I have discussed porn with all my children, now girls ages 19 and 17 and boys ages 17 and 15. Unfortunately, I did it too late for the boys, who were 9 and 11 when they were first exposed. They were watching roller coaster videos, with my permission, with a friend. Then the friend (at least so the story goes) suggested they search "naked" roller coaster videos. Then proceeded two hours of images you probably don't want to see, much less have your children see. I tell people this story a lot as a warning. This was six years ago, and it's only gotten worse. I was a "responsible" mom, who limited screen time and kept close tabs on what they were doing. Here's what I wish I'd done: 1. Whole-home filtering, which we now have (Disney Circle) and which I didn't think I needed to figure out that young. 2. Never allowing screens out of public areas of the home (I allowed them to go to a bedroom to watch the roller coaster videos because we had a bunch of friends over and it was quieter for them). 3. Keeping my rule of "no screen time with friends", which I broke on that occasion.
The best advice I got on how to handle the incident came from our pediatrician. She said, "don't call that sex, that's now how you want your children to think about sex. Call it something else." I emphasized what they already knew, that private areas are private and not to be displayed to the world. I asked if they had questions, but they decidedly did not. I got the book, Good Pictures, Bad Pictures for them. It was a formative experience for our family, and a major call to action for me. I hear this story over and over, that children are exposed much younger than their parents thought they'd have to deal with it - my brother's 8yo daughter just spent two hours following links when she borrowed his phone to watch a video. It makes me angry that porn finds our kids before they try to find it, and it makes me tired thinking about how many ways we have to guard against it to keep them safe.
All that said, I can also offer encouragement. I have teenagers who talk to me about sexuality. I do not believe any of them views porn. They have a view of the human person that my husband and I have worked hard to teach them, of human dignity and of the proper place for sexuality (marriage, in our view).
Huh. I never thought about that. Ironically, I am supposedly on the writing team for the American Solidarity Party's magazine, but I thought I had nothing to write about. Thanks for the idea. :)
Mostly, it just has to be integrated into other conversations we have with our kids about sex. Just as we say, "someone might say something about sex, and you can always ask us about it" or "If anyone tries to touch your penis or vagina or show you theirs, who can you talk to about it?", we also have to say, "someone might try to show you pictures of naked people or people having sex, and if that happens here is what you can do".
I appreciate hearing how you frame it! I remember my parents had the book "It's Perfectly Normal" which covered how to say no to some things, but really didn't entertain the possibility of pornography to my recollection.
While I am not in a huge hurry to become a "defender" of porn (see my independent comment) I think for some/many it can have some good outcomes at certain points in their life. It helps normalize some of the genuine diversity in body types and it can help somebody feel ok about enjoying sex in ways other than standard missionary position.
While I personally tend to turn to erotica rather than visual porn, when am in a year(s) between partners time of life (which I have gone though several times now) it has helped me NOT fall into the temptation to go to a bar and pick up one night stands, or worse have sex with friends I KNOW will not be good as long term partners but who I like and are sexually appealing. In short there have been times in my life where porn/erotica helped me keep my natural sexual urges in check so I didn't go out and do damaging things to myself and others just to satisfy the building physical need.
One thing I noticed in graduate school is that when I felt a huge charge of mental elation from some idea I was studying -- could be mathematical (who knew that advanced statistical analysis could be quasi-pornographic in effect?) -- I'd feel almost unbearably sexually aroused. It wasn't a gradually building physical need from not having had sex with my partner -- just a sudden surge of energy that found sexual expression. Have never read or heard of anyone else experiencing this, but it certainly felt real!
I remember that "building physical need" and my shock when the lover who became my life partner for decades till her death, maintained that it didn't exist -- that sexual arousal was fundamentally based on thoughts and emotions. It's an open question for me. Once, before I met my future life partner, it was my therapist who convinced me not to have sex with a Jewish man with whom I was intensely infatuated, and had made it clear that he could never have a serious relationship with a goy, because he had to marry a nice Jewish girl. Looking back, I tend to agree with my life partner, but it certainly wasn't the way I experienced it.
I don't mean to invalidate anyone else's experiencing. The challenge, as I see it, is to become mature enough to not follow through on sexual desire when it would harm ourselves, another, or a relationship. Not easy, especially in a hypersexualized culture where almost as many marriages end in divorce as last for life, and where there isn't much support for restraining ourselves about anything we feel like doing.
I would also like to add two more resources for those who struggle, which is a lot of people (both men and women!)
First, for men The Samson Society is a really good low-key way to get into recovery. They have online meetings and a private Slack for encouragement and accountability: https://samsonsociety.com/
Second, if you or someone you love is really in bondage to porn, more serious steps are needed -- especially if you've tried to quit before and keep going back to it. Bethesda is a ministry dedicated to helping sex addicts (and porn addicts *are* sex addicts) recover, and they offer intensive retreats for men and women that help people get at the roots of their addiction and make a plan for remaining free. They also have workshops for spouses who have been betrayed or cheated on (and yes, that includes the use of porn, too). https://www.bethesdaworkshops.org/
For me the part of pornography discussions that seems to almost always be missing or minimized is the unrealistic expectations it fosters. Especially if we are discussing pornography with young people I think this needs to be more emphasized. Having grown up in a ubiquitous porn culture, I found that with lovers, especially my virgin ones when we were in our 20s, often took months to really become able to genuinely enjoy actual sex more just self pleasure while watching pornography. Most of what is visually titillating is not what actually feels best in practice and what feels the most amazing is impossible to film. So even if we leave out all those genuinely important things like emotional connection and intimacy... even from a purely mechanical physical reality, pornography can rob sex of its deeper capacity for pleasure and fulfillment.
I know it is purely anecdotal, but the two best lovers I ever had both had no ethical issues with phonography, they just both found it mostly boring. Preferring hour(s) spent with a lover doing many sensual but not explicitly sexual things over a 20 minute pump and grind to orgasm. Even when we both orgasm with the pump and grind routine pornography visually teaches our youth to expect from sex... it is a far cry from the deliriously joyful experiences one can and should be experiencing with our intimate partners.
When we view art, in general, are we consumers, or participants?
When I read a book, you could say that I am "consuming" the book. But you could also say that I am participating in an interaction with the author, mediated by the book, in which experience some thoughts and feelings based on what the author has written.
When I read this website, you could say that I am "consuming" it. But there's clearly an actual interaction happening, here, in which I see you, Leah, as a person with interesting thoughts that I want to hear more of. I then sometimes participate in the comment threads. I learn, and I share my own thoughts. I think of those involved as people.
When I read erotica, you could say that I am "consuming" it. But I'm also usually interested in the author's view of sex, and in what a sex scene says about the characters' feelings for one another, and in how the sex scene fits in, as a story beat. Sex, and feelings of arousal, don't have to be objectifying. They can exist alongside a view of the people involved as human beings.
So when you say that pornography always makes people consumers, rather than participants, in sex and intimacy, I'm not convinced that this is completely fair. When people bring their own feelings and interpretations to a work of art, they are participants as well as consumers, as a rule. When they deliberately seek out pornography that has a known ethical source, they are already taking a step towards seeing the people involved as people rather than objects. No doubt there are ways of using porn that feel, to those who use porn this way, like mindless "consumption" that objectifies everyone involved. But art that discusses sex, even when it is made with arousal in mind, doesn't have to be mindless, objectifying consumption.
Moreover -- and I know this will be controversial, but I have to say it -- I think a lot of people have thoughts when they are highly aroused that don't really bleed out into the rest of their lives. I know I do. There are things I can only think when highly aroused. They're fun if I'm turned on and they're not if I'm ... not. Analysing what those thoughts would mean in a non-aroused context is missing the point, because they don't happen in a non-aroused context and they are never going to! I think that's okay. I think it's okay to have thoughts, when aroused, that are wild or objectifying or even just plain nonsensical, and to get off on that. And, although I'm not much for visual porn myself, I think it's okay to make art about these things. It's just important to contextualise it, and to return to normal afterwards, that's all.
I think some sex therapists agree with you about thoughts and fantasies when aroused (or trying to become aroused). I did in the past, but not now. Because I believe that all my thoughts matter.
I also think all of my thoughts matter - but there is a tendency in conversations about porn and sex to say "repress those thoughts! be ashamed of those thoughts!" We know through so many studies that feelings of shame and angst and the act of repressing certain thoughts does not help. And only gives whatever is causing those reactions more real estate in your brain. Great studies related to dieting here too!
And just like the diet industry, the "porn addiction" industry is self perpetuating and causing untold damage. By focusing so much energy on how terrible porn is and how terrible watching porn is in the eyes of God it gives porn *more* power, not less. It leads more people down a path of believing they are porn addicts. It damages their relationships, their self esteem and their sense of worth. And it creates billions of dollars of revenue for a few.
Instead of thinking you are terrible and need to be cured, you can get curious about your thoughts and feelings. I loved your example above, Catherine, about being aroused by mathematics! You can note it, reflect on it, decide whether or not to act on it, whether it aligns with who you want to be. Arousal is part of the human experience and we shouldn't fear it.
I think the effect of shame depends on what I do with it. Avoiding it or suppressing it or hiding it is destructive, sure. Shame can be healed, once it's acknowledged. And you're right, curiosity (and a lack of fear, or courage in the face of fear) enable shame to be noticed. Then healing is possible and shame becomes a positive force for good.
A lot of things have to be at play for this to work...and our market forces tend to rely on fear and shame staying right with us, so we'll buy stuff to try to feel better. (Not just a slam on capitalism as U.S. practices it now; all kinds of economies and governments can use fear and shame to increase power over others.)
Shaming someone else, tho, is another issue entirely -- more apt to be from my projecting my own fears and shame onto someone else -- and however "helpful" my intention, it's trying control of their timing (and God's timing) -- bad idea!
To take the dieting analogy a step further, there's been discussion above about the book "Good Pictures, Bad Pictures". Instead imagine a book "Good Food, Bad Food", that talked about how fruits & vegetables were good for you and fatty, sugary foods were bad food. Imagine that the book gave equal weight to both. Do you think that book would encourage your kid to eat healthfully? Or do you think it would increase their risk for eating disorders? I'm 100% in the latter camp and there's a fair amount of behavioral science research to back me up.
Of course I want my kid to eat healthfully, and watching porn is much more serious than eating a slice of cake. But creating a shame response and a sense of fear about naked bodies, arousal and sex isn't helpful.
I think in both cases, I do want to know (and want my children to know) that there are people out there marketing things that arouse a hunger but don't suit it. (On the food front, superstimulus kinds of food that are never *satisfying* but keep promoting mindless flavor chasing).
I think there are some real villains here, and it's about the individual eater being good or bad as a person, but being presented with some genuine choices that were developed to spur consumption, not satiety or pleasure.
To bring in one other vice industry: this how design of slot machines work—they work on a common hunger and offer novelty/surprise/loss aversion in a way engineered and refined to avoid satisfaction and promote addiction.
Yes! Honestly, I'll probably approach the porn conversation from my broader (angry) critique of capitalism. My four year old and I already talk about the flaws of our systems (people not having homes, food, healthcare, etc). It's a small hop from there to discussing how our current system values people only for their production & consumption and not their humanity. And then porn becomes a detour as part of that broader story of 'marketing things that arouse hunger but don't suit it', worker exploitation, economic coercion, etc.
That said, just like I don't want my kiddo developing a habit of stashing treats, or idolizing cake because it's rare, I don't want him to view porn as something illicit and therefore 'special'. That's also why I think it's important to minimize the conversation as a detour. And why I hope to keep it a separate conversation from the body positive relationship and sex conversations.
By the time a person is 11 and able to handle abstractions, either they have a sense of security and self respect -- or they're vulnerable to a lot more than porn. Not too late ever, to heal and change -- but porn itself is only one of the many dangers. As far as cake goes -- I think minimal exposure at home and school is a good start to valuing sugar as a rare treat, not an everyday addiction.
I participated in Godly Play training a few years ago, and was startled when our teacher said "Do other parents in this group control everything that enters your child's mouth?" Most of the parents said yes. (The teacher's point was that Godly Play teachers needed to offer snacks that the parents approved. When I was a play group mom decades earlier, all the mothers agreed on what snacks were OK.)
So it's possible to have at least a huge influence on what kids believe is good. "Good" and "bad" depends on values -- what the family says are family values and even more important, what family actions reveal as the values. So I'm interpreting "good" in one way -- now at least -- and someone else might interpet "good" in an entirely different way.
I know; have read your book "Building the Benedict Option" and noted that. When I was very poor, I learned that it helped to buy one special treat a week -- jam one week, ice cream another, cookies another....Otherwise the treat became an expected basic food and my preschoolers no longer thought of it as special. And I grew up in the same sort of careful food budget -- fruit for dessert, toast with either butter or jelly, not both.
The first science book I read in grade school told about a nutrition experiment with rats. The rat fed whole wheat bread thrived, and the rat fed white bread died (or something bad). Made a big impression on a 6-year-old and started a lifelong interest in nutrition. So giving all my food choices to Jesus is an ongoing challenge for me. Tricky because if I really believe something is bad for me and I do it, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So it has to be changed at a deeper level.
My mother and maternal grandmother were both devout Christians. My mother almost never served cake, while my grandmother was lavish with cookies, cake, biscuits, etc. (I'd gain ten pounds during a 2-week summer visit.) My grandfather died young of a heart attack; my grandmother lived longer than my mother.
Part of me knows that relationships and community -- and above all, trust in God's guidance -- are far more important than tons of "information" on nutrition. I have loads of logical information that counters all my "bread of carefulness" -- I sometimes bring myself back to my senses by remembering the Roseto community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect
100% this is why I think we should emphasize comprehensive sex ed that talks about setting healthy boundaries, consent, respect etc. Safety is paramount (and consent isn't possible in many many power relationships).
The whole article shocked me, since I had no idea that many or even most teenagers (or preteens?) watch porn regularly. I was especially shocked by the ending: "Are their bodies normal? Should they look a certain way? Is this what sex is supposed to be like? With more leeway for comprehensive sex education, Fonte told me, she would raise the question of “Who is on the other side of the screen that you’re benefiting from?” I think the first question is: "What makes you believe that watching this is benefiting you?" And then "what makes you believe that porn work is good for the workers? Do you think it affects their sense of dignity and worth? What work is okay as long as the pay seems good?"
I do agree that from a younger and younger age, kids worry about whether their bodies are normal, how they're supposed to look, and what sex is supposed to be like. These are the same questions that just about every medium -- TV, movies, popular fiction and music, news, advertising -- and fine art too -- continue to poke at adults too. If parents and teachers aren't certain of their own answers to these questions -- or at least, putting them in a larger framework of values -- how can we expect kids to do anything but follow the crowd?
I grew up in a time when movies never showed a married couple in bed together. Why would they? That was private. Songs and ads protected kids. The economy didn't seem to depend on buying cheap stuff that would need to be replaced often. Were there fault lines? Oh yes! Not a perfect era. And the innocence and unanswered questions left teenage girls at risk for answering ads for "modeling lingerie" or "being a dance partner at this dance studio." I was lucky to have adults who explained these ads to me. I think this kind of "warning education" is super important! But the way I got it was because I had older adults who kept in close touch with what was really going on with me, whom I trusted for advice.
I think this is the essential thing. When parents and extended family and friends, the whole "village" have created the kind of relationships with kids so that kids can bring up any concern knowing they won't be judged, just wisely advised -- and the kind of environment where adults really know what kids are doing, with whom -- and how to discern and say no to destructive activities -- porn will become a non-issue for future generations.
As for current porn and other sex workers...the same thing holds. Real love for the person, no judgement, respect for their inherent worth, better options always on invite.
I know, easy to say, hard to do. (I guess you can see that I find no possible real value in porn -- for anyone -- including the exploiters who earn the most money and do the most evil.)
My thinking on porn is basically: objectification, bad.
That said, there is absolutely porn created by women (and some men) in various collectives that make it their core purpose to be free of abuse. I don't think that meets my 'ethical' bar (objectification, still bad) but consumers could be confident that no one was abused. Similarly, OnlyFans and some other similar platforms have let (mostly women) retain full control over their material and not have to turn to more exploitive 'business' practices to distribute their work. That's a good thing! Sorta!
My take on what to do about porn is, interestingly, exactly the same as my thoughts on what to do about abortion: sex ed! Teaching kids from a young age about their bodies, setting boundaries, consent, building healthy loving relationships, etc is a clear evidence based solution.
1) A solid early education program makes it more likely a kid will turn to an adult about being abused (most child rape content is created by family or close family friends of the child).
2) Giving kids the tools to consent and hear others consent makes it more likely future sexual encounters will be consensual.
Also, children (and adults!) should not be taught their bodies are shameful. They should not be taught sex is shameful. Shame makes exploitation possible and creates the aura of interest/desire around porn. Healthy open (age appropriate) conversations around sex and desire sap porn of its power.
Talking to friends about ethics pertaining to porn is very, very uncomfortable for me. Nonetheless, when I was in a really intense conversation with a friend on Discord a couple months ago, we just sort of stumbled onto the topic that he watched porn and thought that was okay. I guess I was going with the assumption that everyone who's viewing porn feels guilty or is unsure, but just has enormous DESIRES that totally overpower those inhibitions. (The main two desires that I imagine driving this are: the desire for sexual experience and the desire for peer acceptance.) So I was pretty gobsmacked that his thought on the subject was SO VERY different from mine!
In the face of this, I... don't think I tried to convince him using any ethical argument, though I did let him know that my perspective of the ethics was super-different from his! I asked for permission to tell him an argument against porn that I thought sounded convincing, but which I'd never looked into thoroughly. (The argument was that there was research that implied that regularly engaging with porn reduces libido in the long term.) I'm glad he let me talk... and he thought about it, and shared his thoughts in response.
But when I say it's very very uncomfortable for me to talk about the subject, like, I am sort of to blame! I am -THAT- person who, when I was high-school-aged and then in college, reflexively moved to "shut down" or exit conversations if the topic at all ever veered into sex or sexuality... or even the hotness of various mutual acquaintances or celebrities! (My blood pressure even rose while I was writing this post.)
At this point, I'm bothered by the ways I've brought anxieties to such conversations in the past. But maybe also, there's, you know... things I can work on to have better dialogues in the future.
I'm much more OK with discussing these things now than I was several years back, but currently I don't particularly find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. If I'm talking with a fellow Catholic or even a Protestant, there are basic assumptions about the human person that we can take for granted in having a dialogue. But those who disagree with me on the nature and the telos of the human person are obviously going to disagree with me on the telos and nature of the sexual act. Sure, I mean, I have no problem with offering arguments from outside a Biblical or Christian frame of reference, but a natural law perspective gets much harder when you're talking with an atheist or agnostic who believes that sexuality is something that evolved through natural processes and that therefore there's no objective telos to it, per se. You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe.
One argument I am skeptical of, though, is the "Many people use p0rn without negative psychological consequences, ergo it's only the act of condemning p0rn that gives it it's destructive power." I feel like one could make a similar argument about sexual child abuse imagery--which could, using current technologies, be produced virtually without ever harming or exploiting the likeness of an existing child. Even if one were to make child abuse imagery that (supposedly) doesn't exploit children, and even if one were to "prove" via multiple studies that such imagery didn't lead to measurable negative outcomes including recidivism of pedophiles, I think even most people who are free-wheeling with regards to sexuality would bristle at it. And that's the one argument I would maybe give to those who have a different worldview: Just as we sense that the use of the (supposedly) non-exploitative child abuse imagery is still exploitative, because it kind of normalizes the sexual abuse of children, even so-called "ethical" p0rn is still problematic because it engrains in us the underlying assumptions that other people are objects to be used for our own pleasure.
(FWIW: Definitely NOT equating child abuse imagery with adult p0rn--the former is exponential orders of magnitude more evil than the latter.)
> "...currently I don't particularly find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. ...You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe."
You know, that's a really good point; it's possible that might have been part of why I wasn't. And even if, somehow, there were excellent studies that had good experimental procedures & put numbers to this, it's still difficult to convince people even then.
Also, the law surrounding images produced digitally... that's definitely a conversation I've ended up in.
Why do you still use the "0" in the word in this context? I do remember "pr0n" being a common intentional-misspelling even 2 decades ago and more. Ohh... it is to reduce search-likelihood by some, isn't it? (I definitely know people can find this page by searching my username on Substack, and I find that a bit awkward.)
Tryna avoid having my name come up when someone searches for p0rn (though it won't work perfectly because the article itself uses the real world).
Deepfakes are especially frightening when it comes to the world of child sexual abuse imagery. (I think laws will needed to be updated to catch up with these changes--if someone uses the faces of actual children--frighteningly easy to harvest online-- to produce deepfake child sexual abuse images/video, then their needs to be some liability (criminal, and felony, in my opinion). All this is another reason why, if I ever have children, I don't plan on putting images of them online, except for images sent to a closed group that includes only trusted family members/friends.
I’ve had long conversations with my husband about it. When we were first dating, I told him that I wouldn’t accept it in my relationship. Priod. In the two years we’ve been together, one year in marriage, he slipped once and now uses covenant eyes as a consequence. He finally understands that porn always dehumanizes. It’s been beautiful to see him fully understand God’s plan for marriage and his faith has grown deeper as a result.
I've talked to a friend about the ways in which porn objectifies and commodifies women, of course, and the ways in which it coarsens relationships between men and women. Elizabeth Bruenig's piece mentions this as an important point. The teenage girls being interviewed already had an understanding of that.
Men who watch a lot of porn tend to want women to behave like porn stars and they act like the actors in porn films. It's as though they have to constantly increase the stakes in order to obtain gratification.
As for the possibility of animated porn, or even something like sex dolls, it seems as though they become proxies for how men want to treat women. There have been reports of men buying sex dolls that they can abuse sexually and degrade otherwise.
Erotic fiction? That reminds me of Fifty Shades. Definitely a tool for thinking about what ethical porn might look like. Those books are often written by women with a woman's frame of reference, supporting women's sexuality and empowerment, to whatever extent we are willing to recognize it.
I think porn also distorts men's experience of/performance of sex, as well as their expectations for their partners. Porn is always ordered to pleasing the *viewer* not the participants. So a guy trying to imitate what he's seen may find that he's stinting himself as well as his partner as he imitates acts that are intended to gratify an absent third party.
The idea of holding up erotic fiction as an alternative to porn - especially as a means to female empowerment - always makes me bristle. I think it's just one way in which women delude themselves into thinking that they aren't as attached to porn like men are, or don't suffer from the same issues associated with it. As the brain is arguably the most powerful sexual organ for women, I think explicit romance novels and books like Fifty Shades can actually do just as much harm to a woman's relationship with sex and her sexual partner(s) as "conventional" visual porn do for men, because habitually consuming this kind of writing can warp the imagination and mechanisms of fantasy and form similar unhealthy expectations of sex analogous to men with porn addictions wanting their partners to act more like porn stars. There have been studies demonstrating how conventional pornography affects the brain, but I mostly hear about the results discussed in the context of the male experience - I'd be curious to know if any similar research has been done for sexual content in literature and women in particular.
There's a fair amount of good research that shame is a better predictor of whether relationships will be damaged by porn use versus the actual quantity or frequency of porn usage. I would bet that because it's less shameful for women to read romantic novels they have less of a negative impact on relationships! But I too would be interested in a study. Perhaps recruiting heavy readers of romance novels vs heavy readers of nonfiction vs non readers and gauging their relationship health? That said, I have seen studies that increased reading of fiction in general increases empathy...
Whether the brain physically changes based on porn use has also been questioned (for instance, poor impulse control from a brain injury can result in increased porn usage, that doesn't mean the porn usage caused a brain injury). Most of the studies are heavily promoted by an industry that profits mightily from 'treatment'.
I find I don't generally find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. If I'm talking with a fellow Catholic or even a Protestant, there are basic assumptions about the human person that we can take for granted in having a dialogue. But those who disagree with me on the nature and the telos of the human person are obviously going to disagree with me on the telos and nature of the sexual act. Sure, I mean, I have no problem with offering arguments from outside a Biblical or Christian frame of reference, but a natural law perspective gets much harder when you're talking with an atheist or agnostic who believes that sexuality is something that evolved through natural processes and that therefore there's no objective telos to it, per se. You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe.
One argument I am skeptical of, though, is the "Many people use p0rn without negative psychological consequences, ergo it's only the act of condemning p0rn that gives it it's destructive power." I feel like one could make a similar argument about sexual child abuse imagery--which could, using current technologies, be produced virtually without ever harming or exploiting the likeness of an existing child. Even if one were to make child abuse imagery that (supposedly) doesn't exploit children, and even if one were to "prove" via multiple studies that such imagery didn't lead to measurable negative outcomes including recidivism of pedophiles, I think even most people who are free-wheeling with regards to sexuality would bristle at it. And that's the one argument I would maybe give to those who have a different worldview: Just as we sense that the use of the (supposedly) non-exploitative child abuse imagery is still exploitative, because it kind of normalizes the sexual abuse of children, even so-called "ethical" p0rn is still problematic because it engrains in us the underlying assumptions that other people are objects to be used for our own pleasure.
(FWIW: Definitely NOT equating child abuse imagery with adult p0rn--the former is exponential orders of magnitude more evil than the latter.)
For another perspective on pornography, it's useful to consider Ishi, the last survivor of a gold rush massacre of his tribe. I read two books about Ishi, both written by Theodora Kroeber, Ursula LeGuin's mother, and am not sure which one includes an account of taking him to a "sexy" performance of some kind on a stage. He didn't perceive anything sexual about it at all. For the 44 years of hiding after the massacre, his only relationships were with his sister and mother -- forbidden as sexual partners and never related to sexually. So he never experienced "a buildup of sexual need" -- and "sexual" and "sexy" are evidently entirely cultural.
Perhaps, based on what's being discovered about epigenetics (and what's in the Bible as well), cultural signifiers are also genetically inherited. Can a postmodern Western eye behold the way Ishi did? Not without some heavyduty spiritual healing, which I don't dismiss as impossible.
(If you haven't read Theodora Kroeber's books on Ishi, I think you'd probably find them fascinating.)
I was going through my collection of New Yorker cartoons yesterday, and came across one that's relevant to this discussion. A young man and woman are slouched on a sofa, not sitting very close, and one says to the other "Do you want to watch another episode, or heal our relationship?"
Reading the thoughtful comments others have posted here so far, Martha's mention of shame made me realize that there's such a thing as private porn. That is...sexual activity that has an element of self-conscious watching on the part of one or both partners...and solo masturbation that involves fantasies of a particular person, or looking at photos (even from a "non-pornographic" bathing suit or underwear catalog), or degrading fantasies that are based on shame.
I believe this is harmful not only to the people doing it and to the people about whom they fantasize, but also to the kids and other vulnerable people we relate to. It's also harmful to the world as a whole. That is...our thoughts, and where we place our attention, send a certain energy into the world that's either good or bad. Since we're all human -- most of us short of sainthood -- the energy we send out varies from one moment to the next.
And because most of us grew up with some shame instilled in us, it's worth noticing how that can easily lead us into "private porn" that seem insignificant -- no one else's business.
I have discussed porn with all my children, now girls ages 19 and 17 and boys ages 17 and 15. Unfortunately, I did it too late for the boys, who were 9 and 11 when they were first exposed. They were watching roller coaster videos, with my permission, with a friend. Then the friend (at least so the story goes) suggested they search "naked" roller coaster videos. Then proceeded two hours of images you probably don't want to see, much less have your children see. I tell people this story a lot as a warning. This was six years ago, and it's only gotten worse. I was a "responsible" mom, who limited screen time and kept close tabs on what they were doing. Here's what I wish I'd done: 1. Whole-home filtering, which we now have (Disney Circle) and which I didn't think I needed to figure out that young. 2. Never allowing screens out of public areas of the home (I allowed them to go to a bedroom to watch the roller coaster videos because we had a bunch of friends over and it was quieter for them). 3. Keeping my rule of "no screen time with friends", which I broke on that occasion.
The best advice I got on how to handle the incident came from our pediatrician. She said, "don't call that sex, that's now how you want your children to think about sex. Call it something else." I emphasized what they already knew, that private areas are private and not to be displayed to the world. I asked if they had questions, but they decidedly did not. I got the book, Good Pictures, Bad Pictures for them. It was a formative experience for our family, and a major call to action for me. I hear this story over and over, that children are exposed much younger than their parents thought they'd have to deal with it - my brother's 8yo daughter just spent two hours following links when she borrowed his phone to watch a video. It makes me angry that porn finds our kids before they try to find it, and it makes me tired thinking about how many ways we have to guard against it to keep them safe.
All that said, I can also offer encouragement. I have teenagers who talk to me about sexuality. I do not believe any of them views porn. They have a view of the human person that my husband and I have worked hard to teach them, of human dignity and of the proper place for sexuality (marriage, in our view).
Wow. Thanks so much for your advice and encouragement. Wish every parent could hear this! (Book? Article? Please....)
Huh. I never thought about that. Ironically, I am supposedly on the writing team for the American Solidarity Party's magazine, but I thought I had nothing to write about. Thanks for the idea. :)
This is a great reflection, and I would really love to hear what someone has to say defending porn because... it just doesn't seem defensible to me!
There is a book called "Good Pictures, Bad Pictures" that we've introduced to our kids: https://www.defendyoungminds.com/post/good-pictures-bad-pictures-second-edition
Mostly, it just has to be integrated into other conversations we have with our kids about sex. Just as we say, "someone might say something about sex, and you can always ask us about it" or "If anyone tries to touch your penis or vagina or show you theirs, who can you talk to about it?", we also have to say, "someone might try to show you pictures of naked people or people having sex, and if that happens here is what you can do".
I appreciate hearing how you frame it! I remember my parents had the book "It's Perfectly Normal" which covered how to say no to some things, but really didn't entertain the possibility of pornography to my recollection.
While I am not in a huge hurry to become a "defender" of porn (see my independent comment) I think for some/many it can have some good outcomes at certain points in their life. It helps normalize some of the genuine diversity in body types and it can help somebody feel ok about enjoying sex in ways other than standard missionary position.
While I personally tend to turn to erotica rather than visual porn, when am in a year(s) between partners time of life (which I have gone though several times now) it has helped me NOT fall into the temptation to go to a bar and pick up one night stands, or worse have sex with friends I KNOW will not be good as long term partners but who I like and are sexually appealing. In short there have been times in my life where porn/erotica helped me keep my natural sexual urges in check so I didn't go out and do damaging things to myself and others just to satisfy the building physical need.
One thing I noticed in graduate school is that when I felt a huge charge of mental elation from some idea I was studying -- could be mathematical (who knew that advanced statistical analysis could be quasi-pornographic in effect?) -- I'd feel almost unbearably sexually aroused. It wasn't a gradually building physical need from not having had sex with my partner -- just a sudden surge of energy that found sexual expression. Have never read or heard of anyone else experiencing this, but it certainly felt real!
I remember that "building physical need" and my shock when the lover who became my life partner for decades till her death, maintained that it didn't exist -- that sexual arousal was fundamentally based on thoughts and emotions. It's an open question for me. Once, before I met my future life partner, it was my therapist who convinced me not to have sex with a Jewish man with whom I was intensely infatuated, and had made it clear that he could never have a serious relationship with a goy, because he had to marry a nice Jewish girl. Looking back, I tend to agree with my life partner, but it certainly wasn't the way I experienced it.
I don't mean to invalidate anyone else's experiencing. The challenge, as I see it, is to become mature enough to not follow through on sexual desire when it would harm ourselves, another, or a relationship. Not easy, especially in a hypersexualized culture where almost as many marriages end in divorce as last for life, and where there isn't much support for restraining ourselves about anything we feel like doing.
We have used this book as well.
I would also like to add two more resources for those who struggle, which is a lot of people (both men and women!)
First, for men The Samson Society is a really good low-key way to get into recovery. They have online meetings and a private Slack for encouragement and accountability: https://samsonsociety.com/
Second, if you or someone you love is really in bondage to porn, more serious steps are needed -- especially if you've tried to quit before and keep going back to it. Bethesda is a ministry dedicated to helping sex addicts (and porn addicts *are* sex addicts) recover, and they offer intensive retreats for men and women that help people get at the roots of their addiction and make a plan for remaining free. They also have workshops for spouses who have been betrayed or cheated on (and yes, that includes the use of porn, too). https://www.bethesdaworkshops.org/
For me the part of pornography discussions that seems to almost always be missing or minimized is the unrealistic expectations it fosters. Especially if we are discussing pornography with young people I think this needs to be more emphasized. Having grown up in a ubiquitous porn culture, I found that with lovers, especially my virgin ones when we were in our 20s, often took months to really become able to genuinely enjoy actual sex more just self pleasure while watching pornography. Most of what is visually titillating is not what actually feels best in practice and what feels the most amazing is impossible to film. So even if we leave out all those genuinely important things like emotional connection and intimacy... even from a purely mechanical physical reality, pornography can rob sex of its deeper capacity for pleasure and fulfillment.
I know it is purely anecdotal, but the two best lovers I ever had both had no ethical issues with phonography, they just both found it mostly boring. Preferring hour(s) spent with a lover doing many sensual but not explicitly sexual things over a 20 minute pump and grind to orgasm. Even when we both orgasm with the pump and grind routine pornography visually teaches our youth to expect from sex... it is a far cry from the deliriously joyful experiences one can and should be experiencing with our intimate partners.
When we view art, in general, are we consumers, or participants?
When I read a book, you could say that I am "consuming" the book. But you could also say that I am participating in an interaction with the author, mediated by the book, in which experience some thoughts and feelings based on what the author has written.
When I read this website, you could say that I am "consuming" it. But there's clearly an actual interaction happening, here, in which I see you, Leah, as a person with interesting thoughts that I want to hear more of. I then sometimes participate in the comment threads. I learn, and I share my own thoughts. I think of those involved as people.
When I read erotica, you could say that I am "consuming" it. But I'm also usually interested in the author's view of sex, and in what a sex scene says about the characters' feelings for one another, and in how the sex scene fits in, as a story beat. Sex, and feelings of arousal, don't have to be objectifying. They can exist alongside a view of the people involved as human beings.
So when you say that pornography always makes people consumers, rather than participants, in sex and intimacy, I'm not convinced that this is completely fair. When people bring their own feelings and interpretations to a work of art, they are participants as well as consumers, as a rule. When they deliberately seek out pornography that has a known ethical source, they are already taking a step towards seeing the people involved as people rather than objects. No doubt there are ways of using porn that feel, to those who use porn this way, like mindless "consumption" that objectifies everyone involved. But art that discusses sex, even when it is made with arousal in mind, doesn't have to be mindless, objectifying consumption.
Moreover -- and I know this will be controversial, but I have to say it -- I think a lot of people have thoughts when they are highly aroused that don't really bleed out into the rest of their lives. I know I do. There are things I can only think when highly aroused. They're fun if I'm turned on and they're not if I'm ... not. Analysing what those thoughts would mean in a non-aroused context is missing the point, because they don't happen in a non-aroused context and they are never going to! I think that's okay. I think it's okay to have thoughts, when aroused, that are wild or objectifying or even just plain nonsensical, and to get off on that. And, although I'm not much for visual porn myself, I think it's okay to make art about these things. It's just important to contextualise it, and to return to normal afterwards, that's all.
I think some sex therapists agree with you about thoughts and fantasies when aroused (or trying to become aroused). I did in the past, but not now. Because I believe that all my thoughts matter.
I also think all of my thoughts matter - but there is a tendency in conversations about porn and sex to say "repress those thoughts! be ashamed of those thoughts!" We know through so many studies that feelings of shame and angst and the act of repressing certain thoughts does not help. And only gives whatever is causing those reactions more real estate in your brain. Great studies related to dieting here too!
And just like the diet industry, the "porn addiction" industry is self perpetuating and causing untold damage. By focusing so much energy on how terrible porn is and how terrible watching porn is in the eyes of God it gives porn *more* power, not less. It leads more people down a path of believing they are porn addicts. It damages their relationships, their self esteem and their sense of worth. And it creates billions of dollars of revenue for a few.
Instead of thinking you are terrible and need to be cured, you can get curious about your thoughts and feelings. I loved your example above, Catherine, about being aroused by mathematics! You can note it, reflect on it, decide whether or not to act on it, whether it aligns with who you want to be. Arousal is part of the human experience and we shouldn't fear it.
I think the effect of shame depends on what I do with it. Avoiding it or suppressing it or hiding it is destructive, sure. Shame can be healed, once it's acknowledged. And you're right, curiosity (and a lack of fear, or courage in the face of fear) enable shame to be noticed. Then healing is possible and shame becomes a positive force for good.
A lot of things have to be at play for this to work...and our market forces tend to rely on fear and shame staying right with us, so we'll buy stuff to try to feel better. (Not just a slam on capitalism as U.S. practices it now; all kinds of economies and governments can use fear and shame to increase power over others.)
Shaming someone else, tho, is another issue entirely -- more apt to be from my projecting my own fears and shame onto someone else -- and however "helpful" my intention, it's trying control of their timing (and God's timing) -- bad idea!
To take the dieting analogy a step further, there's been discussion above about the book "Good Pictures, Bad Pictures". Instead imagine a book "Good Food, Bad Food", that talked about how fruits & vegetables were good for you and fatty, sugary foods were bad food. Imagine that the book gave equal weight to both. Do you think that book would encourage your kid to eat healthfully? Or do you think it would increase their risk for eating disorders? I'm 100% in the latter camp and there's a fair amount of behavioral science research to back me up.
Of course I want my kid to eat healthfully, and watching porn is much more serious than eating a slice of cake. But creating a shame response and a sense of fear about naked bodies, arousal and sex isn't helpful.
I think in both cases, I do want to know (and want my children to know) that there are people out there marketing things that arouse a hunger but don't suit it. (On the food front, superstimulus kinds of food that are never *satisfying* but keep promoting mindless flavor chasing).
I think there are some real villains here, and it's about the individual eater being good or bad as a person, but being presented with some genuine choices that were developed to spur consumption, not satiety or pleasure.
To bring in one other vice industry: this how design of slot machines work—they work on a common hunger and offer novelty/surprise/loss aversion in a way engineered and refined to avoid satisfaction and promote addiction.
I guess I'm going less for shame than for anger, tbh.
Yes! Honestly, I'll probably approach the porn conversation from my broader (angry) critique of capitalism. My four year old and I already talk about the flaws of our systems (people not having homes, food, healthcare, etc). It's a small hop from there to discussing how our current system values people only for their production & consumption and not their humanity. And then porn becomes a detour as part of that broader story of 'marketing things that arouse hunger but don't suit it', worker exploitation, economic coercion, etc.
That said, just like I don't want my kiddo developing a habit of stashing treats, or idolizing cake because it's rare, I don't want him to view porn as something illicit and therefore 'special'. That's also why I think it's important to minimize the conversation as a detour. And why I hope to keep it a separate conversation from the body positive relationship and sex conversations.
By the time a person is 11 and able to handle abstractions, either they have a sense of security and self respect -- or they're vulnerable to a lot more than porn. Not too late ever, to heal and change -- but porn itself is only one of the many dangers. As far as cake goes -- I think minimal exposure at home and school is a good start to valuing sugar as a rare treat, not an everyday addiction.
I participated in Godly Play training a few years ago, and was startled when our teacher said "Do other parents in this group control everything that enters your child's mouth?" Most of the parents said yes. (The teacher's point was that Godly Play teachers needed to offer snacks that the parents approved. When I was a play group mom decades earlier, all the mothers agreed on what snacks were OK.)
So it's possible to have at least a huge influence on what kids believe is good. "Good" and "bad" depends on values -- what the family says are family values and even more important, what family actions reveal as the values. So I'm interpreting "good" in one way -- now at least -- and someone else might interpet "good" in an entirely different way.
I should say I'm not a "dessert is rare" person! I'm much more a dessert should be satisfying, usually prepared at home, and be made from real food.
I know; have read your book "Building the Benedict Option" and noted that. When I was very poor, I learned that it helped to buy one special treat a week -- jam one week, ice cream another, cookies another....Otherwise the treat became an expected basic food and my preschoolers no longer thought of it as special. And I grew up in the same sort of careful food budget -- fruit for dessert, toast with either butter or jelly, not both.
The first science book I read in grade school told about a nutrition experiment with rats. The rat fed whole wheat bread thrived, and the rat fed white bread died (or something bad). Made a big impression on a 6-year-old and started a lifelong interest in nutrition. So giving all my food choices to Jesus is an ongoing challenge for me. Tricky because if I really believe something is bad for me and I do it, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So it has to be changed at a deeper level.
My mother and maternal grandmother were both devout Christians. My mother almost never served cake, while my grandmother was lavish with cookies, cake, biscuits, etc. (I'd gain ten pounds during a 2-week summer visit.) My grandfather died young of a heart attack; my grandmother lived longer than my mother.
Part of me knows that relationships and community -- and above all, trust in God's guidance -- are far more important than tons of "information" on nutrition. I have loads of logical information that counters all my "bread of carefulness" -- I sometimes bring myself back to my senses by remembering the Roseto community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect
100% this is why I think we should emphasize comprehensive sex ed that talks about setting healthy boundaries, consent, respect etc. Safety is paramount (and consent isn't possible in many many power relationships).
