On Porn

Andy Alvarado
Professor Osborne
English 102
31 March 2014
On Porn: Harmful or Not?
Pornography began its journey harmlessly enough, starting from humble beginnings with Hugh Hefner founding Playboy with a loan from his mom back in 1953 (Ruvolo). When Hugh started his exotic escapade back in 1953, he assumedly didn't have any idea just how pervasive it would become. Fast-forward to modern America, and porn is everywhere: In print under the bed, hidden on cell phones, working the graveyard shift on HBO, and lurking around every corner of the internet, from Facebook to the darkest, most aberrant trenches of the web. While porn was generally frowned upon by the public upon its arrival in the mid-twentieth century, its catapult into the mainstream within the past two decades—thanks to the introduction of the internet—has garnered it increasing acceptance and unprecedented viewership among American audiences (Ruvolo). Its taboo nature is still very prevalent, however, and has unfortunately obscured the thriving ongoing discussion of the all-too-important question: Is porn harmful to the public? Or could porn be harmless or even helpful?
If pornography has any sort of effect on its viewers, an idea of the extent of those effects could be easily imagined by analyzing how deeply it has penetrated American culture and how it fares as a commercial industry. According to Forbes, the annual domestic product of the porn industry in 2001 was between 2.6 to 3.9 billion US dollars, between adult video, internet, pay-per-view, and magazines (Ruvolo). ConvenenantEyes, a website devoted to internet accountability, monitors the web and gathers statistics and data to produce annual reports of Pornography statistics. According to the report, as of the moment this is being written, the number of searches for pornography since the start of 2014 is just over 547 million. They also estimate that by 2006, the porn industry's estimated revenues totaled just under $13 billion in the US. Today, it is much harder to get a read on the same figure (Spencer). A perfect picture of just how large the porn business is would require accurate revenue reports from every entity which produces and distributes pornography (Spencer). Unfortunately, this specific information is not readily available; instead, we must rely on statistics and information gathered from a variety of sources over several years (Spencer).
And that's only the commercial porn industry, which has seen decline since the start of the new millennium and the introduction of the internet, and thus multitudes of websites boasting free access to pornographic material (Spencer). Some shocking 2010 stats reveal just how commonplace internet porn has become. According to Gizmodo, about 12% of the websites on the internet are pornographic (Chen). Every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography, and 28,258 internet users are viewing porn. About 40 million Americans are regular visitors to porn sites (Chen). By 2010, the internet porn industry was pulling in $2.84 billion per year. (Chen). 25% of all search engine requests are pornography related—that's 68 million a day—while "MILFs" outperforms "Cheerleaders" 43:1 as a search term, while "Cheating wives" outperforms "Cheerleaders" 34:1 (Ruvolo).
In an interview with Forbes, Ogi Ogas, co-author, along with Sai Gaddam, of the book A Billion Wicked Thoughts, gave his insight on the true magnitude of porn's presence on the internet. Sitting on arguably the largest collection of porn data in the history of mankind, Ogas was surprised to quickly realize that most available statistics about the amount of internet domain dedicated to porn were either completely fabricated or bogus (Ruvolo). Ogas also suggests that people treat any statistic about how much money is spent on online porn as bogus and completely unreliable, considering the vast majority of porn operators are small (1-10 employees) who hide or cook their books (Ruvolo). Though the annual revenue of the porn industry remains as nebulous as ever, Ogas is quick to give evidence to porn's massive internet presence, citing that 13% of all web searches were for erotic content, and of the million most popular websites in the world, 42,337 were sex-related sites.
Evidently, there's no doubting porn's widespread presence in modern America. The extent of its pervasion, however, does not say anything about the effects themselves other than the fact that if they exist, those effects are widespread. The length of the roots of these effects in the lives of the populace can be perhaps completely measured by answering one simple, elusive, and massively controversial question which lies at the heart of the debate: Is porn addictive?

The discussion of porn addiction brings up a wealth of other questions including sex addiction, but it is important to start with the basics: What actually defines addiction? The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released their new, ground-up reconstruction of addiction in 2011, based on four years of research working with over 80 experts. In it, The ASAM gives a short definition of addiction as a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual's pathological pursuit of reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. It is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, cravings, diminished recognition of significant problems with one's behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death (Wilson).

Whether porn and its viewers fit into this mold or not is heatedly argued by both parties. On one side, the circles which advocate for viewing pornography as an addictive behavior rely heavily on anecdotal and scientific bases, while the side pushing for viewing porn to be seen as a non-addictive behavior argues that the science their oppositions' advocacies are based on is flimsy and unreliable, and there is more evidence to suggest that porn is actually not addicting at all (Israelsen-Hartley, Ley). The porn-addiction-exists argument delves into neuroscience to explain frequently common and similar anecdotes regarding the negative effects of porn on self-proclaimed addicts, and prove viewing porn and subsequent masturbation and ejaculation as a behavioral addiction (the study of which is still relatively new) (Wilson). The studies and speculations used to defend this stance revolve around dopamine, the pleasurable reward chemical released in the brain in response to natural biological processes and urges such as the need to survive and to copulate (Wilson). The problem with the human brain is that it has not evolved to deal with excessive self-pleasure to imagery, though it does retain what scientists call the Coolidge effect—the observable behavior in which male animals, in this case rats, will copulate with the same female until it eventually loses interest, even if the female is still interested (Wilson). Replace the female with a different one, however, and all of a sudden the rat is completely reenergized and ready for more; keep switching out females and the male will continue to try to copulate to the point of death (Wilson). It's the novelty factor that keeps them returning, and this behavior has evidently been retained by human brains; couple this behavior and the readily available novelty constituting the many sub-genres of pornography, and what's created is a surefire pathway to addiction (Wilson).
But is it sound science? David J. Ley, author of The Myth of Sex Addiction, argues that porn addiction and sexual addictions in general are completely unfounded by science, and what scientific studies exist are either poorly executed or completely inconclusive. Ley asserts that many arguments antiporn advocates use are fear-based, invoking brain and neuroscience related terms, when there has actually been extremely little research that actually looks at the brains and behaviors of people using porn, and no good, experimental research that has looked at the brains of those who are allegedly addicted to porn. All their arguments are supposedly theoretical, and based on rhetoric, inferences and extrapolating from other research findings to try to explain sexual behaviors (Ley). Sex addiction, Ley describes, in all its forms including porn addiction, is simply a result of individuals with above-average libidos trying to get some satisfaction.
Until further, more extensive and thorough scientific studies are conducted, the winner of the porn-addiction argument remains unclear. What the antiporn advocates have over the opposition, however, is a plethora of anecdotal experiences from porn addicts and ex-porn addicts alike citing the effects porn has had or continues to have in their lives. On the website yourbrainonporn.com, Gary Wilson dedicates numerous blog posts to analyzing scientific studies and theories on the effects of porn on its viewers, addressing concerns such as porn-induced erectile dysfunction, and social inhibitions, poor sexual performance, and deviances from normal sexual behavior – all purportedly and potentially porn induced issues of pressing concern. Marriages end up destroyed, relationships torn apart, and waves of depression and isolation take place (Wilson). The list goes on and on, and suddenly, given the scope of porn's accessible presence in daily American life, porn seems like an increasingly uncontrollable problem.
David J. Ley would once again counter with the lack of scientific studies to support such harsh claims about the negative effects of porn, which he does in an article for Psychology Today. He also denounces such claims, also on the basis of a lack of scientific evidence, that porn is the catalyst for illicit sexual behavior including rape and molestation cases. His own convictions of the baselessness of such accusations are compelling. Elsewhere on the internet, Stacey Nelkin, an actress, speculates on the reasons why watching porn together with your partner can be actually good for your relationship. Instead of being threatened by your partner's stash of porn magazines or the time they spend gazing at online erotica, how about sharing the experiences with them and making it an intimate bonding moment?
Whatever the claim, it seems that, like many current controversial issues, it all boils down to the science or the lack thereof when it comes to asserting universal truths regarding the effects of pornography. While the antiporn advocates have all the anecdotes and experiences lined up and ready to make an impact, they can only apply viscerally until any such experiences are backed by credible research. The effects of porn and the true extent of porn's influence may remain nebulous, but a few things are certain: It is here, it is prevalent, and it needs to be discussed; its taboo nature completely torn down. As Julie Ruvolo puts it so shamelessly in Forbes, "Porn is officially as mainstream as Sarah Palin, and like it or not, it's time we take off our blindfolds and deal with it."























Works Cited
Spencer, Sam. "How Big is the Pornography Industry in the United States?." CovenantEyes. N.p., 01 6 2012. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Ackman, Dan. "How Big Is Porn?." Forbes. N.p., 25 5 2001. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Ruvolo, Julie. "The Internet Is For Porn (So Let's Talk About It)." Forbes. N.p., 20 5 2011. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Chen, Jason. "Finally, Some Actual Stats on Internet Porn." GIZMODO. N.p., 01 6 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Israelsen-Hartley, Sara. "Adolescent addiction: When pornography strikes early." Deseret News. Deseret News National Edition, 01 1 2014. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Ley, David J.. "Your Brain on Porn - It." Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Women Who Stray, 25 7 2013. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Wilson, Gary. "Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction Is A Growing Problem." Your Brain On Porn. N.p., 11 7 2011. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Wilson, Gary. "Anerican Society of Addiction Medicine states that sexual behavior addictions are as real as drug addictions." . N.p., 08 02 2012. Web. 31 Mar 2014.
Wilson, Gary. "Porn, Novelty, and the Coolidge Effect: Without the Collidge Effect there would be no Internet Porn." Your Brain on Porn. N.p., 08 8 2011. Web. 31 Mar 2014.










Alvarado 1