Bibles-for-porn stunt draws crowd at UTSA

Fanny Cradock

Atheist Agenda, an student atheist organisation for the Texas University of San Antonio, has drawn the crowds by offering smut (porn) for smut (religious texts). I have to tip my hat to them for their ability to generate interest. Who know possibly some interesting discussions will happen from it.

Still, on the surface, I can't help but think that what they are offering is a lascivious, shallow and selfish form of self gratification. "There probably is no God. Now have a ****!" At best I think religion can have a very positive influence on the individual. I can't think of many people that would testify that porn makes their life better. But who knows!

On a lighter note, it has been pointed out that somebody should have told these guys that the Kama Sutra is a religious text to some Hindus.

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Atheist Agenda, an student atheist organisation for the Texas University of San Antonio, has drawn the crowds by offering smut (porn) for smut (religious texts)..

This type of thing has been happening for a while. I've definitely read about it before, it could have been mentioned by Donald Miller in one of his books. Rather sad really.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On a lighter note, it has been pointed out that somebody should have told these guys that the Kama Sutra is a religious text to some Hindus.

Wasn't there a similar line of though on the Song of Songs?

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

At best I think religion can have a very positive influence on the individual. I can't think of many people that would testify that porn makes their life better.

And at worst religion can have.................I can't think of many people that would testify that porn incited hatred, slowed the progress of mankind or was partly responsible for people being murdered.

prinz

strobe wrote: »

And at worst religion can have.................I can't think of many people that would testify that porn incited hatred, stood in the progress of mankind or was partly responsible for people being murdered.

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy. There was also a study done IIRC about the majority of prison inmates in the US having reported earlier than average exposure to porn.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy. There was also a study done IIRC about the majority of prison inmates in the US having reported earlier than average exposure to porn.

So porn makes people commit multiple murders and/or become carear criminals? Is that why the rise of the internet (and so the availability of porn) lead to a 120,000 times increase in serial killers, and the need to incarcerate the majority of the population in every first world country? Well you learn something new every day.


Edit: Actually I think I remember reading that study, was that the same one that absolutely proved without a doubt that masturbation makes you gay?

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

And at worst religion can have.................

Very bad consequences for some people.

The same can be said of any ideology - whether that is politics, nationalism or fanatical support of a football team. We already have a debate going about Christianity and tolerance. Your remarks would be better suited to there.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

So porn makes people commit multiple murders and/or become carear criminals? Is that why the rise of the internet (and so the availability of porn) lead to a 120,000 times increase in serial killers, and the need to incarcerate the majority of the population in every first world country? Well you learn something new every day.

You are welcome to post here, but let's try not to play silly hyperbolic word games.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Very bad consequences for some people.

The same can be said of any ideology - whether that is politics, nationalism or fanatical support of a football team.

I agree man, wasn't trying to single religion out in particular, just counter point the comparison you made between religion and porn i.e religion very very good, porn very very baaaad.

landsleaving

prinz wrote: »

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy. There was also a study done IIRC about the majority of prison inmates in the US having reported earlier than average exposure to porn.

But in both circumstances the criminal behaviour is more likely an effect of something else. Such as the fact that serial killers often have sexual or interpersonal problems, so of course they have more of an appetite for porn since they can't connect with someone else sexually. And people who have access to porn at a younger age more than likely have less responsible parents, and their upbringing would be the cause of their criminal behaiviour.

The FBi is hardly the least biased source of info either! :pac:

landsleaving

Back on topic, it's a stupid stunt and people who are so against religion, assumedly because of it's more negative consequences as ideology, should really take a look at their own methods and realise they're every bit as idiotic sometimes. Nothing wrong with porn, but there's a lot to be learned about other cultures and people, and therefore tolerance, from religious texts.

Oh and I say this as an atheist myself.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, on the surface, I can't help but think that what they are offering is a lascivious, shallow and selfish form of self gratification. "There probably is no God. Now have a ****!"

By the sounds of it it is more

"Look at all this stuff the Bible tells you, this stuff is as bad as the porn you are told is bad"

Like a lot of these atheist "stunts" I think such arguments strike a cord with a lot of Christians who are teetering on the edges of abandoning religion, not so much for proper Christians

Zombrex

landsleaving wrote: »

there's a lot to be learned about other cultures and people, and therefore tolerance, from religious texts.

And ..?

How does that relate to what they are doing?

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are welcome to post here, but let's try not to play silly hyperbolic word games.

Fair enough, was just trying to come up with a more colourful way of saying that claiming that pornography makes people into violent criminals is silly.

landsleaving

Wicknight wrote: »

And ..?

How does that relate to what they are doing?

Well they could encourage people to read them and learn more about what they're so intent on criticising, might show people that religious texts teach morality and are generally positiive, giving the atheist a stronger platform to discuss and debate the problematic aspects of religion which emerge from misinterpretation of texts.

Woulodn't that be far more useful than giving them away? Plus porn is free if you have the internet anyway, so it's no major loss to not get that. :pac:

Zombrex

landsleaving wrote: »

Well they could encourage people to read them and learn more about what they're so intent on criticising, might show people that religious texts teach morality and are generally positiive

I think the point of the campaign though is that they don't teach morality and aren't generally positive. That is why they are equating them with pornography.

Have you read the Old Testament?

landsleaving

It's full of parables. The general gist being don't do bad things and God won't punish you. Yeah there's a lot of violence and angry deity action, but still a certain morality.

i'm not saying everything in the bible is right, it's not, and yeah taking it very literally is far from a good thing, but that's not my point at all.

Even if it IS negative and dangerous, wouldn't it be better to understand why by reading it? You've read it and have the knowledge to debate which is admirable, so surely you see the value in that at least?

Xluna

prinz wrote: »

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy. There was also a study done IIRC about the majority of prison inmates in the US having reported earlier than average exposure to porn.

I think this could be due to a number of factors. Abnormally high testosterone could be one. It doubt it's a case of porn can turn people into serial killers. Also it would be interesting to find out what type of porn these serial killers watch,my guess it's all that hardcore sadistic stuff rather the harmless sheep shagging porn most of us watch.:pac:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't think of many people that would testify that porn makes their life better. But who knows!

Ahem!Cough,cough.:D

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

By the sounds of it it is more

"Look at all this stuff the Bible tells you, this stuff is as bad as the porn you are told is bad"

Frankly, I prefer my quip :P

A couple of thoughts.

First, while some people might want to lump all religions in together, not all religions are the same, nor do all religious texts say the same thing. While you might mention the Bible as an example, I don't see specific religious texts named in the article.

Second, if the smut of religious texts is so bad, then why replace it with other smut? Why smut for smut? Why not smut for a book on ethics?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Second, if the smut of religious texts is so bad, then why replace it with other smut?

To highlight the "smut" is actually in these religious text (I thought I read references to the Bible in there some where)

That was my point about your quip

They aren't saying Abandon your religion and you can have all this nice porn :pac:

They are saying look at all the horrible things your religion teaches, how is that any different?

At least that is my take on it. It is a challenge to the idea that religion has the high ground on morality, something we have been debating for years :pac:

prinz

strobe wrote: »

So porn makes people commit multiple murders and/or become carear criminals?

Xluna wrote: »

I think this could be due to a number of factors. Abnormally high testosterone could be one. It doubt it's a case of porn can turn people into serial killers.

You know I would swear people are having a hard time digesting simple sentences.

prinz wrote:

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy.

Xluna wrote: »

Also it would be interesting to find out what type of porn these serial killers watch,my guess it's all that hardcore sadistic stuff rather the harmless sheep shagging porn most of us watch.:pac:

You're probably right. However porn can be addictive, and just like drugs some people may watch 'basic' porn everyday and be quite happy. Other people (a small minority granted) will progress onto harder and harder porn when their addiction takes over. Eventually for some it gets to the point where watching doesn't cut it and acting out happens..

landsleaving wrote: »

But in both circumstances the criminal behaviour is more likely an effect of something else. Such as the fact that serial killers often have sexual or interpersonal problems, so of course they have more of an appetite for porn since they can't connect with someone else sexually. And people who have access to porn at a younger age more than likely have less responsible parents, and their upbringing would be the cause of their criminal behaiviour.

+1, but for such people porn can be destructive. Which goes against this line of thought...

strobe wrote: »

.................I can't think of many people that would testify that porn incited hatred, slowed the progress of mankind or was partly responsible for people being murdered.

Actually I think PDN posted a great link before to an audio file of one man's experiences. I suggest you check it out.


As for the topic, would people/Wicknight still be as happy and understanding if there was no swap of smut, but they were saying instead "Bring us your religious texts and we will burn them for you"?

landsleaving

prinz wrote: »

As for the topic, would people/Wicknight still be as happy and understanding if there was no swap of smut, but they were saying instead "Bring us your religious texts and we will burn them for you"?

+1, exactly what I was thinking, and really, it's not a lot different.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

Actually I think PDN posted a great link before to an audio file of one man's experiences. I suggest you check it out.

I believe that was myself. But the site hosting the file is being redesigned and it isn't accessible at the mo.

DeVore

The morality taught is only positive if you dont fall into the groups which it acts against... I doubt many homosexuals find Catholic Morality "positive". But then they are filthy gays and deserve what they get (joking!)

Religion may be positive to a single individual but its effect on society has been pretty poor in almost all cases with everything ranging from intolerance (what happened to Love They Neighbour?) to subserviance to fallible humans as though almost gods (from paedophile cover ups to the infalliability of the pope).

The message isnt a bad one but the effect and the interpretations have not been positive for the world in my opinion.

DeV.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

You know I would swear people are having a hard time digesting simple sentences.






Actually I think PDN posted a great link before to an audio file of one man's experiences. I suggest you check it out.

Listen it says right there in the sentence of mine you quoted, "many people" so enough of the "hard time digesting simple sentences" rubish if you are then going to go on and use "one mans experiences" to try and counter my point.

Anyways this is the last post I'll make in the thread as I can see it descending into ridiculousness like above. I'll just say, the idea of trading porn for bibles was obviously done to garner as much publicity as possible. Simply having a campaign saying "give us your bibles" wouldn't have got media attention, and wouldn't have lead to threads like this and people taking about it, which as they state themselves was their primary objective. To spark debate.

And no I wouldn't approve of burning religious texts, or any books. I personally believe if more people read their religious texts in detail, (let's be honest most people never ever do or will) then there would be far fewer people buying into the stuff. I know that personally, reading the bible (the Old Testament moreso than the new, Genesis, Noahs Ark ect) was a major factor in myself coming to the conclusion that it made very little sense.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

As for the topic, would people/Wicknight still be as happy and understanding if there was no swap of smut, but they were saying instead "Bring us your religious texts and we will burn them for you"?

Well no since burning books is some what bad for the environment. :pac:

Bring us your religious texts and we will recycle them for you on the other hand I would be perfectly fine with.

I'm only against burning books when it is an attempt to stop others from accessing them (which is the traditional notion of book burning). That does not seem to be the case here.

I can't see any reason to be against people getting rid of their own books.

Do you believe that a person should not get rid of the Bible once they own it? If so I'm curious is this a Christian thing, a notion that the Bible is special as an object in of itself, sort of like the way Americans believe the American flag should never touch the ground and should be disposed of in a particular fashion?

Or do you simply think people should never get rid of books they own?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Bring us your religious texts and we will recycle them for you on the other hand I would be perfectly fine with.

Ah yes, I am sure you would be this accommodating if a Christian group was offering to shred copies of Dawkins etc.

prinz

strobe wrote: »

Listen it says right there in the sentence of mine you quoted, "many people" so enough of the "hard time digesting simple sentences" rubish if you are then going to go on and use "one mans experiences" to try and counter my point.

You see here is what I said...

prinz wrote: »

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy.

This is what you think I said..

strobe wrote: »

So porn makes people commit multiple murders and/or become carear criminals? Is that why the rise of the internet (and so the availability of porn) lead to a 120,000 times increase in serial killers, and the need to incarcerate the majority of the population in every first world country? Well you learn something new every day..

Now do you see how ridiculous your reply was? Either you cannot understand my sentence or you willfully tried to undermine it in a case of reductio ad absurdum.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Ah yes, I am sure you would be this accommodating if a Christian group was offering to shred copies of Dawkins etc.

Well the guy who runs my local Oxfam is a Christian as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure he would take my copy of On the Origin of the Species if I gave it to him.

Again I'm not really following your point here? Are you saying Bibles should never be destroyed? Or not destroyed by atheists?

Genghiz Cohen

prinz wrote: »

You see here is what I said...



This is what you think I said..



Now do you see how ridiculous your reply was? Either you cannot understand my sentence or you willfully tried to undermine it in a case of reductio ad absurdum.

"One of the factors"
Yes it is just one of many factors, but it is the one you brought up.

On the point of burning Dawkins/Darwin books, wouldn't see it as any worse than burning any text(Pretty poor form). But if you were to burn a Pratchett novel, well, it's throw-down time!

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the guy who runs my local Oxfam is a Christian as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure he would take my copy of On the Origin of the Species if I gave it to him.

What do you think he would do with it though? Do you think he would take it at value as an interesting book which could raise a few quid for Oxfam by selling it, or do you think he would "recycle it" to prove a point?

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm not really following your point here? Are you saying Bibles should never be destroyed? Or not destroyed by atheists?

Is that what the group in question are planning to do? If so neither or the above apply. I don't think anyone should encourage anyone else to destroy literature of any worth tbh. Imagine a stand on O'Connell Street looking for people to books by a certain author/genre to be destroyed.. I think it's a backwards step tbh.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

"One of the factors"
Yes it is just one of many factors, but it is the one you brought up.

Er, it is directly related to the title/topic and was a reply to a hastily edited second post. So no, I didn't "bring it up", merely pointed out a few realities which were then seized upon and blown out of all proportion as if I had said porn = murderers. I didn't. To suggest otherwise is simply acting the clown.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

On the point of burning Dawkins/Darwin books, wouldn't see it as any worse than burning any text(Pretty poor form).

So you agree that buring Bibles would be pretty poor form too?


Edit: Pretty funny that alongside the original article should be an advert promoting the reading of books..

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

What do you think he would do with it though? Do you think he would take it at value as an interesting book which could raise a few quid for Oxfam by selling it, or do you think he would "recycle it" to prove a point?

I don't really care. I don't think a physical copy of On The Origin should be treated with reverence. If he wants to rip out the pages to cover the ground while his dog is being house trained that's up to him (so long as he pays Oxfam of course)

prinz wrote: »

I don't think anyone should encourage anyone else to destroy literature of any worth tbh.

You should have a word with my mother. My father is what Oprah would call a "hoarder", he has books all over the house that he has read once or twice but is holding on to them.

My mother is constantly asking/demanding/begging that he throw out some books, at least throw out a book when he buys a new one.

I don't think that makes my mum a bad person? (what you saying about my mum! :pac:)

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

...so long as he pays Oxfam of course...

At least some good would come of it then. If this group in the OP were to donate the religious texts to some charity or other who might be able to raise funds by selling them on or whatever then I have no problem with their publicity stunt. If they're simply planning on burning/shredding/binning them, well that's just destruction for destructions sake.

Wicknight wrote: »

...
You should have a word with my mother. My father is what Oprah would call a "hoarder", he has books all over the house that he has read once or twice but is holding on to them.

Ha, I bet he's got some great books then. I'm the same, books everywhere :pac: Perhaps that makes me biased on this topic.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Ha, I bet he's got some great books then. I'm the same, books everywhere :pac: Perhaps that makes me biased on this topic.

Perhaps :pac:

I was just trying to clarify if it is all books or just the Bible you hold this position on

AtomicHorror

prinz wrote: »

Actually the FBI has released information that one of the factors linking many of the serial killers in US history is an above normal appetite for pornogrpahy. There was also a study done IIRC about the majority of prison inmates in the US having reported earlier than average exposure to porn.

Correlation =/= causation.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Correlation =/= causation.

Well while there may be some truth in it, the problem is that when these reports ultimately end up getting presented in the media they have been fudged some what.

As anyone who has spend 5 minutes on the Internet knows "pornography" is a term used to describe all sort of stuff.

Porn can be two people having sex in a "couples" adult video (designed for couples to become aroused by) which has nothing more crazy that two people having normal sex.

And it can go right the way up to the quite disgusting videos like simulated rape and violence or even actual violence.

"Pornography" can be a woman rubbing her breasts and looking suggestively into the camera or it can be child porn.

The idea that these are all one and the same thing is frankly ridiculous.

I've little trouble imagining that serial killers tend to be attracted to violent pornography in order to fantasize about the violent acts they wish to carry out.

The problem is when people try and make that out as if that is the same thing a middle age couple trying to get a bit of spark back in their relationship with an adult DVD are watching.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that these are all one and the same thing is frankly ridiculous..

..and no one was trying to argue that so it's all good, my point was not against pornography itself per se, more against the attitude that it is harmless fun and would never be abused/misused/harmful to people in their lives.. in the same way as alcohol for instance, yes it can be 'harmless' fun to a majority of people but there are a significant number who succumb to addiction etc.

mehfesto

Similarly if you equate the acts or characteristics of a person based the sex they enjoy, then what of abstinent priests? Are they just dead inside. No.

Porn has always been an area of concern for many. As someone who has nothing personal against it, I would worry about children viewing it - nit because they may become homicidal maniacs, but because it may enforce a belief if sexual inadequacy.

I think it's fine for this group to be handing it out though. Each to their own. But they are not encouraging the growth of murderers un any sense.

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

..and no one was trying to argue that so it's all good, my point was not against pornography itself per se, more against the attitude that it is harmless fun and would never be abused/misused/harmful to people in their lives.. in the same way as alcohol for instance, yes it can be 'harmless' fun to a majority of people but there are a significant number who succumb to addiction etc.

Same could be said about religion. Or, infact, almost anything that gives any form of gratification really!

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

Same could be said about religion. Or, infact, almost anything that gives any form of gratification really!

Exactly I agree with you...

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

Exactly I agree with you...

Ah, my mistake

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

..and no one was trying to argue that so it's all good, my point was not against pornography itself per se, more against the attitude that it is harmless fun and would never be abused/misused/harmful to people in their lives

But when you say it is not harmless fun what type of pornography are you talking about?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

But when you say it is not harmless fun what type of pornography are you talking about?

Well when it gets to that stage the type is irrelevant tbh, it's down to the user. Obviously some people are drawn to the disgusting extremes and the centre is relatively softcore, but it can all be harmful depending on the state of mind of the user, in the same way a pint of beer is harmless enough to your average person but to a chronic alcoholic..

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

But when you say it is not harmless fun what type of pornography are you talking about?

Possibly the kind of pornography that is produced and distributed by organised crime. Or the kind where vulnerable women are exploited into degrading themselves for the entertainment of others in order to feed their drug habits. Or the kind of pornography that quite deliberately promotes the 'rape fantasy' (the idea that women really quite enjoy being raped and get sexually turned on during the act).

Or, of course, the kind of pornography that persistently portrays strangers engaging in casual sexual without using a condom. This kind of pornography, which is produced in the west and widely distributed throughout Asia and Africa, probably contributes much more to the spread of HIV / AIDS than the pronouncements of the Pope when he advises his flock to abstain from both extra marital sex and from contraception.

And yet we have atheists who try to paint the Pope as the arch-cause of AIDS in Africa while simultaneously trying to portray pornography as harmless fun. Such ideologically motivated inconsistency is IMHO quite breathtaking.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And yet we have atheists who try to paint the Pope as the arch-cause of AIDS in Africa while simultaneously trying to portray pornography as harmless fun. Such ideologically motivated inconsistency is IMHO quite breathtaking.

Ummm, I'm trying to think of some way to respond to that without you giving me an infraction for going off topic

Perhaps I'll just leave it :rolleyes:

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Well when it gets to that stage the type is irrelevant tbh, it's down to the user. Obviously some people are drawn to the disgusting extremes and the centre is relatively softcore, but it can all be harmful depending on the state of mind of the user, in the same way a pint of beer is harmless enough to your average person but to a chronic alcoholic..

But a chronic alcoholic gets to be an alcoholic by drinking?

You seem to be saying that pornography can be harmful to a very very mentally sick person who becomes very very mentally sick independently of pornography?

Which doesn;t have a lot to do with pornography

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

But a chronic alcoholic gets to be an alcoholic by drinking?

...and somebody addicted to pornography gets that way by over indulging in pornography to an unhealthy level, regardless of what type of pornography it is.

People can be addicted. As such it is detrimental to them and those around them and can be a very negative force on their lives. Even 'softcore'.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

...and somebody addicted to pornography gets that way by over indulging in pornography to an unhealthy level, regardless of what type of pornography it is.

But that is the bit I don't think there is any proper evidence for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction

Alcohol and drugs on the other hand have a physical effect on the body.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the bit I don't think there is any proper evidence for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction

Alcohol and drugs on the other hand have a physical effect on the body.

I think you might be confusing physical dependence with addiction.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the bit I don't think there is any proper evidence for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction
Alcohol and drugs on the other hand have a physical effect on the body.

Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography...

Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality echoed Layden's concern about the internet and the somatic effects of pornography.
"Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause direct release of the most perfect addictive substance," Satinover said. "That is, it causes masturbation, which causes release of the naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can't do, in effect."

Read More http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65772#ixzz0haE3xBsb

A pornographic psychopharmacological flood yields epinephrine, testosterone, endorphins (endogenous morphine), oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, phenylethylamine,3 and other pharmacological stimuli.

3. Candace Pert, cited in Bill Moyer's Healing and the Mind, Doubleday, New York, 1991, p. 177

In her book published by the Institute of Medicine, Sandra Ackerman notes that epinephrine alone gets the “vertebrate brain” “high” on its own self produced morphine or heroin.4

4. Sandra Ackerman, Discovering the Brain, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992, p. 76-77

Pornography, designed to alert the procreation instinct to the need to immediately respond, would be especially likely to cause users to self-medicate, kick-starting these endogenous LSD, adrenaline/norepinephrine, morphine-like neurochemicals for a hormonal flood, a “rush” allegedly analogous to the rush attained using various street drugs. 5

5. Dr. Judith Reisman, The Psychopharmacology of Pictorial Pornography, Ibid., p. 21

http://www.netnanny.com/blog/entry/id/29

Both alcohol and drugs have similar affects on the brain's chemistry IIRC, again going off topic. I think most people will agree too much of anything can be bad for you.

Zombrex

Ummm

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality thinks that homosexuality can be cured (they used to be call the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality).

They are a religious organisation masquerading as a scientific group.

As for the quotes, I'm not disputing that sexual arosual doesn't produce chemicals in the brain that give people a natural high.

But so does exercise and eating vegetables.

What is in dispute is whether this can lead to an addiction. That idea seems to be ideological in nature, promoted by certain groups who view pornography as inherently bad for cultural reasons and then look around for a reason why it is.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality thinks that homosexuality can be cured (they used to be call the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality)..

You may notice nothing in what I quoted comes from NARTH. It comes from an advisor to NARTH and a man respected enough in his field to appear before a US State Senate Committee.

Wicknight wrote: »

They are a religious organisation masquerading as a scientific group.

Good on them. However what does this have to do with what I quoted? .. nice little tangent.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is in dispute is whether this can lead to an addiction. That idea seems to be ideological in nature, promoted by certain groups who view pornography as inherently bad for cultural reasons and then look around for a reason why it is.

Is alcoholism an ideological idea? Certain groups such as?

Which brings us back to my original point that pornography can be harmful to some people, and has been.