Pity the poor social scientists. They've warned us about the dangers of the Internet, and yet we continue to surf unabated. How many times must we be told that the Net can cause loneliness, antisocial behavior and violent outbursts? Now, there's a new horror: It seems the Net triggers abnormal sexual urges.

Several esteemed news outlets -- including National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" and the New York Times -- recently reported that "the Internet may create new sexual compulsives." The stories told of as many as 200,000 keyboard-caressing sex addicts trolling the Net for lewd chat rooms and images.

The revelation comes from a study sponsored by Stanford and Duquesne universities. Alas, while the survey made headlines, it had serious flaws. Its findings were based on a terribly unscientific poll of over 9,000 self-selecting visitors to MSNBC's Web site.

The study found that 1 percent of respondents spend more than 11 hours per week online viewing porn or chatting about sex. Unfortunately, the researchers have a rather broad definition of "sexual compulsion." How many lonely hearts in the average city spend 11-plus hours each week seeking sex partners -- er, dates -- in bars, health clubs and cafes?

The news media's most important and often overlooked role is that of filter, sifting out pseudoevents to deliver something new. The facile analysis of how this story became news is that sex sells. But the cybersex survey held sway with journalists -- and probably some readers -- because of something far more sinister. A great many people still tend to see the Internet as some bizarre realm rather than as a mere reflection of the living, breathing domain just outside our windows. This distorted picture makes the Internet easily demonized. The survey states the obvious and adds nothing to what we already know: The sexual compulsions that exist in the physical world can also be found online.

To underscore the absurdity of the news stories that followed the survey, here's a modified version of the actual Reuters article that ran in newspapers nationwide. In this version, each mention of "the Internet" has been replaced with the words "New York City." (Changes appear in all-caps.)

NEW YORK CITY May Create New Sexual Compulsives
By TREY GULLIBLE, March 1, 2000
The explosive growth of NEW YORK CITY sex -- ranging from pornographic MOVIES to steamy SINGLES BARS -- may be creating a group of people with sexual compulsions they cannot control, according to a study made public Tuesday.
"For the vast majority of people, sexuality IN NEW YORK CITY is not going to be a problem, but for some it is going to be a big problem," said Dr. Al Cooper of the San Jose, Calif., Marital and Sexuality Centre.

Women, gay men and other "sexually disenfranchised" groups were at particular risk for NEW YORK CITY sex addiction, said the study -- which indicated that, for some RESIDENTS, NEW YORK CITY's cornucopia of sex offerings may prove overwhelming. "NEW YORK CITY ... is the first place where [these groups] have true freedom and total access to an unlimited amount of sex materials," Cooper said. "They may not have the same skills built up that heterosexual men have dealing with sexual temptation and pornography. It's like unleashing them in the candy store."

Along with women and gay men, Cooper added students appear to be at a relatively high risk for developing sexual compulsions focused on NEW YORK CITY. "They have freedom for the first time in their lives. They have more free time, and they are given this very powerful type of thing that is NEW YORK and combine it with sex," he said.

Most of the media reports buried the survey's one true eye-opener: Of the nearly 200 million people around the world who regularly access the Internet, only an estimated 120,000 to 200,000 can be considered "sexual compulsives" -- a number far lower than anyone might expect given the volume of coverage of online sex. In actuality, sexual activity online has significantly decreased as a proportion of all Net activity in each of the last four years.

Researchers would make better use of their time delving into the Internet's effect on reporters and editors, many of whom are too willing to suspend critical thought when writing about all things digital.