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?"
hurm (Score:3, Interesting)
NARTH? Now I am sure they are unbiased. (Score:2, Interesting)
I am SURE that they are totally unbiased in this, I mean WTF where they doing testifying before congress on this issue? What happend to having experts on the topic at hand testify?
It's not the porn stupid... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hurm (Score:3, Interesting)
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 These individuals are actually damaging psychodynamic theory by perpetuating an outdated--and dangerous--psychotherapeutic culture.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.
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.
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?
Re:porn better than crack (Score:3, Interesting)
While I understand you made this statement as an attempt at humour, I must point out that it is not correct. Actually, some have taken the addiction so far that they have lost their jobs and spent all of their money on buying porn. There are sex addicts who spend 13 or more hours a day on the internet to feed the addiction. Additionally, pornography does trigger the same chemicals in your brain as cocaine at even higher levels, which is why it is being compared with cocaine as a drug. Not an invasive drug that enters the bloodstream, but yet still has potency in the human brain.
Re:Maybe we should be examining religious addictio (Score:1, Interesting)
Religion's function is to provide comfort and pain relief against the issues that people can not answer. i.e....
The real reason for religion is to control the masses by pacification (or distraction). If you want to discuss religion (Christianity), you first need to learn ancient Hebrew (or your language of choices language or original writing). That is the language it was started in. For Christians, you need to come to grips with polytheism in Judaism. It is their, in Genesis and many other places. Next, realize that in Genesis it says that the only thing separating you from being a God is that you do not live forever (which says God(s) are not as smart as we say they are.)
All of religion is based on faith, not knowledge. If it were knowledge, you would not need faith. Facts are used in religion the same way facts are used in a cleverly constructed lie. They give credence in clever ways to things that are unrelated (he said A and B, I know A is true, so B muse be also). Faith causes huge problems, especially in the fanatically faithful. The faithful who hate science and other things of knowledge do so because over time almost everything they ever claim gets debunked (maybe a few exceptions, but not many). On top of that, most Christians have not a clue what the Bible says it is to be faithful anyway. They claim to be Christian and partake in Christianity because it makes them feel good about themselves, without regard for how their actions impact on those around them.
In summary, where their faith/addiction is concerned, ignores reality, ignores the impact on those around them, does it for a feeling they get (normally covering up an emptiness inside) and unwilling to or unable to change based upon actual factual evidence that this causes harm. Sounds like a drug addict to me.
Re:I had to make the first bad pun.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:2, Interesting)
And religion. In some cases getting addicted to religion can be very damaging [grist.org].
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, in the opposite fashion the attempt to rebrand baby/person as merely a fetus
Why should these two issues be related?
Okay, I'm being deliberately naive. They are related because in the US, a lot of the people who are against one are against the other too. However, my point is that I can see no reasonable link between the two debates. I myself believe that abortions are almost always wrong, except where the health of the mother is threatened. On the other hand, I don't see pornography as a terrible thing to be outlawed. I don't think it's victimless, but I'm not going to condmen a man for being what evolution made him.
The confusing of unrelated issues together has been one of the most successful and most damaging political tactics of the modern era and has led directly to the partisan political process you have in the US today. If intelligent people must be constrained into choosing between two monolithic amalgamations of policies, then what good is intelligence at all; for you've lost the granularity necessary to real choice and you're left with nothing but a tragic muddle.
Churches are addictive too! (Score:2, Interesting)
The church makes them feel good. Then they throw a huge percentage of their income at the preacher, to
"give to God". An addiction to church is as bad as an addiction to any drug. It is every bit as expensive. It alienates you from non cult members, I mean church members. You live your life thinking constantly about that feeling you get while at church, you want to return for another fix. It is so hard to go those six days a week without it. You'll even try to convince others to pick up your habit.
Crack habits lead to crack babies which sucks. Porn leads to
It is great to see someone debunk this woman. Doctor of communications. Or rather, Doctor of philosophy- who knows something about communications. Medical doctors are so many notches above that it should be made a crime to allow her to use that title. She wishes she was a real doctor, as do I with the lowly PharmD I'm working on. But I know it isn't the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with addiction. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:1, Interesting)
So basically you're saying "violent stuff doesn't make people go out and hurt people" yet "bad porn makes people go out and have bad sex"? Or what? I'm not understanding something here.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:2, Interesting)
There were a lot of other quirks during that time period as well (morality being enforced by law, wether written or unofficial, people who weren't a part of the mainstream being denied rights, and other similar things). The thing that really worries me is that we seem to be slipping back into that sort of a situation/mindset as a people.
My prievious comment wasn't meant as the flamebait it was modded. I was being completely serious. Lots of people have a copy, but most of them never seem to have read it. They just sort of seem to take it on faith (no pun intended) that it says what they think it does. This conclusion comes from having had long discussions with many people trying to get me to "return to god" (I'm a taoist, and I live in the bible belt. It is occasionally a joy).
Chalk it up to personal experience and a detached point of view.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read that studies showed that children exposed to violent scenes were far more likely to be aggressive to their peers than children exposed to non-violent scenes. Even if they're isolated they demonstrate more anxiety and agitation.
On the other hand children don't pick up on sexual content (flirting, kissing, "making out") and teenagers are aroused but don't return to the classroom to cop a feel from a classmate. At least no more often than usual....
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Uh, neither? Alright, well, if we're talking about children, then violence is obviously more natural, particularly for boys. Before their teen years, children are biologically wired to view the opposite sex as something to be avoided. This is a natural safegaurd against inbreeding. However, violence is something that nature finds necessary in just about any species, and the sooner an animal learns it (and we humans are animals), the better they will generally be in everything from obtaining food to not becoming food to finding a mate.
So, in summary, sex is not in the nature of the young, but violence is, therefore we don't need to expose children to sex, something they won't comprehend, but they must learn to cope with violent behavior quickly in order to be socially well adjusted. Does this answer your questions?Psychological == pseudoscience (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, you look at the Psych drugs and modern medicine has no idea WHY they work. They kind of work, we're just not sure why.
Break out the old SAT analogy:
Alchemy is to Chemistry as Psychology is to whatever real science will supplant it.
On a separate subject:
You're right. We have no clue what causes homosexuality. Depending on how it helps people's arguments they alternately claim that homosexuality is caused by (a) something you are born with, or (b) a personal and private choice.
We don't definitively know because no scientific studies can be done without running the gauntlet of PC criticism.
Almost every lesbian I know was abused (sexually, physically, or sever emotional abuse) as a child. Is this the reason they are lesbians? We'll never know, because no one is actually allowed to do studies on this. And, you can't ask the question because attempting to understand homosexuality using anything other than the template the high priests of Political Correctness gives us is a Thought Crime. Homosexuality may only be talked about using the DoubleThink described above.
And BTW, if sever childhood trauma is a contributing factor to homosexuality, I still don't believe "reprogramming" would turn them hetero. Sever trauma like that (even if it doesn't involve spinning your sexual compass) probably takes a few hundred years to repair, and human beings only live about 75 years. Your best hope it to patch up the major issues, and call it a life.
Re:don't believe him? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, thank God for that! It keeps the chicks coming back!
One at a time.... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. I guess my point about most wild animals could be argued, but in any case that is certainly how human society operates. Strong, weathly men get desirable mates (and in the absence of anti-Bigamy laws, lots of them). Any King's Harem will prove my point.
Also, human males have no "biological responsibilities" after sex. There is no biological need, and in all likelyhood no biological desire. From a survivablity stand point, it makes much more sense for a man to have as many mates as posible, and let nature and the woman sort out which ones survive. From a social standpoint, unwanted, unneeded children are dangerous burden. The exception to this is a farmer in need of laborers. But machines make this exception moot.
3. The figure comes from www.nomarrige.com, take it as you will. From my own imperical evidence, I have never met a woman who married down or even on par.
I say that love is an illusion. A pleasant one that's fun to indulge in, but a poor one to base a stable society on. In any case it's a social construct. My main concern is that love needs practical social constructs if it's going to hold up against the real world.
You give people in mass too much credit. Taken as a whole they're nasty, lazy, brutish and selfish. They act out of practical considerations. Right now a marrige isn't practical for men. By contrast, it is very practical for women. This isn't idle speculation, it's fact of law. In times past women recieved protection under law because they were limited in society. Those limits have been largely removed (just ask Carly Fiorina), but the protections remain.
But take everything I say with a grain of salt. As someone who has watched his brother methodically destroyed by an unwanted child and a scheming woman, I'm a tad bitter. Fortunately, I'm too much of a
Reisman and Feder live in concert (Score:3, Interesting)
At the same meeting conservative commentator Don Feder was asked how he would react if he found that one of his sons was gay. He replied that he would immediately find out who molested his child, utterly oblivious to the reality that gayness is simply a natural and healthy state for many people.
I left the meeting hoping for their sakes that the Feder kids turned out straight, but also wondering whether his narrow view of the world might be challenged if he were forced to deal with the humanity of a gay child.
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Persons [pflag.org]
Not just my Bro (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:To Be Successful They Must Divorce Morality (Score:2, Interesting)
"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."
And precisely such a compelling reason cannot and never will be articulated under secular reasoning.
Now why do I say this ?
Because in the public domain, the domain which secularism establishes and necessitates, such issues have no relevance.
"such issues" are issues which deal with how indidivuals relate to themselves. In the case of "Internet Pornography"-it is an issue which deals with an aspect of ones own sexual self-relation.
Ones own sexual self-relation is not subject to any kind of public discourse. Although such currently forms the basis of much public discourse, this public discourse can only exist by constanly and continuously violating that which is private. Such public discourse is itself violent, violating not only those who are the victims of this discourse-those who supposedly suffer from "Internet Pornograghy" as well as those who in such discourse are marginalized and outcast- but also those who participate in said discourse.
Secular discourse, and the reasoning engaged in in the course thereof, is the only form of discourse which is admissable in the public sphere-the domain of public discourse.
Christiany itself is a religion which seeks to establish a domain of the public based on the self-relation(ones relation to God) of the individuals who constitute the community.
Yet our society was based on the priveledged role of secular discourse. One of the principal reasons given for this priviledge was to allow for the co-existance of differing Christian faiths. In a society composed soley of differing Christian faiths where there is no secular discourse there could be no public life, no public domain, for any public utterance would itself be merely an expression of ones own self-relation.
Living in a society where the public domain itself is secular obligates those who belong to a particular Christian faith to engage themselves in the public domain as secular members of a secular society, but this engagement is only admissable as long as that which is being expressed is not being expressed from the standpoint of, as an expression of, ones own self-relation.
Once those who engage themselves in public discourse fail to draw this distincition- for this distinction and the act of drawing it is constitutive of society itself- the public sphere itself becomes violated, it becomes the space from whence violence is propagated.
If one is genuinely oppossed to "Internet Pornography" one can engage in a secular discourse about the revenue strategies in use which enable such to exist. If consensus can be found that such revenue strategies are themselves not societally acceptable one can work towards enacting legislation which would, as consequence thereof, preclude the existance of "Internet Pornogrpahy".
What we are seeing here in "such issues" is the misuse of a public health discourse to propel values from the domain of the private into the domain of the public. And this in the name of Caring and Concern.
But perhaps one should not talk of "misuse" here- for the question remains whether there can be any kind of legitimate public health discourse-for this particular form of discourse is itself something which renders all forms of self-relation(how one relates to ones own body) as public issues. The public health discourse has the body as its subject-correspondily all forms of relation to ones own body become the subject of political, ie. public, discourse. This form of discourse threatens the secular discourse which is constitutive of society itself.
At this point in time the public health discourse coincides with many values expressed by particular Chistian faiths. But the day may come when such Christian faiths become the target of a public health discourse and be seen as a condition in demand of remedial policy decisions engende
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution does not necessarily rely on only one strategy for success (how many different ways did the eye evolve: from nine to forty depending upon who you read), and perpetuating your genetic line can rely on a large list of different sexual strategies (stick with one partner, have lots etc.). Homosexuality is a strategy that claerly works otherwise it would have expired by now.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you know the law, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd sure like to be.
Conservative Christianity vs Internet Porn (Score:3, Interesting)
a reborn puritan State? (Score:4, Interesting)
I blame Ohio (Score:2, Interesting)
2) All the numb-nuts are embolded, and feel free to push their twisted agenda onto the masses, because they "know what is moral and rightous"
meanwhile, thanks to the NRA money in Republican pockets, 5-year olds can watch people getting their heads blown off on television.
Ohio, we counted on you to have some courage and vote conscientiously. But, you failed us.
BTW, funny how Senator Dumbshit isn't griping about Viagra TV commercials every 5 minutes. I guess those BigPharma checks did some good as well.
pr0n vs. cardio-workout (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Endorphins interact with OPIATE receptor neurons to
2)
3) Prolonged, continuous exercise contributes to an increased production and release of endorphins, resulting in a sense of euphoria that has been popularly labeled "runner's high."
So, when are they going to start legislating my endorphin-producing 30-min cardiovascular workout every other day as "addictive" because it produces similar effects in the brain to a manifestation of sexuality? I'd rather masterbate before or after my workout to continue the effects of the endorphins (yup, I don't believe any of the workout-myths about any manifestation of sexuality having a negative impact on your workout
I think this issue just shows how ritualized (e.g. the defintion of ritualized society from the Reciprocality industrial psychology paper) some of the fundamentalists really are....