Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

The Mail and internet wanking

Today in the Mail there's a marvellously po-faced article about internet pornography entitled: "It's addictive as cocaine and just as damaging: So is YOUR husband hooked on internet porn?"

Olivia Lichtenstein (whose byline alone gives you an insight into what's about to follow) opines:

As a mother of two in a 22-year marriage, I'm not sure I can be so understanding. My husband has never been able to see the point of porn and has no interest in it. But he is unusual.
I suspect thousands of wives who discover their husbands are watching porn are then left with a very modern dilemma: should you forgive them, or throw them out and try to explain to your children why Daddy has gone?

"Daddy has gone because mummy caught him knocking one out to the lady on the Bangbus, darling." Simple enough really. But wait, here comes the science. Seatbelts fastened, brains removed...? Good:

Mary Anne Layden, Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Programme co-director at the University of Pennsylvania, says: 'Porn is the most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today.'
According to Layden, online pornography is akin to having an addictive drug pumped into your house for free, 24 hours a day.
And unlike other drugs, which users can get out of their system, pornographic images stay imprinted in the brain.

What in the wide world of sports...? I mean what? Porn stays imprinted on the brain? Is there any actual evidence for this? Then why do people need to see it again and again if it's there burnt into the brain?

The easy, open-all-hours access that exists means many men neglect their families, give up hobbies and don't get enough sleep because they are up until four or five in the morning on the computer.
There is an argument - which many feel has some currency - that a lot of these men would not be that interested in porn if it were not so freely available at the click of a mouse. If that's the case, then it's another example of the internet subtly debasing society - and chipping away at the self-respect of men and women alike.

Lichtenstein appears to be saying that men having a hand-shandy behind their spouse's backs is a bad thing and should be stamped on. But it's not just hardcore porn that encourages a gentleman to slip the old chap out, is it? Surely there are other forms of titillation available at the click of a mouse...? For example:

Hollyoaks girls in bikinis having a water fight!
Carmen Electra fully topless!
Lily Allen's nipple pops out!
Lily Cole naked!
Some vaguely famous woman in a bikini!
Abbey Clancey's boob pops out of her swimsuit!
Lady GaGa naked!
Hayden Panettiere gets her kit off in a film (and we've got the still pictures for you to enlarge!)

Buff the Banana with Paul Dacre chronicles the Daily Mail's regular titillation. Will Mail readers end up with these images burnt into their brains? Or is it only the hardcore stuff that's as addictive as cocaine, somehow?

Wonderful comments appear below the story, including some knockabout fun at the author's and Mail's expense:

Sorry, I haven't read this article yet - am too busy staring at the Hollyoaks babes bikini calendar article...
- Todd, London, UK, 28/7/2009 8:21

Why is this article assuming that only men watch porn?! How about to include the fact that women also watch porn, and not all porn "debases" women. Welcome to 2009.
- Lara, NY, USA, 28/7/2009 7:59

"My husband has never been able to see the point of porn and has no interest in it. But he is unusual." Ummm, no, he's just good at lying to you about it!
- Mike, Rockingham, Aus, 28/7/2009 0:59

Dear oh dear. What on earth were they thinking, agreeing for this nonsense to be published?

(Big hat-tip to Bigdaddymerk for finding this nonsense in the first place)

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Related posts:

1. Grief porn and the Mail
2. Blame the internet, blame Muslims, blame everyone else
3. The Mail and Screaming Afterbirth
4. The Mail: Fierce defenders of gay sensibilities