/lit/ - Literature

>>11936316
>Read it then refute it if you believe it to be false.
Just to amuse myself, and you by proxy, I've done just that. It's garbage.
>If people have done research, concluded something
Because it's the same shoddy pseudoscience and puritanism that anti-porn crusaders have tried to use for decades if not centuries, all of which is easily debunked. If they were arguing something novel based on real discoveries, people might not dismiss their nonsense out of hand.

All that article said was it "it effects dopamine! you'll get addicted to jav midget porn if you keep watching! won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!". There is not a single argument in that article that would not just as easily apply to baking videos, as if people who like to bake will become addicted to ever more depraved depictions of cake-making. That it tries to construct arguments based on our limited knowledge of reward pathways is just the same old pseudoscience. It made a very, very oblique and indirect argument for why internet porn is addictive—a preposterous claim based solely on puritanical conviction that ignores the importance of dopamine in things like eating, sleeping, watching television, reading the paper, et cetera—but it didn't explain why being married doesn't inevitably lead to sex addiction, adultery, or copulating with the esophagus of dead orphan girls—the implied end position of every "porn addiction". Most horridly, despite the shoddy arguments, it doesn't actually offer any data that internet porn is actually addictive and/or detrimental. (Which is very different than studies show porn taps in to our reward pathways. No shit, everything that feels good does that.) People have studied this, and there is no such thing as porn addiction, so until you have data to contradict this massive meta-analysis, please thump your bible at church, not here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too

Oh, and one more thing. Like all anti-porn puritanism, it relies on shock tactics to try to evoke conflicting feelings of shame and titillation. These articles are like a porn substitute for people who are too prudish to just go on pornhub and have a quick wank:
>squirting less and less, frenzy of copulation, getting hooked on internet porn, The bigger the squirt[,] the more you want something, Sexual stimulation offers the biggest natural blast, we are all pursuing hits of dopamine, The subjects and their penises sprang to attention, a porn user’s brain, This helps explain why some porn users escalate into ever more shocking or anxiety invoking porn, Those who agree that porn addiction exists often compare internet porn to addictive drugs, making internet porn uniquely compelling[,] and potentially addictive, Internet porn can alter or sculpt our extensive brain circuitry,

>>11880223
>>professing science as dogma
Actually, I'm supporting an argument with evidence rather than my feelings.
>>false equivalency and simplistic understanding of physiology
Oh? By all means enlighten me. I'm sure you have a very, very nuanced and informed opinion beyond "primal urges aren't the same as addiction cuz i sez so" (but nevermind that they operate on the same endorphin and dopamine pathways, wouldn't want to make a "false" equivalence or oversimplify the physiology that you no doubt are highly educated on).
>>dude religion dude!
Yes, because religious lobbyists have never been known to support shoddy research or use well-respected but morally bankrupt mouthpieces to press their beliefs onto the rest of society. Did you know that the reason why 50% of American males are circumcised is because John Kellogg (of the cereal brand) and other right-wing religious nuts recommended it as a way to curb masturbation?
>>presumption after presumption (DUDE wtf, you were never addicted, how could you say something so stupid!)
Well, if that was your post, have you ever been addicted to opiates? If you haven't, you are arguing from a position of abject ignorance, and you should keep your stupid trap shut.
>>"definitive study" (despite it contradicting most cognitive science that hypersexuality is a deleterious behavior.)
Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have wasted my time since you're such a blithering retard. That study examines whether there is a causal relationship between pornography consumption and subject-perceived morbidity, which can include hypersexuality. It found that the correlating factor with morbidity is moral incongruence with pornography consumption, not pornography consumption itself. That's how meta-analyses work, shit-for-brains. And you're calling me a pseud? Don't ever reply to me again, imbecile.