Sex therapists and pornographers have long prescribed pornography to correct male impotence and to "spice up" a couple's sex life. However, the broader meaning of "potency" is "power, authority … a person or thing exerting power or influence." The proper contextual definition of modern impotence, then, is not the narrow classification of "erectile dysfunction."
One is not "potent" if one requires little blue pills, sexy pictures, or immature victims for sexual satisfaction. It is more accurate then to define men as impotent when they are unable to be conjugallyintimate with their chosen beloved.
Princeton University professor of psychiatry Jeffrey Satinover said, "The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He … will place at risk his career, his friends, his family."
Satinover compared pornography to heroin, saying, "Only the delivery system … and the sequence of steps" differ. Moreover, the sequence from potent to impotent is swift. Professor Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania compared pornography's rapid effects to that of "crack cocaine."
The impotent man replaces his "partner" with a fantasy. For, says neurobiologist Peter Milner, "unfamiliar stimuli have a rewarding component. It is even possible to become addicted to novelty and uncertainty."
Indeed. French neuroscientist Serge Stoleru found that overexposure to "erotic" stimuli exhausted the sexual responses of normal, healthy young men.
Someone once dubbed pornography "the opiate of the masses," an endogenous opiate high called "lust" that makes wholesome, loving sensuality feel ho-hum. Pornography triggers high states of fear-shame-lust arousal ("flight/fight/sex"), quite the opposite of a faithful love. No wonder even devoted couples confess dismay at finding pornography more arousing than their marital embrace.
Many wrongly assume their love is weak. Yet, the strength of love requires an absence of the shame, fear, (and even hate) that commonly defines lust. For a fuller discussion of the psychopharmacology of pictorial pornography, visit my website.
Says Milner, "[m]ost stimuli become less attractive … as they become familiar and predictable. … Thus, novelty has an effect similar to that of reward." (Emphasis added.) By definition, when the libido depends on novel pictures, such men are dependent,they are "without power," emasculated,their libido, their masculine power and authority hijacked by a steady stream of new paper dolls.
In December 1953, Hugh Hefner began marketing Playboy as "sexual liberation." But, instead of emancipation, Hefner sold Joe College Pornographically Induced Impotence.
Pornographically Induced Impotence is evident in an August 1974 Playboy cartoon. A beautiful girl and a handsome lad are in bed. Across her nude body the grinning boy has laid a naked "centerfold" image. The girl under the paper doll asks, plaintively, "Are you sure you still love me, Henry?"
This Playboy lad - symbolic of millions of currently addicted Internet consumers - no longer commands his own natural-born masculine power to physically love. "Henry" and his young vessel are robbed of a vitally important human right; the right to fully experience love-based intimacy.
Urged on by Kinseyan "sexperts" to bring "erotica" into their marriage beds, millions of hoodwinked couples are now puppets, dangled by pornographic strings. Pornographically Induced Impotence is a national pandemic, raking in untold billions for pornographers and their satellite businesses as well as from marital discord and the despair it produces.
From the Playboy mansion to Capitol Hill, from thousands of prostituted Las Vegas girls and women to newlywed bedrooms, from Fortune 500 offices to Ivy League dorms, men and boys have habituated to the rewards of their own hand from the hand of Hefner et al.
Public policy analyst Shaunti Feldhahn recently launced a series of church lectures after counselors noted, "many families in our church are struggling with pornography and with infidelity." Men are "visually wired," Feldhahn explained. Their images of women stretch "back to his teenage years and any one of the pictures is going to pop up at any time in his brain without warning."
In 1981, Hefner biographer Gay Talese wrote that "Hef's" influence reached out to "the central nervous system of Playboy readers nationwide." Men's collective "central nervous system" includes "images" popping up and stretching "back to teenage years." By 2005, some experts estimated that situational or total impotence was afflicting up to 50 percent of men.
Pornography (erototoxins) emasculate indiscriminately, castrating men of every race, religion, and "orientation," atheist and orthodox, rich and poor, conservative and radical, young and old, svelte and paunchy, handsome and unappealing, scientist and sky-cap, the clever and the obtuse, en masse.
Pornographically Induced Impotence once kept men and boys anxiously awaiting each month's "new" fantasy images. The Internet means they wait no more. Good news for The Sex Industrial Complex (Pornography, Sexology and Big Pharma)! Men conditioned by erototoxins since boyhood blame their wives and girlfriends for their vanishing libido.
Yet psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld long ago admitted that magazines like Playboy were implanting impotence in their consumers: "Humor is the basic source of education.…Cartoons that poke fun at impotence or other male inadequacies…would outweigh any supportive things said in the advice column. Cartoons are simply more compelling. Some things are."
Thousands of Playboy cartoons "poke fun" at male impotence as well as virginity, wives, marriage, religion, sexual harassment, incest, "illegitimate" childbirth and child sexual abuse.
Feldhahan said the churched men she surveyed largely sought not "unlimited sex," but "a feeling of wanting to be wanted." Men must recoup their manhood to be wanted. Until "Henry" strides forth to purge fantasy, he will remain a vassal, his manhood controlled by pornographers, his Liege Lords.