Does watching porn affect how we have sex?

Whether or not we realize it, sex is everywhere. From sexy women on magazine covers to hot men in TV ads to online pornographic videos, we are exposed to sexually explicit images nearly every day. After all, as advertisers have realized for decades, sex sells—it grabs our attention. Pornography is also an attention-getter, and it has come a long way in a short time.

Pornography as we know it today hasn’t been around for very long. When most people think of porn, they think of adult erotic videos. These only began being sold in the late 1970s, and people had to get them at an adult video store, in person—imagine how embarrassing that could have been! Since then, the Internet was created and has saved many people the risk of embarrassment of having another person see you enter or leave that store. Sex, masturbation, and porn use are still taboo subjects in Western society, but the Internet allows people to have accessible, affordable (often free), and anonymously-obtained porn right at their fingertips. With this ease of access, porn is now viewed more than ever before. It’s no secret that most people will watch porn at some point in their lives. In a 2017 U.S. study, 73% of women and 98% of men reported viewing Internet porn in the last 6 months (Daspe et al., 2018). Clearly, watching porn is common, at least in North America, but how does watching others have sex affect our own sex lives? Or does it affect us at all?

Researchers have been trying to answer this question for years. Back in 1968, the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography decided that pornography was not harmful to society, and therefore few restrictions should be placed on it (Gorman, 2014). Psychologists were skeptical of this ruling and began researching the effects of porn on its viewers. Though they found no evidence of harm at the time, psychologists were adamant to continue research in the area, and they began looking at the impacts of porn exposure over time. Studies focusing specifically on aggressive pornography had varied results, with some research reporting little impact on the viewers, whereas others reported negative impacts on the attitudes and behaviours of viewers (Gorman, 2014). As time has passed, researchers have continued to hypothesize about and research the effects of porn use on viewers, with a particular interest on how it impacts adolescents and young adults.

As a result of the easy access to online porn, adolescents in the U.S. begin viewing porn at a median age of 14, which means that the current generation of youth is exposed to a high volume of diverse and explicit porn before they even have the chance to test and develop their own sexuality and sexual interests (Lim, Carotte, & Hellard, 2015). Flood (2009) believed that viewing pornography could be especially harmful for young children and adolescents because of how sexually explicit it was compared to other sexual media. In addition, the content in pornographic videos is often more sexist and hostile towards women than other sexual media. Studies have shown that young people do incorporate ideas that they have seen in porn into their own real-life sex experiences (Lim et al., 2015). This typically just serves as a form sexual exploration, giving viewers new ideas for things to try in a sexual context (Gorman, 2014). However, it can result in unhealthy behaviours if the porn videos are the person’s primary source of sexual education and the individual does not recognize that porn is just a fantasy. Increased porn viewing has been associated with younger sexual debut, a higher number of sexual partners, and a higher number of casual sex partners (Lim et al., 2015). Morgan (2011) found that there is a correlation between what is depicted in porn and what preferences porn viewers have for sexual situations and sexual partners. For example, 15-42% of scenes in heterosexual porn depict anal sex (Lim et al., 2015). Potentially as a result of this, anal sex is becoming a more popular act for heterosexual couples, despite many women reporting to dislike anal sex. Only 2-3% of heterosexual online porn includes condom use. Knowing how acts in porn can influence real-life sex acts, this is of concern to some researchers, as it may reduce the likelihood that individuals use condoms in real-life sexual encounters. This is especially possible due to the fact that what is seen in porn contributes to the development of an individual’s and society’s sexual script (i.e., ideas of how typical romantic and sexual situations unfold). If someone is not taught proper condom use and how it fits into a healthy sexual interaction, it is less likely to become a part of their sexual script. Therefore, adolescents who watch porn online may be less likely to use condoms.

Interestingly, when women in a relationship view porn, it is associated with increased sexual satisfaction for both partners, whereas when men in a relationship view porn, the exact opposite is found (Lim et al., 2015). This may be because of the common complaint that young heterosexual women have of feeling pressured or expected to do things that their male partners have seen in porn (Lim et al., 2015). However, multiple studies have found that adults believe porn has more positive than negative effects including improved sex life, increasing open-mindedness about sex, and being more attentive to their partner’s pleasure (Lim et al., 2015). Online porn also allows LGBTQ+ individuals to explore and learn about their sexuality in more depth than may be possible from mainstream culture.

With regards to adult porn-viewers, there is some concern surrounding the development of virtual reality (VR) porn. This style of porn video allows the viewer to wear a VR headset and be immersed in the scene. They are able to view the sexual scene from different angles, which can give them the feeling of being present or participating in the scene. A study on the impacts of VR porn on sexual behaviour found that men had higher subjective sexual arousal from the VR porn than from regular, 2D porn (Elsey et al., 2019). Men also had a higher subjective arousal from VR porn than did women. This was likely because male arousal responses are driven much more strongly by the attractiveness of the actresses in scenes, which was likely enhanced in the VR porn (Elsey et al., 2019). In general, the study found no indications that VR porn has any worse impacts on viewers than regular porn. However, there is concern that VR porn may be especially troubling for those who are addicted to viewing porn, as it is an even more realistic and immersive viewing experience. It should also be noted that VR porn might be considered a form of infidelity, and conversations about what is and isn’t infidelity should always be had between any individuals in a sexual and/or romantic relationship.

Despite many of these concerns surrounding porn viewing, most studies have found inconclusive evidence about the real impacts of porn on its viewers. Although there is potential for adolescents to be significantly affected by porn consumption, there are ethical issues surrounding asking minors about their porn use. In addition, watching porn is so common in Western society, that there is no good control group for any experimental studies, which reduces the quality of any research done. Lastly, it is hard to tell whether porn viewing affects sexual behaviours or whether attitudes towards sex affect porn viewing and sexual behaviours, or if other variables come into play in this relationship. In general, people who watch it report that it simply enhances their arousal, gives them new ideas for what to try with their partners, and helps them explore their sexuality (Gorman, 2014). Though porn seems to be harmless to most, it seems to impact different people in different ways; it is possible that it can negatively affect people who are vulnerable . This means that porn isn’t inherently good or bad, it’s just good to be aware of what healthy porn use is to ensure that it doesn’t begin to negatively impact your life or relationships.

Silvi Raud, 4th Year BScH Biology, Queen's University

References

Daspe, M.-È., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Ferron, A. (2018). When Pornography Use Feels Out of Control: The Moderation Effect of Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(4), 343–353. doi: 10.1080/0092623x.2017.1405301

Elsey, J. W., Andel, K. V., Kater, R. B., Reints, I. M., & Spiering, M. (2019). The impact of virtual reality versus 2D pornography on sexual arousal and presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 35–43. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.031

Flood, M. (2009). The harms of pornography exposure among children and young people. Child Abuse Review, 18(6), 384–400. doi: 10.1002/car.1092

Gorman, S. (2014). Porn Sex vs. Real Sex: Exploring Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Behaviors, Attitudes, and Relationships. ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University.

Lim, M. S. C., Carrotte, E. R., & Hellard, M. E. (2015). The impact of pornography on gender-based violence, sexual health and well-being: what do we know? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-205453

Morgan, E. M. (2011). Associations between Young Adults Use of Sexually Explicit Materials and Their Sexual Preferences, Behaviors, and Satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 48(6), 520–530. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.543960

When science is “inappropriate”: Understanding and navigating participant recruitment in sex research in a society still uncomfortable with the word “breast”

In December 2018, the Queen’s Sexual Health Research Lab (SexLab) published a blog post highlighting certain problems encountered with online participant recruitment. The situation is yet to be resolved, as social media platforms continue to remove posts containing “inappropriate” words such as “sex”, thus preventing even the name of our lab and the link to our website from being posted. Pushing past these barriers requires a better understanding of the legislation regarding censorship of this nature, as well as the policies that these businesses have in place. This knowledge may inform progressive action as well as provide other options for online recruitment.  

Though it may seem that social media platforms are to blame for these censorship extremes, the problem may be grounded deeper in federal contracts. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the freedoms of "opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982). However, many popular social media platforms, such as Facebook and (its subsidiary) Instagram are American companies, and American policy is slightly different. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions (Volokh, 2017). Further, some laws prevent private business from restricting the speech of others. For example, employment laws restrict employers from preventing discussions amongst employees concerning salaries or the organization of labor unions (Volokh, 2017).

In terms of sexual content, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution offers less ‘protection’ against categories such as obscenity and child pornography. This means that expression of this type would not be protected in judgment by the United States Supreme Court (Stone & Volokh, 2017). Deciding if an act of speech or expression is ‘obscene’ (and thus unprotected) is based on the Miller test, also known as the three-prong obscenity test. According to this test, all of the following must be satisfied in order for a ruling of “obscenity”: 1) the work involves or encourages excessive interest in sexual matters, 2) the work is clearly offensive in describing sexual conduct, and 3) the work does not contain “literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Volokh, 2008). This test is problematic for many reasons, including the ambiguity of what is meant by “offensive”; this can lead to subjective, biased decision-making on behalf of the court. Further, there may be differences across jurisdictions in what is seen as “legally obscene” (Axelrod-Contrada, 2007).

With the US Constitution and the Miller test in mind, one may wonder how online pornographic networks are able to operate and avoid legal reprimand. An important distinction to be aware of is that although Internet pornography is not “protected” by the First amendment, the federal government it still prevented from censoring it (Vance, 2013). In other words, while a federal lawsuit could be filed against a website like Pornhub, the American government would not be able to shut down the website or prevent certain pictures or video from being published. Thus, the present situation with excessive censorship online is not due to legislation, and instead based on the beliefs of each individual business. Furthermore, while Pornhub welcomes posts containing nudity, platforms such as Facebook have contrasting beliefs about expression, and censor our content as a result.

While benefits of constraints on free expression include limiting harassment, problems ensue when businesses amplify these constraints as part of their policies. The scale of the problem can be outlined using Facebook as an example. Facebook’s Community Standards act as a major barrier to online recruitment for sex research, as they delete and flag our research-related posts under the policy of “Sexual Solicitation”. Although this policy aims to limit the threat of sexual violence and exploitation by restricting “sexually explicit language” (“Objectionable Content,” 2019), this incorrectly targets sex research labs and sexual health organizations. Sex research labs, including our own, have had posts advertising for studies removed by Facebook simply for including words such as “sex”, “genital”, “prostate”, and even “breast cancer”.

Similar trajectories play out on other public online platforms. Instagram (owned by Facebook) has virtually identical policies, though the focus of their “sexually explicit” content policy seems to be more relating to nudity (“Community Guidelines,” 2019). Twitter and Reddit are more liberal platforms in terms of their sexual content policies. Twitter’s “Sensitive Media Policy” allows the posting of “adult content” under the tenet that “[p]eople use Twitter to show what’s happening in the world” (“Sensitive Media Policy,” 2019). Thus, as long as you mark your account as “sensitive”, tweets are able to include sexual content including nudity. Reddit has a similar policy such that a wide range of “explicit” content can be posted, as long as it is labelled as ‘NSFW’ (Not Safe For Work) (“Reddit Content Policy,” 2019). Yet despite this, all of these social media platforms have removed posts from our lab regardless of what is stated in their policies.

The previous SexLab blog post on censorship mentioned that solving the social media problem involves destigmatizing sex in society and creating a “culture of acceptance” of sex and related conversations. Although these practices can be promoted by sex research, one must consider the intended timeline of change. It has been nearly one year since publication of that blog post, and little change can be noted regarding experiences with censorship in social media. In fact, the situation may even be regressing; just this week, Facebook announced that they will be strictly monitoring emojis that may be “implicitly or indirectly” sexual, including peaches and eggplants (Cuthbertson, 2019)!

While waiting for the world to change, we reached out to other sex research labs with hopes of discovering different ways of bypassing these tight social media restrictions. Unfortunately, substituting “inappropriate” words for “nice” words remains the only present strategy: one lab focusing on couples and sexual health wrote back that successful posting to Facebook and Google only came about when replacing the word “sex” with “intimacy”. A note on this word replacement from us sex researchers though: although these words can be related together in theme, they do not mean exactly the same thing. Likewise, a lab focusing on orgasm research must replace the word “genitals” with “private body parts”, and feels that this is “ridiculous”.

It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? Words related to sex are not always obscene or used with malicious intent, but social media restrictions would have you think so. However, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter state that exceptions to their policies exist if the content has a medical or educational purpose (“Community Guidelines,” 2019; “Objectionable Content,” 2019; “Sensitive Media Policy,” 2019). Perhaps the censorship problem can then be attributed to a current lack of a ‘contact-person’ to whom we could explain the lack of malicious intent (and presence of medical purpose) in our “sexually explicit” advertisements. Could these multi-billion-dollar companies not afford to hire individuals to fill these roles? This may be a point of attack! 

