I occasionally read articles on lifesitenews.com,
If you have never read it, it's pretty much a mill for conspiracy
theories and rants against "liberal plots" like science and measurable
data.
I don't often write criticism of things I find there, but this series of articles caught my attention.
He
is writing about the "evils" of porn, but his argument ends up sounding
strange, creepy and anti-sex. Now before I get into the criticisms let
me say a few things about my own view so there is no confusion. I do,
in fact, watch porn on occasion. I say this without the slightest bit
of shame, sexuality is an important part of our nature and I think it is
unrealistic to expect people to simply turn this part of themselves off
until they get married. Even most Fundamentalists admit this, since
they are well aware of how many people watch porn and have premarital
sex despite the general injunctions against both. Think about it for a
second, the church forbids both murder and premarital sex. However, few
people have a problem resisting the urge to murder but almost everyone
has a problem resisting the urge to have sex. This should tell us right
away that these are very different things.
Now,
to be clear I am not saying that the use of porn is a totally great
thing without any potential negative consequences. STD risks, and abuse
are both potential risk for people who work in porn. And there are
studies that connect high amounts of porn use to erectile dysfunction,
which, from what I've read seems to be caused by an over stimulation of
the dopamine receptors, causing them to loose sensitivity. However,
risk is in everything we do. Many people join the military even though
that job carries with the potential risk of being dead or permanently
maimed yet people do it proudly.
This brings me to the articles in question. I'm going to be criticizing parts 2 and 3 primarily. In the second part of his article he seems to want to discuss the topic reasonably, and shows that he has at least a passing familiarity the way pornography is dealt with in modern psychology. However, like most apologists his reasonableness does not last, he quickly descends into pseudo-science and preachy claims, even ones that are a detriment to his article.
This brings me to the articles in question. I'm going to be criticizing parts 2 and 3 primarily. In the second part of his article he seems to want to discuss the topic reasonably, and shows that he has at least a passing familiarity the way pornography is dealt with in modern psychology. However, like most apologists his reasonableness does not last, he quickly descends into pseudo-science and preachy claims, even ones that are a detriment to his article.
