Ethics Articles
Articles: Erotica
>> = Important Articles; ** = Major Articles
Definitions Of Pornography, Obscenity, And Indecency (From Morality In Media)
Censorship? We Don’t Play That Game Here (From Morality In Media)
Healing Sexual And Pornography Addictions (From Morality In Media)
==============================
630.2.7 Pornography
The Scriptures warn that those who participate in sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21). Therefore as Christians we avoid participation in these evils or in the glorification of these evils that is found in the many forms of pornography.
Pornography excites sexual lust, which is the debasement of a gift of God. It depicts and may encourage indecent and deviant sexual conduct such as fornication, incest, rape, sodomy, child molestation and bestiality. It may cause a progressive decay of moral values, beginning with addiction, followed by a desensitizing of conscience, and tending toward the wanton acting out of perverted sexual conduct. It often victimizes the innocent and unsuspecting.
For society, pornography is a rampant degenerative force. It damages and destroys. As Christians, pornography is an abomination which we oppose by every legitimate means.
==============================
I. What is Pornography?
1. The term “pornography” is a generic, not a legal term. It relates to a broad range of sexual materials, some of which are protected by the First Amendment and some of which are not.
2. As noted by the Supreme Court in its Miller v. California obscenity case (1973):
“‘Pornography’ derives from the Greek (harlot, and graphos, writing). The word now means ‘1: a description of prostitutes or prostitution 2. a depiction (as in a writing or painting) of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement.’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary [Unabridged 1969]).”
3. The 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography defined pornography as “Material that is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
II. What is Obscenity?
The 1973 United States Supreme Court landmark case, Miller v. California, established a three-pronged test for determining whether a “work” (i.e., material or performance) is obscene and, therefore, unprotected by the First Amendment. To be obscene, a judge and/or a jury must determine:
1. That the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; AND
2. That the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; AND
3. That a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.
Examples of “hardcore sexual conduct” that an obscenity law could include for regulation under the second prong of the test are patently offensive representations or descriptions of:
Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; Masturbation, excretory functions and lewd exhibition of the genitals; and Sadism and masochism.
III. What is Indecency?
In its only decision involving broadcast indecency, FCC v. Pacifica, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 1978 that the “normal definition of ‘indecent’ merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.” The FCC presently defines “indecent” for the broadcast media as:
“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards in the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”
This definition of “indecent” is similar to part two of the Miller obscenity definition, but in determining whether a particular TV ad or program, or part thereof, is “indecent,” it is not necessary to also determine parts one and three of the obscenity test. A single depiction or description on TV of sexual or excretory activities or organs could be “indecent,” even though the program or ad of which it is a part, when taken as a whole, did not appeal to the prurient interest or had serious value and was therefore not obscene.
Federal law has prohibited the broadcast of indecent material since 1927. In FCC v. Pacifica, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the present law (18 USC 1464) as applied to an afternoon broadcast of indecent material. In so doing, the Court stated that two attributes of the broadcast media justified special treatment of indecent material.
First, the broadcast media have established a pervasive presence in the lives of “all Americans,” and indecent material confronts “the citizen” not only in public but also in the privacy of the home “where the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder.”
Second, said the Supreme Court, “Broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.”
FEDERAL OBSCENITY LAWS
Federal laws relating to the crime of obscenity are contained in the following titles and sections of the United States Code:
· Title 18, Section 1461----U.S. mails
· Title 18, Section 1462----Importation
· Title 18, Section 1464----Broadcasting
· Title 18, Section 1465----Interstate transportation
· Title 18, Section 1466----Wholesale and retail
· Title 18, Section 1468----Cable or satellite TV
· Title 47, Section 223------Telephone
· Title 47, Section 639------Cablecasting
· Title 18, Section 1961-1968----Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
The 93 United States Attorneys -- appointed by the President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate and located nationwide --are responsible for enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws. The United States Attorneys work with the FBI, Postal Inspectors and Immigration Officers. The Federal Communications Commission also has authority to enforce the Federal obscenity laws covering television and telephone.
STATE OBSCENITY LAWS
Reasonably effective statewide obscenity laws exist in 40 states. In many states, cities and counties can also enact local obscenity laws. These laws may encompass both obscene materials and performances.
The prosecuting attorney of each county or judicial district (known as district, commonwealth or state’s attorney, etc.) enforces the state obscenity laws. State and local police may make arrests.
Alaska, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont and West Virginia do not have a statewide obscenity law, and Montana and South Dakota have totally ineffective laws. New obscenity laws are needed in these states.
In Oregon, Colorado and Hawaii, the State Supreme Court either invalidated [Oregon] or greatly weakened the state obscenity laws. Amendments to the State Constitution are needed in these states.
GOVERNMENTAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR OBSCENITY LAWS
1. In Roth v. United States (1954), the Supreme Court answered the question “whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press.” In holding that obscenity is “not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press,” the Roth Court quoted from its earlier Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision:
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene....[S]uch utterances are of no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
2. Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in Roth v. U.S., said:
“[E]ven assuming that pornography cannot be deemed ever to cause in an immediate sense, criminal...conduct, other interests within the proper cognizance of the State may be protected by the prohibition placed on such materials. The state can reasonably draw the inference that over a long period of time the indiscriminate dissemination of materials, the essential character of which is to degrade sex, will have an eroding effect on moral standards.”
3. In Paris Adult Theatre I. v. Slaton (1973), the Supreme Court REJECTED the argument that government cannot regulate obscenity unless it has “scientific data” which “conclusively demonstrates” that “exposure to obscene material adversely affects men and women or their society.” The Paris Court identified several valid governmental interests that justify a prohibition on obscenity:
a. “In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even if it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby...These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself.”
b. “As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a ‘right of the Nation and of the states to maintain a decent society.’”
c. “Although there is no conclusive proof of a connection between antisocial behavior and obscene material, the legislature... could quite reasonably determine that such a connection does or might exist. In deciding Roth, this Court implicitly decided that a legislature could legitimately act on such a conclusion to protect the social interest in order and morality.”
d. “The sum of experience...affords an ample basis for legislatures to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex.”
OTHER STATE LAWS REGULATING PORNOGRAPHY AND ‘ADULT USES’
Throughout the country, there are thousands of state laws and local ordinances that regulate the sale and display of pornography and so-called “adult uses.” These laws include:
· Harmful-to-minors sales and display laws, which restrict minors’ access to sex materials that are obscene for minors.
· Open booth laws, which require that the doors of “peep show booths” be removed.
· “Adult” use zoning laws, which restrict the location of so-called “adult bookstores,” topless bars, etc.
· Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws, which prohibit nude and semi-nude behavior in bars and bottle clubs.
· Nuisance laws, which allow closure of all or part of “adult bookstores” if prostitution, lewd conduct or high-risk sexual conduct occur on the premises.
· Obscene device laws, which prohibit the sale of dildoes and artificial vaginas.
· Public Indecency laws, which require performers in commercial establishments where no alcohol is served or consumed to wear “pasties” and “G-strings.”
· Sex Supermarket laws, which restrict the number of “adult uses” that can exist at a particular premises.
OBSCENITY, INDECENCY, AND THE INTERNET
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the laws on obscenity and indecency with respect to how they apply to the Internet.
Obscenity, as mentioned above, is not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and obscenity law enforcement is not “censorship,” any more than prosecuting for perjury or copyright infringement is censorship.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently (6 October 1996) refused to review the first-ever convictions for the electronic transmission of obscene computer files.
The appeal had been filed by lawyers for Robert and Carleen Thomas of Milpitas, Calif., who ran a bulletin board system (BBS) called “Amateur Action” from their home. The BBS included e-mail, chat lines, public message boards, and downloadable files from sexually explicit magazines. They also sold sexually explicit videotapes to “members.” A United States Postal Inspector in Memphis, Tenn., obtained samples of this material while posing as a member.
At trial, Robert Thomas was sentenced to 37 months in Federal prison, Carleen Thomas to 30 months, and their computer equipment was seized by the Government. The sentences stand.
Their appeal was based on the ground that computer files are not tangible objects and are thus not subject to the Federal law that forbids the transfer of “obscene material”; that the trial venue was improper because it was in Memphis, where undercover Federal agents accessed and downloaded files, not in California; and it was unclear which community’s standards should apply in determining whether the contents of a nationally-accessible BBS are obscene.
The appellate attorneys rationale is virtually identical to the argument used by those who oppose the Communications Decency Act, which are now under challenge (Shea v. Reno, 930 F. Supp. 916 [SDNY]; ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp.824 [ED Pa])
The Supreme Court did not buy the argument advanced by the Thomases’ attorneys. The Court has long affirmed (see the Paris decision above) that there is a right to maintain a decent society. “Decency” in this context involves consensus, or public, morality. Morality is a justification for obscenity legislation under our Constitution, as was cited above.
Here it is relevant to note that every major opinion polling organization that has surveyed this issue has found consistently over recent years that the vast majority of Americans are alarmed by the obscenity and indecency that are now common in our society.
Those who hold that there should be unbridled freedom on the Internet seem to suffer from the fuzzy-headed notion that cyberspace is an unmanageable realm in which anything goes, and so we should all just roll over and give in to the sleaze-meisters.
Note: For a clear-minded and non-fuzzy-headed explanation of why this argument fails, click here for some wisdom in the style of St. Thomas Aquinas
The fuzzy-heads ignore the value that good laws have for society, even when enforcement of those laws seems to be difficult; that when we give up on laws against social evils we give a measure of approval to the evil; and that from the seeming approval the evil flourishes.
However, the laws against obscenity are not all that difficult to enforce in cyberspace, as the California-to-Tennessee case demonstrates. The laws against obscenity apply even to the electronic transmission of computer files. The medium is irrelevant.
======================================
Morality in Media receives many inquiries from the public requesting information about pornography and about sex, violence, or vulgarity in the mainstream entertainment media. The most frequent request for information involves the word, “censorship.”
Censorship does exist in many countries. In totalitarian lands, newspapers and the broadcast media publish only what the government wants the public to know. However, with a few exceptions, censorship is unconstitutional in the United States. The word “censorship” is, as syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell put it, the most misused word in the English language.
The word “censorship” means prior restraint of First Amendment rights by government. Enforcement of the Federal or State obscenity laws is NOT censorship because, first of all, the government is excercising no prior restraint on the pornographers. The porn purveyors are free to publish whatever they want, but if what they distribute or exhibit is obscene, they are, after the fact, subject to prosecution under the obscenity laws.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that obscenity is NOT a First Amendment right.
Too many members of the public are misled into believing that the First Amendment’s “free speech” liberties cover everything that is written, spoken, or pictured. Not true. Here’s a short list of actions that can be punished “after the fact” without violating the First Amendment:
· perjury
· libel
· contempt of court
· false advertising
· falsly shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater
· copyright infringement
· using a loudspeaker at 3 a.m. in a residential neighborhood
· child pornography
· obscenity
There are a few exceptions to the illegality of censorship in the U.S. For example, the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, can legally censor news reports to protect national security. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has written, “The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow of the force of orderly government.”
It is also important to remember that the First Amendment only restricts actions by the government, not by private citizens. A publisher, for example, has every right to choose which books to publish and which not to publish.
Here are some examples of what censorship is NOT:
· Government enforcement of the obscenity laws
·
· Citizens demonstrating in front of “adult” pornographic stores
·
· People protesting the sex, violence, and vulgarity on television
·
· Boycotts of stores that sell pornography
·
· A video store choosing not to sell or rent pornographic videos
·
· A newspaper refuses to permit ads for topless bars or “adult” theaters
·
One last word. Americans who are fighting against pornography and the declining standards on television are routinely called “censors” by the porn industry and its allies. It’s a buzzword use to discredit, distract, and distort. IT’S A LIE!
We hope this explanation sets your mind straight. Don’t hesitate to contact Morality in Media if you have any questions.
======================================
By VICTOR B. CLINE, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist Salt Lake City, Utah
About the Author Victor B. Cline earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley and is presently a psychotherapist specializing in family/marital counseling and sexual addictions. He is also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, president of Marriage and Family Enrichment (a nationwide seminar group) and author/editor of numerous scientific articles and books, including the book, “Where Do You Draw the Line? Explorations in Media Violence, Pornography, and Censorship.”
I have treated approximately 350 sexual addicts or sexual compulsives and have found some strategies that are very helpful in healing individuals struggling with these issues.
First, I would like to list typical symptoms which are associated with addictions in this area;
a) Sexual acting out despite serious consequences and repeated attempts at control. The early antecedents are often being sexually abused/seduced/eroticized and/or a pattern of compulsively masturbating to pornography starting in early adolescence or before. In other words, a developing pattern of what, in time, becomes out of control sexual behavior.
b) Inability to stop (or powerlessness) despite adverse consequences, with frequent use of denial, rationalization, and minimization to hide both the problem and the underlying shame.
c) Neglect or sacrifice of important social, family, occupational, or recreational activities because of sexual behavior.
d) An ongoing desire or effort to limit sexual behavior.
e) An inordinate amount of time spent in obtaining sex, being sexual, or recovering from sexual experience.
f) Risk taking
g) Living a double life
h) Decrease in one’s spiritual or religious life. A constant violation of one’s value system.
i) Endangering one’s professional and family life.
When I see patients who come in for treatment of their own volition and choice, it is usually because their spouse has discovered them participating in sexual activities that are totally unacceptable to that partner which creates a crisis in the marriage or relationship. Or, if juveniles, they have been discovered by their parents engaging in sexual activity which is unacceptable to their family’s values and/or is illegal (e.g., sexually abusing another sib). Or they are being brought to trial for committing a sexual crime and want to get into treatment as a strategy in getting a lesser sentence or maybe parole. Or they are being sued for sexual harassment and want to demonstrate a good faith effort to get help. Or because they have been engaging in sexual behaviors which violate their own personal values and norms and are experiencing much guilt and shame over it and they want to change and heal.
I find that masturbatory conditioning is the royal road to acquiring a sexual deviation. This is especially risky and harmful if one is masturbating to pornographic images of sex with children, or being aroused by seeing images of women raped, sexually tortured, injured, etc. Or exposing oneself to other imagery which are pathogenic, unhealthy, and high risk if engaged in real life. In over 90% of my patients, regardless of what the original triggering or initiating causes were -- pornography may act as an aid, facilitator, or, at the very least, a contributor to their sexual addiction and illness.
I have found that in treating illnesses in this area for over 25 years that two things are required in order for a significant healing or long-term sobriety to occur:
1.The individual has to be in treatment with a sexual addiction therapist. This is one problem you can’t resolve yourself. Self-control and self-discipline don’t work. It’s like a cancer -- it never goes away or clears up on its own. If married (or in relationship with another), that person must also be in treatment too -- jointly with the same therapist, for they have been traumatized and have issues of depression, anger, etc., which have to be resolved. Also, the therapist has to have special training in treating this problem, or else you are wasting your time and money. Whether they are a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker is much less important than that they have a successful track record working in the sexual addiction area.
How do you find somebody like that? I have found, pragmatically, that the quickest way is either through A.A. or S.A. (Sexaholics Anonymous) in your city wherein you ask those attending these meetings who they have found to be most helpful in treating this in your community. You can find out when and where they meet by looking up the number for A.A. pr S.A. in your phone book and they will be able to direct you to a person or a time and location where you can get this information.
2.None of my patients ever stays permanently “sober” unless they also have membership in S.A. (Sexaholics Anonymous) which makes use of the 12-step program similar to A.A. There you should also acquire a “sponsor” who is someone with a reasonable time period of sobriety whom you can call any time of the day or night when the wave of overpowering temptation hits you and you start to crumble or relapse. This program is free. It (or a similar organization) exists in every medium-sized or larger city in America. In most places there will be meetings several times a week -- if that’s what you need.
PORNOGRAPHY’S EFFECTS ON ADULTS AND CHILDREN
Note: This is an abridged version of Dr. Cline’s article. The entire unabridged version is available in booklet form from Morality in Media, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 239, New York, NY 10115. Price: $3.00 per copy. Quantity discounts available.
1. What are Pornography and Obscenity?
Whether pornography has any significant harmful effects on consumers continues to be a controversial issue, not only for average citizens but also for behavioral scientists. This is not surprising in the light of the fact that two national commissions --the Majority Report of the 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography -- came to diametrically opposed conclusions about this matter.
Some social commentators claim that pornography is mainly a form of entertainment, possibly educational, sometimes sexually arousing, but essentially harmless. Or, they claim, at the very least, that there is no good scientific evidence of harm. Other social commentators claim more dire consequences and give as examples recent cases, played up by the media, of sex-murderers who have claimed that pornography “made them do it.”
To ascertain something about pornography’s effects, we first need to define it. The word “pornography” comes from the Greek words “porno” and “graphia” meaning “depictions of the activities of whores.” In common parlance, it usually means, “material that is sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
“Obscenity,” however, is a legal term which was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1973 Miller v. California decision. For something to be found obscene, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, a judge or jury representing a cross section of the community must determine if the material:
Taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient (sick, morbid, shameful, or lascivious) interest in sex;
Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner (i.e., goes beyond contemporary community standards with regards to depictions of sexual conduct or activity); and
Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
The material has to meet all three tests before it can be found obscene in the eyes of the law and its distribution prohibited. This means that something could be regarded as “pornographic” but still not be obscene, such as an explicit sex film produced and used to teach medical students about human sexuality, or a film or book with serious artistic and/or literary value which has some explicit sexual content.
Thus, the Supreme Court has protected a wide variety of sexual matter in movies, books, magazines, and in other formats from being prohibited for sale and exhibition to adults (there is a stricter standard with respect to minors). Under the Miller test, however, the distribution of pornographic material which is obscene, such as most of what can be called “hardcore,” can be prohibited and penalties proscribed.
The distribution of obscenity is prohibited on the federal level and on the state level in over 40 states. While the enforcement of obscenity laws increased after the Attorney General’s Commission issued its “Final Report” in 1986, particularly at the federal level, enforcement is at best sporadic in many parts of the nation.
This lack of enforcement, especially at the state and local levels, may be attributable, in part, to the view of many people and, in particular, public officials that pornography is essentially harmless or, at the least, that there is little or no real evidence of harm.
2. EFFECTS ON ADULTS
In reviewing the literature on the effects of pornography, there is a variety of evidence suggesting risk and the possibility of harm from being immersed in repeated exposure to pornography. These data come primarily from three sources:
1.Clinical case history data
2.Field studies
3.Experimental laboratory type studies
As a clinical psychologist, I have treated, over the years, approximately 350 sex addicts, sex offenders, or other individuals (96% male) with sexual illnesses. This includes many types of unwanted compulsive sexual acting-out, plus such things as child molestation, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadomasochism, fetishism, and rape. With several exceptions, pornography has been a major or minor contributor or facilitator in the acquisition of their deviation or sexual addiction.
FIRST STEP - ADDICTION
The first change that happened was an addiction-effect. The porn-consumers got hooked. Once involved in pornographic materials, they kept coming back for more and still more. The material seemed to provide a very powerful sexual stimulant or aphrodisiac effect, followed by sexual release, most often through masturbation. The pornography provided very exciting and powerful imagery which they frequently recalled to mind and elaborated on in their fantasies.
Once addicted, they could not throw off their dependence on the material by themselves, despite many negative consequences such as divorce, loss of family, and problems with the law (such as sexual assault, harassment or abuse of fellow employees).
I also found, anecdotally, that many of my most intelligent male patients appeared to be most vulnerable -- perhaps because they had a greater capacity to fantasize, which heightened the intensity of the experience and made them more susceptible to being conditioned into an addiction.
One of my patients was so deeply addicted that he could not stay away from pornography for 90 days, even for $1,000. It is difficult for non-addicts to comprehend the totally driven nature of a sex addict. When the “wave” hits them, nothing can stand in the way of getting what they want, whether that be pornography accompanied by masturbation, sex from a prostitute, molesting a child, or raping a woman. These men are consumed by their appetite, regardless of the cost or consequences. Their addiction virtually rules their lives.
SECOND STEP - ESCALATION
The second phase was an escalation-effect. With the passage of time, the addicted person required rougher, more explicit, more deviant, and “kinky” kinds of sexual material to get their “highs” and “sexual turn-ons.” It was reminiscent of individuals afflicted with drug addictions. Over time there is nearly always an increasing need for more of the stimulant to get the same initial effect.
Being married or in a relationship with a willing sexual partner did not solve their problem. Their addiction and escalation were mainly due to the powerful sexual imagery in their minds, implanted there by the exposure to pornography.
I have had a number of couple-clients where the wife tearfully reported that her husband preferred to masturbate to pornography than to make love to her.
THIRD PHASE - DESENSITIZATION
The third phase was desensitization. Material (in books, magazines, or films/videos) which was originally perceived as shocking, taboo-breaking, illegal, repulsive, or immoral, in time came to be seen as acceptable and commonplace. The sexual activity depicted in the pornography (no matter how anti-social or deviant) became legitimized. There was an increasing sense that “everybody does it” and this gave them permission to also do it, even though the activity was possibly illegal and contrary to their previous moral beliefs and personal standards.
FOURTH PHASE - ACTING OUT SEXUALLY
The fourth phase was an increasing tendency to act out sexually the behaviors viewed in the pornography, including compulsive promiscuity, exhibitionism, group sex, voyeurism, frequenting massage parlors, having sex with minor children, rape, and inflicting pain on themselves or a partner during sex. This behavior frequently grew into a sexual addiction which they found themselves locked into and unable to change or reverse -- no matter what the negative consequences were in their life.
Many examples of the negative effects of pornography-use come from the private or clinical practice of psychotherapists, physicians, counselors, attorneys, and ministers. Here we come face to face with real people who are in some kind of significant trouble or pain. One example from my practice might illustrate this.
