Everything You Wanted To Know About Porn (But Were Afraid to Google)

I was thinking about porn the other day (as I often do, in other circumstances) and I realised in my innately smug pragmatic way I genuinely can't decide whether I'm in favour of it or not. There's plenty of good arguments both ways and, unlike many debates, there's no straight party line from the left/right divide. Although many on the right want it banned for it's amorality and obscenity, many on the left want it banned for its exploitativeness and misogyny. It's even more controversial and incendiary than the prostitution debate, because it affects a much, MUCH wider percentage of the population - apparently, more than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month. That's a few more than visit whores, I'd say. Even an 188 year old man like myself has watched more than few skin-flicks (we didn't have this problem back during Reconstruction, I tell ya) and so, really, it's a trade which takes a bit of analysis...

So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...



Against

The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.

Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!

That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.

So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.

For

Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?

The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?

Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?

So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.

Conclusion

Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.

I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!

Why the left are sick of Clare Solomon...

In light of the recent defeat of Clare Solomon in the University of London Union elections a lot of people have been bandying about a lot of the usual political rhetoric about a victory of the right in dethroning the revolution’s favourite single mother, highlighting once again the intense politicisation of the student movement in recent years. Clare’s own politicisation – which was a relatively recent development for her – has been one of the key points of contention. The ex-Muslim, ex-Mormon, ex-Capitalist, “Revolutionary” could certainly tick a few boxes in an Equal Oppurtunities application, which is why it’s kind of ironic that’s it’s her massive political sectarianism which was finally downfall. Of course, this is hardly a radical statement – it’s clear that Clare’s views are not exactly going to appeal to all shades of the political spectrum. Where she and her gang have shot themselves in the foot is that they have managed to essentially divide and disillusion the student left.

Clare and her followers have created an invisible line in the sand and anyone whose views lean any farther left of that line than her is basically a Tory sympathiser. A “counter-revolutionary”. Aaron Porter’s own vilification at the hands of the Solomonites has been a perfect example; a man whose views certainly swing a bit further left than Ed Miliband’s has basically been accused of turning the NUS into an HQ for Tory spies because he didn’t give the old nod and wink to the balaclava boys when they were tearing down public property. Admittedly there were a few more criticisms of him than that, but most of them can be attributed by some kind of need for inclusiveness and pragmatism – concept which the Solomonites just can’t comprehend. It’s become a case of towing the party line; “you’re either with us, or you’re against us” and “against us” is anyone who dares to condemn the destruction of public property or throwing cinderblocks at the police. This is perhaps the true hypocrisy of the Solomonites – they constantly throw around the word “solidarity” while setting a bar of such high extremes of political violence, both physical and verbal, that the only people qualified to take the high ground have the Gang of Four tattooed on their arse-cheeks and alienate anyone but the most rampantly left-wing. People use the word “bigot” interchangeably with “racist” nowadays, but it is actually defined as anyone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and this sure as hell sums up the bigoted Solomonites.

In a recent Guardian interview, Clare blamed her defeat on a “right-wing alliance” which, for her, includes Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and basically anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Socialist Worker. Even if we ignore the intense paranoia in this accusation, it is the sheer gall she has in asserting her importance in the grand scheme of things – as if the Tories don’t have better things to do. And I think that the greater left have simply had enough. The sheer nonsense of the Solomonites’ sectarianism is that students are traditionally left-leaning. Conservative students are still a rarity - if a majority kicked her out, then that’s a majority of lefties who kicked her out. Maybe not balaclava-wearing, para-militirist wannabe lefties, but lefties nonetheless. There is a large constituent of students with left-wing beliefs – probably a majority in fact – who are being ostracised and vilified by the Solomonites’ vindictive triumphalism. To label Clare’s defeat as a victory of the right is arrogant in the extreme; Clare Solomon does not represent the left, she is not the socialist figurehead, she was the head of a multi-faceted, inclusive organisation and by forcing her own bigoted, violent pseudo-Bolshevism on the student movement came damn near close to destroying it and turning progressive politics into a caricature. Her defeat is a victory for the left, not the right. The Red Flag is not flying for you, Clare...

The Morality of Violence and the March 26th TUC march

In light of the TUC demonstration on the 26th of March, the big issue again getting all the media attention is the violence. Groups of black-shirted “anarchists” vandalising Oxford Street, Piccadilly Cirucs, Trafalgar Square and anywhere else they may feel like in the name of bringing down the symbols of capitalist exploitation, etc. As usual it was the youngsters causing all the trouble – aside from a few drunken shouts of “sell-out” during Ed Miliband’s Hyde Park speech from the older generations, it was the same group of young wannabe-insurrectionists spoiling the party for everyone.

Let me posit this scenario – one day I’m walking down Oxford Street and I come across McDonald’s. Since I’m a staunch anti-capitalist (and they ripped off my name) I decide to pick up a brick and throw it through the window. No-one is hurt, but the police come and take me away. Now, I doubt there are many people who would see my actions as justified, or as the actions of anything other than a lunatic, and yet this is exactly the same scenario that occurred in Oxford Street and Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square on the 26th. The only difference is the mob mentality which gives people strength (and anonymity) in numbers. And I honestly cannot see what the “anarchists” present on the 26th – and I use that term in the loosest possible sense since I very much doubt Kropotkin or Proudhon would have been giving their stamp of approval to these nutjobs – think they can achieve with their tactics. To quote Kropotkin himself, in reference to the acts of violent anarchists in 1887, “a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite.” It’s all meaningless venting, particularly considering that they only ever come out in force under the shelter of a greater demonstration. Their inherently frightening personas mean that they have no chance of winning public support and the fact that they all come under the definition of “youths” certainly makes me picture a lot of feckless Black Flag fans with too much time on their hands. At best, the suppression of the state is the last thing you want in these neo-neo-liberal times and the anarchist cause is hopelessly misguided and naive as it ever was, and its theories unworkable beyond pragmatic application in select institutions. At worst, you have a bunch of ignorant moral egoist thugs who are destroying the reputation of the greater anti-cuts movement by association.

Of course, the other anti-cuts groups don’t exactly help themselves in this case – the refusal of UK Uncut spokesman Lucy Annson to condemn the violence committed on the 26th is a perfect example of otherwise peaceful anti-cuts groups shooting themselves in the foot. The only way they can justified and rally public support is by presenting themselves as anything but “radical” and although it may be more ethically sound not to make a stand on the violent action, it’s a real kick in the crotch for their publicity – particularly since UK Uncut’s ideologies couldn’t be further from those of the black block. This is another example of that dreaded notion of “solidarity” – the concept that there is some kind of good/evil divide in the ether at the moment and that the black bloc and other violent protesters are part of the “good” because they stand against the “evil” bankers and tax-cheats. This sounds moronic, but it’s dangerously close to how the minds of many people work. The police actions at Fortnum and Mason were bizarre and idiotic, but that does not mean that the police are the “bad guys” here and therefore the black bloc are the “good guys”. This not a conflict. This is not a revolution.

Here in Britain we are blessed with one of the most free and open societies on the planet. The insurrection in North Africa is a tragedy – the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should never have needed to overthrow their government and the fact that they were pushed to it should not be romanticised. To compare our society to theirs is sick and offensive – the protesters calling to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square are so utterly ignorant that it baffles the mind that these people are supposed to be standing at the avant-garde of “progressive” society. In Britain we have a system has been honed over years of political construction to allow individuals the right to expression. By resorting to violence, these privileges – which every rebel in Libya is fighting for their lives to gain – are being tossed aside in favour of primitive, un-thinking, instinctive stupidity. Violence is the first and last resort of the moronic. And we do not need it here.

Now of course, there is a big difference between the destruction of property and violent acts against other human beings. But at the same time, the impetus is the same – destruction. Aggression. Anger. Violence. No stable society can be built on these principles – violence begats violence, as the French Revolution showed us. Why people still romanticise violence in this day and age is beyond me. And my main point is this – who the hell are you to decide what’s acceptable in terms of violence? Who the hell are you to make the choice to destroy someone else’s work, let alone destroy a person? What gives you that right? Since when did destruction ever lead to growth? We have laws in this country because there needs to be an objective set of rules on these limits, particularly in these increasingly secular times – a lot of us don’t have a big magic book to tell us anymore and you are sure as hell not smart enough to decide for yourself. It’s that kind of moral egoism which enables men like Gaddafi to take power and lets bankers decide to rob people blind without disturbing their conscience. By deciding their own boundaries, the black bloc are all part of the same parcel and are, therefore, hypocrites.

So let me just say this – I have no shame in trying to push a pacifist agenda on people. As far as I am concerned it’s the only morally justified lifestyle. It is not possible for individuals to make a decision on the moral use of violence – to do so is fascist and, last time I checked, fascism was a bad thing. And to the black shirts – whoops, sorry, I mean the black bloc - if you’re still keen on the old anarchism, try reading Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and then see how your ideologies stand. Because from where you stand to me, all I see is a big black mark on the face of society...

Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy

The above quote is from a certain Ludwig Van Beethoven, in case you were wondering and is one which resonates strongly with me. However, Beethoven would have hardly been the first to deny that music is also a powerful tool in the ever changing shape of the world. Originally his Third Symphony had been dedicated to Napoleon Bonaparte, then still, in Beethoven's mind, a heroic figure of the French Revolution and a champion of Enlightment ideals. However, when he heard of Napolean's declaration of himself as Emperor in 1804, Beethoven, to quote his assistant Ferdinand Ries, "broke into a rage and exclaimed, 'So he is no more than a common mortal! Now, too, he will tread under foot all the rights of man, indulge only his ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men, become a tyrant!' Beethoven went to the table, seized the top of the title-page, tore it in half and threw it on the floor. The page had to be re-copied and it was only now that the symphony received the title "Sinfonia eroica." Beethoven knew of power of music and of its influence on the material world. It was also a clear example of how the ideals of the composer are inevitably intertwined with the music he makes and time he makes it in.

Nearly everything I know about protest, socialism, racism, feminism, sexism, liberalism, progressiveness, rebellion, war, revolution, communism, trade unionism, monarchism, pacifism, worker's rights and all these other global institutions of human society, has had its origins and basis in songs. You may call this shallow or ignorant if you want, but to say that is actually an expression of your own ignorance in the importance of music and its connection to the world. Music runs parallel with human history and is often its greatest and purest expression - it requires no money to produce, takes no education and can be produced on any rung of the social ladder. Songs of protest and insurrection have been written by everyone from the likes of "Le Marsellaise", written by French Army Captain, Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle to the likes of "Go Down Moses", composed by African-American slaves.

From my investigation of "The Cutty Wren", I have learned about the 1391 Peasant's Revolt, from "Ye Jacobites by Name" I have learned about the Scottish 18th-century Jacobite Rebellions from "L'International" I have learned about the 1871 Paris Commune, from the Negro Spirituals I have learned about African-American slavery, from the songs of Joe Hill I have learned about the IWW and the International Labour Movement, from the Trinidadian Calypsonians I have learnt about British Imperialism in the Carribea and from the songs of Pete Seeger I have learnt about the 1960's Civil Rights movement. And so on. Not to say that I didn't know about these things before hand, but the songs anchor these things in something physical, beyond banal reproduction of facts. To quote Egon, "Print is dead".

Music is the greatest tool in the progression of mankind. It overrules cynicism and pessimism and instills understanding and a sense of importance and significance in the ideals for which the singer stands for. In all the great artistic and social forms, music supercedes all others. It connects all mankind in musical harmony. And I will use it as my own personal method for promoting my own views of pacifism, socialism, feminism and racial equality...

Music will save the world.

To lead us out, here is Irish folk legend Luke Kelly singing poet, socialist and songwriter Hamish Henderson's 1960 utopian ballad, "Freedom Come All Ye"...