San Francisco, Calif., Mar 26, 2017 / 04:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In 2013, Beyonce Knowles topped GQ’s list of “The 100 Hottest Women of the 21st Century.”
That same year, the “definitive men’s magazine” that promises “sexy women” along with style advice, entertainment news and more ran a shorter listicle: “10 Reasons Why You Should Quit Watching Porn.”
The list included reasons such as decreased sexual impotence in men that regularly viewed pornography, and a reported lack of control of sexual desires. It was inspired by an interview with NoFap, an online community of people dedicated to holding each other accountable in abstaining from pornography and masturbation.The site clearly states that it is decidedly non-religious.
Matt Fradd, on the other hand, is a Catholic. Fradd has spent much of his adult life urging people to quit pornography, and developing websites and resources to help pornography addicts.
But even though he’s Catholic, Fradd’s new anti-porn book, “The Porn Myth,” won’t quote the saints or the Bible or recommend a regimen of rosaries.
“I wanted to write a non-religious response to pro-pornography arguments,” Fradd said.
That’s not because he’s abandoned his beliefs, or thinks that faith has nothing to say about pornography.
“Whenever I get up to speak, people expect that I’m just going to use a bunch of moral arguments (against porn). And I have them, and I’m happy to use them, and I think ultimately that’s what we need to get to. But I think using science…is always the best way to introduce this issue to people.”
“In an increasingly secular culture, we need arguments based on scientific research, of which there’s been much,” he said. It’s why he cites numerous studies on each page of his book, and why he’s included 50 pages of additional appendixes citing additional research.
Fradd is careful to clarify in his book that it is not a book against sex or sexuality. What he does want to do is challenge the way many people have come to think about pornography, and question whether it leads to human flourishing.
“This book rests on one fundamental presupposition: if you want something to flourish, you need to use it in accordance with its nature,” Fradd wrote. “Don’t plant tomatoes in a dark closet and water them with soda and expect to have vibrant tomato plants. To do so would be to act contrary to the nature of tomatoes. Similarly, don’t rip sex out of its obvious relational context, turn it into a commodity, and then expect individuals, families and society to flourish.”
But why dedicate a whole book to the scientific effects of pornography?
Fradd said that the sheer volume of pornography consumption makes this an especially urgent book – and it’s at least two decades too late. According to one survey, about 63 percent of men and 21 percent of women ages 18-30 have reported that they view pornography several times a week – not to mention those viewing it slightly less often.
“If we have an iPhone we have a portable X-rated movie theater. And some studies suggest children as young as 8 are being exposed to it, so if I meet someone who’s 14, I know that they have looked at porn or are looking at it regularly,” Fradd said.
Fradd recalls in his book a study done by Melissa Farley, director of Prostitution Research and Education. When Farley’s team set out to do a study about men who buy sex, they had a difficult time finding men who don’t do so.
“The use of pornography, phone sex, lapdances, and other services has become so widespread that Farley’s team had to loosen their definition of a non-sex buyer in order to assemble a hundred-person control group for their research,” Fradd wrote.
Throughout the book, Fradd uses scientific research to debunk numerous and prevailing “myths” or arguments about pornography, including the ideas that pornography empowers women, that it isn’t addictive, and that it’s a healthy part of sexuality and relationships.
One of the most commonly believed myths is that pornography doesn’t hurt anyone, Fradd said. But he has found that pornography harms people personally, relationally, and societally.
On the personal level, a 2014 study from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin found that frequent pornography use in men was associated with decreased brain matter in certain areas of the brain.
The abstract explained that the association may not be causation, but correlation, “which means that if porn isn’t shrinking your brain, it would mean that people with small brains like porn more,” Fradd said.
“It’s not a feather in your cap, either way.”
As for whether or not pornography empowers women, Fradd said that while he agrees that a woman who consents to producing pornography is in some sense “better” than a woman who is forced or coerced, but not by much, because pornography is still being used by the consumer to treat another person as a means to an end.
“No matter the level of consent, it is a manly thing to treat a woman who has forgotten her dignity with dignity nonetheless,” Fradd wrote.
Fradd also quotes Rebecca Whisnant, a feminist theory professor, who once refuted the myth of porn as female empowerment in a talk:
“Feminism is about ending the subordination of women. Expanding women’s freedom of choice on a variety of fronts is an important part of that, but it is not the whole story. In fact, any meaningful liberation movement involves not only claiming the right to make choices, but also holding oneself accountable for the effects of those choices on oneself and on others,” she said in a 2007 talk.
These women are also perpetuating a system that robs women, as a group, of empowerment, Fradd said, such as women who are sex trafficked while participating in the porn industry. By some estimates, two million women and girls are held in sexual slavery at any given time.
It’s part of the reason why Fradd is donating all of the proceeds of “The Porn Myth” to Children of the Immaculate Heart, a non-profit corporation operating in San Diego, Calif, whose mission is to serve survivors of human trafficking.
Porn also disempowers the women whose relationships are destroyed by men caught up in pornography addictions, Fradd noted.
“Ask the millions of women whose husbands habitually turn to porn. Do these women feel empowered by pornography?” Fradd asked.
Pornography use in marriage is one way that porn harms relationships. According to Fradd’s research, a survey of 350 divorce lawyers reported in 2003 that pornography was at least part of the problem in half of all divorce cases they saw.
Another commonly believed myth is that marriage will solve a porn addiction, which shows a misunderstanding of the psychology of addiction in the first place, Fradd explains.
But pornography can also damage the relationships of a single person looking for love.
A 2011 TED talk by psychologist Philip Zimbardo said that studies showed a “widespread fear of intimacy and social awkwardness among men,” and an inability to engage in face-to-face conversations with women, Fradd wrote.
“Why? Zimbardo says this is caused by disproportionate Internet use in general and excessive new access to pornography in particular. ‘Boys’ brains are being digitally rewired in a totally new way, for change, novelty, excitement.’”
And Zimbardo is not alone in his observations. As Fradd notes, neuroscientist William Struthers wrote in 2009 that “With repeated sexual acting out in the absence of a partner, a man will be bound and attached to the image and not a person.”
In other words, men can start preferring pixels to people. According to NoFap’s statistics in 2013, about half of their users had never had sex with a real person, meaning their only experience of sexual intimacy has been digital.
That reason alone has been why many people, men especially, have sought to kick their porn habits, Fradd said.
“I know agnostics or atheists who quit porn literally because they couldn’t have sex with people they were hooking up with. That’s why they quit porn. And these guys are fit, good-looking young men, who couldn’t get an erection around a young woman. But they realized if the woman left and they opened up their laptop they’d get an immediate erection.”
Studies have also shown that pornography addiction is driven by the increase in amounts, and varieties, of material readily available to anyone with access to the internet.
“People find themselves viewing more and more disturbing pornography, and the reason for this is because of a decrease in dopamine in the brain, which happens because of the addiction one has, and they end up seeking out more graphic, violent forms of pornogrpahy just to boost the dopamine enough to feel normal,” Fradd said.
“People don’t wake up when they’re 30 and decide to look at child porn or feces porn or something disgusting like that. These are big things that people spiral into, and the industry has to keep pushing the envelope because it’s addictive,” he added.
While the statistics of pornography can be disturbing and depressing, Fradd stressed that there was still hope. He devotes several chapters in the book to protecting children from pornography, dealing with pornograpy in marriage, and getting help for those addicted to pornography.
Fradd himself has spent years in ministry to those with pornography addictions, and helps run the site Integrity Restored, which offers numerous resources to help those struggling with addictions and those in ministry to them.
The most effective steps for someone to follow for someone addicted to porn?
“They should find a spiritual director, they should go to therapy, and they should find a 12 step group (like Sexaholics Anonymous),” Fradd said. “With those three things together, we’ve seen the most success.”
Often well-meaning Christians will relegate pornography addictions to the spiritual realm, telling people that they simply need to pray more, Fradd said. And while prayer isn’t a bad thing, it doesn’t address the psychological aspect of addiction.
“When people do things like put a picture of Mary on their laptop or pray more, it doesn’t actually usually work. It’s not a solely spiritual problem, so what we don’t need is a solely spiritual answer,” he said.
Just as you should encourage a clinically depressed person to seek counseling and therapy, you should also encourage someone experiencing addiction to seek professional help, he added.
Fradd said he’s also been encouraged by the number of celebrities who have recently spoken out against pornography, such as Pamela Anderson, British comedian Russell Brand, actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Rashida Jones, and former NFL player and “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” actor Terry Crews, to name a few.
Slowly, he said, society is catching up to the science that shows how harmful pornography can be.
“We’ve reached a tipping point in our culture such that everyone either struggles with porn and/or knows someone who does, and we all see the negative effects,” he said.
“So the porn industry’s cronies can tell us that pornography is healthy for well-rounded adults, but they now sound like the tobacco apologists sounded like in the 80s. In light of the evidence, their assertions seem increasingly ridiculous.”
Fradd’s book is available at: https://www.thepornmyth.com/
[…]
How can one respect a heretic?
Perhaps the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees and priests of his day when He called the whited sepulchers, children of father of lies, congregation of the devil…. (and they weren’t even attempting to justify the that sin of which this whole issue is about)
Re: “the same way that Christ respected the Pharisees . . . ”
It seems to me that perhaps one would need the discernment of Christ to feel secure in making a call like that w/r/t our contemporaries. I think Abp. Chaput makes a good point – – address the ideas, leave the personal vitriol aside (hey, one could even offer the lack of vitriol as a sacrifice).
if it walks like a duck, it probably isn’t a cow.
You might have missed the point of Abp. Chaput’s remarks.
With all due respect to the archbishop, he has demonstrated that he is a culture warrior in his own right in hi attempt to justify and defend Fr. Martin’s obvious undermining of Catholic teachings on homosexuality – where he does not overtly defy it.
I have yet to see any examples of the vitriol which Chaput and Bishop McElroy refer (the latter is himself guilty of the very claim he makes about others). No quotes have been offered.
Both Church Militant – not always my favorite – and Lepanto Institute use language which once was quite the norm for ecclesial leaders when calling out renegades like Fr. Martin, who serves better as an apologist for homosexuality in general and a shill for its normalization in the Church.
Today, the Church lacks shepherds with spine. It is disappointing to see Archbishop Chaput join the Amen chorus in the left corner condemning those who are doing his job. The appropriate behavior for Fr. Martin’s bishop is to silence him, but all he has dene is to order him to not reveal his own sexuality. This act, of course, has outed Fr. Martin completely, when before there was only uncertainty.
If by your self-serving reference to our human difficulties in attaining the discernment of Christ you mean we should eschew tough language, I’m afraid you are contradicted not only by several saints but also by loads of scripture.
Our bishops today are faint of heart and weak-minded. Study the Church Fathers and their saintly contemporaries who blistered both straying clergy and laity alike with the truth, and would turn their wrath upon those like you for your failure to stand for that truth.
The caterwauling we are hearing (and it is a revelation about Chaput) is the reaction of timid bishops to seeing what saintliness in action against those who would pour drops of poison into the waters of the Church.
Quote: “Father Martin is a man of intellect and skill”
One wonders really when he says things like the teaching of the Church not being received hence not binding.
Does that display intellect and skill? Or the devil’s own craftiness.
I love the way faithful Catholics will not avoid the reality of life, and will not back down from a religious fight, no matter the title of the person they are addressing. For myself, I like to maintain the intellectual purity of the argument, so that people arguing with me cannot say, “But you said…” I prefer merely presenting relevant Church documents having the greatest theological authority as my “argument.” That way, the argument is not “mine”, but belongs to the Church’s tradition and the Church’s own authority.
With all due respect, pretending that the enemy’s motives are pure is always the best thing to do. Pretending that Fr. Martin (or Pope Francis) isn’t trying to move the church away from it’s mission might make one feel good about oneself, but doesn’t help.
“The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book”. There are errors, dangerous errors to the faith that contribute to the loss of souls. Not simply ambiguities in Fr Martin’s book. What is far more deadly to the salvation of all souls is not the “vitriol”. It’s the amelioration of heresy and unwillingness of our prelates to voice the truth.
Exactly. I have great respect for Archbishop Chaput, but I disagree with the position, as stated in the article, he might be taking on the Fr. Martin debacle.
The Church and its ministers must be faithful to the Gospel. We take that solemn oath at ordination. Fr. Martin’s positions and the deceptiveness of his arguments must be called to correction and possible punitive action should he not be properly responsive…that is the duty of the shepherds. The faithful see no evidence of that happening. On the contrary they see his advancement! Failure to address the false teaching clearly leaves the faithful feeling powerless as misdirection and error is not corrected. Psychologically speaking, why would we not expect some amount of vitriol?
Fr. Martin needs correction. Failure on the part of the shepherds to not address the errors is to the detriment of the Church and the Gospel.
Difficult this.
Given his obvious intelligence, what are the options? He really and truly does not support Catholic teaching in his heart, he begrudgingly does so but also works to mute it as much as possible, or his take on the Catholic moral code is so different I find it unrecognizable. None of these options lend themselves to mad respect.
Not to mention Martin’s embrace of spin tactics worthy of political parties versus churchmen.
Especially for those who believe homosexuality, while not a malicious orientation or sin, interesects with matters of grave sin …
Fr. Martin stubbornly providing confusing moral guidance. That is nothing to respect.
Look, people. This ain’t hard. Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It’s that simple directive that makes us different than pagans. Pagans would jump on a heretic and beat him to death. Christians don’t do that sort of thing. Chaput has it right. Everyone deserves his due, and God demands that we respect what is good in each man, even if we disagree with him. Now, we can have some self discipline, and be real Christians, and be respectful of someone like Father James Martin even when he is in the wrong. He has written some books previous to this that have brought people to Christ. Now, he is making huge mistakes now and he is saying some very stupid things. But he can be respectfully taken apart rhetorically, and put in his place, and it can be done in a nice civilized manner. The thing he wants most right now is for putative Christians to descend on him like a pack of dogs, so that he can whine and play the victim. The more respect and civility we show him, the easier it becomes to deal with him. He basically is destroying himself at this point, and the only thing that can save him is stupid moves that enable him to become a gay martyr. He has started panicking, and saying stupid thing after stupid thing. It seems that self destruction is built into him. Every move he has made in this controversy has made things worse for his cause. Don’t help him out by being unnecessarily unkind to the man. Even he can be redeemed, and who knows, in a year or two, he may see the error of his ways and turn around
Samton909, how do you know Martin is being disrespect. No quotes are offered – I suppose they must be so egregious they can’t reproduce them?
I don’t believe that without evidence.
Let’s not conflate disrespect with confrontation, with pushback. There’s nothing mealy-mouthed about this pushback, nor should there be.
To treat the responses he has legitimately brought upon himself as disrespect is a trick as old as the hills. It changes the subject. Please note the ecclesial claim of vitriol and disrespect comes on the heels of a host of cancellations of public appearances by Fr. Martin at Catholic venues.
Wow…LOL a lot of supposition as to motives, intention, etc.
I agree with you and grieve that one like Fr. Martin might be on the road to self-destruction professionally and personally with regard to reputation and, more importantly, salvation. I deeply hope for his repentant return and that of any other misleading teachers.
Basic human respect is a given to all human persons including enemies. At the same time, one cannot respect what is disrespectful. Fr. Martin has earned a certain disrespect due to his failure to teach authentically. No condemnation here, but a clear call to change-conversion.
We are still called upon by the Gospel to correct our brothers and sisters when they are in error. There is a formula for that in the New Testament. I am a purist about definitions, and I have my own definitions. For instance, “love” is to will and, when prudent, to work for the good of the other. “Good” is whatever God says is good. If I see something written by a person, I know that others will read it. If the other person’s writing contains something I think is in error, I must point that out so that others with not be led astray. However, I am subject to possible error, so as I wrote elsewhere, I prefer to use only authoritative Church statements as my argument. Hopefully people who read both the errant writing and my [hopefully] correct argument will recognize the validity of the Church’s teaching, and dissociate that from anyone’s opinion. When we wish to be wise, we should seek God’s will, since His will is perfect wisdom. I still respect the fact that faithful Catholics will support the Church’s consistent teaching, no matter who is presenting possibly contrary opinions.
There’s a YouTube video, referred to on The Catholic Thing. Fr. Martin is given an award by a lgbt activist group. In the Q&A, he is asked about the health risks in homoerotic sex. He literally takes the Obama pass: it’s above my pay grade, I don’t really know about that. I lived in New York in the 80s and 90s, by the end, everyone knew about the risks, they knew what was going on, including the Gay Mens Health Collective. Fr. Martin by his professed ignorance, puts gay men at risk. He also said that he does not preach Catholic sexual morality from the pulpit, only on an individual basis. Does his excellency Archbishop Chaput know these things? Are they not lies and refutation of Catholic moral teachings?
James Martin want respect but he does not show it to those who have been in the trench’s of the gay life style and have come out alive only by the grace of God. Just ask Joseph Sciambra.
Archbishop Chaput—I have been an admirer of yours, but I must say, you disappoint me greatly in this matter. There are some things that should inspire strong reactions and strong, plain talk, and Fr. Martin’s views fit the bill. It is unlikely that he even cares what people say.