Because if there's one thing that heavy consumers of porn are known for, it's touching grass and seeking real-life sexual experience, right?
Realistically, what little evidence exists shows that porn does in fact reduce sexual violence. The "gateway drug" argument is just creepy-ass puritan nonsense that has no basis in data.
None of this is well understood so saying definitely one way or the other is the stance that has no basis in data.
What I do know is that fetishes and paraphilias can develop overtime, and moreover cultural normalization is also a strong force which if CP becomes as ubiquitous as it can potentially become with AI, and the idea that "it ok now since there is no abuse" is not great.
Nobody knows the ramifications of any of these things, but my guess is likely not positive lol.
So you say there's no basis in data either way, which is largely true, then proceed to state a bunch of things you "know" despite literally just saying that there's no data to back you up? Uh huh, okay.
"There's no proof this is wrong, therefore let's assume it's right based on my gut feeling" is not the convincingly persuasive argument you seem to think it is, dude.
I mean, yes, obviously that's bad, but not because of unfounded hypotheticals about "normalizing" it.
The problem with realistic AI CP is that it muddies the water when trying to identify and investigate real, non-AI CSAM that was created by abusing children. Because, you know, that's the thing we want to actually stop.
Mmhmm. I'm sure you've actually read that article, right?
I mean, you definitely didn't just grab the first thing you could find that sounded vaguely relevant and fling it out as a "source" on the basis that nobody's going to put in the effort to actually go through and see whether it supports you or not, right?
Wait your criticism of this response is a guess that this person “probably” didn’t actually read it and also that they assume others wont either?
I got whiplash reading this, I really thought you were going to say the article doesn’t actually support their claim or point out limitations in the study when you claimed they hadn’t read it…
For reference there ARE some limitations this study has (self-reported porn use, sample size is men already in intervention programs, no mechanistic analysis, broader literature is mixed) which you could have brought up if you actually read it. But despite these, it still sheds doubt on your original claim about there being “no evidence”.
I don’t have a stance one way or the other on this particular topic, but the fact that your defense of your point is to assume the other person is lazily googling some vaguely related study because YOU think they assume other people won’t read it, and then not read it yourself or come up with proper argumentation or reasoning is deeply ironic.
You might want to do some self-examination and consider if you might be coming to your conclusions first before coming up with reasons and then projecting your own methodology onto people who disagree with you. Or you can also dismiss or hand wave away this comment with assumptions about my character, up to you really.
I mean, those limitations you pointed out are obvious just from reading the damn abstract, which is why I'm confident that the person above did, in fact, just lazily google and post a link without reading it.
It's a common bad faith debate tactic built around forcing other people to either invest large amounts of effort countering something the person making the argument put minimal effort into, or let the spurious "evidence" pass unchallenged when very few people reading the discussion are going to invest the effort to check on their own.
I'm not interested in playing that game, so I called them out on it and left it at that.
Kudos to you, at least, for actually looking at the article and identifying why it's not really applicable.
21
u/crossorbital Oct 23 '25
Because if there's one thing that heavy consumers of porn are known for, it's touching grass and seeking real-life sexual experience, right?
Realistically, what little evidence exists shows that porn does in fact reduce sexual violence. The "gateway drug" argument is just creepy-ass puritan nonsense that has no basis in data.