To the no-name: I had never heard of the Masters and Johnson Institute until you brought it to my attention. A search on Altavista found, among other, this link. www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/carla.htm
It wouldn’t surprise me if Masters and Johnson were somehow related to Kinsey, which would make them the frauds, not me.
To Demo Dick: In my earlier post I had stated that the sources I was quoting were cut and pasted from the links you supposedly couldn’t read. If you failed to catch that then I wonder how much of the rest of the post you failed to read. Why exactly is the slippery slope argument erroneous, because you say it is? Or is it just too simple, it couldn’t possibly be right? Why don’t we explain things to those “laypeople” who perhaps aren’t up to your intellectual caliber. Here goes. We live in the world. There are lots of things in the world. These things are good in moderation. Drinking 1 gallon of water is good, drinking 1,000 gallons will kill you. Eating 3,000 calories will keep you alive and relatively healthy, 30,000 calories will make you fat. So far so good. You just have to make sure that you take things in moderation. It’s not as easy at it sounds, though. The human body, as we all know, is an incredibly adaptive organism, it’s constantly changing to react to external stimuli. If you’re thirsty, you drink water, and voila, your thirst is gone. If you’re hungry, you eat something, and voila, no more hunger. But suppose you drink a beer? You’ll be a little buzzed after the first beer, and even more so if you drink another one. But you’re feeling good, really good. So you drink another, and another, and another, until eventually you feel sick, throw up, etc. You stop drinking and sleep it off, and everything’s back to the way it was. Except for one thing. Your tolerance for alcohol has increased. The next week when you go out to drink it takes two beers to get the same effects as the one you had last time. And it keeps on increasing until you either a.) become sick of it and stop your intake, or b.) moderate your intake, or c.) become a drinker. It works the same way with weight training. You begin to lift some weights. You get stronger, bigger, leaner, etc. You figure, “If x is good, then 2x must be better, and 3x must be great.” So eventually you find yourself overtraining. You get injured, your joints hurt, your muscles feel tired. You take a little time off, recuperate, and go back at it. You’re stronger now than when you first started out. But maybe you still haven’t learned your lesson, and you find yourself overtraining again. You’ll continue this cycle until you a.) stop training altogether, or b.) figure out the right amount of training to do, or c.) keep going on in the same destructive cycle, all the while wondering what’s wrong. Let’s try using this with sexual arousal, for this argument’s sake, let’s say a guy who masturbates to photos of women. He picks up the SI swimsuit issue, loves the babes in it, and flips through all the pages while he’s jerking off. He ejaculates, puts the magazine away, and goes about his daily business. Eventually he’s going to get tired of the SI swimsuit issue, so he picks up a playboy, jerks off, gets off, and goes back to his daily grind. He gets used to it, maybe he’s wondering what’s between women’s legs, so he finds photos of women spreading their legs. Eventually he’s going to find photos of men having sex with women, imagining himself in the male pornstar’s place. And it goes on and on until he a.) becomes disgusted and stops altogether, or b.) moderates his consumption or the types of porn he consumes, or c.) becomes a porn addict and can’t control himself. But at the beginning he was just starting down the slippery slope. There’s also the fact that most porn addicts become addicted to porn as young teens. At that age people aren’t “normal, well-adjusted” people. They’re far more susceptible to succumb to addiction than are adults. A normal, well-adjusted ADULT might not have major problems with pornography (or they might, as all people are different), but a teenager will have problems. And what’s your hang-up with the “Religious Right”? Is your defense of pornography based solely on your hatred of religion? And what exactly do you mean when you say, “I’m familiar with a good portion of your cites, and none of them were exactly earth-shattering in the field of Sociology and human behavioral studies.” Are you implying that in order for a study to be correct it must be “earth-shattering?” Is that the measure by which you judge the validity of studies?
To char-dawg: In case you haven’t read the PDF document at http://www.enough.org/ justharmlessfun.pdf I’ll copy its section dealing with the 1986 and 1970 presidential commissions. I quote:
“The then-available evidence as to the influence of pornography was assessed by two major Commissions established in 1970 and 1986, respectively. In 1970, the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that there was insufficient evidence that exposure to explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior. In 1986, the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography reached the opposite conclusion, advising that available pornography was in varying degrees harmful. In effect, however, the two Commissions were answering different questions.
Between 1970 and 1986 the nature of the available material changed substantially. In 1970, full frontal nudity was rarely found in newsstand magazines, since it could be successfully prosecuted as obscenity. One scholar noted that ‘in 1970, many of the experimental studies utilized sexually explicit materials from sex research institutes…because of the difficulty of obtaining materials from the local market.’ 19 Needless to say, by 1986 this was no longer a research constraint! By 1986, gynecological close-ups were available in newsstand magazines and hard-core material (‘penetration clearly visible’) was not difficult to find in adult video stores.
This complete change in the pornography ‘scene’ contributed to the change in findings between 1970 and 1986. Also, in 1970 only a limited amount of research had been carried out, much of it originated by the Commission itself, in comparison to the extensive studies completed since then. The 1970 Commission was criticized for failing to adequately address the impact of violent pornography and, as a result, much of the research over the next sixteen years went into this area.
By 1986, there was ‘some convergent validation’ 20 of the effects of violent pornography, including findings that sexually violent depictiong led to: Aggression against women under laboratory test conditions; Significant increases by college males in the acceptance of rape myths and of sexual violence towards women; Seeing the rape victim as more responsible for the assault, with perpetrators absolved and viewed less negatively; More aggressive sexual fantasies.
Even certain scholars who attributed such results primarily to the violence component noted that ‘a nonrapist population will evidence increased sexual arousal to media-presented images of rape…when the female victim shows signs of pleasure and arousal, the theme most commonly presented in aggressive pornography.’ 21
The Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health met from June 22-24, 1986, and, like the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission, concluded that ‘pornography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and for society.’ 22
Subsequent Research
Subsequent work has indicated that detrimental effects are not limited to violent pornography. Since social science studies are rarely unanimous in their findings (there are exceptions to every trend), the most compelling academic evidence comes from reviewing a multitude of research studies and looking for patterns. Such work can take the form of ‘review studies’ (which review and compare the results of a number of original research studies) and ‘meta-analyses’ ( which aggregate the results of original research studies meeting stringent criteria of comparability). Some recent examples are: A review study in 1994, based on 81 original peer-reviewed research studies (35 using aggressive stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive stimuli), concluded that ‘the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with fairly impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape.’ The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure. 23
A meta-analysis in 1995, using the results of 24 original experimental studies, found that ‘violence within the pornography is not necessary to increase the acceptance of rape myths’ (i.e. the myth that women secretly desire to be raped). The study noted that the link between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography stems from a simple premise – ‘that most pornography commodifies sex, that women become objects used for male pleasure, and that as objects of desire, they are to be acted on.’ The study also noted that such attitudinal changes are of concern because ‘several recent meta-analyses demonstrate a high correlation (about r=.80 between attitude and behavior.’ 24
A separate meta-analysis in 1995, using a set of 33 studies, found that ‘violent content, although possibly magnifying the impact of the pornography, is unnecessary to producing aggressive behavior.’ 25
Another line of research into non-violent pornography makes the distinction between ‘non-violent erotica’ and ‘non-violent dehumanizing pornography,’ where dehumanizing pornography is characterized by depictions which degrade and debase women. Dehumanizing pornography is also referred to as ‘standard-fare’ or ‘common’ hard-core pornography by some academic researchers – ‘the characteristic portrayal of women in pornography as socially non-discriminating, as hysterically euphoric in response to just about any sexual or pseudosexual stimulation, and as eager to accommodate any and every sexual request.’ 26
Examples from this line of research include: A study in 1989 for the Canadian Department of Justice found that ‘high-frequency pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography (relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency of habitual pornography consumption.’ 27 The authors noted that ‘the effects of exposure were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos.’
The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material – 20.4 percent versus 9.6 percent. Detailed analysis revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects – those who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics).
