Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    I doubt that. Cigarette companies have to include warning labels as per the courts and there’s a mountain of evidence that porn can be harmful to people.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Go look at what speech they’re compelling. It’s outright defamatory.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah lol

        Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.

        Not to mention

        “The statements on science effects are just false, they have never been shown,” said Prause in an email to me. She elaborated that the “science” referred to in House Bill 1181 is “completely fabricated.” “APA and WHO both rejected sex and pornography as addictions because they are not. The bill flies in the face of scientific consensus.”

        Everything is bigger in Texas. Including outright fabrication

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          APA and WHO rejecting sex and porn as addictions makes me more skeptical of them than porn addiction.

          And I’m already side-eyeing WHO from how they handled covid. They are the ones where a lack of evidence had them supporting the “everything is fine” side of things rather than the “better safe than sorry”. And also lying about the lack of evidence itself because there were already stories on the internet that indicated it was airborne when they were saying that there wasn’t any evidence that it was.

          WHO doesn’t have much credibility IMO and this just further hurts it.

              • kautau@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Because a panel of scientists has done documented research to test whether porn addiction should be an illness, and through studies they have found that in most cases, compulsive porn usage is due to another underlying issue, and the porn itself is an avenue and not the source of the issue. Attacking the WHO because of your stance on COVID has nothing to do with this.

                • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Argh, had a comment written out but Lemmy closed and erased it when I upvoted. But the gist of it was I read a meta study that included the WHO one, then read a study that was for porn addiction, and the for porn addiction one mistook correlation for causation and their description of their data was still consistent with what you said.

                  Thanks for not being a dick with this response like that other guy.

                  • kautau@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Hey I’m just trying to make sure the right info is what people see. If there really is a scientifically proven porn addiction, let’s make it known, but before that, and until that happens, let’s tackle the problem with evidence

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can’t tell if this is an insult or not. What kind of shoes do you have?

              And if they have something more productive to say, could you put them on instead?

      • figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the lazy:

        HB 1181 would issue public health warnings including claims that porn use “increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” Claims that are included in the health warnings laid out by the bill suggest that porn use is “potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.” Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          51
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of that is backed up by actual evidence though. It’s not really disputed that porn affects self esteem and body issues or desensitizes reward circuits of the brain.

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, yes it is disputed. Those claims are just plain totally made up. The other bits about how watching porn makes you become a pedophile, even more so.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              If they were going to totally make up claims they’d choose better ones to go with. These are actual topics based on evidence, even if inconvenient truths for those who support or oppose porn.

              • fubo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not convinced. The claims being made are obviously parodies of tobacco health warnings, with reference to far-right sexual guilt propaganda.


                Here’s a hint: If you’re a worker, and a politician tells you that your dissatisfaction with your lot in life is the fault of sex workers, probably of ethnic minorities … that politician is a fascist.

          • Corhen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would love for you to provide a source for “all of that is backed up by actual evidence”, and change my mind! I always want to learn.

              • Corhen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, you linked an entire website, I guess that’s a bit better thank just linking google, but doesn’t give me any specific info about your claims.

                • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I specifically linked a list of resources that are well cited. The original topic is multiple points, so this is evidence for each one, unless you want to discuss a specific item.

                  • Corhen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well, why don’t you chose one or two items from your list, and then show me a peer reviewed study proving it!

                    I don’t view “I made so many different claims that I can’t bother proving any specific one” as a great argument.

          • catastrophicblues
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll bite. Show us the evidence. Peer-reviewed, published studies in respectable journals.

            • weedazz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              From JAMA Psychiatry https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24871202/

              The negative association of self-reported pornography consumption with the right striatum (caudate) volume, left striatum (putamen) activation during cue reactivity, and lower functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could reflect change in neural plasticity as a consequence of an intense stimulation of the reward system, together with a lower top-down modulation of prefrontal cortical areas. Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.

              As OP said constantly stimulating your reward pathway with instant gratification like porn does have lasting changes in your brain.

              But fuck Texas also I don’t support this bill

              • AcornCarnage@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.

                It could change your brain. Or it could not. They’re just theorizing.

              • catastrophicblues
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Interesting. The study seems to indicate a negative correlation between porn usage and gray matter. I’d love to see more research on this, perhaps over the course of several years. I’d also love to know what the r64 metric they kept using for correlation is.

