Internet Pornography- Part Two

This is a photo from IMDb my favorite website for information on movies.

The last time we visited this subject we talked about spending money at adult book stores, stealing fantasies (pics) of women who serve topless, and acting in blue movies because the pay beats Starbucks.

We touched on the idea that even the straight entertainment industry uses sexuality for mass appeal, too. Some of you didn’t agree that making sexually explicit videos and pictures is exploitation. You felt that if one consents to act or to pose and feels no shame, that it’s basic capitalism, a free market.

What’s it to you anyway, TherapyDoc?

Hey, some people take off their clothes (to make money), so that other people can buy pornography (to feel sexy), so that others (the producers/photographers) can make even more money. It's a free market.

Therapists will get their money somewhere down the line. In our puritanical velt (the religious right won the election for George Bush, remember), nudity raises all kinds of issues, creates intrapsychic and relational conflict. It is the subject in churches and synagogues the world over. So sure, let's take it on. You know I like religious psycho-conflict.

First of all, there certainly is a difference between the two art forms, the blue and the not-so-blue (R-rated) films. It's the difference between pornography and erotica. Both can make a girl blush.

For example, I recently saw Paul Verhoeven's Black Book on video, starring Carise Van Hooten and Sebastian Koch (in the pic at the top) two unbelievably hot actors. Black Book is a sultry, violent film about murder for jewels and money in Holland, 1944.

A lawyer finds Jewish families safe houses and holds their life savings for them for safe-keeping until a time when the war will end. He also arranges their escape over enemy lines into Allied territory when the Gestapo gets too close or if an Allied bomber destroys a hiding place. Relocation is risk at a price. A rescue mission sours, money and jewels get into the wrong hands. Oh, I will NOT tell you the story, it’s too good.

So there I am, on the family room sofa with my feet up, watching Black Book and eating popcorn (made with oil, yes, but no butter) and the movie features much violence and as much or more nudity (along with fantastic direction and performances). I watched for the social and entertainment value (ya’ gotta’ believe me), I wasn't on the tread mill, and I saw a lot of skin. I don’t recommend this to anyone under-age, and certainly not to anyone who is upset seeing naked women or seeing men leering and fondling naked women.

You might ask, how can one lash back on nudity and sexploitation if she watches a movie that features really hot actors with very little on? And let's not forget. I paid to see that film. No free Blockbusters coupons here.

Hypocritical? You bet. (This is along the lines of wasting time, FD, I HAVE to watch this show so I'll know what my patients are talking about). But I'll excuse Black Book as art. It belongs to the genre of erotica, not pornography. And although I'm not personally an erotica fan, at least the film has redeeming social value. Pornography has none.

Wikipedia backs me up with the following distinction:

In general, "erotica" refers to portrayals of sexually arousing material that hold or aspire to artistic, scientific or human merit, whereas "pornography" often connotes the commercial, prurient, morally valueless depiction of sexual acts, with little or no artistic value.

Ours is a society that values art. I took many art history classes downstate for my Bachelors and learned that there is a difference between the words nude and naked.

Nude implies lovely, the human body most beautiful unfettered by clothing. We're works of art, something to be aesthetically admired, in our birthday suits. Naked implies that one should be embarrassed and ashamed, prancing about without clothing. Naked is judgmental, a harsh word.
I would add yet a third category, an umbrella category that says it all, undressed. Meaning, call it what you will, the undressed body turns some people on, sometimes at their own psychological expense, sometimes at the expense of others who didn't necessarily want to click on it or regret clicking on it later.

It is impossible to say that it hurts no one without knowing who has seen it and asking directly. (Patients I've seen who have walked in on parents who were in the buff remember that snapshot memory, not for the better, either, but that's not exactly what we're talking about here).

Let's look at the effect of modeling for erotica specifically, not for pornography even. What if a person models nude for a painting clearly intended to be a work of art. The painting graces the wall of someone else's dining room, the buyer. The model can’t legally take the painting off the wall should (s)he come to regret the job, unless the diner wants to sell it or give it back. It's a Hey, get out of my house! Sounds like a good movie screenplay to me. Someone get on it.

We’re talking about the idea that an act once consensual can become a problem, the same psychological dynamic I wrote about when I posted on being insane at college (Sept 2, 2006). Acting out as a college student can come back to haunt us as adults. Does this mean a kid should never act out?

Yes, but it’s not even a question. Not all kids have the presence of mind to filter, sift through consequesnces or believe in future harm. As adolescents and young adults, we feel omnipotent, deep into developing unique identities, working out the angst of childhood and family issues, trying on new hats.

And kids are going to do what they’re going to do, as one of my friends likes to say.

Bottom line, we learn to live with our mistakes. It’s what makes us older and wiser, and as I’ve said before, owning our mistakes makes us more real to our children.

But owning that photo on the Internet?

Now we’re talking issues. Those photos have lives of their own, they multiply like cells.

Take another, seemingly innocuous situation. A couple makes home videos. They make their own movies, capture themselves undressed. It's easy. Technologically we live in photo-video heaven, own digital cameras, camcorders, cell phones. The film now stars, You.

Couples do this to turn themselves on. The project for their own satisfaction. This pornography or erotica (you decide) is most certainly between consenting adults, right?

But my gut makes me wonder, when I hear about this, is the art truly a product of mutual consent? Really? Or has there been a strong element of coercion on by one partner, the one who has more confidence, more emotional power over the other.

If and when one of them feels guilty and wants to stop the cameras, what happens then?

I've seen this in my practice. A guy films his love-making with his partner/spouse/fiancé. They break up. Somehow the film is all over the Internet. The partner/spouse/fiancé finds out about it. Someone is suing someone, exposing someone, calling bosses, friends; there's considerable blackmail and revenge.

It does sound criminal, doesn't it, such an invasion of privacy? It makes for real psychological damage—regret, shame, suicidal, even homicidal thoughts and gestures. The kind of feelings that never make anyone feel good.

Guilt, shame, embarrassment, panic, anxiety, depression, violent thoughts, post-or acute-traumatic stress disorders, that's the territory we're in.

That's what it is to me, in answer to the question, What is it to you, TherapyDoc?

These are the emotions we work through with patients who regret their decision to say, “Cheese.”

And you're right, you're right, it is often a person's history that drives him or her to posing for the picture, to star in the movie. The desperation comes first, perhaps, the low self-esteem. It is usually not posing that makes one vulnerable, initially. The need and vulnerability can come first.

But posing naked surely couldn't help.

Next time we'll talk about your partner/spouse/fiance's "addiction" to Internet pornography.

copyright 2007, therapydoc

Internet Pornography- Part One

I've wanted to post on this for a long time, but the fear of spammers and cyber-bullies had me intimidated. As a reminder, if you happen to know my name, please never use it in comments or they won't be posted. Let's start.

You don't get a picture on this post.

It's so funny. In 1996 the research chair at the University of Illinois asked each of us in my doctoral cohort what we thought we'd be interested in studying for dissertation. I had been treating a woman who had a "hot chat" addiction, something relatively new at the time.

I'd like to study Internet Addictions, I said.
I published an article on it actually.

He almost laughed me out of the room. Boy, how dumb. I mean, the article was a case study. How in the world would I get enough subjects for a real research project? How could anyone measure Internet addictions? Ridiculous.

That was 1996. Fast forward 11 years. We hear about Internet porn or Internet addictions once or twice a week. Compulsions are part and parcel of my work, and you guessed it, I'll hear about this kind of thing at some party or another, relatively often these days, social animal that I am. I just got an email from a woman who wanted to know what she should do about her husband's addiction to Internet porn. They're in their early twenties. Religious.

A little background here. In the early 1980's, FD and I did a co-therapy rotation to study the treatment of sexual dysfunction with Domeena Renshaw, MD, a world-renowned psychiatrist. She started the Loyola Center for Sexual Dysfunction in Maywood, Illinois.

Loyola is a Jesuit outfit. To be treated at the center at that time, you had to be married. I don't know if those same rules still apply today. But over many, many years, Dr. Renshaw's patients and students must number in the tens of thousands. Her book, Seven Weeks to Better Sex, interestingly, downplays the idea of sexual addictions.

"Sex," I can just hear Domeena say, "is like eating, breathing, and defecating. It's a normal bodily function." Pressed to opine on sexual addictions, she might add, "and if you can get too much breathing, then you can get too much sex, too. It's the natural tranquilizer, by the way."

In the early 1980's Dr. Renshaw's program did not discourage pornography. In fact, therapists and physicians-in-training were to suggest a visit to the adult book store to help patients get comfortable with what turns them on, basically permission to feel sexual. Domeena also strongly suggested that women try vibrators.

It's likely that the novelty and variety of sexual toys these days far surpasses what the stores had to offer then. You can buy such things now on-line, but if you are friends with the right people you might get invited to sex-toy parties that are on the order of Tupperware parties. These sex toys, I imagine, cannot hurt you, and patients do swear by them. But consult your local physician (or clergyperson) if you have any questions. And don't swallow any batteries.

You should know that FD and I took a royal pass on the idea of suggesting visits to adult book stores to patients. I'm glad we did. We simply skipped over that part of the program. Such a recommendation is especially tres politically incorrect these days. Pornography is and always was exploitative.

Sometimes it's hard to see that. Posing for pictures, acting in blue films is a job, after all, a living. Same goes for all kinds of jobs where being a female who is very female, or a being a male who is very male, is a major plus. I think of Hollywood, but the same could be said for positions in virtually any office or service establishment.

Many years ago I had a lovely couple in treatment. Let's just say that she had a nice job as a professional and he supervised a machine shop. Blue collar roots, although it doesn't matter, we've changed the demographic data of the case for this illustration.

She didn't like that he frequented a neighborhood restaurant where the wait staff had to show off a good deal of torso to get a job. She insisted that he stop eating in the restaurant.

"It's exploitative," she said, "making women dress scantily to keep a job."

He, on the other hand, couldn't see anything wrong with it.

"These are women working," he insisted. "It's their choice."

They got nowhere with the argument, and at some point I could stand it no longer. I spoke to him. She was pregnant, by the way.

"Perhaps look at it like this. Maybe you'll have a little girl. She grows up and goes to college. One day she tells you she's got a job waiting tables. The job is at one of those restaurants. (It happens to be a huge chain of restaurants. This is not inconceivable, her getting a job there. The name of the chain would be a good clue for Charades, by the way.)

"No way," he says. "It would never happen."

"And why not?" I gently ask.

"We wouldn't let her."

"How could you stop her?"

"First of all, no daughter of mine will have to work her way through college or anything. I'll make sure of that."

I say, "That's assuming that you stay well, but you never know what can happen, right? G-d forbid. We're talking eighteen years from now. What was your second of all, your other reason for thinking it could never happen?"

"She just wouldn't want to do that. She'd have too much self-respect."

I nod, consider what he says, take a breath.

"But what if you hit bottom financially somehow, and your kid is in school, and she doesn't want to take out thousands of dollars in loans, or she isn't eligible for some reason, and she takes the job, and men are grabbing at her, staring at her, leering, propositioning, all between french fries and a burger. It's not about self-respect, it's about poverty."

I finish the soliloquy, flip my pen in the air, a trademark.

You should know that this is lousy couples counseling, the process is all wrong. A therapist should be instrumental in getting a couple to talk to one another. We're omniscient, there for punctuation.

But she's been trying for a very long time to communicate the importance of this issue and either he isn't believing her or he won't give her the point (more likely). And there I am, a young therapydoc, full of words, taking over, despite my better judgment, knowing deep down that I have joined her and disempowered her at the same time.

He stopped going to the restaurant nevertheless.

They stayed together and seemed happy at the termination of treatment. Who knows where they are now. I know they had a baby girl, got a picture in the mail.

The point?

Men and women who allow themselves to become objects of sexual fantasy, either in restaurants or in titillating videos or pictures, don't usually want the job. Wouldn't you rather practice law? These individuals volunteer, it's true, but many feel they HAVE to volunteer.

Once I saw a beautiful college student who lived with her parents and seven sisters and brothers. She couldn't stand living at home anymore. They used her for child care and housework and it was hard to study. But she couldn't afford to leave. "I think I should make movies," she told me. "I've been offered a good deal. There's really good money in that." I tried to discourage her, discussed a few of the emotional consequences (we'll get to them in another post) and she dropped out of therapy.

It's a living, see?

There she is, your little girl. Earning an honest buck.

Emotion aside, here's how it translates psychologically at the restaurant. The patron is buying the memory. He's stealing her image by burning it in his brain. He takes her home with him, mentally. Or she takes her home with her. We try not to be heterosexist on this blog.

These days anyone can shoot a guy or a girl's picture with a telephone. No imagination necessary, even, no need to burn an image in the brain. Progress there, and your tie-in to pornography.

Enough for today! Any questions? Be patient for the posting of comments and answers. I don't work Friday night to Saturday sun down.


copyright 2007, therapydoc