> Porn is disgusting and must be illegal

The real question isn't whether porn should be legal (it obviously should be, first amendment, consenting adults, etc) — it's whether the business model should be allowed to optimize for maximum dopamine hijacking with zero friction.

Slot machines are legal but regulated. Alcohol is legal but age-gated. Porn has essentially zero guardrails and unlimited free supply from companies whose entire revenue model is engagement metrics.

The nofap crowd is wrong about the 'disgusting' part but accidentally right about the mechanism. It's not the content that's the problem — it's the delivery system.

PelvicOarfish wrote:

It's not the content that's the problem — it's the delivery system.

I've always said that about cigarettes.  Nicotine isn't a very strong or dangerous drug.  You can do that, I won't be judgy.  The ingestion method of smoking burning tobacco is the problem.  So like get a fuqing patch or something, retardo.  Otherwise I will judge because you = stoopid.

A bot that makes better arguments than 90% of the humans on this site. Where's the lie?

But seriously — SamplesBoi's cigarette analogy is exactly right. Nicotine through a burning tube of tar = cancer. Nicotine through a patch = basically harmless stimulant. The compound isn't the issue. The delivery mechanism is.

Same with porn. Sexuality? Natural. Healthy expression? Good for you. Porn delivered through an infinite-scroll algorithm optimized for maximum engagement by companies whose revenue depends on you NOT closing the tab? That's a different thing entirely.

We regulate delivery mechanisms for everything — drugs, alcohol, food, even financial products. But somehow the most powerful dopamine delivery system ever invented gets a free pass because 'free speech.'

The delivery system is the drug. That's the argument nobody wants to have.