Home Feminism Reducing Male Violence Requires The Subsidisation Of Pornography

Reducing Male Violence Requires The Subsidisation Of Pornography

Author

Comments

It’s always amusing to see The Guardian running entirely against reality. As they are here with this piece demanding that everyone’s got to stop looking at porn in order to reduce male violence against women. That is, we’ve got to directly contradict reality. For the truth is that if you really wanted to reduce male violence against women then you’d subsidise pornography. Indeed, strap men down and force them to watch it a la Alex and his Beethoven fixation.

More broadly, we are all complicit in structures that dehumanise women. Recent research on men’s sexual aggression has argued that dehumanisation, and in particular the denial of women’s “human uniqueness”, can be a driving factor for men who commit sexual offences. Put simply, some don’t see women as people.

We have to stop producing and consuming representations of women as nothing more than a conduit for the actions of men. Stop watching pornography that sees women as endlessly replaceable; that describes women only by their skin colour or hair colour; that sexualises coercion and women’s non-consent. If you don’t watch it, stop just scrolling past it as though by ignoring it you’re not complicit. Demand this material is removed and stop using porn until it is.

The argument here has gone way past causation. It is about recognising that pornography has a social function: it helps authorise “what counts” as sexual practice and sexual pleasure, and shapes how we see ourselves and each other. Recent research from myself and colleagues at Durham University found that one in every eight titles on the front pages of the UK’s most popular porn websites described sexual acts that fit the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual violence. This is not a problem of niche sites or the dark web, something only found by “bad men” actively searching for this content. This is mainstream pornography on mainstream sites with the mainstream message that sexual violence is sexy.

This is to be entirely wrong. For the most obvious point that we can make is that the availability of pornography has hugely increased over recent decades. And sexual violence against women has decreased over this same time period.

Sure, we could say that’s just correlation, perhaps those Respect the Night marches (is that right? – Ed) have had an effect.

Except this has been explored, in detail:

In India, there has been uproar amongst the general public and from the media with respect to the alarming frequency of rape across the country. In the four decades leading up to 2012, reported rapeshave increased 900% (alarmingly, some activists claim that 90-99% go unreported). Additionally, in India it is currently legal to watch or possess pornographic material but the distribution, production or publication of such material is illegal. In Anthony D’Amato’s (2006) ‘Porn Up, Rape Down’ (published in the Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series at Northwestern Law School), the abstract reads:

The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

No, really:

Access to pornography has increased dramatically in recent years, yet social harms imputed to pornography (especially violence against women) have reduced moderately but significantly.
While some survey evidence claims a correlation between individual use of pornography and sexual aggression, econometric evidence suggests this is not a causal relationship and that, if anything, increased access to pornography can reduce measurable social harms.

The basic truth here being that when men pleasure themselves into immobility they don;t go out and attack women. So much so that the rational response to pornography is to subsidise it in order to reduce the incidence of sexual violence.

We may well not like that answer but then the universe really doesn’t care about our preferences in the slightest.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

11 COMMENTS

  1. My BS detector went bing right here “one in every eight titles on the front pages of the UK’s most popular porn websites described sexual acts that fit the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual violence”. I’m going with the assumption that this is a wee bit of a stretch.

  2. Does the same apply to paedos? Who can be punished for having artists’ or CGI images where there is no actual victim?

    NOT asking for a friend.

  3. Saw that vile piece of humanity Jacqui “ we believe (these young) girls …. have made an informed choice about their sexual behavior and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in” Smith, on Vine yesterday commenting on a proposed ban in Bristol of lap dancing clubs (shurely shome mishtake? There is no physical contact at the places – and if there is, I want my money back). She stated 97% of women have suffered ‘cat calls’, as if the banning of these clubs would reduce it. Did stopping page 3 or putting the ‘adult art’ magazines on the highest shelf reduce it?

  4. Once again, the test is the inclusion of the World Health Organization in the argument, which automatically means the argument fails.

  5. I’m not so sure…..

    “Like every serial killer already knew: eventually fantasizing just doesn’t do it for you anymore.”

    Dave Lizewski – “Kick-Ass”

  6. No indeed, watching porn does not lead to an increased level of sexual aggression. And it doesn’t make you go blind either!

  7. “Recent research from myself and colleagues at Durham University found that…” .. I can’t write and have trouble thinking deeply as well.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Big Meat Is The Next Enemy After Big Oil

We would, perhaps, hope for a little more logical ability among those who write the newspapers and news sites for us. Take this example...

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

If Women Working Causes Inflation Then Women Must Be Less Productive Workers Than Men

Over at Politico there is the assertion that one reason for past inflation was that women joined the workforce. If there are more people...

The Point Of Inventions Is To Be Able To Use Them, Not Sell Them

This is a common complaint about the British economy, that we can invent things but don;t then go on to make fortunes out of...

An Interesting Method Of Avoiding Tax Rises – Just Borrow

Those progressives over at American Prospect, it is possible to wonder whether they've quite got the basics of how the economy works at times. So,...

Recent comments