I was recently directed to a BBC News article covering a survey on the consumption of pornography in adults aged 18-24. The study showed an overwhelming prevalence in the use of internet pornography - something hardly surprising in the digital age.
The issue of pornography is a difficult one to discuss as it involves many different levels. A line can be drawn between two categories of arguments: problems in the production of pornography (i.e. the subjects of pornographic material) and the viewing of pornography (i.e. the viewer). I personally have no problem with people having sex on film, but the production and distribution should be (and are) controlled - at very least to some degree.
Pornography and erotica have existed (as far as I know) for hundreds of years. Japanese Shunga, the Kama Sutra and early erotic fiction have all been used to evoke erotic feelings in their viewers/readers. They have also been considered - at one point or another - graphic, lewd and improper; ultimately resulting in censorship. Modern attempts at censorship in the UK have been mostly unsuccessful. The Earl of Longford's famous campaign of the 1970s subjected him to much ridicule.
The dawning of the digital age has vastly increased the access to pornographic material - particularly free material. As covered in the aforementioned article, this has lead to a surge in viewership by young adults, both male and female. The survey suggested an association between high consumption of pornography and 'worry'. The link seems sound - at least in the sample group - but determining a causal relationship is challenging. It is equally reasonable, based on this evidence, to suggest that worrying about relationships causes people to use more pornography.
Nonetheless it is unlikely that any such study is able to determine causality of psychological harm as this is notoriously difficult to do. I would hypothesise that both have some impact in different individuals. It is also worth noting that any medium that can so strongly influence a critical component of human interaction (i.e. sex) comes with some danger. Accurately assessing this risk is near impossible and so raw opinion drives much of the debate over pornography.
My view is that creative sexual expression is an essential part of modern society. I believe the definition of pornography often includes the caveat of "no literary or artistic value", but I don't know if I can so clearly draw the line between art and non-art. As I discuss here I am not entirely sure most modern art has much 'artistic value'.
Nonetheless, normal sexual development should involve some form of exploration. Pornography and erotica provide a convenient medium for this, without carrying the risks (emotional or medical) of normal sexual interaction. However, much like any fantasy, the problem lies in adequately distinguishing between this fantasy and reality. The (often deliberate) misrepresentation of reality is a endemic problem in our society: unhealthy body shapes are flaunted on catwalks, violence is glorified in cinema and junk food is [was] advertised to children. Frankly, the list is endless. We are all bombarded with images and representations of lives and lifestyles that have the potential to cause us harm.
Understanding (and controlling) these elements is an overwhelming challenge and one subject to constant iteration through social change. With regards to pornography there seems a worrying trend in its use by younger audiences [1][2]. Children are naturally more susceptible to the detrimental effects of such material and yet internet pornography has no real way of determining how old its viewer is. With such overwhelming access, regulation becomes more important and yet more difficult.
This is particularly worrying as more extreme pornography is increasingly available. The representations/connotations of violence, submission and imbalance are of particular concern. This also creates an added risk for the performers in the industry - an issue covered less than I would like. Pornography carries many risks and, whilst far less than sex workers, it carries dangers of infection, financial insecurity, coercion, manipulation and even emotional/sexual abuse.
These issues are all important, but I would like to end with a call for better perspective as is often lost with such heavily-debated issues. It seems that pornography has become a lightning rod for discussions over free speech and sexual conformity. There are many areas in which various media have the potential to cause substantial sociological and psychological damage. It is my belief that harmony is best maintained by ensuring moderation in the consumption and the regulation of this material - perhaps an obvious but nonetheless important point.
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Friday, 22 April 2011
Friday, 18 June 2010
Prime Minister's Questions (16.06.10)
Well it seems I gave Cameron too much credit last time. I praised his ability to recognise successes from both parties. Methinks I spoke too soon.
This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.
There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.
It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.
This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.
There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.
It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Election 2010: Proportional Representation
From BBC News:
Blunkett's statement does illustrate the mentality of politicians. For them, this is a job and the connection between what they do and the democratic rights of the electorate must be intangable. It's no wonder that the public feel more disempowered than ever in a genertaion when we know far more about politics and politicians.
Even senior politicians don't seem to understand the frustration people feel when their vote is meaningless under an unfair system. The democratic ideal of each person having an equal voice is the most important thing to uphold. Surely the politicians should be forced into learning how to get along, instead of stripping the public of their democratic rights!
Just to nag at the Tories for a minute - they preach of a society in which each individual is responsible for the success of the whole and yet openly support a voting system that strips those same individuals of their ability to make choices on the most significant issues. It also conveniently allows them to keep a grip on their power. They constantly complain about the Nanny State and the over-reaching arms of Government and yet tell the voters they can't vote for who they want because a Tory majority is the only way to keep the country stable. It's just patronising and hypocritical.
ADDENDUM:
A little bit of number crunching and some generalisations here, but I'm fairly certain that much of this is somewhat reliable. Looking purely at vote-share the Conservatives got 36.1%, Lab 29% and Lib Dem 23%. Combining the centre-left votes comes to 52% and whilst I'm not sure that all Lib Dem voters would want a Labour government I'm sure that most wouldn't mind one. I'm also sure that most of them are strongly anti-Tory. 52% (and more if you include the fringe parties) of the country are supportive of anything but a Tory government and yet they'll almost certainly be in power. I'm beginning to think that a Big Brother-style elimination vote would end up with more satisfied voters than our current system. It would eliminate the fringe and there would be no vote wasting. That's possibly the most depressing thought I've had in a long while....our voting system is inferior to reality TV.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett says he's "bewildered" by Nick Clegg's fascination with bringing in proportional representation which, he says, would result in the current horse-trading being repeated after every election. He tells Sunday Live he believes the Conservatives and Lib Dems will "cobble together" an agreement but that stable government is "much, much more important than some squabble over the voting system."
Blunkett's statement does illustrate the mentality of politicians. For them, this is a job and the connection between what they do and the democratic rights of the electorate must be intangable. It's no wonder that the public feel more disempowered than ever in a genertaion when we know far more about politics and politicians.
Even senior politicians don't seem to understand the frustration people feel when their vote is meaningless under an unfair system. The democratic ideal of each person having an equal voice is the most important thing to uphold. Surely the politicians should be forced into learning how to get along, instead of stripping the public of their democratic rights!
Just to nag at the Tories for a minute - they preach of a society in which each individual is responsible for the success of the whole and yet openly support a voting system that strips those same individuals of their ability to make choices on the most significant issues. It also conveniently allows them to keep a grip on their power. They constantly complain about the Nanny State and the over-reaching arms of Government and yet tell the voters they can't vote for who they want because a Tory majority is the only way to keep the country stable. It's just patronising and hypocritical.
ADDENDUM:
A little bit of number crunching and some generalisations here, but I'm fairly certain that much of this is somewhat reliable. Looking purely at vote-share the Conservatives got 36.1%, Lab 29% and Lib Dem 23%. Combining the centre-left votes comes to 52% and whilst I'm not sure that all Lib Dem voters would want a Labour government I'm sure that most wouldn't mind one. I'm also sure that most of them are strongly anti-Tory. 52% (and more if you include the fringe parties) of the country are supportive of anything but a Tory government and yet they'll almost certainly be in power. I'm beginning to think that a Big Brother-style elimination vote would end up with more satisfied voters than our current system. It would eliminate the fringe and there would be no vote wasting. That's possibly the most depressing thought I've had in a long while....our voting system is inferior to reality TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)