Whose agenda is it anyway?

The availability of adult material, especially via the internet, is widely thought to be morally wrong and socially damaging. Last year, Conservative MPs started to pressure internet service providers into filtering porn: the so-called "opt-in" system. And unlike many proposals, this was one that attracted a lot of cross-party support.

On the surface it might have looked like Ed Vaizey and Claire Perry were bravely spearheading the campaign, boldly taking on big business, speaking for the little people. The truth is, it wasn't their idea. The real architects of "opt-in" are people you've probably never heard of before, but also probably should.

But first, let's consider something even more recent than the Perry and Vaizey suggestions for censoring the internet.

Yesterday, a sex ed bill proposed by MP Nadine Dorries passed its first reading in the Commons. To sum up, she thinks girls (and girls only) between the ages of 13 and 16 should be given lessons specifically on the benefits of abstinence.

Now, putting aside the vileness of suggesting girls exclusively hold the key to sexual morality, let's think about this. Abstinence is fine and even good. I myself happily waited until the age of 16 and not very many moments longer before having sex. The problem is, not everyone ends up abstaining, so good quality sex ed - which is not mandatory in this country - is ideal. And let's not forget sex ed has a lot it can offer besides just pregnancy and STI avoidance. Ideas like relationship preparedness, exploring issues around sexuality, self-confidence, and loads more can and should be part of comprehensive, well-designed SRE (sex and relationships education).

While there was a considerable amount of outrage from people concerned about SRE, more than a few counselled that we shoudn't worry - after all, the anti-sex, anti-abortion stance endorsed by Dorries has more in common with far-right American fanaticism than with British sensibilities. Such a 'daft' bill couldn't possibly pass, surely? The kind of rabid conservative agenda that plays so well on the other side of the Atlantic couldn't possibly last here, could it?

Actually, the rabid right-wing agenda is already here. And if the life cycle of the internet 'opt-in' proposal is any indication, the transplant of American hyperconservatism to UK shores seems to be doing just fine.

On 23 November 2010, Claire Perry, MP for Devizes, brought up the issue of internet porn, its purported effects on young people, and how the government should address it in Commons. Within a couple of weeks, the Sunday Times devoted several pages and an enormous magazine feature to the  same topic.

What is interesting about Perry's contribution to the Commons debate, and the Times feature, are certain similarities in what information was supplied and the conclusions made. But then, that's not altogether surprising. They were getting their information from the same source.

What did Perry claim? Loads of misleading statistics, for starters. One was that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online. ‘Ages 9 to 19’? That’s an arbitrary and very wide range, and instantly suspicious. It includes people who are over the age of consent (16+) as well as those old enough to appear in pornography (18+). But the way the number is presented gives the impression that the majority of 9-year-old children are looking at these things. If Perry’s vague statistic were broken down by age, it would skew - heavily - towards the older side.

Perry also claimed: “A third of our British 10-year-olds have viewed pornography on the internet,” which would certainly be worrying if it were true. The figure is from Psychologies Magazine’s 'Put Porn In Its Place' campaign. The name alone suggests the conclusion was probably written long before the data were collected. Despite its name, Psychologies is not a peer reviewed academic journal, but a mass market magazine rather like GQ or Cosmo. The summary articles were written by Decca Aitkenhead, a travel writer and lifestyle commentator, not a researcher. Comprehensive critcism of the data is available here. In short, it's not a credible or reliable figure.

Claire Perry’s comments came one day after an event she attended at the Houses of Parliament, “The Harm that Pornography Does; Its Effects on Adults and Children and the Need for Regulatory Reform”. The event was organised by Safermedia, whose co-chair, Miranda Suit, quotes a particular report also prominently mentioned in the Sunday Times Magazine feature, with article citing "new research into the social costs of pornography from the Witherspoon Institute in America".

That report was written by an American group called the Witherspoon Institute.


But who are the Witherspoon Institute, anyway? The website makes much of the group's namesake, a Scottish Calvinist minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence. However, the Institute does not obviously appear to be either directly endorsed or funded by Witherspoon's family, but rather trading on the name.

Looking deeper, the 'research' turns out to be The Social Costs of Pornography: A Collection of Papers. It includes contributions from such notables as Patrick Fagan from the Family Research Council, a far-right American lobbying organisation. Fagan also works with the Heritage Foundation, once considered the architects of the Reagan administration's covert Cold War operations, and active supporters of George W Bush's international policy. Fagan's other recent papers include "Virgins Make the Best Valentines" and "Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage".

The Social Costs of Pornography has an entire section devoted to the conclusion that "Today’s consumption of internet pornography can harm children in particular." Having decided the outcome before assessing the evidence – a research no-no in responsible circles - they admit that the evidence as such is thin on the ground. "The few statistics available about the use of pornography by children and adolescents are even more difficult to assess than those concerning adults ... Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that children and adolescents are far more exposed to pornography via the internet than they ever have been before." How is it possible to make such sweeping conclusions when there are no data?

What the section does offer is a hotchpotch of statistics, some of which are at least 10 years old. It then reflects again: "But is there evidence that this exposure is harmful to children? For some people, no more evidence is needed." In spite of failing to show or imply the existence of a single study showing a cause-and-effect relationship between viewing pornography and harm. It continues, "However, even skeptics could not deny the evidence of harmfulness that is emerging in clinical settings. " Actually, yes they would. A skeptic would point out that unless you have presented any evidence, you cannot subsequently claim the evidence exists. You can’t admit the evidence doesn’t exist and then claim no more evidence is needed.

One must ask whether any of the material from the Witherspoon report is, as claimed in the Times, "new". It isn’t. For instance, "many people first encounter pornography on television in a hotel room," is one observation. Which the eagle-eyed will note is neither an internet phenomenon, nor a recent one, not likely to be true for young people born after, say, the 1970s. In terms of pop culture, it's about as relevant as citing Calvin Klein adverts (which the Times piece does on its very first page).

The aim of the Witherspoon Institute is clear: "political leaders should use the bully pulpit," they advise. Celebrities, too, are urged to apply pressure. And finally, the Witherspoon report returns to the necessary admission that the data do not support their cause: "Some of the most important parts of our laws could not be justified if they had to hinge on a proof of material injuries."

Like many think-tanks, Witherspoon has a strong bias. They also admit – repeatedly – that the evidence is insubstantial. Are they a good source of information for journalists? For policy makers? Are the people who hope Perry and Vaizey will do right by young people at all concerned how this looks - like UK policy is being spoon-fed to the current government by some of America's most extreme social conservatives?

How the Anti-Sex Lobby Profits

While various areas of sex work have little in common apart from the 'sex' bit, increasingly they are lumped together in the eyes of the public, government, and media as something that is affecting society more than before and needs attention now.

The reasons for this are numerous. One particular influence is the rise of what is known as the Rescue Industry, an umbrella term coined by Laura Agustin to cover people not in the flesh trade, who nevertheless profit from attempting to end sex work of all kinds. Did I say "profit"? Yes, I sure did.

Issues such as trafficking, sex work, and pornography are hot topics for people who claim their main motivation is to help those involved. Help is a great thing. There are loads of people who could all use a little help, in all professions and walks of life. But when does the reasonable goal of helping others cross the line into infantilising others... and helping yourself?

Cynical? Maybe a little. On one hand many of the people concerned about the welfare of sex workers are no doubt motivated by a genuine desire to help others. Particularly those they think of as unable to defend themselves. But the flipside of this concern is that everyone needs money to survive. As other charities have discovered in the past, sometimes the desire to have a high profile and keep the wheels greased overtakes the benefit to the people you were trying to help.

The bun fight currently going on over funding to help trafficking victims is one example.

Charities aside - and, let it be said, there are many worthy and honest ones - there are also the academics, researchers, and writers who earn their living not through hands-on effort, but by writing papers. Papers which allow them to win grants. Grants so that they can write more papers.

This, as a former cancer research academic, is a world I know well. We can't all save lives. But we do all have to earn a crust. Still, sometimes the ratio of money available to size of the problem seems far out of whack. You do start to wonder how much of what is said and written is born from genuine concern, and how much is just chasing another year's salary.

Is there enough money in it to even bother making this criticism? Well, thanks to a little tool that compares the money from funding grants over time, we can make a rough guess of what it's worth. For instance, funding for studying trafficking is enormous - in 2009, it was funded worldwide to the tune of nearly a billion US dollars. This is a total greater than the amount of grant money awarded to study lung cancer, which of course, is also devastating, and affects far more people. And spending on trafficking since 2000 has dwarfed the grant awards on such important international health concerns as malnutrition, malaria, or tuberculosis - conditions that kill millions of people worldwide every year, and affect hundreds of millions more.

Another way in which opposing sex work brings financial benefit is through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Police know, for instance, that if a brothel owner is prosecuted, since running a brothel is illegal, any money and property retrieved from the 'crime scene' becomes theirs. When police resources are limited, does the temptation of profit possibly influence victimless crimes being prosecuted more vigourously than they otherwise would? Hard to know for sure. It's a handy little coincidence, the pre-Olympic crackdown on brothels and the recent cuts in police funding, isn't it? You can read more about the criticisms of such crackdowns in the Grauniad.

Hanna Morris, who ran a brothel, lost her abuse of process case against the police. She rang 999 when masked and armed gunmen threatened her business... only to find herself arrested, and the violent criminals never pursued or apprehended. It's impossible to know for certain, but one can imagine plenty of situations in which police - with restricted time and money - must make choices: unknown violent criminals who may be difficult and expensive to catch, or women technically breaking the law standing right in front of you, with cash assets?

The outcome of the Hanna Morris case certainly sends a message, but I'm not convinced it's the message of 'protecting women' that some people prefer to promote.