feature image via Shutterstock
The European Parliament is set to vote March 12th on a proposal that seeks to ban all forms of  “pornography” from “the media” without really specifying to which pornography or media they’re referring. The proposal is being put forth by Kartika Liotard and comes under the heading “on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU.” Here are a just a few of the things that this report states:
14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;
17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism.
19. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls;
This resolution isn’t legislation and it can’t be legislation, but the report may influence legislation in the 27 member countries. This proposal is being vocally opposed by a Swedish MEP from the Pirate Party, Christian Engström. He is worried, and rightfully so, that pornography is in the eye of the beholder and that this could potentitially mean nudy pics that you take of yourself and consensually send to other adult humans. He has called this proposal “an attempt to circumvent the article on information freedom in the European Convention of Human Rights.” This proposal could also lead to Internet Service Providers policing their customers for porn watching. And because the language is so vague, sexual content on social media networks like Twitter could eventually be under fire. Let’s face it, we know that half of tumblr could be classified as porn if you adopt a very strict interpretation.
There are many, many reasons why this report/proposal/bullshit is a steaming load of terrible, heaped with a side of awful. Here’s a few of them.
There’s A Scummy Side To Every Industry Ever In The History of the World
Okay, show of virtual hands: how many people have seen a mainstream television show in the past year that sexualized girls, that treated men and women unequally or reinforced gender stereotypes? Oh, that’s all of us? So clearly the answer is to ban all television shows from the air, right? NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM THESE HOTBEDS OF PREJUDICE!
Of course that’s not the answer. Any sane person would argue for greater representation in the medium, for female directors, writers and actors. The same can be said for porn.
Annie Sprinkle is quoted as having said “The answer to bad porn is not no porn. It’s to make better porn!” Jiz Lee added to this quote in Autostraddle’s Quest for Awesome Queer Feminist Porn: “I’d prefer that the answer is actually to make MORE porn.” With more porn comes more representation and the opportunity to break down sexual tropes and gender stereotypes. Every industry has people are are sexist shit muffins that make crappy products/shows/art/statements that are offensive, objectifying etc. I feel like it’s on us to create the revolutions we want to see, not to eliminate the industry all together, because that would leave us banning pretty much everything. Then we are three steps closer to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (remember? The slippery slope started with burning porn in the park!), and that shit gives me the willies. It’s on us to be educated consumers and, in some cases, educated creators. If we don’t like what we see, why not make something different? Or give our money to the people making something different? In short, if the EU wants to solve the problems created by porn, they should be issuing a proposal calling for more of it.
Say it with me now: porn is not inherently bad or violent or sexist or unethical just because SOME porn is bad, violent, sexist and unethical.
Sex Panic!
Everyone panic! The sex is going to corrupt women! We are delicate flowers with no agency and we’ve never sullied our virginal eyes with the sexy times before. Also the makers of porn violate women’s rights by exploiting them as performers! Also also, porn targets the children! We, the proponents of porn, are seeking to rip childhood away from the innocent and indoctrinate them into a world of lust and leather.
Nope, sorry. Not true. Sex is something that most people in most cultures engage in, regardless of gender. Not all porn is exploitative of its performers, though some of it is (see the above heading, and note that many industries the EU is not seeking to ban also exploit their workers). And all reputable porn sites begin your journey with a warning. On my sex blog, if you click the link that says you’re a minor and not legally permitted to view porn, you get pictures of kittens. No one’s trying to reach the children here, at least not the legal, sane people of the internet.
However, Iceland Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson is writing actual legislation (not just a proposal) that would attempt a ban on internet pornography in his own country, legislation that’s founded in the same worldview as the European Parliament’s proposal. The reasons that he and his political advisor, Halla Gunnarsdottir, are using:
“It is anti-violence because young children are seeing porn and acting it out. That is where we draw the line. This material is blurring the boundaries for young people about what is right and wrong.” – Halla Gunnarsdottir
“It is looking a pornography from a new position – from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.” –Â Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University
Because apparently Icelandic parents shouldn’t be responsible for the kinds of content their children have access to. No way. And women have no agency when they appear in porn. And people who engage in violence are programmed by porn, not by the wider culture. Â Gizmodo hit the nail on the head when they said “Now, by banning access to internet porn, Iceland will join countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other temples of democracy widely known to protect women’s and children’s rights.”
The panic over sexual content controlling our mindbrains and violating women’s rights makes unfair assumptions about all humans, regardless of gender. Dr. Brooke Magnanti (Belle de Jour) has a lovely take down on the Telegraph in which she makes the following point:
As per ever, the focus of the panic is mainstream, heterosexual porn being viewed only by men. Yet again the assumption is that all men are easily programmed, woman-hating abusers, and all women are meek sub-adults who must be protected from the clutches of sexy, sexy evil. In this worldview, gay people, mutual consent, and women’s sexual agency conveniently do not exist. If you think this represents all or even most of pornography then you need to get out more. Where by “out” I mean “the internet”.
I am sick of sex panic. I am sick of sex panic turning into laws. Almost every person engages in sex at some point in their lives. Errbody gonna have to get over it.
This Is A Giant Cop Out, How About We Actually Make The World Better?
All of the above points make me furious, but none so much as the title of the proposal itself. “On Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU.” Wouldn’t it be super, super convenient if eliminating porn eliminated all the damage done to women by centuries upon centuries of the patriarchy? But no, that’s not how it works. This, however, presents a nice little package all tied up with a nice little bow. No more porn, no more problem. Never mind that women in Europe still earn less than men. Or that historically, the unemployment rates have been higher for women than men (though right now, it’s pretty bad for everyone). Or! That men still outnumber women in decision making positions throughout the EU (a whopping 3% of board chairpersons). Or Hungary not having a single women’s shelter in a country of  10 million people. Or abortion’s illegality in Ireland. Or victim blaming during rape trials in the strip-club-less zone of Iceland. These are all fixable problems that might actually go a long way toward making men and women more equal. Things like this have been in play long before the boom of the porn industry and, if we focus on blustery bullshit non-problems, will still be in play long after we’re done censoring the hell out of sex. Many of these problems are also addressed in the proposal, some with real suggestions for tackling the problems! But the kind of sex negativity and censorship exhibited in the above quoted statements makes me question the authenticity. Kinda like when American Republicans toss abortion restrictions into budgets and tax law.
At the very least and kindest, it makes me question if the authors of this proposal have lived on this planet and have a basic understanding of human interactions.
I also think we, as humans who are trying to figure out how to govern ourselves, have this backwards. If we’re talking the violent, sexist porn and not just all porn in general, I don’t think it’s a cause of a greater problem of inequality between men and women. I think it’s a symptom of it. It’s an effect. In an open letter by 40 free speech activists encouraging Icelandic Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson to drop the Iceland-specific legislation, “the Internet is not the source of violence, it is merely a medium by which violence is made apparent.” Just because violence is now visible doesn’t mean it was never there. Looking in a mirror of society and seeing that violence is unpleasant, but getting rid of the mirror doesn’t get rid of the ugly problem. If society were to change a little bit (or a lot), mainstream porn might look a little more like Dr. Magnanti points out it does in San Francisco:
Rather, the forms that sexual entertainment takes are a result of gender stereotypes rather than their cause. In sex-positive, queer-friendly San Francisco, porn looks a lot like society there. In image-obsessed, results-orientated mainstream media, porn looks a lot more plastic and uninviting to everyone but straight cis men.
This is just sex panic. It’s sex negative and sets a precent for censorship. It’s also not going to help. The inclusion of a porn ban has all but guaranteed that the rest of the proposal — the parts with meaningful things — will now be called into question and will receive bad press due to these small sections. Even though this isn’t legislative and, even if passed, likely won’t lead to much, it’s still a distraction from real discussion. Let’s keep our porn and actually try to improve the world, shall we? Or even use porn to improve the world
