Is porn really so 'bad'?
That's the question posed to Dr. Gail Saltz in her relationship advice column. And her succinct answer:
If it is used repetitively or addictively, or to replace a healthy sexual relationship, then it crosses the line. Some women complain their men are secretive and sneaky, preferring watching porn to being with them. Once you start lying, using it more obsessively rather than as an occasional tool or taking risks in order to watch pornography, you are likely dealing with a pornography addiction and THAT is what’s “bad.”
Pornography isn’t intrinsically bad. It’s bad only if it interferes negatively with people’s lives or relationships.
I certainly couldn't have put it better myself.
Porn Game Over is Jason's self-help plan for quitting the habit. Click here for a fresh approach to internet pornography addiction...
User login
Search
RSS Subscribe
8 comments
Hello, I think Dr. Gail
Hello,
I think Dr. Gail Saltz comments are extremely insightful and I have to agree completely with her analysis. I have myself concluded that using porn is often more a symptom of something else deeper, using porn is a way to avoid something we cannot cope with facing.
**If you have an obesession with using porn then I think the obsessionality is probably a feature of your own personality. It is with me, there is an obsessional streak in my family and this is partly were it comes from in my view. So if you have an obsession or habit or porn complusion that complusiveness is probably a part of your personality anyway its just being expressed through the use of porn. I'm not saying using porn is good or bad but I am saying if a porn use has become obsessional who's to say that person wouldn't be osessional about something esle if it wasn't porn anyway. The complusion is in use, in me, in you. Porn is an expression of this.
Alan
"Porn isn't intrinsically
"Porn isn't intrinsically bad" is a step on the slippery slope to having porn everywhere, with no restrictions, because hey, it doesn't really matter.
It's the addicted users that are the problem, not the addictive substance itself which is available everywhere 24/7. Give me a break.
I hate this sort of PC, Establishmentarian talk. I will say it: Porn IS intrinsically bad.
Incidentally that article you
Incidentally that article you link to is from MSNBC, which is an Establishment media outlet.
I would not expect ANY objective, honest discourse on the issue of porn and porn addiction from the mainstream media.
Full quote from Establishment
Full quote from Establishment media commentator Gail Saltz:
"Pornography isn’t intrinsically bad. It’s bad only if it interferes negatively with people’s lives or relationships."
But the reality is it DOES interfere negatively with people's lives and relationships. Nearly ALWAYS.
"I have myself concluded that
"I have myself concluded that using porn is often more a symptom of something else deeper"
Something deeper lie having sex, fulfilling basic evolutionary objectives, starting a relationship...
We inevitably open up the
We inevitably open up the broader societal debate here. And whilst it's not the main focus of this blog or my work as an addiction therapist, all viewpoints are welcomed.
"I would not expect ANY objective, honest discourse on the issue of porn and porn addiction from the mainstream media."
A recent (and somewhat inane) news story has triggered some interesting debate of the issue at large:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2009/apr/06/pornography-ja...
From article: "I'll save
From article:
"I'll save my sympathy for the exploited women"
Here we go again with the "exploited women" as if it is a constant of the industry, which it is not. Funny that feminist anti-porn advocates think they can just pronounce "porn exploits women" and just leave it at that. It needs no further justification or elaboration, it seems.
I find these mainstream articles accusing "the media" of getting things wrong to be pretty cringeworthy.
I mean, if you get column or webspace on a major newspaper, you are part of the Media Establishment.
Does this not click at any time when they endict "the media" at large?
"Pornography is part of a multi-billion pound global sex industry; and industry that exploits and damages women thousands of women and girls. Not only those involved it, but all of us [women]."
"Thousands of women and girls" are adversely affected, but not a single man...
Good old 1970s style gynocentric anti-porn. It hasn't gone away you know!
There is a bigger debate here, and I think as a person with no connections, I have more of an authority to say that "the media" are missing it.
The bigger debate is the pervasiveness of porn within our culture. It is becoming the predominant entertainment in the West.
Is this is a good or bad thing? How did it end up like this? Why is the thought of putting major restrictions on porn such a "forbidden" thought? How does mass porn interface with feminist sexual liberalism?
These are the serious questions; but the media will ask none of them. The most they will allow is the tired old arguments feminists have been regurgitating since the 1970s. Which is really, a very narrow band of anti-porn critique.
As individuals, we have normalised porn. Consumption and production of it is no big deal - for many, it is a part of daily routine. Yet in spite of this, there is very little awareness and reflection on the issues surrounding porn. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mainstream media.
While it acts as a dissemination vehicle for pornographic material, it provides no critique.
Obviously porn addiction is another issue which is for the most part ignored or downplayed. I see porn as inherently an exploitation of male sexual desire. Without this root exploitation, the "billion dollar industry" isn't possible.
The ruinous effects of this "desire-exploitation" are more evident when we look at porn addiction, how it effects the lives of the addicted in a very profound way.
Whether it's a porn-shy preteenager or a life-long addict, the user is exploited and hooked in exactly the same way.
It's the same principle of desire exploitation at work which makes the whole industry possible.
There are a multitude of issues to consider here; and they go way beyond the "women only victims" mentality that the "permitted" anti-porn commentators such as Ms. Elliot promote.
But you are right, this incident with the Home Secretary has opened up the debate a bit. A fairly decent exchange is occurring on the Guardian comments section.
I consider the "women only
I consider the "women only victims" anti-porn, and and "intelligent, empowered and proud women" pro-porn arguments to be very much different sides of the same coin.
If we want to understand and articlate anything important about porn, the gynocentric paradigm has to go.
Post new comment