Research on porn, Pagan ideals
By: Russell Williams
Because several people in this discussion have cited unnamed studies
to support their views, I'll just throw in a few research results
here. I've been researching the topic of societal attitudes toward
sexuality, with an emphasis on the religious origins of sex-negative
attitudes. Apropos the current discussion, here's some info from
*Pornography and Sexual Aggression*, Ed: Malamuth & Donnerstein. Like
virtually all such research, it is focussed on hard-core pornography,
violent pornography, and violent films (e.g. Friday the 13th, Straw
Dogs, etc.)
Donnerstein is a leading researcher in the field, and his fndings were
loudly misrepresented by the Meese commission. He found that the key
variable in increasing violence toward women *in a laboratory setting*
was violence, not sex. The findings on violence are consistent with
other findings on behavioral modeling Q behavior depicted as
acceptable becomes more acceptable to the viewer. Some studies have
not controlled for the content of portnographic material used in the
research: was it somewhat violent? Did it have a plot or was it just
scenes of sex? One study found that after viewing non-violent portn,
men exhibited a slight increase in aggressiveness toward men and a
slight decrease in aggressiveness toward women
Several studies have demonstrated that individuals with a negative
sexual-socialization history rate their affective and evaluative
responses to erotica as negative while those with a positive history
of sexual experiences express positive affective-evaluative responses
to sexual stimulation. Individuals found to rate high on the trait of
sex guilt react to erotica with more negative emotions, including
disgust, than those rating low on sex guilt. Likewise,
authoritarianism is positively related to negative emotions, higher
judgements of the pornographic character of sexual stimuli, and the
placing of legal restrictions on their availability. Erotophobes
(those reacting negatively to explicit sexual imagery of coitus and
oral sex) have more negative sexual-socialization experiences, more
limited sexual experience, and more conservative sex-related attitudes
than erotophiles.
Interestingly, only the erotophobes reported an increase in sexual
activity from the pre- to post-exposure periods (it is unclear whether
the activity or the reporting increased). In the standard
experimental setup for media / aggression research (subjects watch
film, are then placed in artificial situation designed to anger them,
then given an opportunity to express agression at the focus of their
anger), people who enjoyed and saw porn films less were more likely to
increased aggression after viewing porn. (This is one of those studies
that didn't specify what films they were using).
Note that A=>B does not mean that B=>A, and we are talking about
correlation coefficients significantly less than 1.0. In other words,
do not interpret these studies to mean that individuals expressing
negative attitudes toward Playboy, here or elsewhere, are high on
sex-guilt scales.
973
Donnerstein notes that instead of using research on the behavioral
effects of sex and violence in media to inform public policy, it is
usually just grist for a propaganda mill. It's twisted to suit
someone's purpose when convenient, and ignored otherwise. Some have
also argued that "if it's shown to cause harm, it should be banned,"
or even "if some women feel it harms them, then it shouldn't be
viewed". Several caveats should be kept in mind:
1. Virtually all research on pornography is based on "laboratory
experiments", but some of these have been several months long and have
includeed reporting of non-laboratory behavior. There is good evidence
that some of these results *can* be applied to real-world behavior.
2. Very few of the research results cited on "pornography" apply to
Playboy, whether you personally would classify Playboy as pornography
or not.
3. Demonstrating the harmful nature of violent pornography and
deciding to ban it are two separate issues. No society bans things
strictly based on a cutoff level of "amount of scienti^cally provable
harm" done. In the U.S., we tend to be biased toward allowing any
speech or writing except for that proved directly harmful to someone.
Major restrictions on speech fall in the areas of national security,
fraud, and slander or libel. The major exception to this is sexual
speech, which has been suppressed without regard to its measurably
harmful effects or lack thereof. There has been much more call to ban
"Lady Chatterley's Lover", "Devil in Miss Jones," or even Playboy than
"Mein Kampf" or material that demeans women in a non-sexual way.
As for my own biases, I completed a college major in Women's Studies
and am a former member of Women Against Violence in Pornography and
Media. I am a Witch, a worshipper of the Goddess, and consider myself
a feminist. I became disillusioned with WAVPAM after discovering that
they seriously misrepresented the character of most pornography. I
also met many women who felt that WAVPAM and women like Andrea Dworkin
were just another group of authoritarians trying to tell them what
they should think and what "acceptable" sexual feelings were. The
denouncements of S/M women by feminists in the 1980s sound almost
identical to the denouncements of gay women by straight feminists in
the 1960s. Fifteen years ago, I tried to read everything Robin Morgan
wrote. Today I try to read everything Susie Bright writes. I now
believe that attempted enforcement of "correct " sexual feelings and
attitudes is a much greater threat to the freedom of women (and men )
than is sexually explicit material. I feel no obligation to cease
practicing my religion because some people believe it is harmful,
and I feel no obligation to refrain from viewing sexually explicit
material because some people think it is harmful.
974
The Wiccan Rede says "an it harm none, do as you will," but of course
there is a huge gray area in trading off perceived harm against
personal freedom. Since becoming a Pagan my requirements have gone up
for demonstrating concrete and signi^cant harm before removing someone
else is freedom. Cult hunters who rail against Satanism and Witchcraft
but say "of course they're protected by the first amendment" are
really trying to restrict our religious freedom. They increase
intolerance toward non-traditional religions and try to pass laws
restricting them. So too do many who crusade against pornography but
say "we donUt favor censorship" try to restrict our sexual freedom.
They increase intolerance toward alternative sexual lifestyles and
often try to pass laws restricting sexuality. Is Jesse HelmsU
well-being or freedom in danger from Pagans, or are we in danger from
him? He thinks heUs defending himself and other God-fearing people
from the evils of Witchcraft. Is Andrea Dworkin in danger from Susie
Bright, readers of porn, and S/M practitioners, or is their freedom in
danger from her? She thinks sheUs protecting herself from the rapists
generated by pornography. To put it more colorfully, my right to swing
my arm stops at your nose, but I reject convoluted theoretical
definitions of your nose.
975