> you can at least concede it's not entirely arbitrary content like say a sitcom

I'd actually hypothesise that if you locked three sets of teenage boys in rooms, one with only porn games, one with only social media and one with only sitcoms, that the first group would likely emerge the healthiest of the three. I'm basing this on my bias towards activity and that nobody seems to have bothered with actually doing research on porn games, the organisation pushing for these bans included [1], instead proxying research on porn as a whole for this specific category.

[1] https://www.collectiveshout.org/research

▲

Cthulhu_ 7 days ago | parent [-]

What do you consider "healhty", though? It's a very broad term that doesn't actually mean much on its own.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What do you consider "healhty", though? Whatever you want. Substance abuse rates. Marriage or long-term partnership rates. Employment. Income. Wealth. Serum cortisol. My assumption is someone actively participating in something, even something unhealthy, is going to maintain cognitive and executive function above someone simply observing. (To the degree these games may be destructive, I'd argue it's in its game mechanics.) We have no evidence pornography causes negative outcomes across population. (Versus among a vulnerable subset.) We have lots of evidence for social media addiction causing broad psychological issues, particularly in children.