It is safe to say that when Pamela Anderson co-wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal describing porn as being “for losers” and claiming ones infatuation or obsession with porn can affect the institution of family, that many were surprised at her taking such a stance.
After all, Anderson has two sex-tapes circling the net and has more naked playboy covers to her name than any other model. The question presented following the article, published last month, is whether or not somebody with such a colourful history has any right to urge the public not to buy into the porn industry?
The article entitled ‘Take the pledge: no more indulging in porn’ was co-written with author and public speaker Schmuley Boteach and came about following the US sexting scandal involving politician Anthony Weiner.
It has faced a barrage of criticism since its publication on August 31, with many arguing that her ‘backwards’ view on pornography is laughable given she is one of the poster women for sex and nudity. Readers around the globe have been quick to criticise Anderson for her sex-tape with ex-husband Tommy Lee is widely available online thanks to a deal that they made with a video distribution company twenty years ago. Certainly when it comes to being lectured on the dangers of porn, one would not expect Pamela Anderson to be said lecturer.
However, what has so often been overlooked when discussing this article is the relevance of Anderson’s past with the chosen subject. In short, does her past not in fact make her more qualified to pass such judgements on the industry?
There is little question that Anderson would have moved in circles with more experience of porn and sex tapes than your average writer, therefore she possesses much more knowledge to back up her argument. Anderson’s views on the porn industry came from research; research which certainly contains more substance than that of a conservative personality with no real experience of the industry other than what they have heard or assumed.
Anderson has seen for herself some of the detrimental effects of an addiction to sex, which was one of the reasons she documented when filing for divorce from husband Tommy Lee, thus only serving her to be more qualified to make the judgements that she did in the article.
After reading the article several times, there is a temptation to say that Anderson and Boteach attempt to baffle you with bullshit at times however they also make some incredibly valid arguments. Anderson claiming that porn effects families, and in particular, a man’s attempt to be a father appears to come from personal experience, and there is no research more solid than this.
The idea that porn is so easily accessible that the average child is exposed to porn by the age of eight is quite frankly scary as can be, and Anderson, hypocrite or expert, has done an excellent thing by getting people talking.
But is porn responsible for the unhealthy attitudes towards sex in today’s society? That is the real question.
Words: Rebecca Sweeney
Tweet Rebecca: @RSweeneyx