Pornography: A Right or a Risk? Rebekah Balick

Pornography: A Right or a Risk?

Rebekah Balick

Today’s society has an enormous capacity to ignore—to look the other way. Everyone, it

seems, understands that there are certain aspects of adults’ private lives that the rest of society

does not ask about or interfere with—after all, what business is it of theirs? Watching

pornography, the viewing of material containing sexually explicit content intended for sexual

arousal, is one such aspect. It is a subject that people do not discuss in polite company, yet one

that invades many people’s lives. While some outright defend it, and even those who do not tend

to simply ignore its existence, further research into the topic shows that pornography can be

incredibly mentally and even physically harmful both to those who view it and to those involved

inits production. In the first case, the harm lies in the strong addiction that affects the mind of

the viewer; in the second, there are countless sources detailing the mental and physical abuse that

actors and actresses in the industry are subject to. Manydeny the harm that it causes, with

reasons ranging from defending pornography as free speech or simply urging others to accept its

existence and leave it alone. Yet as evidence revealing the harm that pornography causes mounts,

indifference no longer remains an option. Once a product becomes harmful to society as a whole,

it is no longer “none of our business”: it begins to affect everyone, and societymust decide if it

will allow the product to persist. As evidence of pornography’s detrimental effects becomes

apparent, humanity inherits the responsibility to stop the spread of pornography because of the

damage that it causes to those who produce it, those who consume it, and the entire society under

which its presence festers.

Pornography is a product, and though many will deny it, the process of producing it

causes vast amounts of harm for those involved. A popular defense of pornography is that the

industry is safe; the actors are perfectly protected and participate because they want to and

choose to. Yet evidence continues to come to light revealing the abuse and corruption within the

industry. The website “Fight The New Drug” has compiled multiple testimonies of former porn

stars who, now out of the industry, are able to voice their experiences (“10 Popular Ex-Porn

Performers”). Disproving the claim that these performers “do it because they like to do it”,

former star Elizabeth said she repeatedly “lied to [her] fans” and “led them to believe [she] lived

a fantasy life”. In reality, however, her life and work were far more brutal than she let on, and

she cited multiple instances in which she was forced into situations that she had not agreed to.

Another actress, Jenna, stated that her experience was “torture for seven years” during which she

was “miserable”, lonely, and suicidal. Multiple girls cite instances of being “hit,” “choked,” and

“beaten half to death” on set. Yet all of this abuse is denied by the industry. In February of 2018,

the porn industry hosted its “Oscars of Porn” to celebrate the industry’s accomplishments and

“progress” (Romero). This particular year, however, the porn stars in attendance had to honor the

lives of five female porn actresses who had committed suicide since their previous award show

(Romero). The “wave of tragedy” had “generated global headlines” as many interpreted the

suicides as evidence of the evils of the porn industry. However, the industry has implied that they

attribute the deaths to “cyberbullying…from outside the industry”, dismissing the idea that

perhaps the industry itselfhadcaused the victims’ depression (Romero). Ironically, this same

award ceremony also faced scandals regarding the rampant sexual abuse occurring on porn

filming sites, even having to ban certain directors and stars from the proceedings for “groping”,

“harassment”, and even violence toward performers (Romero). Suppression of other scandals,

such as HIV outbreaks and sexual disease statistics, are incredibly common in the industry, as

evidenced by former stars who testify that there “are a lot of cover-ups going on” (“10 Popular

Ex-Porn Performers”). The fact that an industry this powerful can deny any blame for the pain—

physical and emotional—that these women experience is sickening and concerning. With this

evidence proclaiming the evils ofthe industry, one ought to find it abundantly clear that this

business is not akin toany other private business: it is one that demeans, harms, and violates.

In addition to the physical and psychological damage that pornography brings to the

actors, viewing of porn also has drastic effects on those who consume the content. A 2014 study

on Indian male migrant workers concluded, after extensive research, that those who view porn

frequently haveamuch higher risk of HIV infectionsand are more likely to spread sexually

transmitted diseases to others (Mahapatra). The study suggests that this link may be due to the

fact that theparticipants who viewed porn were far more likely to engage in premarital and

extramarital sex, to favor multiple sex partners as opposed to one, to drink before engaging in

intercourse, and to frequent brothels(Mahapatra). Another statistic of the 2014 study reports that

pornography viewers were more likely to practice violent sexual behavior—an alarming statistic

that is supported by studies performed in other nations. Evidenceindicatesthat Western porn

viewers are more likely to have multiple sex partners and report sexual aggression levels that are

“four times higher than those who do not consume pornography” (Mahapatra). And indeed,

evidence exists of violent acts relating to pornography consumption; in 2005, a woman by the

name of Jane Longhurst was brutally murdered by a man who had been consuming “violent

pornography” online for years (Pasanen). Other sources show that “exposure to… pornography

results in increases in both attitudes supporting sexual aggression and in actual aggression”

(Dines). The same studies show that even in cases where the porn is not “violent”, thosewho

view it frequently still experience disruption intheiremotional connections withreal-life

partners and disappointment because their partners cannot “perform” like porn stars (Dines).

Overall, exposure to pornography jeopardizesthe healthy sexual development and education of

those who use it and harms their ability to create healthy connections and relationships.

Another way in which pornography harms its consumers is through the formation of a

powerful addiction. Though the industry discredits claims of pornography’s addictive qualities,

organizations and support groups are appearing more frequently to help those struggling with an

“addiction” to pornography (Jenkins). Journalist Howard W. Jenkins Jr. cites Dr. Mark Laaser as

saying that “sexual fantasy and activity, because of naturally produced brain chemicals, has the

ability to create brain tolerance to sex” and turn people into “sex addicts”. Multiple instances

have been cited of pornography addictions disrupting marriages and relationships and of people

being fired for viewing pornography while at work (Jenkins). The fact that pornography can

become so addictive reinforces the fact that it is more than harmless entertainment; it is a real

problem that is drastically affecting the lives of those exposed to it. Mary Eberstadt, in her article

“Is Pornography the New Tobacco?”, compares the rise of pornography to the prevalence of

tobacco use in the 1950s and 60s. Pornography, she states, is reaching the same levels of

consumption that tobacco smoking did in the past, and gaining just as many ardent defenders.

Just like tobacco users of the past, pornography consumers create justifications and use nearly

identical rationales for their right to continue in their addiction. They extol its benefits: stress

relief, pleasure, a form of relaxation that does notinterfere with their personal lives. They cite

that it causes no harm, that everybody is using it, and that, at the very least, they are not

consuming something worse. These rationales are incredibly similar to the defense of tobacco

that existed in the past, as people passionately debated for the right to smoke and “experts”

refuted the claims that smoking caused physical harm. Eberstadt suggests that just as the tobacco

addiction clouded smokers’ judgement of its potential dangers, the addiction to pornography is

blinding consumers to the harm that it causes in society. While not conclusive, Eberstadt’s claim

regarding the striking similarities between these two phenomena ought to raise concern as to the

nature of pornography’s addictive quality and questions as to whether the addiction is preventing

a discussion about the mounting evidence of pornography’s harm.

One of the most popular arguments in favor of pornography is that it is a form of

expression and free speech protected by the First Amendment. Currently, the US government has

in place free speech restrictions on obscene content that “appeals to prurient interest” and “lacks

serious value” (Downs). However, “obscene” remains difficult to define; the specifications

currently in place are broad enough that proponents could easily argue that “virtually any

pornography has ‘value’ ”, thus complicating the restriction process (Curtis). Some praise its

existence just as much as they praise controversial political material, defending it because

pornography challenges the established social morality and “invites you to think” (Carol). Critics

of pornographic censorship have argued that censorship in this area is too much of a slippery

slope to censorship in other areas (Curtis). Yet this argument is far less convincing when the

nature of pornography is considered in more detail. Firstly, the notion that pornography is “of

value” to society is highly contestable. Secondly, pornography is far more complex than mere

