Denae and I attended a lecture on pornography and addiction. It’s a great topic fraught with controversy, which illustrates why I have a hard time with people who sit on the extremes of difficult issues, vilifying their opponents, and supporting their positions with rationalizations, half-truths, dogma, and incomplete and subjective conclusory-driven science. It’s all so black and white when neither side is confronted with the hard questions.
The presenters at the lecture did a good job presenting information that porn and sexual behavior can be addictive and that we need to be concerned about its effect upon our culture. By comparing obesity (which allegedly causes $280 million in healthcare costs a year) with cocaine addiction (which causes $250 million in healthcare costs a year), they explained that sexual behavior, like eating, is a reality of human existence, but it can cause addiction and should, therefore, be more severely regulated. (Their argument also suggested that we, as a society, should be equally concerned about obesity.)
While the lecture pointed out the problem, the presenters did not discuss solutions. However, they did suggest that the Internet could be regulated to provide an opt-in requirement, so that parents and business owners could curtail minor children and employees from accessing pornography. If that is technically possible, why couldn’t that be accomplished?
On the other hand, who’s to blame for addiction? Is it the consumer or the producer? What is society’s role in any addiction, whether it’s the “natural”addictions that come from our need for food, sex, attention and love, or the “artificial” addictions of substance dependence and abuse due to alcohol, opioids, and other substances? Why should addiction from any of them be criminalized? Why not handle all addictions as a public health concern? Why can’t we find a balanced approach that allows the adult members of our society great freedom of choice and the exercise of agency, as well as an environment in which those who choose not to consume do not have the products that cause addiction permeating every facet of our lives and foisted upon them?
Loren M. Lambert © July 4, 2016
The presenters at the lecture did a good job presenting information that porn and sexual behavior can be addictive and that we need to be concerned about its effect upon our culture. By comparing obesity (which allegedly causes $280 million in healthcare costs a year) with cocaine addiction (which causes $250 million in healthcare costs a year), they explained that sexual behavior, like eating, is a reality of human existence, but it can cause addiction and should, therefore, be more severely regulated. (Their argument also suggested that we, as a society, should be equally concerned about obesity.)
While the lecture pointed out the problem, the presenters did not discuss solutions. However, they did suggest that the Internet could be regulated to provide an opt-in requirement, so that parents and business owners could curtail minor children and employees from accessing pornography. If that is technically possible, why couldn’t that be accomplished?
On the other hand, who’s to blame for addiction? Is it the consumer or the producer? What is society’s role in any addiction, whether it’s the “natural”addictions that come from our need for food, sex, attention and love, or the “artificial” addictions of substance dependence and abuse due to alcohol, opioids, and other substances? Why should addiction from any of them be criminalized? Why not handle all addictions as a public health concern? Why can’t we find a balanced approach that allows the adult members of our society great freedom of choice and the exercise of agency, as well as an environment in which those who choose not to consume do not have the products that cause addiction permeating every facet of our lives and foisted upon them?
Loren M. Lambert © July 4, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment