Let’s have a chat about porn

The world is obsessed with sex. Whether we’re doing it, talking about it, reading about it or debating who else is having it, sex is a constant in our lives. Watching other people ‘do the deed’ has become a particularly topical subject of late, and David Cameron’s plans to ban porn in UK households has made me think that we all need to sit down, and have a chat about porn.

28,258 internet users watch it every single second and every 39 minutes a new pornographic video is created in the US. Porn sells, and not just to the 'pervy' man down the street as out-dated stereotypes would suggest – educated men and women of all ages are watching it.

Whether we like it or not, there’s a massive market for porn, one that isn’t going away any time soon.

The PM’s plans will force internet users to choose whether they want to activate porn on their computer and devices. If they don’t actively switch on access, internet service providers will block pornographic websites in an attempt to stop the “corroding” influence of pornography on children.

“It should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick filters off… Those filters can only be changed by the account holder.”

For a leader often accused of weakness this is a brave step, one that has divided the majority. A search through Twitter suggests there are two main arguments: firstly, that children are being exposed to the negative influence of porn too early, and that the ban is the only way to ensure childhood is kept innocent. The other, that blocking porn is a step backwards and echoes the strict internet controls of countries like China. So, where do I stand?

It’s hard to disagree that children, particularly young boys, are seeing porn at a young age. It’s also hard to dispute that blocking porn from home computers is likely to minimise the amount they see. The part that I have trouble with is the opt-out approach.

Whilst not ignoring the dangers of porn - exploitation of women, troubling stereotypes, unhealthy addictions - we must accept that it isn’t all bad news. Porn facilitates discussion; what we like, what we don’t like, how to spice up a long-term or long-distance relationship. It allows for conversation and independence, an outlet for fantasies. With a little knowledge about healthy sex and body image, porn is informative. And, as with everything, although there are exceptions, the majority of users are able to watch it, enjoy it, and appreciate it for what it is.

Admittedly, I don’t watch it, but it must be enjoyable – there wouldn’t be 25,000 of us watching it right now if it weren’t. This is where the ban becomes a problem for me – rather than presenting itself as a way of protecting children, it stinks of judgment. It comes across smug, as though it intends to punish the dirty, sleazy watchers of porn into stopping, so as to avoid the perceived embarrassment of phoning their ISP and actively turning it on (pun fully intended).

If Cameron had, instead, suggested an opt-in approach, we would be in a better situation. Concerned parents would be able to opt-in and block their children from watching porn at home, and adults would be able to do what they please. We mustn’t forget that the ban isn’t even guaranteed to work; home isn’t the only place that children will have access to porn. The school playground, laddish jokes and mobile phones provide the same access that a home computer would.

There are measures to limit porn access or, at least, the negative effects of it; parental controls, informative sex education from a younger age and more input from schools, to name a few. Imposing a nationwide ban on something that tens of thousands of people do a second, however, isn’t the way.

By Lauren Cope.