          • rekliner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those claims are about porn addiction. Not the act of watching porn. On top of that, putting the burden of child trafficking and abuse onto the sites that would publicly host porn is like blaming climate change on people putting plastic in the wrong bin. Places that propagate the awful content mentioned by this warning are already against the law and flying under the radar. This is just BS that gets righteous Texan votes, not something that helps victims. It certainly doesn’t accept that consensual adults make and watch porn in healthy ways. It’s also why these folks get called out for their scandals, which wouldn’t be news worthy if they didn’t grandstand.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, the claims are not about porn addiction, which is another issue. Legally the sites already have a burden to take down child abuse material and they do so. Complaining that the warning labels don’t account for healthy porn use sounds like the same whining that smoking warnings don’t also address people who occasionally smoke.

            • weedazz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27114191/

              Self-perceived pornography addiction (SPPA) is reported to affect users and their partners in similar ways, such as increased feelings of isolation and relationship breakdowns.

              Took me longer to paste this into lemmy than it did to find evidence in pubmed

              • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                1 year ago

                The paper itself has lengthy discussion on the flaws of the research it’s examining.

                The studies reviewed examined the possible impact of SPPA on users or their partners using cross-sectional designs, with one study also using longitudinal research methods. Of course, retrospective cross-sectional designs cannot be used to draw causal conclusions 51 about any associations between SPPA and potential outcomes because they are measured simultaneously; it might be difficult to ascertain whether individuals perceived their pornography use to be problematic before or after they experi- enced negative outcomes. Moreover, the longitudinal study used a two-wave design and a much smaller subset (n ¼ 106) of the original sample (N ¼ 1,215), which substantially limits causality- related analyses, so findings are likely to be tentative at best.

                Nine of the 10 studies reported evidence that SPPA had a detrimental impact on individuals or their partners. However, some important methodologic issues must be considered. First, SPPA and its impact were often assessed using a single-item measurement, which research suggests is an adequate measure- ment of complex constructs. 4,52 If an individual’s experience is multidimensional (ie, physiologic, behavioral, and cognitive), then it might be challenging for the individual to convey this using a single item, and assumptions can be made that omit potentially important information. Second, some studies used under-defined concepts and definitions; for example, Levin et al 19 used a single-item measurement to assess impaired functioning resulting from SPPA but did not provide a definition of functioning, so it is uncertain whether the researchers were measuring the same construct for all participants

                Third, three studies18,20,21 suggested that individuals’ values and morals associated with their pornography use might have contributed to their perceived pornography addiction, and Prause et al20 further suggested that conflict with their held values might have led to their distress. Therefore, SPPA might actually result from a conflict in values rather than pornography use per se.

                Research that examined the impact of SPPA on the partners of self-perceived pornography addicts found that they experienced several negative effects such as feelings of betrayal, shame, and isolation. These effects were attributed to the behavior of the self- perceived pornography addict. However, research investigating the effects of pornography use has shown that women who attribute their partners’ pornography use to an inadequacy about themselves experience a greater level of distress.53 None of the studies reviewed considered the characteristics of the partners of self-perceived pornography addicts, yet negative outcomes can be affected by factors such as thinking styles and attitudes (eg, how we perceive information), which can lead to these feelings of inadequacy.

                There also were concerns regarding the measurements used to make conclusions about the impact of SPPA. Many relied on adapted and non-validated measurements that were not neces- sarily theoretically driven and were derived from a non-clinical sample; thus, the findings are difficult to generalize. For example, Twohig et al21 used a median cutoff (58%) from a non- clinical sample to determine an arbitrary level of problematic cognitive and behavioral outcomes of SPPA.

                I could keep going, but I think that’s enough for this post - read the “Correlates and Possible Outcomes of SPPA” and “Limitations” sections of the paper you linked.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Self-perceived pornography addiction” Aka being an evangelical with an internet connection. I’m sure that doesn’t skew the study’s results at all…. One wouldn’t trust a study on cancer that used self-diagnosis (I would hope), why trust this?

          • uxia@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            No clue why you have so many downvotes, I guess we got a bunch of weirdos in here. Porn is poison. It’s what happens when patriarchy meets capitalism.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Damn, people should stop having sex at all. Don’t let people view media that shows examples of sex