PDA

View Full Version : The science of sex addiction


Jason McCullough
06-25-2005, 01:43 PM
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

It has come to my attention that The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on “The Science Behind Pornography Addiction” on November 18, 2004. My understanding is that the Committee has allowed a two-week response period. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the testimony of the several witnesses who testified before the committee. It is my opinion that that a one-sided view of the “science” behind the notion of pornography exposure as addictive has been presented to the Committee. I would like to take the opportunity to present what I feel is a more objective overview of the state of scientific research than that expressed by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee.

The testimony of Dr. Judith Reisman

Dr. Reisman makes the claim that: “Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail, arguably, subverting the First Amendment by overriding the cognitive speech process. This is true of so-called ‘soft-core’ and ‘hard-core’ pornography. And once new neurochemical pathways are established they are difficult or impossible to delete.” Later she asserts: “These media erotic fantasies become deeply embedded … addicting many of those exposed.”

What the hell is going on?

BrewersDroop
06-25-2005, 01:56 PM
Pornography subverts the First Amendment? Cool!

Chris Nahr
06-26-2005, 03:17 AM
Was this amusing pamphlet posted as an extreme example of what should be allowed under free speech?

Bull
06-26-2005, 09:42 AM
Maybe you guys have new "neurochemical pathways established" and are all in denial. Did you ever think of that?

bago
06-26-2005, 05:06 PM
Wait, men become dumb once tits are involved? Shocking!

Nellie
06-27-2005, 03:31 AM
heh heh heh, you said tits.


mmmmmm Boobies.

AttAdude
06-27-2005, 07:14 AM
Hummm. Mabey next they can have a committee to talk about our addiction to misusing the word addiction and placing it on every fucking surface we pass.... man i hate these people...


Addiction is characterized by 2 traits, or so says the DSM. That means in order for anything to qualify it must be able to fill these 2 qualifiers.

1) Addicts will develop a tollerance to the substance in question. they will need more and more to of the susbstance in question to reach the same "high" as they used too

2) the subject must develop withdrawls in the absense of the substance.

If you cant fill both of these reqs then you are wrong. In this instance, and with the broad scope they are applying this too, i think its pretty obvious these people are full of shit.

Duality
06-27-2005, 10:04 AM
Pornography subverts the First Amendment? Cool!
No no no. The brain is subverting the First Amendment!

bago
06-28-2005, 03:32 AM
Humans are addicted to sex like they're addicted to air, water, and food. The species dies if they are denied.

Seems like a damn good reason to have such a strong response to it, no?

Troy S Goodfellow
06-28-2005, 09:35 AM
Humans are addicted to sex like they're addicted to air, water, and food. The species dies if they are denied.

Seems like a damn good reason to have such a strong response to it, no?

No. Because the species isn't addicted to sex. Addiction is not a species characteristic, it's an individual one.

Plus an individual can live fine without sex. But not air, food and water. Sex may be a matter of species survival, but not individual. So it is on a different level than air, food and water.

Plus, you can say the same thing about all animals under your criteria. Dogs and hippos need sex too, but it can't be an addiction because of how the species propogate.

Troy

Jason McCullough
06-28-2005, 10:20 AM
Maybe not survive, but I think if you're wired up to be unhappy without sex by divine writ it's kind of a moot point.

bago
06-28-2005, 07:59 PM
Think about it from an evolutionary perspective. If your genes don't spread, they die. Therefore the horniest mofos will have their genes spread. You are hard-wired to want it, and it practically defines the pleasure centers in your brain.

Enidigm
06-28-2005, 08:25 PM
Think about it from an evolutionary perspective. If your genes don't spread, they die. Therefore the horniest mofos will have their genes spread. You are hard-wired to want it, and it practically defines the pleasure centers in your brain.

So all heterosexual sex is rape?

Not to throw the thread on a different tangent but such a conclusion is at least implied if sex drive = reproductive success alone.

Tyrion Lannister
06-28-2005, 09:29 PM
Think about it from an evolutionary perspective. If your genes don't spread, they die. Therefore the horniest mofos will have their genes spread. You are hard-wired to want it, and it practically defines the pleasure centers in your brain.

So all heterosexual sex is rape?

Not to throw the thread on a different tangent but such a conclusion is at least implied if sex drive = reproductive success alone.

eh?

Bit of a logic gap there. Care to fill in the steps?

bago
06-28-2005, 09:32 PM
Step 1: Sex.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.

It IS the world oldest profession.