Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st

L4sBot@lemmy.worldmod to

Technology@lemmy.world – 331 points – 1 years ago

Texas Age Verification Bill Would Plaster Health Warnings On Porn Sites

Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

There's chemical addiction and there psychological addiction. Both involve a strong desire to do something that doesn't benefit or even hurts you. Gambling addiction is a psychological addiction.

I'd even go so far as to say that most chemical addictions start as psychological addictions because withdrawal won't be that bad after the first time, but you want more because it feels good because most affect the dopamine pathway, some acting as dopamine itself (like cocaine), some increasing your sensitivity to it (don't know of any that do this but theoretically it would result in the same), and some encouraging your body to release it more readily (like meth).

Though porn and sex addiction (and heroin) might work on a different pathway, as I'm not sure if the orgasm hormone is dopamine or something else, though I do think that dopamine is involved in getting people engaged with sex before the orgasm. From some quick reading, it sounds like dopamine is involved.

Tldr: no, u

Buddy I'm not reading your half-understood bullshit when you think anything that gives you dopamine is addictive.

Watch out for those pleasant sunny days. They're addictive. Laugher of children? Addictive.

Maybe actually meet a few addicts and learn a bit about actual addictions.

Then what do you think drives gambling addiction?

Lots of things. The problem with pseudo-scientific takes, in general, is that they steal from science but don't actually contribute anything to it. You're essentially making the same argument as, "it snowed in winter so climate change isn't real."

Addiction is a well-defined term and every addiction has more than one root cause.

Research to date shows that pathological gamblers and drug addicts share many of the same genetic predispositions for impulsivity and reward seeking. Just as substance addicts require increasingly strong hits to get high, compulsive gamblers pursue ever riskier ventures. Likewise, both drug addicts and problem gamblers endure symptoms of withdrawal when separated from the chemical or thrill they desire. And a few studies suggest that some people are especially vulnerable to both drug addiction and compulsive gambling because their reward circuitry is inherently underactive—which may partially explain why they seek big thrills in the first place

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/

Chose a layman site to help you get it more easily

And what do you think that reward circuitry is based on?

And if it's the people rather than the things that cause addiction, shouldn't nothing be called addictive then? Or everything addictive having a footnote of "to certain people". Which should be obvious because there's different levels of addiction from not at all to sucks dick in an alley to get a fix.

Now you're starting to begin to understand why psychologists are professionals and you are not.

Right or wrong, you argue like an asshole. Since you tried to dodge that question where you might have to admit I'm not wrong and this whole thing was more of a miscommunication (you assumed when I said "addictive" I meant everyone would be affected by that addiction or maybe you do think addiction isn't related to dopamine?), then a disagreement, the reward circuitry is based on dopamine.

You can think I'm an asshole all you'd like, but at least you learned more about addiction today

Can't say I got anything out of this conversation, other than seeing that I might need to add disclaimers to my original statement. Otherwise just passing some time.