Cyprus Mail has written a highly stereotyped article on how young children are exposed to pornography as well as BDSM imagery on the Internet; Are our Children exposed to too much pornography?
The article is based on what Cyprus Mail define as “a report written by the psychologist, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, commissioned by the British Home Office, on The Sexualisation of Young People”.
First of all, the report is not only about the sexualisation of young people, it is about how to prevent violence against women and girls. The review that Dr Papadopoulos is doing is about the sexualisation of society and is something that has been fed into the report that was commissioned by the British Home Office. The early findings made by Dr Papadopoulos are qouted in the report:
“Young men and women are encouraged to see girls as sex symbols and nothing more. Who cares if we’re successful if we’re not attractive too? Girls suffer from low self-esteem thanks to the bombardment of perfect images they receive from the media, girls themselves believe that if they are not beautiful they are worthless.”
This is something that the author of the article, Lauren O’Hara, confirms to be a well known problem. I totally agree with this conclusion, it is basically problem that have existed for centuries and it is nothing new, even in the age of the Internet. Lauren O’hara then does the following statement:
“The concern of Ms Papadopoulos is that the increasingly violent imagery of BDSM and the underlying view that women need to be attractive, submissive and sexually available encourages violence towards them and young ones at that, and that advertising gives girls the impression that to succeed they need to be body perfect and in competition with each other.”
Let us first get one thing straight – Children shouldn’t under any circumstances surf porn on the web. This is not a problem on a societal level – It’s a parental problem.
The other part of the statement that I am strongly opposed to is “the increasingly violent imagery of BDSM and the underlying view that women need to be attractive, submissive and sexually available encourages violence towards them..”.
Hang on a minute there – BDSM isn’t about violence at all, period. Consensual Power Exchange and violence, which equals abuse, are not the same thing. What I do agree with is that, looking at BDSM from an external perspective, may make it look like violent acts – But bare in mind; It isn’t violence at all.
Statements that are trying to make BDSM equal to violence are usually based on a lack of knowledge regarding the dynamics in relationships based on consensual power exchange. Bare also in mind that there are submissive men and Dominant women within in the BDSM community as well.
People within the BDSM community that are either submissive or Dominant are so by a conscious choice, it is a part of their sexuality. Many of them can recite references to early childhood memories where they felt pleasure from being tied up by friends, long before they came in contact with any graphical representation of BDSM.
There is an other flaw when trying to connect violence and BDSM – BDSM is an umbrella definition which incorporates many paraphilias, some of them do not even come close to violent representations. Bondage is one example, tickle torture is another.
BDSM is often misunderstood and usually not interpreted as a part of the sexuality. RFSU, a national government funded sex politic and educational organisation in Sweden, has been working for a long period to have BDSM recognised as something that is a part of the sexuality and WHO’s removal of the mental disorder classification in reference to BDSM – These are reflections of the fact that BDSM is an integral part of the sexuality.
The article made by Lauren O’Hara and the statement made by Dr Papadopoulos refers to BDSM imagery in particular and it is a nice rhetorical trick in order to appoint an enemy and win followers. BDSM is outside of the norm, it is different and the acts performed within BDSM seems, to the general public, not to be normal – In other words; BDSM is an easy target and an obvious culprit. The gay community has gone through the same procedure in media and now it is BDSM that is put on trial. Let us just hope that Lauren O’Hara is referring to imagery only and not the lifestyle.
The following is then stated in article:
“The only way plausible way, for most parents and teachers, to counter the current and growing availability of porn to the under sixteens is through education and discussion.”
This is really interesting because this is the same argument I use when I am referring to the acceptance of diverting sexualities; Acceptance can only be achieved through education and discussion. Discussion shouldn’t only be done for the sake of moral exclusion, it should also be done in order to clarify that everyone has the freedom of choice – A freedom that should allow every human being to be able to live out their sexuality, based on consent, without the fear of reprimands. We are unfortunately not there yet – But the only way to get there is through education and discussion.
The closing argument in the article is the following:
“Once we have been shown how much pornography is produced through the use of drugs, exploitation and violence we can see it for what it is, just another way of making money and the corrupt use of power. Once we question the motives of those who make videos using violent sexual imagery to sell their records we can boycott them.”
This is a statement based on assumptions as we don’t know the exact numbers of how much porn that is produced through the use of violence, drugs and exploitation – Porn that is produced through the use of these means should be taken of the market. But there are a lot of porn that is being produced in a legit way with people that have made a conscious choice based on a consent. Actresses, or actors for that matter, within porn are not necessarily victims or drug addicts; Kink.com and Erika Lust are two good examples of porn made in a legit way.
Porn isn’t necessarily bad, neither is BDSM – Lack of knowledge as a foundation for what you believe is understanding is by far more dangerous. Sexualisation in our society should be discussed and debated, but we should also do the same when it comes to intolerance towards sexualities that are diverting from the normative collective.