Study Suggests ‘Porn Addiction’ is Feminist Junk Science

A new study out of the University of California Los Angeles suggests porn addiction does not exist.

Researchers found that people who said they had trouble controlling their consumption of pornography did not show a typical addiction response to sexual images. With addiction, increased brain activity is expected in response to relevant stimuli—heroin in the case of a drug addict, for example. But the porn study’s participants showed decreased brain activity in response to pornography, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Biological Psychology.

The decreased brain activity could be a result of habituation to sexual images, but that’s a phenomenon not typically seen with addiction.

“This finding is important, because it shows a reversal of a part of the brain response that has been consistently documented in other substance addictions and gambling disorder,” said researcher Nicole Prause. This builds on a previous study conducted by the same researchers in which they found no connection between the extent of participants’ pornography problems and their brain responses to sexual images.

your-brain-on-porn

http://www.vocativ.com/news/205435/study-suggests-porn-addiction-isnt-real/

UK Feminist Launches Campaign to Outlaw Sexbots

And so it begins. Dr Kathleen Richardson, a feminist academic working at De Montfort University in Leicester, has launched a campaign to outlaw the development of robots for sexual purposes.

kathleen-richardson-ban-sexbots

A campaign has been launched calling for a ban on the development of robots that can be used for sex.

Such a use of the technology is unnecessary and undesirable, said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson.

Sex dolls already on the market are becoming more sophisticated and some are now hoping to build artificial intelligence into their products.

Those working in the field say that there is a need for such robots.

Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on – how they will look, what roles they would play – are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said

It is not known whether ‘smart’ vibrators, and other automated ‘intelligent’ sex toys for women will be outlawed under Dr Richardson’s proposals, or if the plans just extend to sex toys designed for men.

For further details of Dr Richardson’s plan to outlaw sexbots, she can be contacted at : kathleen.richardson@dmu.ac.uk

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34118482

See also : http://theantifeminist.com/feminists-seek-legislation-over-sex-bots/

Steve Moxon – Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/ (not sure how somebody as intelligent as Steve Moxon can’t work out how to stop ‘imposters’ posting spam on his blog.)

“The BBC documentary ‘The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation’ broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night’s broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of ‘patriarchy’ [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as ‘patriarchy’ [sic] – or ‘matriarchy’ [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed ‘female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female ‘fertility’ and male ‘sun’ deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity ‘go-between’ figures who sacrificed themselves to the ‘fertility’ goddess.
* ‘Civilisation’ did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no ‘quantum-jump’ of some former ‘non-civilised’ sociality into ‘civilisation’.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly ‘egalitarian’ hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant ‘flattening’ of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.”