The Posession of Extreme Pornography...

Note by backlash

Controversy now surrounds this response, submitted in the name of the British Psychological Society, the official organisation representing psychologists in Britain. It is alleged that although inputs for this response were requested on their website, no adequate notice was given about the meeting endorsing the formal submission, so that the document below does not in fact represent the considered opinion of British psychologists.

This is important because the Home Office is likely to give considerable weight to the supposed opinions of one of the most relevant expert bodies in the field of violence and pornography.

Accordingly a number of psychologists were given the Home Office consultation paper and the BPS submission, and backlash has published their disagreement with the official BPS view. This letter is reproduced below.

Response from the British Psychological Society

1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened ?

The accessibility of the internet provides greater accessibility of extreme pornographic material that previously an individual would have had to go to some lengths to obtain. The study by UK Children Go Online (paragraph 6 of the consultation document) highlights this with regard to 9 to 19 year olds. Of primary concern is that most contact with pornography on-line between 9 to 19 year old children was accidental through unsolicited 'pop ups' or emails - although the study did note that 10% of this age group actively sought such material. In addition it is our view that such exposure to extreme pornography sends powerful social messages about the acceptability of the content concerned. The role and powerful nature of social messages can be seen from the following quote in terms of affecting the development of children:

'Adolescents are bombarded through various media at a time when many of them are looking outside the home for guidance in living. Those who by their family upbringing have been left poorly prepared to function effectively will seize on those messages which serve their needs.' (Marshall, 1989).

The Society feels that such messages would include viewing extreme pornography. It is also our view that such extreme pornography promotes negative views of adult women (eg as sexual objects), children (eg sexualisation of children), of sex and the role of violence within this. In addition, it is likely to be distressing for children to view such extreme images, particularly through accidental exposure.

In summary based on the above, the Society recommends that the law needs to be strengthened with regard to the internet.

Although the question refers to the absence of conclusive research results in relation to the possible negative effects of extreme pornography, there is developing literature regarding the impact of this material on those who are already predisposed to violent or sexually offending behaviour.

For example, with regard to theories of sexual offending, Marshall and Barbaree's (1990) integrated model of child sexual abuse discusses how individuals can be vulnerable to committing sexual offences and develop such vulnerabilities from an early age. One of the vulnerabilities that they discuss is the exposure to 'deviant' sexual scripts about what appropriate sexual behaviour consists of, or information provided in the media at a young age that can reinforce the sexualisation of women, that somehow fuses the notion that sex is equated to aggression. In our view, such information would include the exposure to extreme pornography. Whilst not all children may use this to develop such 'deviant' sexual scripts and sexualisation of women, those already vulnerable as a result of a variety of issues such as poor parenting, poor child-parent attachment, physical or sexual abuse, parental antisocial attitudes, salient sexual experiences and socio-cultural messages supporting sexual aggression, poor intimacy skills, and low self-esteem, may use such material to increase their vulnerabilities further. The Society believes that this may increase risk of offending in the future.

With regard to salient sexual experiences, Marshall and Barbaree argue that this is a critical element that can differentiate between sexual offenders and other violent offenders, or general criminal offenders. They argue that a salient experience, such as exposure to pornography, can cause reduced inhibition and sexual aggression.

In further support of this Seto, Maric and Barbaree (2001) argue, in a review of the role of pornography in sexual aggression, that 'from the existing evidence, we argue that individuals who are already predisposed to sexually offend are most likely to show an effect of pornography exposure and are the most likely to show the strongest effects'. These effects would include a sexual arousal to rape, greater support of rape myths (eg that women may ask to be raped and enjoy it) and a greater willingness to undertake sexual coercion.

In summary, whilst in the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, it is our view that there is some pornographic material that is so degrading, violent, or aberrant that it should not be tolerated as it may well reinforce some individuals' vulnerabilities toward offending.

In our view it is a thorough and clear list.

Categorically Yes.

Other that those individuals identified in paragraph 7 of the consultation paper, it is our view there would be no further justification for being in possession of such material. In addition, it is our view that such individuals who have to view such extreme material, such as law enforcement agencies, should be provided with regular support to manage any distress or other personal consequences resulting from viewing such material.

We agree with option 3 (paragraph 49 of the consultation document).

We would endorse the reasons stated in the consultation document. The Society feels that this option would allow the most flexibility, providing the defences were in place for those who possess such extreme material for legitimate reasons or any accidental possession.

It is our view that option 3, by providing a new freestanding offence, also provides an independent, more powerful social message than options 1, 2 and 4 - namely that such extreme material is not acceptable in society

The Society supports the 2nd proposal detailed in paragraph 53 of the consultation paper, namely to impose a penalty for possession of three years, and increase the penalty for OPA offences and offences under section 51 of the CG(S)A, to maintain the distinction, to five years. In our view this would take in to account the different types of offences, such as animals and children, and the different types of materials that may be possessed.

© British Psychological Society 2005

This response was prepared on behalf of the Society by Dr Carol Ireland (Chartered Forensic Psychologist and Fiona Wilks-Riley (Chartered Forensic Psychologist)

References:

Marshall, W.L. (1989). Pornography and sex offenders. In D. Zillmann and J. Bryant (Eds). Pornography: recent research, interpretations, and policy considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marshall, W.L. and Barbaree, H.E. (1990). An integrated theory of sexual offending. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws and H.E. Barbaree (Eds). Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender. New York: Plenum Press.

Seto, M.C. Maric, A. and Barbaree, H.E. (2001). The role of pornography in the etiology of sexual aggression. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 6(1), 35 - 53.

This response was prepared on behalf of the Society by Dr Carol Ireland (Chartered Forensic Psychologist and Fiona Wilks-Riley (Chartered Forensic Psychologist)

Deep concern at the Society’s response to a Home Office consultation

We write to express our deep concern at the Society’s response to a Home Office consultation paper on internet pornography. We are concerned that the response was based on virtually no evidence of harm, yet recommends extremely authoritarian measures.

The government is considering making it a crime to download sexually violent pornography. This will extend the legislation on child pornography to adult material that is defined as the realistic depicting or acting of a scene that would, if acted out, cause grievous bodily harm. This would include a variety of bondage and masochistic scenes acted out by consenting enthusiasts, as well as images of the notorious Spanner trial of a decade ago (in which consenting men were imprisoned for sadomasochistic practices). Simply viewing the material will now constitute a serious criminal offence. And anyone looking at bondage scenes where somebody is wearing a mask and might suffocate (if this scene were acted out ‘in reality’) must be prepared to defend themselves in court. However, there is no engagement in the BPS response with the complex issues of consent and agency.

The BPS was asked to cite evidence of harm. Only three papers were cited, and the extensive literature pointing to no simple causal links between viewing pornography and committing crimes was ignored. The ‘evidence’ focuses on the effects of pornography on either children or disturbed offenders. We do not dispute that psychopaths may be kick-started into action by all manner of things, including pornography. But there is no evidence at all that those not already predisposed to such action will be similarly affected.

In fact, the response is based not so much on evidence, but on assertion and argument. This is mainly that pornography degrades women. There is no mention in the response about violence towards and degradation of men, indicating its partial and selective nature. The proposed legislation will make the possession of photographs (but not cartoons and text) an offence. The reason the government is concerned about sexually violent pornography is that atrocious crimes may be committed in the making of the material. But of course, this is already a crime, and rightly so. The government’s aim here is to punish consumers, not perpetrators.

Most worryingly, the report then goes on to recommend the toughest option for this new offence: three years in prison. This cannot be based on evidence (no evidence on the effects of imprisonment is cited). We believe that the UK imprisons too many of its citizens; that generally, only violent criminals who are a threat to society should be incarcerated. We do not believe this as a result of evidence. It is a political position. We find, however, that our Society takes a very different and authoritarian position. One of us was involved in the 1980s in the STOPP campaign to abolish corporal punishment in schools, and tried unsuccessfully to encourage the BPS to take a stance against it. But this was deemed too political; any BPS response had to be based on hard evidence. Since then, the BPS has refused to take a stance supporting other liberal issues such as apartheid and gay marriage. But it has rushed to support an authoritarian piece of legislation.

This response appears to have been made without any wide consultation. It also seems to fly in the face of the Society’s guideline that no recommendations can be made on the basis of partial or selective evidence. If any of us were given the job of refereeing this report for publication in a peer-refereed journal, we would have to recommend rejection on the basis of an inadequate literature review and insufficient rationale for the conclusions.

Vivien Burr, Trevor Butt, Nigel King, Kate Milnes: University of Huddersfield
Ralph Goldstein: Chair-Elect, Division of Counselling Psychology
John L. Smith: University of Sunderland