There has been quite a lot of discussion in the community lately about pornography, although this has mostly been personal stories about the merits or disadvantages it causes. In exploring the issue myself i came across the website which presents some fairly persuasive feminist-oriented arguments for the negative effects of porn.
In particular, these two studies caught my eye. Now I don't know the background of these studies. I don't know whether they were conducted correctly. However, I would be interested to hear a what others think, as they seem to paint a pretty bleak picture of the effects of stereotypical misogynistic porn.
The Zillman and Bryant laboratory studies (1986-1988):
The question of the research was "What is the effect of prolonged pornography consumption on subjects' perceptions of their intimate relationships, marriage and family, personal happiness, and sexual satisfaction?".
The experiment was undertaken in this way: A pool of male and female subjects, including college students and nonstudents, was divided into two groups. The "Exposure group" watched one hour of nonviolent pornography per week for six weeks. The "Control group" watched an equivalent amount of regular movies. Then all subjects completed a Value-of-Marriage Survey and the Indiana Inventory of Personal Happiness.
The results were:
* Subjects in the "Exposure group" showed higher levels of agreement with the following beliefs than the ones in the "Control group":
- Promiscuity in men and women is natural and preferable to exclusivity;
- One's sex partners are generally unfaithful;
- Extramarital affairs are acceptable;
- Restraining one's sexual impulses leads to health risks;
- Male-dominated relationships are preferable to equal relationships.
- The appearance of their partners;
- Their partners' sexual performance;
- Their partners' willingness to engage in new sex acts;
- Their sex lives in general.
The conclusions were that prolonged exposure to pornography impacts the individual's sexual and personal happiness, increasing distrust and dissatisfaction with one's partner, increasing acceptance of infidelity and male-dominated relationships, and decreasing the desire to marry or raise a family. (1)
The Zillmann and Bryant laboratory studies (1982-1984):
The question of the research was "what are the consequences of continued exposure to pornography on beliefs about sexuality in general and on attitudes towards women?". The experiment was undertaken in this way:
* Part One: 80 male and 80 female participants are divided into four subgroups. The "Massive Exposure Group" saw 36 short, non-violent (but degrading and dehumanizing) pornographic films (about 5 hours of film) over six weeks; the "Intermediate Exposure Group" saw 18 short, non-violent pornographic films and 18 regular films over six weeks; and the "No Exposure Group" saw 36 regular films.
* Part Two: All participants read about a rape case and were asked to recommend the length of the prison sentence for the rapist. They were also asked to indicate their support for the women's rights movement on a 0 to 100 scale. Finally, they were asked to estimate the popularity of various sexual acts among the general population.
The results were:
* In recommending a prison term for a rapist: Subjects in the "Massive Exposure Group" chose, on average, prison terms that were half as long as terms recommended by the people in the No Exposure Group. (A five-year sentence versus a ten-year sentence);
* When asked to rate their support for women's rights: Men and women in the "Massive Exposure Group" indicated a lot less support than participants in the "No Exposure Group" (38% versus 76%).
* Men and women in the "Massive Exposure Group" rated anal sex, group sex, and bestiality at least twice as common as did the "No Exposure Group".
* Those in the "Massive Exposure Group" believed that more than twice as many adults had anal intercourse than those in the "No Exposure Group". The "Massive Exposure Group" estimated that 30% of Americans had group sex, while the "No Exposure Group" estimated only 11% did.
* The "Massive Exposure Group" also estimated that 15% of Americans practised S&M, and that 12% of Americans were having sex with animals -- gross estimations of actual sexual practices, according to all available data at the time.
The conclusions were that massive exposure to pornography made rape appear a more trivial offense, which seemed also to parallel a drop in support for women's rights. Also, intensive pornography viewing led to beliefs that unusual sexual acts are far more common than they really are. (2)
(1) Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant, "Effects of prolonged consumption of pornography", Journal of Family Issues; 1988; "Pornography's Impact on Sexual Satisfaction", Journal of Applied Social Psychology; 1988.
(2) Dolf Zillman & Jennings Bryant, "Effects of massive exposure to pornography", in Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein Eds., Pornography and Sexual Aggression; 1984.
# Part One: 80 male and 80 female participants are divided into four subgroups. The "Massive Exposure Group" saw 36 short, non-violent (but degrading and dehumanizing) pornographic films (about 5 hours of film) over six weeks; the "Intermediate Exposure Group" saw 18 short, non-violent pornographic films and 18 regular films over six weeks; and the "No Exposure Group" saw 36 regular films.
# Part Two: All participants read about a rape case and were asked to recommend the length of the prison sentence for the rapist. They were also asked to indicate their support for the women's rights movement on a 0 to 100 scale. Finally, they were asked to estimate the popularity of various sexual acts among the general population.
The results were:
* In recommending a prison term for a rapist: Subjects in the "Massive Exposure Group" chose, on average, prison terms that were half as long as terms recommended by the people in the No Exposure Group. (A five-year sentence versus a ten-year sentence);
* When asked to rate their support for women's rights: Men and women in the "Massive Exposure Group" indicated a lot less support than participants in the "No Exposure Group" (38% versus 76%).
* Men and women in the "Massive Exposure Group" rated anal sex, group sex, and bestiality at least twice as common as did the "No Exposure Group".
* Those in the "Massive Exposure Group" believed that more than twice as many adults had anal intercourse than those in the "No Exposure Group". The "Massive Exposure Group" estimated that 30% of Americans had group sex, while the "No Exposure Group" estimated only 11% did.
* The "Massive Exposure Group" also estimated that 15% of Americans practised S&M, and that 12% of Americans were having sex with animals -- gross estimations of actual sexual practices, according to all available data at the time.
The conclusions were that massive exposure to pornography made rape appear a more trivial offense, which seemed also to parallel a drop in support for women's rights. Also, intensive pornography viewing led to beliefs that unusual sexual acts are far more common than they really are. (2)
(1) Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant, "Effects of prolonged consumption of pornography", Journal of Family Issues; 1988; "Pornography's Impact on Sexual Satisfaction", Journal of Applied Social Psychology; 1988.
(2) Dolf Zillman & Jennings Bryant, "Effects of massive exposure to pornography", in Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein Eds., Pornography and Sexual Aggression; 1984.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Effects of pornography.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12656
I heard of these studies before in a book called Pornified. The general theme of these studies is that heavy porn use leads to a likelihood of:
(1) weaker understanding and appreciation of women, women's issues, and equal rights
(2) false beliefs about rape and sexual violence
(3) exaggerated ideas about sexuality
It doesn't surprise me. However, the lack of research on pornography use means that we have very few studies to use for comparison purposes. So the validity and reliability of these particular studies is still kind of shaky. Until more research is done, it's difficult to accept whether these results are accurate and representative of most porn users.
I'm suspicious of this study. How were the participants chosen? I assume the people who agreed to watch 36 porn films weren't anti-porn, but what about the people who watched 36 features? Also, what do anal sex, group sex, S&M, or bestiality have to do with this? People who watch porn think that more people do these things than people who don't watch porn. So what? Anal sex and group sex aren't inherently bad. Neither is BDSM, but bestiality being more taboo. Still, I don't see how watching vanilla hetero porn makes people into BDSM or bestiality. I bet the people who agreed to watch 36 porns were just kinkier than people who watched 36 features.
The people who watched more porns agreed with these statements more than those who watched features. It is implied that agreement with these shows some lack of morality. Instead, it shows the study's heteronormative bias.
# Promiscuity in men and women is natural and preferable to exclusivity;
# One's sex partners are generally unfaithful;
# Extramarital affairs are acceptable;
# Restraining one's sexual impulses leads to health risks;
I was also wondering if they attempted to measure how much porn the participants watched at home on their own, or whether they were interested in porn (or non-vanilla sex) before the study started.
However, to be a halfway decent study they would have had to assign the two groups randomly, not ask them if they'd rather seen porn or a feature film. But you're right that everyone who signed up for the study would have known they had a chance of seeing porn, and some people may have quit before it came time to assigning groups.
Those measures you cited are heteronormative and a whole lot more, but the following aren't predicated on the same morality and (I think) are valuable:
* Male-dominated relationships are preferable to equal relationships.
* The appearance of their partners;
* Their partners' sexual performance;
* Their partners' willingness to engage in new sex acts;
* Their sex lives in general.
I also agree that one should be totally skeptical. The rest of your post, however, seems to be missing the point. The study shows that those who underwent massive exposure to pornography 1)had altered views of reality (the question of how common certain things were) and 2)were more likely to disagree with the majority on sexual and gender issues (the part you claim is heterosexist). No where in the study does anyone say which views are preferable, just that pornography seems to influence them significantly.
As for how often, on average, people engage in certain types of sex, did they say whose perceptions were more accurate? Those who watched porn or those who didn't? Did they compare it to the Kinsey report or some more recent research to see what people actually do? I mean, in a college situation, just from talking to friends I would conclude that at least 10 or 15% of couples engage in some form of light bondage. I'm not sure I would extrapolate that statistic to the rest of the country, but it doesn't seem to me that its so far fetched in some populations.
Also, it would make sense for people who are into a certain behavior to believe it's more common than it is. Normalizing your behaviors may be an "altered view of reality," but it's often a requirement if you want to do something taboo.
There's no reason to measure people's opinions on promiscuity, cheating and the restraint of sexual impulses unless you use those data to come to a conclusion. It's obvious that the study is saying, "Watching porn will make you more likely to cheat. Cheating is bad, so porn is bad." It's the same with it's question about anal sex. "Porn will make you think about anal sex more. Anal sex is bad, so porn is bad."
Back to my skepticism of this study. The surveys were only given after people had watched the movies. There's nothing that proves that the 36 porn films had any impact on the results. Most people who consume porn have watched hundreds, so 36 wouldn't have any impact on their opinions.
The issue isn't whether the study is correct or not. It's obviously trash. The issue is the treatment of women in the porn and sex industries, and whether porn is wrong from a moral level.
(a) I think in general its ok to gather data without drawing a specific conclusion.
(b) they didn't even give them before and after questionaires? Ouch, I'm embarassed for the person who designed that study.
Sorry, I realize I was stupid to say that data collection for its own sake isn't useful. Regardless, the study makers did have an agenda.
I didn't see the question about whether the commonness of anal sex as saying that anal sex is BAD or immoral in any way. I saw it as another part to the rise "their partners' willingness to engage in new sex acts." There's nothing inherently wrong with anal sex, but our culture frequently portrays it as a way to dominate and humiliate someone (especially in porn). In addition, I think the damage and pain that can caused by anal is likely more than vaginal, so to be in anal can be/is a way to dominate and control the receiving partner. Another odd thing is that a lot of men I've met who watch porn think a girl is a prude if she doesn't want/enjoy anal and think it's ok or normal to pressure a girl into it, or continue if it hurts.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but many survivors I've talked to have an even deeper level of shame/humiliation from anal rape than vaginal. A lot of their abusers as well had an obsession with anal-I know mine did. Hope that's not TMI, I just find it fascinating.
Again, just want to emphasize that anal sex != evil. It's just an easy taboo/cultural hangup for abusers to use as another form of control and domination.
I looked at that site and it's a steaming pile. Clearly the person running that site is not only intellectually dishonest and has a poor grasp of logic, but she is obviously deranged. She's no different from the fundies who want to suppress porn on the grounds that the human body is evil and unclean, and the idea that people would enjoy physical contact is appalling to them.
Mike Wong debunked most of this nonsense on his website:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Porno.html
He has some good points, the main one seeming to be that if there are any negative effects of viewing porn, the same negative effects are caused by viewing lots of mainstream TV and movies. And we don't ban those, and we don't get upset and feel betrayed when our friends or boyfriends watch those.
I also like his list at the bottom about how most porn sucks and could be better. I wonder if sexually active adults who hate porn just haven't seen any good classy porn. There's plenty of tasteful, erotic, egalitarian porn out there. Personally I hate most porn, especially close-ups on genitals-- why would I want to see that? Its not a turn on for me (but if it is for someone else, that's fine).
'Deranged'? Aren't we trying for a higher level of dialogue here?
Yes, attacking the person, rather than what she says, is always the way to go. Yay for ad hominems!
You may be right, but perhaps you could back your claims with a few conrete points rather than relying only on namecalling and other super-mature techniques. List a few of the things that your other website found to be problematic with her work, and we'll probably be more inclined to take you seriously.
I think the other website was just a defense of porn in general, rather than a debunking of that particular site. The guy in the link makes some good points about the usual arguments against porn, but I don't think he addresses this particular study. Unless I missed it? I didn't really look in that much detail.
To be honest, I didn't look at the website that Newbomb Turk linked at all, because his comment was offensive. I'm open to info on either side of the issue - it's an interesting topic. But I tend not to listen to someone whose entire critique consists of "this is such shit/this person is so crazy/stupid/worthless etc that I can't believe anyone would take them seriously..."
I could do a point-by-point rebuttal to the paranoid ravings on that site, but I'll just show a few:
Nevertheless, such a critique is largely censored from the mainstream media. When intelligent, educated, kind, considerate and potentially powerful feminist authors -- having with them a pile of evidence of the harms of pornography -- want to get their articles published in the mainstream press, they are turned down, in order to protect the pornography business from criticism.
The pornography industry is tied to the mainstream media.
Whenever people start whining that nobody is listening to them, it's the sure sign that the person is a crank -just like the 9-11 "Truth" crowd who cries about not being taken seriously. When they work out a conspiracy theory to explain why they're considered a joke, they prove their critics right. What's in it for say, CNN to "support pornography"? Nothing! The same goes for other mainstream media outlets. Mainstream media want nothing to do with the porn industry, except maybe ginning up a bogus controversy to boost ratings. The reason is simple: they are in the pockets of their advertisers, and big-money ads aren't run in porn outlets. The only ads you see in porn are for other porn or sex toys, etc. This is pure, paranoid lunacy.
Pornography is central to the oppression of women.
Tell that to the Taliban.
Pornography is a huge political plot against women! Pornography is a threat to women's rights, dignity, safety and equality.
Yeah, when the mullahs in Iran stone a woman to death for adultery, it's because Ron Jeremy told them to do it.
If pornography is such threat to the freedom and safety of women, why is it that the countries with the most liberal porn laws are the ones where women enjoy more rights, greater freedom and greater personal safety, while countries with harsh laws against porn treat women like dirt? If this crackpot theory were true, wouldn't it be the other way around?
But then, I guess elementary logic is a tool used by Patriarchy and Privilege to keep women down, even when it doesn't.
First of all, knock it the fuck off with your snarky comments about logic being a tool of the patriarchy blah, blah, blah. I invite you to go read the completely disjointed and incoherent rants of various MRA websites. I've toyed with the idea of having my critical thinking students search these sites to see who can count the most logical fallacies on one site for extra credit. If you want bad logic, perusing many MRA sites is like shooting fish in a barrel. It turns out that the use of bad logic to support a position that you're deeply, passionately committed to is equal opportunity when it comes to gender.
As to your other points, this is a big improvement over your earlier comments. However, your logic has a few flaws too. Your claim that anyone who is silenced by the mainstream media must be a crank/conspiracy theorist/whatever simply doesn't follow logically. There's a long and rich history of silencing minority groups in our culture. So I'd think twice before making the blanket statement that "claims to be silenced by the media" -> "crazed conspiracy theorist."
Second, your claim that the only motivating factor behind media coverage is commercial support is problematic. The media is driven by ratings, which influence commercial support. Thus, they make decisions everyday on which stories to cover based on how well they think the stories will be received by viewers. Things that are sensational and salacious attract viewers. Therefore, they might have all kinds of motives for covering porn, and for covering it from certain angles but not others.
Third, you seem to be gripped by the strange idea that oppression of women can only take one form, and that the Taliban has some sort of a monopoly on it. The proposition that women aren't oppressed in our country simply does not follow from the fact that we're not in the habit of stoning women to death for various offenses here. The Taliban/radical Islam has its form and tools of oppression, and our culture has other methods. To claim that because they're not identical they can't both be oppressive is like claiming that a child whose parent is verbally abusive isn't being abused because he's not being hit or kicked. Just because they're not identical doesn't mean they can't be subsets of the same set.
That's not to say that the author of this website isn't wrong about these things, or isn't making unfounded claims. But the points you've made so far don't establish that.
First of all, knock it the fuck off with your snarky comments about logic being a tool of the patriarchy blah, blah, blah. I invite you to go read the completely disjointed and incoherent rants of various MRA websites. I've toyed with the idea of having my critical thinking students search these sites to see who can count the most logical fallacies on one site for extra credit. If you want bad logic, perusing many MRA sites is like shooting fish in a barrel. It turns out that the use of bad logic to support a position that you're deeply, passionately committed to is equal opportunity when it comes to gender.
