Pr0n's Effect On Society

Rytis writes "An article at the Financial Times is analysing the growing impact of internet pornography, the phenomena itself and the problems that it causes to our society. Surveys within Great Britain have shown that more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online. From the article: 'To some men, Haynes argues, clicking on porn is simply a way to pass the time. It's a hobby. Once they'd idly play solitaire; now they idly click on a porn site. Others, though, succumb to addiction: Most addictions are to do with internal emptiness, wanting to fill up dead space, and addiction is always destructive.'"

Comments

Gender

[Shadow Wrought]

Surveys within Great Britain have shown that more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online.

I wonder what the split was along gender lines?

Re:Gender

[mooingyak]

When I read that, I just automatically assumed "half of 9-19 year old boys". Not that it says that, but it just didn't occur to me that they might have meant anything else until I read your comment. Amazing the effects that pr0n has on your cognitive process...

Re:Gender

[voice_of_all_reason]

Men trade love for sex
Women trade sex for love

Re:Gender

[drgonzo59]

There is a higher and higher rate of women who get addicted to teh online pr0n. At least there has been an increased number of them (proportionately to men and to previous years) who seek counseling.

This one lady, who's husband got into p0rn and which led eventually to divorce, wanted to check out and see what her ex husband saw in pr0n and sure enough, she also gets addicted to it, loses her job and eventually ends up in counseling. Arguably, pr0n is probably not the cause of her (and probably her husband's) problem but rather a symptom of some other deeper issues...

Re:Gender

[johansalk]

These surveys, or at least their such reporting, are horrendously bad and meaningless. 9-19? There's a big difference between someone who's 9 and someone who's 19. My reaction to someone who's 9 having access to porn is not the same as to someone who's 19. I mean, come on, have they not heard of stratified sampling?!

Re:Gender

[Anonymous Coward]

Where'd you read that? A crackerjack box?

Men want love too. And women love sex. In most of my experience women are hornier than men -- they just keep it a secret. I'm so sick of hearing dumb, tired ideas like yours.

Re:Gender

[TheCarp]

Yup...

Addictions arn't really about the object of the addiction so much as the personality of the person. Thats been my experience. Take myself as an example. I have noticed my own patterns...

Left to my own devices, I self regulate my addictive substances and whatnot. Sure I go through binges with coffee and pot, and even alcohol sometimes. (of course by binges I mean times of relativly heavy use, not like drinking to the point of alcohol poisoning or drinking for days on end)... but they are rare and I tend to use them just now and again.

Except, if I have an external driver. Work is an external driver for coffee, a little caffine buzz helps me focus and frankly I don't regulate my sleep well and suffer from sleep apnea so sometimes my sleep isn't as restful as it could be... coffee is a natural form of self medication.

for pot, its pothead friends. Its alot harder to come up with a reason to not smoke today, than it is to come up with reasons to not smoke on a daily basis. That "right now" to "every day" connection is a hard one, because one is a single decision, the other is the pattern of those decisions. I think thats one of the fundamental issues with all addictions. Moderation is hard and you have to actually pay attention to it.

however, if my main pothead friend goes away on vacation or we are otherwise separate for a coupld of weeks, my habbit goes way down, in fact, within two weeks I have just about stopped.

Alot of people don't do that. In fact, I have seen a friend who went from addiction to drugs and particularly pot, to replacing that complete lifestyle with religion... and boy did he replace it. Next thing you know... just like before when EVERYTHING was related to smoking weed, now EVERYTHING is related to loving jesus.

Im talking living with people in his church, getting a tattoo of jesus on a cross over his heart, declaring himself a born again virgin etc... total and complete.

I dunno, I agree addiction is generally a symptom of an underlying issue, some people just need something to fill part of their lives and when they find something, fill their lives with it, be it drugs, or religion, or games, or porn.

However its alot easier to say porn or drugs are the problem, than it is to tell a person how to fill in the emptiness in their lives... thats something a person has to find for themselves.

Honestly I think alot of it is that our society is one in which it is very easy to isolate yourself. Easy to interact and be around people all the time without ever really having meaningful relations with them. Easy to get cut out from any social scene.

Just look at craigslist, and the popularity of speed dating sites etc. Theres alot of people looking to fill a void in their lives. Hell I was recnetly bitching at a roomate of mine about how we never seem to do anything, theres no social scene anymore, we stopped throwing parties because the same old people show up, and frankly, as one put it....

"I think if you had told us that the people who show up now to our parties would be the only people left in a few years, (other roomate) and I would have given up years ago"

Another roomate asked his uncle "what did you do when you were our age?"... his reply... they went to bars every night. Funny, we were just complaining that all there is to do during the hours that we can all hang out together is go to bars, and maybe go bowling or play pool. (not counting things we can do in the house of course)

And people wonder why I smoke pot so much. Its like my ex boss told me once when we were having a random chat "I used to smoke pot, it started because I had nothing to do, then smoking pot just became something to do".... gee that sounded fammiliar.

-Steve

Re:Gender

[CrazedWalrus]

However its alot easier to say porn or drugs are the problem, than it is to tell a person how to fill in the emptiness in their lives... thats something a person has to find for themselves.

You know where I've always heard almost exactly as you've written here? In church. In fact, one Christian pop song has the stanza, "There's a God-shaped hole in all of us / And the restless soul is searching / There's a God-shaped hole in all of us / And it's a void only He can fill."

Every person has needs, wants, and desires that will always need filling. It's the very floorboards of economics. The question comes down to "How does one fill that hole in their soul?" Hopefully they'll do it constructively, but the destructive ones tend to be a lot more fun at first, ergo vastly more popular. By the time the negative effects come around, the person may be too far gone to realize it.

The real trick is to learn to understand that we're creatures of infinite desire, and to begin to think rationally about how to cope with that in a way that won't destroy us. Many major religions try to fill an infinite hole with an infinite God (at least the ones that profess a god or gods). The ones that don't profess (a) god(s) try to teach you how to suppress or channel your desire.

I know there's a general hostility toward religion here, but I submit to you that the idea and the effects of religion on the human psyche are generally positive, because they help people learn to channel humanity's biggest motivator to (usually) positive ends.

(And no fair bringing up the crazies. There are a few psychos in every crowd.)

Re:Gender

[spacecowboy420]

Wow, now there is a logical fallicy. There is a kernel of truth in EVERYTHING - even outright lies. I hope you don't accept points of view based on the fact they are repeated often.

Re:Gender

[TheCarp]

I agree completly.

Religion exists because it fills a need that people have. I am not a believer in any God and tend to turn to the more atheistic belief systems, almost comfortable calling myself some manner of buddhist these days.

Actually, I really think study of martial arts, even in just the few months that I have been back into it (I studied many years ago as a teenager for a year or so), has been very instructive at developing self discipline, which is another way of saying the same things, to my mind.

Learning to control the body, requires that you control your mind. Sure the actions are physical, however, you quickly learn that its also very much mental.

Getting into "T position", twisting your body, extending your arms straight out to the sides and trying to reach and extend them out... this is a physical position requiring muscle coordination to get into. However to hold that position for a count of 100 seconds.... that is very much mental.

When your muscles tire, when they start to shake uncontrollably, its not physical strength or agility that keeps you from falling over or raising up to a higher stance, its sheer force of will.

Of course, much like it is easier for a person in church to go through his parayers with a priest standing at the podium and leading him. Its much easier to find that mental focus when you have an instructor urging you on and encouraging you to overcome.

As he says "I know its hard to practice outside of class, when I started I didn't practice outside of class either, it takes a long time to develop the discipline". Its true... in class I can move and really work my body for 20, 30, even 60 minutes sometimes (often the warmup is 20-30 then 30 mins of self defense drills, but sometimes we go a full hour and a half with a long warmup and form practice)....

at home... I am lucky to get a 5 to 10 minute half assed workout in.

In class I can hold the aforementioned T position for 60 to 70 seconds and then switch to the other side and do it again. At home, I have fallen over after 20 to 30 seconds on one side.

I am getting better though. Who was it in Yellow Submarine that kept saying "its all in the head"?

-Steve

Re:Gender

[Eccles]

Women have porn; they're called romance novels.

Re:Gender

[soft_guy]

I assumed that it was half of all teenagers: 99.99% of the boys and 0.01% of the girls.

Re:Gender

[cayenne8]

"Men trade love for sex.....Women trade sex for love"

Women marry men to change them....

Men marry women hoping they'll never change...

Re:Gender

[HiThere]

I agree with everything EXCEPT your assertion that religion is, at least, harmless. Religion can be as destructive as any other addiction, perhaps worse. I have never heard of a junky who was willing to kill someone else because he preferred a different drug. It may have happened, but you KNOW it's got to be RARE!!, because if it were detected, every newspaper in the country would have carried it on the front page.

That said, I will agree that religion generally does nearly as much good as bad, on the average. Nearly, but not quite. And the error bars are pretty large. It may do a lot more harm on the average, depending on whether you believe that religious wars are usually power politics in disguise. I haven't counted them against religion, because I count them as power politics.

Re:Gender

[Matt Ownby]

I think that 'religion' exists because God revealed to some chosen servants (prophets) what the purpose of life was, and then told them to pass the information along to the masses.

I just read this entire article and I find it astounding. I never expected porn to actually cause a man to not be able to get aroused by his wife and to prefer to sit in front of a computer monitor masturbating to a women he doesn't know nor has any affection toward. No wonder God has said repeatedly to keep sexual passions bridled between a married man and woman. The consequences described in this article I've just read are absolutely astounding.. and I don't think most of the people who look at porn are prepared to accept those consequences.

This is so true

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn is an addition, a lot of people find the thought of that amusing, but it can have a very destructive effect on relationships, I used to have a problem with this my wife helped me get through it using the method of 'get over it or get over me', I struggled with it but I managed to survive it, I came out of it a better person, but for a long time I struggled with it, it is normal to look at porn but it is easy to become obsessed with it, this was a very very interesting article that I was able to relate to very easily.

Re:This is so true

[Guppy06]

"Porn is an addition (...) I used to have a problem"

Anecdotal evidence does not a proper study make.

Re:This is so true

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it has to do with the natual reaction with the arrival of Puritans who insist on impressing their values on the rest of us. If porn is a problem for 1% of its consumers, that makes it about ten times "safer" for society than gambling, driving, drinking, or sex itself. Yet the political leverage to be gained by demonizing it far outstrips the magnitude of the problem. That is what harms our society, not any hypothetical problems associated with porn itself (which are really problems associated with your marriage).

Re:This is so true

[Skreems]

For someone who "works with addicts" and "understands addiction", you seem woefully unaware that pornography and masturbation both provoke an endorphin response in the body, thus allowing them to be accurately described as causing physical addiction.

Re:This is so true

[hey!]

My Aunt Tillie always used anecdotal evidence. I doubt she ever cited a statistically valid study in her life, and she lived to be a hundred and five.

Re:This is so true

[Skreems]

Just because the opioid activators are naturally generated instead of introduced from an external source doesn't make it any less of a physical response. If you want to call it psychological because it's all internal interaction, fine, but that basically makes the distinction meaningless. If something's causing a chemical imbalance, whether it's physical or psychological, there ARE withdrawal effects, and dismissing them as "only psychological" is stupid.

Re:This is so true

[RLiegh]

>No, it has to do with the natual reaction with the arrival of Puritans who insist on impressing their values on the rest of us.

Someone needs to mod the parent post + insightful. I completely agree with his point, and I'd also like to mention that the strong reaction stems from the fact that many slashdot readers tend to be both intelligent, and critical thinkers; and we see a con for what it is.

The recovery industry is just that; an industry; from the time I jumped on the net 11 years ago I saw the 12 step freaks trying to turn recreational internet (and porn) usage into an "addiction" (which gives them a reason to ask you to hand over $$ to them for so-called "treatment").

It's sad that people are buying into this scam to any degree at all.

What is it that Ayn Rand had ellsworth tooey say in the fountainhead? That he wants everyone to be miserable because happy people have no use for him and his kind? It's exactly the same for the 12 step freaks. If you drink, then OMG UR AN ADDICT; if you do anything at all (that they can make money holding a seminar and selling books for), then OMG U R AN ADDICT.

