“Pornography: What Do We Know?”

“Pornography: What Do We Know?”

That was the question being examined on the BBC’s Analysis radio programme. Here is a description of the show: 

What do we really know about the effects of pornography? 

Public debate has become increasingly dominated by an emotive, polarised argument between those who say it is harmful and those who say it can be liberating. Jo Fidgen puts the moral positions to one side and investigates what the evidence tells us. She explores the limitations of the research that’s been carried out and asks whether we need to update our understanding of pornography. She hears from users of pornography about how and why they use it and researchers reveal what they have learnt about our private pornographic habits. 

With pornography becoming increasingly easy to access online, and as policy-makers, parents and teachers discuss how to deal with this, it’s a debate that will have far-reaching implications on education and how we use the internet. 

Producer: Helena Merriman 

Interviewees: 

Professor Neil Malamuth – University of California 
Dr Miranda Horvath – Middlesex University 
Dr Ogi Ogas – Author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts 
Professor Roger Scruton – Conservative philosopher and Author of Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation 
Professor Gail Dines – Wheelock College, Boston.

Click Here for FREE PORN…Debate

Click Here for FREE PORN…Debate

No, our website was not hacked by spammers. Instead the BBC’s Moral Maze is back . . . and hotter than ever.  Here is a description of the debate: 

The statistics on internet porn are eye-popping enough – it’s claimed that 36% of internet content is pornography, with one in four queries to search engines being porn-related the online porn industry makes more than $3,000 a second. But if that isn’t enough to convince you that pornography has long since abandoned the seedy confines of the top shelves and colonised mainstream media, then perhaps the fact that porn is to get an academic journal devoted to the study of the genre might. Concerns about the volume, nature and easy availability of porn have been growing for some time, but the recent trials of Stuart Hazell, convicted for killing 12-year-old Tia Sharp, and Mark Bridger for killing five year old April Jones have brought the issue in to sharp focus. Both men were found to have violent pornography on their computers and one of them was watching it just hours before he carried out the murder. This week the Culture Secretary Maria Millar and charities held a summit meeting with internet service providers demanding that they do something to reduce access to obscene images, especially by children. The “ban porn/don’t ban porn” argument has raged, perhaps ever since the Lady Chatterley trail. Of course there are the issues of freedom of speech and censorship, but has technology changed so rapidly in recent years that the moral framework of the debate needs to be changed? Do we have the moral language to balance the right of consenting adults to watch other consenting adults having sex against the fact that such hardcore porn is so easily available and consumed, especially by adolescent boys? Is it the job of the state to police what goes online, or should parents be taking more care what their children are doing online? Is the normalisation of porn culture subtly damaging us all by commodifying and brutalising relationships – reducing them to animalistic couplings? Or is that being hopelessly romantic? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Jerry Barnett – Former Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association, Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of Mothers’ Union, Myles Jackman – Solicitor. Sexual freedom and obscenity specialist, Eleanor Mills – Sunday Times campaigning reporter