Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LET’S PUT ASIDE for a moment the political motivation behind the UK government’s plans to limit access to online pornography.
Let’s take it that Cameron’s ambitious new opt-in plan doesn’t sound like such a bad idea… in theory.
Pornography is, after all, made for and marketed to adults, and with non-obligatory filters set as defaults until customers direct their ISPs to remove them, youngsters should be unable to access the inappropriate material the British PM says has a “corroding” influence on childhood. Perhaps such a scheme could be rolled out here, too.
In practice, however, the plan is more than problematic. First of all, it potentially creates a censorship precedent to apply to any morally questionable material on that last bastion of human knowledge (and stupidity): the internet. Default blocking of legal adult sites which can already be filtered out through child-safe functions and active parental supervision may seem an overblown response. Cynics may ask if this reeks more of political showboating than real concern for British society.
Pornography is not something that springs forth from a cultural vacuum
Cameron’s scheme centres on the belief that filtering pornographic material will protect kids from early sexualisation, from developing unhealthy sexual attitudes, and from predatory adults. The problem with this rationale is that access to pornography isn’t the sole reason any of these issues come into effect; pornography is not something that springs forth from a cultural vacuum.
Every denizen of the internet will have heard of (and possibly tested) Rule 34, which states: “if it exists, there is porn of it”. The implication is that the internet has provided a kind of deviant’s playground, where if you wish to read erotic fiction about My Little Pony or watch a video about alien insectoids mating with the cast of The Apprentice, some enterprising scamp out there has made it possible.
Unfortunately, there’s a Rule 34 of pornography studies too. Whatever stance you wish to take on the issue, you’ll find someone out there has put together the statistics to reinforce your opinion. There is a dearth of conclusive studies on the relationship between pornography and sexual identity, with many of the links drawn being correlative rather than causal.
While many researchers agree that exposure to rape pornography (which Cameron proposes to ban as a second prong of the same scheme) normalises sexual crime, there is little evidence to suggest that society’s complicity in rape culture has directly created more rapists. Likewise, pornographic entertainment made for adults makes inappropriate viewing for young teens and children, but there’s no concrete evidence to suggest it is as massively detrimental to their sexual development as is commonly thought.
Little influence on teenage sexuality
Two recent surveys of teen attitudes towards sex and pornography – one in Sweden for the Journal of Sex Research – suggest that pornography has little influence on teenage sexuality. In fact, the former suggested that teenage viewers of pornography were quite able to differentiate between “real” sex and the fantasy scenarios acted out in sexual entertainment, concluding that while porn “functioned as a frame of reference”, most of the participants were able to deal with it “in a sensible and reflective manner”.
While Cameron attacks explicit material that exists on dedicated adult sites, the Daily Mail (which spearheaded the campaign to block online pornography) continues to revel in its infamous “sidebar of shame”. The Sun stands proud against public pressure to retire the fleshy dinosaur that is its Page 3. For his catchy single ‘Blurred Lines’, Robin Thicke released a eponymously-appropriate video in which the male stars stand around in sharp suits while topless women dance around them.
Smut created for the express purpose of being smutty is condemned while smut created to sell us stuff and uphold the sexual status quo gets a free pass. Giving a little more credence to the former and a little less to the latter would be far less “corrosive” to childhood than sweeping pornography under the carpet whilst wholeheartedly assimilating its fantastical principles into reality.
In short, pornography has its place, but only in a society which treats human sexuality with respect, rather than as a clever way to sell body-shaping sneakers. Parents worry that teenage boys who view porn are likely to view their female counterparts as passive objects, thus becoming less attuned to issues of consent, intimacy, or respect. They worry that their teenage girls, led by their own contact with porn or by boyfriends who’ve seen too much of it, will develop problems with body image and self-esteem.
No amount of prohibition will prevent young people from seeking out the taboo
These concerns are entirely valid – hugely valid – but in the meantime, women’s magazines continue to tell their readers that they’re fat sows in need of shopping holidays, and “lad culture” appropriates titillation as if men have a monopoly on desire, visual stimulation and sexual expression.
There’s no doubt that there has been a kind of pornification of teenage sexuality, but we can’t just blame porn, congratulate ourselves and expect inequality to right itself. Girls need to be taught assertive ways to explore their sexuality. Boys need to be taught that it is possible to enjoy intimacy without dominance. Both genders need to be reassured that they are not expected to imitate what they see in porn, and that pressuring partners to engage in acts they’re uncomfortable with is unacceptable. It is entirely possible to achieve that whilst recognising that porn exists and will continue to exist and that no amount of stern prohibition will prevent curious young people from seeking out the taboo and trying to make sense of it.
Rather, the holistic treatment for the issues that Cameron’s ban seeks to remedy is to provide real sex-positive education so that young people know sex is healthy, and in turn learn healthy ways to express themselves.
Human sexuality is hugely complex, not least because it’s suffered from generations of repression. It would be an odd move to advocate free teen access to pornography – what’s made for adult appetites and experience is rarely suitable for children – but making a great taboo of the stuff without the justification of real, positive effects smacks of counterproductivity and action-for-action’s-sake. We can only hope that if a similar measure is proposed here in Ireland, our elected representatives will put a little bit more thought into it.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Introducing a ban/opt in system for pornography while continuing to expose, often quite young, teenagers to the drink-fuelled sexual exploits of reality TV shows such as Geordie Shore is completely baffling to me. Given that teenagers actively seek out the taboo, a porn ban might actually serve to increase their drive to seek out porn. It’s not porn which is sexualising teenagers, it’s the loosening of advertising and broadcasting standards in a time when TV and the internet have largely replaced the babysitter. This is coupled with sex education which is provided in Catholic ethos schools and provides logistical rather than holistic education. Leave porn alone and get back to education and parenting instead!
@ jenga
I agree if you step back and take a real look at the ( idiot box ) sex and sexual innuendo are used to sell everything from ice pops to mop heads
There is a science behind it there hitting you on a subconscious level there associating what they want to sell with something we all like sex
Now if that’s not exploiting people including young teenagers with sex I don’t what is. At least with porn there honest about it
I like the way we’re carrying on like this when there’s not one piece of solid evidence that pornography corrupts the minds and bodies of young people. We have all just accepted the fact that because the church has been preaching shame over sex, sexuality and the human body that its an accepted truth.
I’m not for this idea but just pointing out that the reason there is no proof that porn corrupts teens / youths sexuality is because researchers couldn’t find enough cases where youths were not exposed to porn in some shape or form as a comparison with the average teen today. There is a TEDx talk about it on YouTube. However, I am very much for increased censorship of advertising standards, purely for preventing inequality displayed between genders.
That’s insanity, what kind of scientific method is that? Drawing conclusions from the fact that no comparative ‘uncorrupted’ teenagers can be found.
So, Marina, you just proved we have no evidence. Acting without evidence is an irrational behaviour. Legislating without evidence is simply pushing your own beliefs (Mr Cameron’s in this case) on the general population. Much like forcing Christianity on everyone, despite the fact that there is no evidence on its favour.
Insane indeed, as Andrew says
Pornography is fiction, nothing else. Sex-fiction. Do we ban fantasy literature because people might start believing it is real?
You make a good point… you don’t see kids throwing themselves off a rooftop with a broomstick because they’ve read Harry potter.
Pornography in and of itself is not a corrupting influence in my opinion. Every single male I know ( and quite a few females) watches porn on a regular basis and they do not feel the need to go out and act on what they see. I would be more concerned about how pop culture is becoming more and more pornographic. People like Lady Gaga, Beyoncé and Katy Perry have a lot more influence over young girls minds. An influence which is reinforced by the very media who bemoan the lack of morals in our young people.
Pornography has nothing to do with teenage sexualisation – just look at todays ‘pop’ culture we have a wealth of female artists who sing about random sexual encounters in their latest no 1 hit and dress and behave like 2 bit hookers! One of the most successful and idolised females on the planet right now, Kim Kardashian, became famous through a home porn movie and the last episode of The Kardashians I saw involved Kim and Khloe in a competition to see who had the sweetest smelling “vaj” and giving Kourtney a used tissue to sniff so she could be the judge!!! The random one night stands/trips to STD clinics in Sex & The City/Jersey/Geordie shore . . . Being provocative and promiscuous is glamorised in the media and is defended as ‘women being confident in their sexuality’. I have albums by the likes of Riahanna & Nikki Minaj the lyrics in some of the songs are pure porn – all these type of examples which are indicative of the way ‘pop’ culture has developed in the past ten years or so, yet its the likes of the age old Page 3, lads mags, or porn movies which are getting the blame for sexualising teens. In my opinion none of these are to blame, page 3 and lads mags covers are mild in comparison to some of the celeb mags/tv programmes/ music artists aimed at young women!
Thanks for the courage to write on this extremely complex topic. Once I hear government talk about censorship I worry. Of late one can see moves to curb and curtail web content, many music videos are now blocked in” your jurisdiction”. Eircom monitors all our downloads. Private bay is blocked by all irish service providers by court order. Are these the first moves by corporation and governments to try and control what we see, read and think? You can skip this advertisement in 5,4,3,2,1 seconds …
Found this article really interesting but you lost me on the last line I’m afraid. The thought of that crowd in Leinster House talking about complex issues of sexuality and actually putting some sensible thought into it is about as realistic as most of the scenarios depicted in pornography.
Except its interactive… We’re the ones who get screwed…
By the looks of it the UK law is already going to be used to block content besides pornography which the British Government judges to be questionable: http://watcherofthedawn.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/david-cameron-starts-his-own-inquisition-against-magic/
As I stated on this matter last week this whole thing is a ploy to ban anti establishment web sites
They tried this in austrailia
Interesting article. Its not that long ago in the UK that they acknowledged a significant issue with teenagers was not them downloading porn but taking intimate pictures of themselves and sending them on, of course there was then a very real risk these would end up on the internet to be downloaded by someone else.
A similar report found some teenagers believed oral sex wasn’t sex and was perfectly fine, I think this was both in the USA and the UK and illustrated pockets of STD’s.
I wonder if those teenagers/children with the best sexual education are better equipped to decide for themselves what is fictional and simulated with regard to pornography, a bit like the argument that watching/playing violent movies and video games will make you violent as opposed to if it does then you had a problem to begin with, it wasn’t the movie/game.
I just don’t understand why the filtering system can’t be opt-in, instead of vice versa.
All a parent has to do is call up the ISP and say “no sex please, we’ve got kids.”
Censorship of the internet is not there to be controlled by governments so bud the fuc* out.
By making everyone think of him when they hear “porn” Cameron has probably already stopped anyone using it.
It’s unfortunate that it’s the Tories and Cameron who are doing the running on this issue because it gives a whole slew of trendy, liberal right-on females (and it is always females) in their late 20s to early 30s a chance to get up on their soap box and distort the debate even further.
Take this: ”Parents worry that teenage boys who view porn are likely to view their female counterparts as passive objects, thus becoming less attuned to issues of consent, intimacy, or respect. They worry that their teenage girls, led by their own contact with porn or by boyfriends who’ve seen too much of it, will develop problems with body image and self-esteem.”
These concerns are not really valid because access to porn and pornification does not do that. Those ideas are already inherent (and thus inculcated in children) because they are dominant values throughout society as a whole.
What pornification does, in many ways, is the reverse of those ‘concerns’. So, for example, porn creates body issues and self esteem problems in young boys (the dominate type of male porn star is chiseled abs and unaturally large penis. Porn makes it appear he can stay going for ‘hours’ etc.) While ‘becoming less attuned to consent, intimacy and respect’ is more likely to be for women. The dominat patriachal values are still that women should be passive virgins. Of course, since the 60s there has been a feminist push back (a very good thing) that tried to liberalise attitudes to women and sex. It was only partially successful. Thus the conflicting message for young women is that they should like sex but not do it a lot (‘slut shaming’ etc.) Pornification then inserts itself in this conflict with the message that women are simply sperm receptacles. We don’t know how that will play out. However, my best guess, going on the fact that a generation of feminism has burned out in middle class trendy hippydom and emancipatory politics in general are frowned upon in ‘globalised west’, is that it’s not going to be good for women. I think we can already see some of that with rape culture in the US.
The first thing that needs to be implemented, before a ban on acces to internet porn ever has to be considered(it’s unhelpful and wrong imo), is a progressive sex education. The right on trendy liberal types need to take their head out of the sand on this issue. I imagine for them porn had a liberating effect on their pyscho-sexual development but they were largely operating pre-pornification. Things have changed with widepread access to broadband and handheld media devices. What that means needs to be analysed properly and trendy right-on liberals fighting their dirty conservative bogeymen are just fighting the last war. From a progressive emancipatory point of view that’s going to be a disaster.
Well said Lisa.
Watch Cindy Gallop’s Make Love not Porn on TED TV one woman’s quest to get the young men she dated out of watching bad porn and expecting her to act like that in the bedroom. She wants better porn out there! Ha.
There was also another TED talk about what happens to young men / teenagers who watch too much porn and by the time they become young men they immune to any sexualise imagery and they need more explicit porn to get any enjoyment which brings social and intimacy problems with women. It takes years to get over. On the radio a few months ago there was a boy in court for raping his friend after watching too much porn in the UK so please don’t think it doesn’t effect young boys or girls. Where are the parents of that boy may I ask? Anyway just google and you will sadly see more news stories like that.
I find women’s mags are really soft porn even the dearer ones, interviewing women on how great they are, how they love there bodies and ambitious in what ever they do etc, etc and then at the back the breast enlargement adverts go figure! I never buy them full s**t.
I agree with a lot of what has already been stated. The teenage years have become about rebellions, actively seeking taboos and discovering ones self (both sexually and personally). The years of adolescence are a time of lust, passion, hormones and sexual activity. Regardless of what conservatives (Cameron and the Daily Mail) think young people have sex, as well as the rest of the globe’s population and they enjoy it like everyone does! As long as both parties consent and there is no evidence of exploitation who cares? Moreover who are we to judge someone’s sexual life? Were we not all engaged in a saucey, passionate relationship in our teens at one stage?
If Mr. Camoron wishes to solve the sitution of young people being sexualised at a young age there are other areas he should look at rather than adult entertainment. Firstly he has not once adressed the sexual culture which t.v and the music industry have become. Children see more sexual exploits in the world of reality tv such as Geordie Shore etc. and in the music world with so called “role models” such as Katy Perry and Beyonce, who are more reveared for their bodies rather than their music. Secondly we have the world of advertising who often use sex to sell a product whether its a line of underwear or a pair of glasses. The main problem we see here is lazy parenting, there are things called child safety locks.
At the end of the day, no one is forced to watch porn. So stop being lazy and look after your child!
Rule 34 is not as bad as Rule 35′s potential
have your say