Internet Porn More Addictive Than Crack, Senate Told

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?"

Comments

Re:Sex is not a drug.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that one of the psychiatrists on the panel is involved with theNational Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a controversial organization of psychiatrists and psychologists dedicated to demonstrating that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

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 These individuals are actually damaging psychodynamic theory by perpetuating an outdated--and dangerous--psychotherapeutic culture.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.

To Be Successful They Must Divorce Morality

[Landaras]

First, my background. I am an Evangelical Christian, as well as a future law student. I vote Republican more often than Democrat (not particularly liking either party), but am also a financial supporter of the EFF.

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

Until recently...

[Short Circuit]

...virtually everything I knew about sex I learned from the Internet.

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...

[coyote-san]

Are you talking about low-level depictions or over-the-top material? E.g., is the violence shoving and yelling or Rambo?

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....

One at a time....

[rsilvergun]

1. Most societies arranged marriges for profit and convience. Love never factored into it. It's only recent that the quaint notion of love had any force beyond poems and books.

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 /. prowling loser to every let it happen to me :).