heather-mount-8c3zjKrkkBA-unsplash (1) (1)

The Paradox of Porn Concealment

In hopes of avoiding disappointment and contention, many of us conceal what we feel might harm our partner or relationship. Yet working through these difficulties together may be the very thing that strengthens and saves us.

“Avoidance is the best short-term strategy to escape conflict and the best long-term strategy to ensure suffering.” ~ Brendon Burchard

From early childhood, many of us have grown to view conflict as negative—something to be avoided at all costs if we want to live happily. Therapists commonly report conflict avoidance as one of the most prevalent intimacy problems that come up in couple counseling sessions. While conflict is an inevitable and necessary part of relationship functioning, individuals sometimes go to unhealthy lengths to prevent, minimize, or avoid arguments, paradoxically creating greater conflict for the relationship down the road. 

A recent national research study, published by the Wheatley Institution and the Austin Institute, sheds some light on pornography-related conflict as both a possible motive for concomitant concealment and the seemingly paradoxical result. 

The sample for the study, collected in the summer of 2020, was recruited from across the U.S. to represent people of various ages, races, education levels, religions, and geographic regions. To be included, participants must have been at least 18 years old and in a committed relationship (i.e., seriously dating, cohabiting, or married). Eventually, there were two samples used—one with 3,750 individuals and another with 713 male-female couples. 

The authors of the study found that 1 in 5 couples experience conflict in their relationship due to pornography use. And this is not surprising, since other research indicates that just over 50% of young adult women believe that pornography viewing is unacceptable behavior, whereas almost 9 out of 10 young adult men report using pornography to some degree. 

In essence, half of young women are seeking ideal pairings with 10% of men—the ones who don’t use pornography. Of course, many women don’t end up pairing with these distinctive men, and for that reason, pornography use can readily become a source of relationship tension for many couples. And subsequently, many individuals keep pornography use hidden from their romantic partners—evading the risk of relationship conflict or disapproval. The authors call this lack of openness about pornography use “pornography concealment.”

Indeed, results suggested that partners are largely unaware of how often their significant other uses pornography. Results exhibit that women consistently underestimate both softcore pornography use (i.e., sexual material with simulated sexual acts that does not explicitly show genitalia) and hardcore pornography use (i.e., sexual material with full depiction of actual sex acts and nudity) by men. By comparison, men consistently overestimate the softcore and hardcore pornography use by women, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

 

These data show that, generally, men and women do not seem to be on the same page, when it comes to an awareness of each other’s pornography use. To go deeper into couple dynamics surrounding pornography use, the authors of the recent study analyzed couples data from the 713 heterosexual couples to see if partners are more in tune with each other’s pornography use within their own relationship. Overall, most couples were likewise surprisingly unaware of their partner’s pornography use, as illustrated in Figure 3.

While slightly more accurate than the general estimates cited earlier, these results indicate that when partners are utilizing pornography alone, the majority of their partners are unaware of either the nature or extent of such use. For example, only about one-third of women correctly assessed their partner’s pornography use. Altogether, these results indicate that pornography concealment is a common practice in relationships today.

However, couples are not oblivious to the potential for pornography concealment. One in every three dating women reported that they were worried that their partner was withholding some details about their pornography use, and one in four married women and men reported some worry about this issue. Research confirms that even this kind of wondering about concealment can reduce trust and increase conflict in relationships over time. That worry and decrease in trust that partners experience are likely reasons why couples experience conflict regarding pornography. 

As far as the motive behind concealment, one in four men reported hiding or withholding their pornography use from their partner due to either fear of their partner’s reaction or not knowing how to communicate about it. Concealment is often initially intended for a stabilizing purpose—to avoid or minimize conflict, and to reduce the pain and further harm that regular disclosure might involve. However, concealment efforts to avoid conflict early on can paradoxically create more severe and increased conflict down the line. 

While it is true that some men can overwhelm their wives or girlfriends from constant disclosure about temptation and struggle (better directed at a male accountability partner), this research also suggests that self-concealment from one’s partner is generally associated with lower relationship satisfaction and decreased commitment and is negatively associated with relationship well-being. While pornography concealment serves as a short-term conflict buffer, it becomes a poor strategy for long-term relational intimacy and stability. 

When reading these results, some may think that pornography concealment is not affecting their relationship because their partner doesn’t use pornography—or doesn’t use it that much. Unfortunately, thoughts like these may prolong pornography concealment and prevent important conversations from taking place among couples. While the study does not suggest that most couples are purposefully hiding things from each other, it does highlight the importance of initiating intentional conversations about pornography. Open and honest conversation is a crucial catalyst for behavioral change and alignment between romantic partners.

Though concealment can increase couple conflict regarding pornography use, it is important to acknowledge that concealment is only one contributing factor to the impact of pornography on relationships. Interestingly enough, couples who are on the same page with pornography use might also be included in those couples that have a conflict regarding pornography. That is, even couples who are open and honest about their pornography use may be at risk for decreased relationship quality.

For example, data from 30 national surveys collectively show that pornography use is almost always a predictor of poorer relationship quality. The recent report echoed this finding: as the relative frequency of pornography use increased, couples experienced a consistent decline in relationship stability, commitment, and relationship satisfaction. 

Couples, where both partners report that they do not use pornography at all, had the highest levels of relationship stability, commitment, and relationship satisfaction, with 90% of these couples reporting that their relationship is stable, committed, and satisfying to them. 

Taken together, the results from the recent study lead us to suggest that couples may not understand as much as they think about each other’s pornography use, with many partners concealing use to avoid increased conflict. However, contrary to the concealer’s intent, pornography concealment may play a key role in increased relationship conflict and is associated with decreased relationship stability, satisfaction, and commitment. Acknowledging that those in the healthiest romantic relationships tend to be those who avoid pornography altogether, openness regarding pornography use may be a helpful long-term strategy to promote relationship well-being.

About the authors

Matthew Saxey

Matthew T. Saxey is a Family Studies Master's Student at Brigham Young University and a current Wheatley Institution Student Scholar and Graduate Research Assistant.

Misha Crawford

Misha D. Crawford is a family life educator with a master's degree in Marriage, Family, and Human Development from Brigham Young University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Under the Banner of Heaven Episode 5, “The One Mighty and Strong”

Summary – Pyre is interrogating Sam, who shouts scripture at him about the “one mighty and strong.” Pyre uses false details about the murder to trick Sam into revealing that he isn’t the murderer. The police chief is getting ready to release the brothers, so Taba stalls him while Pyre talks to Robin about his brothers’ involvement in the “School of the Prophets” and gets him to reveal two names: Bernard Brady, a Provo businessman, and Prophet Onias. The detectives follow up with Bishop Low and his wife, located at the end of the last episode, asking them about the excommunication of Dan and Ron. The bishop is reluctant to reveal details because of clergy confidentiality but eventually reveals that Dan was excommunicated based on the testimony of his daughters that he attempted to forcibly take them as polygamous wives. We get a flashback to a heartbreaking scene where Matilda has sex with Dan to distract him as her daughters escape out a window in the middle of the night. Dan was excommunicated, and the girls were placed with a family in the ward (as the bishop refused to call CPS) but later ran away, and now they and their brother are missing. At his daughter’s baby blessing, Ron confronts the bishop about his brother’s excommunication, not knowing about Dan’s attempted polygamy and thinking that it’s about his political beliefs. Brenda has a conversation with Sister Low and Diana, indicating that both know that Ron is abusing her but only Brenda is willing to do anything about it. In fact, Sister Low feeds Diana a line about how her only duty is “creating a home and environment to sustain and support our Priesthood holder.” To Detective Pyre, the bishop claims to have followed church procedure but eventually encouraged Diana to leave and gave her money to do so. The detectives follow up on Robin’s lead about Bernard Brady by arriving at his house in the foothills of Provo with a warrant. We find out that the Bradys sheltered Ron when he was having a hard time. In a flashback, Ron receives a summons to a church disciplinary court and blames Diana for it. He punches her in the face and begins throwing the food she’s preparing on the floor, saying he’ll starve her into obedience. Diana grabs a kitchen knife and drives Ron from the house, telling him not to come back. Back in the present, Bernard admits to being in the School of the Prophets study group and driving miles to pick up Prophet Onias and the Laffertys but denies being further into the group than that. But when he sends his wife out of the room to make lemonade, he produces a notarized letter he sent to himself with details of the Laffertys’ hit list, including that Diana is on the list because she wrote a letter that got Ron excommunicated. The detectives rightly chastise him for not taking this information to the police earlier. Brady reveals that he knows the location of “the farm,” a Lafferty compound. With Allen’s help in drawing a map, the detectives plan to stake out the property in the morning. Detective Pyre returns home for FHE and finds that his wife and kids have been invited to the bishop’s house for the evening and are spending the night there. Pyre believes this is an attempt to keep an eye on his family and control the narrative about the case. The next morning on the way to the raid of the farm, Pyre questions Brady about the details of Ron’s excommunication, which we see in flashback. He is indeed excommunicated after lashing out at the church leaders about them not following the “correct” doctrines of the church. When Ron returns home, he finds that his teenage daughter has cut the markings out of his garments, which he puts on anyway with only a sports coat and jeans over the top. He says goodbye to his kids and leaves the home. When the farm is raided, the only people inside are three teenage girls, who we learn are from a polygamous compound in British Columbia and were brought down by Prophet Onias to be Ron’s wives. The girls show the detectives a cupboard they had been forbidden to touch, which the detectives open to reveal a single shirt belonging to Ron with some papers in the pocket, a hit list, and a revelation directed at Diana commanding her to repent and return to him. Allen is in disbelief that Ron could have written these things, but Brady confirms that Ron is a violent man. He explains that Ron fled to his parents’ home after his excommunication, where his mother confirms his calling as “the one mighty and strong” and says he’s only a heartbeat away from his rightful place. His father is lying sick in bed and asks Ron to call a doctor, but Ron recalls his cruelty to them as children and refuses. It’s implied that he indirectly caused his father’s death in order to take over the leadership of the family. Church History—This episode contains the most fabricated piece of church history in the show. When Bernard Brady reveals that Diana’s information led to Ron’s excommunication, he makes an analogy to Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. He claims that while Joseph was in hiding after destroying the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, Emma wrote a letter to Joseph encouraging him. John Taylor intercepts this letter and adds a line meant to make Joseph turn himself in, thus indirectly causing the prophet’s death. Taylor’s motive is to put Brigham Young at the head of the church, instead of Emma’s young son, in order to continue the doctrine of polygamy, which he and Brigham are already heavily involved in. Reputable historians both in and out of the church say there is no evidence to support this interpretation of events, though the succession crisis between Brigham Young and the ten-year-old Joseph Smith III is real and

Soldier Movie Doesn’t Uplift

A contemporary set movie, “Valiant One” follows a US military unit in South Korea when they are blown off course and crash across the border in North Korea with a civilian tech specialist aboard. The film is putatively about the growth of Brock, who is thrust into commanding the unit after the crash. As the opening title cards tell us, “Heroes’ Aren’t Born. They Are Made.” And the  We see him as he changes from struggling with his major decisions to beginning to make one. In one well-structured scene, the farmer catches them hiding in the barn. After a standoff, Brock approaches the farmer and de-escalates the situation.  We see him and his soldiers as they recognize the humanity of their enemies, and make tough decisions. Ultimately, though, the areas he’s growing in don’t have a deep resonance because they aren’t Christ-like attributes. And the broader moral universe of the film is nihilist. It’s taut and well-structured and manages to tell a complete story in less than 80 minutes. It clearly is influenced by the years of experience director Steve Barnett has spent on the studio side of things. But it’s also clear that he lacks the artistic vision that elevates those essential storytelling blocks into an actual story. In some ways, the film reminds me of a paint-by-number before it’s been completed. Everything is in the right place, but it’s clearly not art or even particularly interesting to look at yet.  The characters fall flat, particularly the two leads. Which keeps the story beats from ever coming together into a coherent whole. They have the kind of tragic backstories you’d expect, but they feel disconnected from the actions and motivations we actually see them enact. Eventually, even the plot feels like it’s doing circles, revisiting the same moral dilemmas and crises, without enough new character growth to warrant it. I can imagine there’s an audience for this movie. For those who love war movies, this one is clear and comprehensible. And if you are automatically invested in the uniforms, you have clear stakes that give the film energy and a through line that is enhanced by an aggressive hip-hop score. The film will probably most resonate with those with a similar backstory as Brock, who can see themselves as him. I imagine watching his growth would make this movie particularly meaningful to them.  The film is R-rated. It is not particularly gory, but there is certainly war like violence, and we see many deaths, including executions. And the screenwriter went to lengths to capture the authentic pitter-patter of the way soldiers speak. But this means lots and lots of over-the-top pointless never-ending crassness and profanity. The larger moral of the film is pretty bland, and so by the end I felt degraded rather than lifted up. War movies can certainly uplift when they tell the right stories. This is not one of them. I wouldn’t watch it with my children, even when they were grown. If someone did, I would suggest asking them questions about the ethics of survival and the nature of leadership.  One and a half out of five stars. Valiant One releases in the theaters January 31, 2025.

When Therapy Subverts Change

Americans love to feel validated and explore external influences on their circumstances. Yet these therapeutic activities, when overdone, can sideline and subvert the value of personal change.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!