"Your brain may miss"
No, no just walk around and DA is active.
Every time they get someone who has no actual neuroscience background in this space. We are not hard to find.

stahp! 😅

America: Hold my beer.

There also are "odd insertion" porn categories, and many case reports of serious injuries from inserting objects for sexual pleasure.
Similarly, there is extensive "incest" porn, and the risks of serious health problems from such genetic can be deadly.
There is simply no way to pick and choose.

Vaginal sex can tear the perineum.
Anal sex can damage the sphincter.
Oral sex can transmit HSV.
Spanking can bruise.
I have read the MRI study. It is not remotely convincing that the sex act caused brain damage.
We should not be targeting sex we personally dislike.

Hey, a girl can dream

I think the realistic concern is youth or disabled adults who believe porn is realistic (there is a whole area of research on realism beliefs). So long as education exists, that seems far more effective than legislating everyone's feels.

Mailed my ballot in!
I'm so glad California supports methods that allow the maximum number of people to participate.

NAME AND SHAME 😅 Can't wait to hear about this journal...

The hostage vibe isn't totally wrong.

Data show most boys viewing was absolutely intentional, either out of curiosity or someone encouraged them to check it out. These fantasies of "exposure" being how youth first encounter porn are absurd.

Rather than shaming those who choose connection with a sex worker or "casual" sex, I would love to see it valued as part of a solution to connect youth.
If it is *causing* avoidance, and there is no evidence it is, that is a different conversation.

While I agree with concerns about a loneliness epidemic and need to connect young men, demonizing non-marital sex is not supported by evidence. Even shared genital stroking induced feelings of connection, esp in those unpartnered.
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

On dry ice with biological sample warning stickers :)