Boris outflanks Cameron on school sport

Mayor calls for return of two-hours-a-week target scrapped by the government.

Boris Johnson's call for all school pupils to do two hours of sport a day, following the news that the government has scrapped the relevant target, is yet another example of him using his platform as Mayor of London to make a national intervention.

Here's what he told a press conference earlier today:

The government totally understands people's appetite for this, they can see the benefits of sport and what it does for young people.

They understand very, very clearly the social and economic advantages.

I would like to see, frankly, the kind of regime I used to enjoy - compulsory two hours' sport every day.

I've no doubt that is the sort of thing that would be wonderful for kids across this country.

It is of profound importance for the happiness and success of this country that we have more sport in schools.

David Cameron has defended the decision to abolish the target on the grounds that "if you just simply sit there in Whitehall and set a target but don't actually do anything to help schools meet it, you are not really solving the problem". He added: "By just saying 'Look, I want you to do this many hours a week' some schools think 'Right, as I've hit that minimum requirement, I've ticked the box and I can give up."

Yet, as ever, Boris has not missed an opportunity to kick Cameron while he's down. As Mayor of London he enjoys the luxury of being able to comment on national affairs with little fear of consequences, while the PM is constrained by the coalition, his own MPs and the government's deficit reduction plan. If today's intervention is a sign of things to come, the next three years could be very uncomfortable for Cameron.

David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson cheer on athletes at the Olympic Games. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?