse than what Youtube alone will give you AND you have to pay $15/month for it.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#83

Post by shagie »

arandomusername wrote: post #76
shagie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link to the NIH paper in the commented I replied to is from the surgical wings of various hospitals in Lahore. In other comments USU extension is Utah State University... which while not BYU has similar influences. The impartiality of these sources is to be brought into question. I would also note there is a significant cultural difference between Utah, Poland (the sources for two other links), Lahore, and the US…

Poland, outside the country side, is quite progressive. Instead of disregarding the sources because they originate from culturally different, let's attack any points made.

[dead]

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#84

Post by seadan83 »

arandomusername wrote: post #64
randomdata wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

14 year olds can date other 14 year olds, but it also damages their relationships in the future. Porn is an addiction that is damaging.

Porn can be addicting. The statement "is an addiction" is too absolutist, it's incorrect. As an example, not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#85

Post by arandomusername »

randomdata wrote: post #80
arandomusername wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you keep trying to bring me, personally, into this situation? Why are you so obsessed with relationships between teenagers and adults?

[flagged]

I find your implication absolutely disgusting. Please stop projecting.

I also don't think 14 year olds should have access to smokes/vapes. What do you make of that?

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#86

Post by wkat4242 »

arandomusername wrote: post #44
thriftwy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. the research found that pornography use by men or women at any level negatively impacted romantic relationships What if you don't have any, and nowhere to get? What if you're 14 and realistically any serious romantic relations are many years in the future for you?

Do you think a 14 year old should be regularly viewing porn? Is that really the argument you are trying to make?

I know I was when I was 14. Weren't we all?

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#87

Post by randomdata »

arandomusername wrote: post #85
randomdata wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I find your implication absolutely disgusting. Please stop projecting. I also don't think 14 year olds should have access to smokes/vapes. What do you make of that?

It is your life to live, but if your actions disgust you, why be that person?

I had no interest in smokes/vapes at 14 years old (or now, for that matter). What would I have gained by seeing restrictions on them when I was 14 years old?

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#88

Post by seadan83 »

arandomusername wrote: post #55
shagie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing BYU as a source is the issue as any other conclusion of a paper would run counter to the code of ethics for faculty there. https://policy.byu.edu/view/rank-and-status-policy > Expectations of Professorial and Professional Faculty > 2.1 Faculty Standards > BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty membe…

It was one of the two sources I linked. I also linked more in another reply. Feel free to disregard byu, because plenty of other studies agree

Other studies disagree as well too.

These excerpts from [1] sum it up kinda well (I recommend reading the full article, it makes a few additional points not listed here):

"“My biggest concern regarding the scientific study of porn is that a noticeable subset of researchers come at these issues with a focus on harm in their minds. They try to establish ways to confirm that porn is causing whatever harm they already believe exists,” he says. “The field needs more people who are willing to look at the data and leave aside their politics and their issues.”" [1]

"Voon says. “What we do know with porn is that there are some patterns that are consistent with an addiction – but some that are not. We need much larger epidemiological studies to know for sure.”" [1]

"A meta-analysis – a study of studies – published by Malamuth in 2009 found that hundreds of papers from the 1980s to 2008 were fairly consistent in linking high rates of porn viewing with violent ideas and behaviour. But here’s the caveat: not all men respond to porn in the same way." [1]

"For most men, consuming porn will not cause them to view women differently. But in those who already are predisposed to hold sexist views or to behave in an aggressive fashion, porn can exacerbate pre-existing and dangerous propensities. In this way, it’s just like any other drug."

"Alcohol, for example, is in many ways comparable to porn because it is ubiquitous, socially acceptable and legal."

“For some people, alcohol can truly ruin their lives,” explains Malamuth. “But for others it can be mildly positive, such as providing stress relief or enhancing their sex lives. It depends on the cultural context – and the individual.”

"The field is riddled with misconceptions and biases that are not supported by the data, she says."

"Despite concerns that porn can decrease libido and lead to impotence due to ‘tolerance’ and ‘desensitisation’, research published by Prause in the journal Sexual Medicine in 2015 shows these worries to be unfounded."

"“The most well-replicated and concerning harm is reinforcing rape myths in men who already believe them,” says Prause. Such that if you take a woman on a date, she owes you sex. Or that women secretly want to be coerced into sex."

[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/is-pornography-h...

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#89

Post by tzs »

nehagup wrote: post #2

So, are states like Texas, which need age verification, gonna ask for it for X too? This could get pretty wild considering the whole bot situation and the way Red States are handling adult content these days...

> So, are states like Texas, which need age verification, gonna ask for it for X too?

I believe that the Texas law applies to sites where more than 1/3 of their content is sexual material harmful to minors. I don't know exactly how it defines "sexual material" and "harmful to minors", but I suspect that Twitter does not qualify as such a site.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#90

Post by wkat4242 »

arandomusername wrote: post #81
thriftwy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that general dating is skewed against men, but also against older women; just watch that one of 14 year old boys. It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you. As a 39 years old I believe that this experience has irrepairably damaged my expectation of interactions. It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romantic life at 14! But what if…

> just watch that one of 14 year old boys. If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates. > It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you I disagree. Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers! > It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romant…

> Do you believe either of the two below?

No, absolutely not.

Post reply on HN