1 minute read

The S.E.C. Porn Scandal

Last Updated: July 27, 2021

Luke Gilkerson
Luke Gilkerson

Luke Gilkerson has a BA in Philosophy and Religious Studies and an MA in Religion. He is the author of Your Brain on Porn and The Talk: 7 Lessons to Introduce Your Child to Biblical Sexuality. Luke and his wife Trisha blog at IntoxicatedOnLife.com

The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to maintain a fair, orderly, and efficient market economy in the U.S. . . . that is, of course, when some of their senior employees aren’t busy looking at porn.

An internal investigation of the SEC found 31 serious offenders over the past two and a half years, 17 of which were senior officers with 6-figure salaries.

This probably shouldn’t surprise us. According to Computerworld, half of Fortune 500 companies have dealt with at least one incident of computer porn use over a 12 month period (Vol.11, Issue 17). It is estimated that 20% of visitors to porn websites are accessing from work (according to comScore Media Metrix). You can read more statistics like these in Michael Leahy’s book, Porn @ Work: Exposes the Office’s #1 Addiction.

What makes the SEC story interesting is that most of these cases began in 2008, around the time the financial engines of the U.S. economy started to fail. Imagine what might have been different: what if the watchdogs of the economy had been spending more time at their posts and less time downloading thousands of nude pictures? Representative Darrell Issa said it was “disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at porn than taking action to help stave off the events that put our nation’s economy on the brink of collapse.

  • Comments on: The S.E.C. Porn Scandal
    1. J

      Interestingly enough, I attempted to email Representative Issa when I read an article on the web prior to seeing this. I doubt I’ll hear anything back from him.
      He just happens to be from California’s 49th district.
      I had quite a few questions about his statement above. I find it highly ironic that he’s now railing about porn and it’s use but as far as we can tell, has done nothing to stop the production and supply of porn. In fact, he’s from the only state in the union that you can be legally paid for sex in the way of filming porn.
      I find overall that his position is hypocritical at best and just a bunch of finger pointing and name calling. If he was really that serious about porn and it’s effects it seems he’d be suggesting that the FBI or some other agency begin checking his personal computer and those of his staff in a way to lead by example. I doubt he’ll offer up his computer or those of his staff though. I doubt he’d lead the way to make sure that the Federal Government has Covenant Eyes on everyone’s computer so we can stop this cancer (maybe ya’ll can send someone to begin marketing to them so they can avoid this type of embarrassment next time). Where’s all the talk about getting these folks the therapy and help they need? No, let him prove me wrong, but this looks like all he is doing is throwing stones.

      I’ll call them like I see them: Christine Roman comes off as just another talking head hypocrite. Maybe she’ll prove me wrong too, but I highly doubt we’ll see her inviting Shelley Lubben on to talk about the affects of porn and help lead the charge to make changes.

      Lastly, this is my opinion, but the economy is slightly bigger than some people at the SEC looking at porn. Check our economies history – it goes in cycles up and down. Prices just can’t keep going up. They trend.

    2. John

      Not surprising. Losing sight of an organizational mission statement seems rather easy when you have a boss appointed by a presidential who believes regulation is not really that important. In fact, a boss that thinks if not for the heavy hand of government regulation, then we would all be living in eden. The invisible hand, of course, is our gift from on high. Anyone who believes otherwise is a socialist and an agnostic.

      These are the kinds of silly ass arguments set forth by many of you Republicans. Of course, since GOD is on your side, I am wrong you are right.

      When those who should protect investors feel, collectively, that their mission is futile, then they will take up other activities. Could be porn, could be playing solitaire. It doesn’t really matter. As long as the leadership of an organization fails to take seriously its purpose, headlines will be created. Not surprising at all to me.

      Why on god’s green earth do I still subscribe to this radical right wing blog? So you claim that you are neutral? Think again.

    3. Bill Reynolds

      Yes, this report generates outrage, but as a recovering addict (see my story in Member Tesimonies) I can empathize with these people.

      Porn is actually a drug addiction. The body produces adrenaline and endorphins in response to viewing porn. These drugs are as addictive as crack cocaine: once the victim is started down that path there is no turning back without some kind of intervention. Because of the drug effect on the brain’s pleasure center, it is viewed by the addict as a stress reliever. Heavy porn use can actually create a feeling of infallibility in the user as long as he remains viewing. Computer logs would have to be checked, but I imagine that this porn use increased as the economy went further down the drain. The lie involved with this “stress relief” is that after the porn session the original problem–the economy–still hasn’t been dealt with. Plus, there is the additional problem of having viewed porn on a monitored computer. This creates more stress (“Oh no, I’m not infallible.”)that is only relieved by viewing more porn. The vicious circle that is created becomes a vortex. Turn a vortex on end and it becomes a tornado. It picks the person up and carries him away from where he wants to be and deposits him in a wasteland.

      When the crash comes, the addict is left asking, “How did this happen? How did I get here?”

    4. J

      Who exactly are you directing your post towards?

      The article itself doesn’t mention anything about Democrats or Republicans. It doesn’t even say that Issa is with either party. It looks pretty clear that Luke wrote the article as non-partisan as he possibly could. I don’t see any agenda in his writing at all that is politically motivated by any side. I feel when I read your post that your opinion is just a little unfounded and your accusations ring empty.

      I’ll agree with you that the control entity and consciousness of an organization does need to be mandated by policies and followed as an example beginning with those at the top. If those at the top aren’t acting with integrity and honesty, then they are setting a bad example.

      Given what I know about porn and it’s use I HIGHLY doubt that these folks were in the halls openly rejoicing about sitting around looking at porn all day. We all know as a stipulated fact that porn addicts live in isolation, secrecy, and lies.

      Also, who are the silly Republicans that you are referring to here and which silly arguments are you talking about? The article nor any of us here made any such comments. Who said here that God is a member of the Democrat or Republican party?

      And protect investors? Who at the SEC said their mission was futile? Just so I understand, please tell me how if these folks would not have been looking at porn they would have saved the economy. I’d really like a point by point argument for how this would have worked.

      Can you provide some evidence as to how this blog is “radical and right wing”?

      In the words of Clint Eastwood, “if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.” Investing is risky.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *