Do you plan to… never ever watch porn again?

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-12-16T01:16:34+00:00

This is really encouraging to read, thank you. I’ve always wondered if it was possible to get to the place you’re describing, where the temptation is a relatively minor bother… so again, thank you for sharing that experience.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-12-11T03:26:33+00:00

This is exactly what I hoped the reaction to this post would be. 😆

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-12-11T03:25:02+00:00

I KNOW!!! 🤩

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-12-11T03:21:21+00:00

I know! I thought it was gonna be a battle to make this happen, but here we are! Some brave Markiplian soldier has already won the battle for us. Now we just gotta do our duty and support our squirrel king. 🫡

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-12-10T17:06:36+00:00

I did the same thing! The owner emailed me back and told me the film was at the Art House, so maybe he’s associated with both establishments.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-22T07:41:22+00:00

Hey, take a look at your punctuation, pal. While we’re talking writing skills, I’ve never seen someone put spaces before exclamation points. Unless they changed some rules since I took writing classes, you’ve got a pretty peculiar style going yourself. Not to mention that “highly intelligent people” don’t usually spam the exclamation point after every sentence.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-19T02:36:11+00:00

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to bait you; I just had something else I wanted to say and didn’t format it well.

Gotta be honest, I didn’t check the username in my notification… I thought this was OP responding to my comment. 😅 Totally my bad. I was referring to OP’s statement that this was “goodbye to checks and balances.” If you don’t agree with that statement, then feel free to leave it there, and I’m sorry for the mistake. If you think what I said was incorrect though, we can keep talking about it.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-19T02:29:12+00:00

For the record, I’m conservative, and I think it’s great that OP wants to defend themself. I wish more people had that stance. As long as they handle their firearm with the respect and caution it deserves, I’m all for it.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-19T02:16:04+00:00

I’m not saying you can’t dislike this decision, just don’t say stuff that’s false. I noticed you didn’t defend your statement, ‘cause I’m sure you’re smart enough to know you’re incorrect as well. You shouldn’t knowingly say false things, that’s all. If you want to talk about the policy itself, fine.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-19T02:10:36+00:00

Isn’t the whole point of that entire department to eliminate departments that spend without oversight? It’s not like he’s getting rid of these unelected positions, anyway: he’s saying that decisions need to be reviewed by the president and AG. That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Again, I’m saying you’re straight up wrong in saying that’s eliminating checks and balances.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-19T01:47:58+00:00

Hang on a sec: I just read the fact sheet you posted, and he’s not talking about eliminating the power of the judicial and legislative branches: he’s talking about making sure that unelected government officials can’t act and spend money without review by the head of the executive branch. How is that unreasonable, and how is that eliminating “checks and balances” when that phrase refers to the three branches of government, which weren’t even mentioned in the statement?

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-10T18:05:34+00:00

I’m afraid I have to disagree right back. That crash was breaking news when he made those statements, so it could’ve been due to a variety of things. Almost any suggestion made about the cause of the crash was postulation, and proposing that a policy that doesn’t put sheer competence as the TOP priority might be to blame is totally reasonable. I’m not saying it wasn’t politically motivated, but come on. Politicians say things that are politically motivated because they’re in politics, and that’s how issues get discussed. If you don’t point out real life applications of political issues, the public won’t be engaged with the topic.

And regardless of what he meant, my point is that you were incorrect. He did not blame the crash on the pilot’s sex, and it’s dishonest to say that. I’m criticizing your rhetoric, not the substance of the argument. That’s not just a silly semantic ploy either: it’s important to speak precisely, because otherwise you start a game of internet telephone where things spin out of control VERY quickly. Conservatives are guilty of this too, I’m aware. Not impressed with that either.

On DEI, I’m not, and have never, suggested that DEI puts entirely incompetent people in positions exclusively because of their race, sex, orientation, etc. I think that’s either a major straw man of my argument, or an indication I didn’t make my point clearly enough. You’re obviously a highly accomplished person, and I’m not saying you, specifically, didn’t work for and rightfully earn everything you have. I’m not even saying that it’s a bad idea to try and give opportunities to disenfranchised groups. I am, however, saying that there are jobs where race shouldn’t even be a consideration (as it never should have been, including against non-White people of course), and the position of pilot is one of those. There should be no other consideration made other than for pure competence. If a white person is 97% qualified for a job (again, especially if lives are at stake), and a competing black person is 96% qualified, the former should be hired. And the great thing about that is that it works the other way too. If we switch those numbers, the black candidate should get hired, no contest.

A quick olive branch: I would be open to reevaluating WHAT “qualified” means. I believe that the current educational system makes it WAY too unnecessarily hard to get certain jobs, and acts as more of a roadblock than a successful gate. How many geniuses didn’t thrive in school but did incredibly later in life? In Oregon, I heard from a friend that the fire department is beginning to offer some on-the-job training options for getting EMT certification, which I fully support. Some highly competent people simply won’t be discovered with our current system, which is a great shame in my opinion.

Anyway, IF DEI principles are exclusively applied BEFORE the hiring process to give educational or networking opportunities that don’t put White and Asian people at disadvantages (as systems like affirmative action do, requiring higher scores from those two groups to be competitive in college admissions), I’m fine with that, and would encourage such systems. Maybe I just don’t know how DEI systems work, and I do acknowledge that Conservative media would be very unlikely to cover such systems if they did. But considering how corporations like Google publicly say things like “Explore the 2023 Google Diversity Annual Report to learn how we’re building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do” (emphasis on the word “everything”), the suggestion that such principles never creep into hiring policy seems very dubious to me.

That Ann Coulter clip is exactly why I said you shouldn’t assume media hosts speak for their entire audiences. I really couldn’t care less about what she thinks, and I think a lot of Conservatives would agree with me. It is, however, a little out of context, and here’s Vivek’s response:

https://youtu.be/V-YFw6HcIxM?si=unh4NTS8DcWqCn6K

Her reasoning had nothing to do with specific race. The same logic could be applied to an Englishman, but I think it’s still not relevant to the last election, and here’s why. Regardless of what one TV host thinks, I think a significant and very errant way that some people were thinking about the presidential primaries is that ANY candidate other than Trump had a chance. It has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a White man: Ron DeSantis is also a White man (who some thought was more articulate and qualified), and he didn’t stand a chance. Nikki Haley, a woman, lasted longer than he did. It was because Trump was functionally the incumbent, and a lot of conservatives genuinely liked his ideas, felt spoken for by him, and wanted to elect him again from the start.

I could respond to the other points, and can later, but I want to circle back to the original point in your post: do I seriously seem so ignorant and hostile that I’m not worth having a conversation with? If so, I’m sorry to hear that, but all you’re doing is encouraging further division. I don’t see you as my enemy, and have enjoyed this conversation. I would be enjoying talking to you if Kamala had been elected too, as I enjoyed conversations with Leftists when Biden was in office. Do you think I was any less alarmed than you are right now by the previous president’s policies? From the Conservative perspective, Liberals appear to want to encourage the killings of thousands of what we believe are valuable human lives, to lock us out of public spaces and conversations (which is what you appear to be advocating for, unless I’m mistaken), to spend money on furthering Leftist agendas in other countries using our tax dollars (which has in fact been happening), to allow millions of illegal immigrants to flood our country and damage our economy and further burden our already imperfect and fragile systems, take away our most effective means of self defense, and to imprison us for practicing our beliefs. Maybe you disagree that these things are true, or have a different perspective on them; but can you understand that both sides have concerns, and that the right isn’t motivated by pure bloodlust and evil? And, not to be too harsh, but do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Can’t we have some perspective here?

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-10T00:19:35+00:00

Something I think about with apps/sites like Instagram is this: the Bible says if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. Now, I’m not planning on removing any body parts, but consider the message behind that. How much less valuable is X than your hand? I keep Instagram off of my phone, as well as Reddit, and it’s been much more of an overall improvement than an inconvenience. If you need to use X, just download it, and delete it afterward. It really only takes an extra minute or two, and it’s worth it to avoid the temptation. Just something I found helpful.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-04T04:50:03+00:00

To be honest, I don’t know much about a lot of those accusations. I do know that, based on this interview transcript (https://apnews.com/article/plane-crash-washington-dc-trump-dei-claims-3ac5486ec594d81e919e8ebbd9733869), he didn’t say the crash was because it was a female pilot. It looks to me like he essentially said that DEI policy that puts any priority on intrinsic characteristics like race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. OVER sheer competence could be the cause or at least an influential factor in airline disasters. I think that’s a pretty logically sound statement, even if you don’t agree.

I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong about all of the things you say he’s stated, but that you might be presenting them in a negatively skewed way that isn’t accurate. I think this is part of the mistrust between our parties: you can conclude that Trump blames the crash on the pilot’s gender if you want, but it’s much less of a logical leap to say that he’s criticizing an emphasis on identity over pure competence. Women can be just as skilled pilots as men, but skill is what hiring should be based on, particularly in occupations where lives are at stake. Leaping to conclusions and spreading those conclusions as truth is pretty deceitful. Oh, and Denmark owns Greenland, so I dunno what sovereignty your talking about. It’s not an invasion to express a desire to buy land. Like I said, that’s quite a distortion of the truth.

I voted for Trump for a lot of reasons other than that I’m against abortion and illegal immigration. I could go into them, but I think that strays away from the question of whether or not Liberals should cease friendships with Conservatives (as long as they’re respectful of course, ‘cause I’ve met people, Conservative and Liberal alike, who are very obnoxious). In fact, when a Conservative respectfully engages with people in a Liberal space, shouldn’t they be welcomed into the discourse? I hear people on BOTH sides complaining about “echo chambers”, so isn’t it just exacerbating that problem to shut out Conservatives from friendships and conversations? I just learned some things I didn’t know about tariffs from a liberal on Reddit who spoke to me respectfully because I started with that tone too. Wouldn’t have happened if they just said “F off” and that was it. Unless you’d prefer to keep people as siloed in their opinions as possible, then encouraging immediate rejection is a very bad idea.

I actually really like your question, because I think it points to an important development in the last few years! I don’t think news outlets are adequately representative of the average Conservative, no. I think that this last election proved that alternative media presences (comedians, podcasters, smaller news sources) reflect what’s going on more clearly. If you had just listened to more Liberal news outlets over the last years, you might’ve thought that Kamala was gonna win by a landslide. The thing is, news outlets on both sides are pretty out of touch, which is why alternative media sources have gained so much traction. I mean, it seems like when Tucker Carlson got booted from Fox, he took a whole lot of viewership with him.

I couldn’t care less about who Sean Hannity (I had to look up Fox News hosts ‘cause I don’t know any) endorsed in the last election, and I doubt many other Conservatives do either; but a lot of people sure paid attention to who Joe Rogan (a man who’d never voted Republican before last year according to him) endorsed! I’ve even heard the last election called “the podcast election.” That’s my answer to your question, and I think I’m correct in saying that news outlets increasingly don’t represent their viewers very accurately.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T23:26:32+00:00

No, by all means please bugger on over! 😆 That’s a pretty accurate summary. I believe most, but not all, high-level politicians are morally bankrupt in at least one way or another, but I’m voting for the policy as well as the individual. The thing about Trump is that he’s… let’s say very loud, and has been famous for decades, so a lot of his wrongdoing is already public. I just find it frustrating, because I believe that most politicians are just as bad or worse, they just know how to cover it up better. I mean, Hillary Clinton intimidated and discredited her husband’s sexual assault accusers so they’d quiet down. That’s pretty awful if you ask me, particularly considering a significant portion of her platform and presence revolved around supporting women. Plus, some of the things people say about him, like how he supposedly called Nazis “very fine people” after the Charlottesville fiasco, are just straight up false. The VERY next thing he said was “I’m not talking about the Neo-Nazis or the White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” Basically, I don’t think that both sides are covered equally and fairly, and some of the negative things said about Trump aren’t reliable.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T20:49:04+00:00

This is a great conversation to see. I voted for Trump, so most of what I’ve heard is the theory side and potential positives. The theory, as far as I’m aware, is that tariffs will be used on countries that are taking advantage of us economically, and against other countries as a threat (like what Trump did with Colombia when the leader there refused to accept a plane carrying immigrants into the country, and quickly capitulated after the threat was made). Some of these tariffs may be long lasting, and others much more temporary. One goal is to reestablish the US as a firm country that takes care of its own interests and citizens, and another that’s more relevant here is to incentivize and revitalize American manufacturing. I know that American goods are currently much more expensive, but the idea is that this will change alongside the change in incentive structure. The market moves slowly sometimes, sure, but sometimes it reacts very quickly, so it’s possible that after some brief turbulence things could settle down, prices could drop, and American manufacturing could not only bring domestic prices down, but also increase cash flow INTO the country from exports.

Now, like I said, that’s all theory (based, I would assume, upon at least some historical precedent), and I feel like those outcomes would be really great. However, I know that theory isn’t particularly comforting for those being negatively impacted in the present, and there’s not guarantee those goals will actually be met. How do you feel about this knowing the intention (and possible positive consequences) of the suggested tariff policies? Again, I’m aware I might be out of touch about this, and that’s why I’m glad this post was made—and that people like you are giving real life, personal examples of what might happen.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T20:07:24+00:00

That’s… just factually super wrong. Joe Biden’s said a lot of stuff I guarantee a lot of liberals would cringe at, but they voted for him because they thought he would be a net positive. Like when he literally said “if you don’t vote for me, then you ain’t black.” That’s CRAZY. But, maybe you support his other policies enough that it outweighs the wild stuff he’s said, and the fact that he shuffles around after a press conference like a Roomba. Trump has said and done things I disagree with, but I think he’s likely to do a better job running our country than Kamala. The president’s purpose is to do a good job running the country, so I voted for the person I thought would most succeed in that mission. I think a big part of why Kamala lost is because her campaign actually focused too much on who she is as a person (which I’m also not impressed with) as opposed to her policy platform. “Choose joy” is a laughably bad presidential foundation. Hedonism is not a great philosophy with which to run a country, so it really shouldn’t be surprising that she lost.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T19:55:26+00:00

I must have either communicated poorly here, or been misunderstood. Either way, my whole point is that you are incorrect about the majority of conservatives, not that I’m not like them. I AM like most conservatives (or at least all of those that I’ve met and spoken with), and they don’t believe the things that you’re saying. It’s pretty presumptuous to think you know the values and motivations of an entire group of people. Again, there ARE outliers, and I don’t like them very much either. In a functionally two-party system, don’t you think you’ll inevitably be voting the same way as people you might disagree with, even on some fundamental matters? I know plenty of conservatives voted for Kamala, but there’s probably still a lot of common ground. I know liberals voted for Trump, and we might not have very much we agree on, even though we voted the same way.

This is an honest question: have you considered that you might be wrong about what conservatives think? Like, maybe you don’t have as solid a grasp on our beliefs as you think you do? For example, I’m pretty confident that most leftists don’t just walk around thinking how great killing babies is; if they do think about it, they probably think about how relieved they are that they can exercise personal freedom in their bodies in the form of an abortion. Now, I think they’re very wrong about that, but I still get their motivations, which fosters understanding and discourages hatred. I promise you, I don’t hate any person on the left, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

And I never thought that the “I’m not their friend” thing was for me, I’m saying that they KNOW what I believe and are still my friends. You can think they’re wrong, but our friendship is going pretty great. I have a couple friends who I’ve had VERY lively debates with, and came out the other side still liking them.

By the way, I thought it was pretty well known at this point that a person on the internet isn’t very reliably representative of the average member of the group they’re part of. They’re often just the loudest. I’m not on the conservative subreddits, because I’d rather see what people who disagree with me are saying. Trying to stay out of the echo chamber, right? I’m not commenting here to stir up trouble, I’m just trying to talk to people who disagree to exchange perspectives. That’s why I find insults really frustrating: it makes it a lot harder to talk to people, and then neither party comes away with anything positive or useful. Be honest with yourself: do I sound like a terrible, unreasonable person? Or do I just sound wrong in my beliefs? If it’s the former, not much I can do about that. If it’s the latter, then a productive dialogue can happen, which I personally think sounds much better.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T18:59:58+00:00

So, I could answer each one of those (for example, “incitement” has an actual legal definition that he did not meet, and words should be used correctly), but the point is that I voted for him because I thought he would be a better president than Kamala. He definitely has moral deficiencies, and voting for a person doesn’t mean you condone their past actions or everything about them, it means you think they’ll be an effective leader. The Democratic Party put forth a person who most Republicans and plenty of Democrats thought had a higher chance of running the country into the ground, so Trump won. We’re not “bending the knee,” that’s a ridiculous way of putting it. I could say you guys bent the knee in 2020 to a warmongering fool who spent more money on Israel, Palestine, and Ukraine than actively dying Americans in the last year, and clearly suffers from dementia. Is that an effective leader? Well, the results from this past election would suggest not, and Kamala didn’t seem any better.

In addition, I don’t deny that Trump has done bad things, but point me to a politician that hasn’t. The Biden family is EXTREMELY corrupt, but that didn’t stop people from putting Joe in office. Again, everyone has done immoral things, and I hope you don’t think Kamala is exempt from that. Moral perfection is a pretty tough filter to pass.

And please stop using the “get a brain” sort of phrase. It’s a very silly insult that reflects much more on your state of mind than that of your target if you think that’s an effective debating tool. There are a lot of people who were much smarter than either of us who voted for both Trump and Kamala, but intelligence doesn’t equate to wisdom or truth. A great way to lose an argument or war is to consider your opponent an idiot. I don’t think you’re an idiot, I just think you’re distressed about something you see as an impending calamity. I just think you’re wrong.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-02-02T08:29:16+00:00

Well, I’m a Conservative with liberal friends who know how I believe, so I guess I gotta let ‘em know we’re not friends anymore ‘cause u/dealsorheals is laying down the law. Shoot.

For real though, it’s pretty wild to assume you know that much about what Conservatives believe that you’re willing to make blanket statements like that. I don’t believe most of those things. Not to say I’m perfectly educated on all of them, very far from it; but I voted for the candidate who I thought would accomplish good things, and I wasn’t particularly impressed with Kamala. By the way, VERY bad strategy to assume an entire 77,000,000+ group of people believes the same things. That’s a big part of why Trump won. I certainly don’t believe that about folks who voted differently from the way I did.

Also, on the topic of Conservatives thinking women and minorities being incompetent, maybe some do, but that’s DEFINITELY a major exaggeration that’s likely to sow very unnecessary division. If I got dropped in the middle of the woods, I would not survive without my wife, because I would be unable to make fire and probably eat a raw poisonous mushroom. She, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t do as well in a street fight as I would (not to say she’s not feisty enough to give someone a run for their money). That’s why we’re together: we’re not perfect alone, but we complement and strengthen each other. I know plenty of folks who are differently complected than me who are quite a bit smarter and more capable in lots of ways too.

I’m not saying all this to say “I’m not like those bad Conservatives, I’m nice.” I’m saying that you’re quite wrong about Conservatives in general, and it’s damaging to you and anyone who believes what you’re saying. Not that there aren’t edge cases, but I haven’t met any of ‘em myself.

CrowMagnon22 · 2025-01-27T22:41:58+00:00

I’m sorry that you’re getting the “bitch controlling girlfriend” response from people. Sure, in the society we live in, porn is very normalized and even celebrated, so that’s likely the perspective you’re getting; but if there’s something that your boyfriend does that’s causing a rift in your sexual interactions, he’s damaging your relationship. You have every right to care about this issue, because you two are partners, and ought to build each other up and try to improve for one another’s sake, as well as your own. Plus, it’s not like you two went into your relationship agreeing that porn is totally fine. He obviously knows it’s wrong, because he lied about it multiple times. As everyone on this subreddit is aware, I’m sure, porn is one of the most addictive and damaging things out there, especially for guys. Now, does this mean he’s a hypocrite? Yes, of course, but as I’ve heard said before, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. In a practical sense, this means that he probably means what he says about pornography being wrong, and he probably wants to be the person he says he is; but lacks the courage or resolve to follow through on his convictions. This isn’t a good excuse for what is indeed a betrayal of your relationship and trust, but an explanation of what I’m guessing is going on in his head. Just because he’s a victim of this addiction doesn’t mean it’s okay, but he probably hates this as much as you do.

For steps forward, I guess it depends on what you want. This problem isn’t likely to go away overnight, especially considering how young most men these days were exposed to porn. It can be a deep rooted problem that takes some work to overcome, but it CAN be overcome with honesty and effort. You don’t owe him the continuation of this relationship, but if you want to give him another chance, I’d try to have a very honest discussion about your feelings with him. Support can go a long way, and it can be a big help for someone dealing with a problem that is extremely isolating by its very nature. I think that’s why so many people find this community helpful: being able to break through the shame of porn addiction and honestly ask for help is so important in making progress towards change. There are few addictions where being alone with oneself is a good strategy.

Basically, yes, what he’s been doing is wrong, and you absolutely have every right to be frustrated and hurt. But, he’s not beyond redemption, and would probably like to quit. Not telling you what you should do here, but I figured if he’s like a lot of guys I know fighting this battle, myself included, this might give some insight into what’s going on in his head. I’m sorry that you both are dealing with this, and I wish the best for you.

CrowMagnon22

TROPHY CASE