A fairly young patient was admitted because she had attempted suicide. The reason she had attempted suicide is because of marital problems. The attributed source of her marital problems is that her husband is supposedly addicted to pornography.
Interestingly, pornography addiction is a made-up disease. There is no diagnosis for it in the DSM-IV. Which is not to say that looking at porn can't interfere with your life to the point of detriment (the generally accepted threshold for whether or not a behavior is addictive). For instance, viewing it at work may get you fired.
I don't know how often this woman's husband was looking at porn or the degree to which it got in the way of other things, but I do know of anecdotal examples of people describing someone as "addicted to porn" when that person was looking at it once every three weeks. Once every three weeks is not addiction. Once every three days probably isn't either. But if a man claims he has never looked at pornography at all, he is lying.
Here's the question that matters: how dangerous is it? The study referenced in the link above found that access to pornography actually decreases the incidence of rape and violent crimes against women. It acts as a sort of release valve, so to speak.
I am therefore left to wonder regarding the patient I described whether viewing pornography was a problem because it caused actual, direct problems, or whether it was a perceived problem because she had been told it was a problem, whether or not any adverse behaviors resulted from it. It could be that it would have been more or less harmless for this couple except that their culture informed them that they were supposed to make a big deal out of it so they did.
Obviously any details about the degree of harm caused by pornography in this case are conjecture. Here is what is not conjecture: this woman came to believe that the problem was so severe that the only solution was to take her own life. I can't help but wonder if she would have been in that situation if she believed that human beings are sexual creatures and having outlets to exhibit that sexuality is a healthy, normal, and critical aspect of life.
Here in Utah, modesty is a big deal. I often hear repeated "modest is hottest." We have clothing stores with names like "Sexy Modest" and "Diviine ModesTee."I have seen this tired meme posted to Facebook too many times to count.
If this is true, then by "pigs" this must mean "almost everybody." I have seen the attention my wife gets when she wears a form fitting shirt. It spans almost the entirety of those possessing a Y chromosome. I don't blame you--I stare at her too. I will also glance at a woman's butt as she exits the room. Sorry ladies if that bothers you, but I am not alone. Every man in the room is doing it. We all have hormones. Hormones are not evil. Literally not one of us would be interested in life if we got rid of them entirely.
There are appropriate ways to behave in every context. Just as it would be unacceptable (and not particularly hygienic) to wear a three piece suit in the swimming pool, neither would it be appropriate to wear a bikini in a conference room. But when a society scandalizes someone for having bare shoulders outdoors on a sunny day, especially when those shoulders belong to a four-year-old, something is wrong.
The human body is a beautiful thing. We should be comfortable with it. We should be comfortable with its many shapes and sizes and variations. We should accept its imperfections and embrace its uniqueness. We should each do our best to make ours as healthy and happy as it can be. And we should be familiar enough with the human form that when we see it, we can admire it without losing self control, regardless of how much of it the individual chooses to show.