Slashdot Log In
Internet Porn More Addictive Than Crack, Senate Told
Posted by
michael
on Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:03 PM
from the not-making-this-up dept.
from the not-making-this-up dept.
applemasker writes "Wired says that the Senate heard testimony today that internet porn is 'worse than crack.' Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) called it the most disturbing hearing he'd ever heard in the Senate, saying that porn is ubiquitous now but compared to when he was growing up and 'some guy would sneak a magazine in somewhere and show some of us, but you had to find him at the right time.' Can someone submit a FOIA request for his browser history or cache?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this being slashdot, we'll post a story about it before the vote [slashdot.org], not update it when the desired vote actually occurs, not post a new story about it passing, and instead post a story about a lone Senator's response to a University of Pennsylvania scientist's valid research opinions[1] (just as valid as, say, some sociology students alleging studying shaky, unprovable statistical anomalies in Florida voting [slashdot.org], even as the MIT/Caltech Voting Project says there was no widespread fraud, tampering, or errors [cnn.com]).
Surprisingly, a person who works at a sex toy shop called Good Vibrations doesn't agree with the researcher's conclusions!
Let's just face the facts that some people are more prone to addictive behaviors, and it can happen with anything: drugs, shopping, gambling, sex, and yes, pornography. The putative argument is that with the abundance of free porn on the internet, a porn addiction has the potential to be much more damaging, since it doesn't require the resources that other common addictions might. This is perfectly valid; it doesn't imply that everyone will be addicted to porn (or anything else), nor does it mean that internet porn will be "banned". It simply says an addiction with a free neverending supply can be harmful.
Is anyone the least bit surprised or concerned that a conservative Christian Republican senator from Kansas found the testimony "disturbing". How is this news?
(And as for the crack in the summary, believe it or not, there are some people who probably haven't had occasion to view porn on their computers. No. Really.)
[1]Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today."
"The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviors," Layden said. "To have drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups know how to use it -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind."
Pornography addicts have a more difficult time recovering from their addiction than cocaine addicts, since coke users can get the drug out of their system, but pornographic images stay in the brain forever, Layden said.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Funny)
Not with MY memory they don't. Maybe that's why I have to back and look again. Stupid brain.
Parent
it's a feature (Score:5, Funny)
That's a feature, not a bug.
-God
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to all of the other reasons why this is stupid, the brain doesn't return to normal once the drug is out of the system. Cocaine makes long-lasting, possibly permanent changes in the brain.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Informative)
Surprisingly, an anti-gay organization "dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality" that posts links to articles like "'Crystal Meth' New Drug Of Choice On Gay Party Circuit" thinks that pornography is bad.
Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [narth.com] echoed Layden's concern about the internet and the somatic effects of pornography.
"Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause direct release of the most perfect addictive substance," Satinover said. "That is, it causes masturbation, which causes release of the naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can't do, in effect."
I can't believe Wired actually let that slip by without even a mention of what the group actually stands for.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
They just want to keep bringing this up every 16-18 months so they will look like they are doing something.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, in a similar vein, let's face it, protecting childern from porn is no different from protecting them from forms of violence. And what is more natural?
What leads to greater worries? What is more damaging? Hell, what is more informative?
Personally, I'd rather teach my kids through visual media sex than how to kill, maim, torute people.
Why do we perceive a natural act to be less suitable for our kids to view?
We let our kids see caricatures of violence, but shield them from perceptions of sex, personally I see that as being a little bit strange.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we perceive a natural act to be less suitable for our kids to view?
It's about power. Sex is freedom, sex with who you want is more freedom. Sex is the purpose of everything - if you're having sex then you're winning the game. If you're having sex with more people than the president is, then in evolutionary terms, you're beating him. Wealth? For men it's a means to attract a mate. Power? For men it's a way to drive off rivals. Sex is what it all comes down to. If you want control over other people. If you want real control over them, you need to control their sex lives. Without that, you've got no hold over them that they wont break.
Violence? Violence is just a nasty little game that the powerful can beat you at everytime.
Parent
Until recently... (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently, however, I had the oppertunity to sit down and have a very open-minded discussion with a relative of the opposite gender to find out which things were true and which weren't.
