Boys Exposed To Porn Are More Likely To Sexually Harass Girls

Porn: whether you love it, hate it, or feel indifferent, you can’t deny it influences people just like any other form of media. Generally, “Think of the children!” hand-wringing is something I ignore because I think it can get really overblown. But a recent report on how exposure to porn affects young boys is a brash wake-up call that not worrying about their exposure is to their, and our, detriment.

“Harms of Pornography Exposure Among Children and Young People,” comprised of research from a dozen countries, found that boys who see porn are more likely to believe there is nothing wrong with sexually harassing a girl or pinning her down. (Pinning her down, like as if you’re going to sexually assault her? Scary!) But exposure to porn is also harmful for their own sakes, too: Boys who see porn also have more difficulty carrying on successful relationships when they’re older.

Michael Flood, who performed the study at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, succinctly explained it the London Times:

“We know it is shaping sexual knowledge. ... But porn is a very poor sex educator because it shows sex in unrealistic ways and fails to address intimacy, love, connection or romance. Often it is quite callous and hostile in its depictions of women.”

When you think about it, the only findings of the report that are so shocking are the specifics. Keeping kids’ general immaturity and literalism in mind, it’s simple to see how exposure to R-rated content that boys are too psychologically young to understand — whether it’s a kinky nurse fantasy or bombs blowing people’s heads off — would not have good effects on their psyches. But the fact that young boys exposed to porn specifically pick up on how to disrespect or hurt women is really disconcerting.

John Carr, a British politician also interviewed for the Times piece, added, “It is not an argument for banning it, but it is an argument to find better ways to make it harder for kids to get hold of it.” Couldn’t have put it better. [Times of London UK]