The Case for Porn

A writ petition to make watching porn a non-bailable offence has got everything upside down

Following a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court asking to make watching pornography a non-bailable offence, the Court recently asked the Government for its response. The petition puts the number of such clips accessible to Indians at more than 200 million. We don’t know how that number was arrived at, but it is one porn clip for every six Indians. The petition goes thus: ‘The sexual content that kids are accessing today is far more graphic, violent, brutal, deviant and destructive [than before] and has put our entire society in danger, so also [threatens] public order in India.’ You are immediately struck by two questions—how does porn put society in danger and how can it be a threat to public order? The petition’s answer is this: ‘The petitioner most respectfully submits that most of the offences committed against women/girls/children are fuelled by pornography. The worrying issue is [that] the severity and gravity of the images is increasing.’

The second line might be half-true. We don’t know whether the severity and gravity of pornography has increased, but no one can dispute that it is much more accessible. In earlier times, people had to struggle to get their porn but usually succeeded in finding a supplier—a friend, cousin, video rental or street hawker. It is easier now with Google search. However, that porn fuels sexual violence against women is a leap of logic. The petition describes the process in not so scientific terms: ‘Offenders’ minds are mostly fuelled by pornography as the sexual offender or rapist achieves his gratification not from sexual release alone but also from the thrill of domination, control and power.’

There might be some unintended irony in there. Online porn, including severe and graphic porn, probably does the opposite and decreases sexual violence. The most famous study on this was done by Todd Kendall, an economist at Clemson University in the US. He looked at growth of access to net porn and made a correlation with rape cases. He found an inverse relationship: rape cases went down. He also checked its correlation with murder cases and found none. He noted: ‘Specifically, the results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in internet access is associated with a decline in reported rape victimisation of around 7.3 per cent.’ Kendall’s is a widely quoted study, but it is not the only one. A 2011 Scientific American article titled ‘The Sunny Side of Smut’ gave an overview of many such studies. It quoted two papers that questioned the belief that porn promoted sexism and negative attitudes to women. Another study by Texas Tech University even showed the opposite: that porn might fuel positive attitudes towards women. The article said, ‘Although consumers of pornography did not display more negative attitudes toward women, they were more likely than other respondents to believe that women should be protected from harm—what the investigators call “benevolent sexism”.’ Another study by a Northwestern University professor showed net access reducing the number of rape cases. ‘Within the US, the states with the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and therefore the least access to Internet pornography—experienced a 53 per cent increase in rape incidence, whereas the states with the most access experienced a 27 per cent drop in the number of reported rapes,’ said the report.

All these might sound counter-intuitive and, for feminists, also offensive. But most of these studies are by hardnosed academics with no hidden ideology and have used tested empirical methods.

It is true that there are also studies that seem to show porn’s role in increasing sexual violence. But since the question is whether to make watching porn a non-bailable offence, there is enough research out there to support not doing it until the link is shown to be scientifically conclusive. There is also the complete impracticality of enforcing it. Some years ago, some Mumbai policemen had found a new form of part-time employment. They would catch random teenagers, check their mobiles for the inevitable porn clips and extort money from them. A petition like this would please such policemen. But that is not a good enough reason to take it seriously.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

Madhavankutty Pillai has no specialisations whatsoever. He is among the last of the generalists. And also Open chief of bureau, Mumbai  

•