cmpalmer says:

I'm still reading the referenced PDF, but ignoring the political and religious agenda, I think there may be some merit to the idea, although I wouldn't classify it as physical brain damage.

The book "In The Palaces of Memory" had an idea that stuck with me. It was talking about the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." The author went on to say that broken bones can heal quite nicely, but once neural pathways are established, they are likely to stay with you forever.

While I feel that the average person can easily distinguish what is right and "moral" and can identify the difference between simulation or sexual fantasy and reality, prolonged exposure to concepts such incest and child abuse in a pornographic setting can cause permanent brain changes that, even if counteracted by rational thought, make the idea of these practices continue to be sexually arousing. So, in effect, it can cause brain changes that might be viewed as "damage" by some.

colin says:

From the Desert News story Reisman states that Visual pornography should not be defended as a First Amendment right, because visual pornography reaches a different part of the brain than speech, "a brain that is visceral, nonspeech, right hemisphere."

She sure does like to distort the facts doesn't she. Even ignoring the fact that the right side of the brain handles pitch and inflection (like the overtones of a seductive voice). This would imply that the 1st amendment doesn't cover any form of media that uses imagery or music. Advertizers would never let her get away with that.

Also from the same article about their plan for using MRIs: "The goal now, though, Harmer says, is to prove once and for all a causal relationship between the viewing of pornography and eventual anti-social behavior."

Not quite sure how they plan on using MRI studies to prove a causal relationship instead of just a weak correlational one -- sounds pretty impossible to me. In my opinion, they are just using the aura of the big toys of science as a way to scam more money from people for their pet cause.

biogadfly says:

This article reflects a more literal interpretation of this blogs title, for it is indeed 'Hack' work on the 'Mind', thus the author is clearly a 'Mind Hack'. As a neuroscientist with a background in neuroimaging it can be fair to say that the author has little to no understanding of the commonly used modalities and totaly misuses the literature.

As an example I cite the authors description of SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography!):

"With the advent of the SPECT scientists can finally see what happens in different parts of the brain 'when you activate them'".

As stated already above it is almost a truism that pornography effects the brain. But the psychopharmacology of sex is far more potent than that of voyerism, with all the same neurotransmitters and hormones being released in greater concentrations. It follows that if the author is correct, then sex is deadly!

Grant Barrett says:

Take a good look at Reisman's bio. She has no formal education as a psychologist. Her two degrees, in fact, are in communications, which is the degree you take when you study public relations.