Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17 (1993), 319-341. Printed in the United States of America.

WOMEN'S MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND EXPERIENCES WITH PORNOGRAPHY

Charlene Y. Senn University of Windsor

This study was designed to investigate and represent a spectrum of women's experiences with and attitudes toward pornography. Q meth- odology was used to achieve this goal. In Phase 1, 30 participants were recruited for their varying views on and experiences with pornography. These participants were interviewed on their beliefs about the role of sexually explicit materials in their lives. Ninety-eight Q-sort items were written to adequately represent the variety of themes present in the interview transcripts. Participants in Phase 2 were mature women stu- dents recruited from university classes and participants from Phase 1 who agreed to continue their participation (N = 59). The participants sorted the 98 items in a manner that best represented their own experi- ences and views. The Q sorts were analyzed using principal components analysis. A five-factor solution represented five unique perspectives held by women within the sample. Four of these perspectives are discussed. Only two of these factors represent perspectives previously discussed in the psychological literature.

A large body of psychological l i terature o n the effects of pornography has accumulated since 1970. Most o f this research has focused o n the effects of different types o f sexually explicit materials o n men. Much less is k n o w n about the impact o f pornography on women. Al though the published

I gratefully acknowledge the help of my advisor Sandra Pyke and committee members Erin Hewitt and James Check in all aspects of this research. Thanks is also extended to two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments.

This research was supported in part by a LaMarsh Research Programme Doctoral Research Grant (York University) and by S.S.H.R.C. Doctoral Fellowships. A revised version of this paper was presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference in 1991.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Charlene Y. Senn, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.

Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843193 $5.00 + .OO 319

320 SENN

studies have many limitations, certain relationships that have been reli- ably demonstrated’ have clear implications for women.

Exposure to violent pornography alters the attitudes and beliefs of men in the laboratory by (a) increasing their violent fantasies (Malamuth, 1981a), (b) lessening their sensitivity to rape and rape victims (Malamuth & Check, 1980, 1985; Malamuth, Heim, & Feshbach, 1980), and (c) increasing their self-reported likelihood of raping (Malamuth, 1981b; Malamuth et al., 1980). In addition, there is some evidence that aggression toward women may be facilitated by exposure to violent pornography, at least in laboratory settings (Donnerstein, 1980, 1983).

Repeated exposure to nonviolent but sexist and dehumanizing pornogra- phy can decrease men’s satisfaction with their female partners (Zillmann & Bryant, 1988) and decrease respect for “female sexual autonomy and self-determination” (Weaver, 1987, p. vii).

Therefore, women could be indirectly affected by pornography by con- tact with male consumers whose behavior or attitudes toward women have been altered in a negative manner as a consequence of their exposure to nonviolent or violent pornography. Few studies have examined these types of effects on women, although those few have found evidence of the relationship in varying ways. Specifically, pornography has been impli- cated as being part of sexually coercive acts committed against women by male consumers (e.g., Russell, 1980, 1988; Senn, 1985, 1991; Silbert & Pines, 1984).

Research specifically addressing the unique effects of pornography on women has been limited, although this has been changing since the early 1980s. Prior to this time, research included women as participants, but almost without exception the researchers merely extended hypotheses made about pornography from men to women. This approach has meant that the results have lacked grounding in social reality.

For example, sex differences in sexual arousal have been investigated (and few differences found) for materials designed for heterosexual men (e.g., Fisher 81 Byrne, 1978; Schmidt, 1975). More productive investiga- tions of arousal in the 1980s by Garcia, Brennan, DeCarlo, McGlennon, and Tait (1984) and Stock (1983) found women’s sexual responses to por- nographic materials to be affected by their perceptions of dominance and power in the interactions.

Research on the effect of pornography on women’s aggression has even less social grounding (e.g., Baron, 1979; Cantor, Zillmann, & Einsiedel, 1978), because female aggression is not a major social problem and as such has given little insight into women’s experiences.

Research examining the attitudinal and mood effects of pornography has been more fruitful generally, although it suffers from some of the same limitations. Women’s emotional responses to pornography tend to be more negative than men’s responses overall (e.g., Byrne, Fisher, Lam- berth, & Mitchell, 1974; Griffitt, 1973; Kelley, 1985; Schmidt, 1975).

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 32 1 Moreover, women’s moods are negatively affected by violent and sexist content in pornographic portrayals (Krafka, 1985; Senn & Radtke, 1990). Studies of attitude change have mixed results; one study demonstrated increases in acceptance of interpersonal violence following exposure to violentlcoercive pornography (Mayerson & Taylor, 1987) , and most dem- onstrated no change in women’s acceptance of interpersonal violence fol- lowing exposure to pornography (e.g., Krafka, 1985; Senn, 1985; Stock, 1983). Consistently, however, women’s varying experiences (high versus low previous exposure) and perspectives about the world (e.g., traditional vs liberal) , combined with experimental manipulations of exposure, pro- duce varying reactions in women (Krafka, 1985; Senn & Radtke, 1990; Stock, 1983). In other words, not all women respond the same way. There- fore, research on women as a unitary category is probably not as produc- tive as the investigation of differences and similarities among women.

A different source of information about the possible effects of pornogra- phy on women can be found in feminist literature. Two streams of femi- nist thought on pornography, antipornography (radical feminist views) and anticensorship (other feminist views) , have emerged in the past 10-15 years, which predict effects qnd present perspectives on the issue.

The common thread through early radical feminist writings (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; Millet, 1970; Morgan, 1974, cited in Morgan, 1978) is the perspective that pornography both reflects and reinforces the hostility toward, hatred of, and violence against women by men. This theme has since been developed by other radical feminists. At present, a very com- plex and thoughtful body of work exists that outlines the relationship of pornography to other media; the harms of pornography to women in general and to women who perform in it in particular; the social construc- tion of women’s and men’s sexuality as it relates to pornography; the relationship between pornography and other forms of violence against women; possible actions against pornography; possibilities and problems with the creation of alternative sexual imagery; and so forth (e.g. , selected essays in Chester & Dickey, 1988; Cole, 1989; Dworkin, 1981, 1984; Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1988; Finn, 1985a, 1985b; Jeffreys, 1990; La- combe, 1988; MacKinnon, 1987; Russell, 1988; Stoltenberg, 1989). These writings do not represent a single point of view but rather a web of ideas that come together to represent a theory (or theories) of the role of pornog- raphy in society. This theory is summarized by Jeffreys (1988, p. 136).

