In a recent article for Quilette, psychology professor Christopher J. Ferguson imputes “ideological obsession” to “moral majoritarians” within the Republican party, calling it “bad for conservatives.” He argues on the basis of supposedly insufficient data, conservative hypocrisy, and current First Amendment protections:
“First, evidence linking pornography to negative outcomes is weak. Second, it’s an easy issue to lampoon because, notwithstanding conservatives’ expressed outrage about pornography, it is actually more popular in conservative enclaves. And third, producers of pornography involving consenting adults are protected by the First Amendment, so there’s little hope of satisfying constituents’ desire for its suppression.”
Potential for Overstatement
Based on a recent meta-analytic review of the literature seeking a link between pornography and sexual aggression, Ferguson contends that, overall, “evidence does not provide a causal link” between the two, and that “better quality studies…actually found less evidence for effects than poorer quality studies.” He also cites an study on “The Development and Deployment of the Idea of Pornography Addiction Within American Evangelicalism” as evidence that Evangelicals are more likely to believe they have a pornography addiction due to messaging from Christianity Today (the authors likely had other publications in mind). However, just as the beliefs regarding individual actions are influenced by beliefs to which those individuals belong, academic studies tend to reflect the academic community whence they arise, and we should be aware that social scientists are as subject to bias as any religious community. Therefore, while Ferguson is right to be wary of “the potential for overstatement” and data manipulation for the achievement of political ends, his view of the concerns surrounding porn is myopic. Whether pornography usage increases sexual aggression is an important question, but not the only question for many who regards pornography as a threat to their marriage and family life. The “war” on pornography is not a political game, but a call for sensible regulation for protection of crucial relationships. What Ferguson’s so-called “moral majoritarians” often desire is not to impose their morality on others, but to remain free to reject threats to marriage and the family in an increasingly pornography-positive society.
Rejecting Political Myopia
Clearly allying himself with the movement for free speech, Ferguson also writes that those who disapprove of pornography should be allowed their stance, for “in a free society, individuals or organizations must be free to express their views and make their case. But as a political issue, this is a loser.” However, there are some who are distinctly unable to participate in democratic processes, let alone articulate arguments for or against such matters –children and victims of sex trafficking. Far from the so-called “war” on pornography imagined by Ferguson, parents are rather calling for sensible regulation that keeps children as young as age 10 from glimpsing graphic, violent images on their computer or TV screen, especially as platforms like Netflix make such content readily available. If TV producers who find it profitable to push boundaries by creating widely-accessible soft pornography are freed to to sell potentially addicting content, then surely those who desire to avoid the possibility of trauma or addiction should not have to pay for freedom. Such is the two-way street of freedom of speech and “expression.”
An Opportunity for Anti-Porn Advocates
Ultimately, added longevity to this “war on pornography” would allow more opportunities for anti-pornography advocates to bolster networks of support for parents and to provide services that mitigate the effects of easy pornography access, in addition to discussion spaces for the addicted, whose testimonies are so often downplayed in the media. The disproportionate influence of corporations on communities’ ability to be free of pornographic images should be cause of interest to anyone who condemns the marriage of corporate greed and politics. Solely taken as an analysis of the dynamics of political constituency, Ferguson makes some interesting points about partisan politics and the viability of certain alliances. And yet, for all this intrigue, it is not the case that anti-pornography advocates are “ideologically obsessed” with the issue, but with the effects detailed through countless testimonies. Many individuals and communities who support greater restrictions on pornography are those who currently or formerly struggled with addiction, and many of those who struggle with pornography, as well as their spouses, friends, and family, will tell you that pornography does not fall under the category of mere “speech.” Speech involves language. Pornography, on the other hand, thrives off the silence and darkness of concealment, festering guilt and internal division.
Beyond Political Maneuvering
Porn more often than not leads to reticence, rather than communication – the aim of free speech in our democratic republic. Instead of allowing destruction, division, and dehumanization to reign, we seek to promote unity and human flourishing. We can all agree, regardless of political affiliation, that a world without objectification and abuse would be markedly superior to one in which young girls are used and discarded for pleasure and the deep sharing of sexuality is depersonalized. Just because pornography receives free speech protections does not mean it is absolutely untouchable – there are many other reasons a court could rule in favor of further regulation and curtailment. Instead of concerning ourselves with taking the “moral high ground” to execute political power plays, we should listen to those who have directly experienced the horrors of sex trafficking and monitor the impact of pornography-positive messaging on our minds, our hearts, and our relationships. We should refrain from launching ad hominem attacks against pornography users who struggle to quit, out of a misguided belief in our own personal purity. Just as we live in an imperfect society, so are we imperfect, which is all the more reason to keep having these important discussions about an issue that affects all of us, whether we would like to think so or not.
