Own the Moment

Private support for the moment when impulse takes over. Moment is in development. Join the waitlist to receive launch updates.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@imanisca Finding a conventionally attractive person attractive doesn't require porn exposure to explain it, that's just normal visual attraction. No research shows porn use makes people find attractive faces more attractive.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@BrysonGray Worth separating porn use from porn addiction here. A lot of men watch porn, but that doesn’t mean they’re clinically addicted to it. Overstating the problem makes it harder to talk seriously about the people who actually do struggle with compulsive use.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@basicallyurvv That’s what makes the ad frustrating. Women in sports spend years trying to be taken seriously, then the easiest attention hack is still putting a famous naked woman in it.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@realpeteyb123 Softcore sexualization plus sports betting is basically stacking two attention hooks on top of each other and calling it marketing.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@22liv22 Whether people label it pornography is almost secondary. It's still built around sexualized attention, and that tends to hijack focus regardless of what the product actually is.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@theisabelb OnlyFans is understood going in as adult content, chosen as that. This was marketed as a sports product, in a space women already fight to be taken seriously in.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@tiffanyandsadie Using nudity that has nothing to do with sports to sell a sports product still sends a message to women who actually play and follow sports, that their presence in the space is optional decoration. Simple intent doesn't mean simple impact.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@BrysonGray The issue isn’t just nudity in isolation, it’s using sexualized attention that has nothing to do with the sport itself as the hook for a sports product.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@pooeyfart @TheAtomChild @28portrait The behavioral vs physiological distinction is honestly the part most debates skip entirely, good catch. On the 3% number though, the biggest dataset out there, 82k adults, 42 countries, puts women's conservative screening rate closer to 0.7%. What instrument did your source use?

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@Byzantinerome Strong point, backed by data too, only 3.2% to 16.6% of adults screen at risk for problematic use in the largest study available (Bőthe, Addiction 2024), so "most users addicted" is the exact claim you describe. One nitpick tho, Prohibition was repealed in 1933 for a reason.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@abl_crt @FellowMariner @joe_br1ght The self-ID thing is real, people who are religious or just feel guilty about porn tend to call themselves addicted even when their actual use isn't that high, that's been studied a bunch. Not sure where the "half" number comes from though, got a source?

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@Hannie11111111 Real data on this: largest survey available, 82k adults across 42 countries, found only 3.2% to 16.6% screened at risk for problematic use depending on the tool used (Bőthe et al., Addiction 2024). Mostly occasional for most people, genuinely addicted is a real minority though.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@katrosenfield Clever framing, but worth being precise: none of the women describe losing control or repeated failed attempts to stop watching, which is what actually defines problematic use clinically. What's happening here is more like media-driven expectation shift, a different phenomenon.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@MasculinePeak The idea behind this is real, cutting high stimulation input can help recalibrate sensitivity to normal rewards. Dopamine receptors don't actually accumulate toxins to flush out though, that's not how neurotransmitters work. Downregulation is the term you're actually looking for.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@Simpnomore2 Real tactic, probably the easiest one to actually implement today. Worth pairing with something for when access isn't even the issue, boredom or stress finding a way in regardless. Friction alone tends to get worked around eventually without that part.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@Biigjasmine Genuinely curious what people say back here. Usually something environmental, blockers, phone habits, or something more internal, like what they were actually avoiding by watching in the first place?

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@SnydeNotSnarky @PunishedGeo @canonlawyered On the addiction number specifically, the best available data, 82k adults across 42 countries, puts problematic use at 3.2% to 16.6% depending on the instrument, not "massive."

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@mxzuwam @HyacinthoGirl @CorenLaVolpe @5ummrtime5adnss @TW0HEADEDBEAST Correct on ICD-11, CSBD sits under impulse-control disorders, not addictive behaviors like gambling. One correction, DSM-5 doesn't classify CSBD as anything, it's not in DSM-5 at all. A Hypersexual Disorder proposal was considered and rejected in 2013 for insufficient evidence.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@TW0HEADEDBEAST Feels good so you repeat it describes basically all reinforcement learning, not addiction specifically, that's usually the actual objection. The real diagnostic bar, ICD-11's CSBD, requires months of failed attempts to stop plus genuine impairment, not just frequency or pleasure.

[Own the Moment @OTM_HQ]

@NicoleRPrause @Slate Always is a strong word for something driven by individual variation in what people find rewarding, not just what's easiest. The letter's own description, guilt plus feeling unable to resist despite trying, sounds like more than a simple preference for convenience either way.