Indeed, positive change to Facebook censorship policy has historically come about from the rallying together of large numbers of people in opposition. For example, protests began in 2008 in reaction to Facebook flagging and removing images of women breastfeeding (Ibrahim, 2010). The protests included 11,000 women changing their profile pictures for one day to images of them breastfeeding, and a group rallying at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto. Their efforts were successful, as Facebook now permits posting of most breastfeeding images (Ibrahim, 2010). What if sex researchers worldwide were to ban together to help stamp out these critical recruitment obstacles? 

From a legal angle, there are no grounds for taking Facebook to court for their censorship, as its policies align with the Miller test component of the United States Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the Miller test for labelling speech and expression as ‘obscene’ involves subjective decision making by the legislative body. Thus, perhaps this portion of the Constitution needs revisiting! That said, the United States Constitution is quite resistant to change, as seen with other controversial matters, such as resistance against developing gun control policies. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that change is possible. The most recent amendment, which regulates the timeline of changes to congress members’ salaries, was ratified in May 1992 (“27th Amendment,” 2019). Interestingly, this amendment has been attributed to a paper written by a college student (Bomboy, 2019)! Furthermore, perhaps we can tackle censorship by reconsidering the Constitution at the level of the Miller test: with the grey area around what exactly is ‘obscene’, we could request for a higher degree of specificity in their measure of what is considered ‘offensive’, of ‘scientific value’, or of ‘excessive interest in sexual matters”.  

Lastly, an entirely different idea may be to try using platforms that are directly related to sex, such as Tinder, Grindr, or Pornhub. It is unlikely that SexLab content would be flagged here for being “too sexy”! In addition, advertising through these platforms would maintain the benefit of reaching large audiences. Unfortunately, when we are unable to reach larger populations, sex researchers run into trouble. People who participate in sex research are already a small proportion of the general population, and they differ from those who would not participate. Without any advertising through these main social media platforms, we would presumably be getting an even smaller and less representative sample of the population. 

These barriers to sex research recruitment compromise people’s psychological and physiological health outcomes, as advancements in sexual health through research becomes slowed. Thus, not only is this issue of importance to researchers interested in studying these topics, but also the general public, and the health and well-being of society. It is time that sex researchers ban together to stand up against artificial intelligence labelling our scientific endeavors as “inappropriate”!

Fortunately, now that we are equipped with awareness of these businesses policies and constitutions, novel solutions can begin to be uncovered. The next step may be to affect change through lobbying individual businesses (such as Facebook) or the US Constitution. We can also begin to discuss new strategies, including seeking other online platforms. Let us know your thoughts by responding to our Twitter post!

Cynthia Sedlezky

3rd Year BSc Psychology, Queen’s University

References

27th Amendment. (2019). Retrieved October 24, 2019, from National Constitution Centre website: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxvii

Axelrod-Contrada, J. (2007). Reno V. ACLU: Internet Censorship. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=fCBedGMyadkC

Bomboy, S. (2019, May 7). How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment. National Constitution Centre. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-a-c-grade-college-term-paper-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. , (1982).

Community Guidelines. (2019). Retrieved October 31, 2019, from Instagram website: https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119

Cuthbertson, A. (2019). Facebook and Instagram Censor “Sexual” Emoji and Stop Links to Private Pornography Sites. Independent.

Guillory, J., Wiant, K. F., Farrelly, M., Fiacco, L., Alam, I., Hoffman, L., … Alexander, T. N. (2018). Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Populations for Survey Research: Using Facebook and Instagram Advertisements and In-Person Intercept in LGBT Bars and Nightclubs to Recruit LGBT Young Adults. J Med Internet Res, 20(6), e197. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9461

Ibrahim, Y. (2010). The Breastfeeding Controversy and Facebook. International Journal of E-Politics, 1(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/jep.2010040102

Objectionable Content. (2019). Retrieved October 30, 2019, from Facebook website: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content

Reddit Content Policy. (2019). Retrieved November 1, 2019, from Reddit website: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

Sensitive Media Policy. (2019).

Silvestre, A. J., Hylton, J. B., Johnson, L. M., Houston, C., Witt, M., Jacobson, L., & Ostrow, D. (2006). Recruiting Minority Men Who Have Sex With Men for HIV Research: Results From a 4-City Campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 96(6), 1020–1027. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072801

Stone, G. R., & Volokh, E. (2017). Interactive Constitution: The meaning of free speech.

Vance, L. M. (2013, December 20). Pornography and the First Amendment. The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Volokh, E. (2008). The First Amendment and related statutes: problems, cases and policy arguments. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=akNDAQAAIAAJ

Volokh, E. (2017). First Amendment United States Constitution. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica.