Internet Porn: Worse Than Crack?
Ryan Singel
11.19.04
Internet
pornography is the new crack cocaine, leading to addiction, misogyny,
pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians
and researchers testifying before a Senate committee Thursday.
Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee's Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography.
Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today."
"The
internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous,
aroused and have role models for these behaviors," Layden said. "To
have drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to
use it better than grown-ups know how to use it - it's a perfect
delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts
who will never have the drug out of their mind."
Pornography
addicts have a more difficult time recovering from their addiction than
cocaine addicts, since coke users can get the drug out of their system,
but pornographic images stay in the brain forever, Layden said.
Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality echoed Layden's concern about the internet and the somatic effects of pornography.
"Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause
direct release of the most perfect addictive substance," Satinover
said. "That is, it causes masturbation, which causes release of the
naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can't do, in effect."
The internet is dangerous because it removes the inefficiency in the
delivery of pornography, making porn much more ubiquitous than in the
days when guys in trench coats would sell nudie postcards, Satinover
said.
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), the subcommittee's
chairman, called the hearing the most disturbing one he'd ever seen in
the Senate. Brownback said porn was ubiquitous now, compared to when he
was growing up and "some guy would sneak a magazine in somewhere and
show some of us, but you had to find him at the right time."
The hearing came just days after a controversy over a sexually suggestive Monday Night Football ad that has many foreseeing a crackdown on indecency by the Federal Communications Commission.
It is unclear what the consequences of Thursday's hearing will be since
it was not connected to any pending or proposed legislation.
Brownback, a conservative Christian, is also scheduled to be rotated off the sub-committee in the next session.
When Brownback asked the panelists for suggestions about what should be
done, the responses were mild, considering their earlier indictment of
pornography. Several suggested that federal money be allocated to fund
brain-mapping studies into the physical effects of pornography.
Judith Reisman of the California Protective Parents Association suggested that more study of "erototoxins" could show how pornography is not speech-protected under the First Amendment.
The panelists all agreed that the government should fund health
campaigns to educate the public about the dangers of pornography. The
campaign should combat the messages of pornography by putting signs on
buses saying sex with children is not OK, said Layden.
However, as the panelists themselves acknowledged, there is no
consensus among mental health professionals about the dangers of porn
or the use of the term "pornography addiction."
Many
psychologists and most sexologists find the concepts of sex and
pornography addiction problematic, said Carol Queen, staff sexologist
for the San Francisco-based, woman-owned Good Vibrations.
Queen questioned the validity of the panel for not including anyone who
thinks "pornography is not particularly problematic in most people's
lives."
Queen acknowledges she can name people who have
compulsive and destructive behavior centered on pornography, but argues
that can happen with other activities, such as gambling and shopping.
Queen also criticized the methodology behind research showing that
pornography stimulates the brain like drugs do, saying the research
needs to take into account how sex itself stimulates the brain.
"There's no doubt the brain lights up when sexually aroused," Queen said.
Queen too would like to see more money devoted to research on sex, but
thinks it is unlikely that researchers on either side of the divide are
likely to receive large grants any time soon.
Studies
intended to show the harmful effects of pornography must contend with
ethical rules prohibiting harm to human subjects, while sex researchers
have a hard time getting any funding, unless their study is
specifically HIV-related, according to Queen.
