One can imagine all kinds of confounding effects, where some other thing makes someone more likely to use porn, and also is (or causes) something else that is good or bad. And the confounding effects are likely to be different in different subpopulations (e.g. young university kids; people who were raised religious and might not be anymore; people in relationships, some of which are going better than others; old people, some of whom are losing their sex drive). So I would put very little trust in any study that didn't involve a randomized intervention. (Which isn't a guarantee of quality—it's only one dimension.) And I think there are plenty of people making claims based on ... well, let's just say their standards for empirical rigor are much lower than mine.
Wiki has an article, which is somewhat interesting to look through. This is a bit hilarious coming after the above:
Studies have looked into both negative effects of pornography as well as potential benefits or positive effects of pornography. A large percentage of studies suffer from methodological issues. In one meta-study by researchers at Middlesex University in England, over 40,000 papers and articles were submitted to the team for review: 276 or 0.69% were suitable for consideration due to the low quality of research within the field.
It could be worth looking into those 276, but I'm not going to do so before posting this comment. (Also I wouldn't be surprised if many of those were bad for reasons the researchers didn't catch.) So, um, I think we're left with armchair theorizing and amateur observation. Let's see.
Ways it could go wrong:
Ways it could go well:
There is plenty of speculation about long-term effects, habit forming, and so on. (I personally look out for the possibility of becoming dependent on porn, and make a point of masturbating using only my imagination reasonably frequently.) I don't think there are large effects that reliably happen, otherwise I'd probably have heard about it. (There's a whole "No Fap" movement that some subscribe to. I think some people claim it improves their motivation / energy.) Probably, if there are such effects, they affect some people much more than others.
Overall, I'd say "seems probably harmless; it's probably worth having some awareness of failure modes and paying attention to yourself, but beyond that, do what thou wilt".
Valentine had an interesting post where he said "This is the basic core of addiction. Addictions are when there's an intolerable sensation but you find a way to bear its presence without addressing its cause. The more that distraction becomes a habit, the more that's the thing you automatically turn to when the sensation arises." The idea of being addicted to escape from a thing you're avoiding, rather than being particularly addicted to the specific form of escape, rings true to me.
Even that .69%-acceptable statistic may be a political maneuver. I found a meta analysis a year or two ago of AI healthcare diagnostics that found about this level of acceptability in the literature.
Where it becomes political is that a prestigious doctor friend unsympathetic to AI diagnosis used this statistic to blow off the whole field, rather than to become interested in the tiny fraction of acceptable research. Which is political on its own, and also has to make you wonder if researchers set their quality bar to get the result they want.
Nevertheless it IS discouraging that about 276/40000 papers would be acceptable.
I agree with everything you say about how the studies that try to research this issue can go wrong, but I can't entirely agree with your conclusion that it seems probably harmless. I mean, it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that the effect of pornography is more or less neutral on average - not sure, but also not sure about the opposite. If you mean that somebody should just start consuming this media - I guess that it would be good to be a little bit more careful. I think there is some evidence that suggests that pornography can negatively i...
I think it's a complex question. For example, people debate whether porn is harmful or helpful:
If you get specific enough about these questions, it may be possible to ask meaningful scientific or moral questions. When I've seen debates over porn seem productive, it is usually because the participants have stopped generalizing and tried to get really specific on what exact question they're asking, why, and how.
But this in turn poses a new problem: how would you figure out which bits of this debate are relevant to you? And once you have an answer to this question, you may find that there really isn't much reliable information out there that's pertinent to you.
But if you just want to trawl through the scientific literature, I would just approach it with the same open-minded skepticism you'd bring to any other such project.
As an example of question specific enough to be answerable by science, there is Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? (2015). It begins:
Recent epidemiological studies reported high prevalence rates of erectile dysfunction (ED) among younger heterosexual men (≤40). It has been suggested that this "epidemic" of ED is related to increased pornography use. However, empirical evidence for such association is currently lacking.
The answer is no. As far as I know, this was among the first study powe...
Seems like the consensus is that there is no consensus, only many people with strong opinions either way.
Perhaps the question is underspecified, and we need to ask more precisely: what kind of porn? for whom? how often? compared to what alternative? harmful for whom? (etc., see DirectedEvolution's answer).
Now of course this sounds like a fully general counterargument -- we can deflect any inconvenient question by asking endlessly (are apples healthy? -- what kind of apples? for whom? how many? compared to what?), but with apples, we can assume some reasonable defaults, like "the kind of apples you can buy in a supermarket, or grow in your garden" and "somewhere between one apple a week and ten apples a day", and within this range the answers will probably be quite similar.
With porn, the range is probably much wider. Frequency, from "a magazine hidden under my bed, which I browse once in a month", to "I am an unemployed guy and I spend 16 hours a day watching porn online". The kind of porn, from mere uncovered boobs, or the kind of vanilla sex that your Pope would approve of, to the most depraved shit that would leave an average person traumatized for the rest of their lives. Is watching porn a part of a balanced lifestyle that also includes seeing real people occasionally; or a way to overcome solitude during your climb to the top of Mt. Everest; or a neurotic distraction while you procrastinate on filing your tax reports?
Arguments in favor of porn:
Arguments against porn:
Now good luck putting this all into one equation!
One strong argument in favor of porn is that almost nobody alive gets as much sex as they actually want; vast majority gets less than they want, minority gets too much, and without some kind of extreme social engineering this cannot be solved.
Porn is the closest thing to a "bandaid solution" to that problem. Sexless or severely undersexed people can achieve an illusion of sex life with porn. Yes, porn is addictive and can an be psychologically harmful, but involuntary celibacy is definitely severely harmful, and we cannot solve it any other way.
masturbating while watching porn makes you lose precious bodily fluids.
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?"
The underlying issue here is that the supply of sex, quality of sex, supply of quality partners and the logistics of all the above cannot meet the popular demand. It would require the number of highly libidinous attractive partners to be equal or exceeding the number of adults that desire sex. Until we somehow achieve Sexual Post-Scarcity (how? Sex-bots? VR sex? Massively orgiastic global swinger culture?) then porn is unavoidable.
Good sex with an attractive partner is an extremely scarce resource. In fact, any sex, even crappy one, is scarce, and far, far below popular demand. Porn is a necessary plug. It provides a better form of sexual release than pornless masturbation.
So in that regard, it is obvious that porn is more beneficial than harmful, since the alternative to porn for many is effectively celibacy, which has plenty of harmful psychological and social effects, including violence (sexual and otherwise).
very simple. porn is pleasure to make and consume, therefore good. the end
(how to simplify your life with hedonism, s0ph1a 2012-∞)
porn is pleasure to make
I mean, debatable. If consensual and enthusiastic amateurs decide to get into it, sure. But when a huge exploitative industry develops around it the same kind of soul-sucking, alienating work culture that profit-driven optimisation tends to inject into anything, that risks being really bad. Not only sex that isn't pleasurable can be far worse than just boring or annoying, but even if it was just that, having sex turn into drudge work to the point that you are disgusted with it (as work is wont to do to many otherwise pleasurable ...
The consensus is don't ask, don't tell. It's the only media consumption (among movies, tv, books, sports, videos, music, games etc.) that's not openly discussed around the water cooler or in polite society. A disservice, in my opinion.
It appears to be harmful to children because it takes time away from other activities and creates false impressions of sex/relationships. Especially if porn is their only reference for adult relationships. Children younger than 16 should be educated on media (including porn) but probably shouldn't have free reign to explore porn content as it may consume their whole life.
There's also an escalation effect where users will seek out increasingly hardcore content and become so desensitized to pornographic content that they have no physical reaction to real world relations (I assume the 2019 pubmed article that was linked discusses this effect). How harmful it is, and how we know, are open questions which are hard to study because it's a taboo subject and because it's difficult to decouple porn from other screen based consumption. For example, we may have strong data with proper testing methods that definitively proves the harms of porn and then still wonder is it necessarily more harmful than YouTube or Netflix?
When I think about porn on net being good or bad, I think, what are characteristics of societies which exist in the world today that ban porn? What are the characteristics of the societies which have a lax, open attitude towards it?
I don't think this is a good metric. It is very plausible that porn is net bad, but living under the type of govermnment that would outlaw it is worse. In which case your best bet would be to support its legality but avoid it yourself.
I'm not saying that IS the case, but it certainly could be. I definitely think there are plenty of things that are net-negative to society but nowhere near bad enough to outlaw.
Like most things, it is sometimes helpful, sometimes harmful, sometimes completely benign, depending on the person, the type, the amount and the day of the week. There is no "consensus" because the topic is so heterogeneous. What is your motivation for asking?
Topics infected with politics and woo should be handled very carefully, if at all, here. Asking general questions without any framing to guide the conversation into LW-relevant dimensions is usually a mistake.
There are some topics where I do not trust my own ability to find information and where everything seems to be infected with politics and woo and one of those areas is on the benefits/harms of pornography.
Is it harmful? If so, how much, and how do we know?