After watching, I think this largely lines up with the impact of porn addiction being real and impactful, which I certainly don’t deny.

Likely the different emphasis is on the prevalence of internet porn addiction. He claims it’s more likely than gambling or other internet-related addictions; I wonder if that is consensus or if it’s maybe changed over time? From a societal level, I’m sure there’s more porn addiction than in the past (as he notes the availability, quality, and variety are significantly different than before the internet). But his talk implies a much larger scale than I would accept without validating the sources. From what I’m familiar with porn addiction isn’t much more or less prevalent than other internet related ones. Here’s one data point putting “cybersex” close to game addiction, but well below social media and smartphone: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35150965/ similar numbers here: https://virtual-addiction.com/technology-addiction-statistics-2024/ “Between 7 and 10% of people who watch online porn are addicted to it.”

Considering the data I’m familiar with: majority of people (in western societies) aren’t suffering the side effects of internet porn addiction and are still able to pursue typical life goals (finding a partner, marriage, children, etc). While we have seen some of these figures declining (marriage and having children). Or, these trends have been in place since before high speed internet (declining birthrates stem from the 60s in the US: https://datacommons.org/explore#q=birth+rate ). Marriage rates similarly declined well before the internet (and have stabilized in the past decade or so): https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/loo-marriage-rate-US-geographic-variation-2022-fp-23-23.html

Specifically he mentions ED as a kind of “ultimate” symptom… unfortunately I don’t see a good timeseries for ED prevalence; even across studies the estimates vary quite a bit, so I’m not sure there’s a standard measurement with a long enough history to use… that’d be an interesting metric to consider if it were available though!

I’d have to go back and check what other studies on porn use used for control groups; as this talk states “there is no control group”… I think that is inaccurate. Even if control groups aren’t available, we can still measure impacts without a control group if we can reliably track quantity in some manner. It need not be just abstinence versus usage to conduct a valid study; we can compare high, medium, and low volumes of usage. We know the volumes at which over consumption of water is harmful even though there are no people who abstain from it!

Thanks again for linking; it had a few other references & citations I’ll continue to pursue. I appreciate the different perspective on the topic!

I’ve not seen it before, I’ll check it out. Thanks!

Here’s a long-form interview between a sex researcher and a urologist (MD) about how porn really effects us; both on an individual level; and in aggregate as a society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEqe5dHuQYE

TLDR: Porn is a bit of an over-stimulation on the brain, but the scale of the effect is similar to caffeine or nicotine. Far less impactful than that of any hard drug like cocaine or heroine. And unlike a chemical stimulant, it’s impossible to overdoes. Some people have excessive reactions to watching porn and having it readily available, so things like porn addiction are real and shouldn’t be dismissed. But the frequency of this is low (far lower than nicotine, gambling, or alcohol as comparison points) and the severity of such addictions are often minor (addicts skip other social interactions, but are unlikely to go into debt or lose jobs except in the most extreme cases).

There is no strong evidence that early exposure to porn via the internet has significant adverse effects. There are worse effects from exposure to violent content (including violent porn) than pornography in general.

This makes sense as from an evolutionary standpoint seeing other naked humans is expected. It’s only recently (in evolutionary time frames) that we’d not expect children to see other naked humans regularly or be unexposed to sex at all until an adult age. From a biological standpoint it makes perfect sense that our brain can handle seeing other people engaged in sexual activity.

They’re working off of incorrect information & ideas. They think people will be better off not getting vaccinated. They genuinely think they’re doing a good thing. They don’t think we’ll have resurgences of diseases at any large scale because they don’t attribute the disappearance of those diseases to vaccines. They believe society will be relieved from some vaccine induced “side-effects” like increased autism (or 5G mind control… or whatever… it’s hard to keep track of their nonsense).

Since they accept the above falsehoods; they don’t need to “get” anything. They’re as certain stopping vaccinations will help the general population as I am that it will do harm. But some idiot(s) put them in charge so they get to execute on their campaign promises.

Literally fought the deadliest war in US history over this…

Which would matter if she cared about history. Or objective reality.

“The whole thing is screwed up,” said John Painter, a three-time Trump voter who runs an organic dairy farm in Westfield. “We need people to do the jobs Americans are too spoiled to do.”

With an attitude like that it’s no wonder you’re having trouble finding people to work for you…

“We moved to H-2A out of necessity,” added Sarah Zost, an orchard grower in Gardners, Pennsylvania. “No one wants to use the program. It’s a paperwork nightmare.”

If only one party had been proposing to fix immigration; only to have their efforts hamstrung by insistence we first “strengthen the border”. See reference here: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

The best chance to enact comprehensive reform came in 2013 during President Barack Obama’s second term, when a bipartisan group of senators dubbed the “Gang of Eight” agreed on a bill that would toughen security at the southern border and make it harder for employers to hire migrants who had entered the U.S. illegally while providing legal status and a path to citizenship for millions of such migrants who had resided in the U.S. for many years. The proposal passed the Senate 68 to 32 with strong bipartisan support. But because it did not enjoy the support of a majority of House Republicans, then-Speaker John Boehner refused to bring it to floor for a vote, and the measure died.

Article doesn’t mention pay either…

Getting more and more awkward referring to Canada as a northern state…

Good news: there’s a third option!

I’m placing my bet they claim something like “testing for autism causing autism”… they’ll ban the tests. Problem “solved”!

I don’t know about Goldilocks. More like “there are risks but we can probably handle it with proper policy”.

Abiotic Factor

Cornyn is so old… 73 in 2025. How is he considering running for another 6 year senate term?

Similar experience for me! I joined the co-ed service “fraternity” Alpha Phi Omega… they coordinated many different volunteering efforts and projects; but also had some social events for the members. Great way to meet kind-hearted people!

I bet like “free to play” games they’ll find a few “whale” users who will spend inappropriate amounts of money. There’s a long history of people paying for companionship… Now it’s even more fake :(