What do you think?
Rate this book
Porn Panic!: Sex and Censorship in the UK
First they came for the pornography, and then strip clubs, lads' mags and music videos. Then they came for hate speech, and then speech that was merely offensive. They eroded free speech online and on university campuses. They sought to divide people by gender and by race.
Porn Panic! charts the rise of a new social conservatism for the new millennium, coinciding with the collapse of liberalism as a political force. A new fascism is here, and it's nothing like anyone expected...
Porn Panic! charts the rise of a new social conservatism for the new millennium, coinciding with the collapse of liberalism as a political force. A new fascism is here, and it's nothing like anyone expected...
232 pages, Paperback
Published August 26, 2016
2 people are currently reading
71 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Read
February 17, 2017I'm the author - I think it's great :)
March 9, 2017
Jerry Barnett's "Porn Panic!: Sex and Censorship in the UK" does a good job of developing an argument for how both left-liberals and liberals have been oddly aligned with social conservatism on dealing with sexual expression. Shaming women and men, providing an expansion of the bourgeois state's conservative elements, and an expansion of the capitalist state repression mechanism are all counter-productive to aiding elements of liberation. Furthermore, anti-pornography arguments tend to both posit theoretical constructions like the patriarchy and then turn them into outright conspiracy thinking. Pornography operates by market logic, and its sexism generally reflects private misogyny and may reinforce it, but it is unlikely to drive it in and of itself. It definitely doesn't seem to be designed to drive it since its primary motive is profit. Barnett seems to understand this. Lastly, Barnett is right about the self-righteousness that invades a lot of the left and that deleterious.
Barnett, however, still is in the Blairite mode. He does not believe in a world outside of regulated capitalism, and while he believes in regulation and believes himself to be on the social-cultural left, he doesn't really see anyway out of capitalist relations and the exploitation inherent in parts of it. Furthermore, his "marketplace of ideas" logic assumes that there is an equality of power between all players, and there simply is not.
Barnett's use of evolutionary psychology is laughable as it is a just-so story for a lot current gender relations that are VERY historically situated. Evolutionary psychology has an immediate appeal because as primates that involved some of its core claims must be true, but as anyone who studies anthropology or comparative biology will tell you, most practical conclusions for mating habits of contemporary people based on speculations about the African savannah before agriculture are generally crap. There is no evidence for a lot of them and contrary evidence among both primates and hunter-gather drives for some of them. In short, Barnett is normalizing a lot of gender relations in a strange way.
Now, as a bit of disclosure, I am one of the people on the editorial staff at Zero that accepted this book and my honest opinion is that it's primary argument is hugely flawed because of the three caveats I mentioned above, the polemic is overreaching, and some of the book is far more conservative than the author realizes himself. Re-reading it, however, I have come to the conclusion that I made the right decision in voting for this book's publication: the effects of a lot of sexual expression laws in both US and particularly the UK need to be discussed openly and honestly as even many people who are more consistently anti-pornography and sex work MUST grabble with in their advocacy. There have been perverse incentives and unintended consequences from a lot of these laws that disproportionately effect the poor but have strong support from the middle class. So I view this as a deeply flaw argument but one that is absolutely worth considering, particularly when Barnett is talking about the results of legislation.
Barnett, however, still is in the Blairite mode. He does not believe in a world outside of regulated capitalism, and while he believes in regulation and believes himself to be on the social-cultural left, he doesn't really see anyway out of capitalist relations and the exploitation inherent in parts of it. Furthermore, his "marketplace of ideas" logic assumes that there is an equality of power between all players, and there simply is not.
Barnett's use of evolutionary psychology is laughable as it is a just-so story for a lot current gender relations that are VERY historically situated. Evolutionary psychology has an immediate appeal because as primates that involved some of its core claims must be true, but as anyone who studies anthropology or comparative biology will tell you, most practical conclusions for mating habits of contemporary people based on speculations about the African savannah before agriculture are generally crap. There is no evidence for a lot of them and contrary evidence among both primates and hunter-gather drives for some of them. In short, Barnett is normalizing a lot of gender relations in a strange way.
Now, as a bit of disclosure, I am one of the people on the editorial staff at Zero that accepted this book and my honest opinion is that it's primary argument is hugely flawed because of the three caveats I mentioned above, the polemic is overreaching, and some of the book is far more conservative than the author realizes himself. Re-reading it, however, I have come to the conclusion that I made the right decision in voting for this book's publication: the effects of a lot of sexual expression laws in both US and particularly the UK need to be discussed openly and honestly as even many people who are more consistently anti-pornography and sex work MUST grabble with in their advocacy. There have been perverse incentives and unintended consequences from a lot of these laws that disproportionately effect the poor but have strong support from the middle class. So I view this as a deeply flaw argument but one that is absolutely worth considering, particularly when Barnett is talking about the results of legislation.
March 19, 2018
Very thought provoking and fantastic opinions with the required facts to back them up. Barnett's writing presents the argument to the reader without forcing the reader to necessarily agree with the opinions. Great read, great debate, great author.
December 22, 2016
I want to first acknowledge that, despite my low rating for the book––the reasons for which I will outline shortly––it made a few valid points that should be recognized:
Left movements should defend sexual expression and, in particular, seek to build and facilitate erotic and sexual expression that is creative and worthwhile. Shaming and otherwise attacking people, particularly women, who work in sexual industries or who produce sexual content, is both counterproductive and simply unconscionable. As is applauding strategies of capitalist state repression, especially when it involves deporting vulnerable people or putting women out of their means of earning a living.
We should be wary of anti-pornography arguments that transforms ideas like patriarchy into vast conspiracies. Social practices and patterns that subordinate women are not generally coordinated by malicious or shadowy figures for conscious goals. The pornography industry is looking to expand demand for its products––contrary to the author's assertion that businesses simply respond to biologically fixed demand for sexual material––but it is not in itself a misogynistic political apparatus.
People who want to change the world tend to be self-righteous, which is a persistent problem that all left movements must address if they hope to actually reach people rather than degenerating into mere subcultures.
Unfortunately, the book is fairly terrible beyond those valid points, and I would point to the following problems:
-Advocating a Millsian rational "marketplace of ideas" when that notion denies the existence of power imbalances that exist on an interpersonal and social level. The author invokes class and paints what he calls "the new left" as majority white and middle class (without citations or statistics, which he prizes so well elsewhere) and defends men who read The Sun for the nude pics (certainly not the worst reason one could be reading The Sun) because they're workers while ignoring that sexism, racism, homo- and transphobia have disproportionate effects on proletarian people. Also ignored is any global dimension of the sex industry or the porn industry. It would have been fascinating to hear more about pornography on a world scale and not just stats from Europe and North America.
--Defending the rights of fascists and transphobes to an audience while denouncing people for trying to exclude harmful and inciting speech from their campuses and communities. While he endorses the idea that communities should be able to handle oppressive people or just ignore them (which is a practice that women he labels "anti-free speech" who were targeted by terroristic harassment campaigns did not have once the threats escalated enough) he rejects the idea that communities of people who are, say, transgender or their supporters have the right to intervene against radical feminists who hate them and have advocated harmful practices. He is in a comfortable enough position, ironically enough considering his identity-based accusations against "the new left," to simply ignore people or debate with them. When your autonomy or life is on the line, the liberal solution of debate is simply not available, especially to people with little or no access to traditional publishing outlets.
-- Constantly quoting George Orwell for purely rhetorical attacks or comparing "new left distortions" of concepts like oppression or "censorship" to Dictionary.com or wiki definitions of words is childish writing and assumes that words have fixed or obvious meanings.
--Likewise, he argues that anti-pornography feminists rob agency from both men and women by making men into drones controlled by advertising and porn and women helpless waifs who need help handling "triggering" things or "safe spaces." However, one of his tangential arguments in favour of pornography and the moral neutrality of gender imbalances within its consumption and production is that "men" are driven by biological urges to consume sexual commodities in a certain way. Porn is eternal and men will always consume images of women whether we like it or not. Although this is consistent with his rejection of any idea that socialization and culture, rather than biology, might have some impact on specific forms of sexual practice (except when they're convenient to his argument, of course), his invocation of biological determinism also robs people of free will. Another contradiction. And this is coming from a trans person who has a strong interest in biology when it's thoughtfully used as a tool to study the vast variety of human cultures around sexuality. Again, a look outside of Europe and the United States (he even neglects to discuss Japan, where animated child abuse imagery is still not illegal and porn is subject to many layers of censorship, which would have made good examples for his polemic) might have corrected this assumption that the Western, white, male way of consuming porn is biologically normative.
--This is polemic. Which is fine, and makes the book go much faster, but his reasoning is frequently anecdotal. Constant invocations of "back in my day, leftists were fine with free speech and with men having free access to women's bodies as commodities, but not now" are tiring and distract from any real points he's trying to make.
In any case, despite the low review score, which reflects the quality of ideas and communication I found in the book, I don't regret reading it because it did clarify some of my own ideas and certainly doesn't pull any punches. It's also easy to read, hence its earning the second star.
Left movements should defend sexual expression and, in particular, seek to build and facilitate erotic and sexual expression that is creative and worthwhile. Shaming and otherwise attacking people, particularly women, who work in sexual industries or who produce sexual content, is both counterproductive and simply unconscionable. As is applauding strategies of capitalist state repression, especially when it involves deporting vulnerable people or putting women out of their means of earning a living.
We should be wary of anti-pornography arguments that transforms ideas like patriarchy into vast conspiracies. Social practices and patterns that subordinate women are not generally coordinated by malicious or shadowy figures for conscious goals. The pornography industry is looking to expand demand for its products––contrary to the author's assertion that businesses simply respond to biologically fixed demand for sexual material––but it is not in itself a misogynistic political apparatus.
