Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • This is so true (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:54PM (#15034716)
    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.
  • Rationalization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:54PM (#15034717)
    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.
  • Come on (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:56PM (#15034747)
    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:This is so true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:58PM (#15034763)
    "Porn is an addition (...) I used to have a problem"

    Anecdotal evidence does not a proper study make.
  • Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @12:58PM (#15034764)
    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.

  • by LiquidMind ( 150126 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:02PM (#15034795)
    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.
  • by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:03PM (#15034802)
    ... 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.
  • by the_humeister ( 922869 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:04PM (#15034809)
    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.
  • Addictions... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:04PM (#15034812) Journal
    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.

  • Re:Gender (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:05PM (#15034833)
    There are always exceptions, but by and large weman don't veiw porn because their concepts of sexuality are a little more complex than most mens.
  • Re:survey says... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:07PM (#15034859)
    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.

  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:08PM (#15034864)
    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:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:09PM (#15034873)
    Men trade love for sex
    Women trade sex for love
  • Re:This is so true (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:09PM (#15034875)
    I think the article provides at least enough evidence to make further study of this worthwhile, the information I provided was opinion based on personal experience. No you are correct it doesn't make it a study it makes it a personal opinion but as a person that has worked a lot in the past with people with additions to drugs and alcohol and then having my person experience of the withdrawls of porn, I can compare it based on my experience to an addition, I found it easier to quit smoking (something I did for 15 years) than to quit porn.
  • Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Expert Determination ( 950523 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:09PM (#15034880)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:12PM (#15034910)
    Thanks for at least being honest about your agenda. I hate it when people try to pretend that the anti-porn stance is justifiable in any way at all from a secular point of view.
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:14PM (#15034932)
    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?
  • Addiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drgonzo59 ( 747139 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:16PM (#15034947)
    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.

  • by rehtonAesoohC ( 954490 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:16PM (#15034959) Journal
    ... 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:Come on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zulux ( 112259 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:17PM (#15034964) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by anomaly ( 15035 ) <tom.cooper3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:20PM (#15034991)
    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!

  • by Gulthek ( 12570 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:21PM (#15034996) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:22PM (#15035011)
    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.
  • by netsavior ( 627338 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:22PM (#15035013)
    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.
  • Re:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:24PM (#15035031)
    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?!
  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:25PM (#15035044) Homepage
    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.
  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:28PM (#15035062) Journal
    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?
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rossifer ( 581396 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:29PM (#15035077) Journal
    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.

  • by tribentwrks ( 807384 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:29PM (#15035079)
    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.

  • Re:This is so true (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:35PM (#15035132)
    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).
  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:41PM (#15035195) Journal
    Let's see if I have this straight: Because you are weak-minded and weak-willed, the things you can't control yourself over is evil and should be banned for everyone?

    Is that your argument, "I am weak so everyone else must have my same weakness and needs to be protected from my weakness"? Will you also force everyone to believe in your god and worship in your church and only behave in the ways your church approves? I think your sig answers that question.

    You sound like the "recovering alcoholic" who believes that anyone who enjoys a drink every now and then is an alcoholic that needs to be brought in to the 12 stepping fold.

    You have just traded one "addiction" (porn) for a different "addiction"(religion and oppressing others), just like alcoholics trade alcohol for AA, coffee, and cigarettes.

    And, I know what is going through some part of your head "I am not oppressing people, I am saving them". Well, isn't it true that God gave people free will to choose how they live and whether or not they wish to be saved? And, aren't you taking away people's God-given free will when you try to force them to live as you, and your religion, say they should? Forcing your beliefs on someone else is oppressing their beliefs and by extention them.
  • Re:Gender (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:44PM (#15035220)
    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:Rationalization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:48PM (#15035259) Journal
    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:Gender (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) * <sjc@carpane3.14t.net minus pi> on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:53PM (#15035308) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Rationalization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:55PM (#15035327) Homepage

    > 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.

  • by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:56PM (#15035340)

    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.

  • by ydrol ( 626558 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @01:59PM (#15035371)
    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:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frazbin ( 919306 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:00PM (#15035380)
    So instead of jerking off, just go to church REALLY REALLY HARD.


