Something I don't understand that a lot of researchers on this subject do is presuppose the value of certain lifestyles over others. It's pretty commonly accepted that raising a family is healthier and more respectable than living in your parents' basement. But who is to say that receiving sexual satisfaction from another person is always better than getting it from a magazine? It's a fine ideal, but what about people who don't live perfect lives? People talk about how pornography allegedly "cripples" people's social relationships, but what about people who are already socially crippled for other reasons? Do they not deserve sexual satisfaction?
And all of this ignores people who can and do use porn and still function in society with realistic views on sex and healthy beliefs about how women should be treated (for example). I think this is very similar to the argument that violent media makes people more violent. There may well be some risks in exposing oneself to violent media, but ultimately, the choice of whether or not to engage in violent behaviors is a person's own, and it is their responsibility (not the community's, nor the government's) to avoid materials that might exacerbate the risk, if they know themselves to be easily suggestible or of a naturally violent temperament. The solution just isn't to babyproof the world we live in, restricting the freedoms of all to protect the delicate sensibilities of the few.
Where sex is concerned, if it could be proven conclusively that pornographic materials cause people to develop dangerous antisocial beliefs, then that's one thing (and researchers - and those that fund them - are eager to find evidence to "prove" this, because it would justify their wanting to restrict porn, which is really based on subjective aesthetic or moral grounds). But there are so many problems with that conclusion, starting with the difficulty of defining pornography (I cannot believe all porn is equal, otherwise just watching someone have sex in person should itself be a public health hazard - and way too often these anti-porn arguments conflate so-called violent pornography - which I've seen very little of, to me it seems like a niche interest - with all representations of human sexuality), and ending with the great diversity of individual people who will react to the endless myriad of stimuli in greatly varying ways.
In the end, if a person believes things like monogamy is unnatural, marriage is undesirable, sex doesn't require courtship, or prostitution is a legitimate vocation, they have the right to, and I don't see what's harmful about that.
On a related note, here's a telling question: if violent pornography is "shown" to be harmful, then why does that justify restrictions against porn, as opposed to simply justifying restrictions against violent porn? That should tell you something about the people who want to pass restrictions on porn using that argument. Read more
