Internet Porn More Addictive Than Crack, Senate Told 886
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?"
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.
Religion is worse than crack (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Dems are just as bad. (Score:2, Informative)
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk' [bbc] (Score:1, Informative)
We're not talking about porn here. (Score:3, Informative)
I had a ton of information here, but accidentally closed the window (argh). So here's the short version: we're talking about smut here, which is controlled through local decency/obscenity rulings and laws. Pornography, however, is a legal term and is not local in scope, rather being prosecuted at higher levels (state/federal).
Examples of smut include things that might upset a spouse or violate an AUP - imagery of people posed in erotic and suggestive positions (to differentiate it from nudism/art), or imagery of couples engaged in sexual activity for same. Pornography, however, entails imagery of children either exposed or inappropriately positioned - having legs spread is a pretty open-and-shut case for this - or imagery of (some) acts being carried out with corpses or animals.
Smut is not illegal; Pornography is. It is an important distinction to make.
Hmmm ... methinks I see a group with an Agenda. So ... we remove Internet Pornography [sic]. Given that the person here is from the NARTH (hehe - even the acronym sounds awful), are we going to advocate that young homosexual or bi/curious men and women should go to bars resembling 1970/1980s San Fransisco? That doesn't seem like a good public health policy, in my eyes. I'm not homosexual myself, but believe that homo-erotic imagery might be a good thing to prevent widespread sexual intercourse from happening when the individuals involved may or may not be fully aware of their leanings. Indeed, I think that the removal of any kind of smut or erotic materials from the open market may potentially lead to more risky sexual behavior; I would much rather face the "evil" of a society that masturbates than the spectre of a ubiquitous STD rearing its head. But that's just me.
Pornography [sic] causes masturbation? God, this reminds me of the turn-of-the-century Parisian leaflets that showed a healthy young male turning into an enfeebled zombie of a man because he touched himself. Or maybe of the actions that led up to the Comstock Act around the turn of the century (well, 1912 or so, IIRC). Or Reefer Madness, the movie that was one of the things that led to the use of Schedules for classifying illegal drugs in this country (The US).
Yes, it's called an Agenda.
Bottom line: pornography is already regulated (e.g. email, fax, web, and mail is all subject to search and siezure) and illegal. Smut has no such regulation at a top-level (yet ... let's give it until the summer), but is subject to varying local loose-and-sloppy "community standards".
Re:I think what they really mean to say is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I saw far more SUVs when I was living in LA than I do now that I'm living in a "Red State".
And... (Score:4, Informative)
It saddens me that people like this are considered "experts" worthy of testifying before congress thanks to the fundies being in control.
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.
More taxpayer money wasted (Score:3, Informative)
Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography
The Senate Commerce Committee, huh? Well, let's see. Is there any mention of pornography, addiction, or mental health in the Constitution? No. Then, as usual, we go to Amendment 10.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Whoops. Looks like this isn't even their business. As usual, however, the communists among us will try to give the Feds a blank check based on A1.S8.C3 commerce. Well, my friends, I assert that commerce is nothing more than point of sale. They can tax sales, or not. Why do I choose such a strict and easy definition? Well... Because it's written in Amendment 9.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, if it's not specifically in the Constitution, then (right, wrong, or indifferent) it's no business of the Feds because it's retained by the states or the people. And, according to Amendment 9, you can't go combing through the Constitution to find excuses to assign authority to the Feds for something based upon a vague association with something else.
So... As usual, the Senators are sitting around, tapping their watches, waiting for the (taxpayer paid) lunch, collecting their excessive (taxpayer paid) paychecks, listening to meaningless drivel from visiting self-proclaimed professionals who are staying probably in (taxpayer paid) hotels and expensing the entire trip to the (taxpayer paid) Congress, and debating issues which are NONE OF THEIR JOB RESPONSIBILITY. You can get fired in most American companies for doing things outside of your job description, you know...
Business as usual folks.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:3, Informative)
Give up? REPRODUCTION.
I can't believe that a majority of people in this country belive that sex is the root of all evil.
"Eroto-toxins"? WTF?
Sex is how we reproduce and IF YOU WEREN"T MEANT TO DO IT YOUR BRAIN WOULDN"T LIKE IT!!!
Pornography addicting? No more addicting than any other activity.
And someone please tell me exactly what is so harmful about seeing people naked? What is the harm of seeing a woman's breast? It's our puritanical back-asswards society that has made the breast into a sexual object. The primary role of a breast is to produce milk for infants. So again I ask, what harm comes from seeing an object used to raise and nurture newborn life?
For fuck's sake these idiots ramble on about the irreversible harm pornography is doing to our children. What abou the lack of schooling, food, and shelter millions of children suffer. Don't you think that's the real problem?
Pornography would not be an issue if stupid, pious, ignorant, bastards like these didn't make it so. IT"S NATURE, GET OVER IT!
If you're comparing sex to an illegal drug, then we should also compare food and water to illegal drugs. We have to have water all the time. When we drink it, especially on a hot day, it makes us feel good. If we don't drink it, we start getting headaches, hallucinations, and even death.
What's that you say? Water's different because we need it to survive? WELL SO IS SEX! It's been that way for thousands of years and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.
Pornography = illegal drug? My ass! There were and still are civilizations where the individuals do not wear clothes and they seem to be getting along just fine. Nudist colonies seem to have very little trouble maintaining normal social order. You can't use a handful of people who already have PROBLEMS to back up a report.
The porn industry is a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry. This would suggest that many, many individuals delve into some kind of porn. Sex shops are quite prominent. But according to what these jackasses say, pornography will destroy the world.
What will destroy the world is letting people like this dictate policy to the masses. Fucking hypocrites.
~X~