    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.
  • and addiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:03PM (#15035406) Homepage
    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.

  • by XenoRyet ( 824514 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:03PM (#15035407)
    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.

  • Re:Rationalization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:04PM (#15035411) Journal
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:05PM (#15035422)

    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.

    You know, it's always possible that those marriages failed because of something else and that porn was just a convenient scapegoat. If a woman truly feels loved and treasured, she ain't gonna care a whole hell of a lot of hubby wants to wack off to some bimbo with balloon-like tits getting cummed on. Similiarly, I can't imagine a company laying off their top programmer just because he routinely checks out porn while at work. Porn is such a taboo in our society that it becomes a wonderful excuse for disillusioned wives or employers to use in justifiying terminating a relationship.

  • by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:10PM (#15035475) Homepage
    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:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tribentwrks ( 807384 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:15PM (#15035527)
    ... 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:18PM (#15035558)
    The problem with your argument is that while kids can see a cartoon and know that it is not real, see a "wire-fu" flick and know that Chinese martial artists can't really fly, etc., tec., they don't watch porn and instinctively know "oh, you can't really just jam it up her ass and start pounding away." There is nothing in the young adolecent's mind set that tells him or her that porn is an exaggeration, that the girl isn't always going to be screaming and moaning with pleasure every single second, that women don't necessarily like to have their faces covered in seminal fluids, that all men all the time can perform at the drop of a hat and easily go for 20 or 30 minutes everytime, that do not orgasm constantly during intercourse, etc.

    This isn't even taking into account the amount of porn out their that is blatantly degrading to the women involved (websites with names like meatholes, gagonmycock, pissmops, et al.).

    Kids know Tom and Jerry is fantasy because of their experiences in real life. If their first experience with sexuality is porn, it is going to warp their expectations of what intercourse should be like.
  • Re:Define porn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:19PM (#15035563)
    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.
  • Re:Gender (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrazedWalrus ( 901897 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:22PM (#15035610) Journal

    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:Rationalization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:22PM (#15035611)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sgant ( 178166 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:25PM (#15035642) Homepage Journal
    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:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:27PM (#15035656)
    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.
  • by KIDputer ( 796668 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:31PM (#15035696)
    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.
  • Re:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spacecowboy420 ( 450426 ) * <rcasteen.gmail@com> on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:32PM (#15035697)
    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.
  • by Tephyrnex ( 232906 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:38PM (#15035738)
    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.
  • Re:This is so true (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skreems ( 598317 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:38PM (#15035741) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.

  • Re:This is so true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:42PM (#15035774) Homepage Journal
    >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.
  • by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:46PM (#15035803) Homepage
    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:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:46PM (#15035808) Homepage
    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:Gender (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eccles ( 932 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:48PM (#15035819) Journal
    Women have porn; they're called romance novels.
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ex-geek ( 847495 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @02:56PM (#15035893)
    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)
  • by bcattwoo ( 737354 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:09PM (#15036008)
    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.

  • by aquatone282 ( 905179 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:10PM (#15036014)

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

    Now you need to hack his password.

  • Re:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:17PM (#15036062) Journal
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by __aamkky7574 ( 654183 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:23PM (#15036103)
    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.

  • 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:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:42PM (#15036285)
    "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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:49PM (#15036335)
    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.
  • by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:53PM (#15036371)
    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.
  • Re:Come on (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @03:54PM (#15036377)
    Are you arguing that we have more great artists than crack whores? I don't think I buy that.

    That crack whore is every bit the influence on others that the artist is, more so in fact.
  • Re:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:11PM (#15036513) Homepage Journal
    "Men trade love for sex.....Women trade sex for love"

    Women marry men to change them....

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

  • by CrazedWalrus ( 901897 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:14PM (#15036534) Journal
    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...
  • by lawaetf1 ( 613291 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:24PM (#15036645)
    Categorically condemning porn is like declaring anyone who consumes alcohol to be an alcoholic, regardless of quantity imbibed. Yes, some porn is worrisome, but what always strikes me as illogical about our western value system is how we celebrate violence but consider the viewing of people mating to be abnormal.

    A Vietnam vet once said, "war is the most vulgar thing man can do to man." That word choice, "vulgar," always struck me. It's considered perfectly healthy and even Christian to go to the movies and bear witness to people slaughtering eachother in all sorts of inventive ways. We cheer when the good buy sends a round through the brains of the "bad" guy, delight in big-budget scenes of bombers blowing troops to shreds, etc, etc. Hell, collecting war movies is considered no more deviant than collecting video games.

    But should you amuse yourself, at your discretion, by watching people get a little kinky then you're a social misfit. It's almost a pity that we did not descend a bit more from the bonobo monkey -- a completely peaceful ape whose days consist of eating fruit and mating. H.sapiens come closer to the rhesus -- tribal, quarrelsome, and unafraid to resort to violence.

    At any rate, if you spend all your free time wanking in front of the computer, particularly if you have a sexual partner, you're a little sleazy and ought to get a life. But I rather doubt you'll be the downfall of civilization.
  • by NatteringNabob ( 829042 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:25PM (#15036649)
    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.
  • by moxley ( 895517 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:32PM (#15036731)
    It is my belief that pron on the internet has made the "smooth look" fashionable...If you know what I mean. No complaints here...
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:39PM (#15036801)
    ...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?

    We all have ways that God doesn't approve of. All of us. Every single one of us is a sinner, no exceptions. Your Baptist preacher is a sinner. The POPE is a sinner!

    Homosexuality is a thorn not in God's side, but in the homosexual's side. The only one who is harmed by homosexuality is the homosexual himself.

    A true Christian would pity the homosexual, love the homosexual, and pray that the homosexual can handle society's reaction to his homosexuality.

    But, uh, I thank God that He didn't give me that particular "thorn." That's not to say I don't have my own problems, my own sins. Christ, I was in the military during Vietnam, I don't see how sodomy could be anywhere near as sinful as that. After all, the "big ten" Moses brought down from the mountain include "thou shalt not kill" (as well as "thou shalt not commit adultery"), but there's no "thou shalt not be a flaming fag."

    My heterosexual sins are worse than any homosexual's sodomy. And the "Christians" who vilify homosexuals should read the New Testament; "Why do you try to remove the speck from your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own?"

    Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
  • Re:Rationalization (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @04:53PM (#15036941) Journal
    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".
  • by Fedarkyn ( 892041 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @05:39PM (#15037378)
    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...
  • 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?

  • Re:This is so true (Score:2, Insightful)

    by spanommers ( 800808 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @06:22PM (#15037726)
    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.
  • by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @06:28PM (#15037773) Homepage
    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:Rationalization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BillyBlaze ( 746775 ) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Friday March 31, 2006 @06:31PM (#15037803)
    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.
  • Re:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@ea r t h l i n k.net> on Friday March 31, 2006 @06:45PM (#15037890)
    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.
  • 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...

  • Re:Gender (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matt Ownby ( 158633 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @07:26PM (#15038156) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Loses her job? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Friday March 31, 2006 @08:26PM (#15038576) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:This is so true (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01, 2006 @12:06AM (#15039937)
    Having lived with and worked with full fledged alcoholics (who are/were otherwise well above average intelligent, dynamic, and caring people), and having had a number of good friends die from their heroin addictions, I can tell you a few things about addiction. I would agree that the term "addiction" gets thrown around a lot with the negative effect of trivializing the horror of its true form. To save you a rant I'll keep it short with two points about 12-step programs.

    1) I'm sure there's a rehab center out there which will happily take as much of your money as you can give, but most 12-step recovery programs are free, run one or two nights a week from church halls (with otherwise no involement from the church).

    2) Even if they don't help the majority of of the people who pass through the program (and I'd dispute that: forcing people to deal with their problems at least a little can't be a bad thing), or if you think that they wouldn't help you in that situation, I figure if they help undestroy at least one or two people's lives a year then that's a couple of families and friend-groups who have got their loved one back. They are worth it just for that.

  • by RexButler ( 211862 ) on Saturday April 01, 2006 @12:19AM (#15040000)
    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.

    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

  • by drsquare ( 530038 ) on Saturday April 01, 2006 @05:25AM (#15040920)
    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.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye