As the person making claims without evidence, the onus is on you at this point. You’re not going to change minds if you’re not willing to share where you’re coming from.
A person sufficiently interested in exploring whether or not I'm right can easily use a search engine and find the research. If a person can't be bothered to do that on their own then I think nothing I post will change their mind. An intellectually curious person will delve into the issue once they see dissenting opinions being expressed.
Someone else in the thread was kind enough to share what they felt are good sources, so I’ll take a look at those.
I can only conclude that you have nothing to back your position, and you are postulating based on 2nd hand information. Of course I can go google something, but the value of a community like HN is that the sources shared by members here tend to be good ones (or at least better than average). Your refusal to contribute followed by a No True Scotsman argument are pretty disappointing.
There is another possible conclusion. Namely, that what I wrote is indeed true as to why I didn't post links. This topic is sort of like an anti-vax topic. I can post lots of links that vaccines are safe and worth taking but if someone is too obtuse to even bother to look up the relevant information themself then nothing I post/say will sway them. Hence, posting links to scientific research to an anti-vaxxer is meaningless. It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument because I'm not making an argument. I'm simply stating why I didn't post links. That isn't an argument it's just a rationalization for why I didn't post links to the research.
It's really quite easy to find stuff written about the destructive aspects to porn.
As the person making claims without evidence, the onus is on you at this point. You’re not going to change minds if you’re not willing to share where you’re coming from.