Over the past few months, conservatives have been embroiled in debate over Dennis Prager’s shocking stance on porn. As first articulated in The Daily Wire’s commentary series on Exodus, the talk show host and founder of PragerU argued that if pornography serves as a preventive substitute for adultery, it is “not awful.” He also dismissed the seriousness of lust. To be fair, Prager has since expressed regret for how he addressed the topic, clarifying that he is absolutely opposed to the “pornification” of society. “I wish I had phrased it better,” he admitted, adding that the proliferation of pornography is “a scary thing.” Nevertheless, he refused to recant his initial position and in some ways, has actually doubled down. This has prompted a heated debate between Prager and others, such as Matt Fradd, over his refusal to condemn porn as universally evil simply because it might not be as bad as other sins.Before we dive into a few of the many faults in Prager’s argument, here are his words on the topic.“I am less interested in the interior person, morally speaking, than you are…. And it’s largely, I do believe, because I come from a behaviorist, law-based religion. We care how you act. That’s why we don’t have a claim that if you look at another woman with lust it’s as if you’ve committed adultery with her…. There’s only one way to commit adultery in Judaism and it’s with a different organ. And I’m not being cute. I’m being very realistic. Looking with lust is not a sin in Judaism.” SEE ALSO: Man up, America He was then asked about Judaism’s stance on pornography and responded:“If a wife calls me [on my radio program] and says, ‘My husband looks at pornography—I found it on his computer,’—I have one question: How is your life of intimacy with your husband? Is it good? In other words, is the pornography in lieu of you or in addition to you?” “I know this is not a religious answer,” he continued, “and I’m not even giving a religious answer. I’m giving what I think is a moral and realistic answer. Men want variety. And if pornography is a substitute for one’s wife, it’s awful. If it’s a substitute for adultery, it’s not awful.” Of course, his rationalization is fraught with contradiction and is, ultimately, a defense for one of the most pervasive sins in America. First, Prager’s answer is shockingly calloused. He does not even bother with validating the woman’s feelings of disgust and disappointment. He simply expects her to move on so long as her husband’s watching naked women is not “in lieu” of her.In reality, if a wife discovers that her husband watches porn, she is absolutely justified to be enraged and devastated. Her husband has betrayed her in a very real sense. He has also, almost certainly, damaged her self-image. If her respect for him diminishes, it is entirely his fault. Men, therefore, should know that if they watch porn, their wives will be less attracted to them. While porn is always wrong, loving husbands especially should value their wives’ feelings, self-image, and personhood above their own appetite for “variety.” Besides, we are not mere animals. SEE ALSO: Gov. Newsom shows pornographic movies in schools Sure, data does suggest that men may have more of a biological bent toward sexual variety than women do. But are we not better than that? Can we not conquer our animalistic impulses? Indeed, we must if we are to have successful marriages and become strong men. We must subject our wants to the good and dignity of our wives.Prager does not seem to understand that certain things must be forgone if a marriage is to thrive. Porn—which, again, is always wrong—is certainly one of those things. A loving husband cannot expect to dismiss and destroy his wife’s perception of herself and still enjoy a successful marriage.Secondly, Prager’s argument almost denies the entire purpose of marriage. What is marriage if not a commitment between a man and woman to be satisfied with each other exclusively? There is no “in addition to…” in marriage. If, as Prager argues, eroticism is acceptable “in addition to” one’s spouse, then what’s the point in even getting married? A bride does not sign up for marriage to be a supplement to her husband’s sex life. The very thought is ludicrous. If a man does not intend to be wholly content with and treasure one woman only, he is not ready for marriage. But again, Prager misses the mark by introducing the marriage-destroying “in addition to” clause into the conversation.Thirdly, Prager is mistaken to say that looking at pornography is simply a thought with which behaviorists are unconcerned. Surely, he must see the fault in this argument. SEE ALSO: Josh Hawley’s new book celebrates virtuous masculinity Indubitably, there is a massive difference between simply seeing a woman on the street and experiencing a fleeting and unwanted attraction toward her and watching pornography. The former is just a thought. The latter is an action, a behavior. Therefore, Prager, as a self-described behaviorist, should be deeply concerned about the latter (which, to be fair, he usually is). His disinterest in the “interior man” does not disqualify him from condemning porn without exception for watching porn is a behavior.Instead, Prager, in his interview with Fradd, defended his married father for reading Playboy. Does he not see that subscribing to and reading through Playboy magazines are actions? It’s a behavior. Even if they technically prevented his father from cheating, that does not mean the thought stopped in his head. This last point highlights the fourth major flaw with Prager’s argument: the “interior man” inevitably influences and makes the outer man. SEE ALSO: Every American needs to hear this feminist’s advice Perhaps most concerning about Prager’s segment on porn is that he did not even address the toxicity of porn nor how it mars our respect for human dignity. The simple truth is that porn unquestionably affects our behavior, and the results are devastating. As Allie Beth Stuckey pointed out, for example, pornography “aids & abets sex trafficking, including child sex trafficking…. There is NOTHING good about pornography.”Dennis Prager is mistaken if he thinks one can consume porn and not be consequently affected. This does not guarantee that everyone who watches it will eventually be led into “actual” adultery. But what began as a preventive substitute may soon become the driving force behind other sins.Nevertheless, even if one never does anything more than “just watch porn,” it is still an awful, evil perversion. There are no excuses for it. It always is.Jakob Fay is a staff writer for the Convention of States Project, a project of Citizens for Self-Governance.
