"War on Smut"
Fantastic idea. It'll be just like that time there was a "War on Drugs", and now there's no drugs anywhere.
The US state of Utah is trying a different approach to its long-standing campaign against online smut, passing a resolution that says pornography is a “public health emergency”. The rationale for the bill, according to its main provisions, is that “pornography is a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual …
"Common sense" uses the same meaning as common law. It is the sense that is shared between the population, area etc. There is no reason why common sense can't be rare, first find the sense then see what parts are common between entities. "Common" in this sense does not imply universal.
PS. Common sense is not equal to crown sense.
It's similar to the 'war on drugs' as, in a way, it's really just pointing a finger and saying: "this is the reason for our problems" and then using it as a political football.
The dissimilarity, however, is that there is hard data to back up the addictive nature of many illegal narcotics (not all) and the associated negative impacts to society but no well-supported evidence of 'addiction' to pornography being a real thing, even less so of consumption of pornography (whether casually or routinely) being detrimental to society as a whole.
Whenever the issue is raised, the question is how to correct the 'harm' rather than whether there is, actually, any harm. And that's because the people who push these issues already assume that there is harm and they do so because it accords with their ideological, and often religious, beliefs. So what 'evidence' and 'studies' they seek out (or have brought to them by lobbyists) are those which confirm their pre-existing opinions.
Of course, this happens all the time in politics - an issue is taken to be self-evidently true so that politicians can get right in there with strong words and policies to 'get tough' while simultaneously accusing those who call for a more measured and fact-based approach as being ogres who support whatever harm is being alleged.
Oppose vague, unrestricted new powers of surveillance and privacy invasion? Well then you are supporting terrorists/pedophiles/rapists/drug dealers/etc . . .
It's just so much easier to assert that a problem exists and that it is as Big Problem™ than it is to find out what are really worth spending effort and public money on. The unfortunate thing is that the public tends to just accept that and prefer the sound of a politician calling for action than one calling for understanding.
When I'm referencing The Internet (I will continue to capitalize it) in conversation, as a source of information, I always use the phrase "in between the kiddie porn and the bomb-making instructions"
Point being, there's all kinds of stuff out there in the "tubes". Some of it is lowest-common-denominator stuff, but there's also scientific literature, user manuals for equipment whose manufacturers have long since shut down, and great literature. It all depends what you're looking for. And yes, there's porn, and there always will be. You don't have to look at it if you don't want to.
My wife has become addicted to cake porn
It's seriously affecting our life together. I think she's now much more interested in cake than sex :-(
Still it's better than her other kink, a while ago she was watching a TV program about Windsor Castle and became quite interested on "Castle Porn" but we can't afford a castle.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
The legislature is also concerned that watching naughty vids “is linked to lessening desire in young men to marry
The young men that I've discussed this with aren't keen to marry because the majority of marriages end in divorce. Most of them are afraid that in a divorce they'd lose pretty much everything. If there are kids involved it's worse, they see fathers being expected to pay maintenance and having little or no access to their kids. If you want to make young men keener on marriage you need to make marriage a more attractive proposition to them.
(oh and for balance I know some women who've lost big time in divorces too)
This post has been deleted by its author
The legislature is also concerned that watching naughty vids “is linked to lessening desire in young men to marry, dissatisfaction in marriage, and infidelity”.
Well that's one obviously biased and flawed take on it. A contrasting, and probably equally guessed opinion is just that marriage is becoming irrelevant to many people, and the reasons go a lot deeper than just pron.
Hey Utah! Society's changing, and if you don't like that you need to look at the broader picture rather than just "porn is bad".
Wait. I don't understand. I thought the whole Kitchen v. Herbert thing meant that young men could marry each other all they wanted. First the state passes a law banning young men from marrying and now they blame porn when young men don't. It's all very confusing.
There was an interesting documentary where a local group tried to shut down a video shop in Utah for renting out smut. One of the key arguments in the trial was what is the "standard" for public decency and does the shop violate it.
So for the trial they got the payperview stats from cable and sat networks on porn in Utah. The lawyer team for the shop had no clue what the numbers will be until they came through. They showed the highest consumption of pornography in the USA and one of the highest rates in the world. If memory serves me right, it was something like an hour of paid porn per household per day on average. Utah has 700K households or thereabouts - that equates to about a quarter of a billion per year in revenues.
...something like an hour of paid porn per household per day on average. Utah has 700K households or thereabouts - that equates to about a quarter of a billion per year in revenues.
Can we get that in Reg units?
knuckle shuffles per capita-hour?
swimming pools of...erm..."discharge"?
// open for suggestions here
// seems like too good an opportunity to let it pass by
I've visited Utah. There's sweet FA to do there apart from look at scenery - which, whilst it is stunningly beautiful, doesn't help the long winter evenings fly by. And alcohol is banned in at least half the state too (or was when I was there). So, hardly surprising they turn en masse to, erm, online scenery.
"All the time. They just don't want anyone else to. It's called puritanism - be pure because I tell you to, but don't check on me when I'm alone."
I'll actually have to disagree, here. My personnal theory is, they never have any sort of sex, for whatever reason, like, being a moron, being hugely unattractive, having any medical condition, etc ...
As a perverse consequence, they don't want anyone else to have fun.
Like, you know, people having a crap car growing jealous over their neighbor's latest sport car ...
pornography is a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms
Pornography, in itself, isn't a public health hazard. Not educating teenagers about the realities of sex is the health hazard.
Talking to children in an open, frank, non-confrontational way about sex is the best way to improve sexual health.
Sweeping sex under the carpet and trying to hide porn will only lead to children finding out about sex by trying. And that's precisely what we want to avoid!
So being serious (and hence) anon, I actually have quite a lot of sympathy with this law as reported.
There is quite a bit of work being done at the moment to try and establish if freely available high definition porn can be considered addictive (as distinct from print media and low availability video quality cassettes from the 80's) - the neuro-chemistry involved is very similar to that seen in other addictions.
There is still a debate regarding if this is a true addiction, but the symptoms and therapy responses are remarkably similar. There are also a range of self help groups out there (e.g. SLAA)
Morally, I've no issue with porn and my general outlook on life if that whatever consenting and willing individuals do should be legal unless it causes harm to others. I'd certainly not argue for a ban on porn; but some provisions similar to gambling addictions self exclusion at an ISP / card payment level and recognition that some individuals do develop a problem wouldn't go amiss.
I say this as someone who in their early 40's has decided that this is actually a real problem in my life (and not something which the vast majority of people who know me would ever expect from me).
> that this is actually a real problem in my life
You and me both
I've been addicted to porn for 20 or so years.
I'm not sure that it is the difference in quality between what was available in the 80 and todays hi-res porn. It is the sheer easiness of accessing it and the infinite supply available. Back in the 80s you tends to only have access to a finite supply, and porn tends to were out (keep looking at the same scene and it looses its hold on you) but start walking porn space on the net and there is a never ending supply. Strangely I find paid for site where it is easy to find things and you reliably get what you point at is less addictive. The slow, random trawl through the infinite reaches of the smutweb is much harder to walk away from.
have you looked at any of the "your brain on porn" material? The abundance and variety is exactly the issue, the theory put forward is that as you watch more your dopamine tolerance increases and hence you need a bigger "hit" to feel any response.
At a male level "novelty" is a key sexual driver as we're somewhat hardwired to seek as many partners as possible (and this also appears to hold true for other species). Big porn search sites therefore create an ability for almost endless novelty and the ability to ride an ever increasing dopamine wave which never used to be possible for the vast majority of humanity.
If you've hit actual addiction levels not watching any porn for about 10-20 days has many of the same side effects as other addictive withdrawals. I go so a self help group and an ex-alcoholic has told me that they found the withdrawal effects of porn worse than when they went dry.
There is a lot of good material out there if you google it (probably not from work) - but do find a local self help / 12-step type meeting (and don't worry about the religious tone of the program if you look into it and don't have a religious take on life its really not an issue - prayer gets replaced with meditation, etc...)
"[...] and don't worry about the religious tone of the program"
A friend's husband quit AA because he couldn't stomach their religious preaching.
Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky wrote "Love and Addiction" in 1975. It has been reprinted several times. One of its core findings is that an addictive personality can interchange their "substance" addiction with a zealous religious belief or a very inward-looking couple relationship.
They do not believe that AA is truly effective in helping someone manage their addiction.
I can't speak to AA, not my particular issue - I can speak to the group use for sex/porn addiction where I have tried several different meetings. All of which have clearly stated that "god" is a placeholder.
Sex/porn is a harder one to manage in any event as everyone has to come up with their own definition of sober while for an alcoholic its pretty black and white.
It might not be the right solution for everyone, but I've met plenty of very non-religious people who tell me they have really benefited. My favorite group has 4 people who openly identify as atheist (not agnostic) including myself.
"The slow, random trawl through the infinite reaches of the smutweb is much harder to walk away from."
That's human curiosity. What is tempting is not what you see - but what you "might" see that is usually forbidden. As D H Lawrence wrote in his poem "Figs" - the fig leaf is to adorn not to hide. Salome's dance of the seven veils is all about the titillation of what might be revealed.
The sight of total nudity quickly becomes commonplace - even boring. So too with acts of sex. Like all human aesthetics - for most people their taste becomes more discerning once they have sampled a wide variety.
An erotic film with a plot and well drawn characters is far more stimulating than the typical xxx film. A friend in the 1980s recounted how he and his pals set down to watch a VHS video full of explicit sex. After 30 minutes they found the repetition had become totally boring.
>Pornography, in itself, isn't a public health hazard. Not educating teenagers about the realities of sex is the health hazard.
And there's the, er, rub.
Porn is fake relationships and fake sex, but it isn't just video like other films. It is designed to provoke and link to a very real, very strong physical reaction in the viewer. It is anti-education. It works really (ahem) hard to undermine what might be learnt intellectually about it, by tapping into strong hormonal reactions. As the age of sexual maturity/puberty has dropped, but the age of intellectual maturation has not dropped in sync with it, we have a few years where children become sexually mature before their thought processes have the maturity to deal with it. Why in general do people think that its ok to have sex once puberty hits, but getting married at that age would be foolish?
If you look at most of the motivations listed in the bill the concerns are actually quite valid to one degree or another, and the resolutions basically amount to, "do more research and try to limit its spread if you can." Perhaps the high-usage rates in Utah make it more of an issue there than it is elsewhere.
The commercialisation of sexual satisfaction, where it becomes a transaction with a vendor and a customer with demands which should be fulfilled in order to warrant payment seems to me to be one of the most tragic mindset-outcome, especially as increased availability makes that the norm during formative years. Even if its non-commercial porn, there is a sense of "I go and get/download it and she becomes part of my collection. I like her." The self-centred nature of it works against what makes a stable relationship, which is putting the other person first and yes, the breakdown in the relationships and support networks has health impacts - it is a public health issue. If legislators step aside while commercial interests attack the mindset-glue which holds relationships together, is that a good thing or not?
This is not prohibition, this is just suggesting that maybe we've let commercial pimps have a little too much freedom to put their goods front and centre in society. Maybe we should think about whether the top shelf is a better place for it.
I think they should prohibit the consumption of alchohol, it presents a far greater risk to "a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms".
They could make it an amendment of the Constitution, for greater impact, perhaps.
What do you mean "they tried that already"?
As if we needed any reminder just how out of touch with reality these people are, the oldest profession (porn is essentially just prostitution by proxy) is somehow being portrayed as something new and scary.
Or to put it in more factual terms, the earliest known piece of human figurine art is the Venus of Hohle Fels, described by its discover as "This [figure] is about sex, reproduction... [it is] an extremely powerful depiction of the essence of being female". This is not at all unusual for Paleolithic art. 50,000 years doesn't really seem to count as a new phenomenon worth getting in a panic about. We've been making pictures of boobs and dicks for pretty much as long as we've been making pictures, and that should say all that is needed about how successful attempts to ban them are likely to be.
The legislature is also concerned that watching naughty vids “is linked to lessening desire in young men to marry, dissatisfaction in marriage, and infidelity”.
I dunno...given that several sects of Utah's Mormons are hellbent on practicing polygamy, maybe a bit of "lessening desire in young men to marry" might just be the ticket to nipping that thing in the bud.
Any puns in the preceding paragraph are purely accidental....
http://mormongirlz.com/
THANK YOU x7. Next time those guys on the bicycles knock on my door, I'M SIGNING UP!!
Maybe the Salt Lake City sinners should team up with that idiot Imam who spouted that jerking off would make your hand pregnant. Sounds like they would make a good team.
In the country where I grew up porn was banned but there was a ex-nun (I won't say her name was Patricia Bartlett) who was the stalwart against pornography. Only thing was that she had the best and greatest porno collection in the whole country. It almost want to make me protest against it so I too could be the most popular guy in the city.
Some porn IS causing a serious problem. Teenage guys watch it and think that this is how to treat girlfriends/women in real life. From what I have seen, all women just love being fucked in the arse (ass for the colonials) without any lubrication and then having a fecal covered dick shoved into her anxious waiting mouth. (Makes me want to dry reach just thinking about that.) This sort of porn needs to be countered by education. Time to take the porn industry out of the closet and taxed a bit more to pay for that education.
I was watching John Oliver a week or more ago and he came out with the interesting fact that those USA politicians who protest the loudest about being against porn, prostitution, alcohol etc were the ones most likely to be heavily involved in such nefarious activities. You know like the idiot who was so for Family Values and by the way, here's a Twitter pic of my valued family dick.
I agree with my fellow contributors that education is the answer. Just like if drugs were made legal and distributed by the gubermint, not only would the USA directly save $51+Billion a year but the taxes collected on selling these now legal drugs (see alcohol and tobacco as examples) could be used on education about drugs. Prohibition was a fine example on how well banning something worked. All it did was make criminals a lot of money and cost the taxpayers a lot of money to fight the now really rich criminals. Sorry, seem to be waffling. Must be caused by the prescribed drugs that I am on.
I don't know what kind of health hazard he's talking about, but I know that I've been feeling a lot better about myself by watching pr0n. For one thing, I don't suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder anymore and my Automycrophallophobia has all but vanished after I found out how to take the mask off certain flicks.
Maybe porn has made the Mormons self conscious of their weird polygamic lifestyle. Now they probably realize that they don't need to keep marrying the other sisters in order to have sex with them. All they have to do is wait for one of them to go to sleep....
I've got the perfect slogan for your new bill:
"Get our perverts off the internet
and back out on the street where they belong!"
>Ahem<
Now that that's off my chest, a bit of (possibly poorly remembered) history:
Way back in the days of my halcyon youth, IE 1980s, when I haunted the school library, I read an article about a new program in England.
It seems that even further back in the day, there'd been a big push to get television in homes to get the youth, IE young males, out of pool halls and back home with their families where they belonged.
The new (1980s) push was to start new pool halls in neighborhoods to get the youth, IE young males, weaned off television and out of the house to socialise more.
Buut, the internet happened, and oh well...
My twisted take on this?
In a few years, Utah will be spending billions and legislating to get the "perverts" off the streets, where they're "corrupting" "honest youth".
"watching naughty vids “is linked to lessening desire in young men to marry, dissatisfaction in marriage, and infidelity”."
How about the fact that women initiate more than 80% of divorces, win because of no fault divorce, get full custody 90+% of the time, destroy the man through child support and alimony, and even put him in jail with back payments? Men losing their driver's licenses and their jobs because of back payments? Women in concert with social services, alienating fathers from their children? What about rampant paternity fraud? What about abused men getting arrested for calling the police for help under mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws?
But of course, polygamist Mormon idiots would NEVER, not in a million years, criticize women. They tried the same old shaming tactics to make men marry again with the PragerU youtube videos "Be a man. Get married." and they got what they deserved: overwhelming dislikes.
Porn is a symptom, not the cause. It just happens to be there to pass the time. In the past it was different things. Like clubs. Women's "temperance unions" tried to shut that down too. Remember prohibition?
Why should men get married under these laws and the awful behavior women, which is REWARDED by the government?
Screw you Utah for the gynocentric cucks you are. Why aren't you banning "Fifty Shades of Grey"?