Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I wonder what the split was along gender lines?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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.
Heck, looking at pr0n is "playing solitaire", if you know what I mean...
My sig is too lon
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.
Porn not bad. I can good still type.
But until you can look at porn while sitting on hold for tech support at work, it's just not the same.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
"Porn is an addition (...) I used to have a problem"
Anecdotal evidence does not a proper study make.
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.
--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
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.
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
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.
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
... 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.
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.
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.
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?
more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online
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.
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.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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:
"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?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
What if we ignore 18 and 19 year olds?
.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.
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
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).
> wanting to fill up dead space
Ok, now that's gross. I didn't know necrophilia was that big a problem.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
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...
We're a very progressive household.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
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.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
>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.
Why didn't you guys tell me!
. . . you only needed access under your parents' bed to view Dad's pr0n.
Now you need to hack his password.
What?