Verified by 
102COMMENTS
um, based on the way you have written this, my impression is not so much that porn is beneficial, but more that the people who watch the most porn are also the most ardent defenders of it. of course many of those who use porn in their sex lives believe it is good for them. that is simply logical. we all seek to defend that which is important to us.
For the past several decades, a debate has raged as to whether or not pornography yields deleterious effects at the individual or societal levels (increased negative views toward women, for example, or increased rate of sexual crimes against women).
In many instances, those who have sought to link pornography to countless ills have been ideologically motivated, as the aggregate scientific evidence hardly supports such conclusions. (See chapter six of my book, The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption, for some relevant references on pornography.)
In today's post, I'd like to briefly report on two recent studies that shed light on the matter. In a paper published in 2009 in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Milton Diamond reviewed a very broad number of studies that have explored the supposed ill effects of pornography. Subsequent to his extensive review, Diamond concludes:
"Indeed, the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes. Further, considering the findings of studies of community standards and wide spread usage of SEM [sexually explicit material], it is obvious that in local communities, as nationally and internationally, porn is available, widely used, and felt appropriate for voluntary adult consumption. If there is a consensus against pornography, it is in regard to any SEM that involves children or minors in its production or consumption. Lastly, we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social, or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence."
This is yet another review of the literature that seems to find no societal ill effects of pornography.
What about at the individual level? Are women who view pornography terrorized beyond redemption? Do they descend into a well of despair and self-doubt about their sexuality? Do men become misogynist monsters upon viewing pornographic material? Do they develop debilitating penis insecurities at the sight of well-endowed male porn actors?
Let's see what Gert Martin Hald and Neil M. Malamuth found in their 2008 paper, titled "Self-Perceived Effects of Pornographic Consumption." (I should mention that Neil Malamuth is a highly regarded scholar of pornography who has often argued for its supposed ill effects. Hence, if there exists a possibility of an a priori bias here, it would likely be in hoping to find that pornography yields negative consequences.)
In their survey of 688 young Danish adults (316 men; 372 women), Hald and Malamuth found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and overall. The obtained beneficial effects were statistically significant for all but one measure across both sexes.
Now here's the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits—for both sexes! There you have it.
This post should not be construed as my being in favor of pornography, as my personal opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Rather, I am reporting on recent data regarding this debate and in so doing I wish to highlight the fact that ideology should never trump scientific evidence.
rationalization
Submitted by Matthew Hutson on January 22, 2010 - 10:24am
Hald confirmed to me the possibility of rationalization: "prior research suggest that the perceptual bias, biased optimism, third person effect influence people in a way as to which they believe themselves relative immune (or blind) to media effects".
See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200801/vice-or-virtue-the-pros-pornography
Thanks Matt.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 10:41am
I was unaware that you had discussed Hald and Malamuth's paper in one of your posts.
GS
i agree
Submitted by Anonymous on January 23, 2010 - 10:44am
I agree with you that "people who watch the most porn are also the most ardent defenders of it" as my husband spent 15 of our 18 years of marriage doing it while our marriage was falling apart. When the kids are grown I am leaving him to retreat to his little apartment where he can do porn 24/7 without any barriers, like me.
I am sorry for your personal story but...
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 12:14pm
As I have mentioned in at least one other response, it is undeniable that pornography has yielded ill effects in particular instances. However, scientific hypotheses and subsequent findings are usually applied at the population level. For example, income and education are highly correlated yet Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest men on Earth despite not having finished his undergraduate degree.
As far as your argument that those who show that pornography is not harmful must be its greatest users, I am afraid that you need to work on your logic. Suppose that researchers in their sixties find that playing video games do not yield greater incidence of violence (in the real-world) from those who play such games, are you equally suggesting that the scientists in question must be closeted gamers?! Every day, thousands of researchers conduct research to find out the links between a set of variables of interest. To argue that all of those researchers must be betraying their personal histories with the variables at hand is silly. I am afraid that your personal story has clouded your understanding of how science operates.