As a result, my first experience (*) will be much more enjoyable and safe for both parties involved than it would have been had the discussion not taken place.
(*) Yes, I admit it hasn't happened yet. No, that's not a valid Slashdot stereotype.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, if you think porn is equivalent to something that can kill you you must be doing it wrong.
Parent
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Breasts bad! Guns good!
Books bad! FOX good!
Facts bad! Faith good!
Environment bad! SUV good!
Freedom bad! Patriotism good!
Endangered Species Act bad! USAPAT RIOT act good!
Parent
porn better than crack (Score:5, Funny)
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Insightful)
and, no pun intended, i say "fuck them". go get some therapy or something and leave the internet alone for the others who either know how to incorporate porn into a healthy lifestyle, aren't interested in it, or aren't interested in other people and rely solely on porn. this desire to legislate "morality" is much more evil and harmful to a truly free society than pornography.
people always have and always will have emotional problems, but that's not my problem (or most other peoples either) so why should the rest of the world be penalized for someone's lack of ability to handle their own life? these bible-thumping right wingers sure don't mind forgetting all about personal accountability and responsibility when it's a topic they disagree with, but hey, say it loud & say it proud - sex is here to stay! put that in your communion wafer and smoke it, mr sexually repressed government tool.
Parent
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Though it takes two to tango, and normally one or the other probably objects to porn.
Parent
reality... (Score:5, Insightful)
A difference of willingness is a fair bet with, say introducing a third party into the sex relationship (jealousy is very common), but I can't possibly tell you how many couples enjoy porn together, based on what I've personally observed. Models, Ivy leaguers, union members, women's college grads, Christians, Jews, blue collar workers, Midwesterners, Europeans, Asians, gay men, African-Americans, lesbians, nerds, virgins; outside of religious fundamentalists, I can't think of a single group I haven't personally observed to show enthusiam for porn (well, maybe Arabs, but I'm not ready to lump them in with their fundamentalist brethren just because I lack sufficient cultural exposure). Except for Canadians; they might just be Satan's squeaky clean naughty milkmaids. Come here, Canada; you need a spanking.
People like to alter their consciousness (with drugs or otherwise). People like porn. Get used to it, and try to minimize harm. And frankly, that is 10,000 times more important than any particular moral bugaboo (and if you think otherwise, clearly you favor societal harm over disrupting your personal mental illnesses).
Parent
Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMFG (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine how much funnier that could have been without the slashdot lameness filters.
Some things were meant to be yelled.
Phew (Score:5, Funny)
Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pornography leads to boob jobs? May I ask why this is being presented to the Senate Committee on Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee? Now I'm not an advocate of pornography but if I were going to argue against it, I'd try to base my arguments on less personal-value laden arguments than this. And that's leaving aside dodgy use of science. Example: Suggesting that boys and girls don't masturbate without pornography? Children masturbate before they even understand sexual attraction, let alone requiring pornography post-puberty.
But here's another highlight,
Erototoxins? Is this an attempt to re-brand a need for sexual stimulationas a medical condition again? You know that way they could overturn any constitutional protections under the guise of medical treatment, much like drug companies are pushing their drugs that render people resistant to illegal drugs. Why do I get the feeling that these people would like to be able to prevent sexual desire wherever they deem it innappropriate.
The whole basis of this article seems to be that somebody has shown correlation in the brain between pleasure from drugs and pleasure from sex... as far as I understand the article, the correlation appears to be something called, um... pleasure.
I think if you watch a lot of pornography, then that can distance you from other people and perhaps interfere with forming a healthy relationship with your parter, but who knows - it's just my feeling. I don't think anyone with a brain whichever side of the argument they fall on could see this article being anything other than bollocks.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have just nailed it. These people seek to exert control of all behavior by controlling access to pain relief and pleasure.
All drugs that are really worth anything are strictly controlled. They now wish to control sexuality. It's a ploy, and a weak one at that.
LK
Parent
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
Controlling a societies sexual outlets is one the major tools for controlling a society.
