A sentence I never thought I\u2019d have occasion to write: Thank you, Shmuley Boteach and Pamela Anderson, for opening the conversation on online pornography.<\/p>\n
You read that right. In case you missed it, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Pamela Anderson co-authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal<\/em> on the dangers of internet porn. This is a partnership that is going to catch attention.<\/p>\n Rabbi Boteach, a celebrity rabbi, is the author of thirty books. Among these are such titles as Kosher Sex<\/em>, Kosher Lust<\/em>, Kosher Adultery<\/em> and, yes, The Kosher Sutra<\/em>. While Rabbi Boteach has many other arrows in his quiver, sexuality is clearly not an area he is scared to tread. (Lest readers be misled, please be advised that the subtitle of Kosher Adultery<\/em> is \u201cSeduce and Sin with your Spouse.\u201d)<\/p>\n Now, Ms. Anderson\u2026 where to begin?<\/p>\n For starters, Anderson starred in the television series Baywatch<\/em>, which featured beautiful young women \u2013 Anderson foremost among them \u2013 running on the beach in bathing suits. Anderson appeared nude in Playboy<\/em> magazine numerous times over several decades; she graced the cover a record 14 times and was apparently the subject of the magazine\u2019s very last nude photo shoot. (Playboy<\/em> went nude-free within the past year; now people really do read it for the articles!) Anderson was also the subject of a stolen sex tape with her then-husband, rock star Tommy Lee.<\/p>\n Because of her history as a sexual fantasy for a generation of teenage boys, Anderson may strike one as a strange advocate against pornography. Please note that her one true contribution to the world of porn \u2013 her sex tape \u2013 was made public without her consent. (The Lees sued and won.) As far as her modeling career, there\u2019s a world of difference between nudity and pornography. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art is full of nudity; not so much pornography.) To suggest that Anderson\u2019s opinion is less valid because of her career would be what\u2019s called a genetic fallacy \u2013 judging an argument based on who presents it rather than on its merits. (No matter how you slice it, Anderson on pornography is far more harmless than her fellow Playboy<\/em> alum Jenny McCarthy\u2019s anti-vaccination crusade but that\u2019s a story for another day.)<\/p>\n In any event, the Boteach-Anderson pairing is brilliant specifically because of its incongruity. Boteach\u2019s followers might express surprise that he\u2019s co-writing with a Playboy<\/em> model; Anderson\u2019s will certainly be surprised to see her partnered with a rabbi. (Boteach undoubtedly knows more celebrities than Anderson does rabbis.) This is a good thing because the porn-addiction conversation needs to take place. It\u2019s one I\u2019ve been avoiding for years.<\/p>\n Almost nine years exactly, in fact. I have an email conversation in my inbox dated Sept. 17, 2007, in which the suggestion was made to address the problem of internet porn addiction. I\u2019m not too shy to talk about such thing; when people write me about this \u2013 and they do \u2013 I answer them. But in those cases, they\u2019re the ones who brought it up. I\u2019ve been reluctant to raise this issue publicly for fear of looking like a \u201cright-winger.\u201d I was content to let someone else handle it but no one else picked up the ball. Until now.<\/p>\n Pornography is by no means new. Before the internet, there were video tapes. Before that, stag films. Before that, \u201cFrench postcards\u201d and \u201cTijuana Bibles.\u201d Before that, I dunno, cave paintings? There has always been something. According to at least one opinion, the word kumaz<\/em> in Exodus 35:22 means a pornographic sculpture. (See the footnote on this verse in Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan\u2019s Living Torah<\/em>. That\u2019s right: when the Jews left Egypt 3,500 years ago, some of them may have been carrying porn.)<\/p>\n The first problem with online porn beyond its predecessors is its ubiquity. Back in the day, getting the Sports Illustrated<\/em> swimsuit issue off the rack was challenging enough for a pre-teen; getting Playboy<\/em> or one its contemporaries from behind the counter was unthinkable. A teen might acquire a handful of magazines (which he would keep beneath his mattress because, you know, mom would never think to look there<\/em>). Nowadays, an unlimited volume of far more extreme content is available \u2013 for free \u2013 to anyone with internet access, which is everyone. Every adult and teen has a laptop and a smartphone. Has any 14-year-old ever been deterred by having to click a box confirming that they\u2019re 18?<\/p>\n The second problem, aside from the ease of access, is the nature of the available material. Playboy<\/em> is a bizarre amalgam of wholesome and naughty. It might present an unachievable standard of airbrushed beauty but that\u2019s the extent of the potential damage. What\u2019s available for free online runs the gamut, catering to every fetish imaginable. When a person gets acclimated to A, he moves on to B, and from there to C, D, M, R and Y. (I know you were expecting me to say X, but that was too easy, don\u2019t you think?) This creates a new problem: a completely skewed idea of what a relationship can or should be. Real life seems awfully boring if you\u2019re expecting your every fantasy to be indulged.<\/p>\n Porn addiction is not a problem just in the Jewish or Orthodox community; it\u2019s a societal problem. Observant Jews have an additional problem because of the religious taboos against masturbation, which can lead to terrible, crushing guilt (though Jews are not unique in this, either). It\u2019s not just teens; this problem affects adults as well. And it\u2019s not just men; women are also victims of this affliction. In fact, I answered a question from a woman on this topic just last week:<\/p>\n Q. I need help to stop watching porn.<\/p>\n A. The best advice I can give you is to remove the source of temptation as best you can. Referring to idolatry, the Torah says, “Do not bring an abomination into your house or you will become cursed like it” (Deut. 7:26). Similarly, the book of Job advises “If sin is in your hand, put it far away and do not let not evil dwell in your house” (11:14).<\/p>\n Along similar lines, the Talmud says that if there are two roads – one that goes past women washing their clothes in the river and one that doesn’t – it is evil for a man to take the road that passes the women. Even if he doesn’t peek, he shouldn’t put himself in the position to be tempted!<\/p>\n The Rambam says that the way to break a bad habit is to go to the other extreme. Accordingly, I’d advise that you only use the Internet in a public space, like in the living room with other people around. When you’re in private, stay offline. Make yourself busy with other things. Minimizing the opportunities is a good place to start.<\/p>\n Sadly, my advice is superficial, and I know it. It\u2019s chizuk<\/em> (giving someone support), not a cure. If someone has a habit they\u2019re having trouble breaking, saying \u201cDon\u2019t do that no more!\u201d will not be an effective strategy. Some people have the strength to break the pattern themselves, others might require therapy or other professional services.<\/p>\n This is why I applaud Rabbi Boteach and Ms. Anderson for putting this issue on the table. Awareness is essential. People suffering with this problem can draw strength from the realization that they are not anomalous; in truth, they are far from alone. Those who are in danger of being drawn into this trap might be spared by having useful information in time. And hopefully, those not suffering from this affliction \u2013 especially in the religious community \u2013 might become better informed as to how common the problem is, enabling them to assist those so afflicted without being judgmental about it.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s not be afraid to talk about it. Speaking up is not a \u201cright-winger\u201d thing to do. This problem affects your community whether you come from Team Shmuley or Team Pamela.<\/p>\n —————<\/p>\n