|
Updated: 07/22/2005
Sexual Imagery, Part I
|
It is just assumed that the effects of explicit sexual imagery are negative. Thus, it is reasoned, society is obliged to take measures to control access to these images. But, there is a problem. Contrary to popular opinion, empirical research does not support a relationship between nonviolent sexual imagery (including adult pornography) and sex crimes. At the same time, as we will see, there are negative aspects to pornography—but they may not be what you think.
Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crimes. Even though millions of dollars have been spent trying to establish a link, the "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious beliefs and resulting social attitudes than on the findings of objective research. For example, it is assumed that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual crime. Although those who commit sex crimes may collect pornography, 99 percent of people who collect pornography do not commit sex crimes—just as 99 percent of the people who collect guns don't kill people. Most of the people who collect pornography are married, white males over 30 with average incomes — about the same demographics as gun collectors, stamp collectors, and coin collectors. The difference, of course, is in the perception of "morality." Confounding any simple cause-and-effect between pornography and sex crime is the fact that when some countries legalized pornography, sex crimes in the country decreased. For example, when Denmark removed all obscenity laws, the incidence of sex crimes declined by nearly 50 percent. (Some of this could be traced to the fact that there then were fewer sex-related laws to break.)
Although many studies have been done on pornography over the years, we'll confine ourselves to several major, reputable studies. (Note that throughout this discussion we're referring to pornography involving freely-consenting adults, not pornography involving nonconsensual sex or children.)
Of course, this statement was not only politically unpopular, it incensed people who were convinced that the research would find a link between sexual imagery and rape and sexual crime. Hoping that additional research would find different results, another government-funded U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was instituted in 1970. However, this commission concluded: "[We] find no evidence that exposure to or the use of sexual explicit material plays a significant role in the causation of social or individual harms." Some 16 years later another U.S. commission was formed. Apparently trying to insure that the results would be more politically acceptable, Attorney General Edwin Meese (who was known as an outspoken opponent of pornography) was put in charge of the study. After much controversy about the data and charges of politically tainted conclusions, the commission stated, "There is a causal relationship between exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behavior directed toward women." (Note the relationship is between sexually violent materials and aggressive behavior.) But even this conclusion prompted considerable debate within the commission, itself. Two women members, Ellen Levine, Woman's Day editor and Dr. Judith Becker, associate professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, interpreted the data differently. After reviewing the same data they concluded: "There are no scientific studies that show that exposure to nonviolent sexual material causes a person to commit a sexual crime or become more sexually aggressive." Dr. Becker, who was also serving as director of the Sexual Behavior Clinic of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, told the New York Times, "I've been working with sex offenders for 10 years and have reviewed the scientific literature, and I don't think a casual link exists between pornography and sex crimes." Some of the scientists quoted in the Meese Commission to support their anti-pornography findings disassociated themselves from the final report and charged that their research had been misrepresented. The British have also investigated the alleged link between sexual materials and sex crime. After considerable study they issued the following conclusion: "We unhesitatingly reject the suggestion that the available statistical information for England and Wales lends any support at all to the argument that pornography acts as a stimulus to the commission of sexual violence." A report by the Danish Council of Forensic Medicine concluded, "No scientific experiment exists which can lay a basis for the assumption that pornography or 'obscene' pictures and films contribute to the committing of sexual offenses by normal adults or young people." The term "normal" is significant. In these studies they were not talking about people with psychological problems. With these people findings indicate that pornography may either help or hinder their condition, depending upon the nature of their problems.
Throughout this discussion we've been referring to nonviolent sexual content. Some critical distinctions need to be made in this regard. Early in the development of the Worldwide Web pornography became the most profitable of all the web-based businesses. In fact, more pornographic movies are produced each year than mainstream films. As a result of the demand, a profusion of pornographic web sites sprung up. (A look at the economics underlying the success of VHS rentals reveals this medium was also fueled in large measure by X-rated materials.) Because of the great amount of money being made in pornographic web sites, they have become highly competitive, each trying to outdo the other in ever more explicit and shocking content, just as mainstream films are now trying to outdo each other with ever more shocking violent content. In trying to outdo each other in sexual content, some Internet sites now feature acts of violence, and depictions of sadistic and nonconsensual sex acts (rape). It is important to note that the studies we've previously cited relate to consensual, nonviolent sexual material. Once we move beyond this to real or staged depictions of nonconsensual sex acts, the research is much different. The effect of film and TV violence is important to consider in this regard. Those who attack pornographic materials typically cite sexual deviants, including one or two infamous serial killers, who reported viewing—or being obsessed by—violent sexual material from an early age. It should also be noted that most of these killers also had a fascination with guns, knives and torturous murder—not to mention having major psychological problems. At the same time, the majority of normal adults encounter pornographic materials without antisocial consequences. Interestingly, some of the most conservative areas of the United States view the highest percentage of pornographic materials.
An Obsession With Pornography Does pornography become an obsession with some people? Yes, in some cases, although studies indicate that the percentage is very small. Some men (and a few women) spend hours collecting and viewing pornography. Although there are disturbed individuals who act out obsessions, the evidence indicates that for normal individuals even an obsession with pornography doesn't lead to antisocial behavior. In a small percentage of cases subjects become obsessed with pornography and interest does not wane as it normally does with most individuals. It should go without saying that long-standing obsessions of any sort, be they with pornography, guns, knives, feelings of revenge, or whatever, are basically morbific. For a few unstable individuals this obsession may be acted out. As in the case of most obsessions, individuals who continue to be plagued by any obsession should seek professional help. The addictive aspect of pornography will be covered later.
The fact that the viewing of pornography creates guilt in many individuals cannot be denied. This guilt is based largely on deep-seated sex-is-sin attitudes that can be traced back in Judeo-Christian cultures to the original Jewish scriptures, which later became Christian scriptures. According to biblical scholars these sexual prohibitions were in large measure originally intended to keep the Jewish race "pure" and to protect church and personal property. The sexual repression and guilt (and the clandestine behavior involved) can drive a bit of a wedge between partners. Guilt often hinders communication between the partners, opening even wider gap in the relationship. Although pornography may not "kill" love totally, it can raise the erotic threshold to a point where a partner may seem less sexually desirable. At the same time, it needs to be noted that the effects of guilt are not an issue for individuals who grow up without equating pornography with sin. Thus, the previously cited conclusions by the presidential commission on pornography seem to be supported: the real problem is not sexual imagery itself, but, "the inability or reluctance of people in our society to be open and direct in dealing with sexual matters." Before concluding this section it needs to be noted that where there is open and guilt-free communication about sex in a relationship, couples often find that erotic stimulation in photos (for men) and stories (for women) can enhance their shared sexual experiences.
There is a common argument that pornography is degrading to women. If this is true, and if we don't assume a dual standard based on an archaic attitude about women or a belief that sex is degrading in itself, pornography must also be degrading to the men involved. The dual standard aspect of pornography is almost never addressed. For another answer to this issue we can turn to the glut of amateur pornographic videos where women willingly take part in pornography without material compensation. Thousands of women have elected to start their own web sites featuring still photos or webcams and X-rated content of themselves. Many critics cite pressure from men or the monetary compensation involved. However, in many cases neither of these elements is present and the women appear to be motivated by what is commonly termed "exhibitionism"—a motivation that is clearly stronger in these cases than any feelings about being "degraded." In the final analysis the "degrading" aspects of pornography are based on negative views about sex that have been inculcated by many religions—views that some religious scholars feel were designed to serve the interests of male domination and the social and racial needs of a bygone era. (At one time, for example, prostitution and having multiple wives were an accepted part of the Jewish tribal culture and "adultery" only applied to women.) Most of these attitudes are related to the inferior and even base role apportioned to women by the Judeo-Christian scriptures. However, scholars such as Prof. Robert McElvaine feel that this is very much at odds with true Christian concepts, "but the men who took control of the Christian Church in the first few centuries did their best to obscure the role of women." Even though the views have long been abandoned by most Judeo-Christians, the Bible contains many strong anti-woman views—views that in todays' society would consider heinous—even highly illegal. At the same time the spirit of these views have influenced Judeo-Christianity for centuries—and among fundamentalists groups still do to some extent. Although some women are blatantly "anti-sex," many women hold a much different view. For example, a leading advocate of women's rights, Nadine Strossen, effectively establishes the woman's viewpoint on this issue in a well- researched book, Defending Pornography—Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. Among the many positive reviews of the book is one by Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW (the National Organization of Women). DeCrow says, "Nadine Strossen crushes forever the myths that sexually explicit materials are harmful to women or inherently sexist, and that if one is against sexism, one is against sex. Defending Pornography shows why feminists must be the most ardent defenders of free expression." Another well-reviewed and extensively-researched book is XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, by Wendy McElroy. Ms. McElroy takes up the common complaints against the sex industry from the standpoint of the women involved.
The "Objectification" of Women The phrase, "treating women as sex objects" has been heard for decades. As many commercials show, the same phrase can now be applied to men—although our sexual programming predisposes us to see women as the only ones harmed. Much of today's advertising is based on perpetuating the myth that the value and desirability of a woman is directly related to her appearance and sexual desirability. Thus, when pornography is criticized for treating people as sex objects—that is, objectifying people—we are not exactly entering new territory; we are only making the sex component blatantly obvious. There is little doubt that pornography treats people as sex objects. At the same time we must admit that sports largely treat people as "objects of athletic prowess," and, at the other end of the scale, academia treats professors as "objects of intellect."
The fact that there is no empirical evidence that sexual materials cause sex crimes does not stop those who would like to politically exploit this emotionally charged issue. If a large number of people want to believe there is a relationship between sexual imagery and sex crimes, then it is just good politics to cater to those beliefs. Those who feel that this is an infringement on personal values and beliefs are typically silent, lest they be ostracized for condoning "immorality." Out of fear of being associated with immorality, politicians are afraid to suggest that many of the sex laws that are laughable in today's society be repealed.
(Click on "more" for the second half of this section.)To Home Page
© 2005, All Rights Reserved
|