Funny you should bring up fallacies by complaining that MRA wankers are prone to incoherent nonsense, too -a classic example of tu quoque . Funnier still that you would insinuate that my opposition to that site has anything to do with the author's gender, which is a strawman -another fallacy. Bad logic is bad logic, no matter the plumbing of the one using fallacies to push their point. Of course men resort to illogical bullshit all the time. I argue with fundies, creationists and 9-11 conspiracy nuts all the time and the overwhelming majority of those crackpots are male.
As to your other points, this is a big improvement over your earlier comments. However, your logic has a few flaws too. Your claim that anyone who is silenced by the mainstream media must be a crank/conspiracy theorist/whatever simply doesn't follow logically. There's a long and rich history of silencing minority groups in our culture. So I'd think twice before making the blanket statement that "claims to be silenced by the media" -> "crazed conspiracy theorist."
Not all people who are blacked out by the media are cranks, but whining about lack of coverage, when combined with the "I have knowledge that THEY don't want you to have!" mentality is the calling card for peddlers of pseudo-science and other forms of horseshit. The snide comments about other feminists are a dead giveaway, too.
Second, your claim that the only motivating factor behind media coverage is commercial support is problematic. The media is driven by ratings, which influence commercial support. Thus, they make decisions everyday on which stories to cover based on how well they think the stories will be received by viewers. Things that are sensational and salacious attract viewers. Therefore, they might have all kinds of motives for covering porn, and for covering it from certain angles but not others.
That would depend on the media we're talking about. The major outlets: CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, major papers, radio stations that are owned by corporations do not exist to inform or entertain you. They make their money by selling you, the viewer, reader and listener to their advertisers. Whether you like or appreciate what they give you doesn't matter to them. getting you to look at or listen to their sponsors' ads is what they are all about. Now advertisers DO respond to customers to some extent, and the media try to keep them happy, but you're putting the cart before the horse. That's why shows are often cancelled in spite of high ratings (for example, Murder She Wrote).
What does this have to do with porn? The idea that major media corporations are in bed with the porn industry is laughable because mainstream corporations do not advertise in porn magazines or videos. They know better. One of the reasons Penthouse went bankrupt is because they went hardcore and the liquor and tobacco companies (among others) yanked their advertising. Playboy is about as close to porn as corporate advertisers are willing to go (and anyone who thinks Playboy counts as porn needs to get out more often).
Third, you seem to be gripped by the strange idea that oppression of women can only take one form, and that the Taliban has some sort of a monopoly on it. The proposition that women aren't oppressed in our country simply does not follow from the fact that we're not in the habit of stoning women to death for various offenses here. The Taliban/radical Islam has its form and tools of oppression, and our culture has other methods. To claim that because they're not identical they can't both be oppressive is like claiming that a child whose parent is verbally abusive isn't being abused because he's not being hit or kicked. Just because they're not identical doesn't mean they can't be subsets of the same set.
Another strawman! I was pointing out that fundies don't use pornography to oppress women, with the Taliban being the most extreme example. Quite the opposite: they use laws against "immoral" and "pornographic" books, videos and music to put women "in their place". The places that treat women the worst have the most tyrannical laws against pornography and that's not just a coincidence.
I'm sorry, but claiming that feminists or women in general think they're immune to the laws of logic simply because they are women or because they associate logic with patriarchy is an old method of delegitimizing the words of women. It goes way back before your time, and is still misogynistic. My claim has nothing to do with tu quoque as it's a response to the claim that only women, or feminists, are irrational and ignore the dictates of logic regarding issues about which they feel passionately.
This is still illogical: Some people who complain that they are silenced by the media are cranks and conspiracy theorists; person X complains that she is silenced by the media; therefore, person X is a crank and/or conspiracy theorist. Do you see how that doesn't follow?
Second, I never claimed that any of the news outlets exist to entertain or inform me. What an odd idea. My claim is that they exist to make money. You can only make money by attracting and maintaining advertising contracts. The way to attract and maintain advertising contracts is to maintain high ratings, as nobody wants to pay big money to advertise to a small or nonexistent audience. The best way to maintain high ratings is to cover sensational and salacious material. Many stories about porn may enhance the sensational/salacious nature of your programming, but having any sort of nuanced or well-balanced and thoughtful discussions concerning the impact of porn on society probably isn't sensational/salacious enough to give your ratings a boost...
But you seem to imply that the only connection the MSM could have with porn is to be active corporate sponsors. That simply doesn't follow, and there are a number of ways the porn industry could interact (directly or indirectly) that might influence public opinion concerning porn.
And finally, you must be using a strange definition of "strawman" (but please don't quote Wikipedia to me on the topic). Here's your own way of rephrasing the argument:
I was pointing out that fundies don't use pornography to oppress women, with the Taliban being the most extreme example. Quite the opposite: they use laws against "immoral" and "pornographic" books, videos and music to put women "in their place". The places that treat women the worst have the most tyrannical laws against pornography and that's not just a coincidence.
I can get a couple of different arguments out of this:
"Fundies don't use pornography to oppress women; therefore, porn is not oppressive to women." Of course, in this version you have to add the implied premise "fundies are the only people who oppress women" or something along those lines, in order to make it into a complete argument. Somehow I doubt you're going to agree to that implied premise, but the argument is invalid without it.
An alternative version of it could go like this:
"The places that treat women the worst have the most tyrannical laws against pornography;
Therefore, pornography is not oppressive to women."
This one also needs to have an implied premise articulated. It goes something like this: "Anything that the places that treat women the worst have the most tyrannical laws about is not oppressive to women." Without this premise the conclusion doesn't follow, but this premise is also clearly problematic.
The larger point here is that oppression is not some kind of zero-sum competition. People can be oppressed in many different ways and to many different degrees. And the harshness of the oppression experienced by some other group doesn't cancel out the very real oppression experienced to a lesser degree or in a different form by others. It's really an indefensible view.
But then, I guess elementary logic is a tool used by Patriarchy and Privilege to keep women down, even when it doesn't.
When you attempt to mock a particular website using language of feminist theory like Patriarchy, don't be surprised when your comment is interpreted as referencing feminists in general.
My main purpose of this post was to highlight that it seems probable that porn does have quantifiable effects on the psyche and actions of the viewer: an assertion few porn-viewers appear to feel comfortable with.
I agree that the study was conducted in a heteronormative fashion (probably a byproduct of its 80's origin) and that the website it came from puts the issue rather simplistically, but, that said, I think they both have some merit.
I was recently reading an old post about the tween book Twilight, where many people were arguing that the distorted perception of reality and relationships the book portrayed could easily have negative impacts on the way young women perceive their partners. However, in other contexts, anyone who seems to link fantasies or porn to an effect on the psyche of a person is often denigrated for their view.
I don't think porn should be banned (censorship is always risky and ineffective), but I do think that we should consider the effect of porn (and other common fantasies) on the way we think before we equate pro-porn with being sex-positive.
Both questioning and Turk are pitting either their lack of understanding or an experiential blog, or both, against research published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
1) The full papers will have explained the methodology and the limits of the conclusions (standard requirements for publication in a journal). The very fact that it was published strongly suggests that the research methods passed muster with people who possess respected scientific credentials. Questioning's doubts, in the absence of specific criticisms, are out of place.
2) Turk's critical "source" is a blogger who likes porn who offers his own opinion -- self-described as a "rant" -- rather than research to counter a number of straw-men arguments.
Nuff said.
Debunked? The guy is just providing his arguments--these are opinions, not factual evidence that is "debunking" these claims. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that a lot of his justifications stem from whining "well, other forms of media are spawning other negative effects...they're doing it, why can't porn? Whaaaa!"
I am particularly disgusted with the so-called "debunked" claim #1 "Pornography exploits children." You don't have to watch child porn to exploit children--be it watching a child actor or behaving inappropriately toward someone else's child or your own! My father had (and continues t have) a massive pornography addiction and he 1) started buying me provocative clothing reminiscent of pornography starlets (i.e., we're talking faux-leather corset tops porn stars often wear complete without a jacket, complete with faux leather mini-skirts) when I was 13, 2) watched pornography every night, even when I was a scared young child (we're talking 5 years old) wanting to crawl into bed because I had a bad dream (when I would stay with him after my parent's divorce); if I woke up, he just yelled at me to go back to sleep and 3) when I was a teenager, if I ever got dressed up he would insist of taking millions of pictures of how I looked. I later found these polaroids in his drawer next to nude polaroids of his ex-girlfriends.
So, I say bullshit to that source. You may not watch child pornography, but you also don't have to see child porn (as opposed to regular porn) to behave sexually inappropriately toward your OWN CHILD, be there actual sexual abuse involved or not. I was "lucky" to have not been abused by someone whose home was eventually (by the time I was 18) completely covered with Playboy, Penthouse and porn videos.
The study you cited is pretty old, but there are more recent ones with similar results. Not surprising, but porn has become such a basic part of our culture that it behooves us to figure out what's going on behaviorally and physiologically.
N.B. During the last few porn discussions on feministing I was dismayed that people who call themselves feminists in effect condoned one of the most powerful misogynistic institutions we know (the sex industry) because... I'm not going to speculate why at the moment. Also, I am dismayed that sex and porn are so conflated in the US that "sex-positive" means "pro-porn". Hopefully scientists prioritize studies like this, and interpret them in light of (and as part-and-parcel with) the puritanical moral programs regarding sex (abstinence-only sex 'education', etc.) which so common in the US.
The relationship between puritanical moral attitudes and consumption of/attitudes toward porn that you mention is interesting. A few weeks ago I heard on NPR that a recent study showed that people in more conservative areas actually consume more porn. I believe Utah came out on top of the list for porn consumption.
It made me laugh, anyway.
Yeah, I read that somewhere too. I think they may have even been ahead in gay porn, or google searches for gay porn, or something like that.
Was that based on money spent on porn, or some other metric? No one I know buys porn. With the internet, it's not necessary. If it's based on money spent on porn, then it could be a reflection of views on piracy, and computer literacy.
I don't have a citation but if I recall correctly it was based on internet searches for porn.
Actually here's one, the first hit on google for "utah porn" (I may have some safesearch settings on because I didn't get any hits that looked like actual porn sites).
http://www.pcworld.com/article/160566/utah_online_porn_capital_of_america.html
It looks like in this study they were measuring people who pay for porn subscriptions online. So yeah, that doesn't cover every type of porn-- some people will only go to free sites, some will buy physical videos, etc, but its a pretty big sample.
The "Sociological Images" website had mentioned the paper you're talking about.
http://tinyurl.com/cr6fas
Interestingly, they use it as an example of how studies can be warped by bloggers and journalists.
At that link it says there was little difference between states. Which is still an interesting point-- extremely conservative states like Utah having *slightly* higher rates of porn subscription is still interesting, since a lot of people would have expected the rates to be markedly lower than in more liberal states.
Why must you be anti-porn to be a feminist?
I am a feminist. I have been a feminist my whole life. I am also anti-misogynistic porn. I am against violence toward women. I am pro-porn. These things do not conflict, for me.
Porn is as old as prostitution, and both will continue to exist in one form or another, so why not make it our own? One thing that my heterosexual male partner and I have been frustrated by in our search for enjoyable porn is a dearth of woman-friendly het porn.
I mean, I enjoy honest to goodness, queer-friendly and woman-friendly lesbian porn quite a bit (see http://www.abbywinters.com/, for example- NSFW), but I'd love to see a porn which features a man and a woman where he doesn't defile her or hurt her or tell her to shut up or strangle her and in which 88% of it is not her going down on him.
Everybody's different, but this feminist is anti-porn because of the reprehensible -- and reprehensibly misogynistic -- social, economic, and institutional framework within which porn, and the larger sex industry as we know it, exists. One of the issues is, like you address, that there is nothing resembling equal access for women.
so why not make it our own?
Not a rhetorical question: how do we, and is it even possible to, dismantle the master's house with his tools, and build another one on-site, in this situation? Because though I can't imagine how it could be accomplished, I think it'd be awesome to have porn without the misogynistic ish and without the ish context.
elektra, are you also against queer porn as well? I don't like most het porn because it's all about the man's pleasure. The women never seem into it, cries of "fuck me" notwithstanding. Gay and kink-oriented porn seems to be more egalitarian. I haven't seen much lesbian porn (not girl-girl made for men), but I would assume that would be better as well.
Once it's established that porn can be made well, without being degrading to the performers, can you accept the possibility that vanilla het porn could be made this way?
Yes; clearly, I'm not a connoisseuse, but I haven't been party to any egalitarian queer or kink porn. However, I've known men (no women) who've worked in (non-egalitarian) queer porn and (mostly) were able to leave the industry, and have participated personally in BDSM for several years, so while my frame of reference is limited in this regard I'm not a total stranger.
Knowing the above-mentioned men clued me into the fact that men can be exploited as badly as women are.
Once it's established that porn can be made well, without being degrading to the performers, can you accept the possibility that vanilla het porn could be made this way?
Yes! provided that the culture surrounding it is not degrading or otherwise harmful to either performers or consumers, advertent or inadvertent (to modify consumers).
Just as it's possible to be a barista without working for Starbucks, it is also possible to make and enjoy sexy movies without being exploitative. I believe that what it comes down to is consumer awareness. We often make an effort to be "green" these days- why not make an effort to be lady-friendly as well?
Also, I think it's important to separate sexy material from the Sex Industry. Lets not consume material put out by exploitative jerks! Lets consume sexy material put out by feminists and for feminist consumption! Lets embrace sexy films about all kinds of sexy people into all kinds of sexy times- queer, straight, fat, thin, EVERYTHING.
Now, what I'm arguing for is largely nonexistent, or at least, hard to find at the moment. Perhaps I'm wearing my rose-colored glasses a little too tightly, but it is POSSIBLE. It CAN BE DONE.
First, we must overturn the outdated idea that misogynistic men are the only consumers of porn. Even PANDAS like porn. Why can't women?
I don't like porn BECAUSE, as you acknowledge, it IS so misogynistic. Maybe that can change, and hey, if it does give me a call. But I'm not invested in it enough at this point to care to change it. I simply don't consume it, and I refuse to be in a relationship with anyone who does
After reading lots of comments/posts on feminist sites, I would not come to the conclusion at all that you have to be anti-porn to be feminist. I usually see the opposite, people rushing to say that they don't think there is anything inherently wrong with porn. I also don't think there is anything wrong with the concept of porn, or the bit of feminist/queer etc porn out there, but I believe there is something wrong with mainstream porn (98% of the stuff out there). When people on these sites talk about their boyfriends looking at porn, and they have a problem with it, I totally understand because chances are, their boyfriends are looking at porn that's either is misogynist, or has elements of misogyny.
That said, I don't think misogynist porn should be banned (though violent porn is another matter). I'm usually not a fan of censorship, but that doesn't mean we have to be ok with it (there are lots of things feminists are not ok with, but don't think should be illegal).
Why must you be anti-porn to be a feminist?
You don't. But you can critique something, and especially certain forms of it, without being against it in general. Usually the "you're so totally anti-porn and sex-negative" thing is just used as a conversation stopper.
Every argument against porn applies in spades to regular movies and other forms of entertainment.
You have an industry where people just out of high school or college get sucked in, thinking they're going to be "stars" and rich enough to retire early -and the vast majority are used up and cast aside once their bodies are no longer as fit as they once were. Many end up on the job market without any real job skills and have a hard time earning a living.
The paragraph above could be construed as a description of the porn business, but is in fact a description of professional sports. The difference is, porn stars aren't left paralyzed, crippled or brain damaged like say, football players.
They also don't get killed on the sets -as opposed to regular movies- by improperly loaded prop guns (like Brandon Lee when he was shooting The Crow) or a badly designed helicopter stunt (which beheaded Vic Morrow while shooting The Twilight Zone).
Actually, sex workers as a rule retire with one or more of the following: drug addictions, bodies ravaged by continuous plastic surgeries, psychiatric disorders, and social support that is tenuous at best. And I find it ridiculous to compare, even implicitly, the salaries and future prospects of pro athletes and mainstream film actors and actresses to those of sex-workers across the board.
You're using a rather loose definition of "sex worker", I think.
What's so ridiculous about the comparison between porn stars and athletes? A large number of former pro athletes die early from injuries sustained on the job. Andre Waters, a retired football player, was examined by a coroner when he died at the ripe old age of 44. He had taken so many concussions that his brain was in worse condition than that of an 80-year-old in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. Many end up addicted to drugs that were actively pushed on them in order to keep their jobs, such as Walt Sweeny, who was given speed and steroids by the team doctor who told him they were vitamins. Others are left quadriplegics. Others have to have limbs amputated...
...and all as a direct result of injuries they received while playing.
It's not just football players. Boxers and hockey players have many of the same problems. Hell, even pro wrestlers get chewed up and spit out once their bodies no longer perform well enough to sell tickets.
And yet there's NONE of this worrying over them.
sex workers as a rule retire with one or more of the following: drug addictions, bodies ravaged by continuous plastic surgeries, psychiatric disorders
Who says? How is that a rule, do you have any concrete data, or is this just your opinion?
