Right. But you, personally, probably have a very vague idea of what porn is - you posted that all girls in porn must be skinny, which is counterfactual.

So you are making a judgment on something that you vaguely do not like and are also misinformed about.

I do not think that is a valid way to make judgment.

Say, I do not watch porn and I do not watch news.

Why do I not watch porn? I think it is amusing, but not anything more than that. Maybe I should look into more unusual or more refined porn to find what I like, but I so far have had other priorities. Maybe there is something there for me to discover later. I personally have no understanding how somebody can get aroused looking at images or media. But since the industry is big, I conclude that I am just an outlier and do not make judgment on what so many other people do.

Why do I not watch news?

Well, I have been literate in Russian since age 4 and in English since age 6 and in French since age 11 and in German since age 18. All of that literacy combined equips me to READ news. True, if I ever get blind, I may need to listen to news podcasts on the radio. But so far I have a pretty good eyesight.

I occasionally see news against my will. Say, in a gym - you know how they place the TV's over there.

I find the news watching experience completely horrifying. First, while the news anchor is talking, some random information such as stock quotes appears on the screen - why do I need that??

Second, the women who are news anchors have artificial looking smiles, too much makeup, and have artificial and affected facial expressions. I find it horrifying to look at them.

The men do not have (visible) makeup but the rest of the above applies to them too.

They speak using unnatural voice, with unpleasant pitch, and unpleasant intonations.

Their gesturing is artificial and unpleasant as well.

To me, porn is better than news because even though it is not genuine, it is not THAT horrible.

So if I were somehow pressed to make a choice between news and porn, I would choose porn. Luckily, I do not need to watch either.

It baffles me that other people, who, I imagine, are as literate in English as I am, CHOOSE to watch their news. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PRINT - newspapers or news on the internet? You can read them in peace and quiet, without stock quotes running through the screen, and without having to listen to artificial sounding voices and looking at artificial looking faces. A clear win, in my opinion.

Yet, I OBSERVE that many people watch the news.

So, I CONCLUDE that 1) I must be an outlier, and 2) the news watching is not as horrible in its consequences as it appears to me, since I observe that the bank is still open during regular hours and the world around me, in general, has not come to a complete halt.

So I invite you to apply the same attitude towards porn - while you personally do not find it enjoyable, you can observe that others do, you can further observe that the world has not yet come to a complete halt, and therefore conclude that it is a harmless type of media.

Unless, again, the damage accrues over time, over many years, and the bank WILL eventually close its doors SOLELY because its workers would be unable to do simple calculations due the deep brain damage from porn use and not for any reasons within the economy.

So, if the damage accrues over time, I see that my observations of the world around me do not amount to evidence that the activity is largely harmless. If so, I would like to know what is estimated to be the lag of time after which the damage would become observable? Is it within my lifetime or not within my lifetime?