This critique declares porn to be both the propaganda of womanhatred and a guidebook to the abuse of women. It sees porn as a source of serious abuse to the women used in the industry and to all those women whose civil liberties are infringed by a product which silences all women by showing us simply as holes and pieces of meat which enjoy and lust after abuse.

Feminists with alternative views have come from varying political posi- tions, including liberal, socialist, and anarchist. Some of these views draw

322 SENN

on psychoanalytic understandings of sex, sexuality, and violence. It is difficult to give other feminist views one label because they have primarily been organized around an anticensorship position, which in itself does not address issues relevant to the role of pornography in women’s lives. The better known proponents of this alternative perspective are Snitow (1985), Vance (1984), Rubin (1984), and Burstyn (1983). These alternative femi- nist views have in common a critique of state intervention and a quasi- psychoanalytic view of the dangers of repression. They differ in terms of their understanding and (mis)representation of the radical feminist view, the actual harm or benefits they see represented in pornography, and the amount of harm or benefits they believe sexual images can effect. They have in common with radical feminist theories

a desire to “take back the night”; to own our own sexual selves; to express these selves in images of our own choosing. . . . a feminist anger about women’s sexual exploitation and a . . . recognition of profound injustices that reach to the core of identity. . . . ” (Snitow, 1985, p. 114)

The differences between the feminisms are large in the degree to which they believe that pornography is implicated in the oppression of women and what tactics might lead to liberation.

We do not know how representative these two streams of feminist thought are in the general population of women. We can assume that women without the privilege of academic appointments, journalist cre- dentials, publishers’ advances, or connections to an elaborate community of feminist writers, thinkers, and activists may not have the same views and experiences as women who have access to these things.

Studies of differing perspectives on pornography among women have been recent and few. Cowan, Chase, and Stahly (1989) were some of the first to examine empirically the possibility that subgroups of women might have different views. “The . . . study was undertaken primarily to investi- gate possible bases of differences among feminist women regarding the control of pornography, and secondarily to compare feminist and funda- mentalist perspectives” (p. 98). Three distinct perspectives were identified with regard to attitudes toward pornography control: procontrol feminist, anticontrol feminist, and fundamentalist. These perspectives mirror the radical feminist and alternative feminist views mentioned earlier, with the addition of a perspective based on religious and conservative ideology. They noted, however, that all women “were concerned about pornogra- phy and its effects on women” (p. 107). In examining women’s experiences and their views of pornography, at least three unique perspectives might emerge.

In almost all previous studies of pornography, the researchers’ concep- tion of “the problem” has limited the variables studied or the focus taken. The present study began by approaching the issue of the impact of pornog- raphy from the point of view of women themselves. The way that women

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 323

feel about pornography and see it in the context of their lives is important to our understanding of the impact of pornography.

A methodology that allowed the participants to define the issue as they see it was used in this study. Q methodology involves the use of a particu- lar technique and philosophy for gathering data - a participant-centered, social construction approach - and a research instrument, the Q sort.’ The statistical procedures that are conducted following Q sorting permit the researcher to identify groups of women participants whose beliefs and experiences concerning pornography are similar. These sets of experiences are then interpreted on the basis of prior research and theory, fully in the context of the women’s lives. In this way, the results do not indicate “the reality” of the impact of pornography on women but instead represent “the many realities” experienced by women; these realities are then exam- ined and interpreted.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited on a nonrandom basis from two distinct groups of women living in metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding regions.

One group of women, composed of mature students and their female professors, was recruited from classes in a variety of disciplines. Although 94 women volunteered to participate by taking the research packages, the final sample, composed of those women who followed through by completing the task and mailing it in, included 44 women, ranging in age from 20 to 52 years (M = 31.86, SD = 9.44). The response rate from the university student group was 47%. Forty-two (95%) of the women were heterosexual, and two (5 %) were lesbian. Ninety-three percent of the participants were White. Seven percent were women of color, that is, Native Canadian, Black, or East Asian.

The second group of women was recruited from the Q-sort production phase sample. Twenty-two of the 30 women who had previously been interviewed agreed to participate in the next phase of the research. Materi- als were mailed to all of these women. The final sample from this group included 15 women ranging in age from 20 to 52 years ( M = 33.27, SD = 10.48). Thus, the useable response rate was 68%. Two women (13%) were lesbian, and 13 (87%) were heterosexual. Fourteen of the women were White, and one was Black.

All participants were paid $5.

Materials To design a Q-sort deck, it is necessary

to sample as widely as possible the domain “relevant to the problem under consideration” (Brown, 1980, p. 192). Items can be derived from inter-

Deuelopment of Q-SOT~ deck.

324 SENN

views of a variety of individuals or from other sources, such as the relevant literature or mass media constructions. Interviews were chosen as the method to most appropriately represent women’s experiences and views without predefining the perspectives that might emerge.

Participants in this early stage of the research were 30 women recruited and specifically selected for their varying views and experiences concern- ing p~rnography.~ The interview schedule followed a mixed open-ended and semistructured format across all known areas of possible importance to women’s experiences: exposure patterns, perceptions of various types of sexually explicit materials, definitions, role in own sexuality, relationships, sense of self, views of censorship, role in production of pornography, and so forth.4

Q-soTt deck. A Q-sort deck of cards with 98 items, one per card, was compiled. The items were written based on the semistructured interview transcripts of women who varied greatly in their views on and experiences with sexually explicit materials. Three independent judges extracted themes, wrote items, and then worked together to ensure that all perspec- tives and experiences that emerged from the interviews were represented in the Q-sort items.5

Although the numbering of the items remained the same for all partici- pants (the random ordering decided earlier), each deck of 98 items was shuffled prior to mailing to randomize the order of item presentation to the participants.

Procedure

Women were asked to participate in a study of women’s attitudes about and experiences with sexually explicit materials. Women were handed (if in a classroom setting) or mailed (if they had participated in the previous phase) an envelope containing detailed instructions, a consent form, a sorting template, the Q sort deck, a request-for-payment form, a future- contact-address form, and stamped addressed envelopes. They were asked to take the package home and mail the completed documents back within 1 month. To preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the new parti- cipants, the Q sorts were mailed back to the researcher in one envelope with no identifying markings of any kind. For women who had partici- pated in the interview phase, the Q-sort template was identified with the pseudonym used for the interview. The address form and request-for- payment form were mailed in the other envelope.

Participants were given detailed written instructions on how to com- plete the sorting task. To summarize, they were asked to read each item and place it on a continuum from + 5 (strongly agree) to - 5 (strongly disagree), which was represented on a template. The participants then

Pornography: Mult iple Perspectives 325

wrote the numbers of the sorted cards onto the appropriate spaces on the template and mailed it back to the researcher.

A forced quasi-normal distribution was requested6 for the sorting task. However, any woman who had difficulty with this requirement and con- tacted the researcher was allowed to do a free sort. Five women did free sorts, two of these without prior contact with the investigator. Brown (1980) suggested that slight variations in the distributions do not influence the reliability of the analyses.

RESULTS

Analyses of Q sorts

Statistical Properties of the Q Sort In 1982, Fox (pp. 129-130) described the statistical properties of Q tech- niques as compared with the more familiar R techniques.

Most of the data applications familiar to social scientists examine relation- ships among the columns of the data matrix, that is, among attributes. . . . This familiar type of analysis, termed R-mode by Cattell (1952), is distin- guished from Q-mode analysis, which focuses on the relationships among the rows of the data matrix.

In other words, Q techniques look at the relationships between people who participate and count the items of a particular Q sort as the population or sample.

“Fundamentally, the Q-sort technique is a modified rank-ordering pro- cedure in which stimuli are placed in an order that is significant from the standpoint of a person operating under specified conditions” (Brown, 1980, p. 195). Therefore, the data matrix is transposed prior to factor analysis. Instead of identifying groups of items that cluster together (R mode), the analysis identifies groups of women that sorted their items in similar ways.

Technical Details The 59 Q sorts were analyzed using principal components analysis with varimax rotation (SAS Institute, 1985). For interpretation, the important feature is how many pure loadings there are on each factor. A pure loading is when a participant’s Q sort significantly loads on one factor and no other. Several pure loadings on a factor are necessary for factor interpreta- tion. A five-factor solution accounted for 60% of the variance and by a stringent significance cutoff (loading = .39) had only one factor repre- sented by a single pure loading. All other factors had substantial numbers of pure loadings. Factor reliability was calculated using the Brown (1980) formula. Only the four factors with multiple loadings will be discussed here.

326 SENN

The factor loadings for each participant are presented in Table 1. The participants whose accounts were pure representations of each factor (i.e., they show no significant loadings on other factors) were selected. For example, for Factor 4, the sorts of participants 34, 42, 08, and 37 would be used. Following Brown’s (1980) instructions, the scores of these subsets of participants were merged (weighting them according to factor load- ings), converted to Z scores, and then renumbered to reapply the template features (in the + 5 to - 5 pattern) to arrive at a representative sort for each factor. The representative sorts illustrate the common information among women who load purely on the factor. This approach ensures that, within any factor, idiosyncratic responses or responses not held in common with other women will drop out into the neutral (Z scores of approxi- mately 0) zone of the sort.

Basic Interpretation of Factors The representative sort for each factor was the principal data for the first stage of interpretation. Q-sort items with representative sort positions are presented in the text of the interpretation where appropriate. Representa- tive scores match the positions on the original template, from + 5 (strongly agree) to - 5 (strongly disagree), with 0 as a neutral (does not apply) category. The second stage of interpretation was to turn for substantiation and clarification to the interview data provided by women who held that perspective. Only one factor (Factor 4) did not have an interviewed partic- ipant loading purely on it. In that case, the interviews of women who loaded significantly on that factor, even though these were not pure load- ings, were used to assist in the second phase of interpretation.

The 98 items of the Q sort fall into various areas within general views and experiences on pornography. The interpretation of each factor is or- ganized by discussing issues in the same order to allow comparisons among the factors. Therefore, where issues are relevant to any factor they are discussed in this order: general description of the perspective, quantity of exposure to pornography, amount of thought on issue previously and gen- eral characterization of those thoughts and feelings, definitional issues, influence of feminism and religion on perspective, timing of exposure in life (i.e., childhood, adolescent, or adult), effects of exposure on emotion, theories about impact, perceived impact on own lives, comparisons be- tween participants and the women in pornography, pornography’s role in relationships, activism and action on pornography in own life, and views on censorship.

The reliability estimate of Factor 1 is .98. This was the most strongly represented by the women in the sample and exemplifies the view put forward by radical feminist theorists (e.g., Brownmiller, Dworkin, MacKinnon) and the experiences hypothesized by radical feminist theorists and researchers alike (e.g., Stock, Senn, Russell). Some of the women in this group actually identify

Factor 1: The “Radical Feminist” Perspective.

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 327 Table 1

Rotated factor loadings for the Five-factor solution

Factors

ID 1 2 3 4 5

Laura Bobby 023 Molly 016 020 009 Sydney 003 Clementine 039 033 Esther Lisa 024 Clare 007 Martha 044 030 Erica 031 032 022 019 004 001 Melissa 014 040 015 04 1 Sara 036 034 042 008 037 Andy 005 006 027 010

.70

.68

.67

.57

.54

.50

.13

.13

.04

.32

.30

.35

.06 - .02

.18 -05 .09 .34 .16 .07 .39 .06 * 19

- .13 .10 .09 .30 .33 .55 .53 .45 .52

.07

.04

.20

.ll

.33

.10

.19

.04

.31

.32

.23

.17

.37

.21 - .18

- .14

.61

.61

-13 -36 .09 .31 .25

- .04 .37 .35 .23 .37 .05 .25 .14 .12 .12 .52 .44 .57 .53

- .09 .19

- .02 .17 .21 -12 -17 .12 .34 .17 -15 .34

- .04 .22 .25 .21 .32 .08

- .02

. 00 - .03

.05

.07

.13

.22 -.19 - .08

.10

.24

.15

.06

.06

.32

.08 -31 .39 .ll -20

.35 .15

.25 .08

.32 .21

.31 .18 .14 .15 .15 .21 .34 .02

-.11 .14 .24

.48 .12

.02

.16

.18

.35

.35 .03

.13 - .01

.28 -.12

.21 .06 * 12 .41

- .03 .17 .10 .31

- .05 - .14

I 07 -14

- .19 .27 .33 .10 .09

- .07 .13 .09 .13

- .ll .33 .08 .15

- .04 - .07

.12 - .01 - .05

.01

.18

. 00

.10 -21 -26 .05 .16 -08

- .16 .37

*I - .10

.08

.19

.14

(continued)

328 SENN

Table 1 Continued

Factors

ID 1 2 3 4 5

Catherine 029 025 026 002 012 Amelia 028 011 017 038 021 043 018 013 035

.46

.37 '47 .31 .46 .42 .59 .31

-.19 - .04

.29 - .05

.06

.29

.26 - .04

.53

.52

.52

.51

.48

.46

.26

.54

.50

.48

.48

.37

.41 - .02

.14

.36

.35

.42

.38

.47

.13

.44

.05

.28

.30

.35

.52

.51

.51

.17

.48

.26

.07 -.11

.01 -25

- .14 .ll

- .01 .48 .21 .41 .20 -41 .16 .56 .53 .42

.09

.04

.03

.09 - .02

.06

.40

.13 - .38 - .01

.03 * 00 .19 .52

- .04 .47

Note: Boxed loadings are those of participants that showed no significant loadings on any other factor and thus were selected for analysis.

as radical feminists (Sydney, Bobby, Laura, etc.). For others, the descrip- tion of radical feminist may not be part of their self-identity. However for all of the women who loaded purely on this factor, feminism or a feminist perspective has been important to their perceptions of pornography. In this perspective the personal and political come together.

Item 75. Pornography has led me to a greater awareness of women's issues. + 3 Item 65. My feelings about pornography have been influenced by feminism.

+2

Factor 1 women have had a lot of exposure to pornography and have difficulty avoiding it in their daily lives. They dislike pornography im- mensely because they believe that it presents very negative images of women as a group at the same time that it puts forward a highly unrealis- tic standard of physical attractiveness that individual women cannot achieve. They see much violence and victimization of women in pornog- raphy.

Item 17. I do not think pornography is related to violence against women. - 5 Item 42. I have no strong feelings about pornography. -4 Item 43. I have not seen a lot of pornography in my life. - 2 Item 44. I have not thought a lot about pornography. - 3

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 329 They do not believe that all sexually explicit images are pornographic.

However, the positive aspects of sexual imagery are not stressed, and they do not, on the whole, enjoy viewing sexual imagery. The interview data suggest that this may be because few of the women had seen any sexual materials that they did not consider pornographic, that is, the positive sexual imagery had not been created yet.

Q. Have you ever seen any [erotica]? A. I think I’ve seen sort of glimpses of it out of the corner of my eye. It

hasn’t been in pictures, it’s been watching women dancing, I’ve definitely seen a lot of dance, in terms of actual experience in seeing something that I would consider erotic. , . . [Sydney]

The childhood experiences of women from this perspective were for the main part self-directed and nonstressful. By contrast, their adolescent and adult exposure to pornography was seen as unpleasant, harmful, and fairly difficult to avoid. Some of the women had encountered pornography in their place of work. Over half had been involved in a relationship with a male consumer. The majority of these experiences were described in very negative terms. Some of the Factor 1 women expressly endorsed the item regarding pornography serving as a reminder of past sexual assaults.

One of the most interesting and unique components of women who hold the perspective is that they do not separate themselves from the women in the pornographic images and they often think of themselves in relation to the women in pornography even though most of the Factor 1 women had never been filmed or photographed themselves.

Item 10. Actresses and models in pornography are doing a job like any other

Item 49. I rarely think about myself in comparison to the women in pornogra-

Item 51. I see myself as different from the women in pornography. 0

job. -3

phy. -2

It may be that Factor 1 women’s identification with the women in the images (which is positive in terms of feminist views that women not sepa- rate themselves from other women emotionally [no bad and good women]) may in fact increase the likelihood of negative effects on the women as they are exposed to the images. Factor 1 women do not distance them- selves from the images saying, “This is not about me.” They see political and emotional connections across the edge of the page.

Sexual arousal to pornographic images had caused anxiety for some of the women. This appeared to be the result of guilt and shame at having become sexually aroused against their will in response to images in pornog- raphy that they found offensive. This was clarified by two of the inter- viewed women who had been (or were) antipornography activists. They

330 SENN each had a slightly different theory of why and how sexual arousal to pornography occurs for them. For example,

I think women are petrified to look at it [pornography] . . . and I think the other thing is that they are afraid that they will have a sexual response to looking at pornography and women need to know that is okay. It doesn’t mean you have to act on it. . . . What we can do is that we can use that in our best interest to find out how we have been hurt. . . . So, I think that sexual responses can tell us a lot and I don’t think necessarily about sex, more often about other things. [Sydney]

The negative effects of pornography on the women’s own lives are de- scribed as involving harm to specific relationships and more general harm involving the woman in her ongoing sense of self. In terms of relationships, the harm is variously described as causing arguments with male partners revolving around pornography, negative effects on the sexuality within that relationship, feelings of rejection, negative treatment of the woman by the male consumer, negative effects on the whole relationship, feelings of sexual inadequacy, and so on. In more general terms, pornography is described as having negatively affected women’s views of men, even men they know; views of their own body; their sexuality; and their whole life.

Item 8. A partner’s use of pornography has affected our whole relationship. + 2 Item 67. My life would have been different without pornography. + 3

Cowan et al. (1989) found that one of the largest differences between anticontrol and procontrol feminists was that the procontrol group be- lieved that pornography had a greater impact on the average man. If the procontrol feminists in their sample are similar in many ways to the Factor 1 women (and there are many similarities), then the Factor 1 women’s generalization to all men, from their experience with individual men, may be completely logical and part of a belief about the way that pornography causes harm. Their sorts suggested the types of harm listed above. They believe that the way they were treated by a partner was directly related to his pornography consumption. Factor 1 women clearly have had some extremely negative experiences with male consumers who they may very well have considered to be “average” men, and therefore they believe that pornography has a great impact on the average man.

The women in Factor 1 do not (any longer? if ever?) accept this harm passively. Although the harm of pornography they experienced in the past may have been accentuated by their own experience and views, this harm is counteracted by an active stance against further harm. This is not a victim stance. They would never again knowingly become involved with a male consumer, they would mind if a male partner used pornography and would let their views be heard, and they would not let it knowingly

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 331 into their homes. Some women have left events or public places because of the presence of pornography. Others have become antipornography activists.

This perspective could best be characterized as procontrol rather than procensorship, because the women are not unambivalently supporting government controls. They support government restrictions on pornogra- phy but they do not agree with the way this is currently being carried out.

Item 19. I don’t think there should be legal limits on the availability of pornog-

Item 91. The government does not do enough about pornography. + 4 Item 92. The government takes the wrong approach on pornography. + 2

raphy. -4

Factor 2: The “Conservative” Perspective. The reliability estimate is .97. The perspective of Factor 2 women is also a commonly discussed perspective in the literature on pornography. It is best described in this case as a conservative perspective, but similar perspectives have been called fundamentalist (Cowan et al., 1989). It is not labeled fundamental- ist in this case because it represents religious conservatism and secular conservatism (e. g., Erica),

Similar to the findings of Cowan et al. (1989) for fundamentalist women, the women who held the conservative perspective had very little exposure to pornography and had no difficulty avoiding it. They have unambivalent negative feelings about pornography that are moderately strong. They believe that all sexually explicit materials are pornographic.

Item 61. Materials that describe/show explicit sex are pornographic. + 2

What is it [pornography]? I just see pornography as explicit doings, . . . things, just that reveal lots of say the person’s body, doing acts which should only be kept in private or not even done at all. [Erica]

Due, probably, to the limited exposure of the Factor 2 women to por- nography, their sorts represent a view that is not based substantially on personal experiences. In addition, the conservative women distance them- selves from the women in pornography, they see themselves as different and they rarely think about themselves in relation to those women. They have also never been photographed or filmed themselves.

Item 51. I see myself as different from the women in pornography. + 3

Factor 2 women believe that pornography is harmful and that it is related to violence against women. However, unlike the radical feminist perspective, there is an emphasis on men also being victims of the porno- graphic images. Their beliefs about the impact of pornography on men is

332 SENN

not from their personal experience with male consumers like Factor 1 women, because they have never been involved with male consumers. As such, their views about the men in pornography do not carry over to the men they know. In some ways, this could be construed as an extension of the personal distancing of these women from the women in pornography. There is support from the interview transcripts to suggest that Factor 2 women believe that the men they know are very different from the men in pornography.

I don’t think that it has really changed my view [of men] because I take a lot of what I see with a grain of salt, I don’t, I say so okay, there it is but that is not really the way it is. And so I don’t think it has made any differ- ence. [Martha]

Item 41. I have never been invoived with a man who used pornography regu- larly. + 4

Given the theory postulated previously about the impact of identifica- tion, the harm conveyed by Factor 2 women is not personal harm or harm to their male partners, but rather their beliefs about the potential harm pornography causes others.

Item 13. Exposure to pornography does not have an effect on people. - 2 Item 17. I do not think pornography is related to violence against women. -4

The focus about harm caused to others may be the result of the religious (e. g., Christian-charitable) and political (e. g., conservative-paternalistic) orientation of the women whose sorts loaded on Factor 2. Factor 2 wom- en’s views about pornography have been profoundly affected by their religious andlor political beliefs. They have also been somewhat influ- enced by feminist views of pornography. This is particularly evident in their definitions of pornography and the messages they believe it gives about women and men.

Factor 2 women act out their beliefs about pornography by taking very strong personal stands. They refuse to have it in their homes and will not become involved with male consumers.

Item 59. In the future, I would get involved with someone who used pornogra-

Item 57. I wouldn’t mind if my partner used pornography. - 5 phy. -5

This perspective also represents a procontrol view, but with less critique of government action than that of Factor 1 women.

Item 91. The government does not do enough about pornography. + 1 Item 19. I don’t think there should be legal limits on the availability of pornog-

raphy. -2

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 333

Twenty-six women from the Phase 2 sample loaded substantially (> .30) on Factor 2. Therefore, aspects of this perspective may be shared by many women who would not be categorized as conservative by the pure loading criteria.

Factor 3: The “Humanist-Child-centered” Perspective. The factor re- liability is estimated to be .98. Factor 3 represents a perspective in which women are concerned with the harm of pornography to men and women, with special emphasis on children. The emphasis on children is more pro- found than for the other factors. All but five of the women in the sample sorted item no. 85 “Pornography using children is the worst kind of por- nography” in the affirmative end of the sorting. However, Factor 3 women placed special emphasis on all of the items relating to children. They are more worried about the effects of exposure to pornography on children than on adult women.

Women who load on this factor have not seen a lot of pornography, nor do they find it difficult to avoid. In the views of Factor 3 women, pornography gives a very bad impression of women, presenting them as only existing for male pleasure. They do not believe that men understand how women feel about pornography, even though it also presents them in a negative light.

Item 62. Men understand how women feel about pornography. - 3 Item 82. Pornography is just as harmful to men as it is to women. + 1

Factor 3 women have been involved with men who have used pornogra- phy, but they do not consider these men to be “consumers.” This contra- diction can be partially explained by the interview transcript of Sara.

Q. Has pornography played any part in your adult relationships with men? A. Well, I have only had one relationship. And if it is that horrible stuff that I

wouldn’t even touch or anything, no. But as I said my husband likes to buy Playboy and Penthouse. . . , I still would not want my daughters in those kinds of magazines but as I say they are not around in the house where the children can find them. [emphasis added]

Q. What percentage of men that you have been involved with would you say were consumers?

A. One hundred percent! (laughs) No, he’s not a consumer. [emphasis added] Q. So you wouldn’t consider him a consumer? A. No. [Sara]

She does not consider the Playboy and Penthouse her husband buys to be pornography and therefore does not see him as a consumer. Factor 3 women sorted items suggesting that their partner’s use of pornography had not affected their whole relationship and had not had a bad effect on

334 SENN

them, and it had not affected the children of the relationship. They also agreed strongly that what happens in sexual activity spills over into other parts of the relationship. When these responses are viewed together, it becomes clear that the male partners of Factor 3 women have not brought their consumption into the bedroom in an overt or coercive or violent manner. The difference between the male partners of Factor 1 women and those of Factor 3 women appears to be that Factor 3 men have not used the pornography they see to intimidate, coerce, or directly harm their female partners.

Similar to Factor 2 women, these women do not identify with the women in pornography and feel they are quite different. Not surprisingly, then, the women who represent the third perspective do not feel they have been directly harmed by pornography in any way, even though they dis- like it.

Well it really hasn’t influenced it [my life], it is just something that we don’t like and it doesn’t make you depressed, I don’t live my life around it, I fill my life with other things. . . . [later] Neutral [it had a neutral impact], now if it was involving one of my children that would be different! [Sara]

In direct contrast with their views of the effects of pornography on themselves, the women who hold this perspective are very concerned about the possibility of children viewing pornography. Their refusal to have pornography in their own home may be more due to their feelings about their children seeing it than for their own preferences (for those women who have or take care of children). They support legal limits on pornography and the interviews suggested that they might place special emphasis on trying to keep pornography out of the reach and view of children.

Factor 4: The “Ambivalent but Mildly Propornography” Perspective. No interviewed women loaded above .39 on this factor. This would sug- gest that this factor is not adequately represented in the interview sample. The estimated factor reliability is .94. Factor 4 represents a quite different perspective from the others discussed so far. Women who load on this factor have not seen a lot of pornography and they have not thought about it a lot. There is some evidence to suggest that the types of materials viewed by the women are different from those seen by women in previous perspectives. Intellectually, the women have some mildly positive atti- tudes toward pornography (e.g., it’s okay for my partner to use it). Emo- tionally, the situation is different: Factor 4 women have very mixed feel- ings about sexual materials.

Item 40. I have mixed feelings about pornography. + 5 Item 52. I think there are different types of pornography. + 5 Item 21. I feel differently about different types of Pornography. + 4

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 335

Factor 4 women were mostly positive about their exposure to pornogra- phy. Although the age of exposure varied, the viewing was always self- directed, they were usually alone, and they experienced high levels of enjoyment and sexual arousal. They also learned things about sex from these materials. Use of pornography with a partner may have been less positive; however, this hypothesis would need to be examined by doing interviews with Factor 4 women.

Item 98. When I first saw pornography I was curious about it. + 5 Item 20. I enjoy looking at sexually explicit materials. + 3 Item 30. I have been sexually aroused by pornography. +4 Item 7. A partner’s use of pornography has affected the way I feel about my-

self. + 2

Some striking differences in the perception of pornography emerge with this perspective. First, the women disagreed that most pornography shows violence and victimization. They also disagreed that pornography is re- lated to violence against women. This is the only perspective in which these views are held. Factor 4 women may have seen types of pornography that are different from those seen by other women, perhaps only the milder versions of those commonly available. Another possibility is that Factor 4 women do not see violence or victimization where other women might.

Another difference in the descriptions is that although Factor 4 women agree with many of the other perspectives that pornography presents women as sex objects and as made for male pleasure, they do not necessar- ily think this is a bad thing. They do not believe that pornography gives a negative impression of women. They do believe that people might become addicted to pornography, however.

Given these differences in the description of pornographic materials, it is not surprising that Factor 4 women would see the harm of pornography in a different way. If the materials are not considered violent, one would not expect violence to be incited. Factor 4 women believe that the major harm caused by pornography is due to one specific characteristic of the materials. They describe pornography as creating an unrealistic standard of physical attractiveness and body size and shape. As such, they feel the only way that they have ever been harmed by pornography personally is that it has increased their negative feelings about their own bodies.

Item 58. Images of women in pornography set unreal standards for how a worn-

Item 79. Pornography hasn’t had much effect on how I feel abut my body. - 3 an’s body should look. + 4

Another obvious difference between the perspective of women who Ioad on Factor 4 and that of all other women was their perception of women

336 SENN

in pornography. Factor 4 women supported the view that participation in pornography is a job like any other job; therefore, they do not view the models/actresses to be victims. They then strongly disassociated themselves from these workers. Women could place an item in the neutral category if it did not apply to them and they could only place three items in the extreme positions. Women in Factor 4 chose these items as two of their extreme dis- agree items. Interestingly, this distancing equalled or matched the distanc- ing done by the most conservative women in the sample (Factor 2).

Item 28. I have been paid to appear in sexual photographs or films. - 5 Item 29. I have been photographed or filmed in a sexual context by a partner.

Item 51. I see myself as different from the women in pornography. + 2 Item 10. Actresses and models in pornography are doing a job like any other

- 5

job. + 2

Factor 4 women believe in legal limits for pornography, but they do not believe that the government takes the right approach on the issue. Although they agree that the world would be a better place without por- nography, they do not worry about the current availability of materials. They do not find it hard not to see pornography. Because they also indi- cated that the government does enough about pornography, they may favor a less restrictive censorship law.

DISCUSS I O N

The methodology of this study allowed the data analyses to be performed at two levels, the sample level - description of the nature of the sample, the experiences of women in the sample and subsamples, and so forth- and the individual perspective level - description of each factor derived from the Q-sort procedure, excerpts from interviews, and so forth. The impact of pornography on women can therefore be discussed in more than one way. The current discussion is restricted to the individual perspective.

Analysis of the Q sorts led to the identification of five distinct perspec- tives on pornography, four of which are discussed here. I do not suggest that there are only five perspectives, but rather that the women from this particular sample could be grouped into five unique positions or complexes of views on pornography. With a different sample, the same Q-sort items could generate additional perspectives.

The first two perspectives (Radical Feminist and Conservative) are the most commonly mentioned perspectives in the literature on women and pornography (e.g., Cowan et al., 1989). The Q methodology allowed greater depth and breadth of interpretation of those perspectives.

Factors 3 and 4 represent perspectives that have not been widely dis- cussed in the literature on women’s experiences with pornography. The

Pornography: Mu It ip le Perspectives 337 Factor 3 perspective has not been described previously, although it repre- sents a fairly large number of the women from this sample (10 pure, 19 other loadings over .30). In many ways, it might describe the reality of an average middle-class White heterosexual woman. She is partnered with a man (or men) over a period of time who, like most men in Canadian society, buys a few of the mainstream pornographic magazines and views the odd pornographic video with friends. She does not like the messages that these materials convey about women and men and sexuality. She does not want them in her home, and she does not want her male partner to use them, but she is also somewhat grateful that he does not look at pornography that is more violent and degrading. Because he does not ask her to replicate the things he sees there, she feels that this arrangement is satisfactory. But she still feels that pornography is harmful and is con- nected to people learning negative things about sex. So she focuses her attention on the people who do not have the choices she does - the chil- dren - and worries about them being exposed to pornography.

The perspective shown by women who load on Factor 4 is also unique and represents a subgroup of women who have not been described else- where. Their perceptions of pornography are substantially different from those of other women. They feel that they have been affected by pornogra- phy and that it has not had a positive effect on the way they feel about themselves. At the same time, they see the sexual representations of women in pornography to be nonproblematic. Perhaps if pornography were to use a wider variety of women in its images, taking the focus off the porno- graphic body ideal, the women in Factor 4 would not find it objectional at all. They would not, however, choose to be part of the pornography industry. The point must be made that this perspective does not represent the anticensorship feminist view. The perspective of feminists like Vance, Rubin, Burstyn, Snitow, and others did not emerge from the current sam- ple of women.

It is clear from the perspectives discussed here that women’s experiences and attitudes toward pornography cannot easily be collapsed into a uni- tary category of female. All women do not think about pornography in the same way nor have they had the same or similar experiences. Different combinations of life experiences and exposure patterns join with individual coping styles and cognitive frameworks to create a number of unique perspectives. However, these views do not occur haphazardly; there are patterns. A number of distinct perspectives emerged, shared by groups of women, and a number of others are suggested by the interview^.^

Numerous perspectives emerged to clarify how women view pornogra- phy in the context of their lives. Most of the women within these perspec- tives were critical of the messages in pornography and felt that pornogra- phy was linked to male violence against women, that it had harmed them or that it would harm other people, that it was not “just entertainment,” and that the overall impact on their lives was neutral or negative. The

338 SENN

harm women had experienced ranged from negative effects on their body image to negative effects on an entire relationship. Women felt that their sense of their own attractiveness, their sexuality, and their self-esteem was affected in negative ways by pornography. Very few women in the entire sample felt that pornography had a positive impact on their lives. None of the perspectives that emerged out of the Q methodology represented a view of pornography as having positive impact on women’s lives. Of those interviewed women who said it had had a positive impact on their lives, in every case it was the woman’s reframing of the experience, not the messages or direct content of the images, that made it positive.

One of the strongest incidental findings of this study is that women do not stand idly by as pornography and male consumers act on them. Many psychological coping mechanisms (e. g., denial, traumatic forgetting, re- framing) are used by women to alter their memories of experiences with pornography.’ Many physical and political steps are taken by women to exclude pornography from their lives.

The strength of this study is the use of methodology that allows women to construct for themselves their experiences with and thoughts and feel- ings about pornography. The result has moved us forward in our under- standing by the emergence of two different perspectives that had not pre- viously been written about in the theoretical or empirical literature.

A limitation of the research is the nonrepresentation of Factor 4 women in the original interviews, which reduced validity checks on the interpreta- tion of the factor. Another limitation is the nonparticipation of women who worklworked in the sex trade industry in the Q-sort stage of the re~earch.~ Although their thoughts and experiences were reflected in the development of the Q-sort items, their unique perspectives are not re- flected in the four factors discussed here.

Further research is needed to ensure that the perspectives of groups of women who are not represented here are given voice. Moreover, an addi- tional step could be added to the procedure, where participants read the interpretation of the factors and reflect on their “accuracy.” This approach would bring the research back to the participants and establish women’s perceptions of the validity of the interpretations.

First draft received: 6/29/92 Final drajt received: 5/14/93

NOTES

1. Full literature reviews have been conducted by Donnerstein and Linz (1986), Malamuth and Donnerstein (1984), and Russell (1988).

2. The potential of this methodology for feminist research has been documented elsewhere (e.g., Kitzinger, 1986).

3 . This number of interviewees was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. An attempt was made to select participants who had varied experiences with pornography, although this was diffi-

Pornography: Multiple Perspectives 339 cult to ensure prior to the interview proper. It was done by attempting to recruit women with the following characteristics: married or previously married (legally or common law) to male consumer; lesbian with previous male partners; lesbian with no previous male partners; single, heterosexual, never married; incest survivor; workedlworks in sex trade; little previous exposure to pornography; considerable exposure to pornography; feminist; in a nontraditional job; consumer of pornography; battered woman; woman over 50; antifeminist woman; active in churchlsynagogue.

4. The interview schedule can be obtained from the author. 5. The Q-sort items can be obtained from the author. 6. Distribution of cards by score: +5, 3 cards; +4, 5 cards; +3, 8 cards; +2, 11 cards; + 1,

14 cards; 0, 16 cards; - 1, 14 cards; -2, 11 cards; -3, 8 cards; -4, 5 cards; - 5 , 3 cards. A debate exists over the benefits and drawbacks of a forced distribution sort over a free sort with no such structure (Block, 1956; Gaito, 1962). The forced method was selected due to the increase in statistical ease and the limited drawbacks for the purposes of the present study. Kitzinger (1987) reached the same conclusion. Most women expressed no difficulty with this requirement.

7. Other perspectives were suggested from the transcripts of women who did not participate in Phase 2. These perspectives are based on single case examples or two participants’ experiences and as such are discussed elsewhere. They were (a) the effects of a male partner’s massive consumption of pornography (nonparticipating women) and (b) the perspective of women who have been involved in the production of pornography.

8. Discussion of these mechanisms is beyond the scope of this paper, but evidence for these methods are presented elsewhere (Senn, 1991).

9. I interviewed four women incarcerated in a medium-security prison for women who had previously worked in pornography and/or prostitution. All women had been released with no forwarding address prior to the second stage of the research.

REFERENCES

Baron, R . A. (1979). Heightened sexual arousal and physical aggression: An extension to

Block, J. (1956). A comparison of forced and unforced sorting procedures. Educational and

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjecttoity: Applications of Q methodology in political science.

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon &

Burstyn, V. (1983). Art and censorship. Fuse, 7(3), 84-85. Byme, D., Fisher, J. D., Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H. E. (1974). Evaluations of erotica:

Facts or feelings? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 111-116. Cantor, J. R., Zillmann, R., & Einsiedel, E. F. (1978). Female responses to provocation

after exposure to aggressive and erotic films. Communication Research, 5 , 395-413. Chester, G., & Dickey, J. (1988). Feminism and censorship: The current debate. Bridport,

Dorset, England: Prism Press. Cole, S. G . (1989). Pornography and thesex crisis. Toronto: Amanita. Cowan, G . , Chase, C. J., & Stahly, G . B. (1989). Feminist and fundamentalist attitudes

toward pornography control. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13,97-112. Donnerstein, E. (1980). Aggressive-erotica and violence against women. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 39, 269-277. Donnerstein, E. (1983). Erotica and human aggression. In R. Green & E. Donnerstein

(Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reuiews (Vol. 2, pp. 127-154). New York: Academic Press.

Donnerstein, E., & Linz, D. G . (1986). Mass media sexual violence and male viewers: Current theory and research. American Behaoioral Scientist, 29, 601-618.

females. Journal of Research in Personality, 13,91-102.

Psychological Measurement, 16, 481-493.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schuster.

340 SENN Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. London: Women’s Press. Dworkin, A. (1984, Summer). Silence means dissent. Healthsharing, 23-25. Dworkin, A, , & MacKinnon, C . A. (1988). Pornography rL civil rights: A new day for

women’s equality. Minneapolis: Organizing Against Pornography. Finn, G . (1985a, March). Against sexual imagery: Alternative or otherwise. Paper presented

at symposium on images of sexuality in art and the media, presented by Gallery 101, Ottawa, Ontario.

Finn, G. (1985b). Patriarch and pleasure: The pornographic eye/I. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theoy, 9, 81-95.

Fisher, W. A., & Byrne, D. (1978). Individual differences in affective, evaluative and behav- ioral responses to an erotic film. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 355-365.

Fox, J. (1982). Selective aspects of measuring resemblance for taxonomy. In H. C. Hudson & Associates (Eds.), Classifqing social data (pp. 127-151). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaito, J. (1962). Forced and free Q sorts. Psychological Reports, 10, 251-254. Garcia, L. T., Brennan, K., DeCarlo, M., McGlennon, R., & Tait, S. (1984). Sex differences

in sexual arousal to different erotic stories. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 391-402. Griffitt, W. (1973). Response to erotica and the projection of response to erotica in the

opposite sex. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6 , 330-338. Jeffreys, S. (1988). The censoring of revolutionary feminism. In G. Chester & J . Dickey

(Eds.), Feminism and censorship: The current debate (pp. 133-139). Bridport, Dorset, England: Prism Press.

Jeffreys, S. (1990). Anticlimax: A feminist perspective on the sexual revolution. London: Women’s Press.

Kelley, K. (1985). The effects of sexual andlor aggressive film exposure on helping, hostility, and attitudes about the sexes. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 472-483.

Kitzinger, C. (1986). Introducing and developing Q as a feminist methodology. In S. Wilkin- son (Ed.), Feminist social psychology (pp. 151-172). Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open Univer- sity.

Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social constsuction of lesbianism. London: Sage. Krafka, C. L. (1985). Sexually explicit, sexually violent, and violent media: Effects of multi-

ple naturalistic exposures and debriefing on female viewers. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Lacombe, D. (1988). Ideology and public policy: The case against pornography. Toronto: Garamond Press.

MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Malamuth, N. (1981a). Rape fantasies as a function of exposure to violent-sexual stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 33-47.

Malamuth, N. (1981b). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 138- 157.

Malamuth, N., & Check, J. V. P. (1980). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of victim’s perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10,528-547.

Malamuth, N., & Check, J. V. P. (1985). The effects of aggressive pornography on beliefs in rape myths: Individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 299-320.

Malamuth, N. M., & Donnerstein, E. (1984). Pornography and sexual aggression. San Diego: Academic Press.

Malamuth, N., Heim, M., & Feshbach, S. (1980). The sexual responsiveness of college stu- dents to rape depictions: Inhibitory and disinhibitory effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 399-408.

Mayerson, S. F., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The effects of rape myth pornography on women’s attitudes and the mediating role of sex role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 17, 321-338.

Millet, K. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Avon. Morgan, R. (1978). Going too far: The personal chronicle of a feminist. New York: Vintage.

Pornography: Muttipie Perspectives 341 Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C.

S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267-319). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Russell, D. E. H. (1980). Pornography and violence: What does the new research say? In L. Lederer (Ed.), Take back the night: Women on pornography (pp. 218-238). New York: Morrow.

Russell, D. E. H. (1988). Pornography and rape: A causal model. Political Psychology, 9,

SAS Institute. (1985). SAS user’s guide: Statistics (Version 5 ed.). Cary, NC: Author. Schmidt, G. (1975). Male-female difference in sexual arousal and behavior. Archioes of

Sexual Behauiour, 4,353-364. Senn, C. Y. (1985). Women’s reactions to violent pornography, nonviolent pornography and

erotica. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Senn, C. Y. (1991). The impact of pornography in women’s lioes. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, York University, Toronto. Senn, C. Y., & Radtke, H. L. (1990). Women’s evaluations of and affective reactions to

mainstream violent pornography, nonviolent pornography, and erotica. Violence and Victims, 5, 143-155.

Silbert, M. H., & Pines, A. M. (1984). Pornography and sexual abuse of women. Sex Roles,

Snitow, A. B. (1985). Mass market romance: Pornography for women is different. In A, Snitow, C . Stansell, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 245-263). New York: Monthly Review.

Stock, W. (1983). The effects of violent pornography on the sexual responsiveness and atti- tudes of women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

Stoltenberg, J. (1989). Refusing to be a man: Essays on sex and justice. Portland, Oregon: Breitenbush Books.

Vance, C. (1984). Pleasure and danger: Toward a politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 1-28). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Weaver, J. B. (1987). Effects of portrayals of female sexuality and violence against women on perceptions of women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University- Bloomington.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Pornography’s impact on sexual satisfaction. Iournal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 438-453.

41-73.

10,857-868.