Some thoughts on internet pornography
The internet has become a mainstay of contemporary society, a virtually indispensable tool for education and research. It provides ready access to information, opinions, news, entertainment, products, services, email, chat, and, of course, pornography.
In recent years, sexually explicit pictures, literature, and movies intended primarily for the purpose of eliciting sexual arousal have become easily downloadable from the internet. The increased availability of such materials has added a new dimension to the age old debate about the effects of such material on viewers and societies. The arguments are familiar.
Religionists sometimes insist that the acts depicted in pornography are immoral, and that they entice those who view them to harbor sinful desires or commit immoral or sinful acts. Others avoid the morality issue by arguing that pornography promotes unhealthy attitudes and behavior among those who view it regularly or excessively.
Some express concern that pornography, particularly in its more extreme or violent forms might inspire or promote antisocial behavior, especially violence against women. Some feminists argue that whether or not pornography leads to violence, it is inherently degrading to women, promoting male dominance and a view of women as sex-objects.
The “pornography as catharsis” perspective proposes that exposure to pornography acts as a “relief valve,” preventing the deviant acts others suggest it causes. In her web article, “The Porn Myth,” post-feminist author Naomi Wolf suggests that, far from inducing men to rape women, pornography makes men less interested in traditional sex. According to Wolf, "The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as 'porn-worthy.’” She supports this absurd argument with anecdotal evidence of conversations she claims to have had with “young women” on “college campuses.”
According to Wolf, “…how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?” She can’t be serious!
Wolf, in my view, seems to be describing a fetishistic disorder, in which a person develops an abnormal obsession with an inanimate object, like shoes or women’s underwear, and becomes incapable of becoming aroused in the absence of the object, in this case pornographic materials. Although such cases undoubtedly exist, it is a safe bet that they are not representative of “a whole generation of men,” as Wolf suggests.
While Wolf’s analysis seems rather extreme, the possibility of adverse effects for some consumers of pornography cannot be automatically discounted. I’m thinking of those whose primary source of knowledge about sex comes from pornography. Such material can clearly be misleading.
When my generation was coming of age in the early ‘70s, we admittedly gawked at the nudes in the pages of men’s magazines like “Playboy” and “Penthouse”, but also had access to popular, authoritative works like David Ruben’s “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex,” and Alex Comfort’s “The Joy of Sex” with all those tasteful illustrations. I wonder if today’s youth have access to similar resources, or if they get their sex education instead from watching porn.
Because pornographic sites must compete in an overcrowded market worth billions, many try to distinguish themselves by pushing the envelope in depicting extreme or otherwise unconventional sex acts. As a consequence, young, immature, impressionable, and/or sexually naïve individuals might develop bizarre ideas concerning the prevalence and acceptability of certain deviant activities in the general population.
The psychological literature on the effects of pornography at present appears inconclusive. Although some correlational studies suggest an association between pornography, especially violent pornography, and a potential for sexual violence, it goes beyond the limits of this research to suggest that pornography causes such behavior. Pornography is, after all, only one factor among many that may influence a person to behave aggressively. Nevertheless, I don’t think we can on the basis of research rule out the possibility that violent pornography could have adverse effects on some people. At the very least, it seems neither flattering, nor beneficial to women.
Because the literature provides no clear answers, it is easy for unscrupulous or unsophisticated individuals to misrepresent psychological findings to support their own respective political agendas. This can result in public confusion and misunderstanding of the issues. Those who cite scientific research in support of censorship go beyond the limits of current research. Besides, if history is any indication, prohibition of commodities that are in demand serves only to increase their allure, while eroding personal liberty.
In recent years, sexually explicit pictures, literature, and movies intended primarily for the purpose of eliciting sexual arousal have become easily downloadable from the internet. The increased availability of such materials has added a new dimension to the age old debate about the effects of such material on viewers and societies. The arguments are familiar.
Religionists sometimes insist that the acts depicted in pornography are immoral, and that they entice those who view them to harbor sinful desires or commit immoral or sinful acts. Others avoid the morality issue by arguing that pornography promotes unhealthy attitudes and behavior among those who view it regularly or excessively.
Some express concern that pornography, particularly in its more extreme or violent forms might inspire or promote antisocial behavior, especially violence against women. Some feminists argue that whether or not pornography leads to violence, it is inherently degrading to women, promoting male dominance and a view of women as sex-objects.
The “pornography as catharsis” perspective proposes that exposure to pornography acts as a “relief valve,” preventing the deviant acts others suggest it causes. In her web article, “The Porn Myth,” post-feminist author Naomi Wolf suggests that, far from inducing men to rape women, pornography makes men less interested in traditional sex. According to Wolf, "The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as 'porn-worthy.’” She supports this absurd argument with anecdotal evidence of conversations she claims to have had with “young women” on “college campuses.”
According to Wolf, “…how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?” She can’t be serious!
Wolf, in my view, seems to be describing a fetishistic disorder, in which a person develops an abnormal obsession with an inanimate object, like shoes or women’s underwear, and becomes incapable of becoming aroused in the absence of the object, in this case pornographic materials. Although such cases undoubtedly exist, it is a safe bet that they are not representative of “a whole generation of men,” as Wolf suggests.
While Wolf’s analysis seems rather extreme, the possibility of adverse effects for some consumers of pornography cannot be automatically discounted. I’m thinking of those whose primary source of knowledge about sex comes from pornography. Such material can clearly be misleading.
When my generation was coming of age in the early ‘70s, we admittedly gawked at the nudes in the pages of men’s magazines like “Playboy” and “Penthouse”, but also had access to popular, authoritative works like David Ruben’s “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex,” and Alex Comfort’s “The Joy of Sex” with all those tasteful illustrations. I wonder if today’s youth have access to similar resources, or if they get their sex education instead from watching porn.
Because pornographic sites must compete in an overcrowded market worth billions, many try to distinguish themselves by pushing the envelope in depicting extreme or otherwise unconventional sex acts. As a consequence, young, immature, impressionable, and/or sexually naïve individuals might develop bizarre ideas concerning the prevalence and acceptability of certain deviant activities in the general population.
The psychological literature on the effects of pornography at present appears inconclusive. Although some correlational studies suggest an association between pornography, especially violent pornography, and a potential for sexual violence, it goes beyond the limits of this research to suggest that pornography causes such behavior. Pornography is, after all, only one factor among many that may influence a person to behave aggressively. Nevertheless, I don’t think we can on the basis of research rule out the possibility that violent pornography could have adverse effects on some people. At the very least, it seems neither flattering, nor beneficial to women.
Because the literature provides no clear answers, it is easy for unscrupulous or unsophisticated individuals to misrepresent psychological findings to support their own respective political agendas. This can result in public confusion and misunderstanding of the issues. Those who cite scientific research in support of censorship go beyond the limits of current research. Besides, if history is any indication, prohibition of commodities that are in demand serves only to increase their allure, while eroding personal liberty.
posted by Michael | Thursday, August 18, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home