Date: 2025-04-06 11:49 am (UTC)
mountainkiss: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mountainkiss
Two comments on 4.

(1) subtle and very pedantic point, arguably entirely semantic: having read this article I do not think it makes the case that porn addiction is not a thing. I think it makes the case that porn per se is not addictive; closely related but not identical.

(2) I am a bit worried about the measures that they are using to determine whether or not porn is bad for the user. IIUC they are in essence capturing measures of individual flourishing. I am concerned by the lack of measures of impact on partners of heavy porn users and on their relationships.

Date: 2025-04-06 01:00 pm (UTC)
nancylebov: (green leaves)
From: [personal profile] nancylebov
I'm not even sure it captures all possible ill effects of porn. Unless I missed something, it doesn't cover the amount of time spent on it or neglect of other parts of life, just whether the subject feels bad about it.

Date: 2025-04-06 01:15 pm (UTC)
mountainkiss: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mountainkiss

Yes. Generalising from our two comments, it doesn’t capture impacts of which the participant is unaware, which is potentially quite a big set.

This is making me quite thoughtful. I do think it’s a super interesting and probably useful learning, but I also do not know that I would be looking solely towards the testimony of wlog active alcoholics to determine the nature and impact of alcohol addiction.

Date: 2025-04-06 12:44 pm (UTC)
juan_gandhi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] juan_gandhi
So, as I understand, it's not porn, it's religion that drives people sick.

Date: 2025-04-06 02:34 pm (UTC)
juan_gandhi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] juan_gandhi
Hmm, right, makes sense. An interesting paradox inside their minds. But why is it related to other people, I wonder.

Date: 2025-04-06 05:35 pm (UTC)
movingfinger: (Default)
From: [personal profile] movingfinger
2. Without information on where the income cutoffs were for the four quartiles, at least in the US, and how many people are included in each group, the conclusions for me just say there are access problems in US healthcare, which we know. Even in moderately to very wealthy areas, there has been a decrease in medical facilities and actual-MD GPs. NPs and PAs are okay for fill-ins, but they are not as broadly trained as an MD and can miss symptoms and be uninformed about treatments, etc. Areas with high per-capita wealth can still be medically impoverished. The capitalist (and Catholic) consolidation of medicine has been hugely detrimental for public health across the board in the US.

Date: 2025-04-07 07:01 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
Perhaps also that a primarily private-sector healthcare system has less incentive to push back again the client's desires, no matter how flaky or lifespan-shortening (in the longer term at least, I hope that the doctor or pharmacist or whoever would still resist something likely to kill the patient on the spot) they might be.

April 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 2223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 06:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios