Tags

, , , , , , ,

The internet is full of things to get angry about, and I mostly do a good job avoiding them.

It’s not actually that hard, as long as you stay clear of websites run by openly hateful groups (the Christian right, white supremacists, etc.), but every once in a while something really and genuinely awful flies under the radar by not talking about Jesus or Hitler or any of the usual suspects.

So, meet the face of the internet’s most intellectually whitewashed moral crusade: pyschologist Gary Wilson’s private campaign against what he calls “internet porn,” which comes with all the trappings of science and study despite relying on neither.

Now, I sell porn for a living. I cannot possibly be considered unbiased on the subject. But there are some major problems with Mr. Wilson’s entire premise here that makes his pitch not only unconvincing, but also downright offensive, regardless of whether you personally like to have porn available online or not:

1. The Talk Assumes a Heterosexual Audience and Heterosexual Products

And that’s it. That’s all that ever comes up: guys watching porn featuring women.

You would think someone who wants to wipe out internet porn would have noticed that there are other options out there, but maybe he hasn’t left his comfort zone yet. I can’t speak for his browsing habits.

The problem remains: this is a guy who talks about only the most heteronormative consumption possible — and does not mention the existence of alternatives. Not even to say “that’s not something I looked at.”

Mr. Wilson wants to talk about the omnipresence of pornography, but he doesn’t want to acknowledge that there are consumers of it other than men, or pornographic products featuring non-heterosexual scenarios.

And that dismissal of all women’s interests, not to mention a good share of men’s, should be a major warning bell that this guy is not kosher.

2. The Talk Assumes Universal Internet Access

This is all about how internet porn is making teenage boys (and the men they grow into) crazy in the head. Porn is described as so universal it’s like fish in water — men are barely even aware of their unlimited and instant access.

Problem with that — a lot of teenage boys don’t have internet access. Many of those that do can only access it at places like schools or public libraries, where porn isn’t really an option.

When Mr. Wilson says “teenagers” or “men,” what he’s actually talking about are affluent, predominantly white men in countries with widespread and uncensored internet access. And as with #1 here, the big problem is that he doesn’t seem aware that there’s alternatives.

When a speaker talking about social change doesn’t make any acknowledgement that people different from himself (or herself) exist, it’s a good sign that what they’re actually pitching is a change that benefits them, personally.

3. Gary Wilson is Not a Scientist, and This is Not Research

There is no peer evaluation to anything Mr. Wilson is pitching, in the talk or on his privately-owned website. He obviously has a personal right to share whatever unsubstantiated conclusions he pleases with the world, but his conclusions are just that — personal and unsubstantiated.

When Mr. Wilson talks about a “control group” of men who have given up porn, he is talking about a self-selecting population of dissatisfied people gathered mostly from Reddit and men’s-interest websites. That’s not a control group —  that’s an interest group.

The nicest thing you could call the attempt to pass comments from chatrooms and Reddit off as “data” is misguided, and it’s probably more accurate to call it deliberately manipulative — cloaking moral activism in a very thin veneer of pseudo-science.

4. At the End of the Day, It All Gets Blamed on Women’s Bodies

If you didn’t watch the whole video, here’s the short summary: the problem is impotence, and the cause of it is women’s bodies, as seen in porn.

Seriously.

That’s the bottom line here. Mr. Wilson would like you to believe that looking at too many sexy lady bits will make you lose your penis.

Now, this guy is theoretically trained as a psychologist (though as I mentioned, he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed works on this subject), so you’d think he would recognize castration anxiety when he saw it.

But I’m sorry, Mr. Wilson. Women are not sexy sirens luring you to your (or you dick’s) demise. You can look at naked women without being struck blind, or even struck impotent. Porn is not a problem.

Shaming men about their “performance” to create a feeling of inadequacy and then placing the blame on sexual behavior by women, however, is a problem. 

The message of the talk and of Mr. Wilson’s website is unsubtle: if you’re a young, unhappy man, that’s not your fault. You’d be better off if we could just keep women desexualized.

And that’s a far, far more dangerous emotional appeal to have on the internet than any number of dirty books.