PLEASE NOTE: All Mumsnetters and Mumsnet Bloggers are welcome to post in this Talk topic but this isn't the place for promoting blogs that aren't in the Mumsnet Bloggers Network. If you do that here, we may well delete your posts. If you'd like to join the Mumsnet Bloggers Network please do apply: we'd love to look at your blog!

Guest blog: why aren't we protecting children from porn?

(141 Posts)
KateMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 24-May-13 17:40:53

A report published today by the govt's Children Commissioner found that children are increasingly exposed to extreme pornography online - and that it's influencing their attitudes towards sex. In this guest blog, Sunday Times columnist (and MN Blogger) Eleanor Mills says it's time to put the protection of children first.

What do you think? Let us have your thoughts on the thread - and if you blog on this issue, don't forget to post your URL.

"Basically, Porn Is Everywhere is the title of a new report published today, from the Office of the Children's Commissioner. It reviews 41,000 pieces of research on the impact of porn and finds that widespread access to porn amongst youngsters is encouraging teenage boys to see girls as sex objects , engage in risky sexual behaviour and have sex earlier. Most worrying of all, it also shows a link between boys who view porn and more aggressive sexual behaviour and violence.

I'm tempted to say I told you so.  For the past three years now I have been writing regularly about what I call Generation XXX (£) and the problems the tsunami of online porn is creating for today's teenagers and their relationships. These days everything from television to music videos, Instagram to the mania for sexting demonstrates the pervasive pornification of youth culture. Yet on we trundle, seemingly indifferent to its pernicious effects. Maybe now the naysayers will agree that there is a problem and take the appropriate action.

The writing has been on the wall about the harm done to youngsters who view adult sexual content on the web for a while. A few months ago, I attended a conference at the University of London's psychology department entitled Virtual Adolescence. As the day unfolded a succession of speakers, including Professor Alessandra Lemma (a world expert on body image and mental disorders) and John Woods, a consultant psychotherapist at the Portman Clinic in London, outlined the mental toll that screen life is taking on our children.

The stand-out talk of the day, given by Woods, was called Child Abuse on a Massive Scale: The Effects of Unregulated Pornography. It made for worrying listening.

Woods cited a study by HealthyMind.com which found the average age of first exposure to such images is six (other recent research has suggested the average age is eight) and that the largest consumers of internet porn are the 12-17 age group. These alarming figures are backed up by a new EU Kids Online survey which found that pornographic and violent content top a list of children's own internet concerns (57% say concerns about internet content "most bothered" people of their age).

In his lecture Woods outlined some disturbing examples from his clinical practice including 'James', whose long-term porn fascination led him to assault a five-year-old boy 'because he wanted to know what it felt like'. James, 16, had watched so much porn, Woods said, that he had "no idea the other person needed to give consent to be penetrated".

Another boy, Jeremy, 14, was "driven mad" by his compulsion to view illegal images; before the police confiscated his computer he had been spending at least two hours a night on increasingly violent porn websites while his parents thought he was doing his homework. During his therapy with Woods, Jeremy explained that the only way he could control the images that kept returning to his mind of animals, kids, stabbing and strangling was to 'switch the computer back on, as then the images were back there' rather than in his head.

I fail to understand how a society that insists on a 9pm watershed for swearing on television and rates cinematic content with 18 certificates so adult material is not seen by children, is so callously slack about the tsunami of brutal, violent porn available with two clicks of a mouse. This bafflement was widely shared at the conference. Woods, who treats young teen sex offenders, likened the inability of society to get a grip on the harm being done to a kind of 'mass psychosis'.

Why do we let it slide? The first reason is ignorance: many parents equate porn with the top-shelf centrefolds of their own youth, unaware of the smorgasbord of violent perversion so easily available on the internet. Attempts by the government, led by the MP Claire Perry, to establish an 'opt-in' system for the internet (the default setting for an internet feed would be porn-free unless users specifically asked for adult material, in which case they would have to prove they were over 18) has failed. The government, under pressure from internet service providers, has instead gone for a weaker system that prompts new users of broadband to set up parental controls on individual computers.

"That is inadequate, completely inadequate," countered Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, when I popped in to see her in Westminster. "The opt-in is so important. The problem with relying on parental controls is that every self-respecting child can get round them." That's why a new system, whereby internet service providers can give households who want it a clean feed - ie one without porn, so adults can opt-in for porn if they want to rather than children coming across it when they don't want to - is, in my view, so important.

