Speaking of making stuff up

"Erototoxin"?
This seems to support my hypothesis that anytime someone uses some variation of the word "toxic" ("Erototoxin" "Excitotoxin" "Detoxify"...) and they are NOT scientific professionals who study poisonous substances (e.g. Toxicologists), then they are most likely full of crap. Or Colonotoxins.

Oh no! The pr0n is draining our vital, manly essences! Just like women do!

I wonder if the party of Ted Haggard and Larry Craig is getting their biological knowledge from the Sambia of New Guinea. Hey, they're only replenishing the tingu that the evil, evil porn has been draining from them...

The pr0n is draining our vital, manly essences!

The only solution is to just drink natural rainwater and to attack Russia under plan R.

POE...OPE...EOP...

Ummm...last I heard, it wasn't Far Side cartoons that made you go blind....

If it came from a more credible source, I may take this seriously. Pornography-induced impotence doesn't seem that far-fetched - it sound quite plausable that impotance could be caused either physiologically by frequent mastubation over many years (All that squeezing might damage the penis), or psychologically (Desensetisation to sexual stimulation). But, if the claims were true, I would expect to see them investigated in a serious study and published in a credible journal.

These claims are not the result of any study. They offer no statistics, no avenues to explore, and no credability. The underlying foundation is 'People are talking about impotence more, so impotence must be on the increase, so pornography must be to blame.' A series of leaps of bad logic, and a very clear political motivation to reach the 'Porn destroys marriages!' conclusion.

And its clearly not intended to be a scientific article, anyway - it starts off by redefining impotence, throws in some feel-good stuff about a 'chosen beloved' and even quotes Jeffrey Satinover - how he retains his position is beyond me, he is exactly the type of crank this blog was created to reveal the truth about. Between his mystic 'The brain is quantum' woo-woo and his writings claiming homosexuals are all secretly pedophiles and rapists, he should have been thrown out long ago. Instead he has even been asked to testify before congress on gay marriage.

Continuing with the inevitable 'pornography is as addictive as cocaine' nonsense, the completly made-up PII (Cranks know that abbreviations sound legitimate), and on... the whole article is utter nonsense written to sound like the power of Science backs the political campaign to attack pornography.

And top top all that, the central claim that drives all their arguments - that "Pornographically Induced Impotence is now a national pandemic" - is just plucked out of thin air. There are no reliable statistics on long-term trends in impotence - because it was, and still is, such a shame-ridden disease. Even today, how many impotent men refuse to admit it, or to seek a formal diagnosis? Just a decade ago that would have been an even higher proportion. A rise in diagnoses doesn't mean a rise in actual incidents, and the article doesn't even try to support its claim of a rise in diagnoses.

I wonder if any impotent men will read that and suddenly decide that looking at playboy twenty years ago is the cause of their problem?

Note how she also says "orientation", in big, obvious quotes...

Fair bet she's not too fond of men lying with men any more than men lying alone. And why no mention whatsoever of women lying alone?

Putting 'orientation' in quotes is just standard practice at WND. I wonder if they have an official rule on it, or just informal policy.

Their reasoning is quite simple: Language influences people. An innocent term like 'orientation' is not going to get much of an emotional response - it insulates the reader from what the WND writers really want to exploit: The natural yuk factor of 'Men who want to stick bits of themselves inside the rear of other men, eww!' An emotional response is a more powerful weapon for them than a logical argument, and the target readership will have that particular emotional response turned right up.

I'm surprised they didn't mention that the effect of pornographically induced impotence increases with age. For example, in adolescents, the effect might last no more than a hour or two, but as you approach middle age, you might be good to go for a couple days if necessary.

Dr Strangelove indeed. General Jack Ripper might have said:

I first became aware of it during the physical act of [masturbation]. A profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily, I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred. [Pornographers] sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid [porn]. But I do deny them my essence.

A lot of advertising is clearly designed to be arousing. Should I be worried about the long term effects of this erotosmog?

Drone: Kelloggs would be proud.

Men are "visually wired," Feldhahn explained. Their images of women stretch "back to his teenage years, and any one of the pictures is going to pop up at any time in his brain without warning."

So men's brains are basically slide carousels loaded with dirty pictures set to go off at random?