Anyone who wants to take my porn is gonna have to pry it from my warm, sticky fingers!
[BigGayAl]
Why, yours, of course! You big silly!
[/BGA]
What neo-conservative policies or ideas are being pursued here?
I’ll agree that you can be addicted to porn, but it’s as others have said–it’s the person, not the object. You can be addicted to just about any damned behavior, whether it’s healthy or not. I know a heterosexual male who’d rather surf porn than have sex with his attractive and available wife. ::shrug::
The whole thing sounds like an attempt to circumvent that pesky 1st Amendment by framing the issue as a “Public health” concern and categorizing it as an addiction. Of course, they admit that they have no data to prove that “porn addiction” has any appreciable destructive effects on families so I don’t see how this is going anywhere. It’s also disingenuous since there’s no question that alcoholism is a massively destructive addiction which devastates families but none of these moralistic swine are trying to outlaw alcohol.
I think the fact that the article cites Judith Reitman, a thoroughly discredited liar and anti-gay fanatic (she is the primary moving force of all the anti-Kinsey slander), shows that the Pubs have little or no scientific foundation for any of this.
It was a joke, sunshine, since I clearly don’t know if Layden has any political leanings. I might be able to find out more about her… but I’m not that interested. Suffice it to say that her study is suspect. Do you really believe that pornography lights up the brain in the same way that a physically addicting substance does? How would the response to pornography differ from any routine thoughts of sex and attraction?
Now, if you don’t think that concepts of ‘decency’ are among neoconservative views, let me know so that we can all have a good laugh.
Not so much a neocon policy as a sop to the religious right.
If this “cleaning the US from sinful addictions” - trend goes on for the coming 4 years, I think I am going to switch camp and become a Bush supporter.
Just let me know when the US market and US minds are ready for me to start my Freshly From Taliban Workshop Import Stores with burkas in the vivid USA flag colours.
Salaam. A
Erm, uh, on second thought, I think I’ll just let you hold on to that…
Glad to see you decided not to leave the boards after all Aldebaran.
And you should know, the United States wants nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Muslim theocracies.
(We’d like a Christian theocracy, thank you very much!)
About the players:
Sen. Brownbeck is self described Christian Conservative. This doesn’t necessarily make him anti-science, as many people here will attest, but clearly there is opportunity for conflict between his Christian Conservative views and Science. Here’s an example:
Can anyone point to the bald lie that this advocate for science is using?
Leydan is probably a lovely woman who is sincere in her beliefs. I’m less sure about the way she uses science to back up these beliefs. She’s appeared before this same senate committee before, and in 1999 stated that she has “not treated one case of sexual violence that did not involve pornography.” Not one? Out of how many? What is pornography in this context? Apparently the senators prefer anecdotal evidence. She also maintained that once a pornographic image was seen, it was “stored permanently” and is “permanently implanted”. There is no hope to “detoxify” individuals once the have been exposed.
So, it’s not just a disease, it’s incurable!
I am still speachless by the mere coincidence that I survived my attempt to SDMB-suicide (I even think this was my second one, don’t remember that exactly).
As for inporting a Muslim theocracy together with my colourful burkas: HA. Islamic history can show you a long tradition of bringing non-believers their first contact with Islam and Muslims through trade and tradeposts.
Besides: People changing spontanously their dresscode withouth even having insight in the reasons behind their behaviour is obviously even today the visible sign of the influence of the Masses the Powerful and of the Winner of Wars on the subconscience of the Masses. (This is not the reason that I do not wear jeans.)
Burkas however are not an Islamic tradition. I was only hoping to start a flourishing business to cover the needs of the Extreme Christian needs for modesty and morality in the US minds.
Salaam. A
Where do I sign up to be in the control group?
Ok, please clear up my ignorance. I thought that Burkas were a phenomona native to Muslim countries and in accord with either Islamic law or culture. Was I wrong?
(and yes, I know that ‘Islamic culture’ is probably a misnomer, but I’m not sure what term to use)
Bonnets, Aldeberan. Think bonnets.
This type of women’s clothing is part of certain cultures and traditions in that region and as such the population incorporates it in their view on the command for modesty one can find in Al Qur’an.
Needs to be said however that even if you prefer to take the command for modesty in Al Qur’an as meaning that a woman must cover herself from head to toe, nobody can make of this that this command includes the covering of hands, feet and face.
You can find however reference to this (not as a command on itself, but as slightly up to strong recommended to show utterly devotion for following the command for modesty) in the writings of certain Islamic scholars.
Yet all of this survives in a grey area because it is not what Al Qur’an teaches about this much debated issue. (There is no mentioning of hidjab in the meaning of “hair covering” in the text of Al Qur’an).
Salaam. A
Of course not. If the vast majority of people look at porn, and a tiny subset of those are sex offenders, then the vast majority of sex offenders look at porn. It’s like saying that nearly all sex offenders had consumed meat or suffered from tooth decay.
So emblazon big star-and-stripe crucifixes on them and call them “Freedom Ponchos.”
IIRC, the word “pornography” literally means writings about prostitutes.
Hooked on Phoenicians worked for me!