>Your conclusion reminds of witch-hunt-approving arguments like, violent games make kids violent. Which is moot, Take for example Children's Crusades[1] in 13 century, which was induced by religion and politics. Or, I know some parents who watched a documentary about how a talented musician was raised with beatings, so they took that literally, you know what I mean? Sick ideas find a fertile ground.
I can see and understand the concern, and some results can fuel moral panics and witchhunts, but they don't need to lead to there necessarily. Finding that porn has effects on attitude and aggression, and long-term, increased, or more violent use can have greater effects does not provide an ought from the is. It can provide some scientific and empirical basis for such an argument (for example, an argument to ban porn), but we shouldn't reject science because of the normative conclusions it might lead us to.
You may be interested in a book[0] from a little while ago which examines the debate quite closely, with lots of empirical data which supports both sides of the argument. From what I've read, behavioural scientists and policy-makers largely do not consider the evidence "against" porn to be all that decisive in supporting a ban.
In other words... the proper strategy should be to get the data, scrutinise the data, and then decide what action we will take (if any) based on the data. The book mentions a comparison with the effects of alcohol, which is quite apt. Many people who would argue for porn to be banned, I imagine, would not have the same opinion on alcohol, especially given the history of the Prohibition.
I can see and understand the concern, and some results can fuel moral panics and witchhunts, but they don't need to lead to there necessarily. Finding that porn has effects on attitude and aggression, and long-term, increased, or more violent use can have greater effects does not provide an ought from the is. It can provide some scientific and empirical basis for such an argument (for example, an argument to ban porn), but we shouldn't reject science because of the normative conclusions it might lead us to.
You may be interested in a book[0] from a little while ago which examines the debate quite closely, with lots of empirical data which supports both sides of the argument. From what I've read, behavioural scientists and policy-makers largely do not consider the evidence "against" porn to be all that decisive in supporting a ban.
In other words... the proper strategy should be to get the data, scrutinise the data, and then decide what action we will take (if any) based on the data. The book mentions a comparison with the effects of alcohol, which is quite apt. Many people who would argue for porn to be banned, I imagine, would not have the same opinion on alcohol, especially given the history of the Prohibition.
[0] https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/debating-pornography/