1. Background
   1. Problem of Definitions
   2. Evidence and Standard of Proof
2. The Evidence
   1. Changes in Rape Rates
   2. Correlational Evidence
      1. Danish and Other Cross-Cultural Data
      2. Sex-Magazine Circulation
      3. Sex Offenders and Pornography
      4. Conclusions from Correlational Evidence
   3. Experimental and Clinical Evidence
      1. Arousal
      2. Effects on Attitudes Toward Rape- "Disinhibition"
      3. Overall Evidence for "Causation"
   4. Evidence Against Causation
3. Conclusion
4. Notes

Evidence Against Causation

Studies of both arousal and attitudinal effects of viewing nonviolent materials thus provide several suggestive "causal" links between such viewing and sexual violence. What is the evidence against such a connection? If substantial enough, such data might preclude forming any opinion about the plausibility of the causal link suggested by the correlational data, in combination with indirect experimental and clinical data.

Unfortunately evidence which contraindicates the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between nonviolent materials and sexual violence is slim. Short-term exposure of normal subjects to "mild erotica" has been shown to have negligible (and in some cases positive) effects on aggressive responses toward women in the laboratory.^[62] As discussed above, results of short-term exposure to highly arousing material have been to the contrary, with enhancement of aggression occurring in cases with "prior anger."^[63] Long-term exposure, however, which seems the condition most likely to resemble actual behavior, seems clearly to disinhibit subjects regarding sexual violence. And of course, the reaction of paraphiliacs even to brief exposure to "mild erotica" is far from clearly negligible; if anything, the studies point toward some use of such material by sex offenders to initiate and maintain the deviant fantasies which help push them toward more offending behavior.^[64]

Nor is there substantial evidence showing beneficial effects of "standard" nonviolent pornography. It is crucial to note that when asked whether exposure to pornographic materials can ever reduce commission of sex crimes by paraphiliacs over the long term, Dr. Abel responded with a flat denia1.^[65] The Fraser Committee found, on a more general level, "there is no research documenting the beneficial effects of pornography," a proposition that is somewhat misleading but generally true. In sex therapy and sex education settings, research by Dr. Abel's and others suggest that such material may be useful, and the work of Professor Check, discussed above, indicates that materials which are overtly educational or therapeutic may be substantially "harmless" even when viewed outside a controlled environment. Studies for the 1970 Commission found that some sexual materials helped ease sexual tension and promote "liberal" attitudes toward sexuality-a result that may be seen as "beneficial" according to one's basic assumptions regarding sexual morality. Yet with regard to strongly arousing, nonviolent materials, both Dr. Abel's judgment concerning sex offenders and the Fraser Committee's findings about the general population seem well founded.

Statement of Father Bruce Ritter