Getting back to the original point; the reaction of slashdotters does not prove that the people putting forth this "porn addiction" scam are valid; quite the opposite, it proves that the lie is easy to see that everyone and their dog can point it out.

Re:This is so true

[spanommers]

And those anti-tobacco lobbyists are just the left arm of the tobacco recovery industry? Just because such an industry exists, doesn't mean the people against porn addiction are trying to make a quick buck. Believe it or not, some people have found that porn has realized negative effects in their lives. People who point out porn addiction are just trying to help people who already perceive inner demons.

Rationalization

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, let the Anonymous Coward posting begin!

WARNING! The following message contains adult material and may offend you if you belong to any religious group or if you agreed entirely with Monty Python's song "Every Sperm Is Sacred."

I once heard a psychology professor say that 90% of men surveyed anonymously admit to masturbating. The other 10% are lying.

You can either agree with that or deny it, I don't care. But I would like to point out that this behavior has its advantages for society. Yes, that's right, I said advantages.

Young men are reaching sexual maturity before they're reaching mental maturity. The fact that many of them grow up in highly populated areas doesn't help. Oftentimes young parents without the resources or attitude to raise a child give birth and this subsequently results (usually) in an imperfect forced marriage or a child whose parents are not married. In either case, much more stress is placed on the developing youngster than the child needs and this can often lead down the road to delinquency or misbehavior.

There are also sexually transmitted diseases to worry about in the world. You usually don't catch anything from your hand.

Pornography functions as an alternative to fornication. And I'm talking about regular good old fashion hetero or homosexual adult (above 18) porn. Hardcopies (magazines and videos) of pornography seems risky. You have to store them and purchase them--they leave a paper trail. But internet pornography is accessible and can often be acquired for free. It doesn't leave such an obvious trail back to the user.

Yes, it's unhealthy to pass up healthy relationships for internet pornography but for young men (and probably women) who are prematurely sexually active, it probably acts as a safe alternative to non-monogamous relationships.

These are in no way scientific conclusions but it seems logical that many men would choose internet pornography to fill the sexual needs anyone who has testicles often develops.

Sorry to sound like Dr. Ruth but that's my thoughts on the subject. It doesn't bother me or make me feel gross or creepy that men all around are probably using internet pornography. It's just a safety valve for most of them and a better solution than being promiscuous.

Re:Rationalization

[Brigadier]

Interesting argument. Though I agree to an extent I don't think your on the ball on this one. A recipercal effect though is that children exposed to pr0n will be exposed to sex much earlier and thus go looking for it. I know this sounds like some concervitive cop out but I do think there is some merrit. Let's say you have two kids one who grew up playing ball, hanging out with friends having crushes on girls. Then boy two who spends much of his time on the computer looking at pr0n and jerking off. Social development is paramout. Someone who spends much time looking at pr0n will develope a reclusive attitude and thus not have the same social development. I also believe that looking at pr0n does affect how you persieve the opposit sex. I say this all based on just being a teen myself and growing up, and having my own son. I'm a single dad, i'm not an idealist concervitive I'm just being honest. Sitting at home beeting it off to porn is not benificial in ones overall development.

Re:Rationalization

[Stradenko]

To paraphrase the parent:

Safe sex is in your hands.

Re:Rationalization

[eln]

A recipercal effect though is that children exposed to pr0n will be exposed to sex much earlier and thus go looking for it.

Oh come on, young boys go looking for sex as soon as they notice that girls make them feel all funny in the crotch.

I came of age prior to Internet porn really being available, and at the age of 13 I would have had sex with pretty much any woman that let me, and so would every other boy of that age.

The hormones go nuts, and the kids need some sort of outlet for that. Some have sex, some become aggressive, and some go through boxes of Kleenex in the bathroom. Which one of those is the more healthy solution?

Re:Rationalization

[tbcpp]

I agree here totally. The needed "safety valve" is a good way to expend energy, and be creative. When you keep busy that energy that is normally given to the sex drives is diverted elsewhere. Some say mastubation is better than outright sex. They may be right. But I say simply diverting that sexual energy and waiting to even think about sex until your married is better. I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life. That's almost impossible. But being a virgin until your wedding night is just as important. That is my goal, and I am working the other.

Re:Rationalization

[eln]

I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life.

Why would telling your wife that you're gay on your wedding night be the most wonderful thing you could do for her?

Because if you've gotten yourself all the way to marrying age without even lusting after a woman, you're either getting married at age 10 or you're a homosexual.

Re:Rationalization

[UserGoogol]

Why would telling your wife that you're gay on your wedding night be the most wonderful thing you could do for her?

Threesomes.

Re:Rationalization

[eyeye]

You reduce your chance of getting prostate problems by ejeculating regularly, so do it for your health.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3942
Its not good to keep stuff in, you need to regularly clear out those pipes, 5 times a week or more is good.

Or do you abstain for religious reasons in which case why trot out a series of repeated non religious sounding reasons.

Re:Rationalization

[rossifer]

But I say simply diverting that sexual energy and waiting to even think about sex until your married is better. I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life.

If true, then there's something seriously wrong with you. When you were an adolescent, something was literally not right in your head. That kind of an anouncement would freak out most/all of the women I know (including the one I'm about to marry). And since when was female virginity ever appealing to anything but uber-macho guys who are insecure about comparisons being made?* I want a woman who's comfortable with sex and who already has some idea what makes her feel good.

* To some extent, virginity provides some minimal assurance that the kids are yours, but that's minimal at best. In today's society you'd better have real reasons to trust your wife (including regularly pleasuring her) beyond just physical control.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Rationalization

[rhakka]

Interesting, I think the most wonderful thing you could give your wife on your wedding night is a few really good orgasms and a sex experience that lasts more than five seconds (not counting bra removal time).

Re:Rationalization

[DaveV1.0]

The only man who never lusted after a woman (or a man), was Jesus Christ.

Prove this statement. And before you refer to bible, remember the following:

• the bible also doesn't say that Jesus pissed or crapped. Are we then to assume that Jesus never did those things and we shouldn't either?
  
• the bible is not complete. Do a little research into how the New Testement was created.
  
• there are books not in the bible that refer to Jesus kissing Mary Magdelene.
  
• If god created all things, then god created sex as it is and god created porn.
  

Re:Rationalization

[rewinn]

> would you rather have a wife that had slept with a dozen men, or one who had never lain with a man in her life. Maybe you would rather have the former, but I'll take the latter.

1. Obviously you've never slept with a virgin. Sex, like everything else, gets better with practice.

2. As for STDs, virginity gaurantee nothing. Kids know many ways to remain a virgin while exercising their hormones; and in fact apparantly kids who take the vow of virginity appear to have similar or worse rates of disease & unintended preganancy, because they tend not to take precautions against disease while engaging in risky behavior. If you're concerned about your fiancee having disease, you should have him/her get tested.... and expect them to want you to get tested too.

3. If you are marrying for love, none of this should be an issue. If you're marrying because you have a fantasy about deflowering a virgin on your wedding night, well, o.k. but that's not the same as love.

Re:Rationalization

[Frazbin]

So instead of jerking off, just go to church REALLY REALLY HARD.

PRAISE JESUS! OHHH GOD!

I think there's enough misdirected sexual energy flying around. It's only an anecdotal observation, but has anyone else noticed that there's a direct coorelation between not having had an orgasm recently and thinking irrationally? Masturbation helps everybody keep a cool head in a sexually repressed society, think I.

  Another unqualified observation: familiarity with porn leads to eventual disenfrancisement with the current (crazy) sexual norms. Once you realize that it's all just fat, hairy, guys jerking off onto vapid blonde airheads, you start to think about what you want in a relationship with a little more discretion. Look at porn! Look at porn until you're bored with it, and then move on! People have got to experience in an intuitive way that pornography does not depict the kind of relationship they want. If they have to jerk off a couple of thousand times to figure that out, well, who cares? There are some studies that show frequent orgasms are good for the health (certainly can't hurt), and we now know it's not going to make you go blind-- so have at it!

Pornography is mostly trite, boring, and insulting-- but the way to communicate that message is not to say "don't look at it! It'll corrupt you!" The correct way to communicate that message (if there's any, and that's debatable) I think, is to say "Pornography is stupid, see?" and then you give examples. With pictures and videos.

Re:Rationalization

[smooth wombat]

The only man who never lusted after a woman (or a man), was Jesus Christ.

And you know this because. . . ?

Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.

But only if your mate is of the opposite sex, right?

God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.

And God supposedly gave us rules about the type of clothes women can wear but they don't seem to be following them. Unless you mean it's ok to pick and choose which rules to follow. For instance, how many folks still follow Deuteronomy 21: 18-21?

It's great that you want to wait until you're married to have sex. Have at it. Just stop this nonsense that somehow anyone else who doesn't do the same is condemned for eternity or is a sinner or whatever else you can come up with.

Re:Rationalization

[uradu]

Ah, the self-righteousness of youth. Don't worry, statistically speaking it is quite likely to go away, although if you continue down that particular religious path, somewhat less likely so.

> This is one reason why I have no pity for %90 of AIDS patients. [...]

Quite regardless of the true statistics involved, that's a very cynical and heartless attitute to take. Do you feel the same towards people with lung cancer or adult onset diabetes or obesity-related hypertension, or any one of a myriad other lifestyle-induced health problems? What's so special about sex that its health consequences must be categorized separately and hated in a very special way? If this particular (lack of) love for your fellow man was instilled by the Bible, perhaps you're reading it wrong, or else it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Using the Bible as a basis for sexual ethics and morality is problematic anyway. While most of its advice is commendable, there are a couple of references to homosexuality as an abomination. With the ever growing scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a personal choice (and I mean this strictly from the perspective of outsiders, because those involved certainly have always known that), it puts God at odds with his creation: how can he allow some people to be born in a way that he quite clearly disapproves of and which they can't help? He might as well be racist and vilify black people for all they can do about it.

Now, while some people take this paradox as proof that homosexuals are not born that way and that it is instead a personal choice, others take it as more proof of the fallibility and human origin of the Bible. Of course I'm not expecting to convince you or anyone else one way or the other in this respect, but in the end facts are facts, and the way you wish to view the world doesn't make it any more or less so.

Re:Rationalization

[sgant]

As for your comments of Jesus kissing Mary, those are not in Scripture, but are Satan's corruptions of scripture.

Interesting...though wrong. They are "scripture"...just conveniently edited out scripture. But I suppose a good argument could be made contrary to this.

Assumption time here. I know, I shouldn't assume. But my guess here is that since you quoted from the KJV of the bible, you're one that believes in it's purity and thinks that the later translations (NIV, NSV, NKJV) are works of Satan? Yes? Have you read the Apocrypha? That too was translated along with the King James version of 1611. Not too many people read those later books and gospels. Are they Satan's corruptions? If God oversaw the translation of the KJV (which many people believe including the Baptists), wouldn't He also have overseen the Apocrypha?

Just wondering....

Re:Rationalization

[Jeremi]

I hear reports all the time about how in Africa, many women are raped (some even by their own husbands, against their will) and contract AIDS through intercourse they didn't agree to.

Never mind rape, how about all the women who are faithful to their husband and end up contracting AIDS from him, because he's been having sex with prostitutes on the side?

Re:Rationalization

[ex-geek]

To be frank. This is one reason why I have no pity for %90 of AIDS patients.

This must then be an example of the love thy neighbour thing, christians keep talking about. Do you also feel no pity for victims of traffic accidents? Everybody knows after all that road users can die in traffic.

I think the most wonderful thing a man could offer a woman on their wedding night is the assurance that he has never lusted over another woman in his life.

No, the most beautiful thing a man can give to a women at any night, not just wedding night, is an orgasm. You, my friend, will fail horribly at this task. Your marriage will start with bad sex. Good look with that.

God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.

Your proof of that would be? (Meaning proof of god's existance, his interest in our specie's sexuality and his authorship of the bible)

Re:Rationalization

[pmike_bauer]

The same Spirit that was in Jesus of Nazareth inspired the writers of the Bible. As all Scripture is inspired in this manner, Jesus (the man in which God lived) did not have to say those things himself.

1 Peter 1
[10] Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
[11] Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

2 Tim 3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Re:Rationalization

[spacebird]

Actually, your "conveniently edited out scripture" is not scripture in any sense or any translation. They're part of the Coptics, if I recall (or perhaps the Pseudepigrapha), and as such have always been labeled as heresy by both Catholic and Protestant churches. Its only claim to being Gospel is that of the author, nothing more. And for the record, I am a Protestant, have read the Apocrypha more than most Catholics, and also read most of the Coptics as well.

Re:Rationalization

[spacebird]

• The Bible says he did NOT sin. It does not say he did NOT urinate. Your argument is invalid.
• The Bible is complete. The First Council of Nicea spent a great deal of time finalizing this. And if you bring up Luther, remember, his canonical changes did little to nothing to affect doctrine.
• here are books that say aliens were behind JFK's assassination. Your point?
• God created sex, man created porn. God created rules, man learned to break them. Sin is not a thing; it is the absence of rightness, much as darkness is the absence of light.

Re:Rationalization

[Qzukk]

Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.

You're assuming of course, that you are the "one mate" of your "one mate". How many of those people you have no pity for have only one mate? How many are the loyal wives (or husbands) of those who slept around behind their backs?

The other two would come to their house and beat him to a pulp. That's the way I see it. Porn hurts families.

More or less than beating brothers to a pulp? I have several married friends who are loyal to their mates, and watch porn (together) as a way of exploring new ideas sexually that they would not have thought of alone. I can certainly say that if they are being hurt, that being hurt is a favorable condition in their case. In other comments, there are those that claim that it hurts "future families" by teaching people who are not married "bad things" that detract from socially acceptable life. If this is true, we should start studying porn to see how it is capable of teaching kids these things when we can't even teach our kids history. Perhaps our classroom techniques need to be updated.

I don't think the government has a right to regulate porn.

Blanket statements like "porn hurts families" is why we end up with government in every corner of our lives. Everybody is in danger of something, therefore our government MUST do something about it.

Re:Rationalization

[__aamkky7574]

Yes I have lusted over many women, but it is a habbit that I have learned (by the grace of God) to overcome (at least to some extent). No, I'm not 9-10. I'm 21. I'm not gay. And even thinking about that makes me want to hurrl, and haven't had a thing to eat yet to day.

Hmm. You do know that most homophobes with violent physical reactions to even thoughts of homosexuality have been shown to react to same-sex images? On top of that, you don't have much interest in lusting after women.

I'm not saying you're necessarily gay; just perhaps extremely screwed up.

P.

Re:Rationalization

[Citizen of Earth]

the bible also doesn't say that Jesus pissed or crapped. Are we then to assume that Jesus never did those things and we shouldn't either?

Well, I have no trouble believing that religious people never crap. In fact, this theory explains quite a lot.

the bible is not complete. Do a little research into how the New Testement was created.

Hey, I can assure you first-hand that committees are infallible. And this particular one even had a majority vote that Jesus was divine. You can't beat the majority vote of a committee of indoctrinated cult members!

Re:Rationalization

[joeyspqr]

For instance, how many folks still follow Deuteronomy 21: 18-21

the relevant bible passage

not enough, I'm sure

Re:Rationalization

[teal_]

I'm not religious nor do I believe in any kind of organized religion whereby God has written books and what not, but please allow me to come to the defense of reasonable everyday Christians.

Technically, everything in the Old Testament is null and void after Jesus Christ's sacrifice. It's like how before Christ, you had to sacrifice animals to wash sins away and what not. With Christ having made "the ultimate" sac, you can ride on that if you just say "I'm with him", so when you get to the pearly gates and God says "Dude, what's all this junk you did? You think you're good enough to get in here? Are you nuts? Didn't you read the rules?" then Jesus is supposed to intervene on your behalf and say "It's ok dad, he's with me" and then He lets you in. Of course it's not enough to just say that you're with Jesus, you actually have to believe it and do your best to follow the rules, which no human could ever really achieve, it's impossible, but Christ makes it possible to get in in spite of our shortcomings, because he did follow all the rules, he was perfect but he sacrificed himself to save all of us.

Yes, I went through a "phase", but then I decided that I was much happier with pr0n and Star Wars toys. Although I don't believe in all this stuff literally, nor do I abide by it, it does have some influence on my behaviour toward other people, the Bible does have some very good advice for living in it. Believe in Him or not, Jesus was a pretty righteous dude :) Not a bad role-model for sure. It's a pretty admirable faith as long as you don't use it to channel your fear and your hate (the dark side) :)

Re:Rationalization

[10101001 10101001]

It's great that you want to wait until you're married to have sex. Have at it. Just stop this nonsense that somehow anyone else who doesn't do the same is condemned for eternity or is a sinner or whatever else you can come up with.

Why? Are you worried he/she's right? Personally, I welcome people condemning people for eternity. So long as they're merely condemning people, they're following those rules about now getting involved in non-Christian courts. So that means they're not lobbying state or federal governments to push their agenda on others with force. They can say whatever words they like, condemn people all they like, and urge others to socially pressure people to not do things. And me and others like me will do the same and condemn them for all those ludicrous things they themselves admit to not follow yet cannot give any firm basis to stop following (arbitrarily using two condtradictory statements and then waving one's hands to clarify what the "good book" really means doesn't count as a firm basis). So, while they picket the couple's home because they didn't wait for marriage to have sex, I'll picket the picketers for creating signs (I'm sure they're in heaven, and hence such is a violation of the 2nd commandment) and using the lord's name in vain (I'd assume our omnipotent God already knows and doesn't need to be encouraged on what to do, nor does he need people explaining the punishment He will set out; really, speaking for God in any way is pretty well using his name in vain, just as it would be if one spoke for someone else on Earth).

Aside from that wayward rant, my point is that I'm perfectly happy to have the discussion and the ridicule and the societal pressure. Those things can almost always be worked through, given time. It's the government pressure that invariable is inflexible, used by society at its leisure to oppress selectively those it dislikes, and reaches into bedrooms and bathrooms and all other sorts of rooms to dictate things, the ethical system of any person or group, which the government not only has no business but surely should have no means to assess or enforce. Now how to resolve disputes properly is beyond me, really, but codefied law for abridging the freedoms of others at least seems to be a base compropmise. Sadly, few people (you included, it seems) seem to recognize that it's not a freedom to not be offended. It's just a shame more people don't take their own advice and "Suck it up".

Re:Rationalization

[utlemming]

Sure it may stop one from fornicating, but it does a whole lot of other things worse than that. I would argue IF it does prevent sex, that create issues that will have to be dealt with later, and may compromise the ability for a healthy, balanced, sex life later.

If you read the article it shows that some women have a huge problem when men look at porn. Call it whatever you may. I hate to say anything for the fear that someone won't understand what I want to say. But I'll give it a shot and hope that someone who is married or in a committed relationship will back me up.

There is a lot more to sex than just the physical act. There is the emotional connection that takes place. If porn alters that which is normal and acceptable than, yes, porn is bad. If it places physical demands on of the partners that he or she is unconfortable with, then yes, porn is bad. If porn removes the emotional connection from a couple, then yes porn is bad. The probelm with porn is that the actors are not in committed relationships, but are fake and are acting out the physical acts. So they do things that people want to act out in real life, which one partner may not be comfortable with, and one that one partner may feel is degrading. As a result sex no longer is fulfilling emotionaly, and maybe not physically, while the other party is satisfied physically. Do you see the problem?

So justifying porn for the sole reason that it keeps people from engaging in sex earlier is not all that great. Sure, teen pregnancies might go down. STD's may be lower, but there is no indication that it is the case. When that young man that has been looking at porn since he was 11 or 12 gets to his first sexual relationship and finds that real life sex is not like the porn, and that all woman don't want to have oral or anal sex or other things seen on porn, he is going to have issues. And what of the emotional state of the woman when she sees that her guy won't accept her because she won't have anal sex with him? The language of porn is not even real. But when porn uses degrading comments like "Bitch" or whatever porn says and an unexperienced man uses that, the boy will have real issues.

Re:Rationalization

[BillyBlaze]

I'm not a religious person, but I have faith in humanity, the general intelligence and goodness of the human species. However, statements as illogical as 'this book is true because it says so,' written by someone who presumably honestly believes that argument, shakes my faith utterly.

Like playing solitaire?

[clevershark]

Heck, looking at pr0n is "playing solitaire", if you know what I mean...

Re:Like playing solitaire?

[neersign]

wanting to fill up dead space

and that dead space is usually a tissue

Only half...

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Surveys within Great Britain have shown that more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online.

And the other half lied.

But seriously, what's with the title, "pr0n"? How old are we here? Call it porn, or don't talk about it at all.

Once they'd idly play solitaire; now they idly click on a porn site.

And for others, its just the reverse, porn has lost its luster for me, I play solitaire heavily now. Don't get me wrong, I still look at porn, but sometimes its just so boring.

Re:Only half...

[HTL2001]

"But seriously, what's with the title, "pr0n"? How old are we here? Call it porn, or don't talk about it at all."

http://bash.org/?627168
<Cobra> so i was watching a pr0n
<Thunder> wait
<Thunder> why u guys always say pr0n instead of porn ??
Thunder has been kicked by Guardian (No porn on this channel !)
<Cobra> ...
<Cobra> so i was watching a pr0n

Addiction Is Not Destructive!

[Dante Shamest]

Most addictions are to do with internal emptiness, wanting to fill up dead space, and addiction is always destructive.'"

Porn not bad. I can good still type.

Re:Addiction Is Not Destructive!

[DaveM753]

You should try your other hand: it'll feel like someone else is typing.

Sure, try to tell your boss they're the same...

[Flounder]

Once they'd idly play solitaire; now they idly click on a porn site.

But until you can look at porn while sitting on hold for tech support at work, it's just not the same.

Re:porn is the shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in Germany.

Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

The sole genetic purpose for our existence is breeding. We think about sex. A lot. We always have. We always will. There has always been porn. There always will be porn. From cave painting to 3d holographic renderings, we will reflect the human condition. Stop denying our nature and making it a bigger deal than it is. I remember first finding my dad's Swedish erotica on 8mm film. Future generations will survive whatever new technology brings and the worriers will have something new to fret over in their do-nothing do-gooder lives.

Re:Come on

[zulux]

Cool, from being rational beings capable of creating works of Art like the David or Mona Lisa, we're downgraded to sex-hungry animals. Keep it going, Mr. Darwin.

Darwin's theory postulates that fitness and not nobleness leads to evolution.

That crack-whore welfare mama with 18 children is more fit evolutionary wise than the lonly artist who creats beautifull paintings but kills himself due to depression before breeding.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[big dumb dog]

Internet pornography can be annoying, but it has served as a money making industry that has, at least in part, helped pay for network infrastructure.

Not a problem

[ranton]

I do not see how seeing pornography is a problem at all for our youth. While 9 may be a little too young, I definetly do not see the problem with 11 or 12 year olds viewing it.

We allow our children to see violent imagery everywhere, from our games to the news. But we are so violently against sexual imagery. I know that as a child I was much more curious about girls and sex before I finally discovered both pornography and masturbation. I was able to be a functioning male teenager because I did not need to be overly preocupied with sex.

Would you rather more children start having sex at the age of 12? Or would you rather them find some pornographic pictures online and spend some "quality" time alone in their bedroom once every few nights? Humans are wired to start having sex long before 18, so we either give them an outlet or start having alot more teen pregnancies.

--

Significant change

[kongjie]

In the past--the seventies and eighties--there was a lot of debate about porn, especially in the advent of increased attention on women's rights.

However, now we have a completely different context. The prevalence of porn is amazing and so is its accessibility.

It is becoming very clear that teenagers are conducting themselves (sexually) in a very different way from their parents or even probably older siblings. The recent case of the (Georgia?) teen who was convicted of a sex crime that was videotaped is a good example of this. I'm not debating about whether or not he committed a crime--I'm just discussing it in the context of the video.

