A. The Darker Reality of Pornography
This essay responds to the belief that pornography is the catalyst for pornography addiction. Though spiritually conservative communities have proudly supported this view for a many years, after reviewing Mary Anne Layden’s (2010) Capitol Hill PornHarms.com conference speech titled, “How Addiction Harms the Person,” it now seems likely that some of the psychological community has now joined sides with the spiritually conservative anti-porn movement. I say this because when Mary Anne Layden claims that it was, “Pornography that stole them from us.”—meaning that it was pornography that stole the victims of pornography away from us—she does not speak with the authority of a religious leader. Quite differently, Layden happens to be the Director of Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology at the University of Pennsylvania. Either when the victims of pornography are the people who look at porn or when the victims are the family or community that rips themselves apart after they realize who is addicted to looking at porn, this psychological and spiritually conservative perspective is frustrating because it is implicated in that which creates pornography addiction in the first place.
To summarize Layden’s anti-porn speech, “How Addiction Harms the Person,” like conservative religious speeches on pornography, she begins by sharing three shocking stories of how three of her clients lives were ruined by looking at pornography. She compares these porn addicts to rats who upon having the pleasure centers of their brains connected to a button they could touch similarly pleasured themselves to death. Like the rats who could willingly activate the pleasure centers of their brain, Layden’s claim is that men who look at porn similarly gain access to this latent sexually emotional holocaust most likely apart of every man’s brain. In fact, similar to what I have heard religious leaders claiming for many years, Layden echoes that the problem is the porn—not the traditional assumptions used to make sense of the porn; and, that looking at porn is like unto partaking of a physical drug—like Heroin, Methamphetamine, or Cocaine: yet much more powerful and dangerous (p.1-3).
But, while religious leaders assume that they have the tools to fix this sweeping social problem—i.e. don’t look, pray to God for strength to overcome the temptations of the Devil, keep all the commandments of God, go to bed early, and spend a lot of time reading scriptures, etcetera—Layden and her psychological community are not so confident they have a sure method to successfully recover victims of this worse-than-the-worse-drugs-substance. “Pornography,” she says:
is such a versatile drug that the impact on your brain chemistry makes it be both an upper and a downer. Also, unlike other drugs, we can never completely remove it from the system. It is permanently implanted in the brain. No detox is possible. This is the first time that the mental health field has been asked to deal with an addictive substance that is irremovable. (pg. 2)
Accordingly, although psychological methods of helping victims of pornography are certainly different from religious methods, because of her incapacity to see pornography as anything other than worst-than-the-worst-drug she is left with a shockingly religious-like warning about the viewing of pornography. As such, she writes:
The mental health field is coming to realize that the central issue of addiction is not that you ingest a substance through your mouth or veins but that however the substance is delivered, it has an effect on your brain that causes terrible negative consequences and yet you continue to ingest it anyway. Pornography may be ingested through your eyes but impact is not just on your genitals but also on your brain so it fits the addiction definition perfectly. Don’t be fooled by those who are motivated by greed or lust or fear or ignorance that tell you other wise. [emphasis added] (p.3)
In other words, porn is a drug, it is the main problem of pornography addictions; thus, don’t look at porn, and don’t trust anyone who will tell you otherwise, period: end of discussion!
To darken this picture, porn is perhaps as accessible as it has ever been. People get it for free on any device that can access the Internet. Further, appointments with psychologists, therapists, or psychiatrists—to fix pornography addictions—at least for most people—costs anywhere from $50 to $200 per visit. And, like appointments with religious leaders to fix pornography addictions, mental health therapists will probably tell porn addicts the same thing as spiritually conservative leaders as well as only being available after a scheduled in-advance interview. Thus, while it is easy to intake the deadly drug of pornography, it is likely that help for the victims is not close enough by or as easily accessible as it aught to be.
As the pornography epidemic increases, in hopes to liberate those addicted to pornography as well as to help those who help people addicted to pornography, I hence begin offering my perspective on the matter. When men look at women it is traditionally assumed that the women are the creators of the emotions men feel when they look at women. Put another way, the traditional assumption of looking is not quickly aware that there is a process uses to make sense of what it looks at that derives from the looker rather than what is looked at. Said differently, traditional assumptions, because they are not aware of the process they use to make sense of the things they look at, often assume that they are not implicated in creating the understandings of what they see. But, does the power of the image really originate from what one looks at? Or, is a looking being implicated in creating the power of what they see and hence assume to understand? My objective in this essay is to clearly demonstrate how people are implicated in creating the hypersexualized understanding of pornography that fuels pornography additions. In other words, I am trying to show how porn is not the exclusive problem in the scenario of porn addiction. Rather, my purpose is to show how all people who believe that porn is the originating catalyst of pornography addiction are at least a large part of the catalyst of pornography addiction—which, in my experience, seems to basically be most people.
B. Helping Porn Addicts in Slow Motion: The Process of Looking
If, for a second, my reader(s) can slow down the looking assumptions tradition has taught you, you will be able to see that my text you are looking at now is actually an image with similar qualities as a pornographic image—i.e. pixels, ink, and hardness. Accordingly, while noticing these similar qualities, become aware that the method of looking at a text is the same method used to look at a pornographic image. In other words, recognize how the process of looking presupposes the process of reading—and that looking at text and a pornographic image is the same experience of looking, the only difference being colors. And, while looking at a pornographic image is the same looking that is looking at a text, notice that in the split second you look at something without alphabetic images—i.e. naked or covered breasts as opposed to letters and sentences—the looking experience seems dramatically different. In other words, when looking feels or becomes like reading it seems like a dramatically different experience of looking. The next section argues that in the subtle space in between looking and reading lies part of the hidden cure for porn addiction. And, in latter sections it will be shown how understanding—as the aftermath of looking followed by making sense/reading—if reconstructed in favor of a more accurate view of understanding may aid the recovery of pornography addictions.
C. Between Looking and Reading the Image
What is it that the mind does differently when, as it looks, it begins to read? Though this question may be answered in different ways, for the purpose of helping porn addicts, the answer investigated here will be: that when a looking being begins reading, their looking mind consciously begins making sense; and that traditionally, when the looking mind begins making sense or begins reading, it incorrectly assumes that when it is simply looking it is not reading or making sense. Hence, my goal is to demonstrate how the process of looking is the process of reading or making sense yet knowing very sharply that tradition is quite unconscious of this distinction—and the significance of this distinction. To rephrase, I am arguing that the process of making sense is the process of reading while understanding. Or, to use traditional language—that when people speak of how they are “reading” they are meaning to say that they are consciously making sense of what they are looking at and that looking and reading are majorly different mental processes. Accordingly, I believe that one of the central issues in a porn addict’s mind is that they are unconsciously assuming that the process of looking is majorly different than the process of reading. I do see this assumption as hugely problematic—in ways that go far beyond porn addiction! Hence, I believe that if I can help people understand how the looking mind is always making sense—or in traditional language, “reading”—much positive progress can be made in creating healthier more robust traditional communities capable of dealing with the epidemic of porn addiction.
Accordingly, a question: does not the looking eye, without being a conscious reader, make sense also of that which it sees? In other words, to relate back to the porn addict, does not the man looking at the woman have to make sense of what he or she sees before the pleasure center of his emotions is ignited? It would be absurd to think that the porn addict feels sexual emotion before he looks at the pornographic image. For, if a man or woman could, without the aid of the pornographic image, accesses the sexual emotions he or she seems to want to feel via looking at porn, why then would a man feel it necessary to look at pornography? Quite differently, porn addicts do use pornography, like a drug, to be the catalyst for gaining access to their sexual emotions—or their “pleasure centers” as the notable spiritually conservative religious leader Russell M. Ballard (2010) puts it in his recent anti-porn speech titled, “Oh That Cunning Plan of The Evil One.” Moreover, if men or women did not use pornography to gain access to their pleasure centers, how could Mary Anne Layden—the Director of Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology at the University of Pennsylvania—be able to reasonably argue in behalf of the psychological community that pornography is in fact a drug? The answer is, she couldn’t because most people do assume that pornography is the creator of wild untamable unsociable negative sexual emotions!!!
Accordingly, having demonstrated via a slide of logical reasoning that the person who looks at porn does need the image to access the sexual emotions, it must now clearly be explained how the act of looking at porn is an act of reading, just like when my readers make sense of my words here in this essay/image. To do so is not too terribly difficult. Look closely at my words until you see that they are colors. I have chosen black paint on a white canvas and have turned my brush into a digital keyboard. You see, this is not really an essay at all it is a tangible object/painting you can touch. If you disbelieve, reach your hand out and touch my art. You will see and feel that it is as touchable as a tangible woman or pornography. Now, snap your fingers and see that just like that, I am once again a traditional text to read.
Now, pull up an image of a girl you are sexually attracted to—something like a pornographic image—but with clothes on (because I am not encouraging you to look at pornography). You likely will be able to do this without an image because your mind is full of such images. Or, perhaps, your lover is available to look at, and if so, you can go ahead and begin looking at her. As you look, begin reading her like you are reading my text. In other words, begin consciously making sense of her. What is it that you are seeing? Luckily we have the aid of language to help you. You see a girl, breasts, teeth, smile, flowing hair, stylish clothes, etcetera. Now ask yourself: how did it become that these letters/images are so loaded with understanding? In other words, what is the history of the understanding of the, “a girl, breasts, teeth, smile, flowing hair, stylish clothes, etcetera.” In other words, similar to how there is a traceable personal history to how one is able to understand my words, there similarly is a traceable history that can be remembered which allows one to understand the sexually loaded image the way that one does. By this I mean to say, that like one’s capacity to look/read and understand text, looking and understanding a female in all her presentations (i.e. image, movies, text, sound, and tangible reality)—all of which are a type of readable text—is contingent on understanding. As such, a man looking at a woman understanding her to be a man is likely not turned on. Likewise, if a man looks at a man and thinks him to be a woman of his desire, his sexual emotions are likely ignited. It follows then, that understanding—the aftermath of making sense, reading, or looking—is also one of the assumptions connected with looking, reading, and making sense that also sustains the life of a pornography addiction.
D. Are we Understanding or Misunderstanding Pornography?
If, while reading my text, the reader does not understand my sentences, it is likely that his or her desire will go adrift. They will accordingly believe that they don’t understand me and will most likely stop reading. But, what if someone does understand me as they read my text? Is there then any room for misunderstanding? Put another way, if I read the same text one hundred times—understanding all the way—will the way I understand the text change? And, if it does change does that mean we are a little bit always misunderstanding even when we may understand?
Well, certainly one’s understanding of the text will change because the history that one perpetually uses to make sense of a text is in time—always expanding. If anyone disagrees choose a challenging text they feel capable of understanding and read it one hundred times. No matter what text a person chooses for this experiment, they will not be able to stop the evolution of time separating each process of reading the text. And, at the 100th time of reading, will the way the person understands the text have changed? Of course it will. At the 100th time of reading this text, the reader will be using all the 99 understandings of previous readings to understand for the 100th time. Yet, does that mean that at the 100th time of reading the same text there is perhaps even a little misunderstanding?
Now, I realized that in response to this question some will remain dogmatically loyal to the answer/understanding, “No!”—without being able to clearly explain why. To such people I respond, but what if during the 100th time looking at the same or similar text/image one realized that all 99 previous understandings used to understand what one was looking at were all unaware that they were using all previous understandings to make sense of the text/image and hence read the text/image (because I have established that a text is a type of image)? How could one deny that our previous understandings are what we use to continue expanding our understandings? And, moreover, who in their past 1,000,000’s of times making sense of a woman in all her presentations was aware that it was their making sense—i.e. their reading and hence understanding that gave the sexual image its electrifying power? It was the man who understood the image first before he felt sexual emotions wasn’t it? As such, would not this reconstructed method of understanding change what understanding is and send reverberations throughout all previous understandings? I believe that such a reconstructed understanding could possibly help the porn addict and those who help porn addicts because such an understanding will likely change the way people use past understandings to understand that which they perpetually look at; because such a reconstructed understanding may shake loose the ignorance of past understandings used to lodge the addiction to pornography beyond the looker’s and bystander’s conscious capacity to change what is believed to be understood which includes the method of understanding—which is the aftermath of looking and making sense/reading.
Further Relating this all back to the pornography addict looking at pornography in relationship to all I have written, could it not accurately be held that the pornographic image is understood because of millions of times of looking/understanding when the looking and understanding assumes that it is not reading. In other words, that the sexually stimulating image is so easily understandable that we don’t have to read or make sense of it to understand it. Or better, that the sexually stimulating image is so easily understandable that we are not using our previous understandings contingent via looking at the presentation of a woman millions of times previously when we continue to make sense of her. Or put very simply: is it not possible that the porn addict misunderstands that which he sees when beyond his capacity to understand he confidently assumes that he does understand the pornographic presentation of women?
Conclusion
If it is looking, and then making sense, and then understanding—which understanding is using all previous understandings to understand the presentation of a woman that causes one to feel erotic (and this is the process one uses to make sense of that which he or she merely looks at if one is brave enough to slow down the process of looking and understanding the presentation of a sexual stimuli as I have demonstrated)—then, this looking process is very different from the image assumed to be the cause of the sexual erotic emotions a man feels when he merely “looks” at a woman—in all her presentations. Accordingly, in light of such knowledge, the claim that porn is a drug is reversed: now the history of understanding one uses to make sense of the woman as he merely “looks” at her is now implicated in being the part of the drug/cause of arousing the pleasure centers of sexual emotions in a man’s and woman’s body and mind. And, all those who continue looking unaware of how they are implicated in reading all they look at are likely part of the problem of the epidemic of pornography addiction. Put clearly, when Layden, in her Capitol Hill anti-porn PornHarms.com conference speech titled, “How Addiction Harms the Person,” claims that, “Pornography stole them [i.e. the victims of pornography] away from us,” I have established reasons to respond: Not exactly! It’s more like the drug is all the understandings a man or woman uses to make sense or read porn when he or she ignorantly thinks they are merely just ‘looking’ at images. As such, it is highly possible then that the porn addict is partly misunderstanding what he understands when he is looking at porn. And, thus, while Layden blames porn for pornography addiction she feeds her listeners part of the foundation of the drug that will keep them perpetually addicted to pornography. Or simply, though perhaps porn may be a drug, the assumptions that believes that the image/text “porn” is the drug that is more of the drug that addicts people to porn.
Works Cited
Ballard, Russell, M., “Oh The Cunning Plan of the Evil One.” Oct. 2010 General Conference, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed Jan. 29, 2010 @ < http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/o-that-cunning-plan-of-the-evil-one?lang=eng >
Layden, Mary, Anne. “How Addiction Harms the Person,” Pornography Harms: A Briefing What Congress can do to enforce the existing laws. June 15 2010, accessed Jan. 29, 2010 @ < http://pornharms.com/Congressional_Briefing.pdf >
No comments:
Post a Comment