Having read the whole thing, it's basically a Gladwellisation of anecdotes and correlations into implied causations. > We can’t prove a direct causal link betw

Having read the whole thing, it's basically a Gladwellisation of anecdotes and correlations into implied causations. > We can’t prove a direct causal link between porn addiction and the “sex recession,” [continues rambling on as if a direct causal link was proven] He also seems (wilfully?) oblivious to any other factors - e.g. as a tiny example, when talking about how Japan's "sex recession" might destroy society, he mentions that these "herbivores" tend to live with their parents (that -probably- impacts their sex life), prefer spending time alone (again, impacting sex life), and are uninterested in professional careers (ok, no relevance here.)