Ben Johnson


Pamela Anderson blasts porn (but, how sincere is she really?)

The 'Baywatch' star posed for Playboy as recently as last December.
Thu Sep 1, 2016 - 2:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Frederic Legrand - COMEO /

HOLLYWOOD, September 1, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pornography has a new enemy – and it’s Pamela Anderson.

No, really.

The “Baywatch” beauty co-authored an article with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that says bluntly, “Porn is for losers.”

The op-ed – titled “Take the Pledge: No More Indulging Porn" and published last night in the Wall Street Journal – begins with the cautionary tale of Anthony Weiner, whose obsession with sexting as a form of pornographic acting out destroyed his marriage to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

[W]e are a guinea-pig generation for an experiment in mass debasement that few of us would have ever consented to, and whose full nefarious impact may not be known for years. How many families will suffer? How many marriages will implode? How many talented men will scrap their most important relationships and careers for a brief onanistic thrill? How many children will propel, warp-speed, into the dark side of adult sexuality by forced exposure to their fathers’ profanations?

They also compare porn addiction to hard drugs such as cocaine – which activates similar responses in the brain. The number of people they say who have unsuccessfully tried to quit watching porn (nine percent) is the same as marijuana and only slightly below cocaine (15 percent), something that bodes poorly for a technologically advancing society:

[W]hereas drug-dependency data are mostly stable, the incidence of porn addiction will only spiral as the children now being raised in an environment of wall-to-wall, digitized sexual images become adults inured to intimacy and in need of even greater graphic stimulation. They are the crack babies of porn.

They eschew any “imposed regulation” in favor of “an honor code” to tamp down demand for obscene material. That puts responsibility squarely on parents, and us as individuals, to speak clearly about pornography.

“Simply put, we must educate ourselves and our children to understand that porn is for losers – a boring, wasteful and dead-end outlet for people too lazy to reap the ample rewards of healthy sexuality,” they write.

In its place, they call for an “epochal shift” away from the sexual revolution toward a new view of sex that exalts “the alloying of sex with love” and “binding relationships.”

Follow Ben Johnson on Facebook

What Boteach and Anderson leave unsaid, and which we must not, is that this has been accomplished within the Judeo-Christian tradition by restricting sex – in practice and, as much as possible, in thought – to marriage. For millennia, sex has been seen as the consummation of a covenantal alloy that binds both participants ‘til death do us part. Elaine Bradley, the drummer of the rock group Neon Trees and a practicing Mormon, recently made the same point by emphasizing that she is anti-porn because smut distorts the reality of sex as she experiences it with her husband. But the message of abstinence finds fewer and fewer receptive media outlets, liberal or conservative, with each passing year.

The pair also include an unhelpful line that “[m]any female fans of pornography tend to prefer a less explicit variety, and report that it improves their sexual relationships.” In point of fact, researchers have found that softcore porn is harmful, as well. Those who look at softcore porn see their real-life sexual partners as less attractive. Men who watch sexually explicit media are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward women, and young people who watch sexually explicit media are more likely to have sex than those who don’t.

The sight of Pamela Anderson as an anti-porn crusader is...counter-intuitive, to say the least. Anderson posed naked for the last nude issue of Playboy magazine last December, her fifteenth such session, and a stolen home sex tape of her and then-husband Tommy Lee earned porn distributors an estimated $77 million in sales in one year. The couple is widely believed to have cut a private deal to get a share of the profits in exchange for signing over the video’s copyright to internet pornographer Seth Warshavsky in November 1997.

One hopes in reading over this op-ed that it is not the prelude to some new line of “women-friendly” softcore porn videos Anderson will be helming. The most effective way to thwart the movement to expose pornography as a baneful influence would be to divert it toward replacing pornography with a “less harmful” porn-lite. (See my previous piece, “The Phantom Search for Ethical Porn.”) Ultimately, all disordered sexual impulses lead to the same dead-end of disease, discarded vows, and deep-seated pain.

If she does embrace healthy sexuality as we define it, the pro-family movement should welcome her wholeheartedly. All of life's events, including a dozen-odd nude photo sessions, are only snapshots taken out of an ongoing movie. Its script is up to us. It can continue as it was, or the plot can rupture with the past and devise an ending radically different from the trajectory it had been taking.

In the meantime, we should pray for Pam’s pivot from Playboy to purity.

  pamela anderson, porn, pornography