Teen Boys and Porn: Do We Know the Harms?

Ten years ago, on this blog, I challenged pervasive beliefs about the harm caused to teen boys by pornography. [1] I argued that in many different regions, links between pornography and sex crimes and negative attitudes towards women have been investigated, and at no time, in no region, have links between pornography, sex crimes and negative attitudes towards women been found. This was based on the evidence available at that time. [2]

Any such claims must be subject to revision, responsive to new research. It remains true that no links between pornography and violent sex crimes have been established, but the second part of my 2011 claim — “no links between pornography and negative attitudes towards women have been found” — requires reassessment in light of both philosophical arguments and some new claims of evidence about what it does.

Philosophical arguments about porn's harms

First, let us consider the more philosophical arguments about what pornography is. I did not consider these at the time because they are not strictly speaking empirical. This approach sees porn as perpetrating harm through what it is. Porn, Catherine MacKinnon argues, effectuates its own message: by representing women’s sexual desire as subject to men’s power and desires, it sets a norm that degrades women and reinforces stereotypes of men as sexually dominant, women as passive and it glorifies the desirability of these. Consent of both parties cannot mitigate the harms done as these toxic stereotypes pollute the conceptual environment.

The argument that, in and of itself, pornography is harmful, often segues into claims about actual effects on people. Even the most careful, analytic, academic philosophers, normally quick to distinguish different kinds of statements and identify what does and does not follow from one to the other, cross the barrier from “pornography’s message” to “pornography’s effects.” In the few cases when the need for evidence is recognized, the abhorrence of pornography’s messages produces a context in which thin and sloppy data seems perfectly acceptable.

Unsupported empirical claims about porn's harms

One example of poorly supported claims of porn's harms can be seen in Amia Srinivasan's reported statement that pornography “etches deep grooves in the psyche, forming powerful associations between arousal and selected stimuli…” [3] Her evidence for this, as reported in a lively and nuanced article by Helen Lewis [4] comes from a question Scrinavasin posed to her students: Does the depiction of the pornography subordination of women, actually make it real? Her students said, “Yes.” Moreover, they said that “porn bear[s] responsibility for the objectification of women, for the marginalization of women, for sexual violence against women.”

I wonder whether any other question in the field of philosophy or psychology could be answered with, “My students said, ‘Yes.'" The most robust government report [5] on the effects of pornography on children and young people also seems content with supposition, concluding that pornography “can have a range of associated effects” on unsafe sexual behaviors. It is unclear whether “can” here means “possibly,” or “shown to be likely in some cases,” or “demonstrated to happen sometimes.” Nor is it clear whether any possible “associated behaviors” are highly correlated with pornography, let alone caused by it.

But there is cause for concern

None of this is intended to condone pornography’s toxic messages. None of this is to say that parents, teachers and policy makers should not be concerned about teens’ sexual behavior. Having recently written about my long-term work on teens’ ways of thinking [6], I learned that 6 percent of teen girls say their first intercourse was unwanted and forced. [7] They describe coercion that is sometimes emotional, sometimes verbal and sometimes even physical. Is pornography causing this harm by creating a norm of male dominance and female submission?

There is no research I know that shows pornography’s actual harm that cannot be paired with a comparable study challenging the evidence. There is good evidence, however, of other (often overlapping and possibly related) influences that harm. For example, teens’ ability to plan ahead and control their impulses is compromised by their normal neurological development. In addition, girls still learn, through a variety of channels, that they owe men compliance or admiration or love, and boys continue to learn, through a variety of channels, that they are entitled to "more say” than girls. And there is evidence that the more a teen, whether girl or boy, endorses insidious male or female norms, where the boy’s desire has more significance than a girl’s, and where a girl’s duty is to understand and comply with the boy’s needs, the more likely that teen, whether male or female, is to find male coercion acceptable. [8] But to put this down to porn is problematic, first, because it goes beyond the evidence, and second, because it lets so many other cultural influences – from the classroom, from teen to teen comments both in person and on social media, and even from parents — off the hook.

Another finding from my recent studies of teens, consistent with recent government reports, is that both teen boys and teen girls want help in tackling mindsets to cope with pressures and make better decisions. [9] One approach that should be investigated is to promote porn literacy in which stereotypes are identified and challenged, and alternative narratives proposed. In this way, what is toxic and also irremovable from our culture could then become a pathway to better sexual health.