Pornography Is It Harmful?

Introduction

The 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity concluded that there was no link between exposure to pornography and subsequent anti social behavior (Commission, 1970; Donnerstein & Linz, 1984). The commission's report opened the floodgates of obscenity and pornography. Since then, the quantity of pornography produced has increased markedly. According to Carter, Prentky, Knight, Vanderveer and Boucher,

 


• The last twenty years have seen, at least within the United States an exponential increase in the absolute amount, if not the actual aggressiveness, of pornography. According to a recent estimate, pornography in the United States is a $4-billion-a-year business, exceeding the combined revenues of the movie and record industries [italics added] (1987, p. 196).

Researchers have also evaluated the content of pornographic books, magazine covers and cartoons. Their findings suggest a significant increase in depictions of rape, bondage and dominance over the ten years immediately following the Commission's report (Dietz & Evans, 1982; Malamuth & Spinner, 1980). Although the increase in the quantity and depravity of the content of pornography has been documented, we must be quick to admit that the commission's report cannot be scientifically proven to be the primary cause of these increases. Yet, even though we cannot prove a direct causation there definitely is a strong correlation.

Was the commission correct in its conclusion, or is pornography harmful to society? What has scientific research indicated concerning the effects of Pornography? Is it harmful or helpful? What do modern research, the Bible and various significant ethical systems have to say about pornography. All of these questions will be considered in an effort to answer the question posited by the title of this paper, "Is Pornography Harmful?."

A Definition of Terms

To answer the question, we must first define pornography and obscenity. Pornography is the, "explicit, uncensored portrayals of sexual activity that are intended to excite the observer" (Rathus, 1991, p. 292). Contrary to popular belief the Supreme Court has defined obscenity, in Miller v. California. According to John Eidsmor,

The Miller test is as follows: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, political, or scientific value (1984, p. 347).

The Supreme Court has applied yet another standard to pornography and children. It has allowed local communities to regulate the public display of pornography in locations likely to be accessible to minors. It has also declared the production, distribution, possession, or display of child pornography a felony offense (Eidsmor, 1984, p.349).

The Course of Study

The course of study will include several steps. First, arguments against the claim that pornography is harmful will be listed and evaluated. Second, arguments in support of the thesis that pornography is harmful will be enumerated and evaluated. Finally, the findings concerning the effects of pornography will considered in an attempt to answer the question, "Is Pornography Harmful?."

Discussion

Arguments Against Harmfulness

In an interview by Playboy magazine, philosopher F. M. Christensen suggested that the only harm being done in this arena was caused by those who opposed the free distribution of pornography (1989, p. 137). He posited several other arguments against the idea that pornography is harmful (1989, pp. 136-138). First, pornography has been around for thousands of years. He suggested that in early societies pornography was not considered disgusting or degrading. Second, he argued that it is like other spectator sports that provide us with a safe outlet for pent up aggressive tendencies. Third, he argued that it was a safe way to satisfy very human sexual fantasies. Fourth, he argued that since humans have sexual fantasies, the dehumanizing thing to do would be to restrict pornography. Fifth, the body is the focus of exercise tapes. If porn tapes are charged with making people "sex objects" why are exercise tapes not charged with making people "exercise objects?" Finally, he insisted that pornography does not promote rape. He charges that "Radical feminists promote the idea that pornography promotes rape These people make similar libelous claims about men and male sexuality in general" (Christensen, 1989, p. 138).

Some have endeavored to use scientific data to prove that pornography does not related to anti-social behavior. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that there is a correlation between increased accessibility to pornography and a decrease in anti-social behavior. Perhaps the most popular study cited, to prove pornography is safe--or even beneficial - is the famous Denmark Study. The 1970 Presidential Commission was impressed by this study. In it, Berl Kutchinsky pointed out that relaxation of Danish pornography laws coincided with a decrease in reported sex crimes in post-war Denmark (U. S. Department of Justice [USDJ], 1976, p. 146).

Others have argued that there may be statistical evidence that violent pornography is harmful, but that no such evidence exits for a correlation between non-violent pornography and any harmful effects. In fact, some have gone so far as to suggest that non-violent pornography can be used as a cathartic to help child molesters avoid deviant behavior.

An Evaluation of the Arguments

Most of F. M. Christensen's arguments can be summed up as: Everyone has sexual fantasies, so such fantasies must be human. Anything that effects those fantasies (i.e. pornography) is beneficial. Therefore, restricting access to pornography is dehumanizing. He offered no empirical data to support this argument. His entire value system seems based on the unrestricted gratification of human urges.

The fallacy of this system of logic is obvious. A significant portion of society also has urges to rape, murder, lie and steel. This does not mean that to restrict the means of fulfilling these internal desires is dehumanizing. On the contrary, one important difference between humans and animals is the ability to submit basic urges and drives to the control of the mind and will.

Jesus readily admitted the existence of such urges but taught that we are to avoid feeding such fantasies (Matthew 5:27-30). God created us, "A little lower than the angels" (Psalms 8:5), instead of just like the animals--fulfilling every basic urge.

His argument that ancient societies had pornography ignores the differences in the nature of ancient pornography and modern pornography. Also, some ancient societies practiced infanticide, human sacrifice and cannibalism. Surely Mr. Christensen would not advocate the practice of these ancient social customs.

Since 1970 Kutchinsky's Denmark Study has been harshly criticized. The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report July 1986 states, "he [Kutchinsky] has been forced to concede that, at least with regard to rape, liberalization of pornography laws was followed ultimately by increases in reports of rape to police" (USDJ, 1986, p. 146). Follow-up studies determined that the study was not valid for at least three reasons. First, he failed to note that there were other post-war sociological variables at work that caused a decline in sex crimes in the Scandinavian countries. Second, the variables at play in post-war Scandinavia were different from those that exist in the United States. The differences were of such a magnitude that they make generalization of the Denmark Study to the American situation questionable at best. Third, the research was not reliable. Perhaps the most significant test of the reliability (and therefore the validity) of his research was Norway. Subsequent studies (conducted after the post war era) found that Denmark's decline in sex crimes was 14.2% from 1970 to 1981. However, the decline in Norway--a country very similar to Denmark that maintained far stricter laws against pornography--was 33.5%.

After evaluating the Denmark Study, the commission found it to be, "Shallow and almost completely without value for analysis of the American experience and American policy" (USDJ, 1986, p. 147). Yet, this discredited study is widely quoted by the public media--which are apparently unaware of its statistical shortcomings -- as having proven that an increase in the availability of pornography can be beneficial to society.

Several observations are in order in response to the charge that data suggest that there is no link between short-term or long-term exposure to pornography and inappropriate behavior and attitudes. Laboratory tests can only go so far. Because of research ethics, it is not possible to test, in a laboratory setting, to see if pornography can motivate a person to rape another person. (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988, pp. 45-51). Therefore the evidence supporting the harmfulness or harmlessness of pornography deal primarily with abstract, correlational or indirect statistical data.

This writer has serious reservations about the validity of much of the work done by social scientists and sociologist in this field. It is true that some researchers have concluded that there is no linkage between short or long term exposure to pornography and deviant or inappropriate behavior or attitudes. However, the average student would be shocked to learn how these conclusions were drawn.

Daniel Linz (1989) evaluated several of the better-known studies (seven short-term and seven long-term) in great detail. He stated that, "Short-term exposure is defined as subjects viewing, reading or listening to the communication for periods of less than one hour [italics added]. Long-term exposure is anything beyond an hour" [italics added] (p. 51).

In one study "90 male subjects, ages 21 to 38 years were presented with either one of the educational films, or saw no film, and then watched a 15-minute film segment depicting sexual violence" (Linz, 1989, p. 54).

In another study subjects viewed one of three films about four minutes in length. In yet another study the subjects "read a 400-word story created from a feature in Penthouse magazine" (Linz, 1989, p.56). In another study subjects listened to a two minute audiotape (Linz).

Space limitations do not permit a detailed examination of the research methods used in these and other short-term test. But, typically subjects would be exposed to some form of erotica for less then one hour. The subjects then might be tested on the Rape Myth Acceptance (RMA) scale. Or, they might be asked to view an account of a rape trial or read a news paper account of a rape trial. The subjects' opinions of the alleged victim would then be tested. A special film has even been developed for such testing by Daniel Linz (Linz, 1989).

In a typical long-term study (Malamuth & Centi, 1986), researchers randomly assigned 42 college males to view movies that were, "sexually violent," "sexually nonviolent" or to a no-exposure control condition. Subjects in the sexually violent group viewed two feature-length films per week for three consecutive weeks. The subjects were then given a test in which they were asked if they would rape a woman if they could get away with it (known as an LR [likelihood of rape] test). They were also to perform an experiment-involving punishing a female confederate involving ESP and a blast of noise. The amount of noise they administered was measured. From this procedure they deduced no significant results on the males who saw the nonviolent or violent pornographic movies.

Normally, one would hesitate to question the research technique of world-renowned scholars, yet this writer feels compelled to do so. To classify long-term exposure to pornography as watching one hour or more seems unrealistic from the real world. To think that one could then measure the damage done to the subject with an RMA test or an LR test again seems incredulous to this writer. And, the very idea of exposing a person to a two-minute sound tape and then testing for evidence of serious effect on the listener seems beyond the realm of reason.

Imagine the outcry that would be generated if a tobacco company's scientist exposed subjects to one hour of cigarette smoke. Tested the subjects for cancer. Then, boldly announced that scientific research has proven that there is no link between long-term exposure to smoke and cancer.

One positive argument remains to be dealt with concerning the beneficial effects of pornography. Proponents sometimes claim that child molesters use pornography to satiate their drives without harming children, and that mild pornography may inhibit aggression in men.

It is true that some early studies suggested that exposure to pornography inhibited aggression (Boron, 1974; Zillman, 1971). However, later studies indicated that although soft-core pornography may inhibit aggression in some, hard core pornography increased reported aggression in laboratory conditions (Boron & Bell, 1977). However if so-called soft core pornography leads to more serious forms. Then instead of mild pornography being harmless, it is actually the fuse to the bomb, or the bait to the trap of destructive hard core pornography (for a discussion of whether soft core can lead to more deviant erotica see the discussion the slippery slope on p.).

It must also be pointed out that some researchers have admitted that testing the aggressive tendencies of college students in a laboratory may have little relevance to the study of pornography's real effects (Gray, 1983).

It is also true that at least one study of child molesters demonstrated that they sometimes use pornography to avoid molesting children. But researchers also report that in the long run it probably increases the depth of the problem

Arguments for Harmfulness

Because of space limitations, we will limit ourselves to only those arguments that the author believes to be the strongest. Although there is no direct laboratory evidence that pornography is harmful to society, there is much indirect evidence. Most of this evidence deals with a mixture of violence and pornography. In a 1983 study Sillmand & Bryant found that, "Overexposure to deviant sex can apparently desensitize the viewer" (Rathus, 1991, pp. 292-232).

University of Wisconsin psychologist Edward Donnerstein demonstrated that most men who view violent pornography (in a laboratory setting) trivialize rape. The majority suggested the likelihood that they would rape a woman if they thought they could get by with it, and that they would be less likely to be a sympathetic juror to a rape victim (Press, 1985, p. 62).

This author is convinced that there is indirect evidence to prove the linkage between pornography and social harm. First,

The research of Baron and Strauss (1984, 1985) supplemented by others, has shown a strong statistical relationship between state-by-state circulation rates for the most widely read 'men's magazines' and state-by-state reported-rape rates. That relationship persists even when every other factor theoretically associated with rape is controlled for: indeed, they found that the Sex Magazine Circulation Index has a consistently stronger statistical relationship with rates than any other factor tested [italics added] (USDJ, 1986, p. 148).

In a journal article published in 1988, sociologists Scott and Schwalm questioned the research of Baron and Strauss that was used by the 1987 Commission. They objected to the criteria used to select the seven magazines studied by Boron and Strauss. Scott and Schwalm assembled a larger list of ten magazines which they maintained were more scientifically selected. Their list was also from a more current year. Their data were from 1982, whereas the Boron and Strauss data were from 1979 and 1980.

After applying more stringent controls to the data, they were still forced to admit

We found a statistically significant relationship between rape rates and adult magazine circulation rates by state. The relationship remains even when controlling for numerous other variables previously found to be related to rape. Moreover, this relationship does not appear to be simply an artifact of magazine readership inasmuch as two separate magazine circulation indices, outdoor and general, were introduced into the regression equation to control for magazine readership and neither significantly affected the relationship between rape rates and adult magazine circulation rates. In addition, when controlling for other violent crimes, the statistically significant relationship between rape rates and adult magazine circulating rates remains (Scott & Schwalm, p. 246). Scott and Schwalm presented their data in the following table (1988, p. 247):

Table 1

Rape Rates and Adult Magazine Circulation Rates per 100,000 by State

Evaluation of Arguments for Harmfulness

The research already examined has been generally accepted as valid. Still many researchers have questioned linking these studies to the conclusion that pornography is harmful. They have charged that there is no evidence that a change of attitudes about sex crimes will lead to a change in actions. They have also pointed out that many of the tests involved violent pornography. It has also been asserted that no such strong correlation has been conclusively proven for violence-free pornography. In fact,

The only statement that Koop's (1987) workshop could agree on concerning the effects of nonviolent pornography on adults is that 'prolonged use of pornography increases beliefs that less common sexual practices are more common' (Rathus, 1991, p. 294).

It is the author's conviction that the Baron and Strauss (1987) research has found the "smoking gun" linking pornography with social harm. The author is aware of no response to this research that is logically or empirically adequate. Instead most who disagree with the study have chosen to ignore it. Their silence is telling.

Finally, it is the writer's conviction that those who claim that only violent pornography is harmful are ignoring the "slippery slope" of pornography. The slippery slope argument suggests that those who begin to read soft-core pornography may become addicted to increasingly violent pornography which has been proven to be damaging to society.

There does seem to be evidence that pornography is addictive and progressive. Dr. James Dobson's interview with death row inmate Ted Bundy gives evidence--anecdotal at least--that for some, pornography is addictive and progressive in terms of the type of pornography read and ensuing actions taken (Dobson, 1989, pp. 139-144).

There is also indirect statistical evidence for the slippery slope argument. A comparison of graph 1 and graph 2 shows a disturbing shift in American attitudes toward pornography. A comparison of the data in chart 1 suggest that, in 1985, a significantly higher percentage of Americans believed that pornography leads some to commit sexual crimes, respect women less and to a break down of morals than believed so in 1970.

At first glance this trend is encouraging. Yet, Chart 2 gives cause for concern. It indicates more people are satisfied with the present strictness of community standards than were 15 years earlier. It appears that form 1970 to 1985, the public has become more aware of the harm pornography does to others. Yet, the public has also become less concerned about laws to protect people from the destructive consequences of pornography. How can this be?

Admittedly other factors could be at work her, but it may be that increasing levels of pornography are causing the American public to become habituated to pornography. The charts seem to suggest that the same thing is happening to the American public (to a less extreme extent) that happened to Bundy. As the public becomes more desensitized to pornography, many probably will turn to more extreme and violent forms of pornography. The data firmly prove a linkage between such forms of pornography and social harm.

Is Pornography Harmful?

We are hopefully now ready to answer the question. First it appears that none of the arguments for the harmlessness of pornography can be successfully defended. Secondly there is much laboratory evidence to suggest that hard core pornography is harmful. In addition to the laboratory evidence, correlational studies of the relationship between circulation rates of hard core pornography and rape rates on a state by state basis show a definite linkage between pornography and one of the most destructive socially aberrant behaviors (rape).

Thirdly, although no strong evidence to the destructive nature of soft-core pornography exists, it must be admitted that the nature of laboratory testing seems to preclude the possibility of finding such proof even if it exists. However, There is evidence that soft core pornography can be the gate to hard core pornography and hence can also be harmful.

Is Pornography ethical? The Biblical standard of ethics would respond negatively. Scientific studies have proven that pornography increases the frequency and abnormality of men's fantasies (Marshall, 1988) In his study of incarcerated sex offenders he found that a significant percentage of sex offenders used pornography either intentionally or accidentally in a way that leads to sex offenses.

What the Bible Says

What would the Bible have to say to this. Concerning the effect of pornography on sexual fantasies. The Bible teaches us that the heart (mind) is the source of good and evil in life (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 12:33-36). The Bible also teaches that evil influences can have a direct impact on our own conduct (I Corinthians 15:33). The Bible teaches that to have a life filled with peace one needs to fill the mind with the good, lovely, etc. (Philippians 4: 4-8). In fact "the lust of the eye" is one of John's 3 deadly sins (1 John 2:16).

When all the facts are considered, those ethical systems that are concerned about the well being of the individual and society will reject pornography as unethical. However, those systems that tend to place the freedom of the individual above concern for others will endorse pornography as ethical

Conclusion

It is the writer's conclusion that pornography is harmful to society and hence unethical. It should be avoided by the individual and at least discouraged by society.

References

Boron, R. A. (1974). The aggression-inhibiting influence of heightened sexual arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 318-322.

Boron, R. A. & Bell, P. A. (1977). Sexual arousal and aggression by males: Effects of type of erotic stimuli and prior provocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 79-87.

Boron, Larry & Strauss, Murray. (1987). Four theories of rape: A macrosociological analysis. Social Problems, 34(5), 467-487.

Carter, Daniel Lee; Prentky, Robert; Knight, Raymond A.; Vanderveer, Penny L.; Boucher, Richard. (1987). Use of pornography in the criminal and developmental histories of sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(2), 196-211.

Christensen, F. M. (1989). Pornography is Not Harmful. In Lisa Orr (Ed.), Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 135-138). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.

Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. (1970). The technical report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. New York: Bantam.

Dietz, P. E., & Evans, B. (1982). Pornographic imagery and prevalence of paraphilia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1493-1495.

Dobson, James. (1989) Pornography Promotes Violence Against Women. in Lisa Orr (Ed.), Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 135-138). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.

Donnerstein, Edward & Linz, Daniel. (1984, January). Sexual Violence in the Media: a Warning. Psychology Today, pp. 14,15.

Eidsmor, John. (1984). The Christian Legal Advisor. Milford, MI: Mott Media, Inc.

Gray, S. H. (1982). Exposure to pornography and aggression toward women: the case of the angry male. Social Problems, 29, 387-398.

Holy Bible. New King James Version. (1985). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Malamuth, N., & Spinner, B. (1980). A longitudinal content analysis of sexual violence in the best selling erotica magazines. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 226-237.

Linz, Daniel. (1989). Exposure to sexually explicit materials and attitudes toward rape: A comparison of study results. The Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), 50-84.

Malamuth, N. M., & Ceniti, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 129-187.

McCarthy, S. J. (1980, October). Pornography, rape, and the cult of macho. Humanist, pp. 11-20.

Marshall, W. L. (1988). The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapist, child molesters, and nonoffenders. The Journal of Sex Research 25(2), 267-288.

Press, Eric. (1984, March 18). The War Against Pornography. Newsweek, pp. 58-66.

Rathus, Spencer, A. (1991). Essentials of Psychology (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Scott, Joseph E. & Schwalm, Loretta A. (1988). Rape rates and the circulation rates of adult magazines. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 241-250.

Sears, David O., Peplau, Letitia A. Freedman, Jonathan L. Taylor, Shelly E. (1988). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

U. S. Department of Justice. (1986). Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report July 1986. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Zillman, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication medicated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 419-434.

This page has been acceessd