6 ms·

Maybe some users will switch to more beneficial activities instead.

by throw_pm23 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ryanianian 4y ago
"Hugs not drugs" has not caused a rush on the hug market.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Was it always so widely accessible? What did people do when it wasn't?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Pornography has historically been about as accessible as any other form of media. At first it was limited to hand-drawn on paper [1] (just like any other content before the printing press). Woodblock and later cooper-plate printing made it easier to mass produce (just like everything else). Photography was almost immediately used to produce pornography, as was motion picture film. And of course, the internet made it drastically easier to distribute digitally. In short, pornography has always followed the existing means of media production and distribution. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus
    - throw_pm23 4y ago
      I agree with you, but quantity takes on a quality of its own. By analogy, sweet fruits and honey have been around and universally enjoyed since the dawn of time. Yet, guzzling down gallons of high-fructose-corn-syrup each day is relatively new and has made half of the population obese.
  - donatj 4y ago
    I grew up in the 80's/90's and there was a whole trade system in school. Swapping magazines and VHS tapes. It's not a new thing.
    - throw_pm23 4y ago
      It is not new, but it is plausible that through wide availability and deliberate exploitation of addictive behaviour ("Mindgeek"?) it has recently reached a state where it may tear society apart.
      - donatj 4y ago
        I think to argue that pornography alone is tearing society apart is a massive over statement. Caused some overly-inflated expectations in the bedroom sure. Destroyed society? Nah
    - zirgs 4y ago
      But those magazines were/tapes were way more tamer than what we have now. Kids can access extreme porn with a few clicks easily. Something is definitely wrongh here.
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      There is an inherent rate-limiting in trading anything with others. Physical media gets lost/confiscated and you can only re-read the same magazine so many times before you get bored and move on. Nobody invited you to an endless all-you-can-watch telethon of fresh content. That's where we are today.
version_five 4y ago
Good thought. Louisiana could simultaneously legalize prostitution and incentivize people to go out and interact with actual other humans instead of sitting at home watching porn.
- hasbot 4y ago
  Man, imagine that. Overnight Louisiana would be become a major tourist destination. Mardi Gras would be off the hook!
- womenhumantoo 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    If porn is an inherent moral wrong, inherently and inextricably sexually abusive to all its participants (not just women), then it should be illegal full-stop, not just hidden behind privacy-destroying ID checks that grant the state unprecedented control over internet communication.
    - version_five 4y ago
      Law is not for codifying morality. It's a compromise to operate as a society. Prohibition doesn't work and causes more harm than good, even if people think the thing that's prohibited is "immoral"
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        I happen to agree, and think that prohibition of porn would lead to horrific outcomes. Just consider the original prohibition, how it bolstered organized crime, and the kind of abuses likely to occur when the prohibited good is pornography instead of alcohol.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    So women don't watch porn and there are no men being exploited? It's fine to hate porn but it is definitely abusive to all genders not just women and certainly not just straight women. When you try to argue otherwise, you hurt your own cause. The reasoning is that now you are up against multiple differing opinions on multiple topics. Porn prohibition is incredibly unpopular and who knows what consequences it may incur. Perhaps porn is greatly limiting rape cases? A brief internet search provided plenty of evidence in favor of "who knows?"

Maybe some users will switch to more beneficial activities instead.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ryanianian 4y ago

"Hugs not drugs" has not caused a rush on the hug market.

throw_pm23 4y ago
Was it always so widely accessible? What did people do when it wasn't?
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Pornography has historically been about as accessible as any other form of media. At first it was limited to hand-drawn on paper [1] (just like any other content before the printing press). Woodblock and later cooper-plate printing made it easier to mass produce (just like everything else). Photography was almost immediately used to produce pornography, as was motion picture film. And of course, the internet made it drastically easier to distribute digitally. In short, pornography has always followed the existing means of media production and distribution. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Erotic_Papyrus
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    I agree with you, but quantity takes on a quality of its own. By analogy, sweet fruits and honey have been around and universally enjoyed since the dawn of time. Yet, guzzling down gallons of high-fructose-corn-syrup each day is relatively new and has made half of the population obese.
- donatj 4y ago
  I grew up in the 80's/90's and there was a whole trade system in school. Swapping magazines and VHS tapes. It's not a new thing.
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    It is not new, but it is plausible that through wide availability and deliberate exploitation of addictive behaviour ("Mindgeek"?) it has recently reached a state where it may tear society apart.
    - donatj 4y ago
      I think to argue that pornography alone is tearing society apart is a massive over statement. Caused some overly-inflated expectations in the bedroom sure. Destroyed society? Nah
  - zirgs 4y ago
    But those magazines were/tapes were way more tamer than what we have now. Kids can access extreme porn with a few clicks easily. Something is definitely wrongh here.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    There is an inherent rate-limiting in trading anything with others. Physical media gets lost/confiscated and you can only re-read the same magazine so many times before you get bored and move on. Nobody invited you to an endless all-you-can-watch telethon of fresh content. That's where we are today.

version_five 4y ago

Good thought. Louisiana could simultaneously legalize prostitution and incentivize people to go out and interact with actual other humans instead of sitting at home watching porn.

hasbot 4y ago
Man, imagine that. Overnight Louisiana would be become a major tourist destination. Mardi Gras would be off the hook!
womenhumantoo 4y ago
[flagged]
- catiopatio 4y ago
  If porn is an inherent moral wrong, inherently and inextricably sexually abusive to all its participants (not just women), then it should be illegal full-stop, not just hidden behind privacy-destroying ID checks that grant the state unprecedented control over internet communication.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Law is not for codifying morality. It's a compromise to operate as a society. Prohibition doesn't work and causes more harm than good, even if people think the thing that's prohibited is "immoral"
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      I happen to agree, and think that prohibition of porn would lead to horrific outcomes. Just consider the original prohibition, how it bolstered organized crime, and the kind of abuses likely to occur when the prohibited good is pornography instead of alcohol.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  So women don't watch porn and there are no men being exploited? It's fine to hate porn but it is definitely abusive to all genders not just women and certainly not just straight women. When you try to argue otherwise, you hurt your own cause. The reasoning is that now you are up against multiple differing opinions on multiple topics. Porn prohibition is incredibly unpopular and who knows what consequences it may incur. Perhaps porn is greatly limiting rape cases? A brief internet search provided plenty of evidence in favor of "who knows?"