4 ms·

I accept your point while submitting that everyone in this thread, yourself included, fails this stringent test: > They were responding to a specific claim of

I accept your point while submitting that everyone in this thread, yourself included, fails this stringent test: > They were responding to a specific claim of the GGP, that porn is harmless. Speaking of strawmen, it was Jacob who used the word harmless. Nicholas went so far as to draw an analogy with drugs concerning the effects of responsible versus irresponsible use. When he said porn wasn't bad, he clearly didn't mean that it is harmless in an absolute sense but was expressing a nuanced point of view.

jacoblyles 14y ago
You're right that Nicholas's comment was more nuanced than I gave him credit for. However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. I've had some first hand experience on that count, though not as extreme as the linked article.
- psykotic 14y ago
  > However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. You haven't clearly defined what you mean by harmful. Does it ruin otherwise healthy relationships on a massive scale? Does it teach impressionable young men that all women want to fuck them, leading to violence? Those seem like typical charges brought against porn. Were they true I'd agree there would be cause for serious concern. I haven't seen the data to back up these claims. If it exists, let's see it. Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    >"Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest." There is certainly a modern syndrome around the nexus of sex, relationships, and family (less stable relationships, fewer children raised in stable homes, fewer children, more sex, more sexual culture, technology that lowers the cost of sex, easy access to porn). It's hard to know which pieces of the syndrome are causes and which are effects. But if you don't see anything broken with modern relationships, you aren't paying attention to the statistics. Since the 1960s things have certainly changed at a rapid rate and some of that change is clearly for the worse.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Out of curiosity, what statistics are you referring to?
      - jacoblyles 14y ago
        Children raised in single-parent homes, children born out of marriage, and rates of divorce all started skyrocketing in the 60s. The upper class has been less effected, as Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" shows. Divorce, single-parenthood, and other symptoms of sexual liberation went up slightly for the upper class in the 60s and then leveled off. But in the lower classes the standard family has become the exception to the norm. Today, you have stats like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-children-U-S-born-wedlock.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-childre... or this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 Again, I'm not saying porn or a less repressed culture are causative, but they are part of the syndrome we observe that sex is less serious and more pervasive, relationships are more temporary, and children grow up in more chaotic homes at a distinct disadvantage to children that grow up in stable homes. The family is disappearing for a large portion of the population. Marriage is later. Children are fewer - especially for the upper class. You have more wealth in the country and more children being raised in poverty by a single parent.
        philwelch 14y ago
        I think you're conflating two very different things. One is a growing bifurcation between rich and poor. The other is what you might call "sexual liberation", though it's much wider than that. For instance, a higher divorce rate is not necessarily bad. Decades ago, women had fewer rights in marriage and there was a cultural expectation for marriages to stay together, no matter how unhealthy, unhappy, or sometimes even abusive the marriage happened to be. As recently as the 1970's, the law had no concept of spousal rape--in other words, it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. Today, not only can women escape from marriages that are bad for them, but married couples can mutually agree that the marriage is no longer serving their or their childrens' needs. I also find little to complain about in a lower birthrate. The bifurcation by class is troubling, but the net trend is towards zero or negative population growth. This doesn't necessarily indicate the disappearance of family, but rather a slight adjustment from more of an r-selection strategy to more of a K-selection strategy. Conflating these issues as a "syndrome" is a little too simplistic and tendentious towards an ill-founded social conservatism.
andrewflnr 14y ago
"Porn isn't bad" is close enough to "porn is harmless" that I see little point in distinguishing them. not(P < 0) === P >= 0. I guess I don't see the nuance. I'll definitely admit to failing my test sometimes. It's easy to be sure you know what someone really meant.

jacoblyles 14y ago

You're right that Nicholas's comment was more nuanced than I gave him credit for. However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. I've had some first hand experience on that count, though not as extreme as the linked article.

psykotic 14y ago
> However, he paints the picture that porn has been with our society forever and that its effects are known and tolerable. I would argue that its widespread availability is an extremely novel phenomena and that its effects are unknown and likely harmful. You haven't clearly defined what you mean by harmful. Does it ruin otherwise healthy relationships on a massive scale? Does it teach impressionable young men that all women want to fuck them, leading to violence? Those seem like typical charges brought against porn. Were they true I'd agree there would be cause for serious concern. I haven't seen the data to back up these claims. If it exists, let's see it. Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  >"Porn is widespread enough that you'd expect the large-scale statistical effects to be manifest." There is certainly a modern syndrome around the nexus of sex, relationships, and family (less stable relationships, fewer children raised in stable homes, fewer children, more sex, more sexual culture, technology that lowers the cost of sex, easy access to porn). It's hard to know which pieces of the syndrome are causes and which are effects. But if you don't see anything broken with modern relationships, you aren't paying attention to the statistics. Since the 1960s things have certainly changed at a rapid rate and some of that change is clearly for the worse.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Out of curiosity, what statistics are you referring to?
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      Children raised in single-parent homes, children born out of marriage, and rates of divorce all started skyrocketing in the 60s. The upper class has been less effected, as Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" shows. Divorce, single-parenthood, and other symptoms of sexual liberation went up slightly for the upper class in the 60s and then leveled off. But in the lower classes the standard family has become the exception to the norm. Today, you have stats like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-children-U-S-born-wedlock.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103235/Most-childre... or this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=0 Again, I'm not saying porn or a less repressed culture are causative, but they are part of the syndrome we observe that sex is less serious and more pervasive, relationships are more temporary, and children grow up in more chaotic homes at a distinct disadvantage to children that grow up in stable homes. The family is disappearing for a large portion of the population. Marriage is later. Children are fewer - especially for the upper class. You have more wealth in the country and more children being raised in poverty by a single parent.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        I think you're conflating two very different things. One is a growing bifurcation between rich and poor. The other is what you might call "sexual liberation", though it's much wider than that. For instance, a higher divorce rate is not necessarily bad. Decades ago, women had fewer rights in marriage and there was a cultural expectation for marriages to stay together, no matter how unhealthy, unhappy, or sometimes even abusive the marriage happened to be. As recently as the 1970's, the law had no concept of spousal rape--in other words, it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. Today, not only can women escape from marriages that are bad for them, but married couples can mutually agree that the marriage is no longer serving their or their childrens' needs. I also find little to complain about in a lower birthrate. The bifurcation by class is troubling, but the net trend is towards zero or negative population growth. This doesn't necessarily indicate the disappearance of family, but rather a slight adjustment from more of an r-selection strategy to more of a K-selection strategy. Conflating these issues as a "syndrome" is a little too simplistic and tendentious towards an ill-founded social conservatism.

andrewflnr 14y ago

"Porn isn't bad" is close enough to "porn is harmless" that I see little point in distinguishing them. not(P < 0) === P >= 0. I guess I don't see the nuance. I'll definitely admit to failing my test sometimes. It's easy to be sure you know what someone really meant.