I’ve yet to see anyone defend Neil Parish, the Conservative member of parliament who was caught watching porn on his phone in the House of Commons. People may disagree about just how serious his offence is but everyone seems to think that it was pretty shoddy behaviour – rightly so, I believe. Still, I am somewhat struck by the contrast between the strength and universality of the condemnation and the fact that as a society, we have become increasingly pro-porn. This is the Porn Puzzle: why is porn at the same time widely accepted and capable of provoking outrage?
Gauging public attitudes is tricky because not everyone is honest about their ‘relationship’ to pornography and there are also generational differences. One extensive UK survey from 2018 showed that one in three adults had viewed pornography in the last month, 44% in the past year. 26% had never watched any and a further 13% hadn’t done so in the last ten years. The numbers watching porn were higher among younger people and also slightly higher in the ABC1 social classes. A more recent study suggested half of UK adults watch porn.
Use and approval are two different things, of course. A person could guiltily ‘use’ porn while thinking it immoral, or not use it without judging it as wrong. An IPSOS study suggested only around one in five Britons think ‘soft’ porn is immoral, although 47% disapprove of pornography in cinemas.
These numbers suggest that there is a clear but not overwhelming pro-porn majority among adults of working age and this is a cohort rather than age effect, meaning that these attitudes will not significantly alter as people grow older. I suspect this explains why the public discourse about porn is generally positive. For example, in the BBC News report I cited earlier, only two ‘experts’ were quoted and both were enthusiastic about porn. One, Tezza, made pornographic content for OnlyFans while the other, ‘sex and relationships author and YouTuber’ Hannah Witton lamented that there’s ‘still a way to go in removing the stigma of watching porn for everyone’. This is the BBC, remember.
So if porn is no big deal anymore, why the outrage about the MP watching some on his mobile phone? The obvious answer is that there’s a time and a place, and this wasn’t it. But that doesn’t explain the degree of outrage. Had he been caught watching comedy films or playing games he would also have been criticised for not doing what he ought to have been doing there and then, but not nearly so strongly.
The other obvious explanation is that although porn is widely accepted, it is supposed to something people view privately. A mobile phone is not exactly broadcasting the contents of its screen to everyone around but it is not completely private either. But the House of Commons is an all-adult space and the only people who could have inadvertently seen a bit were grown-ups. I think in many contexts many people would have smiled rather than got outraged if they’d caught someone watching porn over their shoulder.
So although it’s easy to see why people can be both pro-porn and critical of this piece of porn use, I still think there is a dissonance between the comparative degrees of acceptance and outrage, approval and disapproval. I’m not sure how to explain it but I’d suggest one factor is that more people have serious reservations about pornography than are willing to say so, for fear of being branded prudish or moralistic.
Consider how reports have focused on the fact that he was looking at the porn in full view of female MPs and that his actions have been linked in the coverage with wider issues about misogyny in politics. This implies that there is something inherently offensive to women about pornography. This used to be the mainstream feminist opinion. Pornography objectified women, reduced them to bodies there to serve male sexual pleasure, and frequently depicted women as wanting to be dominated. But in recent years there has been a rise in pro-porn feminism, linked to a broader ‘sex positivity’ movement. This has argued that as long as women have agency and consent in porn, there is nothing to object to. Equality does not mean men giving up porn but women embracing it too.
The reactions to the sleazy MP suggests that belief in this new narrative is paper thin. When we actually see a male MP viewing porn in the sight of female colleagues, we see offensive objectification, not legitimate enjoyment. We do not say to the women, ‘grow up, it’s just people having sex!’
I don’t want to make too much of it this case. Although I think it shines a light on some enduring contradictions and ambivalences about porn in society, even if it doesn’t, I would suggest those complexities are still there. Porn has become mainstream but it remains deeply problematic for many, maybe most of us. But those problems cannot be discussed because you cannot question the legitimacy of pornography without being seen as someone who seeks to restrict the sexual freedom of others, is repressed, or is a moralistic throwback. Maybe the current outrage about porn in parliament can provoke a wider discussion about porn in society.
News
I’m going to make this newsletter fortnightly from now on, partly to protect my core work time and partly to reduce the risk of you becoming sick of me.
I’ve written a piece for Prospect on why we should be careful before accusing people of lying, even though – or perhaps precisely because – there are may people right now who are brazenly lying and need to be called out on it.
I feature in three different recently released videos. One sees me interviewing philosopher Clare Chambers on her book on the unmodified body in an age of overwhelming social and political pressure for alteration. The second is a talk I gave at the How the Light Gets In festival last year on Atheism Revisited. And the third is my RSA interview with Rob Percival, author of The Meat Paradox.
I continue to host the Royal Institute of Philosophy podcast Thinking Hard and Slow, ‘Mind-expanding long-form philosophy talks and discussions that are both rigorous and accessible. Recorded live from our annual themed lecture series, special lectures and our big debate.’ The latest episode is The First Person in Buddhism with Nilanjan Das.
A reminder that if you buy books online, you can avoid the tax-dodging giant and buy through my affiliate shop which gives 10% to independent bookshops and 10% to me.
On my radar
I took a week off work which was almost entirely consumed by practical chores. But it did mean I could enjoy the rare pleasure of reading a book purely out of interest and I chose David Edmonds’ The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. It’s a fairly niche topic for a popular philosophy book but its not-the-usual-suspects character is part of what makes it so interesting. Edmonds writes very well. He’s clear and engaging without trying too hard to be informal or gratuitously fun.
Should you make a point of indicating your preferred pronouns? This article echoes some of what I’ve been thinking about this. ‘The implication of putting one’s pronouns in bio is that one’s gender is an introductory fact; a vital, core part of people’s identities that must be immediately conveyed in order to understand them and how they relate to the world.’
If you’re annoyed with the ‘OK boomer’ meme, used to dismiss the allegedly reactionary views of all pre-millennials, this Economist column will please you. It argues that it is thanks to boomer voters that extremist parties are being kept out of government in Europe. (There’s more to be said about the increased tendency to make generational generalisations. Another time.)
That’s it for this week. So until next time, if nothing prevents, thanks for your interest.