Is Porn Bad for You?

[JackRiddler]

brekin, I got it. You are going to keep repeating your plug for Jones's book as though his Web site leaves any mystery about his ideology or conclusions, and from my point of view making yourself less and less credible for ignoring the eternal global Jewish conspiracy crap he incorporates. The more you write, the more you convince me that I have indeed read enough of you, and him on his own site, to make the judgement that there are things that interest me more in the big, wide world than subjecting myself to Jones in book form.

(Also, terminology: You should be aware that Catholic fundamentalism is a specific term. It doesn't mean Catholicism in general, not all Catholics are "fundamentalist." It refers to a strain who are open about calls to undo Vatican II and still haven't given up on the French Revolution, or the Reformation, or the idea that the church should rule on Earth. The present Vatican under Ratzinger obviously wishes such a goal were possible, but makes do with the practicality of taking the world as it is. A Catholic diocese can be extremely conservative or encourage repressive measures in the flock, without an explicit ideology. Those who propagate rollback of past reforms and concessions to other religions openly, without diplomatic frills, are the fundamentalists. Not exactly Kerouac, except maybe in his last years when he got bitter and stopped writing.)

[compared2what?]

Again, if you think you know so much about a book without reading it, how can you make any claim to empiricism? The very thing you are passing judgment on (his book) you have not even examined.

Please remind yourself that the raison d'être for your entire argument rests on events that haven't even happened yet -- ie, the preference for the substitute over the real that you've repeatedly and confidently asserted people will develop in response to online porn -- which you think because it's what you think and which you can't possibly have examined prior to passing judgment on it because it hasn't happened yet.

Uh, no I think online porn is evil because the results from what I've seen are evil.

What results? A family breaking up over online gambling? Draw Mohammad Day? What have you seen other than more people being open about their use of porn?

f this thread was called "Is TV Bad for You?" It would be a no-brainer.

I respectfully dissent. So speak for yourself.

But because we are dealing with sexuality, anyone who is the slightly bit critical runs the risk of being labeled puritanical or medieval.

You're not slightly critical of online porn, you think it's the force driving civilization off a cliff. And if you have any basis in fact or reason for your strong conviction on that point, you seem to have chosen to keep it to yourself.

I think it may be time for you to examine your "faith" in what you believe to be empiricism.

I don't see any sign at all that the poster you're addressing is either over-reliant or under-reliant on what he believes to be empiricism, which is well within the boundaries of what all literate people who know the meaning of the word "empiricism" believe to be empiricism.

Correction: I never said porn was "good." If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see I don't believe that.

Mainly I object to your estimate of just how bad it is.

So you don't think online porn is good? Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Can you read? He didn't say he didn't think online porn was good. He merely said he'd never said that it was. See? Right up there. Excellent. What that means is that your party-dancing emoticon is premature.

FWIW, though I could be wrong, as I understand that sentence, he's saying that he doesn't think of online porn in terms of good v. bad. Because of the quotes he put around the word "good."

Misrepresentation: I based my judgement of Jones's theses in Libido Dominandi on the materials Jones presents on his Web site. Those aren't merely reviews. They are the reviews he uses to promote his book. I give him credit for presenting his ideas clearly and honestly enough that these can be critiqued based on his presentation. (There's more, such as that what he writes and presents on his site conforms fully with an ideology I feel I've already read enough of in my life to identify it when I see it. Life's unfair that way, but I don't get to read every book in the universe.)

Look there is no getting around that you based your final condemnatory judgment on a 668 page book based on some reviews of it. Then you extrapolated a whole world view that you accused me of sharing from these reviews. Look, I think you know you basically have to read the book now. In the interest of intellectual rigor, in proving me wrong, in not rushing to judgment, etc you have a new night table book.

I know you weren't talking to me. But personally, I feel perfectly capable of forming a fair, thorough and thoughtful and well-informed opinion on this subject without reading E. Michael Smith, despite my not being in any position to know what I'm missing, not having read him. I usually do form my opinions via a process of careful consideration and research that's often indebted to other thinkers but isn't just, like, my wholesale adaptation of their thoughts as my own. In fact, I actually try not to read other thinkers on a topic of major interest to me until after I've had enough exposure to it to have attained the standard basic amount of fluency and familiarity with it that I need in order to prevent the clarity of my vision or judgment from being obscured by the preconceptions of whatever thinker introduced me to it by proxy.

That's not always possible of course. But to whatever extent I've ever been able to do it, it's always worked for me. I recommend it to you therefore.

Also, please remind yourself that this thread isn't about whether E. Michael Smith's opinions are good or bad for you, but whether porn is. You've made a forceful case for your belief that posters would profit from reading his book, and it came across loudly and clearly. That's all you can do, as well as all anyone could possibly expect from you. So you should be both proud of and content with your efforts, imo. And also, you should also let it drop now.

Because not only can you do no more. You'd be seriously derailing the thread if you did. Which I'm sure you wouldn't want, And for there's no need, your point having been made and re-made already. Happily enough.

Thanks and cheers,

c2w

[Simulist]

If this thread was called "Is TV Bad for You?" It would be a no-brainer.

Well, if that were a "no-brainer" for some people, I guess I'd have to suggest that they begin to use their brains a bit more.

[brekin]

JackRiddler wrote:

brekin, I got it. You are going to keep repeating your plug for Jones's book as though his Web site leaves any mystery about his ideology or conclusions, and from my point of view making yourself less and less credible for ignoring the eternal global Jewish conspiracy crap he incorporates. The more you write, the more you convince me that I have indeed read enough of you, and him on his own site, to make the judgement that there are things that interest me more in the big, wide world than subjecting myself to Jones in book form.

And Jack, I got it, you can't believe a Catholic fundamentalist can write cogently about the promise of sexual liberation being used as a form of social control. I simply say I think he has. Do I agree with all of his principles and conclusions? No. Does he do a good job of showing how the process has operated historically and continues to do so? Again I think so. If you don't want to read his book that is fine, but you are dismissing all the evidence he goes through when you lump that in with his fundamentalist beliefs. Since you don't know what he talks about in the book (because you haven't read it) then that is being short sighted. If a fundamentalist Muslim wrote a book about how sexual liberation can become a tool for bondage would I have to agree with his principles, conclusions or even aim in writing the book? Of course not. But I can't dismiss the book and the examples he gives if I haven't read it. If you look at Newton, Kepler, etc and some of their first principles there would be plenty there for any scientific minded person to dismiss. But then people people who are coming out of darkness can stumble into the truth now and again.

The Catholic Church's power has waned considerably in the last couple of centuries. This of course didn't "just happen". Many people think this is a good thing. But shouldn't we examine how this has happened and by who? As a Catholic Jones thinks religious Jews have benefited from and helped this process. I don't think this is news considering what the Church has done to them in the past. I mean there was (is) a global Catholic conspiracy, Jewish, Muslim, Technocratic etc And if anyone comes off the worse in Libido Dominandi I would think its the Quakers.

(Also, terminology: You should be aware that Catholic fundamentalism is a specific term. It doesn't mean Catholicism in general, not all Catholics are "fundamentalist." It refers to a strain who are open about calls to undo Vatican II and still haven't given up on the French Revolution, or the Reformation, or the idea that the church should rule on Earth. The present Vatican under Ratzinger obviously wishes such a goal were possible, but makes do with the practicality of taking the world as it is. A Catholic diocese can be extremely conservative or encourage repressive measures in the flock, without an explicit ideology. Those who propagate rollback of past reforms and concessions to other religions openly, without diplomatic frills, are the fundamentalists. Not exactly Kerouac, except maybe in his last years when he got bitter and stopped writing.)

Yes, and Jones makes no bones about that. We know what he wants and where he is coming from, but nowhere up there is anything about the promise of sexual liberation being used as a form of social control. Your comment about the "sin of fornication" shows your taking old Church Doctrine and not what Jones writes about.

compated2what wrote:

brekin wrote:
Again, if you think you know so much about a book without reading it, how can you make any claim to empiricism? The very thing you are passing judgment on (his book) you have not even examined.

Please remind yourself that the raison d'être for your entire argument rests on events that haven't even happened yet -- ie, the preference for the substitute over the real that you've repeatedly and confidently asserted people will develop in response to online porn -- which you think because it's what you think and which you can't possibly have examined prior to passing judgment on it because it hasn't happened yet.

Oh my God. Look historically the promise of sexual liberation as social control has happened. That's what Jones book is about! The other book deals with how online porn rewires your brain. Both processes are at work. Can I prove that online porn will ruin society? No, because that has happened. I'm saying I think it could based on the available evidence.

Quote:
If this thread was called "Is TV Bad for You?" It would be a no-brainer.


I respectfully dissent. So speak for yourself.

Fine, I respect that. You have any evidence TV is good for you?

Quote:
Uh, no I think online porn is evil because the results from what I've seen are evil.

What results? A family breaking up over online gambling? Draw Mohammad Day? What have you seen other than more people being open about their use of porn?

Quote:
But because we are dealing with sexuality, anyone who is the slightly bit critical runs the risk of being labeled puritanical or medieval.


You're not slightly critical of online porn, you think it's the force driving civilization off a cliff. And if you have any basis in fact or reason for your strong conviction on that point, you seem to have chosen to keep it to yourself.

I've offered anecdote, personal observation, confession, two books people don't want to read, my gut feeling, etc I think I've made my myself clear. I haven't seen any strong evidence presented from you or anyone else yet that online porn is "just same as it ever was" except for some ancient pin up pics. People disagree. That's fine. But convince me. What books, studies should I read to convince me that it is not as I think it is?

Quote:
I think it may be time for you to examine your "faith" in what you believe to be empiricism.


I don't see any sign at all that the poster you're addressing is either over-reliant or under-reliant on what he believes to be empiricism, which is well within the boundaries of what all literate people who know the meaning of the word "empiricism" believe to be empiricism.

He said a book was wrong that he hadn't read. Shoddy lab work.

Quote:
Correction: I never said porn was "good." If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see I don't believe that.

Mainly I object to your estimate of just how bad it is.


So you don't think online porn is good? Do you have any evidence to back that up?


Can you read? He didn't say he didn't think online porn was good. He merely said he'd never said that it was. See? Right up there. Excellent. What that means is that your party-dancing emoticon is premature.

FWIW, though I could be wrong, as I understand that sentence, he's saying that he doesn't think of online porn in terms of good v. bad. Because of the quotes he put around the word "good."

Maybe we should let him speak for himself then if your not sure then?

Quote:


Quote:
Misrepresentation: I based my judgement of Jones's theses in Libido Dominandi on the materials Jones presents on his Web site. Those aren't merely reviews. They are the reviews he uses to promote his book. I give him credit for presenting his ideas clearly and honestly enough that these can be critiqued based on his presentation. (There's more, such as that what he writes and presents on his site conforms fully with an ideology I feel I've already read enough of in my life to identify it when I see it. Life's unfair that way, but I don't get to read every book in the universe.)



Look there is no getting around that you based your final condemnatory judgment on a 668 page book based on some reviews of it. Then you extrapolated a whole world view that you accused me of sharing from these reviews. Look, I think you know you basically have to read the book now. In the interest of intellectual rigor, in proving me wrong, in not rushing to judgment, etc you have a new night table book.


I know you weren't talking to me. But personally, I feel perfectly capable of forming a fair, thorough and thoughtful and well-informed opinion on this subject without reading E. Michael Smith, despite my not being in any position to know what I'm missing, not having read him. I usually do form my opinions via a process of careful consideration and research that's often indebted to other thinkers but isn't just, like, my wholesale adaptation of their thoughts as my own. In fact, I actually try not to read other thinkers on a topic of major interest to me until after I've had enough exposure to it to have attained the standard basic amount of fluency and familiarity with it that I need in order to prevent the clarity of my vision or judgment from being obscured by the preconceptions of whatever thinker introduced me to it by proxy.

That's not always possible of course. But to whatever extent I've ever been able to do it, it's always worked for me. I recommend it to you therefore.

Also, please remind yourself that this thread isn't about whether E. Michael Smith's opinions are good or bad for you, but whether porn is. You've made a forceful case for your belief that posters would profit from reading his book, and it came across loudly and clearly. That's all you can do, as well as all anyone could possibly expect from you. So you should be both proud of and content with your efforts, imo. And also, you should also let it drop now.

Because not only can you do no more. You'd be seriously derailing the thread if you did. Which I'm sure you wouldn't want, And for there's no need, your point having been made and re-made already. Happily enough.

Thanks and cheers,

c2w

Your right this thread isn't about E. Michael Smith, but it was starting to become about E. Michael Jones. I'm sorry I don't know how anyone can form a opinion about a book (that was what I recommended, not the man's fundamentalist doctrine, or his website, or book reviews, or blurbs) without having read it. When you say:

But personally, I feel perfectly capable of forming a fair, thorough and thoughtful and well-informed opinion on this subject without reading E. Michael Smith, despite my not being in any position to know what I'm missing, not having read him. I usually do form my opinions via a process of careful consideration and research that's often indebted to other thinkers but isn't just, like, my wholesale adaptation of their thoughts as my own. In fact, I actually try not to read other thinkers on a topic of major interest to me until after I've had enough exposure to it to have attained the standard basic amount of fluency and familiarity with it that I need in order to prevent the clarity of my vision or judgment from being obscured by the preconceptions of whatever thinker introduced me to it by proxy

I totally understand you can be fluent on the topic without reading a certain book about it. But if you haven't read the book, you don't know the book and can't speak to it with any authority. And to dismiss it because you don't like some of the author's beliefs betrays a tendency not to want to be fluent on a topic because it may conflict with what you already believe.

I recommended a book. Someone doesn't want to read it. End of story. But that's not what happened. Someone didn't want to read it and ascribe all manner of things to the book and me that were off base and tried to drag me into discussion on the Second Vatican council, medieval Catholicism, etc If someone recommends Crime and Punishment and I haven't read it do I get to dismiss the work because Dostoevsky was a anti-Semite, and I think that is what the book is about?

P.S. Its the weekend and I may not be rapid in replying but I think everyone knows my vote at this point? I think online porn is bad.

[barracuda]

C'mon, let's all say it together: Porn is good for you!

Science has proved it!

In a paper published in 2009 in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Milton Diamond reviewed a very broad number of studies that have explored the supposed ill effects of pornography. Subsequent to his extensive review, Diamond concludes (p. 312):

"Indeed, the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes. Further, considering the findings of studies of community standards and wide spread usage of SEM [sexually explicit material], it is obvious that in local communities as nationally and internationally, porn is available, widely used and felt appropriate for voluntary adult consumption. If there is a consensus against pornography it is in regard to any SEM that involves children or minors in its production or consumption. Lastly we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence."

That bears repeating: an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes.

Also:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/16/net_smut_ok/

Net porn good for you: official

Ground-breaking Australian study

A government-funded study into porn consumption Down Under has concluded that a little of what you fancy might do you good - and may even make users "more relaxed about their sexuality" and lead to healthier marriages, news.com.au reports.

The survey - nicely entitled "Understanding Pornography in Australia" and carried out by a team led by Dr Alan McKee - quizzed 1000 porn users and concluded that "pornography is actually good for you in many ways", as McKee put it.

McKee's findings have added fuel to the punch-up over Labor proposals to force ISPs to filter porn in order to protect kiddies from online smut. The author of the draft legislation - Australia Institute executive director Clive Hamilton - hit back at McKee's findings with: "No man who regularly uses pornography can have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman," adding: "The question is - how much are we willing to pay to protect our children from damaging pornographic images?"

McKee, however, asserted: "The more we try and turn porn into something that's seen to be bad and has to be kept away from families, the more problems we might be causing for ourselves."

That's right - online porn may lead to healthier marriages! And furthermore, here's a Danish study...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/am2504138130456g/

Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography Consumption

The self-perceived effects of “hardcore” pornography consumption were studied in a large representative sample of young adult Danish men and women aged 18–30. Using a survey that included the newly developed Pornography Consumption Effect Scale, we assessed participants’ reports of how pornography has affected them personally in various areas, including their sexual knowledge, attitudes toward sex, attitudes toward and perception of the opposite sex, sex life, and general quality of life. Across all areas investigated, participants reported only small, if any, negative effects with men reporting slightly more negative effects than women. In contrast, moderate positive effects were generally reported by both men and women, with men reporting significantly more positive effects than women. For both sexes, sexual background factors were found to significantly predict both positive and negative effects of pornography consumption. Although the proportion of variance in positive effects accounted for by sexual background factors was substantial, it was small for negative effects. We discuss how the findings may be interpreted differently by supporters and opponents of pornography due to the reliance in this study on reported self-perceptions of effects. Nonetheless, we conclude that the overall findings suggest that many young Danish adults believe that pornography has had primarily a positive effect on various aspects of their lives.

Porn = Good For You!

It's really not that surprising. If this OP was entitled "Is Sex Bad For You?", the answer would be a no-brainer. The consumption (gulp) of pornography is simply a subset of sexual activity per se, and as such, is part of a way of life which is, ultimately, healthy.

Use it or lose it.

[barracuda]

And don't forget - Masturbation cuts cancer risk

Men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation, researchers suggest.
They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.

And they say sexual intercourse may not have the same protective effect because of the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, which could increase men's cancer risk.

Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits.

They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer.

The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s.

Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.

Fluid

Previous research has suggested that a high number of sexual partners or a high level of sexual activity increased a man's risk of developing prostate cancer by up to 40%.

But the Australian researchers who carried out this study suggest the early work missed the protective effect of ejaculation because it focussed on sexual intercourse, with its associated risk of STIs.

Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, who led the research team, told New Scientist: "Had we been able to remove ejaculations associated with sexual intercourse, there should have been an even stronger protective effect of ejaculations."

The researchers suggest that ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland.

The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.

The fluid has high concentrations of substances including potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid, which are drawn from the bloodstream.

But animal studies have shown carcinogens such as 3-methylchloranthrene, found in cigarette smoke, are also concentrated in the prostate.

'Flushing out'

Dr Giles said fewer ejaculations may mean the carcinogens build up.

"It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis. The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."

A similar connection has been found between breast cancer and breastfeeding, where lactating appeared to "flush out" carcinogens, reduce a woman's risk of the disease, New Scientist reports.

Another theory put forward by the researchers is that ejaculation may induce prostate glands to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens.

Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory."

She added: "In the same way the human papillomavirus has been linked to cervical cancer, there is a suggestion that bits of prostate cancer may be related to a sexually transmitted infection earlier in life."

Anthony Smith, deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne, said the research could affect the kind of lifestyle advice doctors give to patients.

"Masturbation is part of people's sexual repertoire.

"If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate," he said.

C'mon. Nobody wants cancer, right? So get to wanking, you slackers! Flush that bad stuff out!

[JackRiddler]

And Jack, I got it, you can't believe a Catholic fundamentalist can write cogently about the promise of sexual liberation being used as a form of social control. I simply say I think he has.

Potentially he can. He has to overcome the handicap that this conclusion would already be suggested by his dearly held and loudly announced ideology a priori, but maybe he can make the case through an empirical and soberly argued approach.

Based on the material his website (and you) present on behalf of this thesis, neither of you has any such intention.

I began my participation on this thread with my own views on Huxley's similar thesis about sexual liberation as a means of social control, so it's something I have addressed and have not ignored.

You make discussion of this possibly workable premise difficult here, by exaggerating it to an absurd degree wherein online porn is the destroyer of the world.

Jones's other views (for example on Jews and culture war in general, or on the pernicious impact of Vatican II in specifically American developments) are relevant to me insofar as they show the hold of his ideology and are themselves highly illogical and ahistorical, suggesting a tainted actor.

As for Dostoevsky, if he were writing today and promoting Crime and Punishment on his own website that was otherwise full of narrowminded nonsense, I'd be justified in deciding I didn't feel like reading it, even if (unbeknownst to me) I'd be the poorer for it. It would seem like a good gamble, and as a gamble it would pay off far more often than it didn't (again given that one is alive only for so many years and will read only so many books and get to do so many things). (Time spent on this thread notwithstanding.)

The Catholic Church's power has waned considerably in the last couple of centuries. This of course didn't "just happen". Many people think this is a good thing.

I'm certainly one of them, and given there were times and places when this institution, which in its history has murdered more people than possibly any other, would gladly have murdered me after a long period of unimaginable torture merely for the ideas in my head, I feel fairly strongly about it.

But shouldn't we examine how this has happened and by who?

In my not inconsiderable readings I learned about the transition from feudalism to modern capitalist industrialism, the printing press and the many reformations in Europe that followed from widespread reading of the bible, the related revival of the vernacular languages to the detriment of the hegemony of Latin in scholarship and law, the rise of centralized state power that saw fit to displace the church, the Protestant-Catholic wars and the establishment of territorial sovereign states, the rise of modern science with its superior ability to explain how the world works, the modern revolutions that ended divine-right concepts of legitimation both for monarchs and churches, the spread of literacy, education and the idea of individual rights (as against blind obedience to church authority based in obvious fairy tales), and the rise of competing religions within and without the Christian tradition as important factors that, cumulatively, serve to overdetermine the decline of the Catholic Church as a world power, a decline that is in no way a historical mystery (except to Catholics looking for a definable scapegoat) and in most ways a great blessing to those freed from the grip of this institution. Although not all of the factors that went into this are good things, by any means.

As a Catholic Jones thinks religious Jews have benefited from and helped this process.

I'm sure many a religious Jew sees it that way, too. They're hardly the only ones, so I guess we're all just as guilty for crucifying the Logos.

And if anyone comes off the worse in Libido Dominandi I would think its the Quakers.

I had no idea about the swinging Quakers! Or maybe I did, but forgot.

Thanks for leading me to the subject.

http://gaq.quakerism.net/?p=98

A Friend on the PolyQuakers email list recently notifed us of an article on Salon.com about polyamory. Polyamory, if you aren’t familiar with the concept, means having multiple romantic relationships (poly + amory = “many loves”). It differs from plain old cheating in that it’s all out in the open, and differs from “swinging” (or just sleeping around) in that it’s about relationships first and foremost, rather than sex. Beyond that, there are no “rules” – pretty much any number/configuration you can think of is probably practiced by some poly person out there. The article above is quite good, probably the best introduction I’ve seen so far.

I bring this up here because the PolyQuakers email list has become pretty active in this past week (perhaps in part due to some plugging on the QuakerSexuality list), and it’s made me ponder the wider issue of Friends and sexuality, and what that means for “convergence” and the issue of liberal meetings in Friends United Meeting.

In short, to me it seems like further evidence that reconcilation will ultimately prove elusive between Friends who believe that leadings may take us outside the boundaries of the Bible and historic Christianity, and Friends who do not. Because I find it quite improbable that many Orthodox Friends would ever warm up to the practice of polyamory – not least of all because of biblical texts like I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. (Similar comments could be made about transgender folks.) The current controversy – over monogamous homosexuality between relatively gender-conforming individuals – may prove to just be the tip of the iceberg.

So if for the first time in my life I pay a visit to a Friends' meeting, it will be thanks to you, brekin.

---

barracuda, you know a lot of what you just presented is a mix of "studies in the media" bullshit generated among other things by over-rigid definitions of what constitutes "good" and "porn." We need to ask if this thread is good for us, because you just provided material that will potentially keep it going into its 30s and 40s (measured in pages). And largely for the sport of toying some more with brekin.

.

[barracuda]

a lot of what you just presented is a mix of bullshit generated among other things by over-rigid definitions of what constitutes "good" and "porn."

Right. Why trust doctors and scientists when you can simply ask a Catholic?

[Simulist]

And don't forget - Masturbation cuts cancer risk

Men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation, researchers suggest.
They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.

And they say sexual intercourse may not have the same protective effect because of the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, which could increase men's cancer risk.

Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits.

They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer.

The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s.

Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.

Fluid

Previous research has suggested that a high number of sexual partners or a high level of sexual activity increased a man's risk of developing prostate cancer by up to 40%.

But the Australian researchers who carried out this study suggest the early work missed the protective effect of ejaculation because it focussed on sexual intercourse, with its associated risk of STIs.

Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, who led the research team, told New Scientist: "Had we been able to remove ejaculations associated with sexual intercourse, there should have been an even stronger protective effect of ejaculations."

The researchers suggest that ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland.

The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.

The fluid has high concentrations of substances including potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid, which are drawn from the bloodstream.

But animal studies have shown carcinogens such as 3-methylchloranthrene, found in cigarette smoke, are also concentrated in the prostate.

'Flushing out'

Dr Giles said fewer ejaculations may mean the carcinogens build up.

"It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis. The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."

A similar connection has been found between breast cancer and breastfeeding, where lactating appeared to "flush out" carcinogens, reduce a woman's risk of the disease, New Scientist reports.

Another theory put forward by the researchers is that ejaculation may induce prostate glands to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens.

Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory."

She added: "In the same way the human papillomavirus has been linked to cervical cancer, there is a suggestion that bits of prostate cancer may be related to a sexually transmitted infection earlier in life."

Anthony Smith, deputy director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University in Melbourne, said the research could affect the kind of lifestyle advice doctors give to patients.

"Masturbation is part of people's sexual repertoire.

"If these findings hold up, then it's perfectly reasonable that men should be encouraged to masturbate," he said.

C'mon. Nobody wants cancer, right? So get to wanking, you slackers! Flush that bad stuff out!

Hmm. Scientists say masturbation may prolong your life. But fundamentalist Catholics say that masturbation will send you to hell.

Decisions... Decisions...

Maybe the most prudent course of action would be to wank now to buy more time to pray later!

(See what a theological education can do for you?! Yeah... I wouldn't recommend it either.)

[barracuda]

[JackRiddler]

a lot of what you just presented is a mix of bullshit generated among other things by over-rigid definitions of what constitutes "good" and "porn."

Right. Why trust doctors and scientists when you can simply ask a Catholic?

True. It's more fun to ask a Catholic.

And hey! Don't reply until I'm done editing! (My posts never achieve satisfying completion, it is true.)

[norton ash]

barracuda, you know a lot of what you just presented is a mix of bullshit generated among other things by over-rigid definitions of what constitutes "good" and "porn." We need to ask if this thread is good for us, because you just provided material that will potentially keep it going into the 30s of pages.

ONLY if you let it.

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're all fucking peasants as far as I can see

You can get shot for singing shit like that.

I think porn is bad because the disaffected youth are too busy wanking to storm the Bastille. And don't get me started on you fucking intellectuals who'd be happy push this thread to 30 pages, because that's just more wanking.

Drop your cocks and grab your socks, comrades.

[JackRiddler]

Hmm. Scientists say masturbation may prolong your life. But fundamentalist Catholics say that masturbation will send you to hell.

Decisions... Decisions...

Maybe the most prudent course of action would be to wank now to buy more time to pray later!

(See what a theological education can do for you?! Yeah... I wouldn't recommend it either.)

When you put it that way, a solution suggests itself. Life is the highest good and must be maximized and prolonged in every way possible. If the scientists are right, the Catholics are now bound to hold off the euthanasists by advocating vigorous masturbation. One might object that a longer life isn't worth living as a porn addict, but it's kind of late for Catholic dogmatists to start making a quality-of-life argument against life extension.

Now hurry up and make fun of other dogmas, lest we be accused of Catholic-bashing.

[JackRiddler]

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're all fucking peasants as far as I can see

You can get shot for singing shit like that.

True, true. And true!

The irony in the thread for me is that I do see online porn as de facto (not necessarily by master plan) a piece of the overall consumerist blanket, quilted out of many niche offerings, that stifles and renders inconceivable the necessary revolutionary energy among young and old alike. But as happens with so many other things the most extreme view of the most simply-defined matters defines the overall debate, so it's turned into a pile-on against brekin. (Analogous to how the tea-party extreme serves to mask the more important subtler dynamics of how politics in this country gets fucked into doing all the wrong things, since long as the mad dog barks, everyone focuses on it.)

[Simulist]

We need to ask if this thread is good for us, because you just provided material that will potentially keep it going into its 30s and 40s (measured in pages).

But I was told that size didn't matter!

Also, it's interesting to note that most religionists will eagerly ask if something like "porn" (or even television) is "good for you" before even bothering to explore the question fully, "Is my religion good for me?"

Most just assume that it is.