New Grounds for Proposed Regulation of Adult Websites Possible
 

See Dr. Marty Klein's comments in Tom Hymes' article on page 94 of the January AVN concerning the need for addressing the problem of boredom in marriage and the diversion given by erotica to the bored husbands. The "problem" is being used as a basis for justifying governmental regulation of the viewing of erotica by pro-censorship groups.

The pro-censor groups are trying to redefine the viewing of erotica as a "public health issue" to be regulated like tobacco usage. The proposed definitions enable everybody to win except the industry. The erotica watching husband becomes an "addict." The wife becomes a "victim." The sex therapist gets a fat check for treatment.

And, the adult industry gets a whole new round of governmental regulations...... I can see it now. Health warning on websites...."WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that the watching of this movie can cause excessive sweating, hair on palms, extreme myopia, and ejaculation."

The real problem as defined in the article is that after 8 years of marriage, the husband isn't turned on by his fat-assed, "not tonight-I have a headache" wife and wacks off rather than going around frustrated. This is really a marriage relationship issue. I think the excessive erotica watching is a symptom of a disfunctional marriage and not the cause.

Great article and we should all thank Tom Hymes for bringing this issue to our attention. The article goes into much more detail and better explains the need for alarm.

To address this "problem", perhaps, we should promote toys, stripper ware, sexy lingerie, better lotions, male herbal enhancements, and the like as ways the couple could reconnect and get a little lust back in their love life. Maybe develop some websites and marketing addressed to middle-aged, married wives who want to "sex up" themselves.

Do yourself a favor and take a moment and find a copy of the article or download the January issue from AVN.com.:2 cents:

Three words: first amendment rights

The article points out that first amendment protections don't apply in the case of protecting consumers from dangerous products.

Weird that something that causes 'danger' goes from being a 'verifiable fact' to just someone's 'biased opinion'.

hasn't been a problem for the sex trade..

Must suck to be american.

I love being unregulatable.

Every day, the sky is falling.

:thumbsup

Well said.
:thumbsup

Nobody said "the sky is falling."

The point of the post was to point out a potential societal problem and some relevant research. Nothing more.

I try and give you a heads up to some serious discussion of an issue BEFORE there are proposed regulations and you want to make light of the issue.

I have found that adult entertainment industry members that ignore public opinion will be crying the loudest for someone to save them when (and if) the hammer drops.

Ignorance and passivity should never be an option when dealing with pro-censorship groups.:2 cents:

who fucing cares what some religious pricks think? they wont win this is simple case of a publication getting their viewers riled up, its no different than the bible thumpers thumping their bible for action. But hey, get your subsription NOW BUY NOW!!!

fuck fear mongers.

lol making a "health warning" on the website will definitively not stop bored husbands from clicking Enter. :)

No Fear........just knowledge.

Go Fuck Yourself:321GFY

No, most of us consider this stuff like Dr Phil warning us about "out of control teens."

"the husband isn't turned on by his fat-assed, "not tonight-I have a headache"
wife and wacks off rather than going around frustrated. This is really a marriage relationship issue. I think the excessive erotica watching is a symptom
of a disfunctional marriage and not the cause."

This part of article sums it up, some people always need an excuse to put the blame on something, rather then watch out themselfs on the mirror.