Defenders of porn often argue that it serves a cathartic function, that porn satisfies its viewers’ desires so they feel no need to act them out in real life. Diana Russell and Natalie Purcell provide a strong rebuttal to this argument:
According to the catharsis theory, the repeated exposure of males to pornography “leads to a steadily decreasing interest” in the material (Bart & Jozsa, 1980, p. 210). This exposure is frequently described as a “safety valve…”
The very influential but poorly designed experiment of Howard, Reifler, and Liptzin is widely cited as proof of the validity of catharsis theory (Diamond, 1980; Howard, Reifler, & Liptzin, 1991). Howard et al.’s experiment was based on a small sample of 23 white college males and 9 comparable controls. The researchers exposed the subjects and controls to a pornographic movie, then tested both groups for sexual arousal. The subjects were then exposed to adult pornography for 90 minutes a day for 15 days, whereas the controls viewed two nonpornographic movies over the same period. Twenty of the 23 subjects were then shown a third pornographic movie. Howard et al. (1991) found that “all subjects reported being initially stimulated” by the pornography, followed by “a marked decrease in interest in pornography as a result of the exposure” (p. 111).
It is important to note that the “subjects’ choice of pornography was severely limited” (Zillmann, 1989, p. 130). Hence, Howard et al.’s experiment only showed that a tiny sample of males became bored when exposed over time to a limited choice of material. Despite this, many pro-pornography advocates point to Howard et al.’s conclusion that all “legal restrictions to the availability of pornography” should be removed (p. 127). Indeed, this was one of the experiments on which the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography based its identical conclusion.
Zillmann and Bryant (1986) conducted an experiment based on 160 subjects that demonstrated the invalidity of Howard et al.’s conclusion. They recruited two samples: a student sample that included an equal number of males and females randomly drawn from undergraduate directories at two midwestern universities; and a nonstudent sample of males and females “drawn via random-digit dialing, with proportional sampling within all metropolitan exchanges” (p. 563). Zillmann and Bryant’s sample consisted of 20 subjects in each experimental condition.
Zillmann and Bryant gave both their male and female subjects a greater range of pornography to view than the limited materials available to the subjects in Howard et al.’s experiment. These researchers found that the subjects’ boredom after repeatedly viewing the same pornographic material motivated them to switch to viewing different and more extreme pornography, such as material involving the infliction of pain, violent pornography, and “uncommon or unusual sexual practices,” including bondage, sadomasochism and bestiality (Zillmann & Bryant, 1986, p. 577). Howard et al. had failed to consider this possibility, resulting in their invalid conclusion.
Although masturbation is not addressed in the experiments of Howard et al. and Zillmann and Bryant, this is a major goal of pornography. The ejaculatory pleasure obtained from masturbation intensifies the association between it and the pornography viewed, a theory confirmed by considerable experimental research (Cline, 1974; Osanka & Johann, 1989). Most males consider masturbation a very inferior alternative to sex with the type of individuals they desire. Thus, viewers may desire to act out the sexual acts depicted in pornography. For this reason and others, researchers have concluded that catharsis theory is clearly not substantiated (Sommers & Check, 1987).
Research aside, common sense and rationality unequivocally challenge the catharsis theory. Very few people would likely support a proposal to solve the problem of parents physically beating their children by having them watch movies that show parents battering and torturing their children. Why is it only in the case of misogynistic pornography that so many individuals–including a handful of researchers–believe that exposure dissipates the problem? The plain inconsistency and irrationality of the catharsis theory suffice to dismiss the notion that pornography serves as a “safety valve.”