I was asked to consult on a case where a Phoenix-Tucson area professional person, president of his firm and head of his church’s committee on helping troubled children, was found to be a serial rapist who had violently raped a number of women at gun- or knife-point in the Arizona area. In doing the background study on him, I found him to come from an exemplary background and trouble-free childhood. He was an outstanding student in high school and college.
His wife, children, business and church associates had not the slightest inkling of his double life or dark side. The only significant negative factor in his life was an early adolescent addiction to pornography which, for the most part, was kept secret from others. This gradually escalated over a period of years, eventually leading to spending many hours and incurring great expense at “adult” bookstores, looking at violent video-porn movies and masturbating to these.
His first rape was triggered by seeing a close resemblance in the woman he assaulted to the leading character in a porn movie he had seen earlier in the day. Reality and fantasy had become extremely blurred for him as he acted out his pathological sexual fantasies.
In my clinical experience, however, the major consequence of being addicted to pornography is not the probability or possibility of committing a serious sex crime (though this can and does occur), but rather the disturbance of the fragile bonds of intimate family and marital relationships. This is where the most grievous pain, damage, and sorrow occur. There is repeatedly an interference with or even destruction of healthy love and sexual relationships with long-term bonded partners. If one asks if porn is responsible or causes any sex crimes, the answer is unequivocally, “Yes,” but that is only the tip of the iceberg.
SEXUAL DEVIATIONS ARE LEARNED BEHAVIORS
The best evidence to date suggests that most or all sexual deviations are learned behaviors, usually through inadvertent or accidental conditioning. There is no convincing evidence to date, suggesting the hereditary transmission of any pathological sexual behavior pattern such as rape, incest, pedophilia, exhibitionism, or promiscuity.
As McGuire explains, as a man repeatedly masturbates to a vivid sexual fantasy as his exclusive outlet (introduced by a real life experience or possibly pornography), the pleasurable experiences endow the deviant fantasy (rape, molesting children, injuring one’s partner while having sex, etc.) with increasing erotic value. The orgasm experienced then provides the critical reinforcing event for the conditioning of the fantasy preceding or accompanying the act. (McGuire, R.J., et al., “Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior,” Behavior Research and Therapy, 1965, vol 2, p. 185).
In my experience as a sexual therapist, any individual who regularly masturbates to pornography is at risk of becoming, in time, a sexual addict, as well as conditioning himself into having a sexual deviancy and/or disturbing a bonded relationship with a spouse or girlfriend. A frequent side effect is that it also dramatically reduces their capacity to love. Their sexual side becomes, in a sense, dehumanized. Many of them develop an “alien ego state” (or dark side), whose core is antisocial lust devoid of most values.
It makes no difference if one is an eminent physician, attorney, minister, athlete, corporate executive, college president, unskilled laborer, or an average 15-year-old boy. All can be conditioned into deviancy.
THE EFFECTS OF AGGRESSIVE PORNOGRAPHY (PORNO-VIOLENCE)
In recent years, there has been a considerable body of research on aggressive pornography, much of it found in “hard R-rated” films. Many of these films are also shown unedited on cable TV and later are available to children in nearly every video store in America. The typical film shows nude females, or females in sexually arousing situations and postures, being raped, tortured, or murdered.
The results of this research suggest the possibility of conditioning viewers into associating sexual arousal with inflicting injury, rape, humiliation, or torture on females. Where these films are available on videotapes (which most are), these can be repeatedly viewed in the privacy of one’s residence and masturbated to, with the associated risks of negative or antisocial conditioning and behavior, as previously noted.
The literature on aggressive pornography is rather impressive in its consistency in suggesting a variety of harms or possibility of antisocial outcomes from exposure to this material. This should not be surprising after 40 years of research on film and TV violence arriving essentially at the same conclusion.
In a study by Mills College sociologist Diana Russell, it was found that the depiction and dissemination of the “rape myth” (i.e., that most women really enjoy having sex forced upon them) were significant elements in reducing inhibitions to the use of violence, habituating both males and females to the idea of rape and also accepting sexual aberrance as “normal” behavior. She also found that once the seeds of deviant behavior were planted in the male fantasy, the men were inclined to act out their fantasies. She found that both the fantasies were acted out, as well as the mere conceptualization of deviant fantasies as viable behaviors, led to considerable conflict and suffering on the part of both males and females, particularly in sexual relationships with their intimate partners. (Russell, Diana, Rape and Marriage, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982).
THE EFFECTS OF NON-VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY
The issue which has caught the attention of some behavioral scientists is whether it is the violence or the sex that is doing most of the “harm” when it is fused together in so-called aggressive pornography or porno-violence. Some will say, “Just eliminate the violence -- the sex is OK.”
Most therapists, however, as well as most ordinary citizens, would not regard the following examples as healthy models of sexual behavior, but all are frequently depicted in “non-violent” pornography:
· Child pornography and “pseudo child pornography”
· Incest pornography (e.g., mother seducing son, daughter seducing father, etc.)
· Sex with animals
· Group sex
· Sex which humiliates and denigrates women and their sex role in man/woman relationships (without overt violence)
· Obscene films which present a massive amount of misinformation or gross distortions about human sexuality
All of the above, while lacking violence, still have the potential of having negative effects on some viewers because they model unhealthy sex role behavior or give false information about human sexuality. Additionally, non-violent porn can contribute to acquiring a great variety of sexual addictions.
Additionally, empirical research suggests that when experimental subjects are exposed to repeated presentations of hardcore non-violent adult pornography over a six-week period, they:
· Develop an increased callousness toward women; trivialize rape as a criminal offense; to some it was no longer a crime at all;
· Develop distorted perceptions about sexuality;
· Develop an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (escalation); normal sex no longer seemed to “do the job;”
· Devalue the importance of monogamy and lack confidence in marriage as a lasting institution; and
· View non-monogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior.
(Zillman, D., and Bryant, J. “Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Satisfaction.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1988: vol 18, no. 5, pp 438-453; and Zillman, D., and Bryant, J., “Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values.” Journal of Family Issues (Dec. 1988): vol. 9, no. 4, pp 518-544.).
THE CASES OF GARY BISHOP AND TED BUNDY, SERIAL KILLERS
Another example of the effects of pornography comes from Gary Bishop, convicted homosexual pedophile who murdered five young boys in Salt Lake City, Utah, in order to conceal his sexual abuse of them. He wrote in a letter after his conviction: “Pornography was a determining factor in my downfall. Somehow I became sexually attracted to young boys and I would fantasize about them naked. Certain bookstores offered sex education, photographic, or art books which occasionally contained pictures of nude boys. I purchased such books and used them to enhance my masturbatory fantasies.
“Finding and procuring sexually arousing materials became an obsession. For me, seeing pornography was lighting a fuse on a stick of dynamite. I became stimulated and had to gratify my urges or explode. All boys became mere sexual objects. My conscience was desensitized and my sexual appetite entirely controlled my actions.”
In the case of Ted Bundy, serial killer of possibly 31 young women, he stated in a videotaped interview hours before his execution, “You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that.” While some commentators discounted his linking aggressive pornography to his sex-murders (when he said it fueled his violent thoughts toward women), there seems little doubt that Bundy consumed a great deal of pornography, much of it violent, from an early age.
EFFECTS OF DIAL-A-PORN ON CHILDREN
With the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Justice, I was commissioned to conduct a pilot field study on the effects of dial-a-porn on children (mostly pre-teens or early teens) who had become involved with this type of pornography, and their parents.
At the time of the study, any youngster of any age could call these porno lines and get these messages from nearly any place in the country. All they needed was a phone number to call, and the numbers were very easy to come by. If parents put a “block” on their phone to prevent these calls, the children merely found another phone to use.
With every one of the children we studied, we found an “addiction-effect.” In every case, without exception, the children (girls as well as boys) became hooked on this sex by phone and kept going back for more and still more. In some cases, more than 300 long distance calls were made by particular children.
One 12-year-old boy in Hayward, Calif., listened to dial-a-porn for nearly two hours on the phone in the empty pastor’s study between church meetings one Sunday afternoon. A few days later he sexually assaulted a four-year-old girl in his mother’s day care center. He had never been exposed to pornography before. He had never acted out sexually before and was not a behavior problem in the home. He had never heard of or knew of oral sex before listening to dial-a-porn. And this was how he assaulted the girl, forcing oral sex on her in direct imitation of what he had heard on the phone.
Since I conducted this study, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting obscene dial-a-porn messages and restricting access to indecent messages. Many dial-a-porn services, however, continue to operate in violation of this law, and neither the Justice Department nor the FCC is doing much about it.
THE VALUES THAT PERMEATE HARDCORE PORN
In a study reported to the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography by Dr. Jennings Bryant, 600 American males and females of high school age and above were interviewed about their “out in real life involvement with pornography.” He found that 91% of the males and 82% of the females admitted having been exposed to X-rated, hard-core pornography. Two-thirds of the males and 40% of the females reported wanting to try out some of the behaviors they had witnessed.
And, among high school students, 31% of males and 18% of the females admitted doing some of the things sexually they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure. This clearly suggests the modeling-effect or imitative-learning effect, as well as “triggering effect,” that even non-violent pornography has on human sexual behavior in some individuals.
As Dr. Bryant comments, “If the values which permeate the content of most hardcore pornography are examined, what is found is an almost total suspension of the sorts of moral judgement that have been espoused in the value systems of most civilized cultures. Forget trust. Forget family. Forget commitment. Forget love. Forget marriage. Here, in this world of ultimate physical hedonism, anything goes.
“If we take seriously the social science research literature in areas such as social learning or cultivation effects, we should expect that the heavy consumer of hardcore pornography should acquire some of these values which are so markedly different from those of our mainstream society, especially if the consumer does not have a well developed value system of his or her own.”
PORNOGRAPHY AS A TRAINING MANUAL
We also have a great deal of information that suggests that pornography is used by sex offenders as a “training manual” in not only acquiring their own deviation but also as a device to break down the resistance and inhibitions of their victims -- especially when the targets are children.
In an in-house study conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Administrative Vice division, in 60 percent of the child molestation cases referred to them over a 10-year period, adult or child pornography was used to lower the inhibitions of the children molested or to excite or sexually arouse the perpetrator of the abuse. In another study of 43 pedophiles, child pornography was found used in every one of the cases investigated. The officers reported the abusers repeatedly saying the same thing: “I used this stuff to stimulate the child, to break down his inhibitions.” (The World and I, December 1992: p. 508)
It is mainly pedophiles who create true child pornography using children. They do this for their own use as well as to exchange or sell the materials they produce. When this occurs, the children are doubly abused: at the time the films or videos or pictures are made, and when others observe these works in the future and get turned on sexually.
Child pornography invariably produces great shame and guilt in the children involved, especially as they get older and more fully comprehend the enormity of their abuse and know that there is a permanent record of their degradation.
Consider also the spread of sex education courses in schools throughout the United States. The assumption is that you can change attitudes and behaviors about sex through some form of teaching and instruction. If you assume that this is so -- still a controversial issue among researchers -- then you have to admit that to the possibility that pornography which models rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual situations are also powerful forms of sex education.
Anyone who has seen much pornography knows that most of it is made by men for male consumption; is extremely sexist; gives a great deal of misinformation about human sexuality; is devoid of love, relationship, and responsibility; mentions nothing about the risks of sexually transmitted diseases; and, for the most part, dehumanizes male and female participants.
Pornography portrays unhealthy or even anti-social kinds of sexual activity, such as sado-masochism, abuse and humiliation of the female, involvement of minors, incest, group sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bestiality, etc. If we just examine its educative impact, it presents us with some cause for concern.
WHY SOME CLAIM ‘NO EFFECTS’
Some of the “experts” who publicly suggest that pornography has no effects are just unaware of the research and studies suggesting harm. Others really do not believe what they are asserting. Still others will only reluctantly admit to the possibility of harm from “violent pornography.”
In some cases, they are pretending not to know because of their concern over what they falsely believe is censorship or loss of First Amendment rights. Some fear the tyranny of a moralist minority who might take away their rights to view and use pornography, then later take away free speech and expression. Some are themselves sex addicts with a hidden agenda behind their public posturing. Thus, for some of them, the issue is political. It also has to do with their personal values and much less with what any contrary evidence might suggest.
CONCLUSION
In this brief essay, it is not possible to review all of the studies on pornography’s effects. But the studies and other evidence set forth here still should be sufficient to give the reader a sense of the field, and thus answer for himself or herself the question of pornography’s potential to change or influence sexual attitudes and behavior.
In my clinical practice, I have treated both children and adults who have been unequivocally and repeatedly injured by exposure to pornography. If anyone still has doubts about pornography’s effects, I would suggest that he or she get invited to some meetings of “Sexaholics Anonymous” and personally witness the pain and trauma first hand.
In a society where some types of pornographic material are protected by the Constitution and obscenity laws go unenforced, some individuals may choose to immerse themselves in pornography. These individuals should be made aware of the health hazards involved. This kind of knowledge is most important for parents, since most sexual and pornographic addictions begin in middle childhood or adolescence, most of the time without the parents’ awareness or the children have an insufficient understanding of the risks involved.
======================================