Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

Jacqui Smith, watching filth so we don’t have to

So what did we learn from the Porn Again documentary?

By Steven Baxter Published 04 March 2011 15:30

In the list of things I thought I'd never put in the same sentence, "Jacqui Smith" and "bukkake" feature quite high up.

But this was Porn Again on BBC Radio 5 Live, the former home secretary's radio documentary adventure into the world of porn, adult entertainment, or whatever you want to call it. She explained it was coming on the back of the much-publicised purchase of a couple of adult films by her husband – his name was mentioned twice, and you couldn't help wondering whether it was just to make him squirm a little bit more.

So we got to hear Jacqui's reaction to bukkake – "All she is, that woman, is a receptacle. Is this bukkake? I think it's horrible" – a chandelier made of penises and her first ever viewing of a porn film. "It's anal sex with a man with a very big penis . . . She doesn't look as if she's being forced to do anything she doesn't want to . . . there's not a lot of story . . ." says Jacqui, watching the filth so we don't have to.

It's quite odd to think of a middle-aged, married person never having seen pornography, or having experienced it; even odder still to think of a public representative or politician legislating on matters they haven't directly experienced. After all, Smith went out on the streets to see crime-fighting for herself while home secretary, so the curiosity is there, beyond a photo opportunity, surely.

As one interviewee points out, here's someone who legislated as home secretary without ever having seen adult entertainment; Jacqui's response is that she didn't try hard drugs but she had to legislate on that, too.

And I think the most telling thing about the whole documentary is how we see the narcotic-like association between porn and drugs in the mind of a lawmaker; the idea that a pleasure must be a problem, that there must be regulation as a solution; the justification for legislation and regulation based in part on the most extreme examples – violent or extreme pornography was mentioned, as well as addiction, based on one interviewee's claim that simply looking at porn will spark dopamine in the user's brain.

Does it really? I don't know, but this was a documentary very much about opinions, rather than evidence. Throughout, Jacqui was keen to present her idea that pornography had a deleterious effect on "users" (there's that drugs link again) without ever really getting to the bottom of why she felt that way – or why explicit adult entertainment was any more responsible for a distorted view of sex and relationships than, say, the kind of glossy magazines that everyone can buy in Smith's without having to be furtive about it.

I suppose the whole thing attempted to be frank, but there was still a giggly tone to it, that particularly British thing of being simultaneously scandalised and titillated. The idea of porn as partly a solo pursuit was alluded to, but not really explored. There wasn't much thought given to the "users" other than as consumers. Perhaps based on the programme's central conceit – that Smith really was investigating the industry based on her husband's dalliance – there wasn't much thought given to women enjoying pornography, for example; or sex outside the confines of a heterosexual partnership. That may have made for a more rounded discussion.

What did we learn? More than anything, we learned how lawmakers see pleasurable pursuits as being a problem that needs regulation. Typically authoritarian New Labour, you might conclude; except, right at the end, Smith asked the porn industry to "put your money where your mouth is" and to fund sex education and counselling – a polite plea to a multimillion-pound business that sounded rather "big society". Would that really work? I am not so sure.

As a "money shot" it was rather a damp squib.

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

56 comments

Fri, 2011-03-04 16:35 — sianushka (not verified)

As in, it's a problem if people are watching what could potentially be live rape as porn.

Incest porn, ATM, bukkake, all of these porn acts are based on degrading women. They have nothing to do with pleasure, ATM doesn't enhance a man's physical pleasure, it is jsut a way of humiliating women and denying them their desires and, quite literally, voices.

Why are the makers of these films so afraid of women's sexuality and women in general that they have to make 'entertainment' out of their humiliation?

Fri, 2011-03-04 16:39 — tamsinchan (not verified)

Alex Baldwin - second para, agree. I'm anti-objectification of anything that lives and breathes. Quite passionately so. Porn exists, its origins can be examined and understood, its ramifications can be enjoyed by some, tolerated by society, suffered by some and abused by others - I just know my life is improved by its absence. For the same reasons, I avoid synthetic, poisonous 'food', crap TV and boy bands. :) Anything and everything in our society is objectified, packaged, peddled and for sale. So wrong on so many levels, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin.

Fri, 2011-03-04 16:41 — jie4v7i14

Capri Anderson, from her Charlie Sheen, comment. I would as well,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXi_Vis9Xs

Sun, 2011-03-06 12:05 — tamsinchan (not verified)

@SteveMD Keith Underhill

Thank you for your measured responses. No doubt my information is out of date as I haven’t looked closely at either porn or violent sex crime for some years – primarily out of respect for my health. The reason I was drawn to study either in any detail is because both serial sex murder & the porn industry impacted my life when I was young.
When I was 19, I lived for a spell in a shithole of a motel in Hollywood. Bizarrely, I ended up spending some time with porn crowd. There was a 17 year old girl off the bus from Oklahoma who left a marked impression on me. She was all furtive smiles and cringing submission as she wandered around the motel in a corset and nothing else, eyes vacant. She was entirely biddable to the sexual demands of the (many) males hovering – on tap, you might say – at any time of day she was ‘asked for’. Seventeen years old and already pretty much soul-destroyed. Behind the smiles and reassurances - “It’s fun – I just want to make people happy”, the girl was completely lost. This was at the mainstream, more established end of the pornographic industry – in cohorts with Ron Jeremy, no less. She’s more likely to be the norm, rather than those hard and brutally ambitious females who rise to the top of the industry.

Facts and figures are relevant in the sexual crime arena and I may make an effort to update my knowledge of how these stand currently, but I don’t think I’ll put myself through it. Facts and figures, when looking at a kid from Oklahoma – reduced to a receptacle for male exploitation - mean nothing to me. Personal experience outweighs any cold analysis and resulting statistics. These are human beings we’re talking about here - I never, ever forget that. I follow my own instincts - each to their own. I don’t castigate those who use porn unless they should harm others. Interesting, though, how defensive users become when someone highlights pornography’s blatantly apparent dark and harmful underbelly.

A very simple question can be asked of (male) defenders and users of pornography - “Would you be happy for your girlfriend, wife, daughter, sister or mother to ‘act’ in porn films?” If your answer is yes, all power to you. Having said that, if your answer is yes, I’m very relieved I’m not your partner or your relative.
That’s me done.

Fri, 2011-03-04 16:41 — Lamb (not verified)

But are they jacking off? I think I might have just killed a horse. Where can I put the body?

Fri, 2011-03-04 16:44 — jie4v7i14

Photo of Charlie Sheen's Capri Anderson, oh yes, oh biuddy yes,
http://www.ittrend.co.kr/UserData1/IMG_20090710_capri_anderson_090710_1.jpg

Sat, 2011-03-05 14:51 — AllanB (not verified)

Tamsinchan: "If you look at perpetrators of sexual crime, you’ll find the overwhelming majority suffer from pornography addiction– especially at the more violent end of the ‘genre’."
I find that statement very hard to believe but would be interested if you could point to evidence to support it.

Fri, 2011-03-04 17:04 — charlesfrith

She shouldn't have been commenting on hard drugs either.

Fri, 2011-03-04 17:06 — Iden (not verified)

Jacqui Smith's career could serve as an interesting case study into the vast gulf between the expectations of older generations and the actual behaviour of younger generations.

To (most) people of her age group porn and drugs are taboo. To her it seems that enjoying porn or drugs is deviant behaviour, while to people my age (24) these things are considered pretty normal, even if they aren't socially-acceptable in a public space.

It may not even be an age thing. It is probably a 'delusional moral authority' vs 'real-world' thing.

The heavy-handed moral authoritarianism of the Gordon Brown era was the final nail in the coffin of my Labour party support. It could be seen in Smith, it could be seen in Alan Johnson's cowardly sacking of David Nutt and it was glaring when Gordon Brown said "the use of cannabis is unacceptable" like a fusty school-master tut-tutting over pupils swapping football stickers. No need for science, no need for open minded enquiry, because they made their minds up before they even started. Drugs are evil, porn is evil, we must ban the evil, regardless of how the real world behaves! Startlingly similar to the American Temperance League when they campaigned for prohibition - with similar outcomes.

My message to Jacqui: People watch porn. Get over it. People take drugs. Get over it. Oh wait, what you think doesn't matter anymore, 'cos you're out of power...I'd better talk to Ken Clarke instead.

Fri, 2011-03-04 17:13 — Lamb (not verified)

How can you measure health? The horse carcass is rotting faster than I could ever have imagined! There are bones sticking through!

Sat, 2011-03-05 15:37 — SteveMD

Science has long-since passed this argument of the effects of porn on the individual. Milton Diamond, Donnerstein and Melamuth, et al. all did excellent follow ups to their much publicised studies, which showed that the effects of porn on the brain and emotional reaction to porn was nothing special. Any activity that raises the body temperature and heart rate, such as jazzercise, playing video games, laughing out loud or riding a bike, cause a similar increase in emotional response. Further, all emotional responses, including kindness and generosity, where increased, not just the, cherry-picked, aggressive responses.

For sixty years, or more, many serious academics and motivated anti-porn campaigners have searched, very diligently, for the smoking gun of porn causing harm and yet no one has been able to find credible evidence of that. Isn't it time that we just grow up and accept that there is not likely to be any real harm in simply looking at people having it off, in whatever curious manner turns them on?

Sat, 2011-03-05 15:54 — SteveMD

Sianushka; "one thing that so often gets missed in discussions about porn is that when you watch free online porn, you have no way of knowing whether it is consensual or not."

This is where Jaqui Smith made her biggest mistake, instead of the irrational blanket ban on so-called "extreme porn", she could have accepted Liberty's proposal that would have encouraged BDSM sites to make it clear that all the activities are consensual and no one was harmed or their images would fakll under the ban.

For me the only worry about BDSM and humiliation sites are those that claim to be real, but are generally not. If they carry the U.S. 2257 tag at the bottom of the page then they must, by U.S. law, be able to prove the age, consent and well-being of all their performers.

As for the degradation of women. It is easy to take that view, but we know that 40% of the visitors to such sites are women, a higher proportion than visit "straight sex" sites. If it is made clear what is actually happening and what is being seen is role-playing, in effect sex games, then we can see the submissive is choosing to play, not being made to submit. In BDSM the real power is in the hands of the submissive not the dominant, it's the subs who have the ultimate control.

Fri, 2011-03-11 01:59 — Dennis Addey (not verified)

Manny Shinwell who was a labour party MP and I believe the longest serving MP ever (he died aged 101 in 1986) was asked about his views on this subject shortly after he retired, then in his 90s. He replied that he saw no problem. He cited the case of Lord Longford and Mary Whitehouse who in the 70s and onwards had both vehemently campaigned against all forms of pornography on the grounds that it would corrupt individuals and the population in general. He mused on the point that both (in particular Lord Longford, who had travelled many times to Scandinavia, Germany and Holland on "fact finding missions) had watched hundreds of hours of pornographic films and thousands of photographs to form the opinions that they now shared. He commented that even after all that neither of them appeared to have been corrupted. One rule for some and another rule for the others. Corruption it seems is like income tax. It is only for the "little people." My father taught me that the World is full of people who are far to willing to tell you what to do. Occasionaly we have to say no! I wonder if Jacqui Smith has been corrupted by her research? She certainly looks good hanging out outside that sex shop in the picture above. "Looking for business Jacqui?"

Sat, 2011-03-05 16:38 — tamsinchan (not verified)

@AllanB

In some studies, it's been shown that the availability of porn has actually led to a decrease in sexual crime - provides an outlet for frustration, I guess. However, I'm not talking about overall increase/decrease of sex crimes - I'm talking about the individuals who actually commit the crimes. Majority of info I've read/seen (via forensic psychologists, law enforcement agencies, data compiled from interviews with serial killers/paedophiles) shows the great majority indulge heavily in pornographic material. I would have thought this would be patently obvious without having to investigate. Urges/fantasies need to be fed, developed, fuelled and then - in respect to sex offenders - they are acted on. If you google, you'll find a lot of stuff is available.

Fri, 2011-03-11 03:32 — HippyGoth (not verified)

I wonder how many politicians say how outraged they are by pornography while secretly paying a hooker to slam their junk in their desk draws on a weekly basis...

Fri, 2011-03-04 18:49 — morosychristios (not verified)

Jackie Smith performing with 5 live; no 5 dead ones then! Suprised the BBC could afford this.

Sat, 2011-03-05 16:52 — moralpanix (not verified)

@tamsinchan
>Majority of info I've read/seen (via forensic psychologists, law enforcement agencies, data compiled from interviews with serial killers/paedophiles) shows the great majority indulge heavily in pornographic material.

Really? REALLY?

I've been looking at reports on the people convicted of violent sex crimes. None have been found with violent porn since 2004.

Why, of those convicted of owning violent porn, none have been sex offenders?

The Rapid Evidence Assessment commissioned from three anti-porn researchers by the Home Office to bolster their arguments signally failed to find any such thing.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

Sat, 2011-03-05 17:28 — tamsinchan (not verified)

@moralpanix
Bit defensive there. Again - I'm not discussing whether porn users commit violent crimes - I believe 99% don't - I'm discussing those who DO commit violent crimes. The attached links to key findings in US studies from 70s/80s - if I had more time, I might bother to hunt further. Whether US/UK or which decade we're in is irrelevant. Do you think the massive increase in both proliferation & extremity of pornographic material over past 20 odd years will have had a positive impact on this state of affairs?

http://goo.gl/IGKFt

Sun, 2011-12-04 18:26 — RidgleyStanford

Typically, the police will interview family, friends and work colleagues about your alleged sex crimes, so even without a conviction you may loose your job and some friends. When charges are brought in sex cases it is par for the course that men be separated from their families, until the trial is over; this could be upto two years. http://www.carinsurancehq.net/

Thu, 2011-03-17 02:40 — Denise (not verified)

Dear deluded Jaqui oversaw the extenson of he state into all our homes at the cost of our hard-won freedoms so she has to justify that now. My annoyance is that this blanket revulsion means there is no way to separate abusive flms from consensual films. We're still so stuck in the dark ages when it comes to porn that there is no space to debate what is good porn versus what is bad porn and how to ensure that we have access to more of the better, more varied, more relistic and less damaging kinds of porn. I went to a fascinating talk by Kitty Stryker the other day about why we should all be making porn about the kind of sex we like. That way we would not feel pressured because we don't live up to the uniform imagery we get sold by the porn industry.
I also know that while female porn directors volunteered to take part in the show they were deemed irrelevant for Jacqui's film. Seems she is - as she and so many have always been - is happy to dismiss the experiences of women when they don't fit into the mould of feckless victims. Plus ca change.

Thu, 2011-03-10 05:59 — Mr Woogy (not verified)

I would give her one as long as hubby did not film it!

Fri, 2011-03-04 19:56 — Nikki (not verified)

Agree with Iden 100%. That could be because I am 23 and we all know my age group have no morals ;D

Porn is great. End of. If you don't like it errr... don't watch it?

Sun, 2011-03-06 15:06 — SteveMD

Tamsinchan, your views are held by very many others and, I agree, we must not forget that victims are people. From that point of view, I would ask; what about those whose lives are ruined by prosecution of sex crimes, even when the prosecution cannot show any evidence of harm?

Under laws brought in by Jacqui Smith, you can be found guilty, not only when the prosecution cannot show evidence of harm, but the laws are worded in such a way as to not allow you to even prove your innocence, which in many cases is very possible.

Yes, help victims, but unjust laws do not help anyone.

Sat, 2011-03-05 18:47 — moralpanix (not verified)

I'm the person who posted as moralpanix. Only about one in five of my attempts to reply is getting through. I draw no conclusions about why but would like to explain, if this one gets through, why I'm not addressing your comment. I'll keep trying....

Fri, 2011-03-04 20:34 — jie4v7i14

Porn keeps my prostrate healthy, ahem!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVBaChw_5PY

What goes on with your ovaries is not my concern, ahem!

Fri, 2011-03-04 20:48 — jie4v7i14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/default.stm

Sun, 2011-03-06 17:43 — andyg (not verified)

It would appear that much work is still required by those who are keen to point the finger. It may help the industry if it lost the underworld sleaze tag. Like drugs, once the end user has become accoustomed they take the next step. There must be a point where the performer says no. Protection for the performers rights seems to be the answer for me.

Sun, 2011-03-06 17:48 — andyg (not verified)

accustomed oops

Mon, 2011-03-07 13:39 — Corcaighrebel

Would have been well advised to have left this topic vanish.

Fri, 2011-03-04 23:49 — jie4v7i14

Nurse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIofSxwkkQE

Fri, 2011-03-04 23:51 — quoyote

@ sianushka
If it was truly live rape then the most of us would have no access to it. Such shows are very strictly controlled as per viewer access and cost a fortune. It is not something that the average web user would have access to or could stumble across.

Wed, 2011-03-09 13:07 — mdwh

tamsinchan: Why do you think that consensual "violent" imagery (or what the Government calls "extreme" in Section 63) is more likely to be addictive, than say hardcore porn? Do you think that people who practise BDSM are more likely to be addicts, than anyone else? Where is your evidence for this claim?

The problem here is, as the Labour Government did, conflating "extreme" as in "greater amount or effect", with "extreme" as in "alternative, different or deviate". These are not the same things.

As for Smith - I've got to laugh at the idea that those people affected by the "extreme" porn law are multi-millionaires. Mainstream porn may be big business, but Labour's laws criminalised individuals and non-mainstream material.

Sat, 2011-03-05 22:24 — everymaninbritain (not verified)

both tamsin-chan's pretty asian face and jaqui spliff's huge cleavage are highly wankable, that's for sure

the trouble is, when middle class women launch into "porn", they miss the point entirely lumping it all in together

i downloaded some fantastic videos yesterday of some curvy, kind of uk size 16 shaped women in their 30s, making love on camera, and seemingly having a great time

it boight me a lot of happiness and pleasure to see such lovely women

i adore women!

i am white, middle class etc., look i'm even here reading the new statesman, concerned about right wing nastiness destabilising the world!!

will i become the next ted bundy for viewing and enjoying some videos of lovely ladies on the internet? i don't think so lol

you can't lump us all in together with that aggressive, soulless, fake body bulshit some sections of the industry pump out - guys like me hate that as much as you (feminists) probably do

but if hetrosexual men can't enjoy the sight of naked women anymore, well what can we do? it's not easy at all for some of us to 'pull' real women, so these videos can be a solution for the constant lust and desire...

Sat, 2011-03-05 22:31 — isawanker (not verified)

...possibly not middle-class enough to spell and press the caps lock button etc., but hey :)

Sat, 2011-03-05 01:00 — Keith Underhill (not verified)

In the same way that some people's sexual orientation is gay some people's sexual orientation is to pain and humiliation.

Your sexual orientation is not some thing you choose. In the same way that being gay was illegal before 1969 the last government is attempting to put people who are bdsm orientated in the same position.

Rge BDSM community pleaded with the government to make some attempt to recognise that if practiced with informed consent the state had no businness interfering with what people watch or do.

It is galling to think that someone with such power legislates on matters like these with such lack of concern for the victims.

This ignornt selfish woman desrved to be kicked out of parliament and I don't know why the BBC wasted its money on her!

Sun, 2011-03-06 19:57 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Whew! Not a mention, in-so-far as I could read, of STD. Maybe virtual porn IS the answer. That's what the old guys with the big ceegars and the large corporations tell us.
Comics and films allowed the illiterate to copy-cat the crime shown in the 'funnies' and on the cinema screen. Television and the internet-connected computer same deal.
Telephones were boosted financially by the 'call girl' trade. Even today telecons between suckers and alleged sweeties cost a pretty penny. And mobiles - a gold mine! The movies and video and dvd subsidised the more formal use of cinema, television and computer channels.
Also surprised at the very limited number of women contributing to this debate. Actually, I'm not that surprised. Has it anything to do with childbirth being restricted to the opposite sex? Would make a lot of people think!

Virtual Reality

Mon, 2011-03-07 18:22 — Alun (not verified)

How can the consensual viewing of consenting adults doing what created all of us be wrong? After all, we've all got bodies. The only thing that is wrong is if violence or lack of consent is involved, but then it's the enforced underground nature of the whole scene that encourages this. I would come down very hard on violence and exploitation and stricly enforce health & safety and employment rights in order to make the scene softer, healthier and more female-friendly.

Wed, 2011-08-17 14:46 — SeekingClarity

"gangsta"

Wed, 2011-08-17 14:46 — SeekingClarity

gangsta

Sat, 2011-03-05 02:56 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Sending her CV to the BBC really worked after the 2010 General Election!

Jackie Smith, on 'This Week' is bad enough! Bring back Diana Abbotts MP!!! Or get Gloria De Piero MP on 'This Week'!!!

Wed, 2011-08-17 14:55 — SeekingClarity

test

Sat, 2011-03-12 17:12 — Paul (not verified)

All these people who lecture us on sex drugs and rock and roll and they have never tried any of them!!!

Sun, 2011-03-06 22:31 — Susan Allan (not verified)

the legal system needs to put A CURTAIN up to say what is right and wrong or else it's SAUDI ARABIA FOR YOU. (medical expertise I think not!)

Sun, 2011-03-06 03:19 — Keith Underhill (not verified)

Tamsinchan
There is a difference between peer reviewed scientific evidence and websites with an agenda quoting (mostly) it seems from police officers.
It is also grossly out of date and it commits a standard error that non scientific people often use which attempts to imply a conclusion from trivial correlation.
For example from the massive sample of 36 serial murderers 83% used pornography. What is the rate amongst the male population as a whole? I would guess it would be more than 95% especially if they were single.

If there was a measurable negative effet of pornography you would expect a massive increase in sex crimes when the internet became available in various states and countries no such correlation exists.

Beware of opinion dressed up as fact!

Sun, 2011-03-06 04:23 — SteveMD

Tamsinchan, I'm afraid the page you linked to is a carefully constructed piece of propaganda. Several of the research results are taken out of context, and at least three of the researchers mentioned are known anti-pornography campaigners.

The studies of Cline and Dillman have been shown to be unscientific and Malamuth has since revisited his studies, but the results of that are avoided by propagandists, you can guess why. much of the rest does not actually answer the questions they are attached too.

There are many studies showing that as access to hardcore pornography rises then the incidence of sexual assaults falls. I would never claim that this is proof that porn is good for the safety of women. That is why studies, like those you link, to are not used as evidence in public debate, but as propaganda by lobby groups to boost support.

Not one researcher in over sixty years of diligent searching, has found any credible evidence that viewing porn, of any kind, causes the viewer to be more likely to go on and commit a sexual assault.

If they had we would all be familiar with the research, given the strength of feeling of some anti-porn campaigners.

Sat, 2011-03-19 04:44 — south pacific

@ Ehthem

"porn keeps my prostrate healthy.."

No I know why I got prostate cancer. I didn't watch porn.

It's a bit late for me to know, the prostate has been cut out.

Maybe you should tell others about this miraculous prevention method.

Sun, 2011-03-06 07:54 — fredtheshred (not verified)

Mmmmmm I think Jacqui is hot -lol

Sun, 2011-03-06 08:38 — fredtheshred (not verified)

This is just another example of a washed up hack of an MP trying to make a few quid on the back of her salacious husband.

A person of such moral probity as Jacqui (I only flipped £116k along with me flat screen TV and scatter cushions - all the better to have a relaxing 'adult' night in with) Smith should steer clear of such heady stuff.

No doubt she will be on 'I am a Sleezeball get me out of Pornland' next looking for more lucre.

I would have thought the real concern and serious discussion is the all pervasiveness of pornography facilitated through technologies of recording equipment and the Internet and the seepage of its many visual tropes into common culture and in particularits influence on the socialisation of children and young people.

It seems to me that a significant number of children and young people show disturbing attitudes and behaviour of the sexually abusive/aggressive mores of a Patriarchal society as epitomised either in fantasy or for real in pornography. We have come a long way from the days of de Sade and the Enlightenment when much of pornography was a subversive critique of Catholic Hegemony and the Priesthood.

We are now in the age of the consumer,the atomised individual lost within the solipsistic world of the 'money shot'.