Dr Meg Barker
Dr Meg Barker is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at London South Bank University.
I'm a psychologist who has taught and researched sexuality and gender for several years now, including presenting and publishing work on SM and pornography. As a sex therapist I also work with clients who use erotic fiction and images to learn about their sexuality and to enhance their sex lives.
I have several concerns about the proposal to ban violent pornography. Fundamentally I do not think that consensual sexual acts should be criminalised and I am concerned that such legislation would do so on the basis of very little evidence at all. The existing laws in the UK are sufficient to cover any actual illegal or damaging acts (such as abuse of animals, murder, rape, child abuse, and other sexual assault). Images of consensual, or fictitious, acts between adults should not be criminalised.
The current fears around the possible impact of 'violent pornography' on the internet seem very similar to previous 'moral panics' there have been from penny dreadfuls in Victorian times, to horror comics in the 1950s, to video nasties in the 1980s. Time and time again research has challenged the simple cause-effect relationship between exposure to such media and violent behaviour, but it is an easy scapegoat in a society which doesn't want to look at the more complex and insidious reasons for crime and violence (for example issues around poverty, class, and the kinds of gender roles that are valued).
Dennis Howitt, a psychologist who has informed the Home Office on such issues in the past, sets out all the available evidence regarding the impact of pornography in his book 'Crime, the Media and the Law'. Increase in violent sex crime is not clearly linked to increases in availability of violent pornography, either on-line or in other forms. In fact many areas of the world which have high levels of violent pornography have the lowest levels of sex crime and vice versa. There is also no evidence that sex
offender behaviour is a response to exposure to violent pornography. In fact, rapists first see pornography later on average than non-rapists.
From my own research with members of SM and gay communities, I have found that many people use Internet material for educational, as well as for sexual, purposes. It seems entirely possible that SM and other sexual practices would be considered 'serious violence in a sexual context' or 'serious sexual violence' under this proposal. This could mean that SM practitioners and members of other sexual minority groups would no longer be able to access material about how to practice safely, and this may actually increase the risk of physical damage.
There is also evidence that 'kinky' and SM activities are on the increase amongst heterosexual couples (with rates of over 30% of people fantasising about, and trying out, practices like bondage and spanking). Again, these people may be denied access, not only to sexual materials, but also to material which might be used for educational purposes in order to practice both safe SM and safe sex. High levels of anxiety amongst individuals in all these groups may well prevent them from accessing useful information because they would be concerned that they could face prosecution.
I'm concerned that such legislation could send out a sex-negative message which could increase the taboo around sex that already exists. Rather than trying to legislate against possession of 'violent pornographic' images, the government should focus on improving sex education and sending out a message of acceptance of the diversity of consensual sexual practices that are conducted in this country so that people will not have to feel so much shame and secrecy around sex.
back to the main experts page
Shooting the Messenger
The internet is a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.
The UK government is to legislate how best to imprison potentially many people for viewing content on the internet.
How should governments regulate the details of our personal lives and control individual expression ?
Preserve Individual Freedoms
Backlash campaigns to ensure the right remedies are applied to the right problems.
Whilst doing so we preserve hard won individual rights and liberties.
See no evil.
The government doesn't want you to view certain images. And will send you to prison if you possess them. Even in the privacy of your own home.