Elliott C. Back: Technology FTW!

Addiction to porn destroying lives, Senate told

Posted in Politics, Science by Elliott Back on November 20th, 2004.

Some nudeIn some studies of pornography, researchers are running to the Senate for help–wild claims in hand. Is pornography worse than heroin? Probably not. Still, you’ll find plenty of rationalizing going on, as always happens in the intersections between politics and science.

If you read the article, the obvious right-wing slant appears with the drop of “Judith Reisman’s” name. Check out (scroll) this criticism of his ridiculous lawsuit against the Kinsely institute.

“We’re so afraid to talk about sex in our society that we really give carte blanche to the people who are producing this kind of material,” said James B. Weaver, a Virginia Tech professor who studies the impact of pornography.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/11/18/national1907EST0715.DTL and www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65772,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 20th, 2004 at 11:05 pm and is tagged with judith reisman, james b weaver, wn, carte blanche, news technology, virginia tech, intersections, slant, heroin, dtl, right wing, pornography, addiction, tw, news archive, senate, science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I've never been addicted to heroin, but I have no reservation saying that pornography is worse. There's no denying that porn is addictive, and I think scientific research in that direction is a great idea.
    • ^
    • v
    The problem is that the scientists seem to be simply wanting money. There's not a consensus on pornography, as far as I know, and it's certainly allowed on constitutional free-speech issues. Bringing these issues in front of the Senate seems, at best, a pre-emptive strike.
    • ^
    • v
    "Scientists seem to be simply wanting money" -- gasp, recoil. Not THAT! I mean, all those claims about the miracles possible through public funding of embryonic stem cell research are also scientists "simply wanting money", after all. They come before the Senate and offer all sorts of dire warnings about what will happen if their new research doesn't get funded, or if their advice isn't heeded. Same thing, really.

    "There's not a consensus on pornography" - why is that an argument against funding research on the effects of pornography? It's precisely the topics we don't (yet) understand well enough to reach "consensus" that are worth researching.

    A "pre-emptive strike"? Surely not; that'd be attempting to get pornography banned before it was a well-established industry (or whatever you want to call it). The opportunity for a "pre-emptive strike" are long past.

    It's "probably not" worse than heroin, you say; what's your basis for saying so? Granted, heroin's a pretty damaging drug, and pornography is pretty well accepted, at least in a low-key, nothing-to-really-be-embarassed-about, we-all-do-it kind of way. That doesn't mean that it's not just as dangerous, in its own way, as heroin. I'm sure there's folks who use heroin in moderation and don't let it completely dominate their bodies; I'm equally sure there are men (and women) who've been serious affected by porn.

    Does that mean that there should be funding (outside of established funding agencies) for research on the effects of porn? Not necessarily. Does it mean that porn should be banned? Probably not, at least on the basis of our current understanding. (Then again, with the widespread acceptance of alcohol, cigarette smoking, and gambling, I'm not at all sure that society would object to it even if it were found addictive (to the satisfaction of CS students).) Does it mean that people should dismiss this as a horrible right-wing plot? Not necessarily...
    • ^
    • v
    i never knew that any one could ever be addicted to porn untill i read your article,
    • ^
    • v
    how ya doin...i did a speach on this shit!!!
    • ^
    • v
    I think in saying your an addict of porn your just reinforcing the spot in your mind that wants you to watch it. As far being physically addicted to porn our bodies are made to incounter more than one sexuall episode in our lives, but I see porn as a handicap for people like me that act bored and really have a load of crap to do..Research to me would be interesting especially because of the mental issues regarding the researcher and topic.
    • ^
    • v
    For those of you who post on here saying that they have never been addicted to heroin but just "assume" that pornography is worse, maybe you should go out and get addicted to heroin so at least there is a basis to your argument! What kind of credibility do you give yourself when you give your opinion on heroin and pornography without any knowledge whatsoever about heroin? Thats like saying that "The Simpsons" is the best show on T.V. without watching any other shows!
    • ^
    • v
    " Porno is a good example of voluntary delusion. It is neither sex nor love. It's just voyeurism and big business together in one." -- Peter Lavetti, artist and photographer
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus