"Indeed, what is startling about the notion of a victimless crime is that even when the behavior in question is genuinely victimless, its criminality is still affirmed by those who are eager to punish it. It is in such cases that the true genius lurking behind many of our laws stands revealed. The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin."
--Sam Harris, author "The End of Faith"
What happens when someone uses science incorrectly? First, it has the potential to mislead people. Second, it opens the floodgates of scrutiny.
Now, I don't read the newspaper often, but I am aware that some newspapers are politically, and in some cases religiously biased. For instance, I have heard a number of my more conservative friends and family bash the New York Times for being too liberal or progressive. This may be true of the opinions shared in the paper, but I don't think anyone has shown the NY Times completely and utterly misusing science. This is, however, something which the Deseret News (a pro-Mormon newspaper in Utah) has been caught doing recently.
The headline from an article published yesterday reads: "Link found between porn use and supporting same-sex marriage". The article itself shamelessly and inaccurately tries to show how support for gay marriage "may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts." In other words, if you watch porn, you will start to favor gay marriage, two things which the Mormon Church has spent countless time and money fighting against, perhaps more so than any other social issues.
This article is intended to strike fear and alarm in the minds of faithful, chaste and not the least bit perverse Mormons. What better way to scapegoat one condemned activity than by "linking" it to another? Why not apply this to other things, while we are at it? Masturbation is linked to bank robbing, and swearing is linked to stabbing puppies in the eyes with rusty soldering irons on Christmas Eve. See? It's easy.
Well, the claim is so outrageous and fallacious and completely unfounded by any actual science that some rather clever people have been issuing responses to the article, such as "Link Found Between Pedophilia and Reading the Deseret News". This blog response has some good points and useful links which show how the Deseret News is as bad at social science as they are at moral crusades.
One point the blog makes, which occurred to me as I read the news article, is that Utah has the highest porn use per household in the US (interestingly, porn use goes down temporarily on Sundays). This means that if the hypothesis is true that viewing pornography changes your views to be in favor of gay marriage, then Utah should also be at the forefront of the gay marriage movement. But, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with California's Proposition 8 can tell you, Utahns (at least Mormons) vehemently and monetarily oppose gay marriage. So, which is it, Deseret News?
There is one thing in common between porn and gay marriage which I can think of, and that is that both are opposed exclusively for religious reasons. All arguments against homosexuality and pornography seem to come from religions and their own moral codes. Ultimately, I don't have a problem with them denying science in order to condemn whatever they want. But I do have a big problem when they try to legislate against such things for people not of their religion. It is wrong and immoral to do so.
On a lighter note, today I came across a site which outlines the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Note: everything they say is scientifically verifiable, if a little exaggerated.
BONUS MATERIAL:
And here is Penn and Teller on the War on Porn (warning: very explicit):
Sometimes I like to watch Christian television. It amuses (scares?) me that so many people take Televangelists seriously. Here are some of my favorite clips of Televangelist heavy weight Pat Robertson.
"Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense"
--Pastor Rick Warren
In my youth I was very skeptical of other religious belief systems. I viewed Pentecostals through the lens of Mormonism and saw their "miracles" as fraudulent parlor tricks used to "ooo and awe" full auditoriums. Very rarely (if ever) did I confront those who I perceived as victims of charlatans, and instead carried myself in smug satisfaction and self-righteous demeanour as one with "the truth". Although, ironically, I was not self-aware enough to apply this same scrutiny to my own ridiculous and unfounded beliefs.
As I have become more familiar with the "New Atheist" movement, I have found that many other people were in the same boat as I. It is quite easy to play the part of the part-time skeptic. But this leaves room for cognitive dissonance and logical inconsistencies, which for a true skeptic would make holding any unjustified belief a near impossibility. So, as I grew as a skeptic and began applying my skepticism to my own belief system, I had no choice (in a manner of speaking) but to give up such beliefs.
In another post I referred to the case of Andrea Yates, who sacrificed her own eternal salvation so that her 5 children (all below the age of reason) would not have the opportunity to sin, thereby damning themselves to eternal hellfire. According to the implications of Christianity, this is one of the greatest sacrifices a mother can make for her children (imagine the implications this could have on abortion...), as she explains:
"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."
In her mind, drowning her children one by one in a bathtub was the only way to save them from "the fires of hell." According to Christian theology, Yates was successful. Yet, despite having a predominately Christian jury at her trial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and sent to a high security mental hospital rather than being paraded as a theological hero.
I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony of the jury finding Andrea Yates insane for acting on her religious beliefs, and then themselves going to mass on Sunday to eat the literal body and blood of Christ, or speak in tongues to the beat of gospel music. Clearly the jury is applying skepticism to Yates's beliefs. But how about their own?
It is easy for mainstream Christians to dismiss the fringe belief of Christian Scientists that diseases and other physical ailments are actually spiritual in nature and do not require medical aid. In fact, the denial of medical care is a way for Christian Scientists to flex their faith muscles.
Mainstream Christians may equally dismiss Jehovah's Witnesses when they say they can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the blood is where the soul resides and should not be shared with another person.
How are these things any different than believing pornography destroys the soul as viciously as it does families. Or that curse words have enough power scare off the Holy Ghost and thus warrant avoiding their use, lest you be tempted by the Devil? How about burning witches and heretics. Or believing that if you die defending your faith you will be on the fast track to heaven. How about killing the infidel in the name of Allah?
Tell me, how exactly does the sacrifice of a god satisfy the proposed demands of sin?
As Richard Dawkins has said, "Half an eye is better than no eye at all"; so then is selective skepticism better than absolute gullibility. Progress is gradual and sometimes generational. Creating an entire population instilled with good skeptical practices and a refusal to just believe things on faith may take a while. But I am hopeful.
Take a good long look at the women in these successive mugshots.
Clearly these women are deteriorating physically, and presumably, in social and emotional ways, as well. Care to venture a guess as to the cause of such drastic negative changes in these women? The "source" of this photo says that these women are prostitutes and are victims of exploitation. Fair enough. But they fail to mention that the physical changes in these women's appearance is most likely caused by drugs as you can see in the following photo of a meth addict (I say "most likely caused by drugs" because I, like the people posting the above photo on facebook, don't know the specific history of these women and cannot make a definitive statement):
But such an oversight could be forgiven if it were not for the preceding statement linking the victimization of such women with the use of pornography:
"Pornography increases the demand for trafficked women and children. "Look at these mugshots - look what the sex industry does to these women. No one deserves this. Help take a STAND FOR AND WITH these victims of exploitation." [emphasis added]
As you can imagine, the sheeple did not disappoint in condemning pornography based on the implied indirect effect it has had on these women. But amid the drivel of conforming busybodies, one commenter pointed out the GLARING FLAW in the poster's argument:
So why do these well-intentioned people feed such bad information? To them, the ends justify the means. They sincerely believe pornography is dangerous and harmful. Therefore, cherry-picking data, embellishing results and making bald assertions are just tools in the cause of a greater purpose. What they are really doing is sensationalizing information to the point where it can only be classified as propaganda.
There may well be legitimate arguments against pornography, but the link between pornography and sex trafficking is not one of them.
Would you like to hear such an argument? Fine. Here is a website (adult content, be advised) which uses actual research on pornography to show how some who view it can have an unrealistic approach to sex for the first time. This is a real argument against certain aspects of the porn industry, but the researchers acknowledge that this does not mean that pornography is all bad and should, therefore, be banned.
This is like saying the NBA creates unrealistic expectations for young men before they actually play basketball for the first time. No one dunks the ball the first time they walk onto a court. This is not an argument to ban professional basketball, but a call for better and more accessible information to first-timers (OK, this analogy is losing its hold). The point is, thus far, all legitimate and demonstrable arguments against pornography can be remedied with better approaches to sex education. And the first step is removing "abstinence only" sex education programs from our education system.
Perhaps the greatest problem of propagating this kind of bad information is that it detracts from the actual cause of the problems of the women above. There is no doubt they need medical attention. But if we cannot accurately identify the source of the problem, how can we expect to help them? Accepting a wrong answer (even if it supports your totally awesome moral agenda) only impedes progress.
"When the masses become better informed about science, they will feel less need for help from supernatural Higher Powers."
—Fransico Ferrer Guardia
"The Music Man" is one of the few musicals I actually liked as a kid. As a budding musician, the song "76 Trombones" became very appealing to me. The story itself is about a man who travels the country scamming innocent people out of their money--a classic traveling salesman and con-artist. This is a common theme in various pieces of literature and film about that era. Remember, this was a time when science was not very widely accepted or understood, so anyone who dangled a cure for common or particularly serious ailments could very easily find someone willing to bite. Consider the following clip from "Sweeny Todd":
The claims offered by the young boy that the elixir could stimulate the growth of hair follicles is very appealing to balding older men. If it were true it is very plain to see the benefits of using it. But what if someone offers a cure for something that is not as apparent as baldness? Well, then the salesman would need to convince the audience that the ailment exists before they can proscribe a cure for it. This could be something seeming harmless, like a mole. But if that salesman is successful in associating fear with that mole, they can convince some that they need his elixir. This is precisely what conservative Christianity has done with masturbation.
When discussing pornography before, I briefly touched on masturbation at the end and mentioned a quote by Former Attorney General Joycelyn Elders, in which she advocated teaching people to use masturbation as a way of controlling sexual desires and STDs, etc. I also mentioned that she was subsequently fired from her position as Attorney General for advocating such a view and condemning advocacy and government funding of "abstinence only" sex education programs.
The apparent taboo in America surrounding masturbation most assuredly stems from the rise of conservative Christianity in the early 1900s. This was before pornography was wide-spread and Christian pastors needed something to blame for the rise of [insert anything Pastors don't like] in society. Scapegoating, it seems, is quite popular among religious folks; compound this with the innate desire to protect our children and pastors can get us to hate just about anything--even natural desires.
If you think about it, condemning something as natural and commonplace as masturbation is the perfect con job. Everyone has a desire for sexual release--this is the sex drive. If a church tells their congregants that such a drive is immoral, or that it leads to immorality, then they might instill in the minds of their followers a constant need to repent, thereby making the church absolutely necessary. It's brilliant. It's like an elixir which only cures baldness for a couple of days at a time, thus perpetuating the need to continually buy more bottles.
Aside from the obvious moral implications of such a farce, there are more practical concerns. What if your audience can't afford your elixir? What if it doesn't work for even a couple days at a time? Applying this reasoning to the condemnation of masturbation, what if someone cannot stop doing it? The message from the churches is that they are sinning and according to the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, sexual sins are almost as egregious and damning as murder. This creates a cycle of guilt and shame associated with something natural, and, at least for some, nearly impossible to stop completely. Most people will eventually relapse, and when they do, they have to turn to the church to sell them more elixir.
So, let's examine what the Mormon church has to say about masturbation and compare it to what actual professionals say. According to lds.org (an official Mormon website), this is what the Mormon church has to say about masturbation [emphasis added]:
"One example: masturbation is considered by many in the world to be the
harmless expression of an instinctive sex drive. Teach your children that the
prophets have condemned it as a sin throughout the ages and that they can choose
not to do it. Throughout childhood, boys and girls have touched their own
genitals frequently to wash and to dress. This is a behavior that usually has
the same meaning as keeping one’s feet warm in the winter, enjoying a swim on a
hot day, or scratching an itch. We ought to be friendly to our bodies and
appreciate the body’s marvelous range of senses. This innocent touching is not
the kind of behavior warned against by prophets through the ages. The sin of
masturbation occurs when a person stimulates his or her own sex organs for the
purpose of sexual arousal. It is a perversion of the body’s passions. When we
pervert these passions and intentionally use them for selfish, immoral purposes,
we become carnal.
"Masturbation is not physically necessary. There is already a way by which the
male system relieves excessive spermatic fluid quite regularly through the
nocturnal emission or wet dream. Monthly menstrual flow expels the female’s egg
and cleanses the womb. For both sexes, physical or emotional tensions can be
released by vigorous activity. Thus, in a biological sense, masturbation for
either gender is not necessary. In a gospel sense, it is a sin: “Masturbation, a
rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of His Church
regardless of what may have been said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower.
Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice” (Spencer W. Kimball,
Love Versus Lust, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo,
5 Jan. 1965], p. 22)."
Here is a health site which advocates healthy masturbation: "For many young people, masturbation is an opportunity for private sexual exploration before deciding to engage is sexual activity with another person. It is also considered the safest form of sex in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."
An article from Men's Health outlines 5 positive benefits from masturbation, and says the following about cancer (mildly graphic): "It prevents cancer. A 2003 Australian study found that men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer. Disease-causing toxins build up in your urogenital tract and when you rub one out, you flush the bad guys out of your system, says Brame."
It is clear that the church sees masturbation as sinful, which to an active Mormon means more than a doctor advocating it. But because of the shame associated with masturbation and the cycle of guilt this causes, more Mormons are speaking out against the Church's official stance on the matter. Several Mormon health professionals have been particularly helpful in generating awareness of the problem.
Here is one I happened upon today which both condemns the shame culture the Mormon church has created, and addresses the apparent conflict she faces as a mental health professional with an obligation to treat patients according to the very best science, yet is told by her church that it is wrong. She says:
"Through the past 15 years, I have spoken to numerous bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, and high councilmen attempting to understand an official stance on this matter. What I have come to understand is the answers I received largely depended on which leader you approach and what their past experience has been with leaders of their own. This type of non-directive nuance on such an important matter is not okay with me. Especially when within the last 6 months I’ve known of two LDS adolescent boys referred to the addictions program offered by the church because they masturbate 1-3 times a week and three LDS adolescent clients tell me they believe their masturbatory behavior to be a sin next to murder!!! If this is what we are teaching our youth – then we are emotionally abusing them. And it needs to stop. I will no longer be a compliant witness to this type of psychological assault. I know my language is strong and I intend it to be. The numerous stories I could share about masturbatory shame run in the thousands and I find it unnecessary, harmful and life altering.
"...Sexual shaming has had a long history within religious paradigms – with disastrous results for many. I am no longer willing to participate in any way, shape or form with such shaming."
The Mormon church isn't offering a cure for a real disease. As with reparative therapy for homosexuality, they are condemning a natural urge and claiming they have the cure. No matter how much shame they dump on you, don't buy the snake oil.
“A little pornography may not only lead to child and spouse abuse, but it slowly sucks out the marrow of self-esteem”
--Neal A Maxwell (in LDS Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 67 ).
A lot has changed since Mr. Maxwell made that comment in 1992. We have better cars and Google, not to mention earth-tones are more fashionable than neon. The wide spread use of violent video games has caused a bit of a stir, yet, no one but concerned housewives and politicians appealing to lobbyists seem to think it leads to street violence. In fact, the ever-widening acceptance and general use of such games makes research in this area very compelling. Violent games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto have become so widespread that if the claims had any bearing at all, we should expect to see much higher crime rates. But, in fact, crime rates are down!
A similar case has been made against the use of pornography. Social conservatives like Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons have claimed that viewing pornography leads one to sexual violence, including rape. Much of the early research on this was spurred by various criminals who claimed to view pornography, such as the case of Ted Bundy. Here is a report on Bundy's final interview where he claims pornography lead him to violence.
Very compelling, but it is true? Is it consistent with current research? Not really. Let me explain by using research from BYU's own research department.
Early research had mixed results in showing a connection between viewing violent pornography and sexual assault. An article published in 1988 stated, "It is hypothesized that the specific fusion of sex and violence in some pornographic stimuli and in certain belief systems may produce a propensity to engage in sexually aggressive behavior." Even the most convincing studies only showed a correlation between violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of rape. This seems intuitive: those who like violence will like violent porn. Similarly, other studies show a correlation between those who view child pornography and those who molest children. But again, these studies fail to conclusively show that people who sexually assault others do so because of viewing violent or child pornography. In other words, there seems to be some kind of relationship, but it is too early to tell exactly what that relationship means other than indicating one's inate sexual preferences. But let's say for a moment that it were true that viewing violent or child pornography leads to assault. That would mean that anyone who views it will be predisposed to offend. Does this happen? Well, BYU's website didn't have any studies on this specifically, but there are studies elsewhere which have tried this method on homosexuals in order to change their sexual orientation. And every single attempt failed. So, it seems that the claim that viewing particular forms of pornography will lead to like behaviors has no basis.
Interestingly, Utah has the highest use of pornography and one of the lowest rates of rape. But again, this relies mostly on corollary evidence; as Penn and Teller put it, "it could easily be a coincidence."
So, to recap, there is some evidence which suggests that viewers of violent pornography will act out violently, but there is no evidence that it is the pornography that causes the violence. And there is no evidence whatsoever that nonviolent pornography leads to violence of any kind. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case, especially with regards to violence against and general attitudes towards women. So, it seems that Mr. Maxwell is mistaken when he says that pornography leads to "child and spouse abuse." It is also noteworthy that many of the studies I referenced from BYU's own website were conducted several years prior to Maxwell's statement in 1992. Furthermore, Maxwell is championed by Mormons as a successful scientist and doctor, yet he failed to do his own scientific research before making a bald assertion concerning social behaviors over the pulpit.
The Mormon Church's attitude on pornography has changed somewhat since Mr. Maxwell's statement, as shown by Dallin H. Oaks' article on lds.org. Oaks clarifies:
"Brethren, you have noticed that I am not discussing the effects of pornography on mental health or criminal behavior. I am discussing its effects on spirituality—on our ability to have the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord and our capacity to exercise the power of the priesthood."
It seems that the Church is finally abandoning the claim that pornography is harmful in any real or tangible sense. This shift of focus seems to indicate that the only perceived harm caused by pornography is spiritual regression, which is not only immeasurable and, therefore, irrelevant to science, but would only apply to Mormons themselves. Although, many still advocate that pornography damages families and leads to divorce. I couldn't find anything conclusive on BYU's website on divorce rates and pornography, but we can imagine quite easily what would happen if a man were to be caught by a wife who believes pornography ruins families and leads to divorce... Besides, even if such a correlation were shown, we still wouldn't be able to say that divorces are caused by pornography, as opposed to, say, a difference of opinion in sexual kinks.
There are a lot of reasons why a married man might view pornography. Perhaps he really doesn't love his wife anymore. Maybe he is bored with their routine. Maybe his sex drive is greater than hers. Or maybe he just likes it and doesn't see any harm in it. All of these seem consistent with the data and could easily cause a rift in a marriage where the wife disagrees. At worst, pornography seems to be a symptom of a much deeper marital disease--conflicting values. As with violent video games, if pornography really did lead to divorce, then we should expect to see more divorces, since studies show that 70% of ALL MEN view pornography. Not to mention 31% of women.
I looked for information on BYU's website about porn addiction, but couldn't find anything. It seems that the evidence for such an addiction is about as substantiated as the claim that viewing pornography leads to rape. In order for something to be classified as an addiction it has to actually cause harm. Without any supporting evidence that pornography (or even masturbation) is harmful to anyone, in any way whatsoever, how can it be addictive? You can make a better case for the addictiveness of food than pornography, since over-eating leads to obesity which increases the risk of heart disease, among other things. Given that ACTUAL SCIENCE shows that pornography does not seem to be anymore addictive than sex itself (which is a natural drive, like sleeping, eating, and flexing in front of the mirror), it doesn't lead to violence, and it generally improves men's views on women's rights (all of which I have shown above through BYU's own website), why do people still post crap like this?
Lastly, here is a quote from Former Attorney General Joycelyn Elders, who said, "Masturbation never gave anyone an STD, it's never gotten any girl pregnant, and it's never made anybody go crazy. And you always know you are having sex with somebody you love." Mrs. Elders was removed from her post as Attorney General in 1994 when she spoke out against "Abstinence Only" education programs.
BONUS MATERIAL:
Here is an ex-Mormon couple discussing pornography (Episode 1):
What happens when someone uses science incorrectly? First, it has the potential to mislead people. Second, it opens the floodgates of scrutiny. 
This article is intended to strike fear and alarm in the minds of faithful, chaste and not the least bit perverse Mormons. What better way to scapegoat one condemned activity than by "linking" it to another? Why not apply this to other things, while we are at it? Masturbation is linked to bank robbing, and swearing is linked to stabbing puppies in the eyes with rusty soldering irons on Christmas Eve. See? It's easy.
There is one thing in common between porn and gay marriage which I can think of, and that is that both are opposed exclusively for religious reasons. All arguments against homosexuality and pornography seem to come from religions and their own moral codes. Ultimately, I don't have a problem with them denying science in order to condemn whatever they want. But I do have a big problem when they try to legislate against such things for people not of their religion. It is wrong and immoral to do so. 
