A Q&A with Dr Petra Boynton

Dr Petra Boynton is a sex and relationship psychologist who lectures at University College, London. She has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers and specialises in sex and relationships and evaluating research methodologies. Her PhD was for research into the effects of pornography. Her website is drpetra.co.uk

Do you think porn is woman hatred?

This was a very popular view (and still is to an extent) amongst some anti-porn groups. It presumes that porn is one thing, which isn't accurate. I think its easy to see that some aspects of porn are not always pro-women, but that doesn't mean that all porn is either a representation of woman-hatred or driven by a hatred of women.

Do you think the fact that some killers use pornography means we should ban porn?

I think that takes us down a dangerous road. Although there have been some tragic cases where porn has been claimed as a factor in violent crime, there are also an equally tragic number of cases where people have committed violent crimes or murders but have not used any porn at all. Rather than banning porn completely we need to talk about what drives different people to commit violent crime. If we decided to enforce a ban who would decide what kind of pornography drives crime - currently we can't even agree what pornography is, so it would be even harder to agree upon its effects.

Do you think banning some sorts of pornogrpahy will make women safer/ society better?

I think it's been suggested that if we ban some kinds of porn we'd reduce rape, but that assumes that rape is directly caused by certain kinds of porn, and that rape is mostly a stranger crime. We know that while people who commit sex crime may have used porn it doesn't mean it makes them act abusively, and in many countries where there's little or no access to porn the rates of rape and child abuse are very high. Addressing male sexual violence, sexual coercion, women's confidence and gender inequalities are all things that could help make women safer and should be considered rather than simply suggesting a ban on porn.

Or do you think there is a risk that by accepting the views of porn-hating women we could be endangering women's sexual health?

I think if we accept the idea that a. porn is one thing and b. it is all harmful it makes it very difficult for women who get aroused by porn. In the past anti-porn groups characterised such women as victims or having some form of false conciousness so they couldn't see how liking porn was bad for them. Sexual materials can be a source of pleasure, education and information. Sadly many women don't always get access to sex positive materials or items that can turn them on. There are moral and ethical problems where one group of women decide what another group of women are allowed to be entertained, aroused or educated by.

Do you think feminists who criticise pornography as objectification of women have a point?

I do think they have a point since they get us to think about issues around gender politics, women's health, and what's going on in porn. They are also often able to extend the debate to show how areas of mainstream media that we may overlook can also be negative towards women. I think problems and tensions arise where all sexual materials are seen as negative, and where everything becomes so sex-negative you can't talk about pleasure or arousal at all - or only in very limited ways.

Should all, any, or some pornography be banned? why?

I'm sure most people would be in agreement that pornography showing the sexual abuse of children or non-consensual abuse of adults is not okay. This is already illegal, although it doesn't stop it being available. I'd be happy to keep such areas illegal, as well as images featuring animals or abuse of dead bodies (which are also currently illegal). Outside of this area it becomes more complicated to judge, but if someone complains they were abused in the making of porn then that should be investigated and if necessary prosecuted.

Do you think women only say they like porn to please their partners?

No, women have stated they do enjoy a range of sexual materials. Frequently women are introduced to porn by a partner which can limit their range of enjoyment, but that doesn't mean they can't find other areas that arouse them. For many years there's been the argument that women don't really like porn and only say they do to please a partner, but this infantilises women and denies their views. Obviously if a woman is saying she likes porn to keep someone happy that's a sign there's a problem within their relationship, rather than a problem caused exclusively by porn.

Can porn provide positive models for women?

Some women have said that they learn a lot about sex from porn. That can include ways they'd like to appear sexually, things they'd like to try, and an idea of what doesn't turn them on. It can allow women an idea about how to express themselves sexually. There is the criticism that porn is becoming quite samey in what it offers - positions, activities and how people look when they're aroused. That can be limiting to women's (and men's) enjoyment. However porn can offer positive ideas about sex, you just have to decide what works for you.

Are there other ways in which pornography can benefit society?

The problem with using the term pornography is it is very loaded and seen as negative, which means nobody can see it being of benefit to society. I'd say that some forms of sexually explicit materials can be arousing, some can educate us about sex, some can give us ideas on how to improve our sex lives.

Do you think the liberalisation of access to pornography has had a positive effect for women?

I think we have to be careful not to overgeneralise on this point. For some women access to porn has been positive, but those women are often more likely to have independence, their own income, and greater confidence or a willingness to explore sex. Many women do not have these opportunties. That's not to say access to porn would give them these options, just that for many women access to porn is as limited as access to equality and access to a satisfying sex life.

Do you think there are any acts that it is dangerous for people to look at?

That assumes that if you look at something you'll be compelled to copy it, and evidence of this effect is very mixed. What is perhaps dangerous is that some people are aroused by non consensual and abusive activities and want to make porn or view porn of that nature. However, even within this area, as controversial and upsetting as it may be, we have to work on a case by case basis as not everyone who views abusive images automatically wants to copy what they see. We need a considered debate on what to do about such cases, but in the current climate this doesn't seem possible.

Do you think there are some pictures that are dangerous?

See my answer above

Have you any other comments about pornography?

I think we do need to have a balanced view. Porn isn't just one thing, and currently we get overly focused on the negative - with lots of public debate on porn addiction (which seems to have replaced the porn = rape views of the 80s). By taking this approach we miss that porn can have negative effects but these are more prevalent but less dramatic. Such as porn can misinform people about sex - but that's also because we don't have decent sex education to help us balance out what we're seeing. Mainstream porn is becoming increasingly samey which doesn't encourage sexual exploration and adventure. However it can be a means of pleasure, enjoyment and learning, and we should recognise there are many genres and many different outcomes for porn - not just the sensational and overly dramatic.

back to the main experts page