Critics of porn should look at themselves

Porn has become a multi-billion dollar global industry, but it has a long history: it has been around since at least the rock art of the Chauvet caves. The Internet has made it easily available to hundreds of millions of people, including children. It is also extremely popular. An often-quoted study that was run by Simon Louis Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal intended to compare the views of heterosexual men in their 20s who watched porn and those that didn't. The study famously had to be abandoned because the researchers couldn't find any men who didn't watch porn. (The study did however only include 20 men.)

Dan Savage, the popular US sexologist wrote, tongue-in-cheek, that all men watch porn and those that say they don't are lying. Savage overstates things a bit; there are undoubtedly a few men who never watch porn, but most do. Moreover, various —admittedly poorly conducted— surveys suggest that more and more women are watching porn. When pornographic movies were first made in the 20th century, women were not allowed to watch them. Millions of women across the world enjoy porn. It is a sign of the progress of women's rights that they now may do so. It is not a sign of progress that critics of porn relentlessly appear to ignore this fact in their arguments.

One of the most outspoken people against the TopTv has been Errol Naidoo, director of the Family Policy Institute. He is a devout Christian, but one who is not known for preaching Christian love. For example, he has described President Obama as “the most dangerous political leader on earth because he invokes the Name of Christ to advance his evil agenda.” The “evil agenda” Naidoo describes is Obama's support of gay marriage. He calls homosexuality a “sexual perversion”.

At the ICASA hearings, Naidoo said:

The Christian church is deeply concerned that the introduction of three pornographic channels in South Africa will exacerbate the current crisis of rape and violence against vulnerable women and children …

We find this comment strange. It is not a statement whose truth is obvious. If you're going to argue that something as popular and ubiquitous as porn is harmful and demand that it be banned, you need very good unequivocal evidence for your arguments. Research on porn's effects is conflicting, often poorly conducted, biased depending on the preconceptions of who is doing the research and based on unreliable survey data. There is no clear, unequivocal evidence that porn causes the people who watch it to be more violent towards women. If there are some such men and women, it's worth considering that hundreds of millions of people who watch porn apparently do not abuse their sexual partners. On the contrary, many sexual partners watch porn together and get nothing but pleasure from it. Much research, admittedly often of questionable value, shows pornography is not harmful, including the study by the University of Montreal described above. The point is that the evidence swings both ways and there actually isn't a strong case that porn, at least the type that features consenting adults, causes harm.

But what is particularly galling about Naidoo's comments are their hypocrisy. Naidoo expresses concern for the rights of women. But then you have to read his article titled Gender Hierarchy in the Home in which he wrote, “Regardless of how many ways we attempt to interpret this Scripture, the commandment is clear and unambiguous - wives must submit to their own husbands.” Naidoo claims to support equality between men and women in the home, but it is a strange kind of equality where the husband is “king” and the wife submits to his law. Anti-women's rights views litter Naidoo's articles.

We are not religious, but we think there is some good advice in the Bible. For example, “First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” If religious institutions are to be taken seriously when they speak out for the rights of women, then they should start within. Here are a few small examples of what can be done:

• Ordaining more women priests in all Christian churches. (it must be noted that the UK Anglican Church in 2010 ordained 17 more female than male priests, so it is making progress, but most other churches are not.)

• Giving Muslim and African women the same rights to (and in) traditional polygamous marriage.

• Removing the prayer for men from the Jewish morning service which thanks God for not making them women.

COSATU has also joined the condemnation of TopTv's application. The umbrella union wrote:

COSATU is totally opposed to such channels, which we believe will exploit and demean women and girls, reinforce sexist attitudes and encourage the abuse of women, which is already a massive problem. Such programmes will contribute to a lowering of moral standards in the country and further erode the revolutionary morality of our struggle movement.

This is a deeply misguided and unfortunate response by the trade union umbrella. Instead of condemning, it should be organising the adult film and other sex work industries. There is indeed very serious exploitation in the sex industry. Porn stars are by and large paid poorly. Often their conditions of service are problematic. COSATU should be starting a union for people in this industry to join. It should be demanding proper regulation of the industry so that sex workers and porn actors can be adequately protected. Most important, it should be demanding proper health-care for employees in the sex industry. Simply condemning a massive and profitable labour-intensive industry that has been around for the history of humanity and that will be with us for the foreseeable future is entirely unhelpful.