Is viewing pornography harmful to a child?

1. There was no clear consensus on this question. Different respondents referred to different sorts of harm and seemed to have differing ideas about how the harm was caused. It was acknowledged that there was no reliable scientific evidence available to resolve the issue and respondents believed ethical problems would make it impossible to conduct an authoritative study.

2. A majority of the sample thought that viewing pornography was harmful to children. There was a large degree of variation, within this majority, in how robustly or tentatively respondents argued the case. A substantial minority doubted if pornography caused significant harm unless the circumstances were aggravated (by neglect or abuse) and the children concerned were therefore unusually vulnerable. Respondents in the minority were generally at least as confident in their point of view as the majority.

3. Those in the majority who thought pornography was harmful argued that children were shocked by it. They were unable to deal with the shock because they did not understand what they had seen; they were unable to ‘process’ it, or relate it to what they already knew. Moreover, they might well have a strong sense that they should not have seen it, and this would inhibit them from talking about it. What they had seen would make a strong impression on them emotionally, but they would not know how to express or deal with these emotions. If the pornography excited them, they would not be able to find an acceptable outlet for their feelings.

4. Those in the minority did not think well cared-for children would find pornography all that shocking, or if they did, it would not much matter. They would not be seriously shocked because they would already know something about sex and would therefore be able to ‘process’ what they had seen. Very young children might well not take much notice of pornography anyway. If children were shocked, this was to some degree an everyday occurrence and was not necessarily harmful. An average child in a secure environment would not bottle up what he or she had seen; they would talk about it with family and friends.

5. Without exception, respondents thought that pornography was most liable to harm children who were already being harmed in other ways – by neglect or abuse of some sort.

6. Most respondents were unfamiliar with the R18 classification. In talking about the potential for harm, they were often thinking of pornography that would not be granted this classification but of more extreme material, for example involving children or violence.

What is the nature of the possible harm?

7. The sort of harm envisaged seemed to fall into three overlapping categories – the immediate shock and trauma; sexualisation and possible re-enactment; and broader effects to do with perceptions of sexuality and relationships.

8. Trauma would result if a child were exposed to material that was mystifying and shocking, and was not subsequently put into a comprehensible context by a trusted adult or friend. There was a probability, in some respondents’ opinion, that the act of sex would be perceived as violent or in some other way horrible. The potential for trauma was increased by the difficulty many children would have in talking about what they had seen, and some parents would have in responding.

9. The symptoms of trauma might include sleeplessness, bad dreams, eating disorders, or bed wetting as well as general unhappiness. Most respondents seemed to feel that these symptoms would be immediate and relatively short term. How long they lasted would depend on how much help a child had putting what they had seen into an acceptable context.

10. Many respondents believed that inappropriate sexualisation, manifested by re-enactment or mimicking of sexual relations, regularly resulted when children had been exposed to pornography. Children wanted to try out what they had seen, if only in play. Some children would be emotionally or physically aroused and would try to give their feelings some expression. Evidence of precocious sexualisation was a source of immediate and grave concern in schools because it typically involved other pupils. Social services often became involved because sexual abuse would be suspected. Subsequent investigations were often painful and protracted.

11. Pornography was also believed capable of having pernicious effects on children’s ability to form caring, loving relationships later in life – effects that did not necessarily propel them into professional care as children. It was thought likely to convey distorted and unhelpful notions of how sexual relations were negotiated and conducted. In particular, pornography reliably demoted or disregarded the importance of emotional intimacy as a prelude or context for sex. Many respondents thought it encouraged boys to treat girls as sexual objects. Children who were growing up in unfavourable circumstances were again thought especially vulnerable to these effects.

12. A number of other harmful possible effects of pornography were mentioned, including: erosion of trust between children and parents; uncertainty in a child about his or her sexual identity; and unwillingness to grow up.

Are significant numbers of children harmed by seeing pornography ‘accidentally’, in situations that are not otherwise abusive or neglectful?

