Always a dodgy one, men writing in defence of women. Too often, the women feel patronised and the men feel only scorn. To be frank, a bloke shaking his head indignantly at pornography either comes across as a eunuch or a hypocrite… and almost certainly under the thumb. Well I’m not the first, I am the second and I’m probably the latter…But, for what it’s worth, in all honesty, I feel strongly on the subject. As a teacher? As a husband? As a Christian? I'm not sure; either way I just worry we’re damaging ourselves significantly, particularly our young, by this obsessive, all-pervading sexualisation of society – by our unchecked mutual obsession with (usually airbrushed) female nudity.
So why am I a hypocrite? Well I’ve seen my fair share of what Peter Kay calls a 'bit of blue' (although not for a long while now, I hasten to add), and I’m plenty tempted to see more. But right there is the first thing wrong – too much and too ready access to that which is bad for us. Men have always been suckers for cheap titillation, but there’s never been so much of it. Few would previously have gone out of their way to seek out that which wasn’t readily available (bear in mind, much of today's online adult material would have been recently illegal in the UK) – it would have taken a fairly determined effort, accompanied by the risk of damage to career or reputation. Now it’s just a click of a button or a 10-second Bluetooth transfer, it’s as depraved as the mind can conjure, and it’s addictive. The bottom shelf of WH Smith is more explicit than the top shelf cover material 20 years ago – so is the latest advert for Walkers’ Crisps, for goodness sake! And it IS bad for us; a constant point of comparison and competition for our wives and girlfriends – those who should be our queens, our ultimate… not our compromise with reality. And, as for the participants? Well everyone seems to be playing the denial game – pretending their viewing doesn’t endorse sex-trafficking, abuse, drug-dependence, organised crime. Pretending these ever willing girls aren’t someone’s daughter, sister or mother.
But back to the young. It’s the lads I teach I feel most worried for. Attending a boys’ school, half of them have barely talked to a girl until a fairly late stage! And yet their computers and phones are heavy-laden with filth; this is their view, their expectation, of sex and femininity. They’re far more familiar, as voyeurs, with bedroom gymnastics than they are with conversation or commitment. The reality is likely to disappoint! And what of the girls? Well, the damage is certainly being done. They know what’s going on and what boys increasingly expect. The increasing sexualisation of teen girls – their dress, dieting, language and behaviour, is there for all to see. Increasing instances of rape, eating disorders, teen pregnancies and STDs are merely the tangible evidence of the pressures faced. Who is honestly surprised by the recent controversy over provocative underwear marketed at pre-teens in Tesco or BHS? Any teacher can tell you of the increasing number of girls giving their career ambition as the desire to ‘glamour’ model or marry a footballer. This is our enlightened post-feminist liberal reality; women are most visible in the public realm as eye candy, placed to prompt male gratification or female self-improvement.
In this internet age, I’m not sure there’s a way back. I don’t endorse state censorship – I don’t trust the state with it, for a start. Neither do I think that people are going to read this and take a vow. More likely you’re ready to invite me off my self-righteous high horse. However, all I’m suggesting, in the first instance, is that we at least acknowledge this state of affairs as not great. Plenty of my mates are now starting to have children; I may even get around to joining them one of these days! We must surely want something better than this for them?
Posts
The intellectual consensus seems to be with you. I have read a lot recently from both the left and the right - feminists in the Guardian and Peter Hitchens in the Mail - lamenting the Zoo/Nuts/porn culture (which harks back the alliance between radical feminists and Mary Whitehouse back in the Sixties/Seventies, or whenever it was).
ReplyDeletePS. Given the overwhelmingly negative impact of porn, why do you think censorship (or rather, increased censorship - we already have some accepted limits) should be out of bounds?
ReplyDeleteI think it's the nature of the internet that makes it untenable. It's very hard to police - as seen by the profusion of underage sites in existence. The resources and manpower required to meaningfully clamp down on online pornography would be completely prohibitive and I don't think there's a public will for such a move. The only way would be the state taking a Chinese-style grip of the internet, and, as I've said above, I wouldn't for a second trust them with such power.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative is for IPs to set conditions on their provision, but I'd imagine they'd want no part of it as alternatives would instantly spring up and eat their profits.
I have to object - I really don't have an argument for the darker sides of porn as Andy mentions in the post. Obviously as a normal person I'm against sex-trafficking, abuse, and organised crime. But what I'm not against is being able to see naked ladies whenever I want.
ReplyDeleteI have an amazing sex life, but still sometimes spend a bit of time watching porn. When I was single it would have been most depressing not having access to porn.
It shouldn't be about policing the internet or censoring everything that's fun but offensive to certain types of people. It's about educating people on what's right and wrong and giving them the power to choose whether or not to watch it. That belongs to parents, teachers etc.
so who decides 'what't right and wrong'?
ReplyDeleteis it right to treat human beings as objects for your personal satisfaction, for example?
I wouldn't say I was treating human beings as objects - It's like watching anything like a football match or film from which you receive an emotional response. Just because the type of response isn't PC in some peoples eyes makes it wrong?
ReplyDeleteI decide for myself what is right and wrong based on my upbringing, experience, and examples set by people I respect - as does everyone else.
It's perfectly natural to 'satisfy yourself' (that's the politest way of putting it) and I'll be damned if every time I want to do it I'd have to quickly doodle a picture of a nudey lady because there's no erotic material available!
Well, Andy, must say it's very refreshing to hear a bloke putting forward this point of view. While I can see both sides of the above conversation, I am totally in agreement with you about the worrying effect of the availability of porn on whole generations... there is a huge impact on society, from the perspective of guys, who, as you say, get a warped idea of what to expect from girls, and of course the effect on women on how how they feel valued, what they aspire to, etc. I honestly don't know the answer though, apart from having more open dialogue about the situation.
ReplyDeletein what way is using someone else's body as a means purely for your own pleasure NOT using them as an object?
ReplyDeletePS doesn't your subjective view of morality defeat itself by it's own subjectivity?
ps sorry andy about the typo grammar mistake!
ReplyDeleteOn the practicality of censorship, I recommend the Wikipedia article "internet censorship in the United Kingdom". It is already being done for child pornography.
ReplyDeleteNow to be controversial:
I think porn is so prevalent because people are too lazy to exercise self-control despite the clear negative consequences on their own characters/desires/attitudes, not to mention their relationships. We kid ourselves that porn is actually all right because it's hard to resist the temptation.
In line with that, as for Mike's comment that "it would have been depressing not having access to porn" when he was single, I think the better solution to that would be working out how to be happy without it! If a glutton can learn to live without grease...
It's not about some people dictating what is right and wrong. Andy outlines the negative consquences in detail in the post, and I think everyone would agree they are pretty serious. The question is whether the consequences of a porn culture are a necessary evil, or just an evil. And I think (from the experience of people I know, as well as intuition) that it is the latter.
(There is a clear parallel here with the arguments for vegetarianism. But I'll leave that one there...)
Just wanted to chime in to defend Mike - although not his arguments which, let's be honest mate, basically amount to 'I like naked ladies. Please don't take them away!' - as the only thing separating him from most blokes on this is his honesty. His shrugging attitude to the issue is that of society's everyman. I also appreciate that he's whipped up a bit of debate.
ReplyDeleteBUT I still take the view that this is something that shouldn't have been allowed to become the norm. Pornography was far more taboo just 15 years ago and I don't think it's doing anyone any good. There is a deeper issue - our American-led culture generally claims that if there's a willing market and it's profitable then it's fine. In that way, 'victims' of porn would be similar to sweat-shop workers sewing for Nike, or obese devotees of McDonalds. They are all serving corporate monsters cushioned from criticism by the existence of happy customers and profit margins. I would contend, as would many others, that this new moral basis is far from satisfactory...
Don't give in to defeatism! Porn has power because we let it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you say to the kids in your class about it?
The matter of censorship is interesting but not as problematic. I would say that the matter were discussing should be in the first instance about age verification. In the UK, we have an age verification system for films and will soon have one for computer games. We have special shops where DVDs that have received an r18 rating can be obtained (and they need a special licence to do so). They are not allowed to be sold by postal order. Why then should online be different. Any material that is online should be looked at and given a certificate by the BBFC or another body. I know they cannot do that for everything, especially user generated content, but there are other alternative as well. If material is sold or provided for free, then the website should have a proper age verification system in place which would prevent children and young teens accessing the content. Not just a tick box, put a proper system. Some pornographic websites do that by asking credit card details and but then don’t charging. This standard should be international and there is an increasing mood to seek to make the internet safer in such a way. That does not amount to censorship, but simply parallels what is going on off-line with the reality of online. The current incongruity should change. If somebody who operates a website that does not have such a system in place and is based outside the UK, and the owner or operators comes to the UK they should be arrested.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher Andy, you will be glad to hear that the UK Council on Child Internet Safety, which was created in response to the Byron Review on this subject, is encouraging curriculum to include education about being safe online. It’s also more comprehensive than just porn. Go check out what their plans are. Childnet international is also a good place to go for more information on this.
The strategy Byron laid out calls for parents and industry to work together to keep children safe. And for children and young people to work with parents to set appropriate boundaries and engage in mutual trust to ensure that children and teens develop their own sense of responsibility.
Promoting cooperation can be done in a number of ways. UKCCIS, along with BIS, will launching a kite mark, which sets the minimum standards for child protection software, which filters content inappropriate for specific age groups. I am currently working on an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, which would make it a requirement for ISPs and Mobile Phone Operators, to provide information prominently and clearly, and in an ongoing way, about how to protect children. This would complement the kite mark system.
Many MPOs are quire responsible. O2 for example has a filter on their system, which requires the client to ask for the filter to be taken off, rather than having to ask for it to be put on. However, not all ISPs and MOPs do provide such information in a prominent and ongoing way and that’s what our amendment seeks to do.
I have been talking mainly about protecting children and young people. But you are quite right to say that porn is also a matter for adults to take seriously. Phil pointed out that there is an increasing sense that pornography is exploitative and is exploitative in a very different and special way than say working on an oil rig.
For the naysayers and deniers, look at the STD rate, rates of depression and rates of drug and alcohol abuse by people in the industry. Martin Amis has a very good, though quite explicit article, called Rough Trade you can find on the Guardian website. I recommend it to those who think it might not hurt to read it, and certainly to porn users who take in a film or two once in a while.
There is also an ex-porn star who has become a Christian and provides a support network for people in the business and has put together stories and documentation on women and the industry. Her name is Shelley Lubben. I recommend her you tube video channel.
Andy I applaud your blog post. It’s men that need to hear this most.
I agree.
ReplyDelete