Posted on 11/19/2004 3:07:51 PM PST by Lindykim
Porn Like Heroin in the Brain by Stuart Shepard, correspondent
Senate committee discusses pornography and the First Amendment.
Experts on pornography's effects on brain chemistry testified at a Senate hearing this week where a key point of discussion was whether porn is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment or addictive material that should be unlawful.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover described how pornography is analogous to cigarettes, noting that "it is a very carefully designed delivery system for evoking a tremendous flood within the brain of endogenous opioids." It's time, he added, to stop regarding it as simply a form of expression. "Modern science," Satinover said, "allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction."
Dr. Mary Anne Layden with the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania explained how a pornographic image is burned into the brain's pathways.
"That image is in your brain forever," she explained. "If that was an addictive substance, you, at any point for the rest of your life, could in a nanosecond draw it up."
Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, called on the Senate to take action against pornography, saying it's time to mandate that law enforcement begin to collect all data and pornographic materials found in the possession of anyone involved in criminal activity. Doing so, she added, would yield data showing whether pornography is being used as a how-to manual for sex crimes.
"The evidence the panelists presented showed an overwhelming harm from pornography," said Daniel Weiss, media and sexuality analyst with Focus on the Family. He hopes the Senate will turn the evidence into action.
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION If you think Congress should be taking serious action against pornography, you can start by thanking Sen. Sam Brownback for calling the hearing, then contact your representatives in Congress and let them know what you think. For help in contacting your elected representatives, please see our CitizenLink Action Center.
Also, to learn more about one person's struggles with pornography, we suggest the resource "An Affair of the Mind: One Woman's Courageous Battle to Salvage Her Family From the Devastation of Pornography." Author Laurie Hall shares her courageous struggle to protect herself and two children from her husband's addiction to pornography.
You missed my entire point. LOL!!
I am terrifically impressed by your ability to avoid the questions posed to you, yet continue on your line of thinking as though nothing happened.
But quite apart from that, we ALL have a dark side. Everyone. Even you. We (and you) simply cannot escape our fate.
The gist of your "argument", such as it were, is that, in the absence of pornography the serial killer problem would disappear. That's been the thrust of your "logic".
A lot of us out here disagree.
Violent people strive to "actualize" a lot of things. Some may be based on porn. Some may be based on anger. some may be based on prior occurances in one's life that gave lift to any number of grievances, real or imagined. And on and on...
The simple fact of the matter is, there are bad people in our midst. Always have been. Always will be. And any number of them can, and will, do some mighty awful things. To paint their motivations with the broad brush of pornography influnce displays a mighty weak grasp of reality and human nature.
My suggestion is, if you want to have any chance of prevailing in this argument, you address the questions posed to you. The tap dancing you've done today suggests that it's you who is really the ballerina!
CA....
OK, done.
I think most would agree that it is in society's best interests for there to be stable marraiges and young men entering into marraige with proper sexual expectations.
I would submit that it's in our best societal interest to have both young men and women have accurate and realistic sexual expectations quite apart from the notion of matrimony.
Pornography hurts those basic things.
We disagree.
It creates in many men (I can't speak for women) the desire to have something that is artificial and indeed fictional.
It does? I see no evidence of this.
Real women can seldom look as good as those centerfold models.
As any rational young (or older) individual already knows before viewing erotica/porn/insert-label-here.
Also, a wife that has aged a few years and put on weight because of age and children cannot look like those manequins in Playboy.
True, this is usually the case, but your are making the unwarranted assumption that men (or women) who view such material somehow are swept up in some siren's song or irrationality and cannot see their spouses in reality.
Men, married men to, by nature tend to have roving eyes, we don't need anything out there to encourage it.
Hmmm.... I was married once, and had no roving eye. My experience doesn't square with yours, apparantly.
Married sex lives have been harmed by the husband toying with pornography.
Or enhanced. Or not effected at all. Or anything else that is non-quantifiable.
In the case of young men, it creates in them an unrealistic view about what a young woman should look like. This can also cause them problems when they marry.
It might, it could, but is that the universal effect? Ford Mustangs tend to create in young men a desire to speed, and thusly some of them might not even make it to the alter.
I apologize that I cannot give you rock solid scientific study evidence. I hope you are reasonable enough to see what is self evident. If for no other reason than it is counter productive to marital satisfaction, then I would be against pornography.
I know quite a few married couples who claim it enhances their love lives, and cannot consider porn as essentially deleterious as 'self-evident'.
Rather than belabor the point, I think that most folks would agree that what we take in (be it food, drink, or mental images), tends to influence us. There is clearly a correlation between violent games, video images, and the upsurge in violence by some (not all, but some) individuals who partake of such things. Banning is not going to be practical, but assuring that such things are not quite so easy to acquire is a step in the right direction. We would not want alcohol to be available in soft drink machines, neither would we want porn to be distributed in 'Highlights' magazines for children.
