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?"
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.
it's a feature (Score:5, Funny)
That's a feature, not a bug.
-God
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
So do images of your children. And your wife. And your family.
So does an image of a human being being torn to shreds from from an RPG in Iraq, or a beheading, or a video of missles hitting large crowds of people, or war. But we have plenty of kids over there witnessing that.
Fucking assholes.
~X~
in the name of science... (Score:5, Funny)
dare to test this hypothesis? [goat.cx]
Such is the way of news (entertainment) (Score:4, Insightful)
You bring the initial inklings of the story to the public's attention, bringing them to the edge of their seat and then don't follow up on it. It causes people to hunger for news as a source of entertainment. What it really becomes is terrorism, striking fear and doubt into the minds of millions of people who think that they live in the worst possible time in the history of the earth.
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.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is normal? One must realize our brain changes every second to then understand why some will argue damage to the brain, whatever the reason. You injest any substance that has an effect on the brain in some way and it will change it. The question then is, what is damage. With illegal substances it is hard to get the real truth because little to no research is done on those substances beyond those supported by the same organizations that promote its illegality. With other substances like caffeine it is a little easier, but few people know because they don't read the books, rsearch journals, and non-mainstream information sources that pertain to effects of substances on the brain. So what causes damage? One would still need to explain what damage means. I've done a lot of reading into neuroscience and other brain related material and find that what some define as damage can b edescribed as the complete opposite. It is funny to hear some say "We are finding that even a single use can produce brain changes" because a single day of not injesting any "brain changing" substance can produce brain changes. It depends on the state of mind, what one is doing, is something being learned, are new thoughts producing a change in point-of-view on current knowledge, etc. If one spends an hour learning something new. Back to brain damage. A substance would have to show physical damage to the brain, such as cells being destroyed. This is not what many are using to back up their claims of brain damage. With the more advanced brain research, one could easily find data to fit their view. While one scientist may say that brain damage is occuring, another will say that the brain is using less of the brain to accomplish the same task. Whole one will say that it makes a person less intelligent, another will say it makes them more intelligent. Which one will you believe? Why not try and understand what information is being presented and why? Expect a biased opinion favoring the financier. It is difficult to provide a definitive picture of long-term effects of any substance that does not actually cause physical damage. If one speaks of social damage for example, then one would have to remove the barriers of illegality and perception of a substance. Those supporting prohibition will continue to provide "evidence" of brain damage due to a substance without acknowledging other factors. if you were supporting prohibition, would you acknowledge the problems created due to prohibition itself? Your post is misleading. It is true, but under a narrow interpretation of data.
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.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Funny)
This is a very good example of why we need porn and how it protects family values (eliminates a divorace) and increases happines.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I yearn for the good old days, when "addiction" was a meaningful concept.
Used to be addiction was a definite syndrome of drug use marked by tolerance, withdrawl, continued use in the face of health problems, and repeated failed attempts to quit.
Then the drug warriors noticed that this pattern doesn't occur with some of the drugs they wanted to demonize and ban. So the concept of "psychological addiction" - i.e., you really like to do something we don't want you to do - was born.
Then the pseudo-moralists and control freaks (a group with a larger overlap with the drug warriors) noticed that this vague new definition of addiction could also be applied to gambling, porn, and other behaviors they called "sinful". Bam! Now we all get to be addicts.
Yes, there are people who engage in stupid and unhealthy patterns of behavior involving porn, gambling, love, sex, TV, music, friendships, religion, computers, the net, fandom, and pretty much anything else. But lumping these all under the label "addiction" is not helpful, except to authoritarians, the burgeoning "treatment" industry, and "twelve step" cults.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Funny)
Karma Whoring.
I still remember the rush I got the first time I was modded up. I've spent the past three years here trying to chase down that perfect high, posting more and more comments....
Slashdot is a drug, man.
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.
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.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh and I'm sorry to reply to my own post, but one last thing to add to that list....
Women. Women are the key, they give or withold sex, they choose or reject the mate. At least that's the way it was in evolutionary terms. If you want an explanation about why the powerful subjugate and repress women so violently, reject female sexuality so utterly, that is why.
A woman who is sexually free determines the success or failure of the males around her by her choice and that takes away from the alpha male's power over his lessors.
Re:No, that's how it is in human society (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a reason why a man might stay with a wife and kids: love. Do you really believe our ancestors were so fundamentally different in their emotions that they valued "ownership" above love?
I dispute your assertion that in "most" cases in the wild, "the strongest male has all the women and no responsibility for the children". Certainly in some cases the former is true, but not most. And the males of any species will have "biological" responsibilities; that is, they will seek to increase the survivability of their offspring.
Finally, I think your math is wrong if you believe 90% of women marry up. Where is that figure from? How many generations do you think that figure could hold?
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
Not just my Bro (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No, that's how it is in human society (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit, since most divorces are initiated by women [discovery.com]
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
whoop-ti-fucking-doo
Perhaps I should clarify what I meant, then.
Firstly, the context in which I was talking was evolutionary terms. Any developments in the last two-thousand years will be marginal. Now, if you have a social group of humans, be that tribe, hunter-gatherers, town or village, then you have the males striving for a hierarchy.
But the ultimate purpose of it all is sex, reproduction. Now if a woman is free to choose her mate, to say "I want that one," then she will have power in determining status. Really, she has the strongest say in determining that status.
Now in order for a male or group of males to usurp that power and control the social order themselves, they must take away a woman's ability to choose her mates. Otherwise, the other males will not care what the 'powerful' males want. They will have mates and will fight to defend her and their reproductive rights.
Hence in a patriarchal society such as historically the Christian West, or modern day Saudi Arabia, women have no sexual freedom. A woman who expresses sexual desire is damned wholeheartedly. And that is because a sexually free woman would upset the male hierarchy that has its roots in reproductive rights.
THAT is what I meant. Contrary to what you might believe, women will not always choose George Bush (Ewww!) over a ordinary decent man they can call their own. The powerful might be able to "get laid as much as they want," but they can't have most of the women they want. I promise you.
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:4, Insightful)
In the end I should remark that I do not endorse exposing children to sexual acts or nudity in the media, I would just support stricter control of violence.
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....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Porn is full of horny women who want nothing more then to have sex with you and who enjoy it immensely during the process.
You may think that's ugly but it's simply the thing males want because they don't have it. If your wife/girlfriend/randomgirl desparately wanted you and enjoyed sex with you immensely then you probably would not be watching so much porn.
It does suck, it does. (Score:5, Insightful)
I get sort of conflicted about throwing kids and teenagers out of the porn section. I really don't want them down there, not because I think sex is dirty or bad, but because I don't want them to think that that's what sex is about. The stuff on our boxes is sex in the basest, sometimes most brutal terms - naked women spreading their relevant orifices and making that Porn Face. Unless you're talking about the Max Hardcore series, which involves women with "SLUT" and "WHORE" written across their foreheads in lipstick. And besides - do we really need to raise another generation of men who can't deal with pubic hair?
So I don't feel bad about getting them out of there, except that I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm a woman while I'm doing it. I worry that I'm either setting up or reinforcing the idea that there are fun, bad women who like sex and good, boring women who restrict access to sex.
I always want to debrief them. "Hey, guys, it's cool that you're curious, but this isn't the way to find out. Porn is fine, but it's not real sex. Real sex is great, and even good girls love it, but it has to be a two-way street..." But I always just end up with "Sorry, guys - come back when you're 21." Perhaps I should write a children's book. Porn Is Healthy and Fine, but Only as a Temporary Physical Release.
It's true. Most of it is just incompetent, but some of it is actively... repulsive. Well, to me at least. The "Bangbus" stuff that was so, so popular on the campus network just left me kinda icked out. Where's the fun in degrading someone like that?
Now, compare that with Buttman: The Fashionistas, in which everyone's having a grand old time beating the heck out of each other. Because the participants wear wackier clothing and hit each other, it's supposedly more perverse... but I find it a lot more wholesome than "Bangbus" or anything in a similar mold.
'Course, given that I get all my porn from the internet, or make it myself, I probably don't have a representative sample.
Perhaps I'm missing something. Is there something terribly alluring about bullying women? It's like being in high school again.
I'd like to hear uplifting and affirming stories about good porn, if anyone has 'em.
--grendel drago
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
The common problem is unrealism. Depictions of either can be good (in moderation) when they are realistic, and both can be damaging when they are not.
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:5, Insightful)
BDSM is not killing, maiming, or torturing. A pro football game is closer to killing, maiming, and torturing than what goes on in most BDSM scenes.
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.
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!
Re:And in other Congressional news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme see here. Someone doesn't like XYZ, so we'll make it illegal, thus driving it onto the black market, where the cost will rise by a factor of 100 and quality control will drop to null, and trade in the product will fall entirely into the domain of criminals. And when all that's done, and we're arresting 800,000 people a year for being caught holding a plant, then we'll pat ourselves on the back on what a kindly service we're doing making these expensive, dangerous, criminal drugs illegal. Do you really think heroin is illegal because it's expensive, or is it perhaps the other way around? May I remind you that hemp and marijuana at one time could be found growing in road-side ditches along half of all US roads? it's not called 'weed' for nothing.
Have you ever read some of the claims early proponents of prohibition made about drugs? They are farcical beyond the limits of credulity. The sort of things that only someone who was out to ban a product no matter what the reality would say. In fact, it sounds a lot like the outrageous claims the Kansas senator is spouting. How wonderful, Ashcroft kicks off the War on Copying, followed closely by the War on Porn. Give these guys a few more years, I'm sure they'll work their way through the entire dictionary of things to declare war on.
porn better than crack (Score:5, Funny)
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Funny)
Re:porn better than crack (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:porn better than crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Though it takes two to tango, and normally one or the other probably objects to porn.
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).
And in related news... (Score:3, Funny)
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
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
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had more problems with books doing this to me, let alone Civ III.
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.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, this doesn't make homosexuality "wrong"... it's merely one part of the vast human condition that we must deal with every day.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two examples that are nearly canonical now:
1) People of African descent have a significantly higher risk of sickle cell anemia. Clearly an evolutionary mistake, right? Wrong - the same gene provides significantly better protection against malaria. Some people die miserable deaths from SCA, but in evolutionary terms that's preferable to many more people dying miserable deaths from malaria.
2) There appears to be a high correlation between genius and mental illness, esp. bipolar illness. Some people think this is two different aspects of the same thing - eliminate bipolar illness and you'll eliminate genius. For all we know this is why homo sapiens sapiens has spread across the planet while all of our evolutionary forebears and cousins had limited ranges.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, pornography and masturbation go hand in hand.
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.
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.
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!
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:Sex ed causes brain damage (Score:5, Funny)
Attempt 1:
(Religious Right) "Sex is DIRTY! Y'all are a-goin to HELL and there ain't no blowjobs or vibrating whatchamacallits down there, nossir!"
(Everyone Else) "Shut the fuck up ya fuckin' puritans. We're getting laid over here."
(Religious Right) "Well I NEVER!"
(Everyone Else) "Yeah, we know -- probably never will, either. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
(Religious right grumbles for many years).
Attempt #2:
(Religious Right) "And, so, you can see that sex leads to all sorts of social breakdown, and pretty soon the country is goin' to HELL in a handbasket."
(Everyone Else) "Uh... Yeah, right. Whatever. Things look pretty okay to me, dude. Why doncha relax, like waaaay over there, where we can't hear you anymore."
(Religious Right) "But... But... Society... Hell... Handbasket..."
(Everyone Else) "Yeah, ok, I'm going to need you to go over there, alright? Mmm, yeah, that'd be great."
(Religious right is even more frustrated, and grumbles for years, until George Bush wins the election with their help. Now, they think, it's our chance!)
Attempt #3:
(Religious Right, in Congress surrounded by other religious wackos, whispering to each other) "Ok, gang, let's try the drug angle. Maybe they'll buy it."
(Religious Right) "And, so, sex is really a drug because you masturb... masturb... masturbate, and EROTOTOXINS are released into the brain! So, uh, porno isn't free speech, and we should lock down all this sex stuff.
(Congress, a few watts short of a bulb as usual) "OH MY GOODNESS!"
(Religious Right, delighted) "Yeah, you see? It's dangerous, it's like, um... CRACK! Yeah, crack, you touch yourself and you're HIGH! And we have to lock this down..."
(Congress talks among themselves for a minute, then returns) "Ah, if you don't mind our asking, does this mean you think, for example, sex with a pretty intern would be considered doing drugs?"
(Religious Right) "Yessiree, bob! Why, that's like shooting DOPE!"
(Congress) "I see, I think I get the picture. Well, you're right, something must be done! We're going to commission a study. Yessir, we're gonna study this thing until we get to the bottom of it, you betcha." (several congressmen giggle, one mutters "BOTTOM!" and falls off his chair).
(Religious Right) "Hang on a minute, here..."
(Congress) "Now, I know you're busy, these gentlemen will show you back to your car and we're going to get right to work studying this sex problem, we promise. In fact, I think we're going to be working overtime on it! Don't you worry your pretty little head about a thing."
(Religious Right, sputtering) "But wait! You don't understand!"
(Congress) "Good afternoon, dear. And, may I say that is a VERY flattering suit..."
What. The. Bloody. Gravy. Fuck. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reading this as, "when you get a hard-on, you lose all sense of right and wrong, and become a rampaging rapist".
Hasn't that, you know, not been in style since the eighteen fucking hundreds? Am I missing something here?
--grendel drago
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.
Re:Sex is not a drug. (Score:4, Insightful)
In my case, however
That's your privilege (and your partner's). It's a big world with room for lots of views. My reasoning is something like this:
Other people may disagree with any of those three steps, and they're quite welcome to dispute with me here, but first acknowledge that unlike the people in this "news" story, I'm not trying to ram my views down anyone's throat.
Most people probably can't aspire to the sort of physical qualities displayed in porn films. Nor do I think they should want to. But if this is all they see, if they don't become aware of the tremendous potential in the emotional side of sex, then maybe they'll always be less satisfied than they would be if they realized they can trump the porn stars every time with just a modicum of tenderness.
imho
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)
Not True! Internet Porn isn't addictive! (Score:3, Funny)
*CLICK* *CLICK*
anytime I....
*CLICK* *CLICK*
*CLICK* *CLICK*
Ok...maybe not...
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)
Re:What is wrong in being addictive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gah, what ever happened to personal responsibility in this country. Whenever there is a potential vice, it seems people scream for the government to get rid of the source, thus destroying the temptation I suppose. Geez, come one people, get a grip, if you don't want children doing drugs/sex/porn/whatever, be a PARENT! If my mother could raise 3 kids alone on about $35k/yr and have us all grow up to be college educated productive members of society, I fail to see how 2 parents with a combined income that stretches well into the 6 figures cannot do it.
Re:What is wrong in being addictive? (Score:4, 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?!
hurm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hurm (Score:4, Funny)
I'd say porn is about as addictive as television.
Yes, but it burns more calories. Also, regular sex can enhance your cognitive abilities. I can't remember where I read that last link though. Clearly it's time to go top up my cognitive abilities.
Duh! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
No way! (Score:3, Funny)
In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
We liked it better when people were stealing magazines instead of surfing the web for free.
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
Aww, the poor kittens! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
I'm glad they have their priorities straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox Is The Pipe (Score:4, Funny)
Ask Slashdot: Where Do You Get Your Porn? (Score:4, Funny)
"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."
Re:"Bus signs stopped me from fucking children" (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, incredible. Imagine a bus going by with a big sign on it saying "SEX WITH CHILDREN IS NOT OK".
But really, how is this any more absurd than those urinal cakes that have "SAY NO TO DRUGS" on them?
I once heard a comedian ask if a junkie has ever been standing at a urinal, seen the "SAY NO TO DRUGS" printed on the urinal cake, and had an epiphany right there while pissing.
Maybe they could try "SEX WITH CHILDREN IS NOT OK" on the urinal cakes first, to see if it works, before ramping up to buses.
I'd like a stack of urinal cakes that say "OFFSHORING TECH JOBS IS NOT OK". I'd hit all the mens rooms in my company's corporate headquarters. Because you'll certainly never see a bus go by that says "OFFSHORING TECH JOBS IS NOT OK". You'll see "SEX WITH BUSES IS NOT OK" first.
I'm in my thirties, but there are enough moralizing idiots in the world to keep me feeling like a jaded teenager for the rest of my life.
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)
The more I read Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
..the more I feel that I should run for an elected office and make my way up to the Senate. I'm absolutely serious. It is obvious on many fronts that our current crop of representatives have no fuckin' idea what the people want. That is what they are there for, right? To represent us?
Whether it is technological issues, societal issues, foreign policy.. Politicians seem to think that they know what's best.
Where are the blogs from Senators and other elected officials? Why do they feel that they are using technology effectively when their official website is merely a brochure for themselves maintained by some lackey, some summer "work for free" intern? Seriously.. America, especially the 18-30-something demographic seems to get ignored somewhat. It's bullshit.
Seriously (Score:4, Funny)
Knee-jerk reaction (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, imagine the desire to procreate being more powerful than a narcotic. I'm addicted to oxygen, too.
a reborn puritan State? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nanny nation (Score:4, Insightful)
Learning to live in society is like being pushed out of the birds nest, if you don't learn how to deal with a reasonable amount of issues early on then you are totally fucked for life. Go look at the Taliban or Saudi Arabia, their philosophy is light-years ahead of the Christian-right, cover all women and no-one will think about sex. It doesn't work and even worse is that when someone who has been pampered into this 'zero-porn' environment leaves they have major issues. Just imagine how a child would turn out if they were waited on hand and foot from birth, never allowed to so much as cross the road or plug something in on their own because it was too dangerous, imagine they had everything handled for them and everything in their life was sugar coated; would they be able to deal with the outside world? The opposite end of that scenario is if the kid had been allowed to do anything and go anywhere from birth, nature suggests that they would probably get hit by the first car they saw.
There's a balance - people should grow up in an environment as free as possible but with enough restrictions to keep them safe enough to live and not get trauma for life. There are some things that people have to deal with and learn from or else they are going to be weaklings, deal with porn, its not going to kill you.
Re:wnd why is this on /.? (Score:3, Insightful)
senators and congressman hold these kinds of hearings all the tme so they can tell their constituants that they are actually doing stuff.
Re:NARTH? Now I am sure they are unbiased. (Score:5, Funny)
heh, heh... Beavis, you just said "at hand"... heh, heh...
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)