Numerous institutes are attempting to use incomplete research practices in order to comment generally on pornography. This fact may contribute to the need for both sound new research and the filtering of overly homogenizing and false data. For instance, the most recent articles containing pornography research demonstrate massive inconsistencies in both survey methods and results. One journal article attempting to affirm Malamuth’s description of the theorized correlation between pornography and sexual aggression (porn as sexual violence towards women) had only 102 males from an Introductory Psychology course at UCLA answer questions as part of their grade in the class. General academic norms indicate that survey participants need to be numerous, representative of the general population, randomly chosen and taking the survey of their own free will in order for the data to be useful; the UCLA survey met none of these requirements. The same survey limited the 102 UCLA men to describing experiences with pornography in only three magazines: Hustler, Playboy, and Penthouse. (The article admits that only 33% of pornography sales are from magazines, a fact which is contested in other porn studies which say the Internet is the new superhighway to pornographic material.) Furthermore, no mention was made of class or ethnicity—key analytical elements in questioning intersecting hierarchical oppression of women, painting a completely incomplete picture of porn viewers and sexual aggression.
Surveying one potential trigger of domestic abuse: “Impersonal Sex” practices, the same researchers asked these young men ideologically pointed questions about their sexual practices, like how often they masturbated or found women they didn’t know sexually attractive. The answer was then supposed to decide whether or not men were unattached to sexual experiences and thus more likely to be sexually aggressive.
Both women and men participating in porn surveys are questioned about their sexual experiences and number of sexual partners. It is important to study the impact (if any) of pornography on the lives of those who consume it, but surveys run the risk of slut-shaming their participants into non-accurate statistics. First is the example of “Generation XXX,” which uses statistical linkages between pornography and “substance use” and “family value” development to theorize about pornography’s affect on U.S. culture. Difference-based analysis (feminist studies, queer studies, ethnic studies) immediately produces a ‘red flag:’ “family based values” are defined very normatively and hetero-patriarchally. Positive development of “family values” is indicated by whether or not participants engage in sex before/out of wedlock, or whether they would choose to have children without being married. For those who contest traditional notions of family or who legally cannot be married, the survey’s wording is dangerous. Those who choose to participate in consensual sexual activities outside of the bounds of Judeo-Christian doctrine are marked as failures or deviants obviously tainted by pornography. And there is also the assumption, hidden deep inside the questionnaire, that if a woman enjoys pornography or has multiple partners, that she is a whore who is not properly developing the correct ‘family values.’
It’s no wonder the numbers tallying the females who regularly watch porn are so low. It IS a wonder that not many surveys consider this point.