13. There was no consensus on how likely children were to view pornography ‘by accident’. Some respondents said this was ‘not infrequent’, others that they had never known it to happen. Several said that it was virtually impossible for parents to keep pornography secret and hidden, others that there was no good reason why they should not. Opinions on how interested children would be in finding pornography if they knew it to be in the house – or in continuing to watch if they chanced upon it – were similarly divergent. Some respondents thought that older children occasionally showed younger siblings their own or their parents’ pornography. Everyone in the sample thought the children who were most likely to be exposed to pornography were those who were being comprehensively neglected or abused, rather than children who were generally well cared-for.

14. Fewer than half a dozen respondents knew of cases where children who were not being seriously neglected or abused had seen pornography and been distressed by it. It was not always entirely clear, in the few cases that were described, that the exposure had been ‘accidental’. Cases in which exposure to pornography had been an element in a larger pattern of neglect or abuse were agreed to be very much more common. A large majority of respondents acknowledged that there was little or no evidence from their personal case histories to support the belief that children were being harmed by pornography who were not also subject to serious neglect or abuse. This majority included most of those who had said plainly that they believed pornography was harmful children.

15. Nobody in the sample thought that pornography could be helpful to a child’s development. Everyone thought it was important to try and protect children from it. But it would be difficult to argue on the basis of these interviews – involving some forty professionals with hundreds of years collective experience – that significant numbers of children are harmed by viewing pornography ‘accidentally’.

16. There is an apparent conflict between the majority belief that pornography poses a threat to all children and the lack of evidence for this belief. A number of features of the problem bear on this discrepancy and help explain why the issue seems so lacking in clarity. First, some respondents thought psychiatrists and social workers did not discover the harm pornography did because its role was never disclosed. Children did not volunteer that they had seen pornography and often were not asked about it. Parents did not disclose it either. Second, the caseloads of professionals working with distressed children tended to be dominated by extreme cases – often children being seriously neglected or abused. It was possible that children distressed by seeing pornography, but not also being harmed in other ways, did not present symptoms (at least, not whilst they were still children) which brought them into contact with psychiatrists and the like. Third, everyone in the sample agreed that children were much less likely to be seriously distressed by pornography if a trusted adult or friend was available to talk them through it. It may be that cared-for children do not show up in the caseloads of professionals because they get what help they need from within their family or social circle. Finally, and perhaps most important, determining the harm pornography does is not easy because it is so difficult to disentangle it from other features of a child’s situation, especially as the majority of children who are exposed to pornography are usually being harmed in other ways.

17. Several respondents thought the example of other countries was instructive. They argued that pornography was less regulated and more readily available in, for example, Denmark, Holland, France and the USA. Yet there was no evidence, it was contended, that a higher proportion of children in these countries needed professional help because seeing pornography had upset them. Nor were plausibly related outcomes, for example teenage pregnancies or marital breakdowns, higher in countries where pornography circulated more freely. A difficulty with this argument is that the broader culture, and the place of sex within it, will mediate the effects of pornography on the viewer. It may be pornography has unique potential to harm children in the UK because we are less open about sexual matters generally and pornography therefore represents a greater shock to the cultural system.

Pornography amongst children growing up in difficult circumstances

18. There was a strong correlation, in most respondents’ experience, between children viewing pornography and neglectful and/or abusive situations. Children in these situations were not only more likely to see pornography, they were more likely to be harmed by it because they were not in a stable, emotionally supportive environment and they did not have countervailing role models.

19. In homes where children were neglected, the usual boundaries protecting them from adult activities were not established. Children could be exposed to adult sexual activity or domestic violence. Pornography might be left readily accessible, sometimes because parents did not appreciate the importance of keeping it inaccessible, or children would not be prevented from watching with adults. Respondents repeatedly described families that were chaotic, or at least not sufficiently ordered to ensure elementary care. The need to protect children from pornography was unlikely to be respected when so many other important aspects of care were neglected.

20. All respondents believed that children were more likely to be harmed by pornography if they were shown it than if they chanced upon it. Involving children in watching pornography was regarded as a form of sexual abuse. Many respondents were convinced by their own caseloads that pornography was frequently used by paedophiles to ‘groom’ children for abuse. A few argued that showing pornography was in fact a necessary condition for abuse. Others agreed that abusers typically watched pornography themselves but did not believe that it was common for them to show it to children as a prelude to abuse, especially where the abuser was a member of the same family as the child.

21. Many respondents believed that pornography was especially harmful to children who had been abused. It would have the effect of intensifying inappropriate sexualisation. It might further confuse a child’s sense of what loving emotional and sexual relationships were like and how they were negotiated. However it was impossible to align causes and effects precisely and disentangle the harm pornography did from the harm caused by the abuse and other features of an abused child’s upbringing. Children who had been sexually abused without having been exposed to pornography were not felt to be less harmed than those whose abuse had included such exposure. In cases involving abuse, respondents seemed to feel that the harm belonged primarily with the abuse, rather than with pornography as an element of it.

What factors determine whether viewing pornography harms a child?

22. The home context was regarded as a critically important factor. Children from stable home environments were significantly less vulnerable than children who were being neglected or abused.

23. Personality was important. Different children would respond differently. One might shrug off what would traumatise another. But respondents could not generalise beyond what had already been said about context; children who were well supported emotionally would be less vulnerable than more neglected or isolated children.

24. Age also was important. All respondents believed that the amount and sort of harm pornography could do depended on the age or stage of development of a child. Most thought that children who had passed puberty were less vulnerable, certainly to trauma, than children who had not. Children who were already sexually active would be yet less vulnerable. The consensus seemed to be that the potential for harm lay between about the age of three and puberty, perhaps concentrating particularly between about five and about 10.

25. Respondents did not often specify a sex when generalising about the potential for harm from pornography. The potential for trauma seemed to be regarded as equal for boys and girls. In terms of negotiating and having sex, many respondents thought girls suffered particularly, in part because (in their view) pornography suggested it was appropriate for males to be aggressive and females submissive.

26. The nature of the pornography clearly affected its potential to harm children, although many respondents referred to ‘pornography’ as though it were all much the same. When they did specify the sort of sequences and images they had in mind, it was usually toward the extreme end – involving violence, children or bondage – although it had been made clear that such pornography would never be granted the R18 classification.

27. Many respondents thought that all pornography was potentially damaging to children. It was all likely to confront them with shocking images and breach taboos about sex. Moreover, in pornography the interest was all in the sexual action, reliably making emotional attachment seem irrelevant, and this did not help anyone develop loving, durable relationships. It particularly did not help neglected children who might have little experience of feeling loved, or abused children who had been sexualised and who distrusted relationships.

28. Some respondents acknowledged that they had not seen much or any pornography, and assumed that the more explicit it was, the more harmful it was likely to be. By ‘explicit’ they seemed to mean genital detail, more on ‘the docking process’. Other respondents expressed more detailed concerns, sometimes prompted by being shown the BBFC guidelines for R18 videos. They expressed particular concern about depictions of group and oral sex, which they argued would make a vivid impression, would be strikingly dissonant with many children’s assumptions of what sex involved, and might be difficult for a parent or carer to explain. There were also concerns about homosexual sex on similar grounds and because it might provoke anxiety about sexual identity.

29. All respondents were quite clear that pornography involving children, or any form of violence or restraint, was more harmful that pornography depicting consensual sex. There was no consensus on whether it was important, from the point of view of harm to children, not to show penetration or ejaculation. Many respondents were against showing either, on the general principle that the more explicit, the more pornographic and harmful. A few thought that the act of penetration might well be perceived as violent by a child. There was also quite a widespread fear amongst respondents that pornographers would never be happy keeping within prescribed limits. They felt it was in the nature of pornography to be on the edge, continually striving to show something not previously shown, in the interests of maintaining the excitement. Some respondents who did not feel that showing penetration or ejaculation was especially problematic from the point of view of harm to a child, wanted nevertheless to draw a line for fear of what would follow if depictions of penetration were allowed.

30. However, an approximately equal number of respondents argued that both penetration and ejaculation were straightforwardly ‘natural’ and did not see why they should not be shown. A few argued that not showing penetration was teasing or dishonest. One respondent believed that not to show penetration was particularly unhelpful to young people, including those who had been abused, who saw domination rather than penetration as the main point of sex. There was however a good measure of agreement that depictions of penetration and genitals would be more alarming to children if protracted or in close up.

31. Respondents were also agreed that it was much more harmful for a child to see pornography repeatedly than on just one occasion. This was yet another reason why the potential for pornography to cause serious harm was more likely to be realised in a minority of vulnerable children.

How do pornographic videos compare with other material and other media in terms of the potential to harm children?

32. Many respondents were more concerned about the effects on children of violent scenes than pornographic ones. Parents were said to be much less careful to protect their children from violent videos.

33. There was said to be more and more about sex and sexuality on television, perhaps especially via cable and satellite channels. Many respondents wanted to make the point that children could be harmed by material which was not considered pornographic and was very accessible. There were references to scenes in pre- as well as post-watershed television which respondents thought had been, or would be, harmful to children.

34. The Internet was repeatedly mentioned as a means of accessing pornography. Some respondents thought that growing access to the Internet meant that regulation of videos was increasingly an irrelevance, but others thought regulation and the law had a vital role to play in asserting and supporting society’s values.

The R18 classification

35. Only a small minority of respondents was familiar with the R18 classification prior to the research, many were surprised to learn it existed, and a number of questions were raised. Would having a legal form of pornography encourage people to watch it by making it more respectable? Did the existence of R18s mean that pornography was more readily available and therefore more used?

36. It was suggested that the labelling of R18 videos should include clear and prominent warnings of the dangers of exposing children to them, and that more might be done to educate the public about the importance of respecting classifications in general. However it was acknowledged that neither labelling nor education was likely to protect the most vulnerable children from pornography.


D. Conclusions

1. Professionals who deal with disturbed children – psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers – do not agree about the potential of pornography (of the sort which might be classified R18) to harm children.

2. Many – a majority of this small sample – believe that viewing pornography would be harmful to any child, but they are able to quote very little in the way of evidence to support this belief, either from their own case loads or those of their colleagues.

3. Some – a substantial minority in this sample – feel confident that viewing pornography depicting consensual sex would not be harmful in any significant way to children who are well cared for and not being harmed in other ways.

4. This study cannot resolve the issue authoritatively, but it is perhaps reasonable to assume that a sample of 38 professionals, active in the field of diagnosing and helping disturbed children, would have been able to cite more anecdotal evidence from their caseloads if harm to children, outside of abusive or negligent situations, were significant or common.

5. The belief that pornographic videos are harmful to all children may reflect the strength of the association between pornography and neglected or abused children. Such children are more numerous in professional caseloads than generally well cared-for children. Importantly, it is widely accepted that neglected and abused children are much more likely to see pornography and more likely to be harmed by it.

6. Many respondents seemed to feel that pornography is problematic for everyone – adults as well as children. Their specific concerns about trauma and distress to children should perhaps be seen as an attempt to give point and direction to a more broadly based unease about pornography in society as a whole. This study however suggests that there is in fact no greater clarity about if and how pornography harms children than there is about the broader moral and cultural issues.

7. There was no consensus amongst those in this sample that including penetration and ejaculation would make pornographic videos significantly more harmful to children. Opinions differed. Some respondents were at least as concerned about depictions of group, oral and homosexual sex which they thought were particularly likely to confuse and disturb children.

8. It is appropriate in light of these findings to note that everyone in the sample agreed that pornography was not helpful to a child’s development. They were united in thinking that children should be protected from pornography.

9. Several respondents called for more effort to ensure that adults who watch pornographic videos appreciate how important it is to protect children from seeing them. However, on this evidence, the children most likely to be exposed to and harmed by pornography live in households where there is neglect and/or abuse. It is difficult to be optimistic that the adults in such households would be responsive to education on this issue, to more prominent labelling of videos, or to stronger legal restraints.