GS
Porn
Submitted by Anonymous supporter. on February 22, 2010 - 9:26pm
I did not get the impression that the author of the piece was being accused of being a porn user by "anonymous". Your sympathy seems somewhat fake, just like the moaning and female orgasms are in hardcore porn. Porn is undeniably made for men, not women. It is primarily about male pleasure, not women's and it is highly addictive. People can easily be addicted, but in denial. If you ask a porn addict in denial (and their are many levels) what they think of porn and has it helped them, well, that's a no brainer. Ask an alcoholic in denial how they feel about alcohol! Men would be experts in pleasuring women if there was any pleasuring of women in porn, but that is not the reality. You claimed not be weighing in with an opinion, only reporting on the "science". I would have to agree that the staunchest supporters of porn shout the loudest about its benefits, while ignoring the social price we are paying. If you are truly unbiased, then perhaps you might look at the explosion of sex/porn addiction, which I would guess is the affliction of "anonymous's" husband, and the devastating effects it can have on spouses, children, and families. Take a look at the divorce statistics and how often "porn" is cited as a contributing factor. Perhaps you could look into the problems that people who use porn compulsively, are having relating to people. Perhaps you could talk to the millions of teen and pre-teen girls who have been exposed to porn, and understand the psychological and physical fallout they are suffering because they caught an STD after they had oral or anal sex, at the urging of boys who watch porn, or learning about sex from porn themselves. Porn sex is not real. It is fake. Talk to anyone in the sex industry and they will tell you that is not how they have sex. Sex, ideally, involves trust, caring, love, and other bonding emotions that promote intimacy. I am afraid your understanding of science has clouded your ability to be human, compassionate, and made you rather defensive.
Can you share some of the references in support of your facts?
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on February 22, 2010 - 10:11pm
Many thanks for your thoughts (notwithstanding the personal insults). As I mentioned in several of my responses, I am not a so-called "supporter" of pornography but I am certainly in favor of allowing people the freedom to choose for themselves whether pornography is something that they wish to consume or not.
As far as the litany of ill effects that you mention in your comments, I would be much obliged if you would provide the readers with the relevant references that support your statements. Your "holier than thou" moral indignation does not constitute scientific evidence.
GS
Dear Gad Saad, Thanks for
Submitted by Anonymous supporter. on February 24, 2010 - 4:56pm
Dear Gad Saad,
Thanks for opening up the conversation on this controversial issue. I wish I had time to find all my references. Suffice to say, googling and doing your own research on the topics I mentioned will most likely lead you somewhere helpful (and I guess I refer to your readers here). There are, of coarse, endless books on porn addiction, Patrick Carnes being a commonly mentioned expert. Books like "The Porn Trap" by Wendy Maltz, Untangling the Web: sex, porn, and fantasy obsession in the internet age, by Robert Weiss and Jennifer Schneider, Out of the Shadows by Patrick Carnes. For hurt spouses in particular, Hope After Betrayal by Meg Wilson, Shattered Vows by Debra Laaser, After the Affair by Janis Abrahms, Transcending Post-Infideliety Stress Disorder, and as a previous reader mention, RecoceryNation.com has great resources for addicts and spouses.
According to a United Nations fact sheet, "On average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime." Follow this link for reference. http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf. Whilst, as I am sure you will agree, this may not be scientific evidence that porn causes violence against women, and that is not and has not been my claim at any point, I would suggest that the degrading attitudes portrayed in porn towards women, most likely contribute to this horrifying statistic which can only be viewed as a gross violation of human rights. That is 1 in 3 women, globally. It could be your wife, daughter, or sister. This statistic touches us all and should make every one of us sit up and think about how we may contribute, albeit unwittingly, to this statistic. Women are portrayed in an overly sexualized way in the media in general. How do porn and the media shape/effect our cultural views and attitudes towards women? We need studies that address these issues. I have read (and unfortunately I do not have a source to give you) that it is incredibly difficult to get funding for studies to show the detrimental effects of porn use on individuals, families, relationships, children, and society. There is a concern for causing harm to the study participants, which obviously has moral and legal ramifications. I don't claim to have answers, nor am I advocating for censorship. My concern is for what I consider to be the very high price we may all be paying in a porn internet society, and a society that has mainstreamed porn into the media in general. My concern is for the harm it is causing through misinforming our youth about sex, for the creation of addictions and fetishes that may never have happened without the internet, and for how it may be contributing to the breakdown in marriages and relationships.
There are now bans in high schools in the U.S. (Delaware and maybe other states) on cell phones because of sexting and text-bullying. There are anti-bullying organizations formed by people like psychiatrists, pediatricians, and other officials who work with kids, because they have seen first hand the devastation these practices have on teens. They have fought for the implementation of anti-bullying programs in every school in Delaware and it is now the law. You might wonder what the connection between porn and bullying is, and it would be sexual harassment. Scientific proof or evidence, no. Anecdotal evidence, mostly. Studies would be helpful. In the meantime, our kids, and families, and adults are hurting.
Two books I recommend, especially for those with teen daughters, that talk about the effect our sexualized culture has on girls in particular, including the effect of porn, are:
Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher and the much more recent (may be harder to get in US),
What's happening to our girls? by Maggie Hamilton.
We will doubtless continue to have the two extremes over the porn debate, but I would rather focus on raising awareness, particularly for parents, and providing healthy sex education (which would definitely not advocate abstinence-only) in our schools than try to tell people what is right or wrong. I will say that I do not think anything good comes from porn. I recognize many people will beg to differ, and we will have to agree to disagree. But I also think many people who watch porn are mostly unaware of the far-reaching consequences it has on them and others. Care-e2 has some interesting documentaries under women's issues. Here is a video story about sexting.
http://www.athinline.org/videos/17-sexting-in-america-part-1
Here are a couple of websites any porn users should see
http://www.shelleylubben.com/
http://www.cracked.com/article_15725_10-steps-porn-addiction-where-are-you.html (This one is also not scientific research, but interesting)
Thanks for giving me a place to have a voice.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on February 24, 2010 - 5:05pm
Many thanks for the attached information. Hopefully, readers will find them of value. Thanks for reading and for contributing to the debate (in a polite manner).
Have a good evening.
GS
Toxic to Society/Family = Porn...
Submitted by Against Porn on July 4, 2014 - 3:51pm
I am so impressed and amazed how you stepped up and gave relevant resources and facts about porn. I applaud you so much for providing your input and important information on this very toxic/useless recreation,which is porn. Please keep up the fight!
Sadly,
Wife of a porn Addict :(
Pornography is the depiction,
Submitted by Anonymous on July 20, 2010 - 9:55pm
Pornography is the depiction, both feigned and real, of physical interactions between human beings and other human beings and/or other stimuli. Like any other set of interactions--economic, social, spiritual, etc.--it spans a gamut that ranges from debased and degrading on the one hand to genuinely exciting and mutually "beneficial" (with respect to pornography this would mean arousal, heightened sensory awareness and confidence, and of course orgasm).
In my experience (that is, in my circle of acquaintances), there is a slightly higher frequency of pornography use among males; on the other hand, among the many woman I know who make use of it, it seems to be more straight-forward and uncomplicated by feelings of guilt and ethical ambiguity.
Trust, love, and intimacy are clearly precious foundations of any relationship. The question is, is there any clear, broad, statistical data that support the very common presumptions that you echo here? It would seem, no. So personal attitudes toward pornography have to be considered personally, and not based on false pseudo-epidemiological claims. One may take a personal spiritual or philosophical position against pornography that is sound, but it seems that empirical studies will not support such positions in the way we might want: that porn is a de facto emotional toxin that is inevitably harmful to psyches and relationships. Surely this is extremely interesting and worthy of discussion, whatever one's a priori position.
I might compare it to the eating of meat. An ethical commitment to vegetarianism is clearly noble and defensible; but the empirical examination of the contribution of animal proteins to human health reveals a spectrum of benefits (particularly to women) that outweigh the harms. Our good buddhist friends would likely be unfazed by this fact and continue to embrace vegetarianism. Perhaps this might help to nuance your own response?
I find your comments very
Submitted by Free willie on September 3, 2013 - 10:04pm
I find your comments very insightful. What do you think about the fact that some people say that it makes your standards on women too high and it will be harder to be satisfied later down the road when you do find a wife? I mean, can you still feel the same sexual passion with only that person?
Just thought of another example (in line with your logic)
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 1:32pm
Numerous scientists have uncovered that drinking red wine in moderation is good for the heart. I suppose that they must be alcoholics. Good work Anonymous.
GS
Wow... Gad Saad can be a bit
Submitted by JKwo on January 24, 2010 - 10:06pm
Wow... Gad Saad can be a bit smarmy.
I am trying to keep up with your heroic anonymity. :)
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 24, 2010 - 10:43pm
Hey JKwo,
It takes a lot of courage to hurl insults at bloggers who do their best to provide interesting contents for a wide readership. You sir/madam need to be commended on your courage and for contributing in such a profound manner to the debate.
GS
Are you claiming to be logical?
Submitted by Bobby on April 22, 2020 - 10:43am
Scientists uncovering the fact that drinking red wine in moderation is good for the heart is IN NO WAY analogous to the beneficial effects SELF-REPORTED by respondents. I'm flabbergasted (and sorta saddened) that someone with a Ph.D. would think these were equivalent. The logical equivalent would be if the HEART was the one choosing to drink the wine and they merely ASKED IT if there were good effects.
You should be embarrassed to wear your illogical and motivated reasoning out in public.
Porn and marriage.
Submitted by Dr. S on May 29, 2015 - 9:55am
You mention that your marriage is falling apart.
Why is your marriage falling apart?
Is it because of porn? Or something else?
I agree these porn users
Submitted by Anonymous on January 22, 2010 - 11:15am
I agree these porn users surveyed would definitely defend their habits. I also would like to make the argument that pornography conditions people to physically and mentally want something other than what they have (i.e. their spouse), which in turns leads to dissatisfaction and all too often leads to divorce.
why not your opinion?
Submitted by God-fearing beach-comber on January 22, 2010 - 4:37pm
Studies mean little to me compared to knowing real people whose lives have been affected by pornography--either the users or those who live with them. I would appreciate knowing your personal stance on the matter.
Your opening sentence is very problematic.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 4:45pm
Studies have found that lung cancer and smoking are highly correlated yet there are many heavy smokers who never develop cancer. Science does not work by personal anecdotes. If it did then it would be called gossip.
It is undoubtedly true that there are many instances wherein pornography might have yielded negative outcomes. Incidentally, I discuss pornographic addiction in my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption) so I am very aware of its potential harm.
However, scientific statements operate typically at the population level: Men are taller than women (it is a fact) but there are many women who are taller than men.
Please try not to conflate personal observations with population-level science.
GS
Try to catch up with the fact
Submitted by Anonymous supporter. on February 22, 2010 - 9:47pm
Try to catch up with the fact that many porn users with problems do not talk about it, whether it is in your book or not. For those we know about, there are many we don't know about. Spouses have to remain anonymous because there is enormous shame associated with being married to a sex/porn addict, and children of porn/sex addicts can be bullied mercilessly at school if students find out. It is a families private shame and "dirty little secret". Perhaps ten years from now the science will have caught up with the problems of internet porn in particular, but unfortunately science and laws are far behind our current technology. Science is helpful, but not a God. It is fallible. Remember (or perhaps you are too young?) when the scientists told us not to eat butter, but margarine. Then they told us not to eat margarine, but butter. When the tides on the porn issue have turned, as I believe eventually they will because the human/societal cost will have become so great it can no longer be ignored, you may think differently. For many years, the tobacco companies claimed there was no scientific link between smoking and lung cancer. I guess they were wrong.
Oh I see. The ill effects of porn are there but are hidden!
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on February 22, 2010 - 10:21pm
You are indeed correct that science is an auto-corrective process. Accordingly, if future scientific evidence is unequivocal in linking the consumption of pornography with all of the ill effects that you mentioned in your other set of comments then we will all take stock of that fact. This is how science operates. However, the current state of evidence does not support such claims.
I should mention that you seem to be very passionate about the supposed ills of pornography and this might be clouding your ability to weigh the relevant scientific evidence that has thus far been generated.
To repeat myself yet again, I am fully aware that many people have experienced deleterious consequences linked to pornography. This does not mean that a causal link has been established at the population level between pornography and any particular ill.
You can huff and puff as much as you'd like. It does not change the existing scientific reality.
That said, many thanks for sharing your thoughts.
GS
Came across an interesting
Submitted by Anonymous supporter. on March 5, 2010 - 2:00pm
Came across an interesting paper called "The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: a Review of the Research" by Jill C. Manning, (2005). I thought it might interest some of your readers. She, as am I, is primarily concerned about the social toll of internet porn and looks at the research (so far) from this perspective. I think the statistics and what she has to say about the effects on children, adolescents, and families is particularly important and more that a trifle alarming. I also really like her suggestions for future research. Thanks again for giving me a place to be "passionate".
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:FOswmaJAoqsJ:scholar.google.com/+effect+of+pornography+on+marriage&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000000
Thank you for the information.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on March 5, 2010 - 3:06pm
FYI: I deleted your duplicate set of comments, which you had submitted two minutes earlier (albeit without the attached link). Have a good weekend.
GS
Porn is Toxic to Society!
Submitted by Against Porn on July 4, 2014 - 4:14pm
GS, it's ridiculous that you consider a study based on only 688 men & women, who are "Danish", constitute solid facts/proof that Porn is a benefit to our entire society and relationships. Then you have the audacity to put down very informative person who provide you good reason and in some cases even sited resources that totally show that your studies are inaccurate.
GS, you do realize that 688 Danish people do not represent the other millions that use and abuse porn everyday of their lives, all around the world. There are thousands of sad stories/books written on how peoples lives have been affect by porn in horrible/devastating results. You need to get a clue and stop being arrogant and frankly ignorant about this toxic pastime in our society!
So sad and sorry for you!GS be honest..you are guilty and probably a porn user.
'self-perception' studies tell us about exactly, and only, that
Submitted by CB on January 22, 2010 - 7:23pm
Do a survey amongst dope smokers about its benefits to self and society, and guess what results you'll find? Australian hippies love telling everyone that Aborigines have smoked dope for 50,000 years. Doesn't make it true.
If people really knew what benefited them, we wouldn't need science. Surveys, by and large, are junk science. They borrow the statistical techniques to apply to self-reports which index nothing much.
(I'm neutral on pornography, at least from an empirical perspective. Ethics are a separate issue).
I'll pass along your message that all surveys are junk.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 7:42pm
Dear CB,
Many thanks for your self-assuredness about what constitutes junk science. To think that thousands of scientists in both the natural and social sciences have utilized surveys to uncover countless important findings over the past one hundred years whilst they thought that they were conducting real science.
You come along and "show us" that surveys that are used in fields as varied as epidemiology, sociology, psychology, consumer behavior, philosophy of science, economics, anthropology, human ethology, sociobiology, and endless other disciplines is all junk.
I'll pass along your wisdom to all the "pseudo-scientists" that have been fooling themselves.
GS
Frankly, unbridled
Submitted by RTP on January 22, 2010 - 9:03pm
Frankly, unbridled consumption and the pornographication of society in general are serious social ills. We're continuously bombarded with advertising that implies we're no good as we are, we need X gadget and Y pill and Z bunch-of-crap to make our lives better, and we're no longer considered citizens or human beings; we're given the label "consumers" (mooooo-OOO!) and that is held up as the highest good. And as an engineer, I have to tell you that roughly a quarter the "sciences" you mention in your post above are only "sciences" insomuch as somebody slaps that moniker on them. Dang, I spent HOW much receiving an advanced degree when I could have been a "consumer behaviorist"???! GIGO, I believe, is the acronym I'm seeking here.
I will relay your message along with that of CB.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 9:22pm
Dear RTP,
I will make sure to relay your message at the next set of scientific meetings that I'll attend that most of the people who are in attendance are not real scientists, and I'll make sure to advise them that only your advanced degree carries any weight.
By the way, it takes a lot of courage on your part to remain anonymous whilst hurling silly and offensive insults at scientists and academics of all ilk.
You sir are a true intellectual and a bastion of heroism. Keep up the good work in shining the light on "fake scientists".
GS
P.S. When I was an undergraduate student in Mathematics and Computer Science, there was a stereotype about the engineering students having somewhat of an inferiority/superiority complex. It's good to see that you are keeping the stereotype alive.
Private Browsing
Submitted by Nando Pelusi Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 11:11pm
Your posts make me glad, not sad! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Seriously, this study is an important example of how science works in that what seems "obviously true" (i.e., porn is pernicious, or at least indicative of problems) might have it exactly inverted.
Whether this turns out to be true for porn is still an interesting question. I may have to do some research.
Thank you Dr. Pelusi.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 22, 2010 - 11:24pm
Many thanks for your kind words. I am happy to hear that you enjoy my posts. Have a good weekend.
GS
You go ahead and do more
Submitted by Against Porn on July 4, 2014 - 4:29pm
You go ahead and do more research..it's the best excuse to view more porn and say it's for Science. Wow! you and GS...you think you have PHD's and that gives the right to provide stupid information out there.
Please do us all a favor and do something more important in life to justify your PHD...like find answers to cure Cancer or solve poverty/hunger in the world. I guess that requires more high level thinking and hard work. Researching/viewing Porn is a no brainer, unless you are using the wrong brain.
Find you a corner or some
Submitted by Anonymous on January 23, 2010 - 12:13am
Find you a corner or some where private to relieve your stress.I prefer it to be your little secret.
Interesting. Thanks for
Submitted by JJ on January 23, 2010 - 1:49am
Interesting. Thanks for giving us food for thought!
My pleasure.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 9:52am
Thanks for reading. Have a good weekend.
GS
Nice Piece Doc
Submitted by Stephen Mason Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 2:17pm
If you have an Addictive Personality, I can see where porn would be a whole lot less dangerous than food. I once had a job reviewing new releases and never gained a pound.
On a personal note, it's really interesting watching the videos being made, visiting the AV conventions, attending their awards ceremonies, etc. In terms of profit and production, the XXX business far exceeds the numbers coming out of Hollywood.
Can porn be a problem? Only if you already have a problem!
Steve
Thank you sir.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 5:10pm
Always nice to hear from you Dr. Mason. Have a good weekend.
GS
Porn should not be encouraged
Submitted by Misho on January 23, 2010 - 2:26pm
Perhaps what the article says is true, more or less. But...
A lot of the porn available is such a crap that it should rather be discouraged if not prohibited. I used to watch a lot of porn and I am happy that now I rarely use it and don't even much feel the need to watch it.
Does the notion of a free society ring a bell?
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 2:42pm
The Taliban believe that music contributes to vice. Hence, in their regime music was banned. Tipper Gore believed that song lyrics are the root cause of countless societal ills so she tried to set up a program to censor lyrical content. In countless religious traditions, knowledge that was deemed dangerous was banned, as it might damage the official religious doctrines. I could provide you countless other examples possessing the same logic: "I believe that this product is harmful to individuals and hence I think that it should be banned." I am afraid that this is not how a free society operates. Either you are a libertarian or you are not. If you believe in the American (or Western) system, you step aside and allow consumers to make their own informed choices.
Incidentally, even in countries with strict bans on pornography, I would venture that the underground market for such products is very active.
That you do not feel a need to watch pornographic material is immaterial. Others do and should accordingly be allowed to do so, that is of course unless you are a good standing member of the Moral Virtues and Vice Squad, a Taliban outfit.
GS
Related topic -- decline of rape rate
Submitted by Mike on January 23, 2010 - 6:21pm
Interesting too that rape rates often decline when prostitution and/or pornography is legalized.
Yes indeed.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 23, 2010 - 7:01pm
Thanks for reading. Have a good Sunday.
GS
I can't believe this study
Submitted by Nathan on January 24, 2010 - 3:19am
I can't believe this study can be considered insight. I'm not going to take a stance on the positive or negative influence of porn, because I think it depends entirely on the person. Yet if they only interview subjects who are avid consumers of porn, how is the least bit enlightening to find out they personally view its influence as positive? Had they included people who were post-consumers, who are sex-addicts, they might have reached different conclusions. This study amounts to as much insight as, "kids like candy and they think the more, the better!"
It takes an objective, more thorough understanding of porn's influence on society, including all the people effected (besides active consumers) to even begin making claims such as "porn is good for people."
You also made this comment, "Please try not to conflate personal observations with population-level science."
How do you ignore the fact that this study does the exact same thing, highlighting a collection of self-reports, to surmise the effects on an entire population?
Lastly, Gad, seeing you get overtly defensive in response to users' replies, specifically:
"P.S. When I was an undergraduate student in Mathematics and Computer Science, there was a stereotype about the engineering students having somewhat of an inferiority/superiority complex. It's good to see that you are keeping the stereotype alive."
makes it quite obvious you're manifesting the same feelings of inferiority yourself, in the form of sarcastic agreement, and active denial. What RTP pointed out is actually valid, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it. Psychology, economics, and sociology are all fields that do their best to describe, rationalize, and understand behavior, but they will never be able to predict individuals, or be consistently true over time. Thus they are inherently different from fields such as biology, chemistry, and engineering, which rely on methods and equations to predict outcomes with near certainty, that stand the test of time.
I think it's pretty ironic that a 'scientist' in the same field that gave birth to the idea of cognitive dissonance, would use a survey, in the absence of other corroborating evidence, to arrive at such claims.
Thanks for your comments. A few clarifications.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 24, 2010 - 9:46am
When I made the following statement "Please try not to conflate personal observations with population-level science", I was referring to the use of personal anecdotes (e.g., "my marriage was destroyed by porn."). Hald & Malamuth used aggregate data across 688 participants to arrive at their conclusions. This was my only point here. Also Hald & Malamuth were specifically trying to gauge people's perceptions of how porn affects their lives. Who do you suggest that they ask this question to if not those who use porn? That said, I realize that third parties that might be affected by porn (but who are not users themselves) are not covered in this study. But then again, this was not the point of this particular study.
Regarding my so-called "defensive" response to RTP, I was reacting to his flippant, arrogant, and ignorant dismissal (perhaps I should not have bothered). I have spent much of my career criticizing the social sciences for failing to possess consilient frameworks as is the case with the natural sciences. My main research interests are to introduce evolutionary theory and related biological-based principles into the behavioral sciences (including in understanding consumption), hence I am well aware of the weaknesses of the social sciences. If you read chapter 7 of my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption), it is all about criticizing the theoretical weaknesses of the social sciences in general and the consumer behavior field in particular. See also:
Saad, G. (2008). The Collective Amnesia of Marketing Scholars regarding Consumers’ Biological and Evolutionary Roots. Marketing Theory, 8 (4), 425-448.
In the latter paper, I also heavily critique the social sciences.
Finally, having obtained my doctoral training in psychology of decision making (behavioral decision theory), I am well aware of the weaknesses of economics (as per rational choice theory).
Bottom line: Few have been as critical of many of the epistemological tenets of the social sciences as I have. Yet this does not imply that a comment such as that of RTP is relevant or appropriate.
Being a scientist means applying the scientific method in understanding the world. Some disciplines have had much greater success in achieving this objective than others. This does not mean that physicists can claim to be scientists but sociologists cannot. Semantically, this is why we have the qualifier "social scientist" and "natural scientist".
There is a polite way to engage in debate. RTP did not follow that protocol and hence I reacted to his ignorant arrogance with levity and sarcasm.
Have a good Sunday.
GS
I appreciate and respect your
Submitted by Nathan on January 24, 2010 - 8:12pm
I appreciate and respect your reply, I think we both have similar interests in seeing debate and discussion protocol followed, which can definitely be a nightmare on the internet.
Unfortunately society at large, especially the media, often read and report on studies as having far more implications than they do. This, I think is a great example. I think the individuals who consume the largest amount of porn will of course be the most valiant in coming to its defense- however the implication of an ever-increasing need for more hardcore content I believe to be dangerous, no matter the self-perceived benefit. One thing in particular that I thought should have been addressed is the self-perceived relationship of the user to pornography, ie. does it supplant, enhance, or mitigate one's need for other relationships?
Thank you Nathan.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 24, 2010 - 8:27pm
I have enjoyed our debate. Have a good evening.
GS
You seem to be making a
Submitted by Anon on January 24, 2010 - 8:39pm
You seem to be making a serious error in reasoning when you conclude, "In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it." That simply does not follow from what the study says. Just because I claim something has benefitted me doesn't mean it has. As Nathan and others have pointed out, one might think that those who use porn have a vested interest in continuing to do so, especially if they are addicted, and so in painting a rosier picture than is accurate. Should we trust, then, that porn-users' self-reports of porn's benefits are accurate? There is no evidence given here that we should. So, your conclusion is unwarranted.
You seem to be missing the point of Nathan's criticism, when you ask:
"Who do you suggest that they ask this question to if not those who use porn? That said, I realize that third parties that might be affected by porn (but who are not users themselves) are not covered in this study. But then again, this was not the point of this particular study."
Who should we ask, then? Perhaps we could start by asking non-porn using family members of porn users, co-workers, past and present partners--in short, anyone who might be in a position to judge the supposed benefits to the porn-user but who don't necessarily have an interest in defending his or her continued use of porn. (Whether these other people are also affected is to some extent, I agree, another matter.)
You are missing the point yet again.
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 24, 2010 - 8:57pm
The study sought to investigate individuals' self-perceptions of the benefits and/or ills that they have experienced in viewing porn. At the risk of being repetitive, it is clear that some people might have experienced benefits and/or ills associated with porn without having themselves been users of the product. However, as occurs in all scientific studies, researchers delineate the scope of their particular study and they move forward with it.
BTW, the other study that I cited in my post does address the supposed ill effects of porn on a societal level and concludes that no such deleterious effects exist. Care to comment on that particular study? That said, it is of course true that porn does cause harm to singular individuals. Scientific claims however typically work at the aggregate (as I explained in some of my other replies). To repeat a previous example that I used, smoking and lung cancer are unequivocally linked. This statement holds true even though your uncle Joe was a chain smoker for 60 years and lived to be 100.
I am afraid that there is little more that I can add to this debate. Thanks for contributing.
GS
please explain
Submitted by Greg on February 1, 2010 - 12:47am
Gad Saad: BTW, the other study that I cited in my post does address the supposed ill effects of porn on a societal level and concludes that no such deleterious effects exist. Care to comment on that particular study? That said, it is of course true that porn does cause harm to singular individuals. Scientific claims however typically work at the aggregate (as I explained in some of my other replies)
if individuals are detrimentally affected, and societies are "aggregates" of individuals, then how are societies not detrimentally affected by porn? That seems fairly logical.
By the way, have you read the article in question?
Submitted by Gad Saad Ph.D. on January 24, 2010 - 9:01pm
You strike me as quite self-assured in your logic and are quick to point out the "failed" logic in others. I am curious whether you have access to the article in question and if so whether you've read it. If not, it is quite amazing that you could be so certain in critiquing a scientific study that you've not read. Please tell me that you've read it...
GS
The Porn Myth
Submitted by Anonymous on January 24, 2010 - 1:13pm
Regardless of what the study says, I do believe that pornography featuring "perfect" looking women conditions men to be less satisfied with their partner. This article by Naomi Wolf (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/) makes some valid points:
"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.”
"For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn."
"After all, pornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it."
---
As Wolf states in her article, sex has no mystery anymore. Growing up as a young woman in today's society, I can see this first hand. I imagine how different things must have been in my grandmother's generation, where sex was mysterious and women's naked bodies were rarely seen and thus coveted and valued when they were seen, regardless of how they looked. Anyone can agree that if we are constantly exposed to something, it loses it's excitement.
I imagine that men in small isolated villages without access to the internet, tv, etc, or those societies where women must keep their bodies covered, are much more turned on by the prospect of sex with a "regular" woman - cellulite, stretch marks, and all - than men in Western society who are constantly bombarded with images of how women "should" look...and are disappointed when they don't. This is my female perspective - I would like to challenge males here to say that they wouldn't prefer having sex with a woman who mirrored the physical perfection of a porn star vs. an average looking woman, given a choice between the two, all other things (personality, smarts, etc.) being equal?
That being said, I am not against all pornography, and would certainly advocate pornography featuring real "average looking" couples as much healthier.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
