A
recent study from BYU highlighted the effects of pornography on religious persons.
While there was much discussion on social media, the conversations were less
than fruitful when arguments hinged on the definition of pornography.
I’m
highly skeptical of absolute statements concerning traditional notions of pornography
when sexual imagery is far more complicated that just good or bad. I have
often said, “I am anti-porn, because I’m pro-sex.” But what is porn?
According
to Merriam-Webster, pornography is defined as: (1) the depiction of erotic
behavior intended to cause sexual excitement (2) material such as books or photography
that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.
I
suspect most people would conform to this definition of pornography or
something akin to it.
If
we accept this definition, one must conclude that not all pornography is bad.
For example, I send my husband explicit, erotic images and videos of myself
regularly with the deliberate intent to sexually arouse and excite him. Over
fifteen years of marriage, he certainly has collected quite a “pornographic
collection” and has developed what some would consider a definitional
“pornography addiction.” But in this context words like pornography and addiction,
as traditionally defined, hardly seem helpful. Frankly, those words seem silly.
But why? How is pornography different than me sending erotic images and videos
to my husband?
The
sexual expressions, depictions, and behaviors between my husband and I are
founded upon love and intimacy. I’m not convinced this medium of sexual
interaction is bad, damaging, or immoral. Quite the contrary, it is a
consensual expression of sexual desire that provokes intimacy and love among
the involved parties. I would contend that sexually explicit or erotic material
that enhances intimacy and love in interpersonal relationships of all persons
involved is NOT pornography.
Pornography should be defined in terms of harmful sexual expressions, not arousal
or excitement.
For
example, to the extent that sexually explicit material enhances intimacy and
love in interpersonal relationships among consenting members, it is good and therefore is NOT pornography. To the extent that sexually
explicit material is a hindrance to intimacy and love in interpersonal
relationships, it is bad and
therefore IS pornography.
Pornography
has tangible effects on human sexual desire, response, and functionality. If we
look at some of the potential harm that comes from prolonged, systematic
exposure to pornography, which is sadly exacerbated by damaging shame tactics
and dangerously repressed sexual desires, we certainly shouldn’t ignore the
risks and effects of engaging in pornography viewing, production, and
distribution.
However,
if pornography is defined as depictions
of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement that are a hindrance to
intimacy and love in interpersonal relationships, the word pornography has become
an identifier of what we wish to avoid, which is harmful, oppressive, sexual
expressions to oneself and/or others. With this definition of pornography, we
aren’t shaming sexual desire and arousal via imagery and media, we are instead identifying
harmful sexual expressions.
Of
course, the devil is in the details. This definition of pornography certainly
leaves room for interpretation and would likely vary among the persons involved.
What is a harmful sexual expression to me may not be a harmful sexual
expression to you. While my husband may enjoy sexually explicit media of me in
a perfectly healthy way, if he were to distribute those images or videos
without my consent, they would then become pornography because they were
distributed in a manner that would hinder love and intimacy in our
relationship. In this sense pornography is a fluid state that may or may not
change depending on context.
There
is still much to be explored and understood about the risks and benefits of
sexual expressions, especially as technology continues to connect us with others
in radically unprecedented ways. Should pornography play a role in our
relationships? Well, it depends on how you define pornography. It should be
defined in terms of damage, harm, and oppression. So I would say no, there is
no need for it in our relationships.
As
for myself, discussions about pornography seem silly when definitions,
assumptions, and verbal baggage obstruct meaningful discovery of what are
helpful sexual expressions and harmful sexual expressions. I certainly am
anti-porn, because I perceive pornography as harmful sexual expressions that
inhibit love and intimacy among involved persons. I am certainly pro-sex,
because sex is a powerful, dare I even say godly, way of enhancing love and
intimacy among involved, consenting persons. As technology is further developed
I have no doubt it will radically change the way we perceive and engage in
sexual behaviors, but we won’t be able to appropriately discuss the risks and
ramifications if we can’t even define pornography in any meaningful way.
