Digital Rape? The Parliamentary “Sexual Harassment” Report is a Sweeping Attack on Civil Liberties

Tuesday was one of those days that pop up a few times a year for me: a phone call from a media outlet (in this case talkRadio) alerts me to the fact that porn is in the news again. Would I be interested in joining a discussion about porn being a “public health crisis” at five past 11?

Of course, I would: defending the indefensible is my niche. So I dutifully appeared on talkRadio, followed by BBC Radio Leeds and (later that evening) Newsnight.

Porn is a “public health crisis”?

The claim that porn has created a “public health crisis” is not an evidence-based one, but in fact emerged from America’s religious right a couple of years ago, and has been used by right-wing state legislatures to pass anti-porn legislation. This is simply the latest salvo in a war on pornography being fought by Republicans and anti-porn feminists for the past four decades.

Now, worryingly, the claim had been regurgitated by the parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee, and has appeared in a report they published this week, that has deeply worrying implications for civil liberties.

Panic!

The report is one of the worst examples of “porn panic” I’ve ever seen, and I (literally) wrote the book on this subject. It makes ungrounded, hysterical claims based on anecdotal evidence:

“sexual harassment in public places … is a routine and sometimes relentless experience for women and girls”

This claim isn’t supported by empirical evidence, and there certainly isn’t evidence it’s been getting worse, but the porn panic (most recently in the form of the #MeToo movement) has established that it is bad, and is getting worse, and that if you question the witch-hunt, you must be a witch.

Having established that women and “and even girls in school uniform” are being harassed and assaulted literally all the time in oh so many ways, the report then quickly gets to the something must be done moment: “Sexual harassment is never acceptable, and women and girls should not be expected to endure it.” Anyone questioning the report hereafter is clearly implying that harassment is acceptable and that womenandgirls should have to endure it.

What’s to blame?

What’s to blame for this virtual holocaust of harassment? Porn, of course!

“There is significant research suggesting that there is a relationship between the consumption of pornography and sexist attitudes and sexually aggressive behaviours, including violence”

Readers of this blog, and my book, will know that this simply isn’t true. In fact, one of the widest-reaching meta-studies on porn-and-harm ever commissioned was carried out by Ofcom on behalf of the British government, which concluded:

“There seems to be no relationship between the availability of pornography and an increase in sex crimes in other countries; in comparison there is more evidence for the opposite effect.”

In plain English, porn isn’t harmful but it does appear to reduce sexual violence.

This important conclusion appears somewhere in the middle of a 146-page report which the government published in 2011, and then went on to completely ignore as it continued blaming porn for every (often imaginary) problem in society.

What must be done?

So, having established the falsehoods that 1) unspeakable horror is occurring and 2) it’s porn’s fault, the report then goes on to make an incredibly broad set of scattergun recommendations which are unsupported even by the preceding nonsense.

The government’s position to date has been that porn is fine, so long as it isn’t “extreme” or “obscene”, and is only seen by people over 18. The UK already has some of the tightest pornography restrictions of any democratic country. However, this report challenges that position, complaining that the government:

“…has no plans to address adult men’s use of mainstream online pornography”.

This throwaway line is a huge shift in the anti-porn movement, away from “child protection” to “all porn is dangerous”.

Some of the report is vague but ominous:

“set out a comprehensive programme of work to make all public places safe for all women and girls”

And some of it just ominous:

“The Government should take an evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography, similar to the huge investment there has been over many years in tackling road safety, or preventing public health problems caused by lawful behaviour such as smoking.”

(2017 road deaths: 1,710; tobacco deaths: 80,000; porn deaths: nil).

Support my fight against censorship
- become a Patron

The recommendations stop trying to pretend that porn causes harassment, and just assume that porn and harassment are basically the same thing:

“Bus regulations should be amended to prohibit sexual harassment and viewing pornography on buses.”

Thus, in future, a person viewing porn on a bus will count against the sexual harassment statistics, which will push up arrests for harassment and “prove” the problem is getting worse.

There’s random stuff like:

“Universities should have a legal obligation to have policies outlawing sexual harassment…”

Of course, universities do already have policies in this area. This sounds like America’s Title IX which set loose a wave of “rape on campus” hysteria out of all proportion with reality, and a situation where two students could be deemed to have harassed each other.

There’s also a weird dig at strip clubs, which picks up on (false) claims by feminists that strip clubs were causing rape:

Support my fight against censorship
- become a Patron

“Local authorities must consult local women’s groups and sexual violence specialists when deciding their policies on licensing strip clubs and lap-dancing clubs.”

Can you rape someone via WhatsApp?

But the most worrying recommendation is as follows:

“A new law should be brought forward on image-based sexual abuse to criminalise all non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate sexual images, on the basis of the victim’s lack of consent rather than perpetrator motivation.”

This appears to mean that anyone sending a sexual image to another person could be criminalised if the recipient denies consenting. I’m on a couple of WhatsApp groups where short porn clips are sometimes shared: now, just by receiving one of these clips (which are always unsolicited), I could claim to have been the victim of sexual violence. Likewise, this would open up anyone involved in sexting to a claim of sexual harassment (and for many teens, sexting is a normal part of relationships today).

We are at the point where any sexual contact, even digital, may fall into the same category of offence as rape. Sex, in virtually any context, is now considered problematic. While these ideas were once the preserve of an extremist clique of feminists, they are now actively discussed in the British parliament.

Support my fight against censorship
- become a Patron

12 thoughts on “Digital Rape? The Parliamentary “Sexual Harassment” Report is a Sweeping Attack on Civil Liberties

  1. Since you brought up #MeToo, allow me to share the two worst extremes coming from this movement:

    1) There are no false accusations – Sure, many will say that false accusations are “rare”, but in practice, the extremists refuse to believe any evidence that an accusation of harassment or sexual violence could be mistaken or fabricated. And if you tell them of the harms done by false accusations, they sneer: “Well, if it’s between a man’s reputation and women’s safety, I’ll go for women’s safety every time.” Except it’s about more than “reputation”, especially when the target of false accusations is traumatized, dismissed from their jobs, or locked in jail. Seems no one thought of that when they turned “Believe the Victims” into a thought-stopping mantra.

    2) No woman is an abuser, no man is a victim – I’ve seen my share of men victimized by harassment and intimate partner violence, as well as women who perpetrate it. Always, always, always we are told: “This isn’t about sex; it’s about power.” Then when a female professor, physician or CEO abuses their authority against a male subordinate, suddenly the extremists twist their logic to excuse and/or deny that such could happen.

    Let me add two more points, about porn and how to respond to harassment …

    I’ve looked into the studies about porn and its alleged links to sexual violence. Know what they found? How men are brought up before they watch porn makes a whole lot more difference than the porn they watch. A boy brought up to abhor violence and treat the women in their lives with respect has far less chance of harassing or abusing women than one who’s raised to accept violence and look down on women. Does this report even bring that up?

    That leads to my last point. I was raised to assert myself, to not accept being harassed. When somebody – of any gender – got even close to that, I’d look them straight in the eye and tell them to knock it off or they’d see serious payback. It works. Every time. It works when I or my friends warn off somebody who’s harassing another person. Do these so-called champions of women’s empowerment even think of giving girls and young women the same advice my parents gave me?

  2. I noticed that one of the people to give evidence to the committee was the right wing journalist and broadcaster Melanie Phillips whom has long taken the line that all porn is self-evidently harmful and degrading. I wonder just how objective the others were?

    1. No idea why she’s considered an expert. They also use Catharine Mackinnon as a source, the most renowned of anti-sex feminists

  3. “the report then quickly gets to the something must be done moment: “Sexual harassment is never acceptable, and women and girls should not be expected to endure it.” Anyone questioning the report hereafter is clearly implying that harassment is acceptable and that womenandgirls should have to endure it.”

    Where does the report even suggest this?

    You are just opposing women and girls being given increased protections against sexual abuse on the spurious grounds that to do so impinges on other people’s civil liberties and constitutes censorship.


    Some of the report is vague but ominous:
    “set out a comprehensive programme of work to make all public places safe for all women and girls””

    Good lord what is ominous about wanting to make public spaces safe for human beings?

    “The recommendations stop trying to pretend that porn causes harassment, and just assume that porn and harassment are basically the same thing:
    “Bus regulations should be amended to prohibit sexual harassment and viewing pornography on buses.”

    Why would you want people to be able to look at porn on public transport?

    If people wanna view porn then fine they can do so in private in their homes. But why should they on buses etc?

    I am not in favour of censorship or blanket bans on pornography but please let’s have some decency and decorum and not advocate for it being viewable in public places like public transport.

    I think we need to examine whether adult’s inalienable rights to view adult material is more vital or important than protecting young people from those adults who wish to harm them.

  4. Danny, I’ve seen all too often how vague calls to “protect women & children” lead to sweeping actions against people who are not harming anybody. One fauxminist I heard suggested a man who looks at a woman or girl for longer than five seconds ought to be cited for a misdemeanor! Is that what you want?

    If you read my comment above, you’ll see that I don’t take guff from anybody who verbally harasses me. I make it clear they should knock it off. No screaming, no ideological badgering, just a firm: “Not cool, don’t do that again.” I could count on one hand the number of women I’ve seen in my life do the same thing.

    With few exceptions, we raise women not to assert themselves, even to depend upon men to do that for them. What if we ended that cycle with how we raise our daughters, to defend themselves and other women verbally and, if necessary, physically? Along with raising our sons to treat girls & women with more respect?

    Until that generational change, I’m all for doing what’s reasonable to bring down harassment & abuse. Vague recommendations are not reasonable, and can even invite excessive government intrusion, not to mention vigilante “justice”.

  5. “One fauxminist I heard suggested a man who looks at a woman or girl for longer than five seconds ought to be cited for a misdemeanor! Is that what you want?”

    I never suggested I want anything of the sort.

    Your comments overall has nothing to do with what I said.

    1. Jeesh, Danny! I wasn’t saying you were the one suggesting it. Seems you’re so caught up in what you think & say, you’re not even paying attention to what others are saying. And I’ll pass over the bad grammar of the second sentence.

      My message, in sum, is that deciding things based on fear instead of facts actually defeats the central goal of feminism. The result? So much effort is put into “protecting” women that, instead of being empowered, they’re made even more passive and afraid, and without any hard evidence to support the fears which feed this vicious cycle.

      So instead of getting overly defensive, why don’t you think of ways to break the cycle and encourage women to be more assertive?

  6. You suggested it by asking if that’s what I want?

    How about instead of asking women to be more assertive we tell certain men to stop harassing them etc?

    1. “You suggested it by asking if that’s what I want?”

      No, that’s what you read into that. Worse, you accused me of putting those words in your mouth. Seems like you’ve never heard of the Socratic method of posing questions to encourage the other person to think.

      “How about instead of asking women to be more assertive we tell certain men to stop harassing them etc?”

      It’s not an either-or proposition; society can & should encourage both. Go back to my first comment here, where I mention the importance of raising boys to respect women & condemn violence. I’d argue that doing both would be way more effective than putting the burden of responsibility on just one side of the equation.

      Now, may I ask you to do a favor? Before you respond to this comment, please read it thoroughly & only respond to what I’ve said exactly, instead of defensively projecting some other meaning to my words? It’s really offensive to take the effort to write simply & clearly, only to have somebody like you twist it around for whatever reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *