We shouldn't accept Porn being freely available online. Instead, we should require all sites to charge for content, minimum $5/month, with 10% of that being collected as sales tax.
Sites that do not comply will be blocked.
This will ensure that children cannot access them, and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
I don't agree with the downvotes because I feel you presented a point that's worthy of debate.
> This will ensure that children cannot access them
A. Kids will just steal their parents credit cards or logins.
B. The responsibility for raising children is the parents and not credit card companies. Things that make people better parents will work far better, like creating economic systems that don't require two parents to work and be unavailable to their children.
> and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
A. $5 a month won't work. People continue to smoke and cigarette packs are generally more expensive than that per pack.
B. Why should those who are not addicted pay for those who are?
A: Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult than just getting a mobile phone and typing 'pornhub.com' into the address bar.
B: How do you police something which is so easy to access? We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Why don't we require ISPs to provide free DNS-level blocking for residential broadband and mobile phone services?
It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. This is something that should be managed centrally by ISPs, enforced by Government regulation.
C. $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
D. Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
B. I’m not in favor of governments policing drugs the way they’ve been going about it and I’m even less in favor of them having the power to censor the Internet.
I’d rather my kids, even at 9 and 11, stumble across pornography than grow up in a world where the government decides which sites are allowed to be in DNS.
C. No addict will be slowed by $60/yr price tag for their addiction. You’re not forcing anyone to confront their addiction in any meaningful way.
D. I’m not in favor of protectionist rackets even for businesses that I think should be allowed to operate.
> Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult
For signing up for porn sites, it's really not very much more difficult. Steal card from parent while sleeping, enter numbers in form, now you have access. It's a small hoop to jump through and lots of people do it for identity theft purposes.
> How do you police something which is so easy to access?
You really can't.
> We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography?
Access to drugs isn't the same as telling me what to do in my own house with an Internet connection and device I'm paying for.
> It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to.
Your kid has a phone, a tablet, and a PC. 3 devices which you bought/owned, not really a lot of work. If you have the problem of your kid having too many devices, you also have the means to pay someone to do it for you.
> $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
It would have to be way higher. Honestly if I'm extremely addicted and use porn 5x a day, $5 a month is a bargain.
> Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
I don't know. Amateur content is a top category on many sites I think.
Probably the number one thing anyone concerned with exploitation could do is destigmatize and legalize sex work, and provide a decent social safety net so people are less tempted to commit desperate actions to survive.
Morality questions aside, this wouldn't practically work.
It would require pretty much uprooting and destroying the internet entirely. It's too easy to share "free" porn pictures on any website. We'd have to go from a free internet where anybody can make a website to a locked down version where you apply for a permit first.
I suspect 90% of teenagers currently go to fairly safe porn sites like pornhub, rather than diving into murky underworlds of bestility c, child porn, and sites requiring things like 'nudes for porn' or something.
You're not going to stop teenagers getting porn, or adults for that matter (in the 80s kids were sharing dad's playboys)
Because there's evidence of harm from those, significant in some cases, and a discussion of proportionate measures that can be taken?
This is largely what's missing from the discussion of sex work in general, a clear view of what is and what is not harmful; to whom it is harmful; and what might reasonably be done about it. The argument that sexual material was harmful per se collapsed somewhere around the Lady Chatterly trial.
There is plenty of evidence of harm from porn usage, it hijacks the brain in a similar manner as hard core drugs. [0]
The social consequences are pretty obvious, satisfying fundemental bioligical needs through artifical manner degrades what those desires are meant to achieve: family formation, marriages, which it inhibits forming or ruins those that already exist.
Go spend some time on the no-fap sub-reddit to see the massive positive change that occurs when men quit consuming porn. Porn is a tool for social control, pacification and weakening culture [1], it is not empowering for either side of the equation.
If this wasn't true, it wouldn't have been used as a form of psychological warfare like it was in this situation [2].
I find it quite interesting that TED apparently felt it appropriate to include this disclaimer:
> NOTE FROM TED: This talk contains several assertions that are not supported by academically respected studies in medicine and psychology. While some viewers might find advice provided in this talk to be helpful, please do not look to this talk for medical advice.
I'm sorry, but not providing any actual evidence to support your claim, then saying it's "common sense", "stupidly obvious and self evident", then calling anyone who even argues the point an addict or arguing in poor faith checks about every box in the "how to make it hard for people to actually continue a discussion with you in good faith" list.
How is it "poor faith"? I legitimately believe it to be true.
Moreover, if one conducts the experiment on themselves, porn usage then no-fap...they would observe the effect themselves. Not ever attempting to do so then defending porn is itself a bad-faith argument.
Many of these cultural type of debates have wider philosophical/political baggage that precludes and unbiased discussion. Often it just comes down to what one thinks of a certain thing... like that porn usage is degenerate and unhealthy. What would a study do to oppose that argument?
Do you doubt that the researcher in the video found evidence of brain effects similar to narcotics? No matter what evidence was presented, TED would say the same thing as they have a political angle to defend.
You are welcome to believe anything you like, but when you try to convince other people of your viewpoint you must provide supporting evidence for it, while refraining from doing the things I mentioned. I do appreciate that your claim is actually testable, so that is a plus, although I cannot say that experimenting on myself is a great idea nor am I sure what effect I should be searching for. An actual study may have a hypothesis like "porn usage causes an increase of rates of depression or success in relationships" and then you could actually measure that and try to see if there was an actual difference (keeping in mind that such topics are often difficult to study, because people often lie and social sciences are often fuzzy anyways.) By the way, the "effects similar to narcotics" isn't really that great of a qualifier; for example, any pleasurable experience releases dopamine, whether it be hard, addictive drugs or spending time with your family. It would be absurd to try to continue an argument on that, wouldn't it?
This is a distinction of degree then perhaps. But you're on the right track. Spending time with your family is a good thing. Pursuing more drug usage and porn usage is not, not least of which because they'd probably lead to less "spending time with family" or no family at all.
That drugs and porn occupy your time, and reward you for it, and again, in an extreme way (large reward.. not just "reward") is the entire point.
>nor am I sure what effect I should be searching for
That you are even considering what you should be searching for is commendable. Most people here wouldn't even take the time to run the thought experiment or grant that self experiment is valid evidence. Nor would they go read no-fap discussions listing countless, endless examples of drastic improvements in individuals lives from before/after.
>keeping in mind that such topics are often difficult to study
Yep. And there are a lot of variables. See why waiting for a study is kinda silly? We don't need it. Though I'm sure there are or could be some good ones, those searching for the perfect one when self experience would show them all they would need, or 500 anecdotes. Again, it's self evident for anyone who puts in a bit of time willing to consider. Those that want to rationalize their unhealthy behavior will hold out, perpetually, for study.
Persuading those people is a lost cause. I think we can just take the heuristic of looking at how endless supply of novel, virtually "real" (to the brain) sexual stimulus is something never before existing in human history. We can point to delay and decline in marriage, birth rates, and family formation. Stories of teenagers and young children being exposed to hard core pornography early and finding themselves with a habit that leads to depression, anxiety, apathy, marriage problems for adults etc. They're out there. Nobody wants to do this study, but we can use our common sense and intuition anyways.
It's poor faith because it means anyone engaging with you has to drag themselves through the mud, either silently accepting your characterization that they're an addict or posting a defensive disclaimer that they're totally not.
Sure.. maybe my point is I'm certainly not looking for a debate with someone that would deny it. I wouldn't view them as a serious person, because of the self evident nature of what we would be "debating"
If you don’t want to hear from someone who doesn’t agree with you, I agree you’re not looking for a debate. The word instead is preaching.
(There’s not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it’s a quite different activity with a propensity to convince primarily people who already agree with you.)
This won't work. Kids are inventive and can still get around that. Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide that karate videos should be blocked because... violence. Or, we may wake up one day and find that we can't access the Wikipedia pages about chemistry anymore, because kids can read them and then make dangerous experiments! Reading all those Wikipedia articles can also be an addiction too, (which I seem to have btw...! God forbid from having your kids find a site called Hacker News! ;-))
Instead, how about supervise your kids when they go online?
Of course it would work (to some degree). We massively decreased the usage of cigarettes by regulation and taxing. With harsh enough fines and punishments as well as social pressure, decreasing porn usage would be easy to achieve.
>Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide
These types of "this" vs "that" decision-making is done all the time. We ban and punish child-porn usage.
Various forms of "hate" speech is booted off the internet and "canceled" in culture all the time is it not?
We can do it, it's just that many people here don't want to.
One important difference to note is that people do this in the privacy of their homes all the time, and we certainly will not be banning that. The only thing you would be banning is having a camera pointed at it. The other vices are not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn.
It would be very easy to regulate the ability to make money easily (platforms, payment systems, public websites/corps) producing this content and therefore decreasing the supply.
The bigger picture is the social/cultural conversation around porn usage. It is very accepted, promoted even, by many communities and elements within our society. If there was an honest conversation around this usage would decline. The "no fap" community is an example of this and I think they have had successes changing minds around porn usage as an unquestionable good.
This does also get into political viewpoints on public good and individual freedom, and where that line is drawn.
>not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn
Don't know what this means. Authorities cannot have knowledge of every instance of law breaking that occurs maybe?
Doesn't change its illegality or the punishment if this is discovered.
The problem is that is fairly difficult to buy drugs, and we heavily regulate the tools, process, and techniques necessary to produce and consume them. In contrast, every person has the tools to make porn on or attached to to themselves, and putting any sort of restrictions on this would be extremely unpopular from pretty much everyone.
By the way, there are a couple of countries that do ban the production and distribution of porn. I would suggest taking a look at how well that works out for them.
Clear evidence implicating oneself of a crime (if it was made a crime) would seem to me to be a limiting factor in porn usage after regulation. This would stand in contrast to all the other vices that are regulated. The thing itself would implicate. This is all a question of commitment to enforcement... but it surely is possible.
>putting any sort of restrictions on this would be extremely unpopular from pretty much everyone.
No, but this might reflect the difference in circles you and I find ourselves in. Go on twitter and search for porn ban (or similar permutations) there is a huge contingent supporting this sort of change of culture. I guess I don't disagree than any sort of national referendum within, say, the US in 2020 probably would fail. It wouldn't have failed a few decades ago, I guess the rapid change is something to think about.
If this argument has been made for decades, then it is a bad argument that has been made for decades.
> I don't understand why
OK, let me try to explain. I'm not against pornography. I'm also not a prude -- if consenting adults want to have orgies, or wife swap, or insert baseball bats into body cavities, or get slapped and yelled at, go for it!
I'd bet that 90+% or more of people's first exposure to sex is online videos. While there are certainly videos that show realistic sex, the vast majority are highly unrealistic and set incredibly weird expectations about what is normal. A lot of what is shown on video is bad acting, not happiness.
To distinguish itself from from other videos, makers are always trying to find some new or more extreme boundary to push. A lot veers into extreme power dynamics -- boys learning about porn should not have the expectation that women like to be choked or spit on, or have jackhammer anal sex. Girls shouldn't have the expectation that that is what boys expect of them.
As an adult you might say, hey, a lot of those scenarios are just entertainment, eg, those step siblings are obviously in their 20s, or obviously women don't like having 100 men ejaculate on them, but to children where this is their first exposure to sex, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some.
This is spot on. I am horified at what my kids will learn as normal from watching porn when they later get access to it. There is so much garbage out there that is pushing the notion of normality that they will be utterly confused. Im not a prude either but I find “deepthroat” as utterly disgusting, someone is chocking and gagging and makes me vomit. And yet, Ive seen girls who learned to enjoy it because that makes them normal to their peers while they secretly don’t like choking or gagging. This is just one example, there are way more. Im so happy I grew up and former with less access to porn.
I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch. Some of the stuff is dangerous too
You're quite right. Thanks for pointing it out. Upvoted.
OK, here's what he said "but I find “deepthroat” as utterly disgusting".
There's no space for the fact that some women like that, or that even if they don't, adult film workers are doing a paid job. Not all oral sex involves choking or apparently being forced. But that's a blanket condemnation based on him being "disgusted" and ignoring the nonsexual violence in mainstream media.
He goes on "I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch"
So back to curating sex videos but ignoring extreme graphic nonsexual violence?
This discussion doesnt exclude violence but we are focusing on the topic at hand.
Second, I dont know if you notice but people copy any type of behaviour that is seen more, the type of thing becomes normalized, and as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy, but do it anyway because it somehow becomes expected of them to do so, some even start enjoying the act even though it is not pleasant, it’s a coping mechanism...
Violence on TV is obviously affecting our society for sure, and violence suffered from the same capitalistic fault to maximize profit, violence initially sold well so it produced exponentially more until the last dime could be extracted out of it.
If no financial incentive is behind any of these “memes” then maybe the better ones become normalized and the effects on society are less nocive. Speaking broadly ofc.
> people copy any type of behaviour that is seen more, the type of thing becomes normalized
Yeah. Like extraordinary levels of violence on TV that the audience becomes accustomed to it and simply don't see it any more whereas porn...
> as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy
Wut really? Hint: women are people and some like different things, including that, unforced. You've really never met...? This smacks of the old view that women couldn't possibly enjoy sex and it was forced upon them unwillingly by those horrid beastly men.
In you penultimate sentence you appear to be accepting media violence as a given. So fight back.
You seem to not want to understand on purpose and keep on telling me I take violence on TV for granted. I am not, I told you already, we’re talking about porn.
Women feel lesser if they do not perform certain things that are in fashion, some kind of peer pressure. Who sets that fashion? Who is sick to want a women choke and gag on a man’s penis? You enjoy vomit? I dont think it has a place in healthy sexuality.
And let me explain what I mean in the last paragraph of my previous comment: the extreme commercialization typical of capitalism is responsible for amplifying these memes, normalizing new things that are degrading for some and hence exploitative in nature. What are you fighting back about? Are you just a contrarian?
You’re the deepthroat defender, I don’t know who’s weirder. I continued this out of politeness by the way, I don’t find you very worthy of conversation, I just thought I would open an idiot’s eyes
I almost completely agree with what you say here (so upvoted) but it's what you don't say that I find disturbing.
You've outlined what can be unpleasant about porn (eg. slapping women or choking them, however consensual I won't watch that) but you seem blind to the (albeit simulated) violence, sadism and killing I alluded to in mainstream films which can be far, far worse. I personally know it isn't real but to borrow and slightly amend your own sentence...
"but to children where this is their first exposure to violence, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some"
You can see the bad parts in porn, but not see the worse in films that children are freely exposed to? How come?
The person I replied to specifically said "I don't understand people who think this way (about porn)," and I addressed that specific point.
The issues of ultraviolence in mainstream movies is its own issue and can be discussed on its own terms. Porn has its own issues and be discussed on its own terms. Yes, both are film media, but that is about all they share in common.
It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
> It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
I'm saying it's exactly that it is. Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn (I'd claim), and I'd also claim, as evidenced by the strangely skewed responses here, that some people are blind to one nonsexual violence but oddly sensitive to the other, porn.
If someone has a fundraiser for cancer, do you tut tut them and say malaria kills more people than cancer, and it is disturbing that your pamphlets about your cancer cause don't even mention mosquitoes?
If you think it is a competition, then OK, we simply disagree. If someone has a fundraiser for some cancer cause I may donate even though malaria kills more people every year.
"Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn" is what I said. That is because 'Mainstream nonsexual violence' is bad and pornography has very little harm in it, if any, though there are areas I don't want to see (so what children may see I grant they may find disturbing in their ignorance).
Whereas both cancer and malaria are unquestionably very bad things.
But that you are willing to equate porn with cancer is to me most disturbing of all. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't know.
Edit: let me put it a different way; there can be no upside to cancer, unlike porn.
I think smartphone addiction is way worse. As for the rest we already have more than enough controls imposed by self righteous imbeciles. Please spare from yet another one.
But how exactly you craft the legislation to go after these specific requirements while respecting the 1A and not begetting a host of other security concerns is a genuinely interesting legal/technical challenge.
And it could be that privacy is already shot to hell and I'm just too stupid to grok that, yes.
As governments begin to lose tax revenue due to everything moving to digital platforms, running beyond their borders, the new politicians born in this century will figure it out. You can be certain of that. (Death and Taxes)
Or perhaps somebody will create a Star Trek style economy. :-)
(shame Gene Roddenberry never explained that in detail)
I don’t think that makes sense. I can create “porn” right now with a pencil and paper and upload it to the internet. Is it a creative expression, or porn? It’s both probably. I would suggest this doesn’t work out if you believe in free speech.
Sites that do not comply will be blocked.
This will ensure that children cannot access them, and allow people to control their pornography addictions.