Comment by throw0101d
19 hours ago
> They aren’t interested in corrupting your children nor throwing wild sex parties in public spaces.
RFK Jr., the current top health official in the US, is not interested in harming children either, and thinks he is doing a good public service: what is the reality though?
* https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/measles-continues-rag...
* https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/under-anti-vaccine-rf...
* https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/warning-about-bogus-a...
One's intentions and the results of one's actions can be two different things.
* https://acpeds.org/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children/
* https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/is-pornography-h...
* https://extension.usu.edu/relationships/research/effects-of-...
Last time I checked, “cam girls” don’t run the country. So I don’t think you can make a comparison there.
Plus the issues with JFK Jr are specific to him. It’s a bit of a stretch to imply that his view points are in any way related to his exposure pornography. That is unless “brain work” is some kind of euphemism I’m unaware of ;)
> One's intentions and the results of one's actions can be two different things.
Those articles mention just as many positives as negatives.
Porn isn’t inherently bad. It’s like alcohol, exercise, and other past times: moderation is the key.
Humans can get addicted to any kind of behaviour. The absolute worst thing you can do is make a topic a taboo because then you cannot keep people safe. This is as true for pornography as it is for weightlifting.
And frankly, hadn’t you got better things to do than worry about what consenting adults do in their private lives? It’s all a bit silly and prudish don’t you think?
[dead]