Pornography and Romantic Relationships (Revision 4) .Manuscript

Pornography and Romantic Relationships 2
Abstract
This article provides a broad overview of pornography’s effects on romantic relationships since
the late 1960s, examining the literature through the family impact lens and focusing on
pornography’s potential influence on relational stability. Pornography’s effects are relevant for
consumers, public officials, and family scholars concerned with the stability of committed
relationships. In particular, findings suggest that pornography can reduce satisfaction with
partners and relationships through contrast effects, reduce commitment through increasing the
appeal of relationship alternatives, and increase acceptance of infidelity. Evidence connecting
pornography to rape or sexual aggression remains mixed, although these effects continue to have
important implications for how romantic partners interact. The theoretical perspectives
underlying these effects are discussed.
Keywords: Family impact, pornography, rape, romantic relationships, sexism

An Empirical and Historical Review of Pornography and Romantic Relationships: Implications
for Family Researchers
Social science has produced a variety of evidence connecting pornography consumption
with a series of social harms, as well as arguments critiquing, downplaying, and dismissing that
evidence (Brannigan, 1991). These arguments have been primarily concerned with whether
pornography can cause consumers to perpetrate violence and rape (Malamuth, Addison, & Koss,
2000), although other effects—including effects of consumption on families and relationships—
have received relatively little attention. The purpose of this article is twofold: a) to examine the
history of the academic study of pornography, discussing why studies relevant to family impact
have been late to arrive on the scene, and b) to provide a broad overview of the effects of
pornography consumption through the family impact lens (Bogenschneider, Little, Ooms,
Benning, Cadigan, & Corbett, 2012). I argue that attempts to censor pornography have focused
attention away from effects on families and relationships, and that the current literature provides
strong evidence regarding pornography’s negative influence on family stability.
The Family Impact Lens and Important Limitations
Pornography is not the only policy topic exhibiting relative neglect of the effects on
relationships and families (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). When governments implement
policies, they are often quick to consider harms and benefits to individuals, but are slower to
think of how families might be affected (Normandin & Bogenschneider, 2005). In such cases,
governing bodies may consult economists to determine the economic impact of a policy, or an
environmental lobby to examine its environmental impact, but, even though lip service is paid to
the importance of families, governments rarely put systematic effort toward determining family
impact, despite the various unintended effects that social policy can have on families
(Bogenschneider et al., 2012).
From the perspective of ecological family systems theory, Bogenschneider and her
colleagues have formulated five core principles of the family impact approach: a) family
responsibility, b) family relationships, c) family diversity, d) family engagement, and e) family
stability (2012). This article will focus on the last of these principles. The family impact lens is
concerned with stability because families characterized by instability (e.g., though dissolution,
separation, or divorce) are more prone to negative developmental outcomes for children as well
as economic and emotional difficulties for adults (as summarized in Hawkins & Ooms, 2012).
To assess the family impact of pornography, I conducted a systematic literature review,
searching Google Scholar for the terms “pornography” and “effects,” examining titles and
abstracts for studies published prior to the date of the search (August 1, 2014). I then compiled a
database of relevant articles, reading each in more detail and examining reference sections for
studies my initial search missed. The final database included 623 articles on a variety of topics
relevant to pornography, though I limit this particular review to studies that concern adult
heterosexual romantic relationships1. Since few studies identify differences based on relationship
status, I do not attempt to differentiate between the effects of pornography on married vs.
unmarried or exclusive vs. casually dating couples (although there is one notable exception;
Bridges, Bergner, & Hesson-McInnis, 2003). In addition, since none of the articles I review
sampled sexual minority couples, it would be inappropriate to prematurely generalize any of the
findings across sexual orientation. I also do not cover the effects of pornography consumption on
1
For a greatly expanded draft with additional references, please contact the author.
children or parent/child relationships, though others have provided summaries of those effects
(Manning, 2006; Horvath, Alys, Massey, Pina, Scally, & Adler, 2013).
Another important limitation of this review is culture, particularly in terms of sexuality.
Much of the history—and much of the empirical research—that I review has taken place in the
United States, where individuals typically are less accepting of alternative sexual practices
relative to other Western societies (Hofstede, 1998). These cultural differences help provide
context, for example, for studies in Australia (McKee, 2007a) or the Netherlands (Hald &
Malamuth, 2008) in which participants emphasized the positive aspects of pornography
consumption, or for government commissions in the United States (e.g., Attorney General’s
Commission on Pornography; 1986) that have shown pornography in a particularly unfavorable
light (Einsiedel, 1988).
Definitions of Pornography
Historically there has been considerable controversy over the word “pornography” and
the kind of materials it should describe. Based on a Greek term for ‘writing about whores’ (porno
= whore, graphy = writing), its modern application has been inconsistent (Short, Black, Smith,
Wetterneck, & Wells, 2012) and often pejorative, (Johnson, 1971), leading some to abandon the
term in favor of the phrase “sexually explicit materials” (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2010). Early
anti-pornography feminists contributed to this confusion, defining pornography as:
…the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words that
also includes women dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities, enjoying
pain or humiliation or rape, being tied up, cut up, mutilated, bruised, or physically hurt, in
postures of sexual submission or servility or display, reduced to body parts, penetrated by
objects or animals, or presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as

filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions
sexual. (MacKinnon, 1985, p. 1)
This definition was a means of expressing abhorrence for particular kinds of sexual material
while protecting displays of sexuality that portrayed equality between men and women
(otherwise termed ‘erotica’; Steinem, 1980). Yet this definition allowed for substantial flexibility
in how the term pornography could be applied. Pornography could include scenes that
“dehumanized [women] as sexual objects” or that displayed women “in postures of sexual
submission” or “reduced [women] to body parts” absent of overt violence or degradation (which
describes much mainstream pornography then and now). This definition gave some writers
license to condemn all kinds of sexually explicit material as pornographic (Itzin, 2002), and led
others to further redefine pornography (i.e., as depictions of overt rape and degradation) in an
attempt to delineate it from (supposedly) benign erotic depictions (O'Donnell, 1986; Willis,
1993).
Yet there has been a consistent effort to maintain “pornography” as a more general term
covering a large variety of sexual materials (e.g., United States, 1972; Hald & Malamuth, 2008;
Mosher, 1988). Such use has not seemed inappropriate nor particularly pejorative, given its
general acceptance both among pornography consumers (McKee, 2007a) and the industry itself
(Taube, 2014). I use the term in this spirit, adopting a working definition of pornography as
audiovisual (including written) material that typically intends to arouse the viewer and depicts
nudity or sexual activity. I also distinguish violent pornography (depictions of sadomasochism,
bondage, rape, or other forms of violence against women; Donnerstein, 1980b) from erotica
(non-violent sexual material characterized by equal pleasure and participation between partners;
Steinem, 1980) as well as degrading pornography (non-violent sexual material that that
characterizes women as insatiable sex objects; Zillmann & Bryant, 1982).
A Brief History of Pornography Research
In this section, I summarize the history of academic inquiry on pornography’s effects,
discussing the social and political context prefacing the study of pornography, as well as the
considerations that guided the first major empirical studies and shaped academic debate through
the 1980s and ‘90s. I conclude this section by summarizing how a historical concern with
censorship has diverted attention away from pornography’s impact on romantic relationships.
Social and Political Context
The decades following World War II were a time of cultural and political turmoil, defined
by prominent struggles such as the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. Many
established societal restrictions began to be lifted, and various illegal activities became
championed by strengthening counter-culture elements, including the production and distribution
of pornography (Marwick, 1998). Governments exercised a responsibility to intervene in these
cultural debates, as indicated by the Civil Rights Act (Orfield, 1969) and government
commissions examining crime, violence, and law enforcement (United States, 1967; 1970).
These years were also characterized by substantial gender inequality, sparking a new wave of
feminist activism in the United States and throughout the Western world (Friedan, 1963).
Movement toward greater sexual freedom did not stand unopposed. Groups such as
Morality in Media, founded in 1962, used the relative consensus of the “moral majority” to slow
the influx of pornographic material (Wilson, 1973). These forces were joined by the radical
feminist movement, which critiqued pornography as reinforcing male power over women
(Millett, 1970). Exposure to pornography was commonly believed to be harmful to an

individual’s character and social functioning, as well as a factor in sexually deviant behavior,
sexual violence against women, and criminal activity in general (Wilson, 1973).
Although family and marriage professionals engaged in vigorous debate on sexuality
(e.g., Groves, 1938; Rubin, 2012), pornography remained a topic of philosophical discussion
rather than of experimentation. Family-related research was itself in its infancy, and few were in
a position to fully understand how pornography could impact romantic relationships (Rubin,
2012, Wilson, 1973). Studies of pornography in the 1960s were largely descriptive in nature
(e.g., Thorne & Haupt, 1966), identifying variables related to the viewing of or arousal to
pornographic images (e.g., Byrne & Sheffield, 1965). Although empirical research on sexual
topics was expanding (e.g., Kinsey, 1953), studies examining the effects of pornography
consumption were essentially non-existent prior to the 1970s.
It was not until 1969, when the Supreme Court struck down state laws policing the
private possession of obscene materials (Stanley v. Georgia, 1969), that social scientists began to
examine pornography’s effects (for an in-depth summary of these legal issues, see Funston,
1971). The court’s decision clearly defined the type of evidence required for pornography to be
banned—it would need to negatively impact the lives of others, even when confined to private
use. If proof could be found that pornography caused men to commit violence, either sexual or
physical, toward women, this would certainly constitute the type of negative externality required
by the court’s ruling. The U.S. Congress quickly voted to create the 1970 President’s
Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (referred to hereafter as the 1970 commission;
United States, 1972), mandated to provide a scientific assessment of the effects of pornography.
The 1970 commission. Despite facing intense time pressure (i.e., commissioned
researchers had a period of nine months to furnish a full report), exacerbated by the lack of a
methodological or theoretical foundation (Wilson, 1971), the commission concluded that there
was “no reliable evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant
role in the causation of delinquent or criminal sexual behavior among youth or adults” (United
States, 1972, p. 169). This focus on criminal behavior may have been due to the prevalent
“liberal normative” view of media effects (Linz & Malamuth, 1993), which opposed censorship
unless direct evidence could be found that media caused violent harm. Other effects, such as
effects on divorce and sexually transmitted disease, were initially considered for inclusion, but
the commission ultimately chose topics for which they felt causal evidence could be readily
collected (Johnson, 1971). Harm to the stability of romantic relationships was of secondary
concern since it did not directly inform this debate. Though the commission did include one
study assessing the short-term effects of pornography use among married couples (Mann, 1970),
these issues received far less attention than studies of rape, crime, violence and aggression.
Effects related to gender equality (which would later become more prominent; Dworkin, 1985)
also received little attention, perhaps due in part to the relative lack of female committee
members2.
The study of pornography after 1970. Although the politicians who voted to form the
commission rejected its conclusions (Tatalovich & Daynes, 2011; Nixon, 1970), many in the
academic community accepted them. Some scholars presented strong critiques of the
commission’s methods and findings (e.g., Cline, as stated in the minority report of United States,
1972) but these challenges received little attention, both in academia and with the general public
(Simons, 1972). Many social scientists agreed that the question of pornography’s harm was
2
Two exceptions were Barbara Scott, a deputy attorney for the MPAA, and Cathryn A. Speits, an
English professor.
effectively settled (Malamuth & Donnerstein, 1982), and scholars began a wave of research on
pornography that did not seem concerned with examining the negative effects of consumption
(e.g., Brown, Amoroso, Ware, Pruesse & Pilkey, 1973).
It would be aggression researchers, concerned with a link between arousal and aggression
noted in the commission’s technical report (Mosher and Katz; 1971), who would move research
on negative effects forward. For example, participants who were exposed to pornographic films
administered more intense electric shocks against confederates who had provoked them relative
to those not exposed (Zillman, 1971), and researchers interpreted these more intense shocks as
increased aggression. These researchers incorporated radical feminist critiques of pornography
(Malamuth, 1978), which maintained that pornography could be linked to rape, aggression, and
gender inequality (Brownmiller, 1975; Russell, 1988). These studies on aggression seemed to
provide the evidence of pornography’s social harm that the 1970 commission failed to uncover,
particularly when pornography included depictions of violence (Donnerstein & Linz, 1986).
Experimental designs also allowed the researchers to draw causal connections between violent
pornography and aggression, tenuously implicating pornography in violence against women.
Pornography debates in the 1980s. As the experimental link between pornography and
aggression strengthened in the early ‘80s (Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981; Linz, Donnerstein, &
Penrod, 1984; Zillmann & Bryant, 1982), three government committees were convened (the
Williams committee in the UK in 1979, the Fraser Committee in Canada, and the Attorney
General’s commission in the U.S., both in 1986) that took this research into account (Einsiedel,
1988). These committees drew sharp criticism from scholars concerned with civil liberties
(Brannigan, 1991; Fisher & Barak, 1991; Segal, 1990) and some aggression researchers
themselves spoke out, appalled at the thought of their own data giving license to government
censorship, (Linz, Penrod, & Donnerstein, 1987; Wilcox, 1987). As a result, many lost
confidence in the literature connecting pornography use and aggression, with some citing these
researchers’ critiques to demonstrate a lack of credible evidence for pornography’s social harm
(Rubin, 1993).
Throughout this ongoing struggle, the central question remained: could social science
find incontrovertible, causal evidence linking pornography consumption to violence or sexual
assault? The consensus, both then and now, is that it cannot (Boyle, 2000; Jensen, 1994). Even if
such a link existed, ethical restrictions made finding strong experimental evidence difficult, as
researchers would never knowingly provoke real acts of rape or violence, either in the laboratory
or in the field (Zillmann & Bryant, 1986). Since the available evidence was not the appropriate
kind, the debate ebbed with little consensus on pornography’s effects, and many continued to
view pornography as harmless (Fisher & Barak, 1991). Research exploring the connection
between pornography and aggression ebbed as well, with a few notable exceptions (e.g.,
Malamuth et al., 2000).
Feminist sex wars. As pornography came to the fore in the 1960s, feminist voices were
quick to condemn its highly distorted portrayal of women (i.e., the idea that porn is a lie that
depicts women as enjoying acts of violence and rape committed against them; Brownmiller,
1975; Millett, 1970). These voices (e.g., Dworkin, 1985; MacKinnon, 1985) organized in the late
1970s as Women Against Pornography, were dedicated to decreasing the influence of
pornography in society (Kirkpatrick & Zurcher, 1983). They argued that pornography was both a
symptom and a cause of the male domination of women through rape and violence and that it
helped perpetuate gender inequality, violating women’s civil rights. This position enjoyed a great
deal of public favor over the next decade, with increasing influence in both political (Fraser
Commission, 1985), and academic arenas (Russell, 1988).
Yet not all feminists were comfortable with the positions and tactics of anti-pornography
activists. These feminists often took an anti-censorship stance, admitting that pornography was
distasteful, but not distasteful enough to invoke government restriction (Rubin, 1993; Strossen,
1993). Many were also uncomfortable joining forces with moral and Christian conservatives,
however, who actively opposed feminist principles and values on other issues (Ellis, O'Dair, &
Tallmer., 1990; Rubin, 1993; Strossen, 1993). Education, they argued, was a better solution than
censorship, and the marketplace of ideas would eventually lessen pornography’s influence,
reducing its detrimental impact (Carse, 1995).
There were some scholars, however, who recognized the need for a stronger defense of
pornography:
If the feminist critique is correct, then to champion the marketplace of ideas in the face of
the “real harms” caused by pornography is an empty and unresponsive argument. If
pornography deserves to survive the feminist attack, a justification beyond that of liberal
tolerance is required. (Sherman, 1995, p. 667).
By the late 1990s, various feminists were prepared to provide this justification, arguing that
pornography helped to encourage healthy and uninhibited female sexuality (Lubey, 2006).
Pornography, to them, was media worth celebrating in its own right (Chancer, 2000).
Although it is difficult to determine a clear victor in these debates, the influence of
radical feminists has waned in recent years, particularly following the death of Andrea Dworkin
(Boulton, 2008). Although the radical feminist perspective on pornography has far from
disappeared from academic discourse (Bianchi, 2008), female attitudes toward pornography had
begun to lean in a positive direction (Carroll, Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Olson, Barry & Madsen,
2008).
Implications for Family Impact
The desire to restrict or censor pornography has led to a laser-like focus on its connection
to rape, violence, and sexual assault, leaving little room for effects which do not speak to issues
of censorship, such as effects on the stability of romantic relationships. The connection between
pornography use and rape has been examined a number of times since the 1970s (Diamond,
2009), but the association between pornography use and divorce remained unexamined until the
mid-2000s (Shumway & Daines, 2011; Kendall, 2006; Wongsurawat, 2006). Similarly, dozens
of experiments have examined pornography and attitudes toward rape (Mundorf, D'Alessio,
Allen, & Emmers-Sommer, 2007), but only two have had direct implications for pornography’s
family impact (Gwinn, Lambert, Fincher & Maner, 2013; Zillmann & Bryant, 1988a). This
means that our understanding of pornography’s impact on families has been slow to mature,
although recent research has been reversing this trend. In addition, studies on aggression and
rape continue to have unexplored implications for family stability.
A Review of Pornography’s Effects
Synthesizing research on pornography’s effects is a difficult endeavor. The aims and
methods employed by pornography researchers have been diverse, and any categorization of
these effects is an inherently subjective process. Nonetheless, I proceed based on how
researchers have framed their findings, examining beneficial effects first, followed by harmful
effects.
In making use of the family impact lens, it is important to identify aspects of romantic
relationships that pornography could potentially influence. Scholars have identified attributes
that describe satisfying, stable relationships, including trust, expectations of fidelity,
communication, shared values, frequency of positive and negative interactions, frequency and
quality of sexual activity, and assumptions of permanence (summarized in Manning, 2006). Not
all successful relationships embody these characteristics to the same degree, but if pornography
can be shown to impact these characteristics, it would be evidence that pornography can impact
the stability of romantic relationships. I describe specific ways that pornography might impact
these characteristics, including a) the beneficial effects of pornography on sexual satisfaction
through increasing sexual variety, b) contrast effects that reduce sexual satisfaction, c) altered
perceptions of relationship alternatives, which reduce commitment, d) increased acceptance of
infidelity, and e) harmful effects on behavior (e.g., aggression, sexual coercion, or sexism),
which might increase negative partner interactions. These connections, and the theoretical
perspectives that underlie them, are depicted in Figure 1. (insert Figure 1 about here)
The Beneficial Effects of Pornography Consumption
Self-perceived benefits. Although most research has focused on negative effects, a few
studies have catalogued the beneficial effects of pornography consumption. The most
comprehensive effort was conducted by McKee and his colleagues (McKee, Albury, & Lumby,
2008), who asked Australian pornography subscribers what they felt the effects of pornography
were in their own lives. A majority indeed felt that pornography had positive effects, including:
a) making consumers less repressed about sex, b) making them more open-minded about sex, c)
increasing tolerance of other people’s sexualities, d) giving pleasure, e) providing educational
insight, f) sustaining sexual interest in long-term relationships, g) making them more attentive to
a partner’s sexual desires, h) helping consumers find an identity/community, and i) helping them
to talk to their partners about sex. These perceived benefits were corroborated in a large Dutch
sample of young adults (Hald & Malamuth, 2008), who reported that pornography had
substantially more positive than negative effects on their sex life, their attitudes toward sex, their
attitudes toward the opposite gender, and in their life generally, though the effects were larger for
men than women. Furthermore, in a survey of women whose partners used pornography, a
majority felt that their partners’ use added variety to their sex lives (Bridges et al., 2003). In this
study, some respondents reported using pornography together as a couple, which they saw as a
positive experience.
Limitations of self-perceived benefits. Although the positive experiences of consumers
are not to be discounted, these self-perceptions are limited. The samples in these studies are not
necessarily representative of the population of pornography consumers. Respondents subscribed
to a pornographic magazine, for example, naturally should attend to effects that would justify
involvement in pornography (Flood, 2013). Additionally, samples of young adults might
underrepresent consumers, such as older adults in committed relationships, who might feel
differently about pornography (Bergner & Bridges, 2002). Such benefits describe an idealized
form of consumption, with pornography used primarily for educational or relational purposes,
which may not be the modal experience (Cooper, Morahan-Martin, Mathy, & Maheu, 2002).
In addition, pornography’s harmful effects may lie outside of consumers’ conscious
awareness (Hald & Malamuth, 2008). To focus on self-perceptions would provide a skewed
picture of pornography’s effects, one that emphasizes benefits while shrouding potential harms.
This tendency is reflected in pornography’s well-established third-person effect—individuals are
more comfortable with pornography negatively affecting other consumers than they are with it
affecting themselves (Lo, Wei, & Wu, 2010).

Arousal and education. Empirical evidence corroborates pornography’s use as a) a sex
aid, and b) a sex educator. As the earliest studies of pornography concluded, the viewing of
sexually explicit materials can be arousing and often pleasurable (United States, 1972).
Pornography use among women has been associated with positive experiences with sex (Rogala
& Tydén, 2003), may increase communication between partners regarding sexual fantasies and
desires (Daneback, Traeen, & Maansson, 2009), and can expand women’s sexual horizons
(Weinberg, Williams, Kleiner, & Irizarry, 2010). Pornography also can be a means of sexual
release when partners are absent or unavailable (Hardy, 2004; Parvez, 2006). In terms of
education, pornography provides information about sexual positions and techniques (for men
more than women; Donnelly, 1991), though it is unclear if the education provided by
pornography is truly beneficial, as pornography appears to educate in other ways, encouraging
risky sexual behavior (i.e., most sex portrayed in pornography is unprotected; Stein, Silvera,
Hagerty, & Marmor, 2012), instrumental attitudes toward sex (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006), and
rape myths3 (Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995). Studies examining the sexual
knowledge of individuals who do and do not consume pornography would help better assess the
extent and value of pornography’s educational effects.
Presumed cathartic effects. Researchers have long presumed that pornography could
play a cathartic role, helping release sexual tension that would otherwise encourage aggression or
sexual assault (Wilson, 1971). Although researchers find that the cathartic hypothesis is
unconvincing and generally unsupported (Allen et al., 1995; Ferguson & Hartley, 2009), state-
3
Rape myths are “attitudes and generally false beliefs about rape that are widely and persistently
held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (Lonsway &
Fitzgerald, 1994, p. 133).
level data from 1998-2003, when the availability of internet pornography increased
exponentially, reveal that rape rates decreased substantially among 15-19 year old males—an age
group who would have had difficulty acquiring pornography without the internet (Kendall,
2006). These findings suggest that pornography may serve as a substitute for rape for male
adolescents. Similarly, when examining child molestation rates in areas where child pornography
was legal for a time, a decrease in molestation was documented during the time such
pornography was available (Diamond, 2009). These studies provide initial evidence of
circumstances where pornography use may have a cathartic effect, at least in the aggregate.
These findings may not translate well to an individual level, however, since those convicted of
possessing child pornography are also very likely to have molested children, at least according to
one study (Bourke & Hernandez, 2009).
Implied benefits for relationships. These benefits have important implications for
sexual satisfaction in romantic relationships. Studies have examined whether pornography use is
associated with increased sexual satisfaction by increasing sexual variety (Johnston, 2013;
Štulhofer, Buško, & Schmidt, 2012). Although these studies examine individual rather than
couple satisfaction, their findings suggest that this may indeed be a viable benefit.
Harmful Effects in a Romantic Context
Despite early work examining pornography use in a romantic context (Mann, 1970) it is
only in the last five years that substantial quantitative data have become available (e.g., Gwinn et
al., 2013). As a result, pornography’s effects on committed relationships are becoming clearer. I
begin by reviewing three pathways for pornography’s influence on romantic relationships: (a)
contrast effects; (b) upward valuations of relationship alternatives; and (c) the acceptance of
infidelity. I follow with an assessment of problematic pornography use in committed

relationships, as well as the association between pornography consumption and divorce, and I
conclude this section with an assessment of effects that have not been examined in a romantic
context, but that nonetheless have important implications for how romantic partners interact:
effects on aggression, sexual coercion, and sexism.
When considering this research, it is useful to draw a distinction between two separate
patterns of pornography consumption in romantic relationships. The first is a more idealized
mode of consumption, where partners watch pornography together to enhance their sexual
experience. The second, likely more common mode (Cooper et al., 2002), is solitary
consumption—often characterized by secrecy and deceit as consumers hide their pornography
use from the non-consuming partner (Bergner & Bridges, 2002). Evidence suggests that the first
mode is considerably less harmful to committed relationships than the second, although mutual
consumption continues to have risks (Maddox , Rhodes, & Markham, 2011).
To be more specific, Maddox and colleagues compared couples who had never viewed
pornography with those who consumed pornography together as well as those where one partner
consumed pornography alone. On measures of communication, relationship adjustment,
commitment, sexual satisfaction, and infidelity, couples where neither partner viewed
pornography reported higher relationship quality relative to those where one or both partners
viewed pornography alone. Couples where partners only consumed pornography together,
however, reported similar relationship quality to those who never viewed pornography (with the
exception of infidelity, where the likelihood of infidelity among mutual consumers was almost
double that of non-consumers; 18.2% vs. 9.7%), and reported higher dedication to the
relationship and sexual satisfaction than solitary consumers. When individuals combine mutual
and solitary consumption the outcomes more closely align with the latter rather than the former
(Maddox et al., 2011).
Contrast effects. When judging the attractiveness of romantic partners, we often to refer
to a common standard, one informed by other individuals we encounter (Kenrick & Gutierres,
1980), as well as the media we watch. When males view images of attractive females, and then
judge the attractiveness of their own mates, we observe contrast effects—they see their mates as
less attractive than those not exposed (Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldberg, 1989). This same
principle might also apply to other aspects of relationships: “Free-spirited, varied sexual
encounters in pornography produce a sharp contrast versus the restrictions, commitment, and
responsibilities associated with family and relationships and make the latter appear as
particularly restricting” (Mundorf et al., 2007, p. 85).
Zillmann and Bryant (1988b) tested these contrast effects by exposing individuals to six
hours of non-violent pornographic material over six weeks, measuring satisfaction with their
(mostly dating) partners, not only in terms of attractiveness but also with affection, sexual
curiosity, and sexual performance. Compared to controls, those exposed expressed substantially
less satisfaction on each of these measures. These findings are supported by correlational data
connecting pornography to decreased satisfaction with physical intimacy in a relationship
(Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Poulsen, Busby, & Galovan, 2013). Real life, it seems, does not
compare favorably with pornography.
Relationship alternatives. Rather than altering how consumers perceive the
characteristics and behavior of their own partners, pornography might give the sense that others
outside the relationship would better provide sexual variety and satisfaction (Zillmann & Bryant,
1984). As these alternatives become more appealing, commitment to the current relationship
erodes, as indicated by Rusbult’s Investment Model (1980). This idea was supported in two sets
of studies. First, Lambert and colleagues (2012) demonstrated that (a) increased pornography
consumption (pornographic website views in the last 30 days) was correlated with lower
commitment to a current romantic partner; (b) that pornography use was associated with
increased flirtation with an opposite-sex individual in an online chat; and (c) that decreased
commitment mediated a positive association between pornography use and infidelity4. Gwinn
and colleagues (2013) also found that (a) individuals primed with pornographic materials report
higher quality romantic alternatives relative to controls; and (b) pornography consumption (in the
last 30 days) predicts extra-dyadic behavior (flirting, kissing, cheating, etc.) 12 weeks later, with
the perceived alternative quality mediating this association. Pornography consumption is thus
causally implicated in extra-dyadic behavior through perceptions of relationship alternatives.
Increasing acceptance of infidelity. Scholars were quick to point out the potential for
pornography to alter “sexual scripts”— our expectations for how sexual activity (and romantic
relationships generally) should proceed (Berger, Simon, & Gagnon, 1973), informing
relationship norms (e.g., how often oral sex should occur), and characteristics (e.g., fidelity).
This influence was first presented in a positive light, with pornography ostensibly creating more
effective sexual scripts (Berger et al., 1973). It is possible, however, given that pornography
generally portrays uncommitted—and often explicitly infidelitous—sexual encounters, that
4
The article also presents an experiment that claims to have detected significant differences in
relationship commitment between those who abstained from pornography for a two-week period
and those who continued normal pornography consumption. However, the small sample size (N
= 20), and the nature of the effect do not lend credibility to this particular result (i.e., they
concluded that continuing current pornography habits was responsible for a substantial drop in
commitment over a two week period for relationships that had presumably been characterized by
a given level of consumption for months/years).
exposure can foster a permissive sexual script, increasing acceptance of extra-dyadic behavior
(Braithwaite, Coulson, Keddington, & Fincham, 2014).
The available data is in strong support of the assertion that individuals exposed to larger
amounts of non-violent pornography evidence an increased acceptance and estimated frequency
of extramarital sex (Zillmann & Bryant, 1988a) relative to controls, and are more likely to
believe that promiscuity is natural and that marriage is less desirable. Also, males who watched a
pornographic movie within the last year were more likely to be accepting of extra-marital sex,
had an increased number of sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in paid sex behavior,
relative to those who did not (Wright & Randall, 2012). Pornography consumption also predicted
casual sex behavior (including extra-marital sex) three years later, with no evidence of reverse
causality (Wright, 2012).
Outcomes of problematic pornography consumption. Regardless of the general effects
of pornography use, it seems clear that there are cases where pornography use can be perceived
as problematic, either by the consumer or a consumer’s partner. These partners are often women
concerned with consumption as part of a larger pattern of seemingly compulsive sexual behavior
(Schneider, 2000). The narratives produced by these women present a picture of what happens
when pornography use becomes problematic (Bergner & Bridges, 2002; Schneider, 2000).
Schneider, for example, examined the narratives of 91 women (and 3 men) who had
experienced adverse effects of a partner’s cybersexual activity (2000). These experienced severe
emotional distress with their partners’ behavior, feeling betrayed, abandoned, humiliated, hurt,
and angry. They also felt sharp contrast effects, comparing themselves unfavorably with the
women in pornography and feeling unable to compete with them in terms of sexual performance.
Individuals who attempted to compensate by having more sex with their partners were often
unsuccessful. Furthermore, participants often lacked desire to engage sexually with partners who
they felt had betrayed them, and their partners also withdrew sexually in favor of pornography.
Many ultimately reassessed the relationship itself, seeking separation or divorce as their
relationships progressively deteriorated. Similar findings have been obtained by other
researchers (e.g., Bergner & Bridges, 2002). However, an important confound in these studies is
the conflation of pornography use with dishonest and deceptive behavior (Resch & Alderson,
2013). Spouses spent considerable effort hiding and lying about their online activities, and this
dishonesty triggered hurt and betrayal as much as or more than pornography use.
Although these narratives evoke sympathy, they do not tell us how widespread such
experiences are. However, one survey (Bridges et al., 2003) found that a substantial minority of
women (30 out of 100) reported their partner’s pornography use as distressing. Their distress
increased as the consumption increased and was felt more by married and older women
compared to dating and younger women. This finding demonstrates that the experiences reported
by Schneider, although far from ubiquitous, may be common enough to elicit concern.
Connecting pornography use and divorce. Data from the General Social Survey (GSS)
shows consistent correlations between pornography consumption (viewing a pornographic video
or website in the last 30 days) and divorce for all years between 1973-2010, with the relationship
gaining in strength over time (i.e., those who consumed pornography were, on average across the
data set, 60% more likely to be divorced than those who did not, with the most recent years
showing the strongest association; Doran & Price, 2014). In addition, a longitudinal analysis of
state-level data over three decades (Shumway & Daines, 2011) shows a strong time-lagged
correlation between divorce and subscription rates for popular pornographic magazines (r = .44),
even when controlling for a variety of factors. The authors estimated that 10% of all divorces
occurring in the 1960s and ‘70s can be attributed to pornography consumption.
Aggression. A prime concern of many pornography researchers has been the connection
between exposure to pornography and overt aggressive behavior, a concern highlighted by the
apparent increase in depictions of aggression in pornography over time (Bridges, Wosnitzer,
Scharrer, Sun, & Liberman, 2010). Though findings connecting pornography and aggression can
appear contradictory, a remarkably consistent story emerges in the light of meta-analytic data
(Allen et al., 1995; Mundorf et al., 2007). Exposure to non-violent pornographic film primes
increase aggression, particularly when the target individual is same-sex, but only when
participants are provoked (e.g., Donnerstein & Hallam, 1978). This suggests that exposure only
incites aggression when participants might confuse sexual arousal for anger, consistent with an
excitation transfer hypothesis5. Exposure to violent pornography has also been shown to
facilitate aggression. Meta-analyses reveal stronger effects relative to non-violent pornography
(Allen et al., 1995), though this effect is substantially moderated by the gender of the target
person, facilitating aggression only when males are provoked to aggress against females (e.g.,
Donnerstein, 1980a). This sexual violence appears to encourage aggression over and above
exposure to other forms of violence, suggesting that sex and violence combine in synergistic
ways to facilitate aggression against women (Donnerstein, 1983). These distinctions led
researchers away from an excitation transfer hypothesis, explaining violent pornography in terms
5
This hypothesis (Zillmann, 1971) posits that physiological arousal is not specific to the stimuli
that induces it, and that residual arousal (e.g., from consuming pornography) can be associated
with other stimuli (e.g., a provocation) with the potential for those stimuli to elicit a more intense
behavioral response (e.g., aggressive behavior).
of the social learning6 theories put forward by Bandura and other behavioral researchers
(Bandura, 2011; Bandura & McClelland, 1977; Mundorf et al., 2007).
Limitations and implications for romantic relationships. These results should be
interpreted with caution. Even if findings from the laboratory can be applied to the real world, it
is unclear how long the effects of pornography exposure last (longer than 20 minutes; Zillmann,
Hoyt, & Day, 1974; but less than a week; Malamuth & Ceniti, 1986), and the average aggressive
effects of pornography exposure are notably weak, particularly for non-violent pornography (r =
< .2; Allen et al., 1995). Given such limited effect sizes, it would make sense to look for subtle
effects on aggression which may be found within romantic relationships, where conflict between
partners can be relatively common (Fitness, 2001). Individuals need not react with overt physical
aggression for such reactions to damage their close relationships—they might instead react with
a harsh or vindictive turn of phrase, an insult, or a cold shoulder (Metts & Cupach, 2007).
Pornography exposure might lead consumers to be slightly less kind, slightly more defensive, or
a little more vengeful when provoked by a romantic partner, increasing negative partner
interactions. Future research could examine this possibility, as these effects may be enough to
alter the course of a romantic relationship, making such relationships gradually more unstable
and less satisfying (Rusbult, 1986).
Sexual assault and sexual coercion. Although the connection between pornography
exposure and aggression is well-supported, at least within the confines of the laboratory, the
connection between pornography use and sexual assault is much more equivocal. Large-scale
data indicates that the legalization of pornography does not increase the incidence of rape
6
Social learning is defined, in short, as the view that people learn various attitudes and behaviors
by observing the attitudes and behaviors of others (Bandura & McClelland, 1977).
(Wongsurawat, 2006), but individual level analyses present a different account, with
consumption of violent (but not non-violent) pornography associated with an increased rated
likelihood of rape and the use of force to obtain sex (Demaré, Lips, & Briere, 1993).
Consumption was also correlated with recalled acts of sexual coercion (Boeringer, 1994), and
individuals exposed to non-violent, degrading pornography in the lab also reported a greater
likelihood of rape than those not exposed (Check & Guloien, 1989). Males exposed to film
depictions of rape felt that the female victim was more responsible for what happened, though
only if the video ended with a female orgasm (relative to a violent end; Donnerstein &
Berkowitz, 1981), and meta-analyses of correlational and experimental data find that violent and
non-violent pornography both increase the endorsement of rape myths (Allen et al., 1995;
Mundorf et al., 2007).
Pornography, in this context, appears to communicate female enjoyment and
encouragement of coercive sexual activity, but these attitudes are not irrevocably altered by
exposure to pornography. Such effects essentially disappear when pornographic depictions are
accompanied by debriefings, prebriefings, or other educational materials that dispel rape myths
(Check & Malamuth, 1984; Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981), an assertion that is supported by
meta-analytic data (Mundorf et al., 2007). Such findings give hope that deleterious effects can be
controlled or eliminated through concerted sex education efforts.
The ongoing conflict between aggregate and individual-level findings remains the largest
hurdle in the connection between pornography and rape. Only research that examines both levels
simultaneously—likely through the application of multi-level linear modeling (MLM; Snijders &
Bosker, 2011)—would be able to truly reconcile these disparate findings. Some researchers,
however, use a confluence model to resolve this discrepancy, suggesting that the expression of
sexual assault requires a confluence of various impelling factors. If pornography is among such
factors, we should only see a substantial effect in those already at risk for aggressive behavior,
and this is precisely what some have found (Malamuth & Huppin, 2005). The risk of committing
a sexual assault is generally low regardless of pornography consumption, except for those whose
risk of violent behavior is high—pornography subscribers have a greatly increased risk over non-
subscribers among those high in hostile masculinity and sexual promiscuity, both predictors of
violent behavior (Malamuth & Huppin, 2005).
Implications for romantic relationships. These findings, though equivocal, have
implications for family impact. If there is a connection between pornography use and sexual
assault generally, then there may also be a connection to date or marital rape (for a discussion of
date and marital rape, see Clinton-Sherrod & Walters, 2011), which is no less harmful and may
be far more common than stranger-rape (Bergen, 1996), and would certainly qualify as a
negative partner interaction. Although there is little data that speaks directly to pornography’s
effects on date/marital rape, various studies have noted that husbands who habitually coerce their
wives into sex often attempt to re-enact pornographic scenes (e.g., Finkelhor & Yllo, 1983;
Moreau, Boucher, Hebert, & Lemelin, 2015). Further research in this area would be a welcome
addition to the existing literature.
Sexist attitudes and behavior. Some experimental research has connected pornography
with sexist behavior and attitudes. For example, researchers theorized that pornography would
encourage sexist behavior through priming a heterosexual self-schema (McKenzie-Mohr &
Zanna, 1990). Male participants viewed either non-violent pornography or a neutral control
video and were then interviewed by a female confederate. Sex-typed men exposed to
pornography had greater recall for the confederate’s physical features and less recall for her
intellectual qualifications. The female interviewer, blind to experimental condition, rated those
exposed to pornography as more sexually motivated than those exposed to the neutral video. A
conceptual replication led to similar results7 (Jansma, Linz, Mulac, & Imrich, 1997), and showed
effects only with degrading pornography rather than non-degrading erotica.
These experimental effects are supported by studies on pornography and sexist attitudes.
Pornography consumption is positively associated with thinking of women in sexual terms
(Burns, 2001), as well as measures of benevolent (Garos, Beggan, Kluck, & Easton, 2004) and
hostile sexism (Hald, Malamuth, & Lange, 2013). Hostile sexism scores can also be increased
by experimental exposure to non-violent pornography (e.g., Hald et al., 2013). Lastly, studies
have connected pornography use to less egalitarian attitudes (Burns, 2001; Hald et al., 2013;
though some find no relationship between pornography use and such attitudes, e.g., Barak &
Fisher, 1997), with longitudinal data showing that pornography use predicts increased opposition
to affirmative action for women, with no evidence of reverse causality (Wright & Funk, 2013).
The main theoretical perspective underlying these associations is social learning. As they watch
women being treated as sexual objects, consumers come to form attitudes and behavior that
reflect sexually objectification (McKenzie-Mohr & Zanna, 1993).
Implications for romantic relationships. Sexism can exert influence on the dynamics of
romantic relationships. Pornography consumption may lead men to place greater value on the
physical characteristics of their partners (which invariably degrade over time) rather than their
intellectual attributes, which might lead to greater dissatisfaction with the relationship as time
passes. Hostile sexist attitudes may also promote attempts to coercively control romantic partners
7
Males exposed to pornography viewed confederate women as less intellectually competent,
though the confederates could not discriminate between those assigned to each condition.
(which is associated with intimate partner violence; Whitaker, 2013), suggesting another way
pornography could increase negative partner interactions.
Conclusion
The evidence for pornography’s influence on the stability of romantic and committed
relationships is strong. The effects described are grounded in established theory, operate through
well-defined processes, and the data produce remarkable agreement. Social learning theory
(Bandura, 2011) suggests that as pornography consumers watch acts of aggression and violence
or view sexist or degrading portrayals they can adopt attitudes supportive of those behaviors and
learn to enact them with their own partners (though they may also learn more varied sexual
techniques in the process). Similarly, pornography may inform sexual scripts that increase the
likelihood of infidelity (Braithwaite et al., 2014), and consumers may unfairly compare their
romantic partners or their own relationships to those they see in pornography (Zillmann &
Bryant, 1988b) or perceive those outside the relationship as better able to fill sexual needs
(Gwinn et al., 2013). Taken together, these effects have the potential to be problematic in the
context of a committed romantic relationship (Schneider, 2000), and may increase the likelihood
of divorce (Shumway & Daines, 2012).
In weighing the evidence of pornography’s family impact, an important question remains
unanswered: how should those concerned with the effects of pornography—whether they are
scholars, public officials, or actual consumers—interpret this widening catalog of evidence?
Contemporary anti-pornography activists might use evidence of pornography’s relational harm
as ammunition in the fight to censor pornographic material, lobbying governments directly. In
addition, they might instead incorporate these findings into educational efforts, attempting to
change the hearts and minds of individual consumers or those close to them. Both approaches
deserve brief discussion.
Recent restrictions on the content of U.K.-produced pornography, as well as an “opt-in”
filter system that requires consumers in the U.K. to specifically request access to pornographic
websites (Hawkins, 2013), have shown that governments may yet be able to curb pornography’s
influence through legislative action, particularly with a compromise between censorship and civil
liberties. The history reviewed here, on the other hand, suggests that attempts to censor
pornography are not without risk. Past examples of government intervention on pornography
have largely backfired, accomplishing little except to raise the ire of anti-censorship forces.
Scholars and activists concerned with government censorship have fallen (and likely will fall
again) on the same standards of social harm established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The effects
on romantic relationships described in this review will likely fail to meet that standard, as they
do not demonstrate a causal connection between pornography use and violent harm. As with
earlier findings connecting pornography to aggression and sexual coercion, there is a risk that
evidence of family impact will be downplayed and dismissed.
Educational efforts represent another way to ameliorate pornography’s harms. Large
scale educational initiatives have been tried before, particularly by anti-pornography feminist
groups (Ciclitira, 2004), but evidence of family impact may provide a fresh and compelling angle
through which people may come to recognize pornography’s harmful influence. Consumers who
place value on their committed relationships may have substantial reason to rethink their
pornography habits. Such evidence may also spur governments overtly concerned with family
stability (e.g., Japan and Russia are working hard to encourage single individuals to get married
and raise families; McCurry, 2011; Rhodin, 2008) into supporting education on pornography’s
family impact. Furthermore, pornography education could be folded into marriage education
programs currently being provided by religious and nonprofit organizations, and marriage and
relationship researchers could consider adding a component on pornography into evidence-based
education programs (e.g., Barnes & Stanley, 2012). Whether such efforts could be effective
remains an empirical question, though educational successes in other public health arenas (e.g.,
anti-smoking public awareness campaigns; Durkin, Brennan, & Wakefield, 2012) provide some
encouragement.
Given recent findings, those who argue that pornography is harmless (e.g., Diamond,
Jozifkova, & Weiss, 2011) will need to firmly qualify what they mean by harm, unless they
affirm that divorce and infidelity are universally positive or neutral phenomena (which they may
indeed be willing to do; Christensen, 1986). The proclamation of pornography’s harmlessness by
the 1970 commission served to stifle further inquiry—many scholars felt that the questions of
pornography’s effects were effectively settled (Zillmann, 2000), and it was only evidence of
aggressive effects that spurred further inquiry. Accumulating evidence of pornography’s family
impact has the potential to do the same today, and I hope that this review will stimulate further
research and debate among family scientists on pornography’s effects—effects on individuals,
but also on the relationships they share.

References
Allen, M., D'Alessio, D., & Brezgel, K. (1995). A Meta‐Analysis Summarizing the Effects of
Pornography II Aggression After Exposure. Human Communication Research, 22(2),
258-283.
Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M. A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and
acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 5-26.
Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. (1986). Final report. Washington: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins (eds.) Handbook of social psychological theories (pp. 349-373). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bandura, A., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Barak, A., & Fisher, W. A. (1997). Effects of interactive computer erotica on men's attitudes and
behavior toward women: An experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(3),
353-369.
Barnes, C. G., & Stanley, S. M. (2012). Christian PREP: The prevention and relationship
enhancement program. In E. L. Worthington, E. L. Johnson, J. N. Hook, & J. D. Aten
(Eds.) Evidence-based practices for christian counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 166-
188). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Bergen, R. K. (1996). Wife rape: Understanding the response of survivors and service providers
(Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger, A. S., Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1973). Youth and pornography in social context.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2(4), 279-308.
Bergner, R. M., & Bridges, A. J. (2002). The significance of heavy pornography involvement for
romantic partners: Research and clinical implications. Journal of Sex &Marital Therapy,
28(3), 193-206.
Bianchi, C. (2008). Indexicals, speech acts and pornography. Analysis, 68(4), 310-316.
Boeringer, S. B. (1994). Pornography and sexual aggression: Associations of violent and
nonviolent depictions with rape and rape proclivity. Deviant Behavior, 15(3), 289-304.
Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Family policy: Becoming a field of inquiry and
subfield of social policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 783-803.
Bogenschneider, K., Little, O. M., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012).
The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidence-informed approach to policy and
practice. Family Relations, 61(3), 514-531.
Boulton, C. (2008). Porn and Me(n): Sexual morality, objectification, and religion at the
Wheelock Anti-Pornography Conference. The Communication Review, 11(3), 247-273
Bourke, M. L., & Hernandez, A. E. (2009). The 'Butner study' redux: A report of the incidence of
hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family
Violence, 24(3), 183-191.
Boyle, K. (2000). The pornography debates: Beyond cause and effect. Women's Studies
International Forum, 23(2), 187-195.
Braithwaite, S. R., Coulson, G., Keddington, K., & Fincham, F. D. (2014). The influence of
pornography on sexual scripts and hooking up among emerging adults in college.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-
0351-x.
Brannigan, A. (1991). Obscenity and social harm: A contested terrain. International journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 14(1), 1-12.
Bridges, A. J., Bergner, R. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003). Romantic partners use of
pornography: Its significance for women. Journal of Sex &Marital Therapy, 29(1), 1-14.
Bridges, A. J., & Morokoff, P. J. (2011). Sexual media use and relational satisfaction in
heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 562-585.
Bridges, A. J., Wosnitzer, R., Scharrer, E., Sun, C., & Liberman, R. (2010). Aggressive and
sexual behavior in best-selling pornography videos: A content analysis. Violence Against
Women, 16(10), 1065-1085.
Brown, M., Amoroso, D. M., Ware, E. E., Pruesse, M., & Pilkey, D. W. (1973). Factors affecting
viewing time of pornography. The Journal of Social Psychology, 90(1), 125-135.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Burns, R. J. (2001). Male Internet pornography consumers and their attitudes toward men and
women. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Byrne, D., & Sheffield, J. (1965). Response to sexually arousing stimuli as a function of
repressing and sensitizing defenses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70(2), 114.
Carroll, J. S., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Olson, C. D., Barry, C. M., & Madsen, S. D.
(2008). Generation XXX: Pornography acceptance and use among emerging adults.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(1), 6-30.
Chancer, L. S. (2000). From pornography to sadomasochism: Reconciling feminist differences.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571(1), 77-88.
Check, J. V. P., & Guloien, T. H. (1989). Reported proclivity for coercive sex following
exposure to sexually violent pornography, non-violent dehumanizing pornography, and
erotica. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Pornography (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Check, J. V. P., & Malamuth, N. M. (1984). Can there be positive effects of participation in
pornography experiments? Journal of Sex Research, 20(1), 14-31.
Christensen, F. (1986). Sexual callousness re-examined. Journal of Communication, 36(1), 174-
184.
Ciclitira, K. (2004). Pornography, women and feminism: Between pleasure and politics.
Sexualities, 7(3), 281-301.
Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & Walters, J. H. (2011). Marital rape and sexual violation by intimate
partners. In T. Bryant-Davis (ed.) Surviving sexual violence: a guide to recovery and
empowerment (pp. 48-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cooper, A., Morahan-Martin, J., Mathy, R. M., & Maheu, M. (2002). Toward an increased
understanding of user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex &Marital
Therapy, 28(2), 105-129.
Daneback, K., Traeen, B., & Maansson, S. A. (2009). Use of pornography in a random sample of
Norwegian heterosexual couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 746-753.
Demaré, D., Lips, H. M., & Briere, J. (1993). Sexually violent pornography, anti-women
attitudes, and sexual aggression: A structural equation model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 27(3), 285-300.
Diamond, M. (2009). Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(5), 304-314.

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., & Weiss, P. (2011). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech
Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 1037-1043.
Donnelly, D. F. (1991). Pornography as a source of sex information for students at a private
northeastern university. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 782-782.
Donnerstein, E. (1980a). Aggressive erotica and violence against women. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39(2), 269-277.
Donnerstein, E. (1980b). Pornography and violence against women: Experimental studies.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 347(1), 277-288.
Donnerstein, E. (1983). Erotica and human aggression. Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical
Reviews, 2, 127-154.
Donnerstein, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor
in violence against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 710-
724.
Donnerstein, E., & Hallam, J. (1978). Facilitating effects of erotica on aggression against
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1270-1277.
Donnerstein, E. I., & Linz, D. G. (1986). Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: Current
theory and research. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 601-618.
Doran, K., & Price, J. (2014). Pornography and marriage. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 35, 489-498.
Durkin, S., Brennan, E., & Wakefield, M. (2012). Mass media campaigns to promote smoking
cessation among adults: An integrative review. Tobacco Control, 21, 127-138.
Dworkin, A. (1985). Against the male flood: Censorship, pornography, and equality. Harvard
Women's Law Journal, 8, 1-9.

Einsiedel, E. F. (1988). The British, Canadian, and US pornography commissions and their use
of social science research. Journal of Communication, 38(2), 108-121.
Ellis, K., O'Dair, B., & Tallmer, A. (1990). Feminism and pornography. Feminist Review, 36,
15-18.
Ferguson, C. J., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). The pleasure is momentary… the expense damnable?:
The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 14(5), 323-329.
Finkelhor, D., & Yllo, K. (1983). Rape in marriage: A sociological view. In D. Finkelhor, r. J.
Gelles, G. T. hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family
violence research (pp. 119-131). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fisher, W. A., & Barak, A. (1991). Pornography, erotica, and behavior: More questions than
answers. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14(1), 65-83.
Fitness, J. (2001). Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: An interpersonal script
approach. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 73–103). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Flood, M. (2013). Pornography, violence and popular debate. DVRCV Advocate 2, 42-44.
Fraser Commission. (1985). Pornography and prostitution in Canada: Report of the special
committee on pornography and prostitution. Ottawa: Government Offices.
Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Funston, R. (1971). Pornography and politics: The court, the constitution, and the commission.
The Western Political Quarterly, 24(4), 635-652.
Garos, S., Beggan, J. K., Kluck, A., & Easton, A. (2004). Sexism and pornography use: Toward
explaining past (null) results. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 16(1), 69-96.
Groves, E. (1938). Fourth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family,
Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and
Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
Gwinn, A. M., Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Maner, J. K. (2013). Pornography,
relationship alternatives, and intimate extradyadic behavior. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 4(6), 699-704.
Hald, G. M., & Malamuth, N. M. (2008). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(4), 614-625.
Hald, G. M., Malamuth, N. N., & Lange, T. (2013). Pornography and sexist attitudes among
heterosexuals. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 638-660.
Hardy, S. (2004). Reading pornography. Sex Education, 4(1), 3-18.
Hawkins, A. J., & Ooms, T. (2012). Can marriage and relationship education be an effective
policy tool to help low-income couples form and sustain healthy marriages and
relationships? A review of the lessons learned. Marriage and Family Review, 48(6), 524-
554.
Hawkins, R. (2013). Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23401076.
Hofstede, G. H. (Ed.) (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Horvath, M. A., Alys, L., Massey, K., Pina, A., Scally, M., & Adler, J. R. (2013).
Basically…porn is everywhere: A rapid evidence assessment on the effects that access
and exposure to pornography has on children and young people. Retrieved from
https://calio.dspacedirect.org/handle/11212/373.
Itzin, C. (2002). Pornography and the construction of misogyny. Journal of Sexual Aggression,
8(3), 4-42.
Jansma, L. L., Linz, D. G., Mulac, A., & Imrich, D. J. (1997). Men's interactions with women
after viewing sexually explicit films: Does degradation make a difference?
Communications Monographs, 64(1), 1-24.
Jensen, R. (1994). Pornography and the limits of experimental research. In G. Dines, & J. M.
Humez (Eds.), Gender, race, and class in media: a text-reader (pp. 417-423). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, W. T. (1971). The pornography report: Epistemology, methodology and ideology.
Duquesne Law Review, 10, 190-219.
Johnston, J. B. (2013). Early exposure to pornography: Indirect and direct effects on sexual
satisfaction in adulthood. Doctoral Dissertation. Fielding Graduate University. Retrieved
from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/53/3553937.html.
Kendall, T. (2006). Pornography, rape, and the internet.
Kenrick, D. T., & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical
attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(1), 131-140.
Kenrick, D. T., Gutierres, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on
judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2),
159-167.
Kinsey, A. C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Kirkpatrick, R. G., & Zurcher Jr, L. A. (1983). Women against pornography. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 3(4), 1-30.
Lambert, N. M., Negash, S., Stillman, T. F., Olmstead, S. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). A love
that doesn't last: Pornography consumption and weakened commitment to one's romantic
partner. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31(4), 410-438.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1984). The effects of multiple exposures to filmed
violence against women. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 130-147.
Linz, D., & Malamuth, N. M. (1993). Pornography (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linz, D., Penrod, S. D., & Donnerstein, E. (1987). The Attorney General's Commission on
Pornography: The gaps between “findings” and facts. Law & Social Inquiry, 12(4), 713-
736.
Lo, V. H., Wei, R., & Wu, H. (2010). Examining the first, second and third-person effects of
Internet pornography on Taiwanese adolescents: implications for the restriction of
pornography. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(1), 90-103.
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18(2), 133-164.
Lubey, K. (2006). Spectacular sex: Thought and pleasure in the encounter with pornography.
differences, 17(2), 113-131.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1985). Pornography, civil rights, and speech. Harvard Civil Liberties-Civil
Rights Law Review, 20, 1-70.
Maddox, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Viewing sexually-explicit materials
alone or together: Associations with relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
40(2), 441-448.
Malamuth, N., & Huppin, M. (2005). Pornography and teenagers: The importance of individual
differences. Adolescent Medicine Clinics, 16(2), 315-326.
Malamuth, N. M. (1978). Erotica, aggression and perceived appropriateness. Paper presented at
the 86th Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Malamuth, N. M., Addison, T., & Koss, M. (2000). Pornography and sexual aggression: Are
there reliable effects and can we understand them? Annual Review of Sex Research,
11(1), 26-91.
Malamuth, N. M., & Ceniti, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography:
Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive
Behavior, 12(2), 129-137.
Malamuth, N. M., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). The effects of aggressive-pornographic mass media
stimuli. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 103-136.
Mann, J. (1970). Effects of erotic films on sexual behavior of married couples. Paper presented
at the 78th Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Association, Miami, Florida.
Manning, J. C. (2006). The impact of Internet pornography on marriage and the family: A review
of the research. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 12, 131–165.
Marwick, A. (1998). The sixties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCurry, J. (2011). Discounts and time off work: How Japan is battling a birthrate in decline.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/25/japan-birthrate-
decline.
McKee, A. (2007a). The positive and negative effects of pornography as attributed by
consumers. Australian Journal of Communication, 34(1), 87-104.

McKee, A., Albury, K., & Lumby, C. (2008). The porn report. Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Zanna, M. P. (1990). Treating women as sexual objects: Look to the
(gender schematic) male who has viewed pornography. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 296-308.
Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger and
sometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of
interpersonal communication. (pp. 243-273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Doubleday.
Moreau, C., Boucher, S., Hebert, M., & Lemelin, J. (2015). Capturing sexual violence
experiences among battered women using the revised sexual experiences survey and the
revised conflict tactics scales. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 223-231.
Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined: Sexual involvement theory, narrative context, and
goodness-of-fit. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 1(1), 67-85.
Mosher, D. L., & Katz, H. (1971). Pornographic films, male verbal aggression against women,
and guilt. In Technical report of the commission on obscenity and pornography, vol. 8
(pp. 357-385). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Mundorf, N., D'Alessio, D., Allen, M., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2007). Effects of sexually
explicit media. In R. W. Preiss (Ed.), Mass media effects research: Advances through
meta-analysis (pp. 181-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nixon, R. (1970). Statement about the report of the commission on obscenity and pornography.
Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2759.

Normandin, H., & Bogenschneider, K. (Eds.). (2005). Medicaid: Who benefits, how expensive is
it, and what are states doing to control costs? Retrieved from
http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/doc.asp?d=s_wifis22report.pdf.
O'Donnell, V. (1986). The pornography controversy: Issues, effects research, and first
amendment rights. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association.
Orfield, G. (1969). The reconstruction of Southern education: The schools and the 1964 Civil
Rights Act. New York: Wiley.
Parvez, Z. F. (2006). The labor of pleasure: How perceptions of emotional labor impact women's
enjoyment of pornography. Gender & Society, 20(5), 605-631.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material
and recreational attitudes toward sex. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 639-660.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2010). Processes underlying the effects of adolescents’ use of
sexually explicit internet material: The role of perceived realism. Communication
Research, 37(3), 375-399.
Poulsen, F. O., Busby, D. M., & Galovan, A. M. (2013). Pornography use: Who uses it and how
it is associated with couple outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 72-83.
Resch, M. N., & Alderson, K. G. (2013). Female partners of men who use pornography: Are
honesty and mutual use associated with relationship satisfaction? Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 40(5), 410-424.
Rhodin, S. (2008). A holiday from Russia with love. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2008/07/09/world/europe/09russia.html?_r=0.
Rogala, C., & Tydén, T. (2003). Does pornography influence young women’s sexual behavior?
Women's Health Issues, 13(1), 39-43.
Rubin, G. (1993). Misguided, dangerous, and wrong: An analysis of antipornography politics. In
A. Assiter, & A. Carol (Eds.), Bad girls and dirty pictures: The challenge to reclaim
feminism (pp. 18-40). London: Pluto.
Rubin, R. H. (2012). Sexuality, gender, and family diversity. In R. H. Rubin & B. H. Settles
(Eds.), The Groves conference on marriage and family: History oand impact on social
science. (pp. 223-247). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Determinants and consequences of Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect:
Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations, 39(1), 45-
63.
Russell, D. E. (1988). Pornography and rape: A causal model. Political Psychology, 9(1), 41-73.
Schneider, J. P. (2000). Effects of cybersex addiction on the family: Results of a survey. Sexual
Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 7(1), 31-58.
Segal, L. (1990). Pornography and violence: What the 'experts' really say. Feminist Review, 36,
29-41.
Sherman, J. G. (1995). Love speech: The social utility of pornography. Stanford Law Review,
47(4), 661-705.
Short, M. B., Black, L., Smith, A. H., Wetterneck, C. T., & Wells, D. E. (2012). A review of
Internet pornography use research: Methodology and content from the past 10 years.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 13-23.

Shumway, T., & Daines, R. (2012). Pornography and divorce. Paper presented at the 7th Annual
Conference on Empirical Legal Studies. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
2112435.
Simons, G. L. (1972). Pornography without prejudice: A reply to objectors. London: Abelard-
Schuman.
Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. (2011). Multilevel analysis. New York: Springer.
Stanley v. Georgia. 394 U.S. 557. (1969). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.ca/scholar
_case?case=6728320798248524934&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei
=kb1JUoi2EdDvrAGQgoHYAg&ved=0CC0QgAMoADAA.
Stein, D., Silvera, R., Hagerty, R., & Marmor, M. (2012). Viewing pornography depicting
unprotected anal intercourse: Are there implications for HIV prevention among men who
have sex with men? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(2), 411-419.
Steinem, G. (1980). Erotica and pornography: A clear and present difference. In L. Lederer
(Ed.), Take back the night: Women on pornography (pp. 35-39). New York: Morrow.
Strossen, N. (1993). A feminist critique of "the" feminist critique of pornography. Virginia Law
Review, 79(5), 1099-1190.
Štulhofer, A., Buško, V., & Schmidt, G. (2012). Adolescent exposure to pornography and
relationship intimacy in young adulthood. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(2), 95-107.
Tatalovich, R., & Daynes, B. W. (2011). Moral controversies in american politics. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Taube, A. (2014). PornHub reveals advertising finalists. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/pornhub-reveals-advertising-finalists-2014-5?op=1.
Thorne, F. C., & Haupt, T. D. (1966). The objective measurement of sex attitudes and behavior
in adult males. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(4), 395-403.
United States Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). Task
force report: The police. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
United States Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. (1970). A staff report to
the national commission on the causes and prevention of violence. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. (1972). The report of the commission
on obscenity and pornography. New York: Bantam.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., Kleiner, S., & Irizarry, Y. (2010). Pornography, normalization,
and empowerment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1389-1401.
Wilcox, B. L. (1987). Pornography, social science, and politics: When research and ideology
collide. American Psychologist, 42(10), 941-943.
Willis, E. (1984). Feminism, moralism, and pornography. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, & S.
Thompson (Eds.) Desire: The politics of sexuality. London: Virago.
Wilson, W. C. (1971). Facts Versus Fears: Why Should We Worry About Pornography? The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 397(1), 105-117.
Wilson, W. C. (1973). Pornography: The emergence of a social issue and the beginning of
psychological study. Journal of Social Issues, 29(3), 7-17.
Whitaker, M. P. (2013). Centrality of control-seeking in men's intimate partner violence
perpetration. Prevention Science, 14(5), 513-523.
Wongsurawat, W. (2006). Pornography and social ills: evidence from the early 1990s. Journal of
Applied Economics, 9(1), 185-213.

Wright, P. J. (2012b). A longitudinal analysis of us adults’ pornography exposure: Sexual
socialization, selective exposure, and the moderating role of unhappiness. Journal of
Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 24(2), 67-76.
Wright, P. J., & Funk, M. (2013). Pornography Consumption and Opposition to Affirmative
Action for Women A Prospective Study. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance
online publication. DOI:10.1177/0361684313498853.
Wright, P. J., & Randall, A. K. (2012). Internet pornography exposure and risky sexual behavior
among adult males in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1410-
1416.
Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(4), 419-434.
Zillmann, D. (2000). Influence of unrestrained access to erotica on adolescents’ and young
adults’ dispositions toward sexuality. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(2), 41-44.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography and sexual callousness, and the trivialization of
rape. Journal of Communication, 32(4), 10-21.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N. M.
Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and sexual aggression (pp. 115-138).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1986). "Sexual callousness re-examined": Reply. Journal of
Communication, 36(1), 184-188.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988a). Effects of prolonged consumption of pornography on family
values. Journal of Family Issues, 9(4), 518-544.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988b). The methods and merits of pornography research. Journal of
Communication, 38(2), 185-192.
Zillmann, D., Hoyt, J. L., & Day, K. D. (1974). Strength and duration of the effect of aggressive,
violent, and erotic communications on subsequent aggressive behavior. Communication
Research, 1(3), 286-306.

Pornography and Romantic Relationships (Revision 4) .Manuscript

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Pornography and Romantic Relationships (Revision 4) .Manuscript

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Pornography and Romantic Relationships 2

appeal of relationship alternatives, and increase acceptance of infidelity. Evidence connecting

underlying these effects are discussed.

Keywords: Family impact, pornography, rape, romantic relationships, sexism

An Empirical and Historical Review of Pornography and Romantic Relationships: Implications

for Family Researchers

Social science has produced a variety of evidence connecting pornography consumption

2000), although other effects—including effects of consumption on families and relationships—

strong evidence regarding pornography’s negative influence on family stability.

The Family Impact Lens and Important Limitations

(Bogenschneider et al., 2012).

responsibility, b) family relationships, c) family diversity, d) family engagement, and e) family

To assess the family impact of pornography, I conducted a systematic literature review,

Another important limitation of this review is culture, particularly in terms of sexuality.

Malamuth, 2008) in which participants emphasized the positive aspects of pornography

Commission on Pornography; 1986) that have shown pornography in a particularly unfavorable

light (Einsiedel, 1988).

anti-pornography feminists contributed to this confusion, defining pornography as:

also includes women dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities, enjoying

postures of sexual submission or servility or display, reduced to body parts, penetrated by

objects or animals, or presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as

sexual. (MacKinnon, 1985, p. 1)

nudity or sexual activity. I also distinguish violent pornography (depictions of sadomasochism,

characterizes women as insatiable sex objects; Zillmann & Bryant, 1982).

A Brief History of Pornography Research

In this section, I summarize the history of academic inquiry on pornography’s effects,

Social and Political Context

championed by strengthening counter-culture elements, including the production and distribution

of pornography (Marwick, 1998). Governments exercised a responsibility to intervene in these

(Millett, 1970). Exposure to pornography was commonly believed to be harmful to an

Although family and marriage professionals engaged in vigorous debate on sexuality

consumption were essentially non-existent prior to the 1970s.

Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (referred to hereafter as the 1970 commission;

(e.g., Brown, Amoroso, Ware, Pruesse & Pilkey, 1973).

increased aggression. These researchers incorporated radical feminist critiques of pornography

pornography and aggression, tenuously implicating pornography in violence against women.

find incontrovertible, causal evidence linking pornography consumption to violence or sexual

Malamuth et al., 2000).

1970s as Women Against Pornography, were dedicated to decreasing the influence of

Commission, 1985), and academic arenas (Russell, 1988).

reducing its detrimental impact (Carse, 1995).

the “real harms” caused by pornography is an empty and unresponsive argument. If

tolerance is required. (Sherman, 1995, p. 667).

Although it is difficult to determine a clear victor in these debates, the influence of

Implications for Family Impact

rape continue to have unexplored implications for family stability.

A Review of Pornography’s Effects

Synthesizing research on pornography’s effects is a difficult endeavor. The aims and

these effects is an inherently subjective process. Nonetheless, I proceed based on how

that describe satisfying, stable relationships, including trust, expectations of fidelity,

these characteristics, including a) the beneficial effects of pornography on sexual satisfaction

perceptions of relationship alternatives, which reduce commitment, d) increased acceptance of

The Beneficial Effects of Pornography Consumption

increasing tolerance of other people’s sexualities, d) giving pleasure, e) providing educational

Limitations of self-perceived benefits. Although the positive experiences of consumers

necessarily representative of the population of pornography consumers. Respondents subscribed

involvement in pornography (Flood, 2013). Additionally, samples of young adults might

In addition, pornography’s harmful effects may lie outside of consumers’ conscious

This tendency is reflected in pornography’s well-established third-person effect—individuals are

affecting themselves (Lo, Wei, & Wu, 2010).

Arousal and education. Empirical evidence corroborates pornography’s use as a) a sex

pornography is truly beneficial, as pornography appears to educate in other ways, encouraging

extent and value of pornography’s educational effects.

one study (Bourke & Hernandez, 2009).

Harmful Effects in a Romantic Context

infidelity. I follow with an assessment of problematic pornography use in committed