Age Verification Laws Dealt Another Blow Thanks to Science

So-called “porn addiction” is one of the crutches supporters use to justify age verification. Science has further debunked that myth.

For the earlier forms of age verification laws – namely the laws that demand that porn sites adopt age verification – one of the key justifications is to fight so-called “porn addiction”. “Porn addiction”, according to the age verification pro-censorship cultists, is a rampant and out of control phenomenon thanks to the widespread availability of the material. In order to clamp down on this terrible affliction, age verification laws must be placed on porn websites so that young children don’t get addicted to it at an early age.

Reality, however, has a very different take on the situation. As I noted last year, scientific research has long dismissed the very idea of widespread porn addiction. The general conclusion is that religious beliefs that conflict with the use of pornography – namely shame – is a key indicator of self-described problematic use. So, if you use such material and you feel bad about using it, you are more likely to believe that you suffer from porn addiction.

Ultimately, problematic use tends to be a very rare thing. Unfortunately, the push for age verification laws hinges on personal beliefs and the idea that government can decide what you can and cannot view online. This while prying into your privacy and demanding that you fork over huge amounts of personal information just to view the same material you have viewed in the past. As age verification laws evolve away from porn sites and get slapped on an increasingly large amounts of the web, it has become crystal clear that this was never about protecting children or curbing “porn addiction” in the first place. Still, the scientifically disproven theory of fighting “porn addiction” still lives on in certain parts of the world as governments try to push through these censorship and surveillance laws.

Some cultists might argue that there are those who use porn a lot and, therefore, it is an obvious indicator of an addiction. Even then, science is apparently pouring cold water on that notion. From PsyPost:

New research published in the International Journal of Sexual Health suggests that the reasons why individuals watch pornography are more predictive of their sexual health than how often they watch it. The study provides evidence that viewing pornography for enjoyment or curiosity is linked to adaptive sexual functioning, while viewing it to cope with stress is associated with problematic use and emotional withdrawal. These findings challenge the common assumption that frequent pornography consumption is inherently harmful.

Pornography use is a widespread activity among adults in the modern digital age. Despite its prevalence, public discourse and clinical assessments often prioritize the frequency of consumption as the primary indicator of potential issues. This focus on quantity can overlook the psychological context of the behavior. The authors of the new study sought to address this gap by investigating the specific functions pornography serves for different individuals.

“A major gap in the literature is that pornography use is often evaluated mainly by how frequently people use it, even though frequency alone tells us very little about whether use is actually harmful,” explained Norbert Meskó, a professor at the Institute of Psychology at the University of Pécs.

“We wanted to understand the psychological function of pornography use — in other words, what people are trying to achieve with it. For example, some people use it out of curiosity or for sexual enjoyment, while others mainly use it to cope with stress, loneliness, or negative emotions. We were interested in whether these different motivations are linked to different patterns of sexual and emotional functioning.”

The analysis indicated that frequency alone did not predict these negative outcomes. Frequent use only led to sexual deactivation if the use was also problematic and driven by negative motives. This suggests that high-frequency viewing is not necessarily a sign of emotional withdrawal or relationship issues on its own.

“One somewhat surprising finding was that frequent use, when driven by positive motivations, was linked to less sexual deactivation — meaning less emotional withdrawal from sexuality,” Meskó told PsyPost. “In contrast, only problematic use — not frequent use — was associated with these kinds of disengaged or avoidant sexual patterns.”

Another finding was related to “sex as coping.” The researchers observed that individuals who used pornography to cope with negative emotions were also more likely to use partnered sex for the same purpose. This implies a broader pattern of emotion regulation where sexual activity, whether solitary or partnered, is used to manage distress.

So, according to science, high frequency use of pornography is not necessarily an indicator of problematic use by any means. Given what we’ve seen in other research into this topic, this is not really all that surprising.

For those who believe in myths like “porn addiction” and “video game addiction”, one common underlying thing is the idea that anything that can be enjoyed is somehow inherently bad for you. That is not the reality of the situation. Often, the very existence of problematic use gets blown out of proportion and people refer to problematic use as something of a societal epidemic. That’s not what is going on in real life, but it is often used as justification for onerous laws like age verification that may not even do anything to solve the problem that is being theorized in the first place.

For me, when you don’t like certain kinds of content online, then I say don’t actively go and seek it out. Avoid it. That’s not the problem here. When things get problematic is when you start dictating what I can and cannot do with my life and dictating that I can’t access certain material – be it video games or otherwise – that’s where you are crossing the line. So, if you say social media is bad, fine, don’t use it, but don’t tell me that I should abide by your personal life choices. Throwing around junk science such as “(insert content category here) addiction” is not helping matters, either.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook.