What Porn Did to American Culture?

Scope of Porn’s Influence

• Many readers find the interview’s central claim (“porn molded today’s cruelty and regressiveness”) unsubstantiated.
• Several argue porn is more likely a symptom of deeper problems (capitalism, broken social contract, loneliness, religion-driven repression) rather than a primary cause.
• Others suggest causality might now be bidirectional: historically “society shaped porn,” but with ubiquitous online porn, many young people’s first models of sex and gender may come from porn, plausibly feeding back into culture.

Addiction, Objectification, and Personal Harm

• Facilitators of “porn recovery” groups report consistent stories of addiction, early exposure (as young as 10), escalating extremes, difficulty with real‑life intimacy, and increased objectification of women.
• One common theme: porn as “supernormal stimulus” that makes ordinary sex less satisfying and warps expectations of what partners should do.
• Critics respond this is heavy selection bias (like judging alcohol solely from AA stories) and doesn’t prove porn is broadly harmful.

Counterpoints: Neutral or Positive Experiences

• Multiple commenters say they consume porn without apparent damage, likening it to escapist entertainment (e.g., violent games not causing violence).
• Some describe porn as a tool for solo pleasure, relationship exploration, or “getting the motor running” before real‑world sex.
• Others stress that the real crisis is lack of human contact and social isolation; for some, porn is “the only alternative to suicide,” especially among incels.

Shame, Religion, and Sexual Norms

• Several blame Protestant‑influenced sexual morality for combining repression with commodification, creating unhealthy shame around sex and porn.
• Others defend Christian teaching as pro‑sex within marriage and argue it targets superficial, transactional sex, not sex itself.
• Disagreement emerges over jealousy/possessiveness: some see it as toxic; others as an evolutionarily adaptive part of bonding.

Industry, Consent, and Polyamory

• Some distinguish between critiquing porn vs. critiquing abuse in the porn industry, arguing you can oppose exploitation without opposing porn per se.
• Others note a shift from studio‑controlled porn to more independent production and OnlyFans‑style autonomy, especially for women.
• Polyamorous and sex‑party participants describe shame‑free, communicative sexual communities and see “porn addiction” largely as a byproduct of shame. Skeptics doubt such models can scale or sustain a “strong society.”

Policy Ideas and Social Markets

• A thread compares porn to the skewed heterosexual casual‑sex market: high male demand, limited female interest, and rising resentment.
• Some float “legalize prostitution, restrict porn” as a healthier configuration, arguing in‑person sex may resist dehumanization more than endless online novelty.
• Others counter that sex work is dangerous, and any legalization must confront violence, trafficking, and inequality.

Data, Content, and Cruelty

• Commenters question the claim that “cruel” porn is what men mostly watch; anecdotal references to category stats (e.g., lesbian vs. femdom) conflict and are themselves distrusted.
• Several see no clear link between porn and mainstream cruelty toward women, LGBTQ people, or immigrants and compare the article’s logic to blaming video games for war.

Overall Skepticism About the Article

• Many feel the interview throws out sweeping claims—porn causing political regression, loneliness, and social atomization—without evidence or clear mechanisms.
• Some would accept a narrower thesis (“porn harms a subset of users” or “reflects broader structural issues”) but reject the broad cultural determinism the article seems to imply.