Does Pornography Harm America?

Recommend (2) Comments (1)

Describing pornography as addictive does no “disservice” to individuals who suffer from a substance addiction.   Rather, a blithe dismissal of sexual addiction centered on pornography consumption is a slap in the face to the millions of individuals and families that have suffered tremendously due to this condition.

Ms. Hartley apparently concedes that pornography consumption “for some” becomes “compulsive, distressing, disturbing, damaging, obsessive, regressive and otherwise inappropriate and unhealthy.”   This, of course, is the very definition of “addiction.”   Her concession of this fact demonstrates the flaw in her logic: for many individuals, their consumption of pornography demonstrates the accepted characteristics of an addiction—namely, compulsivity and dependency.   No accepted definition of “addiction” states that the habit in question must “result in a trip to the emergency room or a stay in detox” if the individual quits “cold turkey.”   In light of the many people who have given up cigarettes “cold turkey” without being rushed to the hospital, Ms. Hartley apparently would argue that nicotine is not addictive and that no one is addicted to smoking.

Sexual addiction is a process addiction, rather than a substance addiction, though the neurochemical response to sexual activity, including pornography consumption and masturbation, is an intense hormonal rush that, according to some researchers, has as strong an effect on the brain as heroine.   When the brain is constantly overstimulated with the hormones produced during the sexual arousal brought about by viewing pornography, a tolerance is developed that requires more frequent and more intense stimulation.   Thus, pornography consumption becomes compulsive and the consumer becomes dependent.   To deny that this constitutes an addiction is to turn a blind eye to the quiet suffering of millions of men, women, and—most tragically—children.

Recommend (1) Comments (24)

(Statements by the National Coalition reprinted in Italics)

Your assertion here is a fine example of the Humpty-Dumpty school of lexicography. You say a pattern of behavior constitutes an addiction and therefore it is one. Webster's dictionary begs to disagree. Here's how addiction is defined there:

"compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"

While the dictionary recognizes secondarily that a broad, metaphoric use of the term is not unknown, it places its emphasis where it rightly belongs, on physical substances that produce physical effects, including "well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal."

This is not a minor semantic point. Attempting to medicalize a moral value judgment does a disservice to both medicine and morality. If you believe porn is destructive, say so, present your evidence and leave it at that. The term "addiction" has become a devalued rhetorical currency applied to everything from shopping to chocolate. The hole notion of "porn addiction" is mere hyperbole, reflecting the struggle to define a narrow, subjective point of view as a matter of scientific fact, a claim for which no significant evidence exists. My rejection of this distorted language is anything but blithe.

Now, about all those "millions of individuals and families that have suffered tremendously due to this condition," what proof do you present to prove that those numbers are in any way accurate? What non-partisan, peer-reviewed, scientific studies or surveys do you cite to buttress this vast generalization? "Millions" is rather large numbers. Are there millions of divorce cases in which a spouse's use of pornography has been alleged as a cause for the failure of marriages? Are there millions of hospital admissions of patients needing emergent care for pornography-related conditions, traumas or injuries? If you're going to allege harm on this scale, you should have no problem educing a vast store of statistical verification to support such an allegation. Where is it?

The truth is that no such evidence exists. Very little scientific research has been conducted on the individual, familial or social effects of porn consumption, and much of what passes as "research" in this field is clearly slanted, as its funding sources and "researchers" are publicly associated with anti-pornography activism.

The closest thing we have to an authoritative study of the impact of pornography usage is The President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, a distinguished group of scholars impaneled by an act of Congress in 1969. It concluded that: "there was insufficient evidence that exposure to explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior."

In general, with regard to adults, the Commission recommended that legislation "should not seek to interfere with the right of adults who wish to do so to read, obtain, or view explicit sexual materials."

Regarding the view that these materials should be restricted for adults in order to protect young people from exposure to them, the Commission found that it is "inappropriate to adjust the level of adult communication to that considered suitable for children." The Supreme Court supported this view, but the Nixon administration did not, rejecting the commission's final report. The Meese Commission, assembled a decade and a half later by the Reagan administration and heavily weighted with outspoken critics of pornography, including Attorney General Edwin Meese himself, predictably took the opposite view, despite a complete lack of any original scientific research to validate its conclusions.

Even Professor Gail Dines, a militant opponent of pornography and an outspoken advocate of the "progressive addiction" model of the "harms" of pornography recently admitted in a nationally televised interview that "there are no studies whatsoever" offering objective proof of this hypothesis.

This may be your definition of addiction, but it is neither mine nor that of any recognized medical authority. You misrepresent my views by fitting my words to fit your inventive expansion of a specific term to which they do not apply.
 
No accepted definition of “addiction” states that the habit in question must “result in a trip to the emergency room or a stay in detox” if the individual quits “cold turkey.”  

See above to the contrary. And if that doesn't suit, inquire of any health insurance company whether or not treatment for pornography addiction would fall within the scope of covered benefits. Good luck on that.

In light of the many people who have given up cigarettes “cold turkey” without being rushed to the hospital, Ms. Hartley apparently would argue that nicotine is not addictive and that no one is addicted to smoking.

Again, smokers suffer brutal, physical withdrawal symptoms when they quit. Smoking is a classic example of true addiction that fits my criteria, not yours.

Sexual addiction is a process addiction, rather than a substance addiction, though the neurochemical response to sexual activity, including pornography consumption and masturbation, is an intense hormonal rush that, according to some researchers, has as strong an effect on the brain as heroine. When the brain is constantly overstimulated with the hormones produced during the sexual arousal brought about by viewing pornography, a tolerance is developed that requires more frequent and more intense stimulation. Thus, pornography consumption becomes compulsive and the consumer becomes dependent.   

Now here we have a fine example of what is known as junk science. Though I'm not surprised that you hesitate to attribute it to its creator, Dr. Diana Russell, a social psychologist with no background whatsoever in medicine or neuro-physiology and who is highly active in a number of anti-pornography groups. Her theories regarding the creation of "eroto-toxins" in the brain as a result of exposure to pornography is widely regarded by medical experts as meritless.

Again, when making claims of scientific proof, you fail to provide a single link or citation to the work of any recognized authority not associated with anti-porn politics or who does not benefit economically by the propagation of this pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

To deny that this constitutes an addiction is to turn a blind eye to the quiet suffering of millions of men, women, and—most tragically—children."

Ah yes, the children. Can't leave them out of any anti-porn jeremiad. But again, where is the evidence? I repeat, "millions" is very large number. If you can show me a single hospital admission or a single demonstrated case of a child being directly or indirectly harmed by an adult's consumption of pornography in private, you'd have the beginnings of an affirmative argument. Why don't you try for one first and then we'll see about all those millions? Appeals to sentiment and prejudice are not arguments. They are unethical rhetorical tactics used to obscure a paucity of objective evidence.