In case you missed the announcement, David Cameron (our ever-so-helpful Prime Minister in the UK) has declared a crack down on internet pornography. You can read an article about it here but if I were you I'd go to a reputable source that isn't The Daily Mail and go here instead. Basically, Cameron wants to outlaw 'psuedo-violent' pornography that promotes a rape culture. Well, that's good, right? Well...not exactly.
You see as a grown adult woman who chooses if and when I want to watch porn, what kind of porn I'd like to watch and who chooses the sexual fantasies I have and the sexual practices I do, it's a little scary. The big question here is what is pseudo-rape porn? To me and to most people it is anything that depicts violence or non-consent. Does this mean than BDSM - a perfectly healthy fantasy and one that many people practice among consenting adults daily - will be banned? Nobody truly knows right now but there may be ramifications for those who enjoy watching or looking at images of submission, rough sex, dirty talk that errs on the edge of violent, pain or domination; even if this is depicted by two consenting adults in their own home or in a studio.
As for the opt out policy that Cameron is suggesting, the mind truly boggles. I understand that children need to be protected from images of violent sex at a young age and some adults may not be interested or want to know about porn at all but the fact is, some do. To have an opt out policy when there are already filters in place to protect against X-rated content is a step too far. These people will have to click off manually and their information will then be stored. Where? Who knows? Maybe in David Cameron's big binder of colour coded perverts. While most of us turn a blind eye to the fact that we know our information and footprints online are stored and used as data - sometimes against us - when you manually have to click off it will make you think. The service provider will know that you watch porn because you clicked to opt out. This opens a whole new can of worms. Pychologically it could even be argued that if a release can't be found (ie. BDSM pornography) these people will have the intense urge to act on it. Not with rape for the majority, of course but it will be much more difficult to find like-minded people if you've never stepped foot into the mostly underground scene before since your fantasies have been entirely based in pixels.
I truly feel like this is the wrong move. Those with an affliction to sexual violence will gravitate towards these things whether it's illegal or not. The legalities of rape does not stop rapists. There were rapists before porn was readily available and there will be rapists afterwards. Making something illegal is nothing more than saving face - it will happen and it will happen underground.
So I believe that while violent sex and the intricacies of porn actors and actresses can be debated, this is a ridiculous nanny state move to do the job that filters already do but parents do not implement. My contract phone asks me for verification before I visit a website with adult content for God's sake and you have to be over 18 to own a contract phone. Parents need to supervise children on the internet, be more open about experimentation, safe sex, the choice to participate in what they feel comfortable with and the right to say no. These safety filters are in place in most new computers and there is free software readily available but if people can't get their thrills they will find a way around it, legally, illegally, online or offline.
Also, David Cameron, I do not like you dictating my viewing habits or my sexual preferences and practices. Restraint, dirty talk, spanking, hair pulling - they could all bewrapped up in a neat little package of violent sex with a pretty shiny bow on top and this scares me. It terrifies me that in a world where Rihanna can thrust her vulva at my TV a person cannot watch consenting adults practice rough sex for sexual gratification. To me, this smacks of the mentality that if someone looks at a kitten and sees cute and someone looks at a kitten and thinks of a lifeless, blood covered carcass it should be outlawed to prevent animal cruelty.
I feel like it's incredibly draconian. I get that we can opt out of the filters, so it's not forced upon us, but I am amazed that we are slowly moving towards more sexual freedom and yet our ability and desire to watch porn is being lumped in with "sexual deviants". It's like he's simply drawn a foregone conclusion that people who watch porn are paedophiles/perverts/sexual predators.
ReplyDeleteI agree, we should protect children from exploitation. I don't think children should have access to X-rated content. But this just doesn't seem like the right way to go about it, and it truly terrifies me that we're going to simply bundle up everything and chuck it in the same box.
I, too, hate being told what I can and can't like as a consenting adult. Appalling, truly.
I had an argument with a friend about this years ago! I understand the thought behind it but what respponsible adults choose to watch- and do- in their private lives does not make them a menace to society. Some people like being dominated, some like dominating and that is perfectly normal within a healthy, consensual relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhat next? Ban Ann Summers from selling handcuffs? Surely bondage and restraint fits under the "simulated rape" category quite nicely. Anyway, do they think that this will actually prevent rape? Do the government really think porn creates rapists? When will they realise that rape has nothing to do with sex?
It's absolutely ridiculous! "Hey, Mr Cameron, I like my partner to forcibly hold me down but, guess what, he's not a rapist!" Too much information?
I hate that they just don't GET that rape has nothing to do with sex. It's so frustrating how bull-headed they are.
DeleteI think it should be opt in rather than opt out, as a grown adult why should you have to opt out. If you don't want to ever look at porn that's fine, but opt in not to see it, rather than having other adults opt out of having it blocked. I do worry about what they are going to class as pseudo-rape, everyone has their own idea as to what is too far or too much, and if it's two consenting adults there might not always be a yes said, but consent is still there.
ReplyDeleteI would think that most parents put safety filters in place for their children on computers at home so that they can not easily stumble across porn with their own innocent searches on the internet. I would also expect that libraries and schools would block porn websites anywhere. I do agree that maybe there should be more security measures in place to stop children finding porn but not at the expense of adults.
Like you say it is the parents responsibility to introduce their children to sex in an appropriate manner and discuss it with them. Unfortunately it's a topic that some parents and adults shy away from, some of them don't like to discuss non monogamous non heterosexual relationships, so it shouldn't be too much of s surprise that they don't want to discuss sex with their children.
I also think it might make young people and adults believe that what they like is wrong, and make them feel bad about themselves.
x
This is such a tricky subject but I applaud this post Ella because it is such a difficult topic to debate.
ReplyDeleteA big part of me says 'if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem?', but I stop in my tracks at the thought of how the information they could compile on us and our tastes could be misused.
There must be an alternative way of combatting the sad fact that many young people learn about the enjoyment side of sex from ever more graphic and sadistic pornography that is very easily available. While fantasies are one thing, thinking rape and pain are interchangeable with sex is another. There is a line and some porn is so graphic it can be misinterpreted and confusing and this puts our young people in a vulnerable situation.
The debate about sex education in schools has gone on for years, and I truly believe that if they taught the emotional side of relationships and sex as well as the biological mechanics of making a baby, then we would have more rounded young people going into relationships.
Education in schools as well as good parenting could combat this issue in a heartbeat. Kids can see naked boobies on page three of a newspaper, in this day and age it's a natural progression to Google boobies and see what comes up - in order to filter the possible responses to this kind of search it's up to a parent to enforce this. I can't understand why any responsible parent wouldn't!
At the end of the day, we are seeing this from a well rounded and sexually educated point of view. But vulnerable young people have way easier access to very strong and confusing images nowadays. The point you make about Rihanna is very valid - why is her overly sexualised, drug taking behaviour splattered in magazines but the act of love making/sex between two consenting adults restricted?
There is not a one size fits all approach to this, in writing this comment I think I am even more torn and twisted than before. I just hope my children have a safe and loving environment to learn about these things, I don't think some children have that and maybe that's the main point.
Rebecca x
Interesting aside - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/uks-porn-purge-and-behavioral-economics.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said. They're hiding behind the 'think of the children' excuse. Any self respecting parent shouldn't rely on this, they should supervise their children online or have some online protection installed.
ReplyDeleteI really thought the UK was above this kind of censorship. Bad move, Cameron.
xx