I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant.

I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive.

If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.

I'm going to leave out a more accessible or agreeable example because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up one on your own.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith.

Have you, or any one who you know, seen something disgusting, vile or immoral that didn't cause physical harm but had a negative consequence on how you feel about yourself or the world around you?

Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?

I know, and I figure that you know too. "Good" and "bad" exist in quotations marks and only count among the people who don't need them to use them with each other.

> Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?

To answer this, it's because of how modern societies view rights. Namely, you can do whatever you want, until we can prove it's to a detriment to other people. Before doing something, we need not prove it is good.

On an individual level, it is a very good idea to have some guarantee something is good before we do it. But on a societal level, we don't do this, and for good reason. Before we censor or restrict, we must assure we have good reasons for doing so.

> If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.

I might agree, but sexuality and sex is very complex.

I can argue that it's not that simple, and sex exists beyond the bounds of what you do - it's part of who you are, and not much in your control.

For example, I am a homosexual, I'm gay. Naturally my sex involves anal intercourse with other men. To many, this is disgusting. Gross, unsanitary, distasteful.

My life would certainly be easier if I did not have this affliction, but simultaneously I cannot control it. I've tried, as has every gay man or boy at some point in their lives. And, I do not know what has caused it. If I never viewed pornography, ever, I am 100% confident I would still be gay.

I do not know how it works for heterosexuals, but I imagine, to some degree, their sexual proclivities are, too, not under their control. I don't think removing pornography would remove those sexual proclivities.