Abbott sees internet porn as a public health matter. Since she spoke out about this at the Fawcett Society last month she has been taken aback by her postbag: "I've had hundreds of letters - they are really touching because they are not part of some orchestrated campaign but are from genuine women describing their distress at the pornification of culture and the sexualisation of women and girls that goes hand in hand with it.

"People think when you raise this that you're complaining about pictures of girls with bare breasts. Well, I'm not particularly concerned about bare breasts. What these children are seeing online is of an entirely different order; it is really horrible stuff which brutalises and degrades women. There'z a link between exposure to that sort of pornography and violence within relationships."

Abbott is right about that. Woods cited research that shows adolescents who watch internet pornography not only "relax their boundaries towards sexual violence" but are also more likely to "see women as sex objects and engage in risk- taking behaviours such as unprotected sex".

The Icelandic government is so concerned about the way violent internet porn seems to stoke sexual aggression that it is considering becoming the first democracy in the western world to ban online pornography. "We are a progressive, liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti- violence," says Halla Gunnarsdottir, an adviser to the interior minister. Porn in this definition is not sexually explicit material but images that show hateful, violent sex.

That is exactly what the internet is awash with. So when children click on porn out of a natural curiosity to find out about sex (sex is the most common word typed into search engines), what they find isn't loving, consensual acts - albeit of a raunchy nature - but the most outré acts you can imagine (and many you can't).

The fact that society does not attempt to control or ban the extreme material that is so easily available sends our young people the message that it's standard to have group sex - and that violence is acceptable. Understandably, young people are confused, frightened and disturbed by what they see. Add arousal to that mix (patterns of early sexual arousal tend to stick for life) and it's not surprising that psychologists are worried.

Of course, it is oversimplistic to say that if you watch a rape-style fantasy online you immediately go out and commit one - but what a range of experts are beginning to agree upon is that widespread consumption of internet pornography, particularly at a tender age, shifts the way people think about intimacy, relationships and women. (Gail Dines, author of Pornland, describes just how porn hooks young men in in this article I published last week in the Sunday Times News Review. [£])

A good barometer of porn's influence is the fact that young people, raised on hairless porn stars, spend vast amounts of time and money having their pubic hair removed for fear of being seen as unattractive. Similarly, psychologists commonly report adolescents seeing sex as all about performance - ie, does it look like the porn they have seen? - rather than it being about a connection with the other person or pleasure.

Teens are caught in a web of pornified norms: sexting, indulging in unsafe sexual behaviour and generally feeling freaked out by 'expectations' implicit in the material they are viewing. I met one 14-year-old who was being sent porn clips by her boyfriend as prompts to what he wanted them to do that Saturday night. Woods, too, spoke of how porn spills over into reality, telling of a 17-year-old boy who reported himself for treatment because he had started following women down the street and was frightened he might "go further" in acting out his porn-fuelled fantasies.

Woods spoke passionately of the need to educate people about the risks of teen porn consumption, to support research that examines the effects of internet pornography and to "legally implement technological solutions that separate internet content, allowing consumers to choose the type of legal content they wish to have access to" - in other words, an 'opt-in' system.
It's up to all of us to make it happen.

I feel so strongly about all of this that on 2pm on June 11th at the offices of the think tank Policy Exchange in central London, I'm organising a conference on the subject, entitled Generation XXX. Attendees include MPs Claire Perry and Diane Abbott and Gail Dines, author of PornLand, an American academic who has led the charge on the damaging effects of porn. Dr John Woods from the Portman clinic, whose talk I mention above, will also be speaking - alongside some of the youth workers dealing with the fall-out from all of this on the front line. If you would like tickets (which are free) contact events@policyexhange.org.uk."

If you like this post, do please share it on Twitter, Facebook and Google+

katykuns Sat 25-May-13 22:05:58

What if a law was passed that forbid porn sites from being accessible by standard internet searches, punishment by hefty fine... and then they make a porn database, which you have to have valid ID to opt in to?
Then its not a matter of having the ISP ban all sites with breasts and arsenals, but actually like a mini separate Internet just for porn?

Just an idea grin sure it will have flaws confused

chocoluvva Sat 25-May-13 22:10:47

Tee Facebook recently removed a video of a brutal murder. Would you feel better if FB hadn't violated your 'right' to have seen that?

We don't let children have easy access to other things that harm them such as alcohol and tobacco. Why fight to protect their right to experience violent porn? To spare you some inconvenience?

FairPhyllis Sat 25-May-13 23:07:13

Haven't read all of the thread but my one word answer to OP's question would be 'patriarchy'.

As in, as a society we prioritise men's ability (I say men because most porn users are male) to easily access violent, objectifying and (frequently) racist porn over the interests of any other group, just because they are men. Even if we dress it up as a free speech issue, that is what we are actually doing.

Men don't see it as an issue because 1) they can have porn whenever they want it; and 2) exposing children to porn and a porn-influenced culture entrenches the status quo of patriarchy. It's a win-win for them.

The emphasis needs to be not on children, but on porn users themselves - examining what they get out of porn, what it says about how they view women, what wider effect their attitude to women has on society and why we defend their right to easily access and watch the exploitation of women's bodies up to the point that children are being affected by it.

Coming at it from the angle of protecting children is laudable but is all backwards. We have to start with the root. We have to publically win the argument that porn entrenches a harmful societal power dynamic and that those who use it are culpable for what it represents and what it does.

JoyMachine Sat 25-May-13 23:10:38

Katykuns- laws passed in the UK do not actually hold jurisdiction in other countries. The internet is an international entity- you cannot legislate here, and expect someone in Jakarta to abide by our laws.

libertarianj Sat 25-May-13 23:28:09

Alternatively parents could stop being so lazy and go through the minor INCONVENIENCE of installing filters on their kids machines which they can tailor to whatever their morals and beliefs are. This would also cost the tax payer nothing and would mean not paying more to your ISP to administer all this filtering which would be a mammoth task and very expensive.

I also find it amusing that some of posters on here in favour of child friendly filtering and censorship are the ones getting all angry, effing and blinding. I am pretty sure the word 'fuck' would definitely be out of bounds on the filter you so desire. So this site would be off limits straight away. Alternatively MN would have to adopt a no swearing policy like rival site netmums, as to not exclude those with filtering enabled.

BasilBabyEater Sat 25-May-13 23:41:01

Again... parents can put filters on their own computers.

They can't do anything about their children's friends' computers.

katykuns Sat 25-May-13 23:50:10

ahh damn JoyMachine, fell at the first hurdle grin

Snorbs Sat 25-May-13 23:55:19

I absolutely agree that the accessibility of porn and other unpleasant material on the Internet is a cause for deep concern for parents.

But this does not mean that asking, or legally forcing, ISPs to provide an opt-in facility is the solution. The place to do the filtering is on the computer because that way it can be tailored. If you want an ISP that provides opt-in right now you can vote with your wallet and get exactly that. TalkTalk does it as do several others.

But opt-in has a number of significant issues (as TalkTalk itself admits in the Q&A it did with Mumsnet here). Selectively blocking access to certain websites at the ISP means that the ISP can't tell if it's you accessing the web or your child.

So if this ISP-level filter is only blocking porn websites then that means that even if the filter's turned on your child can still get access to deeply troubling images of violent injuries and death on sites such as rotten.com. They may well be still able to access big multi-purpose sites such as reddit or 4chan where a small part of the site might be providing pornographic images but the majority of it isn't. They may still be able to access slash fiction, pornographic stories of sometimes quite violent and degrading sex acts between fictional characters.

OK, you may say, let's just have the ISP-level filter block all that nasty stuff as well. Fair enough. Let's block everything that isn't child-friendly...

...Except at that point you realise you've just been blocked from accessing mumsnet (as well as a host of grown-up, non-porn websites). There are posts here with quite explicit descriptions of sexual acts. The language can be gob-smacking. I certainly don't want my kids getting here.

If you think I'm exaggerating there was a poster a year or two back who said that the opt-in filtering on her Orange smartphone did indeed block mumsnet.

So in that scenario with ISP-level filtering you have one of three choices. 1) You can say goodbye to mumsnet.
2) You can opt-in to being able to access any and everything in which case you'll still need filtering capabilities on the PCs etc to stop your kids getting to objectionable content, or
3) You can turn the filter off (ie, opt-in the porn'n'all) when you want to access mumsnet and just hope that your kids don't use that opportunity to get to anything nasty. You the turn the filter back on when you've finished on mumsnet. TalkTalk recommends this very strategy but I think it's bollocks personally.

If a parent is letting their teenage child have uncontrolled and unmonitored access to the Internet then that parent is either woefully under-informed, downright stupid and/or criminally uncaring. None of those would be resolved by ISP-level filtering. Filtering on the PC does at least avoid the most egregious of these problems.

Ultimately the way to deal with these issues is not the deeply flawed ISP-level filtering idea but having parents who can put the effort in to find out how to keep their children safe and to monitor what their children are doing on the Internet.

Snorbs Sat 25-May-13 23:59:59

They can't do anything about their children's friends' computers.

This is true. Consider this analogy: Your child goes to a friend's house. At that house the parents leave violent horror and/or pornographic DVDs lying around with a fully-functional DVD player and TV within easy reach. Your child's friend puts one of those DVDs into the player and they both sit and watch it. At no point do the parents intervene or even pop their head round the door to see what the kids are up to.

Is this:
a) An appalling failure of parenting, or

b) A technological issue that should be resolved by ensuring that no-one can buy, borrow or otherwise obtain any movies above a 12A without first writing to a central register to request that they can?

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 00:38:07

^Again... parents can put filters on their own computers.

They can't do anything about their children's friends' computers.^

and Again how do you know that your children's friends have opted for ISP level filtering? i'd be very surprised if many peeps would, given the numerous flaws already highlighted in this thread and very nicely explained by Snorbs above.

ravenAK Sun 26-May-13 01:23:18

Not this again!

It's just not practical to Make The Internet Stop Being Nasty.

Nor is it feasible to Make It Stop Being Available - some countries have tried it, notably the UAE. It doesn't work - anyone who's ever lived in the countries in question can tell you how to use a proxy server to get past it.

What you CAN do is to put filters on your dc's devices - & don't allow them a smartphone if you don't understand how to filter it. They honestly don't need one, just to ring & let you know that they're off to netball practice & will be getting a lift home with a mate's dad etc. A very basic brick will do all that.

(But if you're anything like the parents of 90% of my KS3 students, you'll go with the peer pressure & let them have a phone which you don't know how to use.

Just don't then expect them not to be sent porn on said phone.)

& you keep the PC in a family room, with a filter on it.

& THEN you accept that their best mate's parents are quite possibly doing none of this - & consequently, your dc will inevitably at some stage come across something appalling. If it's not already been accessed by them on their mobile, of course, & also assuming they aren't the one disseminating it.

So you talk to them about how they'll react when they DO see something distressing. & about how porn images aren't a healthy model for anyone's teenage relationships....

100 years ago, given the then tendency to live in multi-generation households & die at home, our dc would have routinely seen dead bodies; given crowded living conditions, the children of the less well off would probably have been regularly exposed to the sight of adult family members having sex; given then attitudes to dv, they'd certainly have been much more likely to see violence within the home.

That's not to say that any of those things is desirable; just that the problem of dc seeing things we'd rather they shouldn't is very much not a new one.

It's absolutely correct that we need to do our best to shield our children from inappropriate online content, but we do need to acknowledge that we're ultimately going to fail.

There's got to be a Plan B - which is where education about sensible internet use comes in - from parents & from schools.

The magic unicorn solution of 'well, let's make all the dodgy stuff opt in, via some non-existent technology that politicians occasionally pretend to believe in on This Morning'? It doesn't exist, it's not ever going to exist, & people are wasting an awful lot of time wudgering on wistfully about it instead of making use of the practical options already available.

Dorange Sun 26-May-13 09:21:59

My friend caught her 6 year old seeing porn photos on her husbands Ipad the other day. The Ipad was locked with a password that the child didn't know. The child was trying to find out the password and the photos came out. Obviously the husband had been accessing porn on that tablet but he thought that a password would protect it and it didn't. I was there and I saw the pictures on the background of the password box. I was sick. Why is the conference on a Tuesday afternoon?? If it was on a Saturday much more people would be able to attend.

chocoluvva Sun 26-May-13 11:35:31

FairPhyllis - I agree that the root of the problem is the demand for it.

I don't know enough about the practicality of opt-in IT systems or filters, but I would think that the easy availability of porn feeds the demand for it as well as exposing young people to its damaging effects.

I would want to use filters/opt-in systems as well as attempts to change our oversexualised, misogynistic culture.

Great posts, Snorbs and ravenAK.

I don't think it's helpful to be calling parents lazy or stupid at this point (even if some of them are).

I think part of the problem is that our DC are the first generation growing up as 'digital natives' and many of their parents, particularly those in their 40s and 50s - a likely age to have teenagers - have no hope of ever understanding the technology to the extent that their children already do.

I see a lot of people this sort of age who are actually quite scared of it all. They're just muddling through, using email and FB, browsing the web and using whatever applications they need to for work, but not really understanding the importance of things like antivirus, firewalls, software updates etc. and anything that needs installing or configuring, they'd rather leave to someone else.

They know they've been left behind, they're not lazy or stupid, they're a bit scared and frequently embarrassed.

(I'm coming at this as someone who didn't know how to switch a computer on until I was 30, by the way, and I'm not that old now)

So in terms of education, I think we need to provide parents with much better information and support around all the dangers their children may encounter online and what they can do about it. And to help them feel confident to do this.

I'd like to see regular, age appropriate internet safety sessions for parents and children in all schools, focussing not only on porn but on the whole range of risks - violent material, disclosure of personal info, bullying, grooming, extreme political and religious sites, pro-suicide and pro-ana sites, illegal downloads, ID theft etc. Parents could also bring in laptops, phones and other devices and there could be technicians on hand to help them install and configure filtering software.

I love FairPhyllis 's post.

We have to publically win the argument that porn entrenches a harmful societal power dynamic and that those who use it are culpable for what it represents and what it does.

There will always be new technology so any technological solution will only ever be a short-term stop-gap. Until we win this argument and the creation, distribution and use of porn becomes simply unacceptable, we will always be playing catch-up and tying ourselves in knots trying to mitigate the terrible effects of this industry on not only our children but on all of us.

So I do not agree that porn is 'free speech' - a concept I didn't think applied in the UK in any case. I do however think there are civil liberties issues with the opt-in proposal. It puts in place technology which could very easily be used in the future for extreme censorship, such as exists in China. However unlikely that is, it makes me very uneasy.

I have talked at great length with my 12yo about what to do should she come across something which makes her feel uncomfortable.

We have parental controls on all devices.

Adult channels are blocked on tv.

Yet she still managed to view porn of the most extreme type at a sleepover. The child's parents had not installed software to prevent this.
Dd had nightmares for weeks.
She kept asking if what she saw was 'normal'.
She said the sounds wouldn't leave her mind.

Talking about how to deal with these situations when they arise will not erase the horror of what she saw.

All children have a right to be protected. Not just children whose parents have the knowledge and forethought to protect them.
I work in an inner city primary and most children there have unlimited access to the Internet.
Why shouldn't they have the right to be kept safe?
Their parents might not care- but we should.

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 20:55:52

so these proposals to introduce porn filters would have helped your daughters predicament in what way exactly? as i said before i reckon most persons would opt out anyway, as they won't be able to use their internet propperly.

We have all seen things that upset us, give us nightmares. That's life i am affraid and it's all part of growing up. Also extreme porn has been going on well before the internet, back in my day kids used to exhange videos and magazines in the playground. There was always some kid who would bring in his dad's library of hardcore imports.

chocoluvva Sun 26-May-13 21:23:07

Porn was definitely not as prevalent 20+ years ago as now. Magazines and videos are less accessible to children and were less socially acceptable. Also, their content was usually less extreme.

"it's all part of growing up" - how sad. I didn't see porn when I was a child. I would have been very disturbed. Don't you think our children have a right to be innocent? No-one needs porn. The 'need' it satisifies is not a justification for the damage it does to impressionable young people.

Also extreme porn has been going on well before the internet, back in my day kids used to exhange videos and magazines in the playground. There was always some kid who would bring in his dad's library of hardcore imports.

This is true. Back in the 70s when I was 9 I found a pile of european s&m magazines in a ditch in the woods. The content and themes were as shocking as anything I've seen in recent years (although there was a lot more hair). The images are still there in my head whenever I remember the incident. I didn't tell anybody. Nobody talked to DC about sex much back then, let alone porn. My mother would have been thoroughly out of her depth if I had tried to talk about what I had seen.

I do think the internet is a game changer though because it's massively increased the volume and availability of extreme porn.

It would be a bit like if they provided a mains supply of alcohol, so in your kitchen you had 'hot', 'cold' and 'wine' taps. I suspect alcohol would cause many more problems than it already does if that was the set up.

We have all seen things that upset us, give us nightmares. That's life i am affraid and it's all part of growing up.

This is shockingly callous. Nobody's child needs to grow up with that shit in their head. I would wholeheatedly support anything I thought would genuinely protect children from exposure to porn. Sadly the opt-in isn't it.

Seeing images and videos of women being abused and humiliated should not be 'part of growing up' for anyone.

Part of growing up is taking responsibility for your actions and their effects on others. Porn users need to grow up.

ravenAK Sun 26-May-13 21:50:17

I actually fully agree with MoreCrack & chocoluvva that a lot of the porn available freely online is damaging to anyone who is exposed to it.

& gruesome stuff too - my year 8 students were quite surprised last week that I disagreed with that video of the suspected perpetrator in Woolwich being shown on the news. They'd all seen much worse on youtube than that apparently sad.

I'm really not saying that it's OK for dc to be able to access distressing, disorientating or desensitising online content.

I just don't agree with facile solutions that won't actually protect IT-savvy teenagers. No one needs porn, fine. No one ever needed malaria, but that doesn't mean that we should be addressing it by getting Derren Brown to hypnotise the global population of mosquitoes into taking up vegetarianism...which is about as credible as the logistics of a national opt-in to adult content.

libertarianj Sun 26-May-13 23:07:20

Plenty sorry if it does sound callous but it's the grim reality. I agree in an ideal world we shouldn't have to be exposed to these violent images. However using the recent Woolwich incident for example these things are pretty unavoidable.

"We have all seen things that upset us, give us nightmares. That's life i am affraid and it's all part of growing up."

You are wrong.
The pornography my daughter was exposed to was filmed abuse of a woman.
That is not part of growing up. If a child disclosed to me they had viewed similar images I would have huge CP and safeguarding concerns.

The laptop on which she viewed these images belonged to a child. I am sure that if it had automatic filtering my daughter could have avoided this situation.

It is ridiculous to suggest that porn is no more of a problem now than in the 70s. It is far more accessible. It is shaping an entire generations sexual habits. 11yo girls shaving their pubic hair, for example. Boys conditioned to believe that is the norm.

I feel very angry that anyone would suggest I should accept this as a 'normal' part of growing up.

ravenAK Sun 26-May-13 23:56:22

MoreCrack: I entirely get why you would like there to be some sort of 'automatic filtering' in place, & agree with the rest of your post about the accessibility of porn.

I'd like to have an automatic protective forcefield that surrounds my dc, Ready Brek advert style, & stops them catching colds/d&v bugs/nits from their classmates.

But no one's managed to develop one. There's overwhelming reasons to conclude that it just isn't realistically do-able.

So be angry about the prevalence & cultural acceptance of porn, by all means, but 'I am sure that if it had automatic filtering...' is a blind alley.

chastemccain Mon 27-May-13 05:46:57

Hi, could NessaYork or anyone else who knows tell me about 'Girls' please. I assume it is a doco explaining porn's crapness to girls. What age group is it aimed at? TIA.

libertarianj Mon 27-May-13 06:24:31

It is ridiculous to suggest that porn is no more of a problem now than in the 70s. It is far more accessible. It is shaping an entire generations sexual habits. 11yo girls shaving their pubic hair, for example. Boys conditioned to believe that is the norm.

the jury is still out on this, there's little evidence to suggest this is the case.

There's great article here regarding this. It's from a young persons perspective and i totally agree with it:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/25/online-porn-facts-fantasy

FairPhyllis Mon 27-May-13 08:26:26

If porn is the only depiction of sex a child ever sees then it will inevitably shape their view of it. They won't have anything to compare it to.

I don't understand why people pretend that we aren't conditioned by our audio visual media culture. If we weren't, then advertising or Fox News wouldn't be able to shape people's opinions.

Seeing porn is not part of growing up. I never saw any until I was about 17/8 (and I am 31 now). It certainly wasn't circulating in my primary school - if it had been, anyone bringing it in would have been stamped on pdq.

Saying 'it's the grim reality' - for crying out loud. Is it really too much for women and girls to aspire to living in a world where men don't routinely watch sexual abuse and humiliation for thrills? Can we not even hope for that?

Hey women! Set your standards for how you expect to be treated as a group even lower than you can have thought possible!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now