Pornography is not harmful Melissa, January 19, 2025January 19, 2025 There is a correlation between the consumption of pornography and sexual violence, but it is an inverse correlation. The more liberal the porn laws in any particular country, the less likely you are to be sexually assaulted. This seems so staggering to those of us raised on a constant media frenzy of porn = evil that it is worth lingering here a moment to allow the idea to digest. In countries where there is strictest regulation around pornography there are also the highest rates of rape and other serious sexual crimes, including child sex abuse. Rape has been declining since the 1970s, but with particular rapidity since the 1990s: I suspect the sudden arrival of internet pornography caused this decline. In the US, the four states with lowest internet access are also the four states that bucked the trend and showed an increase in rape between 1980-2000. In the Czech republic, the swift transition from brutal repression to liberal unfettered access to any damn thing in 1989 saw child sex abuse plummet by almost half. And on, and on. In multiple studies from across the world, easy access to pornography is linked to lower rates of sex crime. Conversely, therefore, tightening regulations around pornography is very likely to reverse this trend. Easy access to pornography seems particularly to reduce rape among teenagers, so it seems likely that if the anti-sex, pro-censorship campaigners get their way, we will see a spike in sexual violence, Why do feminists keep fighting for something which will actually harm women? Make them more susceptible to sexual violence? Moreover, why do they ignore the fact that those who benefit financially most from the sex industry are invariably female? Why do they assume their right not to be offended is more important than other women’s right to work, to earn, to give themselves and their families a decent standard of living? Attacking access to pornography can often lead to other forms of censorship. Porn is seen as a “soft target”, a form of expression trickier to justify, which, having once had its availability limited, makes it easier for the state to deny us access to other information and art forms, for our own good. Consider Nick Griffin’s inclusion on Question Time, for example, back in 2011: non-platforming him would have given him some credence, authority, perhaps even a sense of martyrdom, whereas debating him publicly exposed him as a silly shallow sort, devoid of any actual ideas, easily demolished by anyone with a modicum of sense. For practical and philosophical reasons, censorship of almost any sort (with the exception of a few hoary old cliches, fires in theatres, incitement to violence) is ineffectual and idiotic. Dialogue works. Gagging won’t change minds or hearts. Conversely, those who seek to spread hatred and disinformation are frequently cunning enough to do so without falling foul of any censorship laws. Nigel Farage, for example, has made a career out of attacking minorities, always staying just the right side of legality. Indeed, many of the tabloids manage similar tricks daily, using insinuation and carefully selected case studies – not actual lies, just seriously slanted versions of the truth. If people are determined to say something vile, they’ll find a way. And trying to stop them usually means interfering with other people’s rights and freedoms, which is to be avoided at any cost. Uncategorized