Ooh...Yes, boundaries for sure!
The whole article shocked me, since I had no idea that many or even most teenagers (or preteens?) watch porn regularly. I was especially shocked by the ending: "Are their bodies normal? Should they look a certain way? Is this what sex is supposed to be like? With more leeway for comprehensive sex education, Fonte told me, she would raise the question of “Who is on the other side of the screen that you’re benefiting from?” I think the first question is: "What makes you believe that watching this is benefiting you?" And then "what makes you believe that porn work is good for the workers? Do you think it affects their sense of dignity and worth? What work is okay as long as the pay seems good?"
I do agree that from a younger and younger age, kids worry about whether their bodies are normal, how they're supposed to look, and what sex is supposed to be like. These are the same questions that just about every medium -- TV, movies, popular fiction and music, news, advertising -- and fine art too -- continue to poke at adults too. If parents and teachers aren't certain of their own answers to these questions -- or at least, putting them in a larger framework of values -- how can we expect kids to do anything but follow the crowd?
I grew up in a time when movies never showed a married couple in bed together. Why would they? That was private. Songs and ads protected kids. The economy didn't seem to depend on buying cheap stuff that would need to be replaced often. Were there fault lines? Oh yes! Not a perfect era. And the innocence and unanswered questions left teenage girls at risk for answering ads for "modeling lingerie" or "being a dance partner at this dance studio." I was lucky to have adults who explained these ads to me. I think this kind of "warning education" is super important! But the way I got it was because I had older adults who kept in close touch with what was really going on with me, whom I trusted for advice.
I think this is the essential thing. When parents and extended family and friends, the whole "village" have created the kind of relationships with kids so that kids can bring up any concern knowing they won't be judged, just wisely advised -- and the kind of environment where adults really know what kids are doing, with whom -- and how to discern and say no to destructive activities -- porn will become a non-issue for future generations.
As for current porn and other sex workers...the same thing holds. Real love for the person, no judgement, respect for their inherent worth, better options always on invite.
I know, easy to say, hard to do. (I guess you can see that I find no possible real value in porn -- for anyone -- including the exploiters who earn the most money and do the most evil.)
My thinking on porn is basically: objectification, bad.
That said, there is absolutely porn created by women (and some men) in various collectives that make it their core purpose to be free of abuse. I don't think that meets my 'ethical' bar (objectification, still bad) but consumers could be confident that no one was abused. Similarly, OnlyFans and some other similar platforms have let (mostly women) retain full control over their material and not have to turn to more exploitive 'business' practices to distribute their work. That's a good thing! Sorta!
My take on what to do about porn is, interestingly, exactly the same as my thoughts on what to do about abortion: sex ed! Teaching kids from a young age about their bodies, setting boundaries, consent, building healthy loving relationships, etc is a clear evidence based solution.
1) A solid early education program makes it more likely a kid will turn to an adult about being abused (most child rape content is created by family or close family friends of the child).
2) Giving kids the tools to consent and hear others consent makes it more likely future sexual encounters will be consensual.
Also, children (and adults!) should not be taught their bodies are shameful. They should not be taught sex is shameful. Shame makes exploitation possible and creates the aura of interest/desire around porn. Healthy open (age appropriate) conversations around sex and desire sap porn of its power.
Talking to friends about ethics pertaining to porn is very, very uncomfortable for me. Nonetheless, when I was in a really intense conversation with a friend on Discord a couple months ago, we just sort of stumbled onto the topic that he watched porn and thought that was okay. I guess I was going with the assumption that everyone who's viewing porn feels guilty or is unsure, but just has enormous DESIRES that totally overpower those inhibitions. (The main two desires that I imagine driving this are: the desire for sexual experience and the desire for peer acceptance.) So I was pretty gobsmacked that his thought on the subject was SO VERY different from mine!
In the face of this, I... don't think I tried to convince him using any ethical argument, though I did let him know that my perspective of the ethics was super-different from his! I asked for permission to tell him an argument against porn that I thought sounded convincing, but which I'd never looked into thoroughly. (The argument was that there was research that implied that regularly engaging with porn reduces libido in the long term.) I'm glad he let me talk... and he thought about it, and shared his thoughts in response.
But when I say it's very very uncomfortable for me to talk about the subject, like, I am sort of to blame! I am -THAT- person who, when I was high-school-aged and then in college, reflexively moved to "shut down" or exit conversations if the topic at all ever veered into sex or sexuality... or even the hotness of various mutual acquaintances or celebrities! (My blood pressure even rose while I was writing this post.)
At this point, I'm bothered by the ways I've brought anxieties to such conversations in the past. But maybe also, there's, you know... things I can work on to have better dialogues in the future.
I'm much more OK with discussing these things now than I was several years back, but currently I don't particularly find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. If I'm talking with a fellow Catholic or even a Protestant, there are basic assumptions about the human person that we can take for granted in having a dialogue. But those who disagree with me on the nature and the telos of the human person are obviously going to disagree with me on the telos and nature of the sexual act. Sure, I mean, I have no problem with offering arguments from outside a Biblical or Christian frame of reference, but a natural law perspective gets much harder when you're talking with an atheist or agnostic who believes that sexuality is something that evolved through natural processes and that therefore there's no objective telos to it, per se. You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe.
One argument I am skeptical of, though, is the "Many people use p0rn without negative psychological consequences, ergo it's only the act of condemning p0rn that gives it it's destructive power." I feel like one could make a similar argument about sexual child abuse imagery--which could, using current technologies, be produced virtually without ever harming or exploiting the likeness of an existing child. Even if one were to make child abuse imagery that (supposedly) doesn't exploit children, and even if one were to "prove" via multiple studies that such imagery didn't lead to measurable negative outcomes including recidivism of pedophiles, I think even most people who are free-wheeling with regards to sexuality would bristle at it. And that's the one argument I would maybe give to those who have a different worldview: Just as we sense that the use of the (supposedly) non-exploitative child abuse imagery is still exploitative, because it kind of normalizes the sexual abuse of children, even so-called "ethical" p0rn is still problematic because it engrains in us the underlying assumptions that other people are objects to be used for our own pleasure.
(FWIW: Definitely NOT equating child abuse imagery with adult p0rn--the former is exponential orders of magnitude more evil than the latter.)
> "...currently I don't particularly find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. ...You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe."
You know, that's a really good point; it's possible that might have been part of why I wasn't. And even if, somehow, there were excellent studies that had good experimental procedures & put numbers to this, it's still difficult to convince people even then.
Also, the law surrounding images produced digitally... that's definitely a conversation I've ended up in.
Why do you still use the "0" in the word in this context? I do remember "pr0n" being a common intentional-misspelling even 2 decades ago and more. Ohh... it is to reduce search-likelihood by some, isn't it? (I definitely know people can find this page by searching my username on Substack, and I find that a bit awkward.)
Tryna avoid having my name come up when someone searches for p0rn (though it won't work perfectly because the article itself uses the real world).
Deepfakes are especially frightening when it comes to the world of child sexual abuse imagery. (I think laws will needed to be updated to catch up with these changes--if someone uses the faces of actual children--frighteningly easy to harvest online-- to produce deepfake child sexual abuse images/video, then their needs to be some liability (criminal, and felony, in my opinion). All this is another reason why, if I ever have children, I don't plan on putting images of them online, except for images sent to a closed group that includes only trusted family members/friends.
"there" needs to be, not "their needs". I don't see an option to edit post.
I’ve had long conversations with my husband about it. When we were first dating, I told him that I wouldn’t accept it in my relationship. Priod. In the two years we’ve been together, one year in marriage, he slipped once and now uses covenant eyes as a consequence. He finally understands that porn always dehumanizes. It’s been beautiful to see him fully understand God’s plan for marriage and his faith has grown deeper as a result.
I've talked to a friend about the ways in which porn objectifies and commodifies women, of course, and the ways in which it coarsens relationships between men and women. Elizabeth Bruenig's piece mentions this as an important point. The teenage girls being interviewed already had an understanding of that.
Men who watch a lot of porn tend to want women to behave like porn stars and they act like the actors in porn films. It's as though they have to constantly increase the stakes in order to obtain gratification.
As for the possibility of animated porn, or even something like sex dolls, it seems as though they become proxies for how men want to treat women. There have been reports of men buying sex dolls that they can abuse sexually and degrade otherwise.
Erotic fiction? That reminds me of Fifty Shades. Definitely a tool for thinking about what ethical porn might look like. Those books are often written by women with a woman's frame of reference, supporting women's sexuality and empowerment, to whatever extent we are willing to recognize it.
I think porn also distorts men's experience of/performance of sex, as well as their expectations for their partners. Porn is always ordered to pleasing the *viewer* not the participants. So a guy trying to imitate what he's seen may find that he's stinting himself as well as his partner as he imitates acts that are intended to gratify an absent third party.
The idea of holding up erotic fiction as an alternative to porn - especially as a means to female empowerment - always makes me bristle. I think it's just one way in which women delude themselves into thinking that they aren't as attached to porn like men are, or don't suffer from the same issues associated with it. As the brain is arguably the most powerful sexual organ for women, I think explicit romance novels and books like Fifty Shades can actually do just as much harm to a woman's relationship with sex and her sexual partner(s) as "conventional" visual porn do for men, because habitually consuming this kind of writing can warp the imagination and mechanisms of fantasy and form similar unhealthy expectations of sex analogous to men with porn addictions wanting their partners to act more like porn stars. There have been studies demonstrating how conventional pornography affects the brain, but I mostly hear about the results discussed in the context of the male experience - I'd be curious to know if any similar research has been done for sexual content in literature and women in particular.
There's a fair amount of good research that shame is a better predictor of whether relationships will be damaged by porn use versus the actual quantity or frequency of porn usage. I would bet that because it's less shameful for women to read romantic novels they have less of a negative impact on relationships! But I too would be interested in a study. Perhaps recruiting heavy readers of romance novels vs heavy readers of nonfiction vs non readers and gauging their relationship health? That said, I have seen studies that increased reading of fiction in general increases empathy...
Whether the brain physically changes based on porn use has also been questioned (for instance, poor impulse control from a brain injury can result in increased porn usage, that doesn't mean the porn usage caused a brain injury). Most of the studies are heavily promoted by an industry that profits mightily from 'treatment'.
I find I don't generally find it worthwhile discussing the matter with persons who have a worldview markedly different from mine. If I'm talking with a fellow Catholic or even a Protestant, there are basic assumptions about the human person that we can take for granted in having a dialogue. But those who disagree with me on the nature and the telos of the human person are obviously going to disagree with me on the telos and nature of the sexual act. Sure, I mean, I have no problem with offering arguments from outside a Biblical or Christian frame of reference, but a natural law perspective gets much harder when you're talking with an atheist or agnostic who believes that sexuality is something that evolved through natural processes and that therefore there's no objective telos to it, per se. You can argue that this or that study says that p0rn leads to a poor sex life, or whatever other bad outcome, but then you can fall into the trap of just using your own confirmation bias to scour the literature and fish up only the results that support what you already believe.
One argument I am skeptical of, though, is the "Many people use p0rn without negative psychological consequences, ergo it's only the act of condemning p0rn that gives it it's destructive power." I feel like one could make a similar argument about sexual child abuse imagery--which could, using current technologies, be produced virtually without ever harming or exploiting the likeness of an existing child. Even if one were to make child abuse imagery that (supposedly) doesn't exploit children, and even if one were to "prove" via multiple studies that such imagery didn't lead to measurable negative outcomes including recidivism of pedophiles, I think even most people who are free-wheeling with regards to sexuality would bristle at it. And that's the one argument I would maybe give to those who have a different worldview: Just as we sense that the use of the (supposedly) non-exploitative child abuse imagery is still exploitative, because it kind of normalizes the sexual abuse of children, even so-called "ethical" p0rn is still problematic because it engrains in us the underlying assumptions that other people are objects to be used for our own pleasure.
(FWIW: Definitely NOT equating child abuse imagery with adult p0rn--the former is exponential orders of magnitude more evil than the latter.)
For another perspective on pornography, it's useful to consider Ishi, the last survivor of a gold rush massacre of his tribe. I read two books about Ishi, both written by Theodora Kroeber, Ursula LeGuin's mother, and am not sure which one includes an account of taking him to a "sexy" performance of some kind on a stage. He didn't perceive anything sexual about it at all. For the 44 years of hiding after the massacre, his only relationships were with his sister and mother -- forbidden as sexual partners and never related to sexually. So he never experienced "a buildup of sexual need" -- and "sexual" and "sexy" are evidently entirely cultural.
Perhaps, based on what's being discovered about epigenetics (and what's in the Bible as well), cultural signifiers are also genetically inherited. Can a postmodern Western eye behold the way Ishi did? Not without some heavyduty spiritual healing, which I don't dismiss as impossible.
(If you haven't read Theodora Kroeber's books on Ishi, I think you'd probably find them fascinating.)
I was going through my collection of New Yorker cartoons yesterday, and came across one that's relevant to this discussion. A young man and woman are slouched on a sofa, not sitting very close, and one says to the other "Do you want to watch another episode, or heal our relationship?"
For me, inspired a laugh of recognition. :)
Reading the thoughtful comments others have posted here so far, Martha's mention of shame made me realize that there's such a thing as private porn. That is...sexual activity that has an element of self-conscious watching on the part of one or both partners...and solo masturbation that involves fantasies of a particular person, or looking at photos (even from a "non-pornographic" bathing suit or underwear catalog), or degrading fantasies that are based on shame.
I believe this is harmful not only to the people doing it and to the people about whom they fantasize, but also to the kids and other vulnerable people we relate to. It's also harmful to the world as a whole. That is...our thoughts, and where we place our attention, send a certain energy into the world that's either good or bad. Since we're all human -- most of us short of sainthood -- the energy we send out varies from one moment to the next.
And because most of us grew up with some shame instilled in us, it's worth noticing how that can easily lead us into "private porn" that seem insignificant -- no one else's business.