Also, as a rule of thumb, blanket prohibitions tend to feed black markets which are probably worse.
I remember when an AI ethicist stared down (metaphorically speaking) like a dozen Czech psychologists or something who rebutted the notion, even suggesting they might reduce crime.
Then, he invoked "think of the children" and nit-picked some little details.
I should probably write something about this too but I already have far too many things to write about.
I'm actually intending to write a post about how the "realism" of some taboo doesn't matter in porn, only the "real"*, but I never get around to it, because there is too much nonsense to deal with.
* In a nutshell, by arguing about "realism this or realism that", it shifts attention towards arbitrary boundaries of realism, and discourse along those lines, rather than actual ethics. That is what makes it garbage. There is more to it though.
It also appears that Milton Diamond is dead. He died a few months ago, that is very unfortunate.
With the understanding that it can take years for something to get published, I'm okay with a preprint (and I did that with Von Andrian-Werburg's study until that got published last year, or rather, I noticed it had been), I just don't want the whole thing to be preprints.
Castleman referenced it at one point in his article, but if I'm going to cite it in the experimental post, I'm going to have to know what it's doi is (or other details).
There was also someone who expected me to read his mind, uh, I can't answer questions which haven't been asked, lol. It's also probably not possible / practical to pre-answer every question which could be asked.
The reason I'm experimenting with a new style is that I keep thinking "maybe, it would be useful to add this bit of context, or to add that bit of context" and it gets tacked onto the end and the text becomes harder to maintain.
I think something like that might be easier to follow than a numerical citation format on here, particularly as you can't really hover over the numbers to get more context. The downside is that it's a bit more wordy.
The links are a bit less accessible (they're at the end which someone needs to scroll to) but there is also a bit more context there than a lone link can provide and it avoids littering the text with a lot of links.
To give you a draft excerpt, I'm going for something like this:
"There are quite a few pieces of science which call online porn being spooky into question.
A Canadian study showed more gender egalitarian attitudes among users of porn (Kohut et al., 2015). A German study failed to find a link between porn use and sexism or "social dominance orientation" (Von Andrian-Werburg et al., 2023)."
"Kohut, T., Baer, J. L., & Watts, B. (2015). Is Pornography Really about “Making Hate to Women”? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
Von Andrian-Werburg, M. T. P., Siegers, P., & Breuer, J. (2023). A Re-evaluation of Online Pornography Use in Germany: A Combination of Web Tracking and Survey Data Analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(8), 3491–3503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02666-8"
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.