MSNBC reports that the legacy of Anthony Comstock is riding high again:
“Porn addiction”? What the hell are these censorious assmonkeys smoking? (I’m guessing it’s not the pole.) Humans enjoy erotica; you can find examples of erotic art in Neolithic archeology sites and in every human culture that has ever existed. From the erotic murals of Pompeii to the Kama Sutra to naughty etchings in 19th-century Japan, people have been stimulated by sexual images and have never reported being sexually aroused by visual images as “addictive.”
WTF? Are we going to be dragged back to the days of hypocritical Victorian prudery when piano legs were referred to as “limbs” and sex for pleasure was taboo, yet the number of prostitutes and cases of syphilis skyrocketed? Are we going to submit to self-appointed censors who want to translate their own sexual anxieties into law?
Hey, I’m sorry Ms, Layden feels that she has an uncontrollable urge to start humping Calvin Klein posters on the subway, but those of us who enjoy looking at images of attractive, naked people doing interesting things to one another would like to be left to whack our weasels in peace, thankyouverymuch!
I wonder if my HMO covers porn addiction. Maybe they would fund a methadone-style program whereby addicts could taper off with copies of Playboy magazine, followed by Sports Illustrated bathing suit issues and finally a 1920’s versioin of the Sears & Roebuck catalog featuring corsets. It would be cheaper than repeated eye exams and depilatory treatments for palms.
Look, phonics are the most dangerous drugs out there. The kids start off being hooked on phonics, but phonics are just the gateway. Next thing you know, innocent lil Johnny is out there reading books. In no time he’s out in the street, high as a kite on ideas.
How dare you mock the afflicted?
Oh and would the band please cue up Tom Lehrer’s “Smut” please.
I don’t see a problem with the concept itself. If the aforementioned businessman is spending 8 hours a day looking at porn when he should be working, that’s not healthy behavior. If someone is viewing pornography to the extent that it’s having detrimental effects on his life, or interfering with his ability to have healthy sexual relationships with other people, that’s not healthy behavior. This doesn’t mean that porn itself is bad, or that viewing it is neccesarily unhealthy. Obviously it isn’t, anymore than the fact that gambling addictions exist mean that gambling is neccesarily unhealthy.
However, if a person has a psychological dependence on something, and that dependence is interfering with the living of his daily life, then it’s ok to call it an addiction, I think.
Well, that’s the difference between addiction and other behaviors – addicts don’t do what they do for enjoyment, they do it because they have to. If you can’t get through the day without a drink, you’ve got a problem; if you can’t get through the day without some boobies, you’ve got a problem. True, porn doesn’t cause cirrhosis, but the addiction described in the article can definitely ruin your life – that executive is treading on thin ice if he can’t stop looking.
Sex addicts are particularly defined by their addictions; often, they can’t enjoy sex because getting aroused requires obsessive behaviors that puzzle and frighten potential partners, or even the addicts themselves. So “people enjoy porn” doesn’t cut it. I enjoy drinking and gambling, but that doesn’t make those addictions unreal.
I will concede, however, that Ms. Layden is a twit.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I don’t see a problem with the concept itself. If the aforementioned businessman is spending 8 hours a day looking at porn when he should be working, that’s not healthy behavior. If someone is viewing pornography to the extent that it’s having detrimental effects on his life, or interfering with his ability to have healthy sexual relationships with other people, that’s not healthy behavior. This doesn’t mean that porn itself is bad, or that viewing it is neccesarily unhealthy. Obviously it isn’t, anymore than the fact that gambling addictions exist mean that gambling is neccesarily unhealthy.
[quote]
Ah, but that’s not what these so-called experts are saying. They blame the addictive behavior on the object, not on the person. That’s the same reasoning that brought us Prohibition.
Ok, why does going to prostitutes have anything to do with looking at porn?
I’d like to hear her examples of what would be effective ads against strip clubs or prostitutes.
My idea:
Don’t get hooked on hookers!
…accompanied by a picture of a scrawny female in thigh-high red leather boots, butt-cheek-baring skirt, and tube top. She’s got her long red fingernails dug into an innocent man’s leg, pulling him back as he vainly tries to grab on to the concrete sidewalk. In the background a pimp with a gold tooth in a purple suit and feather boa grins.
(Hmmm…on second thought, this ad might not have quite the desired effect. )
One can get addicted to anything, but the problem lies with the person, not the object of the addicition. You enjoy drinking and gambling; shall we deny drinking and gambling to everyone because a few people might have a problem?
I was moved to start a thread about this, but my main concern was how the Senate had entirely overlooked the growing menace of Cognitive Dissonance (once again! fellow citizens, once again!) in order to devote its attention to porno. I was restrained by the unfortunate possibility that some of my fellow posters might assume that I was joking, as if the dreadful threat of CD, gnawing away at the cognitive foundations of our Republic, were somehow humorous.
One is struck, however, by the anecdotal evidence offered here, most especially about the porn-dog executive who logs-on, jerks off, rinse and repeat. One must assume that this is a man who’s erectile output is not spoken for. But when once considers the amount of wholesale catastrophe administered by white men in dark suits, might it not be best if more of them were otherwise occupied? What might have been the fate of Enron if Mssrs. Fastow and Lay were absorbed with spanking the monkey, rather than cooking the books?
Remember people, we must save everybody from themselves. What would self-rightious, holier-than-thou busybodies do if everyone was responsible for their own behavior?
It’s all part of the neo-conservative race to the bottom. It’s a contest to see who can come up with the most diabolically inane ‘moral values’ concept. Extra points are awarded for disguising it as science.
I’ll tell ya what, anyone coming to take away my porn better have their insurance premiums paid up.
)