I hate this recurrent argument that sex= anything else. Sex equals NOTHING else. It is unique in its physical, psychological, and sociological impact. I know you honestly don't believe that being coerced into sex for money (the 'just out of high school' thing) is equivalent to being coerced into signing a record contract. If that's the case, then- hell- why isn't rape equivalent to breach of contract? I know I don't have to answer that.
Even non-sexual physical injury is in no way similar to sexual abuse. And being coerced into sex IS sexual abuse.
Along this line, the main reason I don't watch porn is actually out of concern for the performers. The pro-'sex' feminists who argue that the sex industry can be really great are so deep in their own privilege they can't see reality. An even if you DO enjoy stripping, the lady at the next pole who's struggling with poverty and addiction would probably be better off without you supporting the industry that is destroying her.
/rant
Comparing and contrasting two different things, by it's very nature is going to show differences. Obviously sex is different from sports. But there are enough similarities between the way porn stars are treated and the way athletes are treated to make it a valid comparison.
pro-'sex' feminists who argue that the sex industry can be really great are so deep in their own privilege they can't see reality. An even if you DO enjoy stripping, the lady at the next pole who's struggling with poverty and addiction would probably be better off without you supporting the industry that is destroying her.
Thank you for putting this so succinctly!
I thought the summation of the study sounded very biased and one-sided, but I haven't checked out the site.
I'm sure that some points that are made are valid and that the effects of porn deserves further research. The problem I have with this is that over-arching statements about how pornography must always be anti-woman and anti-feminist are ridiculous. I haven't done much commenting on the porn-posts, since I'm not much of a porn viewer (just not a turn on for me), but I refuse to assume that every single piece of pornography must be misogynistic, or that it causes all viewers to lose their respect for women automatically.
Pornography is not created in a vacuum - it is influenced both by its producers/directors and (indirectly) the society that consumes it. I don't think we should simply shrug and say "oh well, that's just the way people want it" when something is excessively misogynistic and violent, (that's also over-simplified and naive) but we shouldn't equate everything (such as the site linked to in an above comment) to that same violent and misogynistic strain.
By lumping everything together as misogynistic and anti-woman, we effectively remove ourselves from any meaningful discussion on pornography, and also lose any ability to effect positive change in the industry (like, say, creating demand for more productions that are pro-woman).
I really agree with you. Porn is often very racist as well, but that doesn't mean it has to be. When the market for porn is misogynistic and racist, the product will be. Porn that's not directed at assholes tends to be better.
If you google "Neil Malamuth" he has a number of publications reviewing 30 years of research on the effects of porn. He mainly focuses on connections between porn and sexual aggression.
The basic summary is that generally porn doesn't effect attitudes toward sexual violence in most men. But repeated exposure to violent porn can have an effect, and there is a subset of men who are more affected by porn in this way.
There are also studies of the effects of porn on relationships (e.g., google "contrast effects" and "Doug Kenrick), but the effect sizes are generally pretty small. Of course there is always a small subsample that is more affected.
So while I agree that porn can portray women as objects and reinforce ideas of male dominance, I'm skeptical of the rather dramatic claims made in the original post.
Nothing radical (and dare I say for the greater good) is ever accomplished without rose-colored glasses!
I'm totally with you on consumer awareness. I think a huge issue with the sex industry, like the slave trade and genocidal programmes, is that deep down most people of all stripes believe that sex workers deserve to be treated inhumanely. Also, I believe that those same people are (willfully?) blind to the socioeconomic realities that drive most people to that kind of work while at the same time willing to take advantage of those circumstances to enforce things like industry-standard plastic surgery, etc.
God, this is like universal healthcare. If a sea change like you describe could be managed, porn's audience itself might change... and its social effects with it, for good purposes.
Thank you for posting this ray of hope, rose-tinted or not. It seems like everything I read regarding porn is either nonchalant, reeking of willful denial, or deconstructionist wailing (to which pile I contribute) -- what we need is to recognize the problem and to pursue a real solution.
Sorry, xenu01, this was supposed to be for you.
That site was really bad. I am pro-porn and I am a feminist. I watch it, and so does my het fiance, sometimes together and sometimes not. Even some male-dominant porn and rape porn and the like isn't so bad sometimes, because it is FANTASY. Pornography is just like movies in that you get to watch this thing that you have a fantasy about but may or may not condone in 'real life'. For example, in the movie Hide and Seek, Robert Deniro is portrayed as the protaganist, however *spoiler* in the end we find out that he actually murdered his wife. If you enjoy this movie it doesn't mean you condone murder or psychotic behavior in reality. I also thought that the study sounded very biased. As I have said, I watch pornography, but I am in favor of extreme punishments for rapists and fully support the women's rights movement. Also people say that male violent porn is terrible, but I have come across (by accident) some things in which women are dominant and abusive over men. Sometimes men enjoy this type and sometimes women do, just like sometimes women can enjoy rape fantasy porn. Also there have been studies which conclude that violent tv does not make a person violent. It can increase violent behavior in people who are already agressive in nature. If we substitute porn for tv there, I'm sure there would be the same findings.
But probably most people here would have similar objections to the way women are generally portrayed on tv and in movies to the way they're portrayed in mainstream (by which I mean male-gaze-oriented, male-desire-centric) porn. Repeatedly being exposed to images that portray women and men in a certain rigid sort of way is bound to effect your worldview and expectations. How could it not?
I happen to hate chick flicks for the same reason I distrust mainstream porn. And since an important part of feminism is a critique of pop culture, both porn and chick flicks are fair game.
Yeah, I think a lot of people here would have critiques of both. But the difference (in the context of some recent community posts) is that no one is saying they feel betrayed and worthless because their partner watches romantic comedies, and are now considering dumping them.
But a number of people have posted here questioning the commitment of their partner/friend/whatever to feminist values after hearing him/her express beliefs or values that map onto those that are exemplified by chick flicks. I mean, if a man said something to the effect that all women are pining after a man and their life will never be complete/worthwhile until they land one, most of us wouldn't be interested in having a relationship with him. And some posters here aren't interested in relationships with men whose sexuality seems to be very tied up with porn, as they view this as a behavioral endorsement of the values embodied by porn. You may think (as I do) that this is a bit of a stretch, but it's not a different in kind from choosing not to date someone who embraces traditional attitudes toward gender in other areas.
Well, I don't think the parallels quite line up there. I wouldn't date a guy who expected the real world and real women to be like in porn, nor would I date a guy who expected real life to be like a chick flick or action movie. But that's different than just watching them.
So, if someone was upset with their boyfriend for saying "all women are pining after a man and their life will never be complete/worthwhile until they land one," that would parallel with someone whose boyfriend said something like "why won't you let me do [whatever sex act]? Everyone in porn does it, you should enjoy it." But it wouldn't be the same as him just watching it when she's not home.
My advice is that people who are really upset by their partners porn use should try investigating classier porn (that they might both like better) before they give the relationship up as a lost cause.
Thanks for posting this information. I think it is important for feminists today to discuss pornography and how modern pornography effects gender issues. On a personal level, I don't allow it within my relationships for so many reasons. I can see avenues of pornography that may not propagate the sexual ideation of women as objects, but realistically, that is not the kind of porn that a huge segment of society watches or uses. The porn industry booms on subjugation. That being said, it will never go away as long as there is freedom of speech, expression, and press; I hope those freedoms exist until time runs out and I am really not in favor of censorship.
However, as feminists, I think it is important to at least look at the idea of modern, mainstream pornography and the ways it negatively affects everyday sexuality. On one hand, we do have our dearly cherished culture of sexual freedom, a freedom we do not want compromised. On the other hand, we have people, especially women, censoring their sexuality to become more emulative of porn culture. Porn also encourages or shames men into feeling like they need to be especially attracted to one particular type of person or thing rather than another. Let's not forget how normalizing mainstream forms of pornography marginalizes the LGBT community.
Some say pornography is great because it encourages masturbation over promiscuity (which can be risky), but there are so many consequences. As a marriage and family counselor, I see so many couples come in where one or both partners are using pornography to create false, distant intimacy while ignoring the intimacy available in their relationship. I would almost say that it would be better for someone to live promiscuously within the boundaries of safe sex than make pornography a habit within their lifestyle.
Searching for critiques of the above research, I found references in The First Amendment and the Web: The Internet Porn Panic and Restricting Indecency in Cyberspace (Quote is from page 3)
My main purpose of this post was to highlight that it seems probable that porn does have quantifiable effects on the psyche and actions of the viewer: an assertion few porn-viewers appear to feel comfortable with.
I agree that the study was conducted in a heteronormative fashion (probably a byproduct of its 80's origin) and that the website it came from puts the issue rather simplistically, but, that said, I think they both have some merit.
I was recently reading an old post about the tween book Twilight, where many people were arguing that the distorted perception of reality and relationships the book portrayed could easily have negative impacts on the way young women perceive their partners. However, in other contexts, anyone who seems to link fantasies or porn to an effect on the psyche of a person is often denigrated for their view.
I don't think porn should be banned (censorship is always risky and ineffective), but I do think that we should consider the effect of porn (and other common fantasies) on the way we think before we equate pro-porn with being sex-positive.
I keep forgetting that my SO is a college professor. I have access to research papers! (If only I'd realized this when this thread was active.) (I've typed the quotes from the paper, as I don't know of an easy way to do OCR from a PDF document. Hopefully typos are minimal.)
The first paper I grabbed was: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values", Dolf Zillmann & Jennings Bryant, Journal of Family Issues Vol. 9 No. 4, 1988. (This paper covers the portion of the study related to analysis of data from the Value-of-Marriage Survey responses.) (No, I am not planning to review the remaining papers.)
The introduction is summarized as follows:
The Discussion section starts with:
(The introduction contains a lengthy explanation of the "characteristic content of pornography." I will briefly summarize their definition of that content as being casual, no-strings-attached, anonymous sexual engagements.)
The Discussion paragraph related to what I considered to be the most significant result from this paper listed in the OP is thus:
Questions #33 through #36 were combined to measure attitudes of gender dominance and servitude. The questions were as follows:
By my reading, #35 (and possibly #36) are the only actual "ought" or "preferable" (term used in the OP) questions relating to GD&S.
For #35, the scale is -5 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The result was M = 1.62 for the exposure group, and M = 0.26 for the control group.
For #36, the scale was not given. Mean values for students vs. nonstudents were given (with students being more approving of equality), but mean values for exposure vs. control groups were not given.
p < 0.005 was given for #33 through #36 combined. p < 0.05 was given for #33 through #36 individually
The Discussion paragraph that I felt best expressed the viewpoint of the authors is thus:
My conclusion: I find it curious that a feminist website would include research that specifically addresses the effect of pornography on (conservative religious) "family values" in its compendium of harms caused by pornography. Strange bedfellows indeed!
###
Cecilieaux made comments relating to peer review. My responses:
a) (Regarding the value of peer-review) I was disappointed that the peer reviewers (not to mention the editor) managed to overlook the omission of details regarding what is arguably one of the most important questions in the survey (#36). (I don't really care, for example, that the exposure group agreed more strongly that extensive premarital sexual experience helps marriage.)
b) The last paragraph begins: "Clearly, the findings we have presented cannot be discussed in a value vacuum. Dependent on the reader's values regarding sexuality and marriage, they will be welcome news, decadent aberrations, or anything in between." Is this what is meant by "the limits of the conclusions?"