Pamela Anderson Says Pornography Is Dangerous

Nothing less than Pamela Anderson, the former star of Baywatch, writing with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in the Wall Street Journal, warns us that pornography is dangerous.

What has caused this is the latest scandal to engulf Weiner in New York, the former congressman who has the habit of recurring sexting. But sexting – the practice of sending lewd pictures of himself through social networks – is not only a problem for former congressmen.

The Telegraph recently reported that the practice is endemic among children, many of whom could be targeted by child protection laws as a result.

The Telegraph report about MS Anderson and Rabbi Boteach article (which is behind a paywall) says that the authors’ claim “that pornography is corrosive. They are quoted as saying “This is a public danger unprecedented seriousness given freely available, anonymously accessible and easy dissemination of pornography is today.”

The idea that the danger of pornography is a claim – that is, something that has no real hard evidence of backup – seems mislead me. In other words, to say that they support pornography is dangerous in itself is to make a claim. The truth, no doubt, is that the corrosive effects of pornography are evident, and is for those who say that pornography is harmless to justify their position by presenting evidence.

Rabbi and Anderson are also right to point to the way pornography is freely available on the Internet. In the United States and Britain, as elsewhere, we have a free market in porn variety of adult (child pornography is different.) But we do not, please note that free markets in cigarettes or drugs or alcohol, or foods: all of these are to a greater or lesser degree governed by the law of consumers. But not pornography. That, apparently, can consume as much freedom as you want. Is this correct?

Moreover, it is possible, at least for governments to interrupt the supply of pornography. Sites and providers can be closed and locked. They do not seem to do this indicates a lack of political will to do. They do not care about the corruption of children, the objectification of women and the commercialization of sex? Apparently not.

We are a generation of guinea pig for an experiment in mass degradation that few of us would have never consented, and whose full nefarious impact can not be known for years. How many families will suffer? How many marriages implode? How many talented men will be scrapping your most important relationships and careers for a brief onanista emotion? How many children will propel, warp speed, on the dark side of adult sexuality by the forced exposure to desecration of their parents?

My conclusion is to advise everyone to read the excellent paper on the dangers of pornography published by the American bishops, the best Catholic teaching on the subject to emerge so far, which can be accessed here. Meanwhile, well done to Mrs. Anderson and Rabbi Boteach. We need to hear more on this subject of religious leaders and stars of showbiz.

Back to top button