|
Updated: 09/08/2001
Sections: Sexual Images and Sex Crimes
It is assumed by some that the effects of sexual imagery are negative and can be likened to depictions of drugs and violence in the media. Since this is the case, they reason, society is obliged to take measures to control access to these images. But there is a problem. Research does not support a relationship between nonviolent sexual imagery (including pornography) and sex crimes.
Those who advocate the censorship of sexual material have repeatedly enlisted the help of researchers to prove a link between sexual materials—even hard-core pornography—and sexual crime. The "link" that has been established has rested much more on religious and political thinking than on objective research data. Although many studies have been done on this over the years, we'll confine ourselves to several major, reputable studies.
In 1967,
President Lyndon B. Johnson established the National Commission on Obscenity
and Pornography. But after three years of extensive research, the Commission
found no convincing evidence of a causal connection between pornography
and sex crime. Of course, this statement was politically unpopular and infuriated people who were were convinced that that the research would find a link between sexual imagery and rape and sexual crime. Hoping that additional research would find different results, another government-funded U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was instituted in 1970. However this commission concluded: "[We] find no evidence that exposure to or the use of sexual explicit material plays a significant role in the causation of social or individual harms." Some 16 years later another U.S. commission was formed. Apparently trying to insure that the results would be more politically acceptable than the findings of previous studies, Attorney General Edwin Meese (who was known as an outspoken opponent of pornography) was put in charge of the study. After much controversy about the data and charges of politically tainted conclusions, the commission stated, "there is a causal relationship between exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behavior directed toward women." (Note the relationship is between sexually violent materials and aggressive behavior.) But even this conclusion prompted considerable debate within the commission, itself. Two women members, Ellen Levine, Woman's Day editor and Dr. Judith Becker, associate professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, interpreted the data differently. After reviewing the same data they concluded: "There are no scientific studies that show that exposure to nonviolent sexual material causes a person to commit a sexual crime or become more sexually aggressive." Dr. Becker, who was also serving as director of the Sexual Behavior Clinic of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, told the New York Times, "I've been working with sex offenders for 10 years and have reviewed the scientific literature, and I don't think a casual link exists between pornography and sex crimes." Interestingly, some of the major research scientists quoted in the Meese Commission to support their anti-pornography findings disassociated themselves from the final report and charged that their research had been misrepresented. Meanwhile, the British decided to launch their own investigation into a possible link between sexual materials and sex crime. After considerable study they issued the following conclusion: "We unhesitatingly reject the suggestion that the available statistical information for England and Wales leads any support at all to the argument that pornography acts as a stimulus to the commission of sexual violence." A report by the Danish Council of Forensic Medicine concluded, "No scientific experiment exists which can lay a basis for the assumption that pornography or 'obscene' pictures and films contribute to the committing of sexual offenses by normal adults or young people." The term "normal" is significant. In these studies they were not talking about people with psychological problems. With these people findings indicate that pornography may either help or hinder their condition, depending upon the nature of their problems. Interestingly,
when Denmark removed all obscenity laws the incidence of sex crimes
actually declined by nearly 50 percent. (Some of this could undoubtedly
be traced to the fact that there then were fewer sex-related laws to
break.)
Throughout this discussion we've been referring to "nonviolent" sexual content. Some critical distinctions need to be made in this regard. Early in the development of the Worldwide Web pornography became the most profitable of all the web-based businesses. As a result, a profusion of pornographic web sites sprung up. (At look at the economics underlying the success of VHS rentals reveals this medium was also fueled in large measure by X-rated materials.) Because of the great amount of money being made in pornographic web sites, they have become highly competitive, each trying to outdo the other in ever more explicit and shocking content (just as mainstream films are now trying to outdo each other with every more shocking violent content). In trying to outdo each other in sexual content, some Internet sites now feature acts of violence, and depictions of sadistic and nonconsensual sex acts. It is important to note that the studies we've previously cited relate to consensual, nonviolent sexual material. Once we move beyond this to real or staged depictions nonconsensual sex acts, the research is much different. The effect of film and TV violence is important to consider in this regard. This who attack pornographic materials typically cite sexual deviants, including one or two infamous serial killers, who reported viewing—or being obsessed by—violent sexual material from an early age. (It should also be noted that most of these killers also had a fascination with guns and knives.) At the same time the majority of normal adults encounter pornographic materials without antisocial consequences. (Married, white males over 30 with average incomes view most of the pornographic Internet materials.)
Does pornography become an obsession with some people? Yes, definitely. Some men spend hours collecting and viewing pornography. Does this cause sex crime? Although there are disturbed individuals who act out obsessions, the evidence indicates that for normal individuals, even an obsession with pornography doesn't lead to antisocial behavior. It should go without saying that long-standing obsessions of any sort, be they with pornography, guns, knives, feelings of revenge, or whatever, are basically morbific, and may at some time (for a few unstable individuals) be associated with an acting-out of the obsession. The addictive aspect of pornography will be covered later.
There is a common argument that pornography is degrading to women. If this is true, and if we don't assume a dual standard based on an archaic attitude about women or a belief that sex is degrading in itself, pornography must also be degrading to the men involved. This dual standard aspect of pornography is seldom, if ever, addressed. For another answer we can turn to the glut of amateur pornographic videos where women (and men) willingly take part in pornography without material compensation. Thousands of women have also elected to start their own websites (for free and for profit) featuring still photos or webcams and X-rated content of themselves. Since the dawn of pornographic imagery it has been known that it is much easier to find women than it is to find men who are willing to be in front of the camera. The fact that the commercial pornography market is often associated with unrespectable business types is not surprising, given the fact that society considers the field unrespectable to start with. Although the fact is not publicized and is disguised in profit reports, some prestigious, mainstream U.S. corporations derive a substantial percentage of their income from marketing pornography. A leading advocate of women's rights, Nadine Strossen, effectively establishes the woman's viewpoint on this issue in a well- researched book, Defending Pornography—Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. Among the many positive reviews of the book is one by Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW (the National Organization of Women). DeCrow says, "Nadine Strossen crushes forever the myths that sexually explicit materials are harmful to women or inherently sexist, and that if one is against sexism, one is against sex. Defending Pornography shows why feminists must be the most ardent defenders of free expression. Read this book!" Another well-reviewed and extensively-researched book is XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, by Wendy McElroy. Ms. EcElroy takes up each of the common complaints against the sex industry.
The fact that there is no real evidence that sexual materials cause sex crimes does not stop those who would like to politically exploit this emotionally charged issue. If a large number of people want to believe there is a relationship between sexual imagery and sex crimes, then it is just good politics to cater to those beliefs. A campaign promise to "clean up filth" has gotten more than one politician elected.
(Click on "more" for the second half of this section.)
|
