I am saying that if they were to do research on the subject, they would either start from the hypothesis and work to prove that (and social sciences have difficulties with replication crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis that it becomes possible to prove any result), or that a study that found contrary would get a "yea, we're not publishing that", or that people interested in researching the expanded domain would get suggested that this would not be something to aide them on a tenure track or advancement and they should look to other research areas.

> It is a condition of employment that faculty members act in accordance with university policies, including the Academic Freedom Policy, the Church Educational System Honor Code, and the Church Educational System Dress and Grooming Principles and Expectations. Faculty who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who accept an offer of university employment on or after January 27, 2022, also accept as a condition of employment that they will hold and be worthy to hold a current temple recommend.

> As integral members of the university community, faculty are expected to be role models of a life that combines spiritual values and personal integrity with intellectual rigor and academic excellence, and to conduct their work in a professional manner consistent with the principles and values espoused by the university and the Church of Jesus Christ. They are expected to live lives reflecting a love of God, a commitment to keeping His commandments, and loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ. They should engage in continuing faculty development and maintain high levels of performance throughout their careers.

Does this suggest that one could research such a domain that would run counter to teachings of the church and remain employed?

The link to the NIH paper in the commented I replied to is from the surgical wings of various hospitals in Lahore.

In other comments USU extension is Utah State University... which while not BYU has similar influences.

The impartiality of these sources is to be brought into question.

I would also note there is a significant cultural difference between Utah, Poland (the sources for two other links), Lahore, and the US at large that may more than slightly influence the agendas of the authors.

Other studies disagree as well too.

These excerpts from [1] sum it up kinda well (I recommend reading the full article, it makes a few additional points not listed here):

"“My biggest concern regarding the scientific study of porn is that a noticeable subset of researchers come at these issues with a focus on harm in their minds. They try to establish ways to confirm that porn is causing whatever harm they already believe exists,” he says. “The field needs more people who are willing to look at the data and leave aside their politics and their issues.”" [1]

"Voon says. “What we do know with porn is that there are some patterns that are consistent with an addiction – but some that are not. We need much larger epidemiological studies to know for sure.”" [1]

"A meta-analysis – a study of studies – published by Malamuth in 2009 found that hundreds of papers from the 1980s to 2008 were fairly consistent in linking high rates of porn viewing with violent ideas and behaviour. But here’s the caveat: not all men respond to porn in the same way." [1]

"For most men, consuming porn will not cause them to view women differently. But in those who already are predisposed to hold sexist views or to behave in an aggressive fashion, porn can exacerbate pre-existing and dangerous propensities. In this way, it’s just like any other drug."

"Alcohol, for example, is in many ways comparable to porn because it is ubiquitous, socially acceptable and legal."

“For some people, alcohol can truly ruin their lives,” explains Malamuth. “But for others it can be mildly positive, such as providing stress relief or enhancing their sex lives. It depends on the cultural context – and the individual.”

"The field is riddled with misconceptions and biases that are not supported by the data, she says."

"Despite concerns that porn can decrease libido and lead to impotence due to ‘tolerance’ and ‘desensitisation’, research published by Prause in the journal Sexual Medicine in 2015 shows these worries to be unfounded."

"“The most well-replicated and concerning harm is reinforcing rape myths in men who already believe them,” says Prause. Such that if you take a woman on a date, she owes you sex. Or that women secretly want to be coerced into sex."

[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/is-pornography-h...

/u/freedomben @freedomben for some reason I can't reply to your comment so replying here,

I did not edit any of my comments.

was the NIH link there at the beginning or did you edit it in?

Either way is fine, but it would be good for you to disclose that as it has an impact on the downvotes and the other comments are received.