Personal and reported partner pornography viewing by Australian women, and association with mental health and body image

Abstract

Background Personal and partner pornography viewing may affect health and wellbeing. This study aimed to improve understanding of the effects of pornography on mental health and body image, given emerging evidence of increasing use, particularly among young people. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was implemented, targeting people who had accessed health and fitness content via social media. Convenience sampling was used and participants were recruited via advertising on social media. Results: Overall, 76% (75/99) of women reported having ever viewed pornography, and 21% had viewed pornography frequently (monthly/weekly/daily) in the prior 12 months. The association between frequent viewing and higher-risk Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale scores lost significance once controlled for age (adjusted OR 2.30, 95%CI 0.82–6.49, P=0.11). There was an association with frequent reported partner pornography use (monthly/weekly/daily) and increased Drive for Muscularity scores (adjusted OR 2.20, 95%CI 1.01–4.80, P=0.048). There were no other associations found with pornography use (personal or partner) and body image or mental health, although this was limited by the small sample size. Most women (85%, 41/48) reported being happy with their partner’s pornography use, and in qualitative responses, indicated that pornography had minimal effect on their lives. Nevertheless, multiple qualitative responses indicated a multiplicity of perceived effects of pornography, including negative effects on body image. Conclusions: Pornography had a minor effect on mental health and body image in this study. Additional research is required to improve understanding of the effects of pornography on body image and mental health, particularly among vulnerable individuals.

Associations between pornography exposure, body image and sexual body image: A systematic review

“…In these studies, data was obtained during workshops using a semi-structured format (Dawson et al, 2020), semi-structured interviews (Leickly et al, 2017; Sharp and Oates, 2019), and focus group interviews (Mattebo et al, 2012). Two studies used a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology with closed-ended and open-ended questions (Davis et al, 2019; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019). The rest of the studies were quantitative.…”

“…The studies included a total of 29,881 participants. Seven studies included only females (Davis et al, 2019; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Sharp et al, 2016; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014), 11 only included males (Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Griffiths et al, 2018; Kvalem et al, 2016; Leickly et al, 2017; Morrison et al, 2007; O’Brien et al, 2015; Prokop, 2016; Sevic et al, 2020; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Tylka, 2015; Whitfield et al, 2018), and the remaining eight contained mixed gender samples (Albright, 2008; Cranney, 2015; Dawson et al, 2020; Doornwaard et al, 2014; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Mattebo et al, 2012; Peter and Valkenburg, 2014; Vogels, 2019).…”

“…Adolescents were the target population in four studies (Doornwaard et al, 2014; Sevic et al, 2020; O’Brien et al, 2015; Mattebo et al, 2012), young adults or college students were included in seven studies (Davis et al, 2019; Dawson et al, 2020; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Prokop, 2016; Tylka, 2015; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014; Vogels, 2019), and adults were studied in 14 studies (Albright, 2008; Cranney, 2015; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Griffiths et al, 2018; Kvalem et al, 2016; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Leickly et al, 2017; Morrison et al, 2007; Sharp et al, 2016; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019; Whitfield et al, 2018). One study included adolescents, young adults, and adults (Peter and Valkenburg, 2014).…”

“…Heterogeneity was also observed in the conceptualization of existing pornography modalities. While some studies did not specify any type of modality (Dawson et al, 2020; Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019; Leickly et al, 2017; O’Brien et al, 2015; Sevic et al, 2020; Sharp and Oates, 2019; Truong et al, 2017; Tylka and Calogero, 2019), others focused exclusively on online pornography (Cranney, 2015; Doornwaard et al, 2014), and others included a variety of modalities: mobile phone, tablet, computer, PDA, television, book or magazine, DVD, Internet streaming, downloads, photographs, films (Albright, 2008; Davis et al, 2019; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Kvalem et al, 2016; Morrison et al, 2007; Prokop, 2016; Sharp et al, 2016; Tylka, 2015; Tylka and Kroon Van Diest, 2014; Vogels, 2019; Whitfield et al, 2018) (see Table S1).…”

“…The most explored variable was frequency of pornography use. Among the 19 studies that evaluated frequency of use, eight took specific time frames into account: in the last month (Dogan and Yassa, 2019; Leickly et al, 2017), 2 months (Cranney, 2015), 4 months (Vogels, 2019), 6 months (Peter and Valkenburg, 2014; Sevic et al, 2020), and 12 months (Davis et al, 2019; Laemmle-Ruff et al, 2019). The rest did not specify any time frame (Doornwaard et al, 2014; Duggan and McCreary, 2004; Goldsmith et al, 2017; Griffiths et al, 2018; Kvalem et al, 2016; Morrison et al, 2007; O’Brien et al, 2015; Prokop, 2016; Sharp et al, 2016; Tylka, 2015; Whitfield et al, 2018).…”