Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of pornography bans.
Ultra Right Beer is a beer company created in response to Bud Light's increasing wokeness, particularly with the Dylan Mulvaney controversy. Last month, Ultra Right Beer released a 2024 calendar of various conservative women in sexually suggestive poses. This caused enough backlash from social conservatives where the incident was called Calendargate. This incident shows a schism on the Right between social conservatives and those with libertarian, "live and let live" tendencies. This reemergence of social conservatism on the political scene is not limited to calendars. It is a phenomenon that occurs with pornography.
Alabama legislators have proposed age verification in an attempt to block minors from adult websites, which is already unconstitutional under Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). Last month, an anti-porn bill was introduced in Oklahoma is so extreme that it would make viewing "obscene materials" a felony. Such a bill would target sexting and social media sites that are accessed in Oklahoma.
This is not a state here or there. Project 2025 is a coalition of over 70 conservative groups led by the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation. This Project includes a 920-page policy guide of what they would like to do if President Trump wins this election. Included in the manifesto is a call to remove pornography:
"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian known inextricable binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare.....[it] has no claim to First Amendment protection...Pornography should be outlawed."
Social conservatives and religious conservatives have opposed pornography for a number of reasons, whether it is because it encourages non-procreative sex, abortions, sexual assault, or the assertion that it is bad for one's health. I made a case against pornography bans in 2015, and I will do so again today. I will also be using economic arguments from Economics Professor Art Carden throughout.
1) What is pornography? What is obscenity? This might seem like a given or a no-brainer. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said with regards to obscenity, "I know it when I see it." However, it is not so cut-and-dry. Determining a neutral standard for sexual expression is impossible given the variety of sexual tastes and sensibilities. What constitutes pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Does it apply to certain hardcore pornography? Should a ban include softcore pornography? Would we ban romance novels or Game of Thrones? How about sexting on a dating app? Or is a photo of a woman who is showing her ankles beyond the pale?
To quote the Institute of Economic Affairs: "Intractable definitional problems are inherent in any effort to single out for prohibition of any category of sexual expression based on its alleged harm to the minds of its viewers, in contrast with some more concrete, ascertainable harm. In effect, this kind of prohibition creates a 'thought crime'...Such thought crimes are inherently inconsistent with individual freedom."
That being said, I do want to scrutinize the notion that pornography could cause "concrete, ascertainable harm."
2) Pornography does not increase sexual assault. A concern from the naysayers is that pornography will lead to more sexual crimes because pornography would either create or encourage fantasies of sexual violence. From the 1990s to the 2010s, sexual assault rates were overall declining as porn consumption was increasing. More to the point, the University of Texas at San Antonio released a meta-analysis on the topic (Ferguson and Hartley, 2020). Guess what they found? After examining over 50 studies, there is no correlation between pornography and violent sex. No correlation means no causation, i.e., pornography does not cause an increase in sex crimes.
3) Claiming that pornography is bad for one's health is mixed at best and inaccurate at worst. While some people undergo negative effects with [excess] pornography consumption, there is also research to show that there are neutral or positive effects:
- Pornography can improve sexual comfort and self-acceptance, as well as reduce anxiety, shame, and guilt over sexual behavior. It also has been linked to increased arousal and orgasm responses (Hakkim et al., 2022).
- Pornography can open communications and improve one's sexual relations (Kohut et al., 2018).
- "Pornography use is associated with health-promoting behaviors, including increased intimacy, 'safer' sexual behaviors (e.g., solo masturbation), and feelings of acceptance (Nelson and Rothman, 2020)."
- How the pornography is consumed matters. Research indicates that those who experience negative effects (e.g., sexual risk behaviors, mental health issues) could mitigate the harm with proper sexual education (Davis et al., 2020; Vandenbosch and van Oosten, 2017). Being able to distinguish between pornography and reality is a major factor into whether pornography is harmful.
- Watching more pornography is associated with greater sexual arousal, not erectile dysfunction (Prause and Pfaus, 2015).
- Pornography does not degrade relationship satisfaction or closeness, nor does it affect loneliness (Hesse and Floyd, 2019).
- Pornography can help with masturbation (Prause, 2019), which is important because masturbation can help with stress and anxiety.
- Contrary to previous research, more methodologically sound research found that pornography consumption does not diminish interest in one's sexual partner (Balzarini et al., 2017).
- Pornography has the ability to help people explore their sexuality or understand their sexual identity (McCormak and Wignall, 2017).
Two researchers from Boston University outlined how pornography is not a public health crisis. They concluded that labeling pornography a public health crisis could actually make outcomes worse due to stigmatization. Even if there are negative health factors, it does not matter. I will elucidate upon that point further in Part II.
No comments:
Post a Comment