“offensive speech.” The difference between pornography and other kinds of censorship is that

pornography does not merely “challenge” the established morality: it threatens the entire moral

compass of society and directly harms individuals. Professor Catharine MacKinnon laments that

“pornography is defended as only words… even when the means of writing are women’s bodies,

even when a woman is destroyed to say it” (qtd. in Pasanen). Pornography is not mere words or

speech; it is a practice that causes harmand therefore much more difficult to defend.

Another defense of the industry is that the depictions of sex are no more dangerous than

depictions of violence in other media. Yet this assumption is refutable for a very clear reason:

pornography is different from other forms of entertainment media. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has

stated after years of research that “pornographic sexual images are quite different from

entertainment sex and violence: they are real. They are processed differently.” He even

distinguishes pornography from sex scenes in TV shows or movies, saying that these scenes

“don’t play on the powerful chemical signals that real sexual stimuli activate”, thus showing that

porn is processed in a way totally different from other forms of “entertainment.” Other studies

reveal that pornography has direct effects on cognition because of the way that “media images

shape our cognition and behavior” (Dines). Humans “build our sexual identities, norms, and

values from the images and messages that pervade our culture”, and if pornography is the media

through which one is receiving “sexual education”, then it will certainly warp and distort one’s

view of sex and human relationships in a way that is harmful for everyone(Dines). Pornography

is not divorced from reality the same way that other fictional media is; it is real, it is portrayed as

real, healthy, and desirable, and its prevalence only reinforces the harmful tendencies it displays.

In addition to harming both consumers and producers, pornography also poses a

substantial threat to society as a whole. Mika Pasanen, in discussing pornography’s social

impact, states that pornography’s “primary rule is transgression” against the standard norms and

contexts of sexual behavior. In his discussion, Pasanen emphasizes the role of the family unit in

sexual education of young people, stating that “the family produces the boundaries of… good,

licit sex” by demonstrating “monogamy, marriage, and procreative sexuality as the norm.” Yet

pornography seeks to obliterate these barriers and, as it gains traction, usurp the role of the

familyin teaching sexual morality. If it succeeds, young people will begin to believe that sex in

the real world takes place in the same context as pornography—namely, that it takes place

outside the bond of love, that it ispermissiblyviolent and abusive, and that women and men in

real life will “perform” the same way that porn stars do. Researchers fear the possibility that

“behavior on the screen will be internalized” and “representations of violent sex [will] incite

consumers to actit out” (Pasanen). According to Gail Dines, pornography affects young people,

especially young boys, by “robbing them of their right to develop sexually in ways that are…

developmentally appropriate.” Pornography, rather than “[promoting] sexual freedom…

constrains our imaginations and desires” (Dines). Even more frightening is the way in which

pornography teaches people to use one another. With the way itdepicts sex, pornography turns

people into objects that may be used for selfish personal pleasure andprofit, thus tearing away

their inherent dignity. Such a practiceought to be incredibly concerning since demeaning the

human dignity of anyone inevitably leads to the disregard for the human dignity of others. If sex

comes to be viewed in this light—as an act that is available for personal pleasurewith little to no

mention of consent—it will break apart marriage, perpetuate rape and violence, increase the

spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and demean the dignity of the human person.

Yet what can be done to stop it? Unfortunately, many scholars, despite their negative

views of pornography, believe that the “genie is out of the bottle”—that pornography is here to

stay (Eberstadt). Pasanen argues that the “ ‘pornographic imagination’ cannot be limitedby law

as it inherently feeds on such prohibitions;” in other words, laws that outlaw extreme

pornography will only lead to increased levels of eroticization in pornography because the very

“forbidden” nature of pornography is part of its appeal. Creatingand passing official legislation

that restricts pornography is all-too-often criticized as “policing the behavior of consenting

adults” and trespassing on the right to free speech (Jenkins). As a result, the government has

done little, the pornography industry has grown immeasurably, and many believe that it cannot

be stopped. Still, other solutions remain. Just as popular opinion, education, and openness to

factual information changedthe smoking trend, a shift in societal attitudes may be the best way

toprevent pornography’s precedence (Eberstadt). If individualsrefrain from using it and do not

waste opportunities to condemn itin our societies, listening to victims and telling of its evils,

society willhave much greater success in ending pornography’sinfluence. The Supreme Court

has ruled in the past against material that poses a moral threat to society (Downs). If a public

body can succeed in proving its harm, the government will be more willing to put an end to it. In

other words, if public policy cannot stop it, perhaps the people can.

In conclusion, pornography as a form of media ought to be outlawed for the harm that it

causes to those who produce it, those who consume it, and the society as a whole. Reliance on

governments to fix the issue is not enough; rather, the public must become more aware of its

consequences and work to rid society of its evils. Pornography disrupts one’sperception of the

dignity of others; this fact alone ought to be enough to show that it shouldnever to be upheld or

supported. Society has a duty touse its powerful voice tokeep such material out of communities,

homes, and families. Never before has the public had such a powerful voice in the government or

law, and as such, it must use its knowledge and belief in dignity to oppose those who seek to

debase human sexualityand those who remain indifferent. Pornography is an evil, and once its

evil is removed from society, the ideals of human dignity and healthy sexuality may be rebuilt

and promoted once more. Only by standing upfor human dignitydo humansfulfill theirmoral

responsibility tosociety and to each other; onlythen does humanity succeed.

Works Cited

“10 Popular Ex-Porn Performers Reveal The Brutal Truth Behind Their Most Famous Scenes.” Fight the New Drug, Fight the New Drug, 27 Oct. 2017, fightthenewdrug.org/ 10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/. Accessed 12 December 2018.

Curtis, Michael K. "Critics of 'free speech' and the uses of the past." Constitutional Commentary, Spring 1995, pp. 29-65. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/ apps/doc/A16889326/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid=2f7e22b8. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Carol, Avedon. "Pornography Should Not Be Censored." Pornography, edited by Helen Cothran, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010158243/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xi d=35031335. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Dines, Gail. "Pornography Contributes to Sexual Violence." Sexual Violence, edited by Amanda Hiber, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010163404/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xi d=2d144ff8. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018. Originally published as "Congressional Briefing on the Harms of Pornography," Gaildines.com, 26 June 2010.

Downs, Donald A. "Freedom of Speech: Obscenity and Pornography." American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 308- 311. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX36291002 89/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid=5c76eb80. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Eberstadt, Mary. "Is pornography the new tobacco?" Policy Review, no. 154, 2009, p. 3+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A198361524/ OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid=9cb28ee7. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Jenkins Jr., Holman W. "Pornography, Main Street To Wall Street." Policy Review, 2001, p. 3. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A70741314/ OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid=ca406153. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Mahapatra, Bidhubhusan, and Niranjan Saggurti. "Exposure to Pornographic Videos and Its Effect on HIV-Related Sexual Risk Behaviours among Male Migrant Workers in Southern India." PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A417793724/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid =3f4c1f1b. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Pasanen, Mika. "Visual violations: the ban on extreme pornography, politics of representation, and the discursive creation of 'docile bodies'." Journal of International Women's Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2011, p. 16+. Global Issues in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A260493693/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid =1a6ed331. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.

Romero, Dennis. "Porn industry reckons with assault allegations and a string of deaths." Washington Post, 16 Feb. 2018. Global Issues in Context, https://link.galegroup.com /apps/doc/A527809161/OVIC?u=msmu_gvrl&sid=OVIC&xid=dfef3cc2. Accessed 12 Dec. 2018.