Porn Studies

ISSN: 2326-8743 (Print) 2326-8751 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rprn20

Introduction: audiences and consumers of porn

Sharif Mowlabocus & Rachel Wood

To cite this article: Sharif Mowlabocus & Rachel Wood (2015) Introduction: audiences and
consumers of porn, Porn Studies, 2:2-3, 118-122, DOI: 10.1080/23268743.2015.1056465

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1056465

Published online: 07 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5514

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rprn20
Porn Studies, 2015
Vol. 2, Nos. 2–3, 118–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1056465

Introduction: audiences and consumers of porn

Sharif Mowlabocus* and Rachel Wood

School of Media, Film and Music, University of Sussex, UK

Who are pornography consumers? If we are to believe the widespread media coverage,
typically authored by journalists who are purportedly not themselves porn users, audi-
ences are made up largely of men, young people and, increasingly, children (Belfast
Telegraph Online 2014; Saul 2014), who are routinely watching ever more ‘extreme’
pornography depicting acts such as rape and bestiality or featuring underage perfor-
mers (Cadwalladr 2013). What this media coverage tells us time and time again is
that audiences are being ‘warped’ by what they see, their brain chemistry fundamen-
tally altered by these ‘addictive’ scenes (Porn on the Brain 2013), their ideas of ‘healthy’
sex and relationships irrevocably corrupted and sullied by porn (Daubney 2013).
According to this formulation, pornography is responsible for many perceived
social ills. In a sexual education vacuum, children in the playground are googling
‘porn’ on their smartphones and, in only a click or two, viewing pornography featuring
surgically altered, coerced women performing ‘unthinkable’ acts, and assuming that
this is what ‘normal’ sex looks like (Combi 2012; Purves 2013). Young and teenage
men are then demanding and manipulating female sexual partners into activities
lifted from their favourite porn scenes; acts such as anal sex and facial ejaculation
that, naturally, no respectable heterosexual woman or girl would want to participate
in (Saul 2014). Women are getting breast implants, removing their body hair,
bleaching their anuses and undergoing genital cosmetic surgery, all in pursuit of the
‘perfect’ porn star image (Combi 2012). Similarly, with so many varieties of ‘porn’
available online, viewers are easily invited into homoerotic activity, or (even worse)
into acts of bestiality, bodily scarification, sadism or other forms of erotic violence.
But when, why and how did it become ‘common sense’ to claim, first, that these
practices are commonplace and/or problematic and, second, that porn is wholly and
uncomplicatedly responsible for them?
Indeed, these arguments build on a particularly entrenched form of ‘common
sense’, loosely based upon anecdotal evidence and partially researched statistics,
while drawing on hegemonic assumptions of sexual ‘purity’ (and the purity of
sexual subjects). The trope of the innocent journalist or researcher putting various
search terms into Google and, to their horror, stumbling almost immediately across
the most outrageous, shocking and depraved scenes has become wearingly predictable.
The naivety of some of the claims made in these articles would be laughable
(see Daubney 2013; Coslett 2014) if the attitudes about consumers underpinning
such claims were not so taken for granted, and so influential. The logical leap that
the writer must take from viewing this material, often for the first time, to holding

*Corresponding author. Email: S.J.Mowlabocus@sussex.ac.uk

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 Porn Studies 119

forth upon its many pernicious effects on porn consumers is rarely examined in any
detail, if at all. It is just so obvious, they claim, how can this kind of pornography
not be negatively influencing the people who consume it?
The scholars included in this special issue of Porn Studies come from a variety of
academic and professional backgrounds (including anthropology, media studies, cul-
tural studies and sociology), but our common task is to bring that leap of logic into
focus, to question and interrogate it instead of taking it for granted. The intervention
into the debate being made by the editors and contributors to this special issue does
not, despite what our critics may assume, involve being ‘cheerleaders’ for the porn
industry (Cadwalladr 2013). We are not claiming that pornography is wholly unproble-
matic, or that watching porn has either no effect or, indeed, a ‘positive’ effect on con-
sumers. What we do demand, however, is that porn consumers – and the various
materials that they consume – should be taken seriously and that, in so doing, we
move beyond this simplified effects model altogether. Taking consumers seriously
does not involve uncritically endorsing and supporting the porn being consumed and
the responses to it, but it does necessitate an acknowledgement that audiences may
engage with porn in a range of complex, nuanced, critical – and yes, contradictory –
ways that far exceed a simplistically described cause-and-effects framework.
To some, a special issue on porn consumption might seem a rather old-fashioned idea.
Reflecting larger shifts within the global mediascape, recent academic work has high-
lighted the ongoing dismantling of established boundaries between the production, distri-
bution and consumption of pornography (see Bell 2006; van Doorn 2010; Vernallis 2013).
While there are differences between the ‘Polaroid’ generation of amateur porn that Paa-
sonen (2011) discusses and the digitally-enabled content producers of today, it remains the
case that these forms of production–consumption practice remain ‘niche’ and cannot be
considered ‘mainstream’. For every reader who sent in an image of his wife to their favour-
ite porn magazine back in the 1980s, there were countless readers who never discussed
their consumption of such magazines with their wives (let alone suggested that they
entered into this amateur arena and became producers themselves).
The same is true today. There are many producers of ‘porn’ outside of commercial
studies and many domains for ‘distribution’ outside of purchase and rental formats. But
the number of consumers of porn who are also producers of porn remains compara-
tively small. Thus, while not wishing to downplay the significance of ‘post-porn’
cultures and DIY porn, the editors contend that these new ‘agentic’ configurations of
the producer/consumer relationship sit alongside a more traditional conceptualization
of the consumer. This conceptualization, while not positioning the consumer as
passive, does not a priori suggest that they are involved in a process of producing
porn (although they may well be involved in producing cultures and communities of
porn consumption). For every instance of a boundary that bleeds, we argue that
there are countless others where such boundaries remain firmly entrenched. Tube
cultures illustrate this well; while listings on such sites feature ‘genuinely’ amateur
content, this material sits alongside professional content produced by studios, the audi-
ence of which rarely, if ever, upload anything beyond a comment or a rating. In putting
together this collection we were conscious of wanting to provide a space in which
consumption in and of itself – as a set of practices and responses to pornography –
could be discussed.
This double issue includes an entire section dedicated to female consumers of por-
nography and we feel it is necessary to explain why this decision – to dedicate one-half
120 S. Mowlabocus and R. Wood

of the issue to women – has been taken. When sketching out the aims and objectives of
this issue, the editors felt that a specific focus on female consumption practices was
imperative if this collection of essays was to make an intervention into the ongoing
public discussions of pornography use and effect. Since the very beginnings of the
modern ‘porn wars’, women have been central to the discussion of pornography
(Morgan 1980; Donnerstein, 1980; Steinem, 1995; Dworkin 2000). While some (Stol-
tenberg 1991; Jenson 2007) have discussed the effects of pornography on and between
men, the overriding focus of this public debate has been on women, often positioned as
the victims (less so the consumers) of pornography.
There have been countless studies that have sought to support or attack this politi-
cal stance on pornography. Many of the more nuanced and sophisticated responses to
the porn debate have recognized that pornography is a bundle of contradictions. Linda
Williams (1992) identified both the misogynistic and racist dimensions of pornography
and its potential to be emancipating, educating and ‘perversely’ political. Richard
Dyer (1992) eloquently discussed the problematic racial and gender representations
in gay male pornography while also identifying the important role that such material
plays in the lives of gay men living an isolated, atomized and very lonely existence.
Kobena Mercer’s (1996) response to Robert Mapplethorpe’s erotic photographs
articulated the contradictions that many of us feel when consuming pornography, as
we struggle to reconcile our political beliefs with our libidinous desires.
However, as is evident from the recent resurgence of feminist anti-porn activism in
the West, the focus on the effect of men’s porn consumption on women remains a key
focus within the public arena. This ongoing discussion struggles to acknowledge the
fact that women are themselves consumers of pornography and that social stigma,
restricted modes of access and a lack of ‘women-oriented’ material (rather than a
lack of interest) have been reasons why women have not been such ‘visible’ porn
consumers.
We include a section on women as consumers of porn in order to engage these
issues – and in order to affirm women’s agency in their own efforts to engage
them. We do not want to fall foul of the same gender double-standard that prolifer-
ates in much mainstream pornography today. While not wishing to align ourselves
with the rhetoric of post-feminist individualized consumption alluded to above,
we do recognize that (for whatever reason) some women do watch pornography.
Some women also produce pornography, and in both cases these women gain
pleasure from watching pornography. To write off such women as ‘cultural dupes’
in the manner that Adorno and Horkheimer ([1944] 1997) derided mass culture
would not only be discriminatory, it would fly in the face of an entire history of fem-
inist media studies, which has sought to validate ‘feminine’ texts and practices of
female consumption that have been derided by both popular culture (itself an
object of derision) and the academy.
The specific focus on women in the second ‘half ’ of this double issue thus acknowl-
edges the role that women have played in the public discussion (as both the object and
subject of discussion) and private consumption of pornography. The editors do not
seek to take sides in the post-/feminist dimension of the porn debate, although the con-
tributors to this issue offer a range of perspectives on such a discussion. Instead, we
offer a platform for critically-engaged discussions of women’s use of pornography;
and in doing so hopefully reflect the diversity of these consumption practices, and
the politics that support (or contradict) such practice.
 Porn Studies 121

The call for papers that began this issue’s trajectory towards publication did not
use the term ‘pro-porn’ but did demand that authors adopt an intellectual approach
to their object of study. All submissions were blind peer-reviewed and work was
judged based solely on the academic quality and intellectual strength of that work.
As a result, work that was uncritically ‘pro-porn’ or ‘anti-porn’ was rejected, in
much the same way that under-theorized and poorly researched submissions for
history or English literature journals are routinely turned down.
In our selection of articles, we have sought to showcase a diverse range of opinions,
approaches and foci. When it comes to the final selection of articles, there is perhaps
one criticism that we must concede. We intentionally sought out articles that worked
closely with both mainstream (i.e. heterosexual cis-gendered men) and more ‘niche’
(i.e. everyone else) audiences. In doing so, the voices of ‘minority’ audiences (trans
people, gay men, young people) are perhaps over-represented in comparison with
the number of heterosexual, able-bodied, cis-gendered men in the world who
consume pornography. We put our hands up – guilty as charged. We hope that a sub-
sequent issue of Porn Studies picks up the gauntlet we lay down here and focuses solely
on the ‘majority’ user of pornography. Such research is certainly under-represented in
the discipline of porn studies and is arguably where the discipline should be investing
(some) of its time and resources. We hope that this special issue begins the discussion of
consumption within Porn Studies and look forward to seeing future issues dedicated to
audiences, reception and consumer practices.

References
Adorno, Theodor, and Horkheimer, Max. (1944) 1997. The Dialectic of Enlightenment.
London: Verso.
Belfast Telegraph Online. 2014. ‘Two-year-olds See Explicit Content,’ March 25. Accessed June 16
2014. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/twoyearolds-see-explicit-content-30121658.
html
Bell, David. 2006. ‘Bodies, Technologies, Spaces: On “Dogging”’. Sexualities 9 (4): 387–407.
Cadwalladr, Carole. 2013. ‘Porn Wars: The Debate that’s Dividing Academia.’ The Observer,
June 16. Accessed June 16 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/jun/16/internet-
violent-porn-crime-studies
Coslett, Rhiannon Lucy. 2014. ‘Porn’s influence is real. Sex education is the answer.’ The
Guardian, January 27. Accessed July 22 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
2014/jan/27/porn-influence-real-sex-education-online-fantasies
Combi, Chloe. 2012. ‘Porn: The Shocking Truth.’ The Times Educational Supplement,
October 5. Accessed June 16 2014. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6294001
Daubney, Martin. 2013. ‘Experiment that Convinced Me Online Porn is the Most Pernicious
Threat Facing Children Today.’ Daily Mail, September 25. Accessed May 27 2015. http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2432591/Porn-pernicious-threat-facing-children-today-
By-ex-lads-mag-editor-MARTIN-DAUBNEY.html
Donnerstein, Ed. 1980. ‘Pornography and Violence against Women: Experimental Studies.’
Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry 347: 277–288.
Dworkin, Andrea. 2000. ‘Pornography and Grief.’ In Feminism and Pornography, edited by
Drucilla Cornell, 39–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dyer, Richard. 1992. Only Entertainment. London: Routledge.
Jensen, Robert. 2007. Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA:
Southend Press.
Mercer, Kobena. 1996. ‘Just Looking for Trouble: Robert Mapplethorpe and Fantasies of Race.’
In Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader, edited by Houston A. Baker, Manthia Diawara,
and Ruth H. Lindeborg, 278–292. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
122 S. Mowlabocus and R. Wood

Morgan, Robin. 1980. ‘Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape.’ In Take Back The Night:
Women on Pornography, edited by Laura Lederer, 134–140. New York: William Morrow and Co.
Paasonen, Susanna. 2011. Carnal Resonance: Affect and Online Pornography. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Porn on the Brain. 2013. Television programme. April 21. London: Channel 4.
Purves, Libby. 2013. ‘The Schoolyard Addiction of Extreme Porn; It is Easy to Shrug, but the
Effect of What Children are Watching Online is Becoming Impossible to Ignore.’ The Times,
November 18. Accessed May 27 2015. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/
article3924588.ece
Saul, Heather. 2014. ‘Porn Seen by a Quarter of Children under 12, Survey Finds; Young men
Increasingly Expect Young Women to Behave Like Porn Stars, Survey Looking at the Effect
of Porn on Young People Also Reveals.’ The Independent, April 10. Accessed May 27 2015.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/porn-seen-by-a-quarter-of-
children-under-12-survey-finds-9251019.html
Stoltenberg, John. 1991. ‘Gays and the Pro-pornography Movement: Having the Hots for Sex
Discrimination.’ In Men Confront Pornography, edited by Michael S. Kimmel, 248–262.
New York: Meridian.
Steinem, Gloria. 1995. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. 2nd ed. Dumfries, NC: Holt
McDougal.
van Doorn, Niels. 2010. ‘Keeping it Real: User-generated Pornography, Gender Reification, and
Visual Pleasure.’ Convergence 16 (4): 411–430.
Vernallis, Carol. 2013. Unruly Media: YouTube, Music Video, and the New Digital Cinema.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Linda. 1992. ‘Pornography On/Scene or Diff’rent Strokes for Diff’rent Folks.’ In Sex
Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography Debate, edited by Lynne Segal and Mary McIntosh,
233–265. London: Virago.