That seems to be the current trend at the governmental level when it comes to sex. Pseudo-science, false science, bad science- call it what you will, has been used extensively to serve up an anti-sex political agenda.

A key example has been in the government funded and approved abstinence only education programs in our schools. We’ll be spending over $170 million on them at the federal level next year. We’ve long written about how much misinformation is promoted in these classes, but now there is actually a Congressional report documenting it, thanks to Congressman Henry Waxman.  Waxman’s staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs each.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. What few know is that these curricula are often developed by fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion groups for our public schools. Here are a few examples of what our students are being taught:

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. Actually, elective abortions do not affect fertility, nor is there data supporting their suicide claim. In fact, recent studies show little in the way of long-term emotional effects for women having abortions.

They are taught that “Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.” Actually, the chances of transmitting AIDS when using a condom are so low as to not even be scientifically measurable, as even in the relatively rare event of a condom breakage, the transmission rate per incidence of vaginal intercourse is extremely low. It is possible, but statistically improbable, for a woman to get AIDS from a man when a condom is used, and virtually impossible for a man to get AIDS from a woman when a condom is used for vaginal intercourse.

They are taught that “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears” (except no one is the scientific community knows this), that “HIV and other STD pathogens can pass through latex condoms” (except that in the laboratory condoms act as virtually impenetrable barriers), that “50% of all American teenage gay men are HIV positive” (a remarkable statistic if there were any way to verify it, since we don’t even know how many gay teenagers exist), that “a 43-day-old fetus is a ‘thinking person’ (except for the inconvenient fact that it does not have a developed brain yet), that 24 chromosomes from the mother and father combine (actually, its 23), that "touching another person's genitals can result in pregnancy" (while failing to mention that you’d actually have to have semen on your hands for this relatively unlikely event to happen), and that “Condoms have a 15% failure rate in preventing pregnancy” (except that they are inferring a 15% failure rate each use, when actually the statistics are for a failure rate of about 2% over the course of use of an entire year for proper regular use, while a 15% failure rate over a year is for those who don’t use them properly or regularly, something the classes are not allowed to teach). 

A very traditional 1950’s view of women is also taught. The Choosing the Best curricula teaches that girls' emotions limit their ability to focus, that females are dependent on men, and that if you want to get a man, don’t give him too much advice. Men need "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" while women need "financial support." The Why kNOw curriculum teaches that "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

There is also federally mandated misinformation that schools are required to teach to get federal dollars, including that sex outside of marriage leads to mental health problems. Schools are not allowed to teach about contraception except to point out failure rates, which are typically dramatically exaggerated. 

Abstinence education promoters have attacked the Waxman report with the same scientific vigor and adherence to known facts as the courses themselves. The same tactics of distortion, half-truths, and flat out lies have been used vigorously to denounce it. It is interesting to read their claims, then read the actual report, which I have done.  It is well-documented and foot-noted, unlike the material coming from the attackers. Science and facts can be so damned inconvenient.
 

Bad science has also taken hold throughout the Bush Administration and within Congress. More than 6,000 professional scientists, including Nobel Laureates, signed a Union of Concerned Scientists letter accusing the administration of a pattern of distorting and censoring important scientific work for partisan political gain. While the letter does not specifically mention areas dealing with sexuality, this is an area that has received special attention for both censorship and distortion.

For example, under the scientifically false assumption that condoms don’t work and encourage promiscuity, the administration has been hesitant to fund international efforts to fight AIDS that incorporate condom use. Due to a false belief that birth control pills and the morning-after pill are forms of abortion, Senator Rick “I don’t believe in a constitutional right to privacy” Santorum plans to reintroduce a bill allowing pharmacists across the nation to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that are against their religion. This policy has already been adopted in some states, and in small towns it can make birth control very difficult to get. This policy has even resulted in raped women unable to fill a hospital issued prescription for emergency contraception. The FDA is also stalling a decision to make emergency contraception available without a prescription, a move their staff scientists and other experts all recommend.

It is in the halls of Congress, though, where some of the worst pseudo-science dealing with sexuality has been presented recently. What anti-porn crusaders need is a scientific justification to ban pornography that would help them get around the first amendment. They feel they have come up with just the ticket in a new argument that claims that porn has a magical ability to bypass all cognitive reasoning and implant itself deep within your brain, doing damage that can never be undone by making physical changes in the structure of the brain. Because of its amazing properties, it is more addictive than cocaine. 

This is exactly what was testified to in hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, chaired by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback. This is nothing new, as Brownback has often used this Subcommittee to rail against moral corruption. The hearings were titled "The Science Behind Pornography Addiction." Of course, no actual reputable scientists were called to testify. In fact, the hearings were not announced in advance and the adult industry had no chance to participate or provide experts. Neither was the scientific community notified in advance, nor were any experts on addiction included. Had they been, someone might have mentioned that science does not recognize pornography addiction as an actual ailment. It has no specific scientific meaning or definition.

The four “experts” called to testify were billed as mental health professionals but are in fact leaders in the anti-porn movement. They have little standing in the scientific community at large, nor is their research published in peer reviewed articles, assuming they have actually done any.

The ringleader was Judith Reisman, who is to science what AIDS is to sex. A leader in the anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-porn movements, she has equated Kinsey to Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele and falsely accuses him of sexual experiments on children, she accuses Jews of leading the abortion industry, she believes that since gays can’t have children that they aggressively recruit children to become gay and if not stopped some 30 percent of the population will become gay, as an expert witness she testified to a jury that Mapplethorpe was a "fascist" whose pictures were "not art" because he did not show faces, she compared the book "Harmful to Minors" with "Mein Kampf" having read neither, and she equates gay youth support groups with Hitler youth. Her government funded study linking Playboy and children was so poorly done that American University refused to publish it. 

Reisman testified that "Pornography triggers myriad kinds of internal, natural drugs that mimic the 'high' from a street drug. Addiction to pornography is addiction to what I dub 'erotoxins'--mind-altering drugs produced by the viewer's own brain. A basic science research team should study 'erotoxins' and the brain/body."  Of course, she is also admitting that no research on this has been done. Erotoxins will go down in scientific history along with orgone energy and other mythical substances from crank scientists. Her doctorate, by the way, is in communications.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover works with the Dobson Focus on the Family group and believes that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be treated. He did admit that research on the actual effect of porn addiction was limited, but he testified that it just made sense that porn would be damaging. One of his biggest whoppers amongst many: “Many voices have suggested that the most damaging consequences of prolonged consumption of pornography are evident in the ill treatment of women (e.g., employment discrimination, economic exploitation).” Then why are both these factors much less in countries with liberalized pornography laws, and much worse in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia where porn is outlawed? Why has decreased employment discrimination and economic exploitation, as well as the dramatically increased opportunities for women, seemed to coincide with an increasing availability of pornography? 

Another amazing claim was the following: “Pornography really does, unlike other addictions, biologically cause direct release of the most perfect addictive substance. That is, it causes masturbation, which causes release of the naturally occurring opioids. It does what heroin can’t do, in effect.” It helps if you ignore the fact that any sensory stimuli produces the ominous sounding opioids. So does sex without porn, so maybe we just need to outlaw sex altogether.

Dr. James B. Weaver III admitted that the science was limited to support his claims, then read out a very long list of supposed harms of pornography, including increasing rape proclivity (he believes that all men are potential rapists), increasing sexual deviancy (it might encourage people to try oral and anal sex), and that it increases sexual callousness, the erosion of family values, and diminished sexual satisfaction. At least, in the absence of scientific proof, he thinks so. 

Dr. Mary Ann Layden did not bother to admit that there is little definitive research to support her findings (in fact, she makes the false claim that “the data is in”). She then went on to claim that those who view pornography were more likely to become rapists, practice incest, and engage in domestic violence, and tend to have problems with premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction.  She cites statistics about the horrors of working in the sex industry that as far as I can tell are simply made up. In a bizarre claim, she states that “Children who have porn-viewing fathers complain that when he looks at them it feels ‘creepy’. The parental gaze has now become the ‘porn gaze’. The child of the porn user finds that every thing is now about sex.” She claims that pornography regularly sends the message that sex is about “predatory self-gratification, casual recreation, body parts, violence, feces, strangers, children, animals and using women as entertainment.” What the hell kind of porn is she watching?

What they are attempting to do is use bad science to recategorize pornography as a lethal drug delivery system, thus creating a way to ban it without having to worry about free speech issues. They are sexual Lysenkos (the pseduoscientist who dominated Russian biology and led to their falling decades behind in agricultural production), and they will do us just as much good as Lysenko did for Russia. Which, as it turns out, was not much good at all, by practically ruining science in the Soviet Union. 

You can read their actual testimony at the official Senate Hearings site. 
 
 

Previous Commentaries
 

Return to main menu