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…

  • @dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 years ago

    There is room to talk about the handful parts of porn, but this certainly isn’t the way to do it. Porn doesn’t increase anyone’s desire for a prostitute or pedophilia. That’s just insane. There could be evidence that it reduces one’s self esteem, but we’d have to study that. This is just Texas furthering the nanny state and actively requiring lying to people. Again.

    • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 years ago

      Porn actually helped me further my skills in building automation. It gave me a target for learning to scrape websites. Of all the things I’ve built for myself, this was one of the most generous projects in that I had tons of room for refinement as my skills grew.

  • @Bakachu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 years ago

    One of the health warnings:

    …[exposure to porn] “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses…"

    Ummmm but what about BBW? In all seriousness though, for these ‘valid’ health concerns associated with low self esteem …isn’t this the slippery slope towards modesty policing of women and women only in some of those fun countries??

    • Ocelot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      I have lived in california more than a decade. Still waiting on that cancer.

      • @pyrflie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Just give it another decade the air/water will take care of that.

        And Cali has some of the better environmental protections in the US.

    • @PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      CAs warnings are designed to force producers to make a version of their products that’s less likely to kill people available (and required in CA). That’s helpful to everyone.

      The intention of this sort of warning label isn’t to make porn better, it is to build toward banning porn entirely. California isn’t trying to ban industrial production, so of course people are going to respond differently.

      • @Old_Dude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        In response, I restate what I originally said. Ignore the message and watch porn. Not sure what you interpreted my comment to mean other than what I said.

            • @PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 years ago

              No. I won’t see the message, because I don’t live in a state that tries to shame adults for their sexuality. If you’re going to insist on having the last word, maybe try being right first, next time?

              • @Old_Dude@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Bro, why are you arguing with me when we are going to do the same thing? My comment is about watching porn, nothing more. I was already in agreement with you from the beginning. Why are you so easily triggered that even if you’re in agreement with me you want to argue? Look, you’re right, I’m wrong. You’re smart, I’m a dumbass. Feel free to reply with the last word if it makes you feel better. I won’t reply to anything else. I hope you live happy and sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

  • @eee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 years ago

    Could the Texas government also post a list of all the hazardous sites in one place so i know which sites to avoid?

  • @fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    67
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Pretty clear First Amendment compelled-speech case. The government may not compel a speaker to say a bunch of false things (the supposed “warnings” are lies; and arguably even defamatory ones) as a condition of being permitted to speak.

    The 2018 NIFLA v. Becerra is the most recent Supreme Court case on compelled speech, and it does not look favorable to this sort of thing.

    • @SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -412 years 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.

        • @kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44
          edit-2
          2 years 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
            -132 years 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.

              • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years 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?

                • @kautau@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  2 years 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.

        • @figaro@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          292 years 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
            -422 years 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.

            • Corhen
              link
              fedilink
              English
              252 years 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.

            • @uxia@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -42 years 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.

            • @fubo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              302 years 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
                -72 years 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
                  3
                  edit-2
                  2 years 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.

            • @Haibane@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              162 years ago

              Hey, uh… you got any of that evidence man? Some of that actual evidence? The good stuff. The actual evidence? I can’t find any. Can you help me out with that? Just post some. C’mon man.

              • @weedazz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -52 years 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

                • @PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  122 years 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?

                • 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.

              • @weedazz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                2 years 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
                  182 years 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@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  32 years 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
              162 years 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
                -32 years 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.

      • @arin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 years ago

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

        • @remotelove@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          What is this default DNS you are speaking of? I am curious about how you imagine DNS operating. I suppose you mean that people should switch DNS servers from those hosted by their local ISPs?

            • @remotelove@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 years ago

              Just tampering with DNS requests to block web sites is just the tip of the iceberg.

              Intercepting DNS requests on port 53 at the ISP level is trivial, so you need to take a few more steps like using DNS over TLS or HTTPS. While still not foolproof, it’s better than raw-dogging all of your DNS queries.

              Using a trusted VPN or Tor is also an option, but that is a pain IMHO.

  • @avater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    why? wanking is good for your heart, prostate, it’s a stress relieve…what’s the fucking problem? Does the old testaments god Texas believe in has an issue with it?

    those pathetic, backwarded, republican fucks…

    • @tweeks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      It’s just like any other significant dopamine snowball; perhaps a friendly notice might be in place or some healthy advice in education. Have a healthy wank, but don’t lose yourself in it.