A 1989 review of a series of studies of ‘common’ pornography found that its consumption led to insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence, trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, trivialization of sexual child abuse as a criminal offense, increased belief that lack of sexual activity leads to health risks and increased acceptance of pre- and extra-marital sexuality. The study noted that ‘habitual male consumers of common pornography appear to be at greater risk of becoming sexually callous’ towards female sexuality and concerns. 28
A review of the literature and research in 1994 discusses the ‘sexual callousness’ effect associated with standard-fare pornography, noting that: ‘Enhanced perceptual and behavioral callousness toward women is most apparent following consumption of materials that unambiguously portray women as sexually promiscuous and indiscriminating – a depiction that dominates modern pornography.’ 29
Straw Men
It is customary for pornography advocates to counter such findings by overstating them. For example: ‘It is ridiculous to suggest that one look at a Playboy turns a man into a rapist.’ Of course that would be ridiculous: it’s also not what the research is suggesting. Or: ‘Pornography can’t compel anyone to act in a particular way.’ True, and neither did liquor or tobacco advertisements (now banned or restricted) compel anyone to buy their products. Or: “Pornography doesn’t affect everyone the same way.” True, and neither did tobacco or liquor ads – but their influence was undeniable.
What the research does show is that pornography is a strong, negative influence affectgin attitudes and behavior. It promotes the same attitudes towards women that breed sexual harassment and destroy relationships. It promotes the same attitudes towards sexuality that breed promiscuity and the spread of STDs. It teaches that the main function of ‘a sensitive, key relationship of human existence’ is simply self-gratification at the expense of others. And it is sold without even a ‘Surgeon-General’s Warning.’” This passage came from pages 6-9 of the PDF document linked above, “Just Harmless Fun?: Understanding the Impact of Pornography.” The sources quoted are as follows: 19: Einsiedel, E.F. (1995). “Social Science and Public Policy: Constraints on the Linkage,” Prevention in Human Services, 12, p.93. 20: Ibid. 21 Donnerstein, E. & Linz, D. (1986) “Mass Media Sexual Violence and Male Viewers,” American Behavioral Scientist, 29 (5), p. 603. 22 Koop, C.E., (October, 1987). “Report of the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health.” American Psychologist, 42 (10), p. 944. 23 Lyons, J.S., Anderson, R.I., and Larsen, D., “A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Pornography,” in Zillman, Bryant & Huston (Ed.), Media, Children & the Family: Social Scientific, Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perpectives [sic], Hillsdale, N.J., J. Erlbaum Associates, p.305. 24 Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery M.A. (1995). “Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths.” Journal of Communication, Winter, p. 19 and pp. 7-8. 25 Allen, M., D’Alessio, D., & Brezgel, K. (1995). A Meta-analysis Summarizing the Effects of Pornography II. Human Communication Research, 22, p. 271. 26 see note 10 above [note 10 is Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. (1984). “Effects of massive exposure to pornography,” in Malamuth, NM & Donnerstein, E., (Ed.), Pornography and sexual aggression., Orlando, FL: Academic Press, p. 134 (Quoted by Check and Guloien – note 27 below) 27 Check, J.V.P., & Guloien, T.H. (1989) “Reported Proclivity for Coercive Sex Following Repeated Exposure to Sexually Violent Pornography, Nonviolent Dehumanizing Pornography, and Erotica,” Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, p. 160. 28 Zillman, D. (1989). “Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography,” In Zillman & Bryant (Ed.), Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, p. 155. 29 Weaver, J.B. (1994) “Pornography and Sexual Callousness: The Perceptual and Behavioral Consequences of Exposure to Pornography,” in Zillman, Bryant, and Hustons (Eds.), Media, Children and the Family: Social Scientific, Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perspectives, p.224.
And finally, here are some more links to articles and studies, complete with sources. http://www.nffre.org/html/ documents/family_structure/ an_investigation_of_the_relationship.html
http://www.nffre.org/ html/documents/other/a_metaanalysis of_the_published_research_on_the effects_of_pornography.html
Yes, I’m well aware of the criteria you posted above, and from what I’ve read, the studies did have control groups. Just because someone’s been exposed to pornography in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that he can’t participate in control group in a study on the effects of pornography. That’s like saying someone who’s been on a high-protein diet in the past can’t participate in a control group in a study studying the effects of high-protein diets. If you’d like to demonstrate that the control groups were somehow invalid, by all means do so, as I still have to wait a few days before I can access my university library to look up these studies.
To michelle: What percentage of men would you estimate have a healthy view of women? My guess would be pretty small.