Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Pr0n's Effect On Society 1021

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pr0n's Effect On Society

Comments Filter:
  • by big dumb dog ( 876383 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:58PM (#15034760) Journal
    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.

  • by Anarke_Incarnate ( 733529 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:55PM (#15035331)
    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.
  • by jbbernar ( 41291 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:12PM (#15035499)
    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.

  • Re:Rationalization (Score:3, Informative)

    by pmike_bauer ( 763028 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:58PM (#15035908)
    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 (Score:3, Informative)

    by spacebird ( 859789 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:59PM (#15035925)
    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 (Score:2, Informative)

    by spacebird ( 859789 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:08PM (#15036002)
    • 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.
  • It's very different (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gorimek ( 61128 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:33PM (#15036213) Homepage
    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!!
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:22PM (#15036611)
    Dear tbcpp (797625),

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding Gods law. I
    have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge
    with as
    many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
    for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to
    be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
    regarding some other elements of Gods Laws and how to follow them:

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
    provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
    claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you
    clarify? Why cant I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
    21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
    period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I
    tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
    pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
    claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
    clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
    kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an
    abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
    dont agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
    defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
    vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
    their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
    should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
    unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
    crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
    different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
    and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
    getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldnt we
    just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
    who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
    expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that Gods word is eternal and unchanging.
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:2, Informative)

    by joeyspqr ( 629639 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:46PM (#15036857)

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

    the relevant bible passage []

    not enough, I'm sure
  • Just FYI (Score:3, Informative)

    by cagle_.25 ( 715952 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:47PM (#15036869) Journal
    The "God-shaped hole" quote is from Pascal's Pensees.
  • Re:and addiction? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chigliakus ( 866017 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @07:17PM (#15038088)
    "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:None of the above (Score:3, Informative)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Saturday April 01, 2006 @02:54AM (#15040521)
    > 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.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner