Studying Internet Porn: Worse Than Crack?

PHILADELPHIA, University of Pennsylvania— Studying the effects of pornography is worse than using crack cocaine, leading to mental disease, delusion, bearing false witness, and social dysfunction, according to Dr. David Burns, a clinical psychologist who specializes in studying the effects of studying pornography on clinical psychologists.

Burns said, “Studying pornography, by its very nature, is toxic. It is more toxic the more you study and the “harder” the variety you study, and it leads to what I call Pornography Distortion, where researchers believe that porn is about feces, strangers, children, animals, predatory self-gratification, and body parts.” Although Burns admits such themes exist, he says they are not porn. “These are perverse fetishes, some illegal, and linking them with ordinary porn is a sign of the mental disease I find most prevalent in psychologists who study the effects of pornography.”

Burns posed as a janitor for six months at the University of Pennsylvania to observe researchers who study the effects of internet porn, among them Dr. Mary Anne Layden. Last month Layden testified before a Senate committee and stated, “Pornographic material is potent, addictive, and permanently implanted in the brain.” She also compared it to crack cocaine or heroin.

Burns says studying pornography causes the psychologist to become disillusioned about the nature of human sexuality. “Many researchers studying pornography lose touch with the reality of sexuality and make claims that pictures of naked people promote ideas such as “all men go to prostitutes,” “women like sex mixed with violence,” and “children enjoy sex with adults.”

More concerning, Burns said, are researchers like Mary Anne Layden who skew their research to further personal agendas. “Layden’s research is tainted by her personal Christian agenda, and agendas have no place in scientific research.” Burns admitted that society is partially responsible for nurturing people like Layden. "We're so afraid to talk about sex in our society that we give carte blanche to researchers like Layden, and we then fail to dispute her assumptions for the same reason.”

Burns, however, believes that talking openly about sex is healthy and that pornography, and the business of pornography, is harmless. “There is nothing wrong with masturbating and there is nothing wrong with looking at an image to assist in your arousal. And as for Layden’s charge that the business is full of crack addicts, drunks, and the mentally disturbed, that is an outright untruth, an urban myth perpetrated by people frightened by their own sexuality.”

Burns says, “Researchers like Layden who go to their offices and log on to Internet porn sites at 9:00 AM, log off at 5:00 PM, and then run around telling everyone how horrible porn is while showing no adverse reactions themselves are the real threat to our society. These scientists are out of control and are risking a great deal.”

Many psychologists studying pornography, Burns said, do so to get free, state-funded access to dozens of pornographic sites they might otherwise pay thousands of dollars a month for, while others are Christians struggling with sexuality.

“These people, maybe even Layden, are claiming to be ‘researching’ but really just want a respectable way to look at adult images,” Burns said. “Their findings reveal the facade: most of it is untrue. They project their own beliefs onto their data and are never questioned because they have degrees, and, furthermore, no senator has the guts to stand up and exclaim that he views porn without sleeping with ferrets.”

He said people like Layden would never find anything good from the research of pornography, as they consider the act of masturbation to be abuse. “Only a Christian would consider something that feels as wonderful as masturbation to be self-abuse. And besides, there are no studies and no data that indicate a benefit from studying pornography use.”