We are what we choose to fill our minds with. It may well be that some people are able to drink without any problems, some people become nearly instant alcoholics. Some may be able to handle pornographic images, but many (as in the case of Ted Bundy) were not, and it was such imaging that began them down a very dark path which ended in nothing but human tragedy.
The facts speak for themselves.
I guess you haven't read any of this thread. Porn pops up all over the place while people are on the internet, it's hard to avoid at times, and for impressionable and innocent children, and impressionable adolescents, it's very dangerous.
Then there's TV. And the crap about "Well, parents should supervise their kids". Parents can't be in the same room with every kid at all times, or with every kid when they're visiting a friend.
The truth is that pornography is difficult to avoid. It should be difficult to obtain.
So you're against states' rights.
If it intereferes with hedonist license.
I agree. Pornography should be difficult to obtain, not difficult to avoid.
very long? I believe it was early '98 when I signed-in
I have no problem with treating unwanted porn spam and popups like we now treat telemarketer phone calls. A do-not-spam list is fine with me. Unfortunately, it would do little to stop the flow of spam from outside the US.
Then there's TV.
There are a ton of ways to deal with that problem. Don't have a TV, don't have cable, learn how to block certain channels or shows. Finally, there is the best solution of all: don't watch shows you find offensive. If enough of your fellow citizens do the same, offensive shows don't get good enough ratings and get taken off the air. Unfortunately, for you, your fellow citizens seem to like "Desparate Housewives" (don't look at me- I think it's a dumb show, too).
You, however, don't like these options. You want government to step in and make sure that only shows that have the little jeremiah seal of approval remain on the air.
And the crap about "Well, parents should supervise their kids". Parents can't be in the same room with every kid at all times, or with every kid when they're visiting a friend.
Nobody ever said being a parent is easy. However, it really is your responsibility to make sure that your kids only watch what you want them to watch. It certainly is not the role of government, or me, to do so for you. Sorry, but as a purported conservative, you really should not be falling for this "it takes a village" nonsense.
States rights only extend to the proper powers of government. It is not a proper power of government to tell consenting adults what to read or watch (with the usual caveat that this only applies so long as all participants are consenting adults).
this is your brain on heroin
this is your brain on porn
this is your brain on free republic
see any difference? i couldn't :-)
The government has a duty to protect citizens from enemies such as Islamic jihadis, theives, murderers, rapists, embezzlers and other like criminals. Up until the ACLU arm in arm with pornographers got the leftist SCOTUS to overturn a couple of hundred years of protection from pornographers, those who would corrupt morality were also considered enemies.
You and other similar fans of pornography won't and can't see your hypocracy. On one hand, you bleat about "freedom", repeating slogans about "nanny state", and OTOH, you refuse to recognize the right of states and communities to limit immoral activities and purveyors of, for instance, pornography.
I am not concerned about my own personal morals. I am concerned about civilization in general and where it is heading.
Quite true. Such people inflict harm on me without my consent.
You and other similar fans of pornography won't and can't see your hypocracy. On one hand, you bleat about "freedom"
Yes, in this case freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into one's private life.
and OTOH, you refuse to recognize the right of states and communities to limit immoral activities and purveyors of, for instance, pornography.
Yes, I do refuse to recognize the "right" of government to throw someone in prison for viewing material in private that you don't like. (By the way, government doesn't have rights, individuals do).
I am concerned about civilization in general and where it is heading.
As am I. It appears to be heading in the direction of unlimited government power, and you're doing your part to take us there.
Sure. Because the actions of those people violate rights. Tell me, what rights are violated by two consenting adults engaging in sex acts that are recorded and later sold to other consenting adults?
n one hand, you bleat about "freedom", repeating slogans about "nanny state"
Your disparagement of "freedom" and the legitimate fear of a "nanny state" shows you for the statist that you are.
OTOH, you refuse to recognize the right of states and communities to limit immoral activities and purveyors of, for instance, pornography.
That is because states and communities do not have "rights." By definition, only individuals can have rights. You've been on Fr a long time. I'm surprised you haevn't learned this point yet. Government only has powers delegated to it by the people. And the only legitimate power of the government in a free society is the protection of rights. Until you can come up with a right that is violated by pornography, your argument holds no water.
People have a right not to be assaulted by pornography. People have a right to not have their children assaulted by pornography. People have a right not to have to duck, twist, hide, and tie blindfolds over their kids' eyes to keep them away from pornography.
Just because some people have a twisted desire to watch other people have sex, doesn't give them an inalienable right to buy it everywhere.
Check out this thread if you want to get upset about morals and government:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1286431/posts
Same socialist/liberal arguement, different inanimate object/subject...
People do have a right not to be assaulted by guns. If you try, I will shoot back. Guns and pornography can't be compared.
Nice try, though.
You've never watched a good action flick, with plenty of guns and t&a, have you? ;P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.