Just look at the TWO major things almost all religeons do(especially those that wield significant power in the world), tell you you need thier permision to have sex and tell you as long as you follow thier rules that you'll live forever (or equivilant) with rewards. They also tend to tell you that all that is wrong (painfull physically or emotionaly) in your life comes from NOT following thier rules. Governments tend to do the same.
Look at how some of the best advertising works.
Once you have a group of people by the gonads they'll do whatever you say, and probably praise you to sky in the process.
Weak? It one of the shurest roads to power for any group.
Mycroft
Parent
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had more problems with books doing this to me, let alone Civ III.
Parent
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a clinical psychologist, I find this organization deeply disturbing. It's one thing to do scientific research to defend a position, it's another to tout "case studies" of rare individuals who have been "reoriented". The problem is, most scientific research suggests that homosexuals aren't any more disordered than normal individuals, and that in any event, sexual orientation is neurogenetically complex. I'm all for free speech, and they're welcome to it, but what they're pushing is political pseudoscience.
If you look closely at their webpage, you'll note a remark about NARTH being comprised of "psychiatrists and psychoanalytically informed psychologists", as if somehow they are privy to some psychoanalytic "truth" that you need to be "informed" about to understand. Psychodynamic theory and practice has its strong points, like anything, but psychoanalysis is historically notorious for relying on pseudoscience and anecdotes to support a position. These individuals are actually damaging psychodynamic theory by perpetuating an outdated--and dangerous--psychotherapeutic culture.
All of this is to show that there's a lot here beneath the surface. It's not just about porn--it's about any unusual sexual behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some discussion about porn causing homosexuality, or homosexuality causing porn, or homosexuals consuming a majority of porn, or whatever.
This stuff makes me so upset. Psychological science and politics is dangerous enough, without this pseudoscientific garbage.
Parent
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, pornography and masturbation go hand in hand.
Parent
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a most distressing lack of scientific knowledge amongst our law makers and it is showing in everything from decisions on technology issues to the often fraudulent supplement industry, to censorship and others.
I am not supporting pornography as it is most decidedly not victimless, however, these folks on Capitol Hill are clueless about science, how science is performed and how one acts on scientific hypothesis and testimony like this only serves to weaken positions and make a mockery of the political process.
Erotoxins.......oh jeez. You have got to be kidding me. This is right up there with covering up the breasts on statues of Lady Liberty. Only perverts are this obsessed with issues like this and are more disturbing to me than people obsessed with pornography, perhaps simply because they are obsessed with what others are doing.
These folks need to read some of the basic science behind addiction and understand that anything can be addictive. Yes, some things are more addictive because of their pharmacology or biological implications, but to say pornography is more addictive that crack cocaine is a farce.
Parent
Sex ed causes brain damage (Score:5, Insightful)
This is mumbo-jumbo as far as I can tell. Note how quickly Dr. Reisman -- her Ph.D. is in Communications, and she has no education in medicine [drjudithreisman.org] -- goes from coining a brand new word to describe something she cannot prove exists ("what I dub erototoxins") to using that word as if the substance is real ("study erototoxins"). Along the way she uses partial quotes out of context, and prepends her views on pornography to a quote that matter-of-factly describes an obvious fact about the brain.
And if you missed it -- yes -- she is railing against "sexually explicit sex education." She is saying that sex ed causes brain damage.
This is the same woman who thinks the Catholic Church should sue [freerepublic.com] because priests molested children.
Parent
Re:Sex ed causes brain damage (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that like an Eye Doctor? Or a Budget Man?
If you're going to bother to invent technical words (erototoxins) to replace real, existing, technical words (hormones, neurotransmitters et al), or to go ahead and talk about psychopharmacological implants... it would be sensible to name the specialty whose findings you're quoting (neurologists, psychiatrists, cognitive scientists, whatever).
Particularly if you're making the case that memory is brain-damaging sexual abuse (the informed consent bit).
By that logic, to avoid leaving traces in the brain of highly excitatory stimuli, all minors should be stored in sensorial deprivation tanks to be fed approved stimuli by their parents.
It's the only way to avoid brain damage!
Parent
Please don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, if these people in congress really believed what they say they believe they would act and vote differently.
Parent
FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, maybe that broke down a little at the end there. But the point is, porn isn't addictive - sex is.
Thats bull man... (Score:5, Funny)
Here it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a lot of porn on the net and if you arent some by-product of the very culture that is so freaked-out about it in the first place you'd probably find it as boring and silly as it truly is.
What is wrong in being addictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
ummm yeahhh (Score:5, Funny)
People are going to make fun of this line but its a very serious problem. Have you ever seen a porn baby you insensitive clod?!
Internet Porn isn't as addictive as Crack (Score:5, Funny)
Cause I've downloaded internet porn while smoking crack and so I can say from first hand experience (and later, second hand) that when my DSL went down I was pissed BUT I didn't get out of my chair until the crack ran out.
Seriously though this is just some more alarmist bullshit from those special folks out there who live in mortal terror that someone, somewhere might be getting a nut or even enjoying something a little bit. They're just busy trying to save us from ourselves again. Nothing new here.
Speaking of crack... (Score:5, Funny)
"The Select Senate Subcommittee on Slashdot Addiction calls its first witness. Ms. Portman, would you please stand and raise your right hand..."
k.
Yes? And? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah. Porn's ubiquitousness now is leading us into the darkness of...
of...
Politics?
I think his point is that porn led him into politics. I bet he read in some Playboy article that the Kennedies get all the hot chicks. And he got that Playboy from some guy in a dark alley. So now that he's a sentator, he's going to do his best to keep that secret, and that way *he'll* get all the hot chicks.
What a devious bastard.
It started as research (Score:5, Funny)
And its more addictive than cigarettes..
seee here, thats why we can't stop. Its not that we're wasting tax payers money on our newley beeded up T3 lines running into the capital.
Those RIAA/MPAA supenas to my office were obviouslly caused by our affliction.
Really...
forget his browser cache; check his urine (Score:5, Funny)
I Fucking Hate When They Do This (Score:5, Insightful)
The other connotation of addiction is the one we refer to in common speech - when a person repeats behaviors, regardless of the consequences or his/her own inclination to do so. So we speak of those addicted to shopping, grooming, sex, or any other behavior a person focuses on for what others would deem an unhealthy period of time (this behavior is almost always a vice, or capable of becoming one in excess). This is where our definitions overlap and the problem first appears. Any thought or behavior is necessarily biological. What's more, for all of human history, people have tried to resist pleasure, such as eating or sex, that is innately tied with both biological reward and negative consequences. And in this way, the reward and the strong drive to perform the behaviors that bring about this reward are abstracted on the basis of their biological similarity (the same brain rewards both behaviors) and the strikingly similar behaviors of those deemed addicted (when you want to do something, you do it). But when we do this, we overstep the bounds of the word addiction, and soon we start regulating all human behavior associated with pleasure, negative consequences, and an obsessive quality into the category of addiction. Now, if you think that a reasonable definition of addiction is one that can apply to any pleasure-deriving activity, including every vice, that's your opinion. It just happens to be a very wrong one.
It's hard not to do the things we like. They make us feel the same (happy) as heroin makes heroin addicts feel (happy). And for all of human history, we've been trying to figure out how to suppress the human tendencies toward pleasure that can hurt and destroy us. But when we speak like this, we replace a deeper understanding of human action with the shallow descriptions of behavior we read in magazines. I used to smoke cigarettes, and I occasionally smoke pot. When I quit smoking, I felt nuts, like I was losing something that my body depended upon. When you're a smoker, you can't remember what it was like to be a non-smoker - to go a day without thinking of a cigarette. It was the hardest thing I've ever done, and if you non-smokers could imagine that suffering, you'd know what we mean we when talk about addiction. When I stop smoking pot, I feel upset that I'm not doing what I like to do, and I want to smoke. But I when I stopped smoking cigarettes, I couldn't think, my head felt like it was being smashed, and I wasn't able to register anything other than my shaking and desire for a cigarette.
There is a biological reality to real addiction. The rest is human behavior and the same attraction to vice that we've lived with for years. While this is necessarily biology, it arises naturally from human behavior, and is not caused by physical adaption to external agents and chemicals that act upon the body. This is a critical distinction, and not one easily understood by half-rate thinkers, people who read magazines, and those who've never wanted a cigarette.
This shit gets so old. First comes convincing people that others aren't in control of their actions. That's the only way a person can say "stop doing this action, even though it doesn't affect me, because I don't like it" without getting laughed at. Listen to this quote from the article: "Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biolog
Somewhere in the San Fernando Valley... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately a cameraman was there to film it and it'll soon be released on DVD.
It's an interesting tactic, to classify those who disagree with you as "addicts". Welcome to the Brave New World. Soon Pfizer will have a pill that'll "cure" you of liking to watch women make out. I'll take a stab at naming it: Noleztra.
Hell, maybe one day we'll have a pill that eliminates compassion. (pops pill) Ahhh, fuck 'em.
-dameron
------
DailyHaiku.com [dailyhaiku.com], saying more in 17 syllables than big media says all day.
"Bus signs stopped me from fucking children" (Score:5, Insightful)
"I was gonna go fuck the neighbor boy, but the bus sign reminded me not to," testified recovering child fucker N.Curable-Sicko. "Until now, nothing had been able to stop me from having my way with them, not even the prospect of being sent to prison where I'd be raped constantly. Now, with the bus signs, I'm able to control my urges."
I think what they really mean to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it has them worried.
To Be Successful They Must Divorce Morality (Score:5, Interesting)
Do I believe pornography to be morally wrong? Without question. Do I believe pornography should be heavily regulated beyond how it currently is? Not necessarily.
My default position on any issue is "Show love, and respect personal liberty." The first aspect is inviolable, as God incarnated in Jesus directly commanded us to love Him and others, setting this as the most important consideration in any situation.
As to the second aspect, at heart I'm a Libertarian. However, there are many situations where personal liberty should not be respected. Your personal liberty to fire a shotgun should not be allowed when I am standing directly in front of said shotgun. Here, the consideration overriding your personal liberty is the harm done to others. (Our consideration of showing love incarnates itself by respecting human dignity in punishment that is humane and, when possible, rehabilitative.)
So let's apply these two principles to a third. Specifically, Christianity's political-legal struggles are more successful when the Christian stance is argued from the same secular assumptions that are largely shared by the other side.
Beating a Bible may produce (what I hold to be) Truth, but that "evidence" is inadmissable in a court under our current interpretation of the Establishment Clause (a discussion in and of itself). So Christianity needs to divorce the morality play from this and show the secular manifestations of harm produced by pornography. The current tactics fail to show love to the "other side" by, quite frankly, insulting your intelligence.
Coming up with new jargon like "erototoxins" or whatever is worthless without science to back it up. If there is a medical basis, using established tests for addiction, to the argument that pornography feeds into itself and leads to self-destructive behavior and other costs that society is unwilling to absorb, then we need to see that medical basis clearly presented.
A complimentary line of reasoning might be similar to that used against tobacco companies: the product is addictive (to a point society is not willing to tolerate) and individuals are not necessarily aware of that addiction.
But screaming "this leads to masturbation!" is not going to get us anywhere.
I would personally love to see less pornography on the Internet at large, as I know firsthand the destruction to self-control and personal relationships that it can bring.
But we cannot sacrifice personal liberty in the process without a compelling reason. I do not believe that compelling reason has yet been articulated under secular reasoning.
- Neil Wehneman
It's not the porno, silly, it's the sex. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what the researcher here is actually saying, is that sex is addictive, and therefore bad.
Um.. let's try to take a rational view here?
Sex is a normal and healthy thing. (For some of you, yes, that includes masturbation.)
So, some people get obssessed about sex. True. But most people don't. Heck, there are obsessive bingo players out there.
But as long as the vast majority of people aren't getting hurt, why would the solution be to stop engaging in the addictive activity?
It's amazing how they can't ban smoking, which is directly harmful for everyone who uses it, and even those around them, but pornography is obviously fair game.
But let me guess: This isn't really about public health at all, is it?
Religion is worse than crack (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NARTH? Now I am sure they are unbiased. (Score:5, Funny)
heh, heh... Beavis, you just said "at hand"... heh, heh...
Parent
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent