Sex, Pornography and Censorship
Laurence Pay is an ex-employee of the Home Office
The plain unvarnished fact of the matter is that sex is an essential part of
the human condition. It is often referred to as the 'biological imperative'
that underpins species continuance - in that without sexual intercourse the
human race would simply become extinct.
Unlike some other mammals human females do not 'come into season' as it were
with the attendant strong change in pheromones and instinctive urge to mate
but rather have the potential to conceive at almost any time. Having said
that - it is true that many women may experience feelings that they will
describe as ‘broody’ although some of those feelings may well be not about
copulation but about the notion of actually having a child.
The human male on the other hand has, perhaps, more in common with most
males of other mammalian species. In order to achieve successful copulation
an erect penis is something of an essential along with friction leading to
pleasurable sensations leading ultimately to ejaculation of semen.
Now, one of the big problems when addressing the subject of sex
(particularly in the area of so called 'sex education') is the tendency to
focus upon reproduction and pass quickly over the notion of 'arousal' - in
part because arousal is such a varied and complex process dependent upon so
many factors that each persons arousal system is uniquely personal. It may
also be in part because the British people in general have a long history of
suppression when it comes to public scrutiny of emotions and feelings. It
is not that long ago that the 'stiff upper lip' was the measure of an
Englishman and, together with the Scots and Welshman, public displays of
interpersonal emotions were considered to be a sign of weakness in a male.
Such social attitudes led to a general level of social repression vis a vis
matter sexual - extending even to the exposure of certain body parts whether
in a sexual context or not.
It is against this repressive background that we, as rational people, must
consider the question of pornography and censorship as it applies to the
general population of adult individuals capable of giving their informed
consent to sexual activity.
Censorship, by its very nature, is prohibitive. Essentially it involves the
value system of one person or group being imposed upon another. When such
prohibition concerns itself with matters that relate to fundamental
biological human behaviour then the spectre of repression rears its head.
Repressive prohibition is notoriously ineffective in the long term -
particularly so when there is no clearly provable foundation for its
imposition. In behavioural terms straightforward repression can often
result in the manifestation of other aberrant behaviours thus creating more
problems than were 'solved'. Think of it like a pressure cooker saucepan
containing water - the lid is secured and sealed (repression) and heat is
applied (resentment), eventually the pressure builds up to a point where an
explosion occurs (anger and violence). This then beggars the question 'Is
there enough hard evidence to justify repression given the possible
consequences?'
If pornography is such a bad thing how has it survived for so long? It
certainly predates the establishment of the Christian faith. The etymology
of very word itself springs from the ancient Greek pornographos "(one)
writing of prostitutes." Originally used of classical art and writing,
application to modern examples began in the 1880s. The main modern meaning
"salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the
etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this
quality. Pornographer is the earliest form of the word, attested from 1850.
Pornocracy (1860) is "the dominating influence of harlots," used
specifically of the government of Rome during the first half of the 10th
century by Theodora and her daughters.
Pornography is extremely popular. That is not an opinion but a statement of
fact. One only has to look at the size of the Adult Industry worldwide for
the evidence. Why is this so? Why do so many people find pornographic
images interesting and voluntarily seek them out? Logic dictates that there
must be some positive 'reward' that users of pornography gain from viewing
such material because if an activity is unpleasant the experience tends to
be aversive and thus the individual will not seek to repeat the activity
voluntarily.
Let us apply Occam's Razor to the issue. Humans have within them the
'biological imperative' that underpins their sex drive and is hard-wired to
their arousal system. Evolution and the development of 'civilisation' has
severely curtailed the level of human olfactory awareness thus our arousal
systems have become far more dependent upon auditory, visual and tactile
cues - the pheromone triggers are still present but less important. As a
species survival trait human sexual organs are designed to respond to
arousal by either erection in the male or vaginal secretion in the female
and then to a certain level of friction by sending signals that stimulate
the pleasure centres of the brain. Arousal therefore equals pleasure.
So far, so good - but there is another factor that has influence upon the
individuals arousal system. I am referring to the greatest asset at
humankind's disposal - the imagination, the ability to conceptualise that
which might be. A place of creativity, inspiration, hopes, fears, and of
course fantasy. Without imagination we are nothing.
Now, if we pursue this line of thought we may consider the following:-
- If arousal equals pleasure, then arousal may be considered as an attractive
state.
- If pleasure equals happiness, and the maximisation of happiness is reputed
to promote psychological well being then arousal may be thought of as
beneficial.
- Sexual fantasy can be used to trigger arousal in the absence of an
appropriate sexual partner or to increase the degree of physical arousal to
a 'workable' level in situations where other factors may be inhibiting
'performance'.
By deduction then, sexual fantasy appears to be both attractive and
beneficial, one might even go so far as to say necessary in many situations.
Some people are truly self-contained when it comes to constructing personal
sexual fantasies. They have no need of external stimuli to set them on the
'pleasure path'. Unsurprisingly, such people are usually found to be highly
creative and with a high sex drive. Many others, probably the vast majority
in fact, occasionally find that a little external stimulus facilitates the
process. This then may be the niche into which pornography fits for many -
facilitating, enabling and promoting positive sexual experience.
It would be improper of me to leave the matter there - there must be
balance. Pornography has the capacity to be abused just as anything else in
this world. History shows us that no matter what mankind may devise mankind
may also twist to serve his or her own ends. Nuclear materials used in one
way may be a source of cheap and sustainable power. Applied correctly to
cancer sufferers it can aid in the saving of life yet in the hands of
politicians it has also been forged into a weapon of mass destruction.
The opponents of pornography make much play of the notion that perpetrators
of sexual offences use pornographic material. That may be so, but are their
crimes directly attributable to the use of pornography? There appears to be
no evidence to support the view that it has any causal affect.
What is seen during many criminal trials is the attempt at a mitigating
strategy whereby the defendant offers up a self confessed ‘addiction to
pornography’ as an inappropriate justification for abusive behaviour in the
hope of gaining sympathy from the sentencer. This is then taken up by the
media and promoted to the level of pseudo-fact by pro-censorship campaigners
who employ it in a 'pars pro toto' argument (a device whereby a small
unrepresentative example is used in an attempt to describe a much larger
issue) to further their own ends.
If one considers the sheer volume of pornography sold as a rough indicator
of the numbers of people who view it and compares that with the number of
sexual offenders one may be struck by the enormous disparity between the
figures. Even given the fact that the terms of such a comparison are in no
way precise the difference is so great that notions of causality are
rendered untenable. Essentially it comes down to the question 'If
pornography is freely available in large quantities and viewing pornography
leads to sex crime why are there not more sex crimes?'
Whilst I would not seek to challenge the suggestion that masturbation by a
potential perpetrator to his/her 'pornography of choice' can have a
disinhibiting effect upon upon him/her and may increase his/her potential
for offending, I would not discount the possibility of a reduction in
his/her immediate potential, post ejaculation/orgasm. Furthermore,
masturbation to pornography is not the only potential disinhibitor
available. Alcohol and certain types of prescription drugs are only two of
many, legally obtainable, disinhibitors that can impact on the individual
and, if that individual has a propensity to offend, such disinhibitors can
just as easily increase the potential for offending. To single out
pornography may be disingenuous, serve to confuse the underlying issues of
offending and speak to the existence of other agendas held by those who
support censorship.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that a number of notorious offenders,
The Yorkshire Ripper for one, have maintained that they were encouraged to
commit their crimes by Divine Inspiration. If we adopt the philosophy of
the pro censorship lobby then surely we must consider applying similar
censorship to religion. Ridiculous? Probably, but it behoves us to bear in
mind that all wedges have a thin end.
Another criticism of the adult pornography industry is that it abuses and
harms some of those concerned with the production of such material.
References are made to coercion of performers, exploitation of vulnerable
individuals, degradation and other abuses. There is evidence that, in some
cases, this is true but once again we see the application of the 'pars pro
toto' argument put forth to justify the imposition of censorship. It is
equally true that there are many producers who operate within an ethical
framework and performers who participate of their own free will. On the
face of it this seems to present a paradox, how can one aspect be abusive
whilst another is not?
Strangely enough it appears to be a censorship issue. Within an open and
liberated society there is scope for creating formal associations, unions
and collectives and the application of an agreed code of ethics that serve
to nurture and protect the rights and well being of the participants. The
concept of the ability to grant or withhold informed consent being a central
pillar.
Conversely, a society in which repressive censorship holds sway allows for
none of the foregoing, demanding blind compliance with the threat of
retribution for non-compliance - control based upon fear. If the censored
material is popular the demand will remain although the supply is officially
curtailed. When demand exceeds supply the price goes up. When the price of
a popular but prohibited commodity rises beyond a certain level it becomes
an attractive proposition for organised crime. Organised crime is
notoriously unethical in its practices and routinely employs coercion,
exploitation, degradation and other abuses to achieve its ends.
The irony is palpable. In a naive and simplistic way the imposition of
censorship is promoted as a means to protect. The reality of censorship in
the context of pornography is that it provides the very environment in which
abuses may be perpetrated without let or hindrance.
to the
main women's page
