Posted on 03/13/2013 6:30:01 PM PDT by Morgana
MANASSAS, VA, March 12, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – An expert on sexual ethics and pornography has used a disturbing new report out of the UK to describe how the culture of easy access to pornography and sexual promiscuity is destroying a generation of young people.
Dr. Judith Reisman, visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law, commented on the recent findings of the report from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), which found that from 2009 to 2012 more than 5,000 sexual assaults in England involved a child perpetrator raping or sexually assaulting another child. Dr. Judith Reisman
“The offending children are ordinarily not aiming to do harm but rather to act ‘grown up’ as they practice the fascinating, toxic stimuli adult society has coldheartedly loosed into their developmental environment," Dr. Reisman said.
Reisman pointed out that from the youngest age, children mimic what they see. She said that if they see sex acts, many children naturally practice what they see on vulnerable infants and children nearby.
“We are allowing the cannibalization of our children,” said Reisman.
NSPCC Policy Advisor Claire Lilley also linked the findings of her organization's report to pornography, warning that “easy access to indecent material could be leading to an increase in the number of children needing help" by "warping young people’s views of what is ‘normal’ or acceptable behavior.”
Reisman pointed to research in neuroscience that has found that exposure to pornography can permanently alter the brain, triggering “an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail.”
“And once new neurochemical pathways are established, they are difficult or impossible to delete,” she said.
“Pornographic images also cause secretion of the body’s ‘fight or flight’ sex hormones,” she explained. “This triggers excitatory transmitters and produces non-rational, involuntary reactions. Media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating, and addicting many of those exposed.
“This scientifically documented, neurochemical imprinting affects children and teens especially deeply; their still-developing brains process emotions differently, with significantly less rationality and cognition than the adult brain,” Reisman continued.
“The mainstreaming of pornography since the 1950s directly coincides with the unprecedented explosion in sexual disease and a huge, exponential increase in new types of pornographic copycat sex crimes by and to juveniles and adults. Such facts should inform the legal arguments about free speech versus pornography in public and even private venues,” Reisman concluded.
I have 1 question about Dr. Judith Reisman. Is she hot?
You stated that eloquently, and no doubt it was sincerely felt. The part of me that likes Jane Austen novels must respect it.
That having been said, though, I’m not willing to give up the freedom to make my own decisions. I don’t want Big Brother or the Nanny State telling me and other adults which sexual materials we can read or view (not as long as they are produced by consenting adults). At this point in world culture, it would take Taliban-like measures to suppress adult access to porn (and, of course, with adult access some of the porn will filter down to the young — when I was a teenager in the 1950s, my main source of “dirty books” was finding them by the side of the road in trash piles).
Oh, you could annoy a great many of us with milder measures, but it wouldn’t change anything substantially. There’s so much of it out there that you’d have to go door to door, confiscating it. To get anywhere close to the porn situation of the 1950s, you’d probably have to kill or imprision many millions of Americans — not just sex fiends but persons who live their lives pretty much as [other] decent persons do — and even then you might not be able to do it. The genie is already out of the bottle.
[I think a better solution is to expect people to control their actions better, as I’ll explain later (sorry for the length of this response, but I think this topic deserves more than quips from the anti-censorship side). As long as people are merely viewing the porn, they aren’t out having promiscuous sex and spreading diseases. It’s when they stop viewing it and try to act on their desires that the serious trouble begins.]
Speaking of bottles, I’m reminded of the Prohibition movement. Undoubtedly abuse of alcohol can cause harm, but used prudently it can bring pleasure. I don’t think it should be prohibited to all of us.
The same goes for other things capable of abuse: guns, cars (which kill thousands in accidents), airplanes — even romantic love. As poets have often observed, romantic love can be a form a madness. Jealousy probably causes far more murders than sexual lust. (When a murder takes place, the first suspect is usually the spouse.)
You speak of the graphic nature of modern hardcore porn, but I don’t believe that’s the crux of the problem. I can recall the milder forms that were publicly available in the late 50s. (Of course, as I understand it, “stag films” were graphic even back then.) Boys were sexually attracted to girls back then too. Whether the porn is extreme or not — and even without porn! — boys are going to be sexually attracted to many girls, the vast majority of whom won’t want to have sex with them. The gap between what they want and what they can have will always be there. They’ll always need to exercise self-control.
I think the key difference nowadays is that girls are more likely to let them have sex. Societal expectations have changed, and the social penalties for being a “bad girl” have diminished. Pop culture has changed that, not hardcore porn. The morality depicted — and promoted — has changed greatly since the 1950s. Popstars not pornstars are having the most influence on teenagers.
I don’t know whether you’re male or female, but let me go more into the topic of male sexuality. You emphasized the modern corruption of boys in particular. Boys, though — as far as I know — have always had sex on their minds (they may think of romance too, but not necessarily at the same time). When I was a boy and teenager, boys talked among themselves in a much more vulgar way than they did among girls. They had those thoughts, but they knew that few, if any, of the girls they knew were going to have sex with them (none in my case :-). They didn’t expect it.
Also many boys recognized the problems of rushing into real sexual relationships with girls they didn’t want to marry — especially, “going all the way” (for instance, getting a girl pregnant and feeling obliged or compelled to marry her). They wanted sex but didn’t want the possible consequences.
Society expects less self-discipline nowadays, and it’s not just about sex. Classrooms are more unruly. Parents and schools allow children get away with all kinds of things that they didn’t when I was a child.
People have always been tempted to do things they knew weren’t wise. Nowadays, though, expectations have been lowered. More and more it’s assumed that teenagers will not only think about sex but act upon those thoughts as well. They supposedly can’t help it. I don’t believe that (anymore than I believe that whoever has a taste of alcohol has to become an alcoholic).
Of course it has nothing to do with emasculation of males in goobermint schools, the favorable portrayal of macho women in popular drama, the ridiculing of masculine characters in the same media and in commercials, etc.
It's all those boys looking at porn.
Redpoll that was a good post.
I only pray it does not get worse.
Sigh
Try explaining this to the average person these days. They look at you like you’re from Mars.
‘I have 1 question about Dr. Judith Reisman. Is she hot?”, NOPE!
So is it since 2009 or since the 1950s? Trouble keeping her story straight?
You do realise I’m being absurd? I’m funnin’ about?? I’ve no clue about “Blade Runner”. Cult movie? I’ve never been much on TV. I’ve spent most of my life outdoors...pop-culture ain’t my bag.
Pops never had Swank...Playboy only. ;-)
“You do realise I’m being absurd? I’m funnin’ about?? I’ve no clue about “Blade Runner”. Cult movie? I’ve never been much on TV. I’ve spent most of my life outdoors...pop-culture ain’t my bag.”
Oh, indeed I do realize you were being absurd. I was being absurd back. Sorry my cultural allusions didn’t hit the mark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.