Man in Chains | Men, Pornography, and the Illusion of Control | Public Square Magazine | Men Pornography | Men and Porn | Emotion Porn | Intimacy Porn

Lost in a Sea of Pixels: Men, Pornography, and the Illusion of Control

Is pornography sabotaging men's emotional connections and ability to experience authentic intimacy? These emotional consequences are often overlooked in mainstream discussions.

Over three decades, the many presentations on sexism and racism in pornography that I gave changed as the pornography business and the culture changed. But one constant was a question that inevitably came up in the discussion period, always asked by a woman.

 Why do men like pornography so much?

 Based on years of scholarly research and public engagement, I believe the answer is simple: Pornography produces quick, reliable orgasms without the vulnerability that comes with intimacy. Men can experience sexual pleasure while staying in control. Or, more accurately, the appearance of control. More on that at the end.

Men, Pornography, and the Illusion of Control

Explicit Material Intensifies the Detachment

The feminist critique of pornography—the basis for my writing and speaking on the subject—focuses on the harm to women, psychological and physical, in the production of sexually explicit material; the sexist and racist images that dominate the pornography market; and the influence those images have on consumers’ sexual imaginations.

 In the time I’ve been studying the pornography industry, some things have changed. Most obvious is the technologies—from magazines and movies, the industry moved to home videos and the internet. Pornography became more accessible and affordable. Other trends are equally obvious: In those three decades, the women in pornography have been asked to perform increasingly more intense and dangerous sex acts; the cruel and degrading nature of the images has intensified; and more girls and women are using pornography, which once had been almost exclusively a male pursuit.

 One thing remains the same for the still mostly male consumers: Pornography appears to provide sexual pleasure without the risks that come with intimacy.

When we are sexual with another person, we open ourselves up to intense emotions that can’t be predicted or easily controlled. In a culture that trains us to stay in control, many men believe sexual intimacy is a potential threat to that sense of power. Pornography provides the illusion of a sexual experience without risk. But it comes with costs.

Behind women’s question about men’s love of pornography is often an experience of male partners who seem remote or disconnected in lovemaking. Sometimes that’s a problem independent of pornography, but men’s habitual use of sexually explicit material intensifies the detachment. I’ve talked to many women after these presentations, and that struggle with men who detach rather than engage emotionally during sex was a common theme. To make it more difficult, some of those habitual users also initiate sexual acts that female partners find uncomfortable or painful—the kind of “rough sex” that is standard fare in pornography.

 The feminist critique doesn’t rest on judgments about people’s sexual desire but on the negative consequences for the women used in producing pornography and used by men who consume pornography. The critique doesn’t pretend that the end of pornography would eliminate men’s sexual exploitation of women. But in a pornography-saturated culture, it would be folly to ignore the role of that particular media genre in our lives.

 The feminist critique focuses on the harm to women, which is appropriate for that movement. But the feminists I have worked with are also aware of the downside of pornography for men. That doesn’t mean that all heterosexual men have the same experience or that gay men’s experiences are exactly the same. But based on formal interviews and informal conversations with hundreds of men, I believe there is a pattern in men’s distress over pornography use.

A broken family photo symbolizing broken family.
A broken family photo. Image via lds.org

Human Vulnerability 

Open up to the vulnerability, which is part of being human.

As much as men may try to live up to a masculine standard of toughness, we can’t hide from our emotions, at least not for very long. No matter how much we seek control, those emotions surface. I think much of the guilt and shame that many men report from using pornography is a result not of religiosity or prudishness but the recognition that using objectified female bodies for pleasure—the essence of pornography—is at odds with who we want to be. We want to be fully human, and pornography makes that difficult, and we know it.

 There’s a second trap in which many men get caught: their habitual use of pornography starts to control them. I’ve listened to many men talk about the pain of realizing how pornography has colonized their sexual imagination. Men have told me they can’t have sex with a partner without thinking of pornography. In extreme cases, men who use pornography compulsively experience erectile dysfunction with partners. But no matter how much they realize the downside, many men cannot stop masturbating to pornography. Whether or not pornography is officially classified as an addiction—and I think it should be—some men cannot get out of an addictive-like cycle.

 My only advice to such men is that if they try to cope with their distress alone, they will fail. The only way out of that cycle of arousal and regret is to give up the illusion of control. Therapy can help when counselors understand the destructive dynamics of pornography. Talking openly and honestly with other men is important. For me, the feminist critique of pornography and male dominance more generally was essential to seeing a different way of living. Opening up to a therapist, to other men, to feminists—all require that we open up to the vulnerability, which is part of being human.

Related Articles 

About the author

Robert Jensen

Robert Jensen is an emeritus professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin and a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He is co-author, with Wes Jackson, of An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Russell M. Nelson Being Honored for Work With Civil Rights

Russell M. Nelson, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been chosen to receive the Ghandi-King-Mandela Peace Prize. According to Morehouse College who is presenting the award, “The honor is awarded “to a person who promotes peace and positive social transformation through nonviolent means.”  The board selected him “for his global efforts in ‘abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice against any group of God’s children’ through nonviolent ways. The individuals use their global leadership to affirm peace, justice, diversity and pluralism.”    

For This Cause Have I Been Lifted Up

In Christ’s own words of explanation for His final dark days, there are profound symbolic teachings about the glorious resurrection and perfect judgment that will follow for all of us.

Should the Church Pay Taxes?

Yesterday Paul Mero, a man I long admired, wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune titled, “LDS Church should surrender its tax-exempt status.” Since I’ve been on the record previously calling the argument that Churches should be taxed “a terrible argument.” I thought I should probably try and keep the conversation going with Mero. In his article Mero makes a few points: The Church can continue its mission with less financial means Members of the Church will continue to donate because of their faithfulness even if it is not tax deductible Tax exemptions don’t protect the religious from government interference The Church’s tax exemption gives church critics a platform to criticize the Church on. Mero clearly means well. He believes that the negative effects would be minor. But I believe where his argument falls flat is in the benefit it would provide the Church. The only benefit Mero can suggest is that, currently, some critics argue that the Church should pay taxes. Sure the Church would certainly be able to survive while taxed, but those funds would be taken away from accomplishing the Church’s mission. And the only accomplishment would be to take one issue away from critics. But this criticism is not virtuous. It is almost always a thinly veiled attempt at religious discrimination, arguing that religious nonprofits should be treated uniquely worse than all other nonprofits. (Religious nonprofits currently have some benefits others do not. But arguments to tax churches don’t seek to remove those minor additional benefits, but to take from them a major benefit that all other nonprofits have.) And this is very unlikely to reduce total criticism of the Church. No one who criticizes the Church for its tax status is likely to join if they start paying taxes. And there will always be some new issue to criticize whether real or invented that will immediately fill the gap. Criticism won’t go down, it will just move on to a different issue.