People who want to change the world tend to be self-righteous, which is a persistent problem that all left movements must address if they hope to actually reach people rather than degenerating into mere subcultures.
Unfortunately, the book is fairly terrible beyond those valid points, and I would point to the following problems:
-Advocating a Millsian rational "marketplace of ideas" when that notion denies the existence of power imbalances that exist on an interpersonal and social level. The author invokes class and paints what he calls "the new left" as majority white and middle class (without citations or statistics, which he prizes so well elsewhere) and defends men who read The Sun for the nude pics (certainly not the worst reason one could be reading The Sun) because they're workers while ignoring that sexism, racism, homo- and transphobia have disproportionate effects on proletarian people. Also ignored is any global dimension of the sex industry or the porn industry. It would have been fascinating to hear more about pornography on a world scale and not just stats from Europe and North America.
--Defending the rights of fascists and transphobes to an audience while denouncing people for trying to exclude harmful and inciting speech from their campuses and communities. While he endorses the idea that communities should be able to handle oppressive people or just ignore them (which is a practice that women he labels "anti-free speech" who were targeted by terroristic harassment campaigns did not have once the threats escalated enough) he rejects the idea that communities of people who are, say, transgender or their supporters have the right to intervene against radical feminists who hate them and have advocated harmful practices. He is in a comfortable enough position, ironically enough considering his identity-based accusations against "the new left," to simply ignore people or debate with them. When your autonomy or life is on the line, the liberal solution of debate is simply not available, especially to people with little or no access to traditional publishing outlets.
-- Constantly quoting George Orwell for purely rhetorical attacks or comparing "new left distortions" of concepts like oppression or "censorship" to Dictionary.com or wiki definitions of words is childish writing and assumes that words have fixed or obvious meanings.
--Likewise, he argues that anti-pornography feminists rob agency from both men and women by making men into drones controlled by advertising and porn and women helpless waifs who need help handling "triggering" things or "safe spaces." However, one of his tangential arguments in favour of pornography and the moral neutrality of gender imbalances within its consumption and production is that "men" are driven by biological urges to consume sexual commodities in a certain way. Porn is eternal and men will always consume images of women whether we like it or not. Although this is consistent with his rejection of any idea that socialization and culture, rather than biology, might have some impact on specific forms of sexual practice (except when they're convenient to his argument, of course), his invocation of biological determinism also robs people of free will. Another contradiction. And this is coming from a trans person who has a strong interest in biology when it's thoughtfully used as a tool to study the vast variety of human cultures around sexuality. Again, a look outside of Europe and the United States (he even neglects to discuss Japan, where animated child abuse imagery is still not illegal and porn is subject to many layers of censorship, which would have made good examples for his polemic) might have corrected this assumption that the Western, white, male way of consuming porn is biologically normative.
--This is polemic. Which is fine, and makes the book go much faster, but his reasoning is frequently anecdotal. Constant invocations of "back in my day, leftists were fine with free speech and with men having free access to women's bodies as commodities, but not now" are tiring and distract from any real points he's trying to make.
In any case, despite the low review score, which reflects the quality of ideas and communication I found in the book, I don't regret reading it because it did clarify some of my own ideas and certainly doesn't pull any punches. It's also easy to read, hence its earning the second star.
September 9, 2021
A well-researched book into the origins of anti-sex movements, censorship, and how the puritanism of the new Left resembles the puritanism of the old Right in both fixations and goals. As the title indicates, most focus is on events in the UK. However, the author touches on US happenings and delves into the origins of the modern anti-sex movement started by American academic feminists.
September 15, 2016
What an informative read! It gives a very comprehensive summary of the evolution of porn from print to online, and how (British) society has reacted to the changes. I especially enjoyed the author's personal insights and quips. Him having gone through the "porn revolution" first hand gives it an air of credibility and it is peppered with personal anecdotes, which makes for a fun read. Of course, the author is absolutely biased towards porn. (In fact, the whole point of the book is to convince us that there is too much fuss being made about porn, and that the fuss has been far more detrimental than porn itself.) However, one can't help but nod along and agree as the points made are valid, and the author presents the facts as they are (with solid references too), without resorting to overly obtuse language or complex reasoning meant to befuddle the reader.
Pick up this book if you are
1. confused about feminism, or if you identify as a feminist
2. curious about why anyone would write a book defending porn
3. interested in politics and censorship
4. intrigued by the eye-catching cover on this book (as I was!)
Disclaimer: I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley
Pick up this book if you are
1. confused about feminism, or if you identify as a feminist
2. curious about why anyone would write a book defending porn
3. interested in politics and censorship
4. intrigued by the eye-catching cover on this book (as I was!)
Disclaimer: I received an ARC of this book from NetGalley
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews