I Have An Idea - Lets Compare Pornography To Heroin

An addictive drug, for free
Pornography has effects similar to heroin's, but the University is funding its distribution
November 29, 2005


Of all the major cities in the U.S., Philadelphia has the purest heroine -- about 73 percent pure last time the Drug Enforcement Agency checked. It's relatively cheap, widely available and can be easily administered nasally in the privacy of your own home. Possession of heroin, however, is illegal in this country and may not even be prescribed for medicinal purposes.
"Smack," or "horse" as it is sometimes referred to on the street, is a derivative of morphine. It interacts with regions in the brain that play important roles in controlling pain, movement and emotions. When affected by the drug, the brain produces a feeling of euphoria and relaxation. Many other narcotics act in a similar fashion, mimicking the body's naturally occurring opiates, the endorphins.

Because of its attractive psyche-altering properties and ability to induce desensitization and chemical tolerance, heroin is an extraordinarily addictive agent. As such, it is recognized in this country as a destructive, unnatural devise to which the human senses ought not be exposed.

Tragically, while many rightly recognize that certain mind-altering drugs should remain intolerable, the vast majority of students today do not see the dangers associated with pornography tolerance.

All Penn students have access to porn. In fact, thanks to Quake, the University's new literary erotica magazine, porn is now both distributed and funded by the University.

Many students seek out porn regularly, and those who don't either consider it harmless or object for religious reasons -- but generally still unable to explain why it is dangerous.

Few recognize that, like heroin, pornography is addictive and has negative consequences. Like a drug, pornography alters the user's perception of reality.

Porn sex is portrayed as effortless. A partner never needs to be coaxed, rarely are two-way concessions made and people who in real life would never give you the time of day are suddenly at your beck and call. It is a drug with which you are able to trick yourself into you are part of a fantasy relationship that does not exist.

Marketing strategists have recognized the deceptive power of porn for years. In an insightful article printed last month, Harper's magazine pointed out that television food networks have begun mimicking the cinematography of the sex industry in an attempt to create a false culinary utopia into which they can entice their viewers.

In reality, neither sex nor food is always as fulfilling as we assume it should be based on the perceptions we acquire from television and the Internet. The awkward moments, the blemishes, the sacrifices and concessions -- all the things on which real love is built -- are never edited out of life.

It is because of this incongruity between the porn world and the real world that pornography is alluring; it provides us with an escape. Unfortunately, the more time we spend using this drug the more we become accustomed to its false reality. What started off as novelty becomes normalcy.

As with heroin, pornography users build up a tolerance. Soft-core exposure no longer provides the original high. The porn junkie needs greater doses of his visual stimulant to create the same artificial levels of endorphins in his brain. Worse yet, the fiend finds that a basal level of smut is needed just to feel okay.

Whether the addict knows he's addicted or not, he'll usually admit that at least some desensitization has occurred.

Among Penn students, sexual desensitization is generally considered sexual "education," and so it is logical that a portion of every undergraduate student's general education fee should be used to fund a "literary" porn magazine.

The popular idea is this: exposure to sexual activity provides the enlightenment and creativity that every student needs to be savvy in the sack.

While it may be true that some individuals need a lesson in lovemaking, I'm fairly confident that most couples can master it on their own. Most sexual relationships last long enough for both partners involved to figure it out over and over again at least several times before reaching boredom.

In reality, they would probably both be better off going into the bedroom ignorant than entering with a distorted and narrowly defined porno-view of sex. As I'm sure even the editors of Quake would agree, social impairment, desensitization and narrow-mindedness in the bedroom is not a recipe for coital fireworks.

Unfortunately, these are risks associated with pornography exposure, which, like heroin exposure, has negative consequences. Sadly, while our heroin purity concerns us, our sexual purity does not.

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vn.../438c088e9f02e

Nothing like comparing something legal to an illegal narcotic to get people on your side :eek:

Regards,

Lee

The only reason some of these writers have a memory at all is because they are anal-retentive.

Let's try this:

As with heroin, food eaters build up tolerance. Three meals a day no longer satisfies their hunger. The food junkie needs greater doses of food to create the same feeling of fullness and satisfaction in his stomach. Worse yet, the fiend finds a basal level of food is needed to just feel ok.


Some depressed people turn to food because it makes them feel better and they get addicted. There's food being advertised everywhere. There's the FOOD channel with seductive shots of plates full of food.


People can get addicted to anything

WOW, sheer brilliance :penny:

I simply love the way these bright bulbs shed light on things already out in the open and brightly lit.

Greed, money, food, sex (including porn), caffeine, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, music, physical exertion (exercise, fighting etc), conversation, literature, religion (worst of all as it has most likely killed the greatest amount of people) etc!

I always believed any person with half a brain already figured out or knew that more or less everything can intoxicate a person and/or is a "drug"... but it looks as if this Andrew character is sporting even less than that. The paper must be desperate, or they had to hire the owners son.

Yah, sure porn is dangerous, why the other day I had this vicious paper cut that made me black out and as I was falling to the floor I bashed my head on a bible, leaving a negative impression on me!

"...war and peace , sex and love , there is a difference!"...

i'm probably off topic here ( but not by much ) but "porn" is primarily "fantasy" and should be viewed as such ( regardless of how they are trying to ride the "drama-bridge" into mainstream america ) similar to a d*sney film it involves "ficticious" characters and/or events can it be also said that d*sney films are harmful?.
in regards to "addiction" you can become addicted to anything so should we outlaw everything?. ( how paranoid can you get? )
yes , there are those who "abuse" ( there's actually alot of money in the S & M market ) and there are those who "abide" ( use within recommended usage ) the question still remains "choice" , i'd rather take my chances with a "sexual deviant" than some "crack-head" but that's my choice.
these are arguments which are never won because they deal with a society's morality and depending where the nation/country majority is determines the right and/or wrong course of action.
in regards to drugs which i view as a more serious problem than porn ( of course they will say that porn caused the drug problem ) it amazes me truly the attention and the money spent combating it. ( do they seriously think they can outlaw sex or have I.Q's dropped that far down? )
and the rest can be read in my blog ( interpreted: too long and lengthly with controversial/extremists opinions )

sincerely ~ ..."no f*cking in the white zone! , the white zone is designated for kissing only!"...:goof:

p.s ~ hi i'm jim , and i'm a chocoholic!

yeah yeah ..

I'm still waiting to find out why all the pot I smoked in my youth - didn't turn me into a main-liner. Could it be I didn't watch porn while blowin' a bone?

Speaking of porn ...

I haven't seen much in my life ..

Anyone have a favorite Top 5? Non-twink?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame0120

yeah yeah ..
I'm still waiting to find out why all the pot I smoked in my youth - didn't turn me into a main-liner.

---

..and why is it potheads are not distinguishable by their semen encrusted pants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paco

..and why is it potheads are not distinguishable by their semen encrusted pants?

---

Wow!
Yaknow .. it never ceases to amaze me.
No matter how old I get - there's still SO MUCH to learn.

I must ... dig deeper here.

So? Are you telling me that the male creature that tokes a bit of the green :high: may be juicier and with a tendency to - er - leakage? Please Paco, do tell. I'll give you a mention in the next chapter of my book, So? You Like-a da Juice?

:uhoh:

Perhaps you'd prefer if I left your name out of it all together?

This is an interesting thread, and an important one at that.

It comes as no surprise that most of us would jump to porn's defense. After all, most of us are making our livings off of it. We don't want to bite the hand that feeds us, right?

But it's funny how nobody ever seems to sit back and objectively view pornography from the other side of the coin. Do we all have blinders on to the potentially damaging aspects of this profession?

Now, before anybody jumps on my ass for saying that, I think it's very important to seriously consider just how porn might have negative repercussions for the world at large, yes, but most importantly, for the gay community.

Many of us like to shrug porn aside by saying "It's all fantasy, so you can't take it seriously." But saying that is a really good way of alleviating ourselves of any of the burden of responsibility that comes from presenting adult material to the public. I may sound like a broken record in saying this, but again, porn is never "just fantasy," or "just sex" or "just porn." It's always something more, and to ignore that is a very irresponsible and dangerous thing to do.

Let us not forget that many gay men see representations of their sex lives for the very first time in porn films. And what kinds of images are they seeing there? More often than not, we see images of men paying no respect to each other but instead treating each other like mere objects of sexual gratification. We also see wretchedly over-pumped, over-muscled guys who are more than likely on steroids to make themselves look that way. We also see (though less frequently, thank God) the separation into dom/sub roles like "top" and "bottom" that are actually harmful to an open exploration of our sexuality.

It's important to view not only how porn has changed over the years, but how the gay community has changed with it. Indeed, if you were to look at porn in the 1970s, you would see that the men in these films were all hot, but they were also more real-looking, less ripped and buffed, and they were ALL versatile. It wasn't until the emergence of the "gay-for-pay" phenomenon that roles like "top" and "bottom" were introduced into the porn stratosphere. With the exception of Matt Ramsey and a few others, most of these "gay-for-pay" models would not get fucked or kiss. Suddenly, what was hot was somebody who had to be paid (i.e. coerced through monetary gain) to have sex with gay men. (Many who know me know that I have a bit of a problem with the straight-guy niche for this very reason.)

Now, if you were to take a good hard look at the gay community's growth over the same time, you will see a direct correlation between the emergence of tops and bottoms in porn and the increasing claimings of these roles in our everyday lives. Is this a bad thing? Many would argue that it is not. After all, everyone gravitates more toward one role than the other, right? Personally, I think that porn has had tremendous influence over the gay community in this area.

I also think that more than anything else, porn has influenced the way that we look. Gay porn influenced pop culture (i.e. Calvin Klein, Abercrombie, etc.), which in turn influenced gay culture. The huge explosion of gay men flocking to the gyms to work out came as a direct result of porn's influence, and I don't think that can be overlooked. And I think it has vastly contributed to the myriad of body issues that many of the gay people I know are suffering from (people not feeling "hot" enough, not feeling like they can compete with all the muscle studs, etc). Many of us feel alienated and inferior to the gym clones, and most mainstream porn contributes to the "bigger is better" mentality, which, I feel, is TERRIBLE for the gay community, and for any community.

I know people often accuse me of taking porn too seriously. But you can never underestimate the power that pornography has over society, and in the gay community. Isn't this why many of you are against barebacking porn, b/cuz you feel it sends a message to the gay community that unsafe sex is wrong? If this is the case, then why do we need hold the same magnifying glass up to the other areas in which porn could possibly impact the community in negative ways? B/cuz we are making money off of it and don't want to be guilty of contributing to such influence?

I'm not pointing fingers here at all. I'm simply trying to get people to take a closer look at what it is that they are doing, and more carefully consider what they are doing before doing it. Do I agree with the article posted here? No, I don't. Obviously, I LOVE porn. I wouldn't be writing about it if I didn't. But I view porn as a tool for social change, not as simply something to get off to. And I don't think it's enough to put two guys having sex on the screen and say "I'm contributing to gay society in a good way." With the proliferation of body issues and issues surrounding our masculinity (i.e. "straight acting" versus "gay acting"), it's more and more important to step back and examine what it is we do and understand its affect on our community.

In other words, we have to hold ourselves accountable for the images we populate the world with. Everything we do has a potential to send a message, and to ignore that sends perhaps the most dangerous message of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame0120

Wow!
Yaknow .. it never ceases to amaze me.
No matter how old I get - there's still SO MUCH to learn.
I must ... dig deeper here.
So? Are you telling me that the male creature that tokes a bit of the green :high: may be juicier and with a tendency to - er - leakage? Please Paco, do tell. I'll give you a mention in the next chapter of my book, So? You Like-a da Juice?
:uhoh:
Perhaps you'd prefer if I left your name out of it all together?

---

Deary, you crack me up ! :goof:
That lil ditty was from a properganja film made back in the 50's or even the 60's (not sure of the title) which had a 'cameo' appearance in one of my favourite films, Fear And Loathing LasVegas.

As for the validity of it: like a cute little purple bud that's been hermetically sealed, yes, we are juicier (possibly the juiciest), yet we maintain a perfect seal ... no leakage here!

sometimes the problem isn't the images we populate the world with - it's how people distort them with meanings.

take the judges and politicians who cover the breasts and crotches of classic greek statue. to me, and to most, those statues are beautiful studies of the human body. to those people, they're a filthy abomination and a temptation.

to some people, a 19 year old boy getting spanked across an older man's lap is perverted and disgusting - but to some of the participants it may be a celebration of their love and their sexuality. it may deeply fulfill them. someone seeing it may suddenly realize it seems very sexy and right to them. it could free them from the emotional chains that bind them. on the other hand, another viewer might use it to feed his jaded palate till that bores him and he escalates another step.

i used to know a submissive woman who felt safe and warm - as if held in loving arms, she said - while in tight bondage. to many people, no doubt she looked forced and coerced while tied tightly. but to her, being restrained - losing all sense of responsibility, among other things - was when she felt free and beautiful.

you can live without drugs or booze, but you can't live without food and somewhere inside of you is the need for sex, human contact, and all that good stuff. man is both sexual and gregarious.

as far as actually dangerous behaviour, everyone here has heard my opinions before so i'll leave them out.

besides, entertainment and art show not only our ideals but also our fantasies that we share with the world. as long as we're talking about legal adult content, we are talking about willing participants. there is someone out there who can turn any sex or erotica into something dirty and disgusting because of their viewpoint. yet there is also someone who sees the beauty and the affirmation of their own sexuality in things that disturb the regular vanilla person.

if you have a warning page and a description of what's inside on your site, maybe adults should be able to decide themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

In other words, we have to hold ourselves accountable for the images we populate the world with. Everything we do has a potential to send a message, and to ignore that sends perhaps the most dangerous message of all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

sometimes the problem isn't the images we populate the world with - it's how people distort them with meanings.

---

This is a valid point with some merit, but any reaction to an image starts with the image itself, and again, I just think it's important for people to consider the images they put into the world before doing so. Artists should always take into consideration how someone else may react to something they do. No one should censor themselves, but we should also take responsibility for how these images may be considered by others.

Quote:

---

besides, entertainment and art show not only our ideals but also our fantasies that we share with the world. as long as we're talking about legal adult content, we are talking about willing participants. there is someone out there who can turn any sex or erotica into something dirty and disgusting because of their viewpoint. yet there is also someone who sees the beauty and the affirmation of their own sexuality in things that disturb the regular vanilla person.

if you have a warning page and a description of what's inside on your site, maybe adults should be able to decide themselves.

---

So, by this token, barebacking video is OK after all, right?

But yes, you are right. People can distort images. I'm not sure this really pertains to the point that I was trying to make earlier, but it's an interesting offshoot of the discussion.

Quote:

---

Artists should always take into consideration how someone else may react to something they do.

---

You know, this is an interesting topic. Are we, as pornographers, really artists?

I think yes and no. There are two kinds of pornographers...those who are in it only for the profit, and those who are in it because they truly love what they do and want to create a truly original and quality product (while of course accepting any monetary rewards that may come with the success of that product).

I would, in fact, call the latter group to be artists and I feel that's the group I would fit into. I think even small choices we make can be the difference between life and death. For example, I like to keep in the scenes in all of our movies where the actors put on condoms. If just one surfer sees that and thinks to wear a condom because their favorite porn superstar did it, that's one person whose life one of us pornographers might have saved.

As for the group who is only in it for the profit, they are usually the ones (at least in my experience) that fail. Either they are the kind after a quick buck, and will sacrifice quality or cheat to get there...karma typically has it's way with these kinds of webmasters, and I've seen it happen time and time again. Or they end up in a niche they don't really like, try to copy other sites, and maybe have modest success...but most likely these kinds of webmasters will get pushed aside by those who come along with more creative sites that really love and care about what they are doing. The surfers can spot the difference right away.

Cheers,
D.Z.

Good points, Danny, but I use the word "artist" very loosely. I do believe that some porn is art, but not all of it. Wouldn't it be cool if it were, though? :)

read my first sentence again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

So, by this token, barebacking video is OK after all, right?

---

the first amendment doesn't only cover artists. besides, it seems to me that art is a question of intent although my friend rob disagreed, feeling stronly that anything created is art. and with that disagreement comes the fact that anything CAN be art.

besides, i disagree. when i write a song, if i'm worrying about how others will react, that song will be changed only in the interest of censorship.

dannyz - i have heard over and over that when Tsiachovsky (and yes, i am sure i misspelled his name) wrote the 1812 overture that he didn't want to, resented doing it, only did it for the money, and hated it when it was done. yet people have been applauding it for over 100 years and some of the finest musicians and conductors of each generation have hailed it as a work of art - some even feel it is one of the finest works of art.

that being the case, it seems to me that it throws the concept that commercialism cannot be art right out the window. and i don't doubt it. i've seen a few commercials in my time that were better thought-out and better crafted than any tv show and most movies.

i think when we start to define whether things are art, no one's definition will agree. besides, why should the work of non-artists be any less valuable? that seems like elitism.

the mapplethorpe photos disgusted many - but were allowed to legally stand as art. and who am i to pretend to know differently?

again - things that disgust the average person may inspire someone else. and art is in the eye of the beholder - and the creator. and unlike other things, whether something is art - or is simply wonderful - can be created in the mind of the beholder or the creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXXWriterDude

Artists should always take into consideration how someone else may react to something they do.

---

Quote:

---

dannyz - i have heard over and over that when Tsiachovsky (and yes, i am sure i misspelled his name) wrote the 1812 overture that he didn't want to, resented doing it, only did it for the money, and hated it when it was done. yet people have been applauding it for over 100 years and some of the finest musicians and conductors of each generation have hailed it as a work of art - some even feel it is one of the finest works of art.

---

Basschick - Yeah I realize my post was pretty black and white and there was quite a bit of generalization there. I do agree with you and the definition that by creating, we are essentially artists. Let's look at the definition of 'art' from Dictionary.com:

Quote:

---

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

---

From this definition, porn can certainly be considered as art. Does porn not imitate life and the work of nature? Do we not edit videos or take photos that counteract or alter the work of nature? Isn't sex the most basic function of human nature? Doesn't sex on video or in photos appeal to the senses, and can't it often be beautiful?

Going back to the original point of the thread, comparing porn to heroin, I there is just no comparison in my opinion. Heroin is a drug, porn is a work of art, or if you don't agree with that definition then at least porn is a human creation. It seems like comparing apples and televisions.

So, if porn is in fact art by this definition, then I guess I would have to reconsider my orignal post. There are of course those who create art only for profit, those who create for profit and creativity, and those who only create only for creativity (but don't care about the profit).

I think most of us here our motivated by a combination of our creative will and our drive for profit.

"a human creation" - i like that :)

most people seem to consider all addiction is equal. i ain't buying it. there are some people who do all sorts of things without becoming dependent, and others who get addicted to any substance or habit. there are a couple people i know who managed to develop a dependancy on ibuprofen - no kidding.

in a world where the big lobbies aren't things like alcohol and tobacco, education would happen so that people would learn how to deal with their problems and keep from fixatingo on one thing, be it porn, heroin, cigarrettes or booze. but in our world. big money is there to make sure we are as easy to addict as possible. then they prohibit things they don't have an interest it.

http://www.classical.net/music/comp....ikov/1812.html