Rebuilding My Brain

[LTE]

I'm not talking about censoring porn, just putting it all under an .XXX domain that would be easy to shut off before it even reaches the household.

I would be 200% behind that. I've thought along similar lines for years. One could simply block the .xxx TLD and be done with it.

 

[SO Reboot Partner]

Dysfunction is profit.

I don't need to make a list here, do I? There are so many products and services that depend on dysfunction.

 

[LTE]

Dysfunction is profit.

I don't need to make a list here, do I? There are so many products and services that depend on dysfunction.

Think of this, a lot of money changes hands just in providing Internet service to end users. Imagine the effects if 25% - 33% of all Internet traffic went away. From what I've read that is the portion of traffic dedicated to porn.

 

[Clearhead]

I don't think reducing porn use would hurt the ISPs. In fact I think it would help them -  because streaming video is such a bandwidth hog. I haven't ever actually paid for online porn. The last time I spent and money on porn must have been back in the nineties when I rented a VHS tape at a video rental store.  So I'm not sure where the money is in all of this.  I think ISPs are probably reluctant to regulate porn because they are afraid that it will then be their responsibility to do the filtering.

There is no mainstream populist movement at this point in the U.S. advocating for more regulation of porn. Traditionally, the anti-porn faction has been composed of evangelicals and religious fundamentalists. Almost as a Pavlovian response, the progressive left has rejected porn regulation as an issue to rally around. After all, masturbation is healthy, no need to be ashamed of it, don't be uptight about sex, wink, wink, etc. etc.

However, progressives tend to give a lot of weight to science and research. If research indicates that video porn use causes long-lasting damage, especially to kids, then there may be an opportunity to make this an issue of concern. A smart, independent-thinking politician might see an opportunity to embrace an issue that could potentially have wide-ranging, bipartisan support from both sides of the isle.

 

[WiP]

I believe it will become even more of a silent epidemic before that happens, unfortunately

 

[LTE]

I believe it will become even more of a silent epidemic before that happens, unfortunately

My personal opinion is that is is far from rare. I suspect that it affects at least 1/4 of the households, probably more. IMHO, there is a lot of built in resistance to this changing because a lot of people would have to face some very unpleasant truths about themselves before it could happen. I don't mean to come off as negative, but this is truly what I fear to be the case. That takes no value away from what is happening here at RN. We are among the people that are standing up to the problem.

 

[SO Reboot Partner]

I believe it will become even more of a silent epidemic before that happens, unfortunately

My personal opinion is that is is far from rare. I suspect that it affects at least 1/4 of the households, probably more. IMHO, there is a lot of built in resistance to this changing because a lot of people would have to face some very unpleasant truths about themselves before it could happen. I don't mean to come off as negative, but this is truly what I fear to be the case. That takes no value away from what is happening here at RN. We are among the people that are standing up to the problem.

After starting this journey, I have met too many couples that make me think - yep there's a problem there. I don't think I'm just having a Baader-Meinhof moment - you know where you hear a phrase and then hear it repeated several times again in different contexts and situations.

I agree with LTE, but I'm more doomsday with the numbers. I think people are basically very, very good at camouflage. I think it's in the mid-thirty percent, simply because of the prevalence of P and access.

Edit: Also no one seems to start M at 40, so the exposure to the population only excludes the very young.

 

[LTE]

My personal opinion is that is is far from rare. I suspect that it affects at least 1/4 of the households, probably more. IMHO, there is a lot of built in resistance to this changing because a lot of people would have to face some very unpleasant truths about themselves before it could happen. I don't mean to come off as negative, but this is truly what I fear to be the case. That takes no value away from what is happening here at RN. We are among the people that are standing up to the problem.

After starting this journey, I have met too many couples that make me think - yep there's a problem there. I don't think I'm just having a Baader-Meinhof moment - you know where you hear a phrase and then hear it repeated several times again in different contexts and situations.

I agree with LTE, but I'm more doomsday with the numbers. I think people are basically very, very good at camouflage. I think it's in the mid-thirty percent, simply because of the prevalence of P and access.

Edit: Also no one seems to start M at 40, so the exposure to the population only excludes the very young.

I was being conservative in my estimate. Who knows what the real numbers are, but I suspect that they are ugly.

 

[NeedToChange]

i hear you, Clearhead. Your problems mirror my own it seems. Addicted to dopamine no matter what triggers it. Glad we're all in this together. Yet another reminder about how serious a problem this has become.... Wish you all well.