The NYT article is specifically about Andor

It’s like a start up. Show up early and buy in on low stocks, work your ass off, retire at 40. I’d assume it’s something like that. Pick the best place to build your house, claim all the resources.

Or maybe he just wanted solitude.

This is a highly cherry picked set of conclusions from the study. Sex Ed would probably, as the authors note, negate these negative aspect of accessible porn.

Things the study finds hard to do:

• define pornography. That will make it hard to legislate.
• they conclude it leads to unsafe sex practices but that also sex needs to be taught to kids. Probably not news republican legislatures want to hear.
• not really a link to crime

Also worth noting this is one study. In Australia.

Not saying the study should be discounted. But it’s not really a clear support for government intervention.

It’s almost like porn has been available, to varying degrees, to youth, for decades if not centuries. Even discounting all the good arguments like “small government” and “think of the kids is a dumb excuse to curtail privacy”… You have to ask, what’s the goal?

Keeping kids away from porn? Why is that an important goal for the government? Is it one the government is even capable of doing? At what age is porn OK? 16? 18? 21? Never? Did you ever look at porn when you were in high school? Do you regret it?

Is there any real research that porn is corrosive to a 16 year old? I mean we can’t even pass simple, popular gun legislation because the NRA swears up and down we don’t know “for sure” if it will save more than a couple lives. We can’t even have an EPA that enforces laws, while millions of people suffer from asthma and other stuff that kills them.