In the seventies we had makeout parties, sure, but it was really rare to have people taking their clothes off and having sex in the open, orgy-style; it obviously was even more rare to take photos or film it, since the technology to view those photos or films without them being developed outside the home was absent.

Re:Significant change

[Gulthek]

In the seventies we had makeout parties, sure, but it was really rare to have people taking their clothes off and having sex in the open, orgy-style; it obviously was even more rare to take photos or film it, since the technology to view those photos or films without them being developed outside the home was absent.

It still is rare. It's just that the rare exceptions can be publicly disseminated very easily via the Internet.

It's a popular modern quirk to consider ones time so unique and so different from any other time, but the reality is that people are people and we haven't really changed.

Try looking up how long it was after the invention of motion pictures before the first pr0n video was created. I bet you'll be surprised. I'd look it up for you (it's a little tricky to track because most film histories try to ignore the baser applications of the technology) but I'm at work. There are several excellent books on the subject though.

Re:Significant change

[Citizen of Earth]

It's a popular modern quirk to consider ones time so unique and so different from any other time

That's not a modern quirk at all. To state this is to consider our time so unique and so different from any other time.

Because Porn is organized on the Web

[displague]

What else can you download, rent, or pay-per-minute as well as porn on the internet? Hotmovies.com, for example has over 35,000 movies to choose from. Why doesn't BlockBuster offer something like this? iTunes is a step in the right direction, but I still can't watch recent releases of the shows or movies I like.

Effect On Society

[tjw]

There is no doubt that internet pornography has a negative effect on Society. I witness it daily.

This message is for you fellow customers of AceDSL: Stop all the downloads. I'm trying to play ET and you're killing my ping. You're not the only one with addictions you know.

If we have any hope of salvaging our society you must redeem yourselves! Remember, the first path towards salvation is moderation, so start rate limiting.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[LiquidMind]

i'd even take it a step further than that...

the internet would not be where it is at today if it weren't for porn. I would bet money that if porn didn't exist, most people would still use dial-up connections as broadband would be too expensive or inaccessible.

the same goes the other way though...i would argue that the internet has driven the demand for porn.

If porn does harm society...

[ThinkFr33ly]

... it's only because our society's attitude toward sexuality is morbid and ridiculous.

The idea that seeing a naked human being, or even seeing people having sex, would somehow "harm" a person is completely silly.

Thanks to the abhorrent way our society has rejected natural sexuality by demonizing it and calling it "dirty" it kind of make sense that exposure to it would cause "harm".

Kind of the way our society puts a forbidden stigma around alcohol consumption for people under the age of 21.

In many countries wine and beer are a normal part of life and young people are exposed to it accordingly. You don't typically see alcoholism problems or alcohol abuse in general in these countries.

In the United States, it's taboo. And anything taboo is simply irresistible to young people. The end result is a pattern of excess and abuse.

Sex and sexuality are not bad things. Can there be bad consequences to uncontrolled sexuality? Sure. Same goes for uncontrolled lawn mowing, or uncontrolled hand washing. The point is that if our society didn't make it taboo, normal exposure to it wouldn't be "harmful".

Obviously there are exceptions. Exposing a 6 year old to scenes of graphic rape fantasies would probably be a bad idea. But exposing that same child to a naked form won't harm them at all.

Think about this. What existed first? Sexual thoughts, or porn? (To paraphrase Bill Hicks.) Porn exists because humans have sexual thoughts, not the other way around. R.I.P. Bill.

Re:If porn does harm society...

[Pedrito]

The idea that seeing a naked human being, or even seeing people having sex, would somehow "harm" a person is completely silly.

I completely agree. However, you clearly haven't seen any modern pornography. It's not just naked human beings. It's guys cumming on womens faces saying, "Take that bitch, want some more?" This kind of material can be very harmful to kids. It provides for a horrendous role model that some children adopt and it causes a number of problems in their ability to develop relationships with the opposite sex. It warps their ideas of love and sex.

No, it doesn't screw up every kid, and kids who have particularly good parents are certainly less prone to the effects, but there is no question that there is damage being done. There are simply too many studies showing it.

Don't get me wrong. I view my own share of porn. I don't have anything against porn, per se. But I don't want my kids seeing the kind of hard core stuff that's out there these days. Hell, I looked at playboys when I was a kid. I even saw a few porno movies as a kid. But it just isn't the same. The nature of what's considered mainstream material has changed the availability has definitely changed. You can try to deny there's a problem, but then that would simply show that you've done absolutely no research into the issue.

Re:If porn does harm society...

[ydrol]

I completely agree. However, you clearly haven't seen any modern pornography. It's not just naked human beings. It's guys cumming on womens faces saying, "Take that bitch, want some more?"

Not to mention this fascination with buggering women. What is that all about? When did vaginal sex go out of fashion? And see how kissing is frowned upon. Sometimes, if two "participants" are into each other, and kiss, you can almost feel the "director" tearing their hair out ...

Re:If porn does harm society...

[MajroMax]

completely agree. However, you clearly haven't seen any modern pornography. It's not just naked human beings. It's guys cumming on womens faces saying, "Take that bitch, want some more?" This kind of material can be very harmful to kids. It provides for a horrendous role model that some children adopt and it causes a number of problems in their ability to develop relationships with the opposite sex. It warps their ideas of love and sex.

This isn't a problem of porn per-se, it's a problem with porn's underground nature.

Currently, porn is in the middle of a "race to the bottom," from economic theory. The barrier to entry for making porn is almost nonexistant anymore (ditigal camera, computer, voila), so pornography is ironically one of the freest markets around -- at least on the Internet. In meatspace, though, pornography is still regulated and "hidden" -- witness strict zoning laws on everything from strip clubs to adult bookstores. With limited access in meatspace and the stigma still attached to actually getting caught with porn, there's no quality filtering of the sort done by nearly every middleman.

The upshot of the environment is that it's difficult for porn to compete on "quality" -- the Interweb thingy makes it comparatively easy to find porn from innumerable sources. Simultaneously, the sheer volume of what's available "for free" (with or without copyright violations attached) means that there's no incentive for the porn consumer to have "brand loyalty," so to speak.

Thus, porn has to compete on getting your attention now. This means that porn has to arouse (no pun intended) the strongest response in its viewers in the shortest time. The strongest human emotions are lust (check), fear, anger, and disgust. The latter three are what the "weird-shit" porn goes for -- and it does it reasonably well. (Porn mostly goes for "fear" in empathy, as in "girl gets 'raped'." Since true fear is generally incompatible with lustful feelings, my guess is that most people would respond with a degree of misogyny, rather than empathetic fear that the situation would normally evoke.)

Evocation of lust is pretty much peaked in porn, at least at the price porn has to be budgeted (that is, cheap). Any good writing that would lead to more complicated expressions is expensive, and also requires good acting and directing; these are all priced out by the market. I think that this is why we see so much anal sex in porn -- it's one of the last taboos.

The problem with young people viewing the "weird-shit" porn is exactly what the consensus opinion says it is -- youngsters are going to get their first exposure to sexuality in an environment that's actually designed to provoke feelings of anger, fear, and disgust. Without a healthy, open exposure to sexuality in broader society, kids will of course think that the "weird-shit" is what's normal... which doesn't bode well for their first few times at bat.

The answer to the problem of porn isn't to eliminate porn. The Internet isn't going back in the bottle, and porn's availability is probably here to stay. The answer is to deliberately introduce kids to healthy expressions of sexuality in an open way, so that they can see the weird shit in porn for what it really is, rather than interpret it as the "standard" expression of sexuality.

Modern sex-ed courses (at least in the States, where I grew up), do absolutely none of this. The basic anatomy lesson is worthless, and the STD treatment is about as effective as saying "here's the fun bits, but if you touch them your hands will fall off." Unfortunately, this is often the only "official" exposure to sex that most kids ever have, before they try it themselves for better or for worse.

To use a loose analogy, imagine if violence-as-expressed-in-modern-films (Terminator-esque) was the only expression of violence that kids ever saw, and then you hand them a machine gun on their 18th birthdays. Fortunately for the health of everyone in

Here we go again...

[the_humeister]

Just replace "pr0n" with "video games", "beer", "marijuana", etc. and you basically have the same story. It's what keeps politicians employed, and children safe supposedly.

Re:Here we go again...

[mopower70]

I say just ADD "video games", "beer", "marijuana" and you've got yourself one hell of a weekend.

Addictions...

[chill]

Just about ANYTHING can be addictive, so vilifying porn as addictive is just blowing so much smoke. I've seen studies that claim exercise, jogging, gambling, video games, food, sex, etc. are all "addicting".

The issue is people who are susceptible to addiction will get addicted on whatever happens to be available be it porn or Everquest or chocolate or cigarettes.

I see porn as less damaging than gambling as there is so much free porn available there really isn't any reason to blow large chunks of cash on it. It is also less problematic than cigarettes, alcohol or drugs.

As far as damaging relationships, I don't see it as any more damaging that ANY addicted obsession. If some guy spends 6-8 hours a day on the computer playing WoW, he certainly is going to have relationship problems.

  -Charles

Re:survey says...

[eln]

It's the age range. Sure, 50% of kids 9-19 have viewed Internet porn, but I bet close to 100% of kids that are, say, 14-19 have.

Seriously, I don't get what the big deal is. 9 may be a little young to view porn, but I'd rather catch my 15 year old masturbating to Internet porn than impregnating or being impregnated by someone else.

I'm wondering about porn mags.

[khasim]

So, 50% of the 9-19 year olds have seen online porn.

How many of those have also seen porn magazines?

How does that compare to previous years?

I had definately seen porn mags by the time I was 19. If the same percentage of the population have seen porn, does it matter if it's online or printed?

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure when I was 9 or 10 (late 70s) I saw Playboys, Penthouse, etc. I guess the question is ...is there a difference between seeing a female in Playboy in one of those mags and seeing what is on the net. One has a woman posing sexily and the other has her sticking her fist up some other chicks ass while a doneky rapes her.

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where'd you see that?

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[Tepshen]

Link?

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[cashman73]

So, 50% of the 9-19 year olds have seen online porn.

What do you think the percentage of slashdot users that have seen online p0rn is? 99%? 100%?

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[Chelloveck]

The fact this got modded funny tells me that yes, there has been an affect. If someone saw that in the 70s-80s, they would of puked.

Um, I'm pretty sure that the concept of the "donkey show" predates the Internet by quite a long time.

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[Guppy06]

My question: how many were looking for it when they found it? How many of those 9 year-olds who had seen porn (assuming that any of those 9 year-olds fall into the 50% mentioned) were looking for stuff on Pokemon or Cardcaptors?

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[TheCarp]

Thats not always true.

a) there are "hardcore" porn mags
b) there is plenty of "soft core" porn on the web

Shit in addition to playboy (which I found at about 9), around the time I was 12 I found a bootleg copy of a movie that was mostly normal sex with thin plot, but towards the end involved a man being tied up and anally raped with a corn cob by a couple of sadistic women.

It was just one scene, and a short one (it was more part of the flimsy excuse of a plot than a real attempt at some sort of BDSM scene). However, honestly, it had almost no effect on my or my view of human sexuality at all... it was so beyond the scope of experiences I could relate to, that it was just a curiosity.... and not even much of one.

I dunno, as our hormones start changing us and awakening those animal desires, I think its natural for us to be curious and porn definitly plays a role in that curiosity.

You would think porn would be more encouraged, afterall, don't we not want kids channelling their sexual energy into eachother? They have to do something with it. So they see some images and jerk off. Isn't that better than trying to convince suzy down the road to spread her legs?

Honestly I wonder how useful it even is to discuss. I mean, are there really people who think that it would even be possible to prevent kids from growing up without seeing porn?

I know its a natural instinct of parents to want to "protect" their children from all harm, imagined or otherwise. I just wish the breeders out there would be more willing to take a step back and ask themselves whether the dangers they see are even real.

Just because someone says its "for the children" doesn't mean that what they want to do is helpful, or even not harmful to those same children.

-Steve

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[caluml]

But is the problem though that as you seek out a certain type of pics on the net, you stumble across others of a slightly harder nature - do you think that it "upgrades" your craving to harder stuff?
I don't think it does, but I've heard that argument before.

Re:I'm wondering about porn mags.

[fbjon]

I think it might upgrade in a sense, it has for me sometimes. I think it just depends on your hormone levels. But it's not permanent for me either, right now I'm really, really bored by harder stuff, and I've actively sought out photographs, good softcore or erotica. By which I mean stuff made by real photographers, pictures that are beautiful on their own, with no real need for nudity even.

But maybe some people don't get numbed by the hardcore stuff, or their hormone leves just never descend to normality.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[Otis2222222]

From TFA:
more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online

...And the other half are lying.

Hypocrisy

[Expert Determination]

Most addictions are to do with internal emptiness

Sounds like a typical female sexual fantasy to me. Guys who masturbate are in need of a good woman to fill their lives yada, yada, yada. It's funny how women can get away with this kind of patronising crap. If a guy published a typical male fantasy in an article, like "lesbians are only lesbians because they haven't yet experienced a good shag", it would be considered offensive. But women can get away with it. In fact, that sums up the whole discussion about pornography: men want porn, women don't, but society judges porn to be bad because it is in fact women who determine the ethics of our society.

Re:Hypocrisy

[alyre]

You fail to recognise that almost all addiction springs from some sort of depression, self worth or external control issues. People don't tend to get addicted to things when they feel satisfied with life (not that there are many people that fit into this catagory.) To equate your lesbian stereotype with addiction filling a whole in ones life is ridiculous. The addiction comment wasn't directed at men, it was in reference to all people and is generaly considered a truism. Your lesbian stereotype is a concept some men came up with to comfort themselves. Your view on the matter leads me to believe you have some sexism issues to deal with.

Re:Hypocrisy

[tribentwrks]

... it is in fact women who determine the ethics of our society

So women decided that men who have a lot of sex are studs, and women who do are whores? And women created marriage in the first place with the line, "to love, honor, and obey" applying only to them and not their husbands. I'm sure that's also why women make less money doing the same job as men do, because they drive the ethics that dictate the wage scale. In short, I don't agree that women drive ethics in the good ol' U.S. of A. unless their religious right doctrine (created by men) tells them to speak out against porn. Any woman I know who actually has the strength to determine her own ethics actually likes, appreciates or at least respects porn.

and no, you guys can't have their e-mails.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

So women decided that men who have a lot of sex are studs, and women who do are whores?

Absolutely, because of supply and demand. If women can increase the demand on the male side while decreasing the competition on the female side, they can charge a higher price for companionship.

This is why so many women are adamently against porn, even though men typically have no trouble distinguishing between two-dimensional eye-candy and real women. If there is a substitute (no matter how unfulfilling) for their own affections, they can't charge monopoly prices.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Guppy06]

"So women decided that men who have a lot of sex are studs, and women who do are whores?"

Sounds reasonable to me. A man who has great success in having sex with many women is (obviously) popular with women but are generally despised by other men, who view them as competition. Similarly, a woman with similar success is competition to other women.

It can also be rooted in the typical sexual roles men and women are expected to take in modern society, where the men are expected to be active and the women passive and generally reistant to the man's advances. The stereotype is that a "stud" is particularly skilled at getting around a woman's guard while a "whore" is someone who simply doesn't say "no" as often as others.

In both instances, it seems women have the advantage ("I couldn't help myself, he was too much for me!" almost as if it bordered on rape) while men are chastised for either going after the "easy lay" or being the "pig" who successfully pursued so many women. The fault is always with the man.

Not that any of this means anything, since neither of us are historians/psycholoogists/anthropoligsts/whatever, but I don't see how you can dismiss the parent's assertion so easily.

But historians have pointed out that the general illegalization of prostitution and brothels in most states coincided (at least) with the advance of early feminism in the United States, culminating both with the Nineteenth and Eighteenth Amendments (prohibiting alcohol because drunk men were harmful to women).

"I'm sure that's also why women make less money doing the same job as men do, because they drive the ethics that dictate the wage scale."

"Ethics?" When has nepotism, advancing someone because they are "one of your own," ever been considered ethical? The poster only mentioned female domination of ethics, and it seems you're straining hard to attatch the label "ethics" to some straw men.

Addiction?

[drgonzo59]

In college I took Human Sexuality as a free elective during my senior year. The professor, as well as the author of the textbook we used, were very adamant about telling us that sexual addiction is not real. It is not scientific, it is used by those crazy conservative christians (aliteration pun intended...) to scare everyone and control them.

But somehow I don't believe him, I have heard of people who have ruined their marriage by becoming addicted to pr0n, some have been fired for looking at pr0n while at work. If that is not the behavior of an addict then I don't know what is. One definition of addiction states: "compulsion or overpowering urge to use a substance, regardless of potential or actual harm", most of the definitions imply that there has to be a substance involved, but in the case of pr0n the substances are the neurotransmitters in the brain.

In fact any activity that involves a powerfull release of certain neurotransmitters (serotonin, dopamin) into the pleasure centers of the brain can become "an addiction" -- it can be food, it can playing games, gambling etc.

My main beef with pornography...

[rehtonAesoohC]

... is that it reduces all parties involved to being nothing more than meat. Where is the person? I have a girlfriend who lives 3 states away, and I only get to see her every other weekend or so. We have been sexually active, and as such, it's more difficult when I can't see her as often as I'd like. Do I go looking up porn? Not at all... Heck, when I'm that randy and can't get it out of my system, I just call her up and talk dirty to her.

Anyway, my point is that people become sex objects when used in porn, and that's unavoidable really. You might as well be classifying them in the same genre as sex toys... When I start feeling desirous for the love of my life, it's because she's the love of my life, not because I've seen her naked.

Re:My main beef with pornography...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, my point is that people become sex objects when used in porn, and that's unavoidable really. You might as well be classifying them in the same genre as sex toys...

Just like music. When I watch a concert on TV, or listen to music, the musicians are just like music-objects, you might as well classify them as being instruments...The fact is that we commodify other humans all the time. The person on the phone at the call center, the checkoutout girl, the guy working at blockbuster. Are you telling me yuo have deep and meaningful relationships with these people? No? What's that, the only reason you interact with them at all is because they serve a purpose for you?

This is the stupidity of the porn-make-sex-object argument. Yes porn makes people sex objects, and music playing makes peoples music-objects, and fast food places make people food-providing-objects. That doesn't mean you forget that they are people with many other sides to them, it just means that right here right now, you want something and they are helping to provide it. You can still respect them, and be courteous to them, and kind and nice. Damn. I'm sick and tired of this "sex is a special case that is different to everything else", and "sex is inherently dirty/evil/sinful whatever."

You're kidding, right?

[anomaly]

There's much more to life and human relationships than sexual expression. Don't get me wrong - I love that aspect of my life, and would not want to become celibate again - but are you really advocating that we provide kids with access to porn as a part of their developmental processes?

The appeal to the violence argument is ridiculous, too. Don't *add* porn, *remove* the violence! If that means that your kids (and you) end up watching less (or no) TV, and skip almost every movie, can you argue that you have been harmed in some way?

What about investing that time in relating to each other, playing board games, having conversations, investing in hobbies where you build or create things, or enjoy things created or performed by others?

Porn is a trap - it feeds the pleasure centers of the brain, devalues the humanity of the person being used for that pleasure, and damages people's ability to relate to one another in a healthy way. Real relationships are not self-focused, but must have a significant component of other-focus or they don't survive.

Are you really advocating that we train our kids that it's all about *them*!?!?

Please tell me you're trolling!

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:You're kidding, right?

[drgonzo59]

Good point, there should be less violence. If we don't allow kids to see a couple have sex on the screen why are we allowing them to see people's brains blown out? Isn't the later a lot more dangerous and "evil" than normal, healthy and ordinary act of sex.

Last year or so ago I saw that March of The Penguins movie in the theatre. There was a family with a young daughter (probably 6 or 7) next to us. There is a point in the movie when they show a penguin "couple" have sex, the producers even made it look gentle and loving, were no explicit shots of the gentials or anything of that sort. Yet, one of parents grabbed the daughter and walked out with her during that scene. The child didn't understand why her parents are reacting in that angry way, to the little kid it probably seemed that something "wrong" was going on. Growing up like that, thinking that sex is evil and wrong, yet seeing the adults sneeker and make jokes about it, is probably really confusing.

I personally grew up in an Orthodox Christian family. Yet, my parents, especially my mom, were willing to talk and discuss about anything I wanted to know about girls, relationships, sex, babies etc. My parents bought appropriate books for my age that I could read if I felt like it was too embarassing for me to ask. The main point that I was taught and stuck with me for life is that sex is basically a good thing, it is pleasurable and it is to be enjoyed. It is not evil, it is not "un-natural" or anything like that. Of course because it is so enjoyable and it does produce powerfull emotions, it is subject to abuse, just like alcohol, food and other useful and enjoyable things.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

If that means that your kids (and you) end up watching less (or no) TV, and skip almost every movie, can you argue that you have been harmed in some way?

I have known people who were banned from watching most tv and movies growing up, and yes, I can argue that they've been harmed in some way. TV and film are a huge part of American culture, and many relationships develop due to a common language that stems from those cultural cues. Just read most of the comments on slashdot and you're bound to find at least one Simpsons or Futurama quote modded up in every article.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[c6gunner]

Porn is a trap - it feeds the pleasure centers of the brain, devalues the humanity of the person being used for that pleasure, and damages people's ability to relate to one another in a healthy way. Real relationships are not self-focused, but must have a significant component of other-focus or they don't survive.

Damn. I distinctly recall "devaluing the humanity" of multiple Victorias Secrets models when I was about 12. Wal-mart models too when I couldn't get a hold of anything better. Human beings are quite adaptable when it comes to most things. If you cut off access to pornography, we'll find another replacement for our fantasies. What's next, banning the modeling of swimsuits? Hell, might as well go the whole way and have women wear Burqas. Obviously every time I look at a woman wearing tight pants and a tiny shirt, I'm "devaluing her humanity", right? And by exposing herself that way, she's damaging my fragile little mind by teaching me to "relate to women in an unhealthy way". So fuck 'em; make them cover up from head to toe. I'm fairly certain that seing just the bridge of her nose won't make me lose control and start madly masturbating in the middle of a McDonalds.

Just watch out for an increase in homosexual relationships.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[pipegeek]

Porn is a trap - it feeds the pleasure centers of the brain, devalues the humanity of the person being used for that pleasure, and damages people's ability to relate to one another in a healthy way. Real relationships are not self-focused, but must have a significant component of other-focus or they don't survive.

I agree, and I speak from experience.

My parents got an internet connection when I was 13, and, in the eight years since, I have spent a frighteningly large percentage of my time looking at porn. From time to time, I'll swear it off for a week, a month, even a year...but, eventually, I always go back. When I do, everything important in my life suffers; my friendships, my schoolwork, my work as a TA, my health, etc. all take a second seat. In the end, I've wasted collectively, perhaps, two or three years out of my life.

This is not to say that porn itself is responsible for this behavior; as someone commented earlier, porn is just a particularly easy (if destructive) way of filling a gap that sensible folks learn to fill constructively. I alone am responsible for my behavior over the last several years, and the most frustrating thing about it is that it seems so pointless and ridiculous in retrospect. However, to a kid like I was---one to whom simple human interaction and empathy came late and only with much effort, and someone whose sexuality only began to resolve itself quite late (I'm gay)---pornography offered a welcome (though dangerous) release from the huge effort of social contact. It didn't matter that it inevitably left me feeling dead inside.

Now, it's a pattern I'm having a hell of a time unlearning; every time something unpleasant happens, my first response is porn, which only makes things worse. In fact, I almost dropped out of school because of it a few years ago. To me, at least, porn has been a trap, which has separated me from reality, and stunted my growth as a sexual and emotional being (I still have yet to be in a real relationship of any kind). I don't like myself, and that's sad, because I'm smart and talented and capable of better than this. On more than one occasion, I've taken out this frustration with myself on the people that I care about. I wish I hadn't.

I'm currently attempting for the umpteenth time to go cold turkey. It'll be interesting to see how long this lasts. While I recognize that this is my problem and nobody else's, I do wish that my folks had been more careful about policing my internet usage way back when. Yes, I should have known better, but I just wasn't ready to deal with internet porn when I first found it. There's a reason there's so much fuss about keeping kids away from porn, and the effect of porn on society in general. Pornography encourages a way of thinking which is almost entirely destructive.

Re:You cannot replace anything with nothing...

[An Onerous Coward]

Depending on your circumstances, a Jesus addiction can be more destructive to your life than a porn addiction.

Anyhow, most people who claim to have been addicted to porn strike me as excessively religious types. It seems that those who consider porn "forbidden fruit" get a bigger thrill out of it, have an impossible time talking to others about their activities, and therefore lose all perspective. In short, most people who are addicted are that way because of religion. Take away the religious injunctions against it, and you take away much of its power.

Translation: Porn is discretly available now

[netsavior]

Guess what with the advocation of Home video porn, viewership skyrocketed from when it was just Theaters. Society (mostly religion) has put shame into the past time of masterbation and other related activities, as more private ways begin to exist, more people are able to follow their nature and use pornography for its "god" given purpose, to keep society from killing each other in frustration.

Most of the "problems" generated by pornography are actually problems with society/religion. If it is a problem in your marriage, you aren't using it right, or you married the wrong woman/man.

In my opinion, in most cases when someone is saying someone is "addicted" to masterbation it is more like saying they are addicted to urinating. Masterbation is a way to equalize your DESIRE for sex with your OPPORTUNITY for it, often times in my life I have had a girlfriend and participated in regular intercourse, while still masterbating more than most people (it is called adolescence).

My parents even sent me to councling for a pornography addiction?!?! meanwhile I was leading a full life and consuming far less time with pronography than say video games, television, or eating. Society has created this problem of perception and now they are finding out that this "condition" effects most people... duh.

Most people yawn on a regular basis, I bet this is a widespread epidemic of degeneration.

Gadgetzan

[Dolly_Llama]

A world without pr0n?

What else am I supposed to do on the long flight from Ogrimmar and Gadgetzan?

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[CastrTroy]

And before the internet, 75% of 9-19 year olds have seen print/film pornography. It's not like porn didn't exist before the internet. Oh, and they messing up the results including the 18 and 19 year olds, who are legally allowed to look at porn.

Re:Heh

[rehtonAesoohC]

Haha, that makes me think of a Family Guy episode I saw where the usual group of guys is watching TV.

TV: "Next week on Deadwood." Camera pans to two cowboys looking at porno magazines...
Cowboy 1: "Anything yet?"
Cowboy 2: "Nope, nothin' yet."
TV: "Stay tuned!"

But, as Dr. Cox said on Scrubs...

[cparisi]

"I am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left, and it would be called 'bring back the porn'"

-Dr. Cox (Scrubs)

Women, porn and "women's porn"

[DaveV1.0]

FTA

I have mainly found pornography to be a male problem.

Yeah, uh huh. I am guessing the she has never headed down to the book store and checked out the "romance novel" section.

So-called romance novels are nothing more than porn for women. It has been in western culture for decades and it breeds unrealistic expectations of men in women.

Of course, no one has every really studied that because it is just words, not pictures. But, take a look at the story arc of just about every romance novel. Look at the characters. Examples:

• The "hero" is generally a bad boy who changes because of the love of a good woman.
  
• The "heroine" is almost always some woman in distress whom the "hero" saves.
  
• The "hero" seduces the "heroine" in a scene that if played out in real life would constitute date rape. (They are called bodice rippers for a reason)
  

"Porn for women" has been around as long and been more widely available than "porn for men", yet no one complains, does studies, or even talks about it. But, that is ok because porn for women isn't pictures, it is words. And, we all know that reading books and stories doesn't effect the thoughts and minds of people unless there are pictures, right?

The perfect trap

[Spy der Mann]

"To me, the most disturbing thing about the internet is that it has the perfect structure to promote dissatisfaction. You click on an image, it's not quite right. So you click on another, then another. It's completely open-ended. If you just keep looking there'll be that image that's just right. But the more you look, the less you get turned on by the stuff you did before. So, you have to search harder."

I wonder how many of the people in here agree. Would you like to see some of the "actresses" do this or that, and are dissatisfied because they don't exactly do as you'd like them to?

What about the other study?

[tribentwrks]

Has anyone ever done a study to see the problems that porn solves?

Keeps angry guys from ramming you with their car or knocking someone's head in, keeps marriages together because the guy can "cheat" with his computer instead of another woman, is good for the economy, etc. It obviously fills a need in our sexually repressed country, and I bet a lot more problems would be created than solved if porn were wiped out or too restricted.

No a more important question would be

[Sycraft-fu]

What if we ignore 18 and 19 year olds?

The reeks of a delibratly skewed statistic. I mean why would one pick that particular age range? Why would you include 18 and 19 year olds, who are adults in every country I'm aware of, with teens and children?

The reason is most likely that if you narrow the paramaters to 9-17 year olds, you find that the number who have viewed porn drops significantly. Of course the idea is to try and generate outrage "OMG t3h childrens are viewing t3h porn!!! Ban it!!!!!" This leaves the reader with the impression that "half of all children have viewed porn." However the reality might be something more along the lines of "10% of children 9-17 and more than 50% of 18-19 years olds have seen porn online."

How many children get access to pronography is a concern, at least when they do so without parental permission, though not one that we should mandidate filtering or something liek a .xxx domain for, however adults viewing it is none of our concern. It's their right, shut the fuck up about it. Thus to include young adults in with children is just not useful, and the only reason I can see is to try and bias a statistic that the researchers didn't like.

Re:No a more important question would be

[Anarke_Incarnate]

This isn't news. It is just going to another realm. This type of logical gerrymandering happens in other contexts all the time. In efforts to put constraints (read: ban) guns, they show how many "Children" are killed each year in gun related deaths. They include "Children" up to 20 or 21yrs old in many of these research examples.

They also do not reject samples of "Child" gang members who are shooting at each other, etc. I guess we need locks on all our computers so that kids cannot accidentally kill themselves by seeing a boobie.

Re:No a more important question would be

[ChristTrekker]

Reminds me of the statistics of gun violence among children. Interestingly, if you leave out the 15-19 year old "children", it drops to near zero. But stating the statistic raises the cry to "ban the guns, ban the guns!" when the problem is almost exclusively limited to teenage gangs.

Re:No a more important question would be

[bcattwoo]

The reeks of a delibratly skewed statistic. I mean why would one pick that particular age range? Why would you include 18 and 19 year olds, who are adults in every country I'm aware of, with teens and children?
The reason is most likely that if you narrow the paramaters to 9-17 year olds, you find that the number who have viewed porn drops significantly. Of course the idea is to try and generate outrage "OMG t3h childrens are viewing t3h porn!!! Ban it!!!!!" This leaves the reader with the impression that "half of all children have viewed porn." However the reality might be something more along the lines of "10% of children 9-17 and more than 50% of 18-19 years olds have seen porn online."

Ok. The study mentioned that 57 percent of "children" 9-19 had viewed porn online. If you assume that the age distribution was equal across the age range then assume that all the 18-19 year olds looked at porn, removing them from the study only drops the number who have looked at porn online to ~47 percent. That's still a pretty siginificant proportion. *disclaimer*disclaimer* I am not calling for govt involvement, but seeing such a number could be a wakeup call for some parents.

If you want to argue that kids have been looking at pornography for ages, I would say that what is available now on the internet is a far cry from the occasional Playboy I got a peek at as a kid. Most of what I seem to recall seeing was lone, naked women striking naughty poses. What you would do with said woman was left to the imagination. (I know there are more hard-core magazines, but Playboy was what was most likely found in the back of dad's closet)

A young person could get a rather twisted view of what sex is really like from looking at what's available today on the internet. Sure, crazy stuff goes on, but it's not like every sexual encounter involves fucking a woman (or more!) in the mouth, pussy, and ass finally coming on her face all the while maintaining the awkward positions necessary so the camera can see the action.

Re:No a more important question would be

[don_in_agoura]

I don't think the internet really makes as much distinuction between 18 and 19 yr olds as you think. I know the porn-nazi's out there will flip out and say we're corrupting our youth, but it's so easy to see porn and kids (guys) are sexually developing well before 18. Frankly I'm supprised that the percentages are so low. I personally saw porn on the internet at around the age of 12-13ish (that's 23-24 yrs ago)... back before the "internet" was a few BBS's. I was experimenting with masterbating in by the age of 10. I was not sexually abused, no one led me to my sexual exploration, and i think i turned out very healthy. I'm happily married with a kid on the way. The internet is a great way to explore your own personal sexuality wihtout getting taken advantage of by older more sexually mature people. Frankly I believe that the internet will completely change the way our society views sex and I really hope it's sooner rather than later. don

yeah, porn made the internet work for us all

[osoese]

Just remember the next time you download a video that it was probably the internet porn industry that has a big hand in making that technology available to the masses...

Without porn the internet would not be where it is today.

...but Al Gore might still take the credit for it.

sorry..., I had to throw that last part in there somewhere.

Necrophilia

[hoggoth]

> wanting to fill up dead space

Ok, now that's gross. I didn't know necrophilia was that big a problem.

And the bit about addiction

[einhverfr]

How would this be different if the addiction was to something else, like Dungeons and Dragons?

This need to be addicted is what needs to be addressed, not the object of the addiction (esp. when there is no physical addiction, like there is with, say, cocain)

Re:And the bit about addiction

[einhverfr]

The problem with something like cocaine, tobacco, or heroin is that you have physiological withdrawal. I don't doubt that sexual addiction alters brain chemistry (maybe role playing games do too), but I have never seen anything that suggests that any sort of physiological withdrawal occurs from the addiction. This is what I mean when I say that it is not like cocain.

The problem with cocaine, tobacco, and heroin is that they interfere with the brain's usual function and as a result the brain has to produce different ratios of neurotransmitters in order to function. Once the drug is removed, the brain goes all wacko because now its neurotransmitter balance is off and needs to be adjusted again. Until you can say that porn has this effect, I will not consider it a phyisical addiction. Even alcohol has this sort of effect (where you get DT's).

Re:And the bit about addiction

[James_Duncan8181]

Funnily enough, I wrote something about how I thought pr0n had affected me...principally by making me more sexually demanding. Link: http://jaduncan.net/how-pr0n-has-changed-me

Porn reduced sex crime in Denmark over 60%

[mschuyler]

A long time ago, in the early seventies, politicians in several countries were concerned enough about pornography to commission studies to see just what was going on. These studies were commissioned in the USA, UK, Canada, and Denmark. There may have been others. In 1972 the President's Commission on Pornography issued its report, now nearly impossible to obtain (lots of good pictures), detailing thirty studies of the effects of pornography. 29 studies showed no correlation between pornography and aberrant behaviors, i.e.: crime. The Commission therefore recommended that laws against pornography be abolished. Though the study was commissioned before his term of office, Nixon was President at the time, and he totally rejected the conclusions of the study. The same conclusions were reached by the studies in the UK, Canada and Denmark. Canada and the UK reacted similar to the US. Denmark did not. Instead, they took the study results at face value and de-criminlaized pornography.

Then an odd thing happened. Within a single year sex-related crimes in Denmark went DOWN over 60%! See: "The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: The Danish experience" Journal of Social Science, Vol 29:3 (1973), pp. 163-181. For a fuller accounting see "Porn Alley: Now at your local public library," by yours truly. Computers in Libraries, Vol 19:10, November-December, 1999, pp. 32-35. This may be available online.

There was a second commission on pornography in the US headed up by attorney general Meese. They had half the amount of money over ten years later, meant a few times, had some public meetings, went to some adult bookstores, and concluded that porn was bad. The history of this farscical commission is a real hoot to read. The commissioners in this case claimed exposure to pornography was damaging, but their year-long exposure to such somehow unaffected them. I wish I could cite the book that details this, but darned if I can find it. If only I had the software slashdot talked about a couple of days ago....

Now, if you have a moralistic issue about pornography, that is still valid, so all the folks who are posturing about porn treating women as objects and how unfair nature was to wire men and women differently, and how God doesn't like it, well, you just go for it. But if you're talking in scientific terms, the evidence would suggest that pornography does not create more crime, but it does create less crime. Nearly every study done suggests that is true and a whole country has proven it in real time. If you're going to assail the scientific evidence, you're going to have to do a lot more than just voice your opinion. That's not to say that a big political uproar cannot be made by rousing the ignorance and moral outrage of the populace, but the entire issue is based on nonsense.

Re:survey says...

[slashflood]

I'd rather catch my 15 year old masturbating to Internet porn than impregnating or being impregnated by someone else.

Your 15-year-old has a choice? Wow...

Re:survey says...

[eln]

We're a very progressive household.

The only problem with porn...

[DNAspark99]

...is that it's filling up 98% of my hard drive!!

and addiction?

[sterno]

Yeah it's not like any of this is new. What really irritates me is that while saying that addiction is about filling some internal emptiness they infer that easy access to pornography is a problem. No, the internal emptiness is the problem, and people will fill it with video games, porn, crack, sex or whatever else. People who are prone to addictive behavior are prone to addictive behavior regardless the source. There are things that are genuinely physically addictive like hard drugs, etc, but the only reason porn is even thrown in here is because it's seen as "naughty". If somebody was addicted to excercise for example, nobody would think twice about it because it's sociall acceptable. It's only because it's nekkid people that there's an article about it.

Re:and addiction?

[Compulsion]

A little something on Exercise Addiction
http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=10296&sid ebar=13&category=running

Re:and addiction?

[shawb]

There are things that are genuinely physically addictive like hard drugs

I wouldn't be so sure about even that one.

Re:and addiction?

[blighter]

If porn and excercise were equally beneficial I'd be able to juggle 18-wheelers...

Re:and addiction?

[geekyMD]

Read the whole Wiki. It states that the article wasn't published in Science or Nature, presumably because of resistance in the medical establishment. But that wasn't the problem, the real problem was how the study was preformed.

In practice morphine is always injected. Why?
1) Because it is metabolized in the liver and first pass pharmokinetics powerfully reduce its effects, so you'd need a ton to have any effect on pain.
2) Morphine inhibits intestinal motility. So if you were to drink a morphine solution it would all go straight to your gut and you might not poop for a week. Long standing constipation is a hallmark of someone on morphine.
3) Its freaking bitter. Most animals are conditioned not to eat/drink poisons by their tastebuds. If someone was to put morphine in water and hand it to an addict, they might drink it, but I can bet they might puke too.

So what does this Rat Park Survey tell us? That rats don't like to drink morphine. It can't really tell us anything more, because they didn't provide an adequate control. If they had given the rats in cages morphine to drink it would have shown something, but they didn't they just gave it to them IV.

Basic pharmacology people. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:and addiction?

[Chigliakus]

"So what does this Rat Park Survey tell us? That rats don't like to drink morphine. It can't really tell us anything more, because they didn't provide an adequate control. If they had given the rats in cages morphine to drink it would have shown something, but they didn't they just gave it to them IV."

Are you sure you read the Wikipedia article?

"In an experiment called "The Seduction", the researchers put 16 lab rats into Rat Park and kept 16 others in standard cages. Because plain morphine is bitter, and rats have a sweet tooth, the researchers gave both sets of rats morphine-laced water with sugar added, just a little at first, with the sweetness increasing each day. Both rats also had plain tap water to choose from. The caged rats took to the morphine instantly, even with virtually no sweetener. But no matter how sweet the morphine became, the rats in Rat Park resisted it. They would try it occasionally -- with the females trying it more often than the males -- but invariably they showed a preference for the plain water. By the end of the experiment, the caged rats had consumed 16 times more morphine than the Rat Park rats. It was, writes Alexander, "a statistically significant finding." [11]"

So why would they need to add sweetener to the caged rats solution of it was being given intraveniously? There IS something to see here, and the fact that it was supressed by respected journals IS news as well. I was amazed and fascinated by the article, I had always taken drug-induced addiction as a truism, which is apparently what 'they' want. I think this very obviously warrants further research.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[XenoRyet]

If only I had some insightful mod points for you.

I don't know if it's a news flash for the people doing the study, but 9-19 year old humans look at porn if they can. Raging hormones and curiosity regarding their newly found sexuality and all that. Frankly, I'd be a little concerned if a large percentage of that age bracket weren't trying to see some prOn of one form or another.

empty talk of emptiness

[jbbernar]

Most addictions are to do with internal emptiness, wanting to fill up dead space

This a Freudian canard. Addiction is a neurochemical phenomenon; that's not to say that some sort of therapy might not be helpful in repairing the damage caused by the addiction, but there is simply no evidence that "emptiness" is at the root of addiction.

Is there a market for family friendly pr0n?

[craenor]

By family friendly, I don't mean incest!! So just stop it.

Seriously though, some people have made good points about the graphic, degrading nature of porn today...Would there be a market then for explicit, hard core pornography, that was also instructional and did not promote degradation or extremism. It might also feature people who look real instead of people who obviously look like porn stars.

Just a thought...course, now that I say that, it's probably already out there.

Re:Define porn

[Opportunist]

By that definition, the average shoe ad is porn to someone who's a shoe fetishist.

There's a smoking fetish, so no more ads for tobacco.

There's an eating fetish, so probably no more selling of Beef Jerky (hey, isn't that a nudge-nudge reference to porn by itself, Beef, heh, you know, Jerky, heh, nudge-nudge...)

If you run down the fetish list, the TV is gonna be a very, very dull place.

ARGH!

[Tofflos]

350+ posts and no good links!?

Good Things About Porn

[KIDputer]

I am sure there are some beneficial aspects of porn. The author of this article seems to assume it is all negative or that the negatives outway the positives. And porn has never been scientifically proven to harm kids. In countries like the Netherlands where there are no age restrictions on porn they have lower crime rates and lower child abuse rates, so explain that. Lastly, opposition to porn is totally a religious issue and without merrit. Go ahead and cover your kids eyes at the monkey exibit at the zoo, they don't want to see you looking either.

Heh

[mmalove]

From the article:

The Washington Post reported that the online porn business was worth $2.5bn a year, compared with just $1.1bn for music downloads.

There is a 2.5 billion dollar industry for assisted masturbation.

I'd say the effect on society is more people getting off. That's less wound up lunatics out there killing people because lets face it, no matter how bad your day, would you ever even consider killing someone after an orgasm?

Pr0n = less violence. We could use a lot more really...

It's the level of porn online

[Tephyrnex]

Upon returning from a night out with my wife, I discovered that her younger brother (13 at the time) had been surfing porn on my computer. Now, I'm not uptight about such things, and to be honest if it were only boobs and butts, I very likely wouldn't have said a word about it. When I was a teenager, getting my hands on a Playboy or Penthouse was the most extreme porn that was readily available and they satisfied the basic curiosity of a young man. But, now with the InterWeb, it's straight to "Anal University" and "Hardcore, deep-throating grandmothers". There is absolutely zero escalation. It used to take years before a person became so desensitized that it took seeing a woman with her arm up a Donkey's ass to the elbow in order to get arroused. Now, with the internet, you can go straight from innocent and curious to downright filthy and jaded in 15 minutes.

The scary thing is that he was savvy enought to try to cover his tracks, but didn't do a very good job. Now, he has to suffer through the ask Mom for a password with every new website, slow as molasses, content protection filter that I installed on his computer...if only he would have stuck to boobs and butts, he would still be happily wanking away...but thats almost impossible online.

quit making excuses

[theStorminMormon]

I can only expect to get flamed for this comment, especially given my nickname, but I'm really sick and tired of how the Slashdot community (as any internet community would) almost universally reacts to any and all evidence that pornography might be *gasp* a bad thing with a combination of rationalization and equivication.

It's not that I actually disagree with some of the coutnerpoints that are made. Porn probably has had a significant impact on bringing us broadband. Some people have little or no problem with porn. But the general tone strikes me as annoying because it's obvious to me that the vast majority of you guys are not actually trying to discuss the issue: you're trying to excuse/justify your behavior in the face of overwhelming evidence that pornography - like smoking (as an example) is bad for people and bad for society. Or you're just dismissing a rather well-researched article because you don't like the conclusion.

The most obnoxious claim I hear is that "every male looks at porn". I'm sorry - but they all don't. I don't. I never have. I'm 24, I'm happily married, and I've just never looked. According to most of you (especially the ones that like porn the most, in my experience) this is because religion has warped my brain. Whatever - I'm hardly in a position to prove that I'm sane over the internet (and by definition I'm not 'normal' in this aspect of my behavior). I'm not the only one either. I have other friends (not all of them Mormon) who have similarly never looked at porn.

Look, if you think this is some "holier than thou" preach-fest, you're missing the point. My point is just this: knock it off with the "everybody does it" routine. Most people do. A lot don't. Whether or not 66% or 75% ot 95% or 99% of males look at porno should have nothing to do with 1 - whether it's a good thing or a bad thing 2 - whether you do it or don't.

Final point: not looking at porno doesn't mean you're not interested in sex. Nor is it a form of ascetism. There's a little something that makes us human: rational self control. Animals mate based on sheer biology. They eat based on sheer biology. Humans are biological creatures. We have the same essential urges. But what makes us human is the capacity not to bash in someone's skull when they really piss us off, not to eat to the point of becoming morbidly obese, and (in this case) not to go stare at pics/vids of porn whenever we feel sexual drives. Just because we don't fight everyone that pisses us off doesn't mean we don't feel anger. Just because we know how to control our weight/health doesn't mean we don't experience hunger or enjoy food. And just because we don't look at porno doesn't mean we don't have sexual urges and enjoy sex.

-stormin

Re:quit making excuses

[theStorminMormon]

Believe me, I know an attack on my religion when I see one! I don't consider this in any way to be an attack, and I'm not taking it personally at all.

The first thing I want to point out is that my chief aim is just to be a voice out there going "hey, not everyone watches porno, and some people think it's uncool". I figure that on any given issue you've got people who are decided one way or another, and people who haven't really made up their minds and might be receptive to either alternative. If there are any people out there who might question porno, I just want to be sure that along with the cacophany of voices going "porno made the internet!" and "porno makes people happy!" they can also hear a voice saying "porno is a bad thing". I want to influence people's individual choices - not institute any laws or regulations.

What this means is that I don't really have to come up with a generic definition of porno that applies to all people. If you have two people watching a movie and both of them are opposed to porn and it gets to a scene that is arousing to one and not to another it's perfectly valid - on an individual level - for one to get up and leave and the other to sit and watch. Everyone knows what stimulates them, individually, and so everyone is capable of deciding for themself what constitutes pornography. Because of my background and my culture and my history a topless shot would do it for me. I'm sure I have a low tolerance to porn, and so I avoid movies with any nudity in a sexual context. I'm not saying everyone else should follow the same standard. If some guy has grown up among nudists and the site of a couple of boobies just does literally nothing for him - then there are a lot of shows that I would not watch that he could.

But we can get carried away with the whole "individuality" thing. As Americans (I'm assuming you're American) our culture has its own (admittedly fluctuating and general) definition of modesty. We're accustomed, as a culture, to girls in form-fitting outfits. In general I'd say that's not necessarily pornographic.

But if the intent of the film is to accentuate actual sexual feelings (as opposed to cuteness, beauty, or sexiness that's culturally acceptable) then it's pornographic. If you have a couple in bed about to have sex and you fade out at the moment of the first kiss, or first glance, then I'd say the point was not to convey sexual feelings, itw as to say "guess what - they have sex now" because it's part of the story. The farther you take it, the more pornographic you are becoming.

And as a final note I can't emphasize enough that it's about intent - not content. You could have enough camera shots of quivering body parts, slowly gliding hands, etc. to make a movie more pornographic even if people keep their clothes on and the scene ends before they make it to the bed whereas a series of shots that are less intense could take a couple all the way into bed without conveying as much sexual load.

In the final analysis there's no way to quantify sexual intent. So I'm not going to be able to draw the line in the sand for you. But I think you can see that individually we all know exactly what is porno to us personally (just ask yourself why you're watching and you have your answer) whereas generally you just have to ask "what's the intent of this shot" and if the intent is to specifically arouse people then, in general, you have your answer.

Have I made this any more clear?

-stormin

Re:quit making excuses

[BigZaphod]

That all sounds very reasonable and it would be great if everyone could be so tolerant to the differences of others. Unfortunately that is most often not the case. Whenever pornography, video games, religion, smoking, etc. come up there's always a tendency to try to apply to all what works for one. If only more people could maintain the attitude that "what works for me may not work for you" we'd probably all be far better off and have a lot less mindless controversy. Humans just don't seem to be designed that way, though. There's always those who will take something to an extreme and try to convince everyone else that it's the only way to live. What's fascinating to me is that those with extremist views have just as hard a time understanding those without. It seems to me that things are balanced as they are for a reason - either by chance or by design - and we all have something to learn about ourselves and each other by exposure to the things we most object to or fear.

Re:quit making excuses

[theStorminMormon]

That all sounds very reasonable and it would be great if everyone could be so tolerant to the differences of others. Unfortunately that is most often not the case. Pretty much summed up human history there, didn't you? :-) Just because it has never worked in the past (the whole being tolerant and resonable of people thing) doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying however. One of the things that I'm a little proud of as far as my religion goes is that one of our core beliefs is religious freedom. Both as theology and from historical experience, we know how important it is to grant people to worship how, when, where and what they will.

we all have something to learn about ourselves and each other by exposure to the things we most object to or fear.

That's true to a point - but it can get carried away. Some things we object to are just plain objectionable. I know it's a bit cliche - but take Nazism. Extermination of an entire race is pretty muchjust plain bad - and I don't exposure to it is really necessary to make us better people (although awareness of it as history probably is).

I'mnot a moral relativist at all. I think some things are just plain wrong. Porno is one of those things. It's just that I realize that most people never think about morality or ethics long enough to realize that "thou shalt nots" are only there to try and teach a deeper lesson.

Take "don't lie". It's a nice rule as far as it goes, and in general the moral thing to do is to follow the rule. But there are plenty of times when the moral thing to do is lie. If, to use another cliched example, I was harboring a Jewish family and the Gestapo comes to my door and asks "are you harboring a Jewish family" I'm going to lie. Whether I say "of course I am, officer" as a joke to get them to go away or outright speak an untruth the principle is the same: I'm going to attempt to convey to this guy a perception about reality that I know is false. That's lying, and in this case it's the moral thing to do. This doesn't mean morality is relative, it just means it's not as simplistic as a list of rules somewhere.

Anyway... we're drifting out to sea on this one...

-stormin

There's porn on the Internet???

[anonymous_wombat]

Why didn't you guys tell me!

The internet is for PORN! video

[wwmedia]

the internet is for porn


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-568168227 5335461822&q=internet+for+porn&pl=true/
the above video is absolutely hillarious. check it out

Back In the Good Old Days

[aquatone282]

. . . you only needed access under your parents' bed to view Dad's pr0n.

Now you need to hack his password.

The internet is for pr0n

[pdtp]

"Just grab your dick and double click" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-444698155 4735098778

Front for other issues...

[RexRhino]

The idea isn't that everyone thinks porn is OK, it is that restricting porn, even if there is some "health issues" with it, entails a whole lot of stuff more than just "restricting porn".

What is porn? I heard some religious christian people claiming that sex ed materials for high school students was "Child Pornography" (after all, it included illustrations of sexual intercourse that were "presumably" between under age people). The Bare Naked Ladies (the lame rock band), were once banned from an outdoor public performance in Toronto because the name was "pornographic, and offensive and degrading to women". I have heard people who want to ban Gay Pride parades or celebrations, saying that a Gay Pride parade is lewd and a form of pornography. Clearly, people will totally stretch the definition of what is porn in order to have whatever they want banned to be banned.

But even assuming that we could 100% say, without any manipulation or mis-interpretation, what "porn" is, there is other problems.

How do we stop web porn?... well, we have all internet traffic monitored by the government, that is how. We licence web sites, and make sure only government apporved and licenced web sites are allowed on the internet. We give the ability for the government to track everything that a person does on the internet. There is a whole bunch of technical changes and a whole infrastructure that has to be created to "do something about porn". And the infrastructure, once in place, can be used for all sorts of police state tactics.

But my guess is there is no evidence that porn is harmfull. Much like Hillary Clinton wants the government to "investigate health issues with videogames", it is a way to circumvent constitutional protection by making it a "health issue". By determining certain types of expression to be "harmful", they can claim they are acting in a public health capacity and not implementing government censorship.

Re:What fucking garbage!!!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

You just made the point of the article. You're no longer stimulated by what once stimulated you - you need more extreme and different images to get off. Are you better off now because you're turned on by wrestling boots? How much time a day to you spend on these activities?

I pity you and your sad life, for yours is the definition of "empty". Your justifications, your defensiveness, your attack on those against online porn are pathetic. I write all this not as a "religious busybody" (because I'm not particularly religious) but as a human. You're obsessed, addicted, and you don't even know it. Or maybe you do and throw up excuses to justify it.

It's very different

[Gorimek]

How does that compare to previous years?

When I was a kid, you could get porn, but it was hard, expensive, and pretty embarrassing. I got hold of some, but it was rare.

These days you have to make an active effort to avoid porn, as it is beamed into your email box, shows up on your google serches and can pop up on any random web links you may encounter.

I think it's mainly a good thing, but don't imagine that things have not changed very much, kids!!

Logic-defying rhetoric is always destrutive

[JessGras]

Most addictions are to do with internal emptiness, wanting to fill up dead space, and addiction is always destructive.

I see this kind of "logic" all the time in casual and not-so-casual public rhetoric. The author cedes that addiction has an underlying cause, but then somehow uses the idea that addiction has an ugly underlying cause to reinforce the idea that we need to fight addiction itself... when it seems to me that the logical conclusion is we need to look closer at that underlying cause.

Addiction is not always (though usually) destructive; but internal emptiness is. Why does addiction get so much prominence when it's not the real issue? Why don't we focus on the idea that "half of 9-19 year olds feel empty inside?"

Gotta go... running late for therapy :)

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has also served as a proving ground for various technologies that no one else wanted to touch until they were proven. Streaming Video, pay for use access, web site security, various marketing techniques (yea i know...spam too).

One thing I always wondered was....
I'm sure online porn probably encourages people to commit sexual crimes, and i'm sure it probably prevents many by offering a outlet for fantasy. I wonder if any research has been done that might offer some insight into if the over all effect is negative or positive. Most studies only look at the negative aspects and not the positive ones.

I for one know that pr0n helped correct some of the stupid crap I had heard from friends when i was young.

Opiate? Or Psycho fodder?

[CrazedWalrus]

Make up your mind. You may find that instead of making sweeping generalizations about "religion", that it instead depends heavily on the individual.

How can the "opiate of the masses" create violent crazies? Maybe the violent crazies would have been violent crazies without the religious influence, and the religion simply provided a convenient banner to fly?

Similarly, maybe complacent people are complacent people, irrespective of religion.

In the general case, religion is a civilizing force (most push the "don't steal/kill/whatever" lines). In the general case, religion is a motivator, not an opiate (e.g. World Vision, Catholic schools in areas where there are no schools otherwise, church members helping each other in difficult situations, etc, etc.). Not to say that things don't get out of hand once in a while, but that's the exception, rather than the rule. And again, it's heavily influenced by the predisposition of the individual in question.

By the way - it was Karl Marx. Nice role model. He didn't say "Love thy neighbor" and "Pray for your enemies", though. That was some other guy...

They have it backwards

[NatteringNabob]

The problem isn't that there is too much porn on the internet, the problem is that modern society doesn't provide adequate opportunities for 'real' sex. Too much work, two wage earner couples, kids, pets, traffic, in laws, etc. - who has the time? Instead of wringing their hands about internet porn, researchers should be working to force companies to offer mid-afternoon sex break w/pay giving people a chance to slip of home for a quick one. Problem solved.

no merkin no problem

[moxley]

It is my belief that pron on the internet has made the "smooth look" fashionable...If you know what I mean. No complaints here...

Just FYI

[cagle_.25]

The "God-shaped hole" quote is from Pascal's Pensees.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[Homestar Breadmaker]

"I'm sure online porn probably encourages people to commit sexual crimes"

Yeah, and I'm sure spiderman encourages people to jump off buildings.

What consequences?

[caudley]

The consequences are staggering. In 2004, the American internet tracking service ComScore revealed that more than 70 per cent of men aged 18-34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month.

Oh no! Porn is available and the consequences are staggering, lots of people (ok, men) look at it.

I'm not saying that there isn't a negative impact on society, but how come these articles never get around to exploring what those consequences are. It makes men depressed? Sure it does, the media is constantly scolding you for doing something with staggering consequences.

Later on the article states:

But the effect of such exposure is almost impossible to quantify.

Thats probably why they didn't bother to try. Whatever they are, I'm sure they're staggering.

teens watching porn now will become better lovers

[Fedarkyn]

So more than 50% of the teenagers have seen porn? That's really good news!

Being familiar with porn and viewing the act of sex as a natural thing will enable them to do it better.

If you look at the past you will see that when talking about sex was a taboo, most of the women didn't even know what an orgasm was!!!

Let your kids see, talk and do it a lot, that's the best way to learn...

Loses her job?

[autopr0n]

How on earth can masturbation cause you to lose your job? I mean that's what were talking about here, masturbation with stimulous vs. masturbation without stimulous.

This 'addiction' stuff is nonsense.

Public Exposure: Crime. Public Porn Viewage?

[RexButler]

If a 30 year old male exposes himself in public, he is liable to get arrested.

If a 30 year old male shows pornography, even softcore, to a child, he is likewise
liable to get arrested.

If a 30 year old male is watching a gang rape (simulated or not) at a public/university
library in full view of the public, is he not equally guilty? After all, children could
be walking by. Even if a 29 year old female walks by, is she not being harassed?

Sure, the visual image is not directed at her, but the same could be said about a male
who has passively disrobed (for no apparent reason).

Sure, she can just 'not look at it' but, likewise, the same could be said if the male was exposed.

Sure, it's on a visual display device, and thus 'not real' but is sexual harassment no longer
sexual harassment if it is encoded electronically and THEN transmitted? What if the male was
viewing a digital version of HIMSELF? What about a picture of himself with an explicit
proclaimation to passers-by? How does this compare to the public viewing of the gang-rape?
Is this really worse/better for these passers-by? It must be acknowledged that monitors
-broadcast- visual information.

I would think the female would have a pretty good case, at least for sexual harassment.
Exposing in public someone to graphic XXX content, even unintentionally, should certainly
be viewed as worse than, say, parading around in a non-sexual but completely nude state.
VISUAL IMAGES are VISUAL IMAGES.

Unfortunately this sort of thing, to a greater or lesser extent, happens all the time.
I witnessed such an event today.

A plea: Regardless of your views on porn, can't all you public porn viewers just wait to
find someplace private? Get a virtual room, dammit!

Rex Butler

Re:None of the above

[uradu]

> There are lots of conditions where people are "born that way". For example,
> Science makes a claim that some people are "born" to be alchoholics.

That's a strawman argument. A person predesposed to alcoholism does not feel a strong urge to drink before ever touching alcohol. The need for sex is very different and arises with puberty whether you give it any thought or not, and whether you ever indulge it or not. Any religion or morality system that seeks to suppress human sexuality is bound to produce deeply frustrated people filled with feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt. Asking a gay person to stop being attracted to people of the same gender IS asking them to suppress their sexuality, and would indeed be the cruelest joke a god could play on them. And please don't try making the distinction between attraction and acting upon it. The Bible has a lot to say regarding coveting, in fact it made it into one of the ten commandmends.

Re:Damn, pr0n in the title...

[drsquare]

And before the internet, 75% of 9-19 year olds have seen print/film pornography.

Doubt it. Internet pornograph is much, much easier to find, and can be acquired anonymously by anyone of any age.