Is there a link between the availability of pornography in a society and sex crimes like rape? And does watching more pornography lead men to see women as mere sex-objects?
It’s a debate that’s bounced back and forth for decades. Both sides have plausible explanations as to how their claims can be true.
Perhaps, after watching pornography, men are more likely to feel agressive and commit sex crimes. If the increased availability of pornography over the last thirty years has led to more rapes and sexual assaults, surely there’s a good case for our society being more censorious.
Or maybe porn can act as a safety valve, making it easier for men to get sexual release in their own homes and actually reducing sex crime.
Until now, there have been occasional studies but no systematic review of the evidence.
But a study from the University of Hawaii has looked at a variety of different studies in different countries and concluded that
the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis [that more pornography leads to more sex crime] is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes.
It also found no evidence that viewing pornography leads to a more negative attitude towards women.
Are rapists more likely to have viewed pornography?
As The Scientist comments in its write-up of the paper
Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.
Even if we accept this evidence (and, of course, it’s open to challenge and may be flawed), there are still many reasons why we might want to restrict or ban some types of pornography.
For example, it may be entirely appropriate for a society to put limits on the sorts of pornography it’s willing to accept, or on who has access to it. We might also want to restrict it in public if, regardless of the effect it has on its consumers, it made others feel uncomfortable or vulnerable.
But perhaps, on the important issues of whether pornography causes sex crimes and whether it leads to men having worse attitudes towards women, it’s time to stop debating from entrenched political positions and start looking at the evidence.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Roland
Joseph Bourke
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
4 Comments
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalised “extreme pornography” including images of sexual violence, and puts people caught with the same on the Sex Offenders’ Register.
It’s worth noting that during the public consultation, the Government’s own consultation document stated that not only was there no evidence of a link between violent pornography and sexual crime, but that there was evidence of no such link.
I’m glad that when I contacted Chris Huhne about the issue and put him in touch with Backlash, he was receptive to the liberal arguments against the legislation. Groups like Backlash and Consenting Adult Action Network do important work defending people’s sexual liberty, and deserve the full support of Liberal Democrats.
“Until now, there have been occasional studies but no systematic review of the evidence.”
This is simply not true. Whilst I agree with your push for evidence-based policy, there are at least two evidence reviews (can’t remember the titles – sorry) out there and plenty more papers for reading.
Jennifer Saul’s (Uni. of Sheffield) 2003 paper (link to abstract below) is the best paper to read on the topic in my view – though it is not a review, it seems – sensibly to me – to end up perhaps calling for a context-of-viewing / health-warning approach to the problems.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120092296/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
We might also want to restrict it in public if, regardless of the effect it has on its consumers, it made others feel uncomfortable or vulnerable.”
I agree with most of your article, but there are a couple of bits that concern me.
“…there are still many reasons why we might want to restrict or ban some types of pornography. For example, it may be entirely appropriate for a society to put limits on the sorts of pornography it’s willing to accept, or on who has access to it…”
Without any evidence of direct harm being caused, I do not see how this can be justified. Other laws still apply and should be sufficient: one does not need to discuss child pornography or bestiality within a discussion about pornography because both child abuse and animal abuse are illegal in and of themselves. Conversely, if the act itself is exclusively between consenting adults, there is no justification for prohibition.
As regards access, again the only ban would be based on existing law and the general (liberal) principal of consent (where certainly groups, notably minors, are perhaps assumed not to be able to consent).
“We might also want to restrict it in public if, regardless of the effect it has on its consumers, it made others feel uncomfortable or vulnerable.”
With this I have a bit more sympathy, but ultimately a liberal society does not ban things that make some people feel uncomfortable. I would rather person A had to avert their eyes than person B was not allowed to hold up a picture. Religious symbols make some people uncomfortable; others are disturbed by airbrushing. (Oh yeah. We’re against that, aren’t we!) If we prohibit the public display of things that makes others feel uncomfortable then we really will undermine freedom of expression.
“Vulnerable” is a bit more complicated. You’d need to define it. Generally even freedom-of-speech fundamentalists would oppose big posters saying “Watch out! There’s a (insert racial group here) about.”
(Unless, perhaps, they were those evil humphries).
“it’s time to stop debating from entrenched political positions and start looking at the evidence.”
Now that’s just silly! :oD
I tend to be a bit cautious about this because I really don’t like lumping all crimes together on a like for like basis – there is clearly a range of seriousness of offence which should force us to differentiate multiple causal factors and tendencies each of which need to be dealt with separately.
The second quote from The Scientist only starts to address this, so I think we do need to emphasise the defining principle at stake here. And if we are talking about preventing harm, then that principle must be ‘consent’.