UK Politics
Criminalising extreme porn
Published 28 October 2008
Feminists are split over government plans to ban so-called extreme porn with some groups arguing censorship is not a real solution to the wider social problem of violence against women
A bid to prevent people viewing images of rape and sexual violence has split opinion among feminists with strong opposition being voiced within some sections of the women's movement.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw wants to make owning, downloading or viewing bestiality, necrophilia or severe sexual violence illegal as of next January via an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
The move has won the support of many women who believe it will help reduce gender violence. Dr Sasha Rakoff, director of lobby group Object, said: “We are not talking about fluffy Ann Summer's handcuffs here, we are talking about the depiction of rape, mutilation and abuse so graphic that it is impossible to tell whether or not it is real or simulated.
“The case against banning the possession of such material is deeply flawed and misleading.”
Many have argued against the proposals though; on 22 October a handful of protesters demonstrated outside parliament calling for the government to “ban crime, not sex”.
This opposition is deeply disturbing, Rakoff argues, in a society where one in three women experience male violence, and where sexual violence has become increasingly main streamed in the porn industry and wider society.
That abuse of women is unacceptable is not up for debate.
As Rakoff said: “The feminist point of view is a human rights point of view.” How best to tackle it involves on-going argument, however.
Laura Schwarz of Feminist Fightback said: "To focus on porn as the primary cause of violence against women is not only reductive and simplistic but politically dangerous. It prevents a more in depth analysis of the causes of sexual violence and ignores other forms of violence - police violence, state violence or the violence of the capitalist system."
Avedon Carol, of Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) goes further: “This legislation only has value in a police state because it does not do anything to prevent violence against women. It suppresses sexuality, which can only create more problems later."
The planned law changes have come about following the murder of Jane Longhurst in 2003 by Graham Coutts - a man who was addicted to violent porn sites.
Longhurst's mother, Liz, has argued easy access to extreme online images had tipped her daughter's killer over the edge.
However, there is little evidence to show there has been an increase in violence against women with the increase in availability of images depicting it, on the internet and elsewhere. This argument is repeated by those who feel the amendments are a token effort that avoid the root problem of violence against women.
Female porn director, Yoshki Greenberg, is a rarity. She is one of a small handful of women who stand behind the camera on the film set, rather than lie in front of it. Perhaps more surprisingly she makes (consensual) 'niche narrative' films, some of which may be affected by the new legislation that will ban pictures of slavery or captivity.
Despite the violent nature of some of her films she was vehemently against abuse of women, although she shared Object's opinion that 'porn as punishment' films are increasingly popular with the mainstream.
She said increased censorship won't help: “I obviously have no issue with the quest to reduce violence, I just don't think this will achieve it. To ban extreme porn is to ignore the issues of why people want to watch it in the first place- what it is that triggers violent behaviour in people”
Erotic photographer and ex-escort Karen, who won Sex Worker of the Year in 2004 for setting up an ethical escort agency, believes the move will have absolutely no effect on increasing women's safety, in the sex industry of otherwise, but is rather about increasing government control over our lives.
Straw rejects this. He has said the government's intention is to combat the circulation of extreme pornographic images, not to limit private sexual activity. Ministers point to the consultation paper which indicated men who were predisposed to aggression or sexual violence were more susceptible to the influence of extreme porn.
But FAC's Avedon Carol claimed: “It happens every time there is a real concern about violence against women, the government think they can soothe it by eliminating pictures of violence against women. It's not tackling the real issue.”
Of course the vast majority of women who experience violence and sexual abuse do so from someone they know.
Perhaps prioritising Rape Crisis centres, tackling domestic violence and ensuring effective prosecution would help far more than criminalising the small minority who enjoy extreme porn.
But then it would also cost a lot more money.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
