Pamela Anderson—yes, same one—took a very strong anti-porn stance in an ew op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, co-authored by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. It was a "porn is for losers" stance. It was really something to read.
I guess I haven't been keeping up with Anderson lately. I don't know she had such strong opinions against pornography. But she is a former Playboy model, so that makes her an expert of sorts in the art of arousal and media sexuality. (Rabbi Boteach is controversial in his own way.)
The thesis of the op-ed is, without nuance, that pornography is bad. Why is it bad? Because it makes men bad husbands and fathers and employees. As if it were that simple. These men, they say, these men are using porn and sexting as "risk-free distractions from the tedium." Who are these men?
Anderson and Boteach use Anthony Weiner as their data point. Weiner is one man, one man who demonstrates a masochistic compulsion to run head-on into scandal. I'm not sure these men, whoever they are, appreciate getting looped in with Weiner. Heterosexual men don't have a monopoly on porn, either. Nor is all porn the same. Anderson and Boteach also point to the alleged inclusion of Weiner's son in an explicit image. No one's denying that was awful. But calling the today's children the "crack babies of porn" seems a bit dramatic. Just a bit.
The op-ed also sites "terrifying" (and inconclusive) statistics about porn consumption in the U.S. Yes, people can get addicted to porn. But porn can also be sexually empowering for couples and individuals. Arguing that pornography and "healthy sexuality" are mutually exclusive is ridiculous. Scientists do need to study the effects of pornography on adults and children. It's important, especially as consumption and access increase. But until that research gets published, let's cool it with the Porn-pocalypse talk.