On the trail of the “pixel tiger” (Weinberg, 2010
1): An
exploration of the way in which young Dutch men and
women navigate online pornography
(Note: ‘Tiger in Tropical Storm’ Rousseau, H. 1891. Souce: http://www.wikiart.org/en/henri-rousseau/tiger-in-a-tropical-storm-surprised-1891?utm_source=returned&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=referral)
Rachel Keogh (10906487) rachel.keogh@hotmail.co.uk
MA Thesis University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences;
Program: Gender, Sexuality and Society
First Supervisor: Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen
Second Supervisor: Dr. Gert Hekma
15
thAugust 2015
1
Weinberg, M.S., Williams, C.J., Kleiner, S.K. and Irizarry, Y. (2010). Pornography, Normalization, and Empowerment. Achieves of Sexual
Contents
1 Introduction ... 4-17
1.1 Does the Reality Match Up to the Panic? Young People and Online Pornography ... 4-5 1.2 When Pornography met the World Wide Web ... 5-8
1.3 Research Questions ... 8-9 1.4 Research Method ... 9-11
1.5 Recruitment: Sexmatters and Me ... 11-13 1.6 Data Collection and Analysis ... 13-15
1.7 Thesis Outline ...15-17
2 Theoretical Concepts and a Review of Dominant Discourses ... 17-29
2.1 Conceptualising the Key Concepts 2.1.1 ‘Young People’... 17-19 2.1.2 ‘Navigate’ ... 19
2.1.3 ‘Online Pornography’ ... 19-20
2.2 A Brief look at the Feminist ‘Porn Wars’: Dworkin vs Rubin ... 20-22
2.3 ‘Pornigraphication’ Discourse ... 22-23
2.4 ‘Risk and Harm’ Discourse ... 23-25 2.5 Dutch ‘Sex and Love’ Discourse ... 25-27 2.6 Chapter Summary ... 27-28
3 Focus Group Data ... 29-45
3.1 Talking Group Dynamics ... 29-32
3.2 Part of the Everyday: “...online porn is normal now” ... 32-35
3.4 Relationship Status as a Negotiating Factor: “it can lead to unequal expectations...” “...it’s just porn” ... 38-41
3.5 Gender as a Negotiating Factor: “it’s a man thing...” “...it’s not my thing” ... 41-43 3.6 Chapter Summary ... 43-45
4 Interview Data ... 45-58
4.1 Talking Individual Interviews ... 45-48
4.2 Gendered Likes and Dislikes: “I just hate the cum shot, it’s so unsexy” ... 48-51 4.3 Genres and Categorisation: “there’s online porn for everybody!”... “it sets limits on my imagination” ... 51-54
4.4 Knowing the Difference: “you can enjoy the taste... but you’ve got to remember that ultimately online porn is a product” ... 54-56
4.5 Chapter Summary ...56-58
5 Conclusion ... 58-63
5.1 What do the Focus Group Discussion Findings Tell Us?... 58-60 5.2 What do the Individual Interview Findings Tell Us? ... 60-61 5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ... 61-63
“Pornography’s ambivalent position as a public secret – ubiquitous yet effaced and silenced, widely consumed yet defined as miasmic filth – has fed and fuelled the affective
dynamics of public debates, academic studies and regulatory practices” (Paasonen, 2011: 2)
1 Introduction
1.1 Does the Reality Match Up to the Panic? Young People and Online Porn
Coming from the UK, I feel it is no exaggeration to claim that over the last half decade I have witnessed the development of what, I would argue, constitutes a ‘moral panic’ around the topic of young people’s use of online pornography. I have noticed that public debate about young people’s relationship with pornography, fuelled by right-wing newspaper headlines, such as “Online porn is too easy to access, say 80% of 18-year-olds: explicit material is wrecking adolescence for many young people” (Groves, 2014), reflects outdated and un-nuanced ideas about adolescent sexuality that aim to serve the dominant conservative political agenda, rather than the best interests of young men and women. Fascinated by the way in which certain sexualities get branded as ‘deviant’, and what exactly this says about broader social judgements on sexual morality, I would argue the most troubling thing about the obsession with this ‘harm and risk’ discourse and the panic arising from it, is that at no point can the voices of young men and women themselves be heard.
Although the desire to conduct academic research directly with young men and women, into the way in which they navigate cyber-porn, was stimulated by my initial observations of British society, I would argue the Netherlands presents itself as an even more interesting site for this investigation. There is an assumed Dutch openness when it comes to sex and sexuality, which one might expect would make young Dutch men and women’s choice to consume online porn free of moral judgement. However, having lived in Holland for close to a year I have noticed that behind a liberal ‘front’ there is often a conservative reality. I was compelled to find out how this contradiction manifests itself in young people’s accounts of their experiences of, and opinions on cyber-porn. Are young Dutch men and women progressive thinkers when it comes to online porn, or are they bound by the taboo of consuming and talking about the medium like so many of the rest of us?
1.2 When Pornography met the World Wide Web...
Arguably having existed in some form since the beginning of human civilisation, Simon Hardy – a historian specialising in pornography as a cultural genre - suggests pornographic representations have always sought to directly invoke elements of real sexual experience, but the advance of greater realism has been facilitated in recent times by the creation of new media technologies (Hardy, 2008: 62). Linda Williams – professor of film studies, specialising in pornography - uses the expression ‘off-scene’ to ‘on-scene’ to describe the way in which the genre of pornography has shifted from the shadows and into the light of everyday culture (Williams, 2004: 2). The most influencing factor? The internet. World-wide access to the web has revolutionised pornography, making it faster and easier to produce and consume than ever before. In 2006 alone, sixty-eight million requests for pornographic material were dealt with by internet search engines, which is approximately one-quarter of all searches made on the internet that year (Ropelato, 2014). The prevalence of cyber-porn is indisputable; coming from an academic background in media and technology, authors such as Jane Brown and Kelly L’Engle go so far as to argue that pornography has been the primary driver for the success of the internet (Brown and L’Engle, 2009: 130) . The extent of the power of modern-day internet-based pornography is well illustrated by Weinberg (2010), who draws upon Gagnon and Simon’s (1970) reference to written pornography as a “paper tiger”, in suggesting that contemporary pornography could be known as the “pixel tiger” (Weinberg, 2010: 1401).
With the ever growing availability of cheaper and faster technology and continuing accessibility of free porn online, the pornography industry has extended its reach across society to those who previously would have had more limited access to the market. In a Dutch survey focused on youth sexual behaviour of four-thousand six-hundred young people, Hald et al (2013) found that eighty-eight percent of males and forty-five percent of females aged 15-25 years had consumed pornography between 2008 and 2009. Given the increase in accessibility of the internet since the data for that study was collected, it would be naïve to imagine that in 2016 there are many young Dutch people who do not come into contact with pornography. This is a troubling reality for a nation where - despite the supposed liberal attitude to all things sex-related - negative and critical views on pornography are common (Hekma, 2005).
The number of people accessing pornography has increased across all age groups due to the growth of the internet, but it is young people in particular who have received the greatest public attention when it comes to potential porn consumption (Goodson et al, 2000). Despite what recent public discussion may suggest, young people’s interest in pornography is not restricted to modern times. As David Brown and Jennings Bryant (1989) argued over two decades ago in their work looking at pornography policy, young people have turned to sexually explicit materials to sexually arouse themselves, satisfy their curiosity about sexual bodies and learn about the performance of sex for hundreds of years.
If young people have been accessing pornography in some form or another for centuries, what is so distinctive about current times that warrants public discourse to frame young people’s use of porn as a new phenomenon, posing its own set of ‘threats’ and ‘dangers’? The ‘problem’ more broadly, is that the cyberworld transgresses the boundaries of public and private – a problematic reality for traditional figures of authority and forms of governmentality. As Lupton (1995) highlights, the use of the internet in the home represents an encroachment of the ‘public’ into the ‘private’, enabling the young person to ‘wander’ in ‘public’ space in a way unique to the technological age. Although Kerri Facer – professor of digital cultures - argues the advent of widespread home computing in the mid 1990’s can be seen as the source of unsettlement, due to the way it challenged dominant ideas about adult-child relations dating back to the nineteenth century (Facer, 2012: 399), the current prevalence of personal devices such as smart phones means never before have young people been able to independently access porn so easily.
Despite being known for its pragmatic approach to young people’s sexuality, it appears that in recent times Holland has become caught up in a growth of panic in Western-European public debate, about the supposed disturbing effects online porn has on young consumers. Initiatives backed by organisations such as Rutgers – the Netherlands based
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights centre -frame pornography as a threat to
healthy youth sexuality, implying that sex in porn is harmful because of a lack of loving sexual behaviour in its depictions (uwkindenseks.nl, n.d). As Sarah Buckingham and David Bragg - academics specialising in young people’s relationship with culture - state, governing young people’s sexuality is about protecting them from the violation of others, but equally about denying their sexual agency in order to avoid them violating themselves. When it comes to online pornography, young people are portrayed as both potential victims of
modern-day sexual cultures and perpetrators: sexual knowledge is seen to place them in danger, at the same time making them potentially dangerous (Buckingham and Bragg, 2004). New waves of concern over the accessibility of porn, and the trend for social institutions, such as government and NGOs, to purport to speak on behalf of young people through the dominant discourses of ‘risk’ and ‘harm’ means, as Feona Attwood and Clarrisa Smith (2011) – co-editors of the journal Porn Studies - argue, young people are often demonised in public discussion about their own sexual cultures.
As the level of anxiety and fear in public debate around the accessibility of technology to young people has grown, there has been an increase in the last decade in the academic investigation of young people’s exposure to pornography (Walker et al, 2015). The main problem, as Hardy (2008) states, is that arguments about the (negative) effect sexually explicit media has upon sexual behaviour loom over pornography research projects, as well as public discussion. Qualitative studies exploring young people’s use of pornography and their sexual attitudes and behaviours is lacking from the field (Attwood and Smith, 2011; Walker et al, 2015). This is not only problematic because of the absence of young people’s lived experience, but as Short et al (2011) found in their review of studies investigating porn use, a substantial amount of ‘effects’ research is flawed: varied methodologies and measurements of internet porn use make it incredibly difficult to establish accurate findings and therefore quantify related ‘problematic’ behaviour.
In embracing the words of feminist film-makers Bette Gordon and Karyn Kaye - that “pornographic investigation is a radical act in itself” (1993: 90, cited in McNair, 1996: 7) – with this research I aim to combat the lack of public discussion about, and proper academic investigation of young people’s relationship with online pornography. The theoretical relevance of the study is well summarised by Feona Attwood - a key figure in the academic study of sex and pornography in contemporary culture – who argues, given that the significance of pornography is so dependent on its geographical, political and social context, work with specific demographic groups using a strong qualitative methodology is always going to be of value in this field, in terms of highlighting particular meanings and interpretations of sexuality (Attwood, 2005: 82-83). In exploring how participants manage online porn and its surrounding discourses, a snap shot of the way in which certain young Dutch men and women appear to conform or resist norms and values at a particular time
will be offered. Only by listening to young people themselves can we even begin to claim to understand the complexities of how they make sense of their sexual cultures today.
1.3 Research Questions
The main research question of the project is: ‘How do young Dutch men and women navigate online pornography?’ In answering this question the research will explore personal and group understandings and experiences with cyber-porn, and situate them within broader dominant discourses relating to young people’s relationship with online pornography. It will aim to offer the participants’ accounts as a contribution to public and academic discussion, where young people are so often excluded, or spoken for, with regard to cyber-porn.
The following sub-questions will help guide the research: sub-question 1 and 2 relate to the focus group discussions; sub-questions 3 and 4, the individual interviews; and sub-question 5, both of the methods used.
Sub-questions:
1) What are the experiences of, and opinions on cyber-porn that young Dutch men and women between the ages 18-21 express in focus group discussions?
2) How does the intra-group dynamic of a focus group appear to influence the way young Dutch men and women between the ages 18-21 talk about their opinions on and experiences of cyber-porn?
3) As online porn consumers, what are young Dutch men and women between the ages 21-25’s opinions on and experiences with the medium?
4) What do their expressed opinions on cyber-porn tell us about how certain young porn consumers, Dutch men and women between the ages 21-25, perceive and value the medium as a potential influence on the lives of young people? 5) How do the narratives of the focus group discussions and individual interviews
compare, in terms of discourse, to the portrayal offered by existing public discussion and academic work on young people’s relationship with online pornography?
1.4 Research Method
By adopting a qualitative methodology, the study aims to satisfy both calls within academia for an increase in research that gives insight into young people’s experiences with sexually explicit material (Attwood, 2005; Knudson et al, 2007; Walker et al, 2015), and my desire to provide rich accounts of the way in which certain Dutch men and women manage cyber-porn and the societal norms, values and expectations that surround it. The main interests were the individual accounts expressed and group interactions, since the objective was not to generalise findings to a whole population, but to find discrepancies between participants and the dominant discourses. The research took an interpretive approach (Hennick et al, 2011): abandoning attempts to establish a cause and effect relationship between young people’s attitudes to online porn and their behaviour, and placing value in the meanings of personal opinions and experiences, as well as intra-group dynamics.
In focusing on the ways in which young Dutch people understand and manage online porn and its surrounding discourses, another key component of the methodology was discourse analysis; as Teun van Dijk – key critical discourse theorist – argues, “ultimately discourse analysis is about the role of discourse in the (re)production and challenge of dominance”(van Dijk, 1993: 249). The discourse analysis method adopted drew on the work of Carol Bacchi - professor of politics specialising in policy – who argues that in using her ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be’ approach, issues that have been implicitly framed as ‘problematic’ in formal and informal policy are revealed (Bacchi, 2012). By highlighting how ‘the problem’ – in this case young people’s relationship with pornography – is framed by Dutch society, disparities between existing dominant discourses on young people’s relationship with pornography, and the narratives expressed by the young Dutch men and women in the study could be exposed.
A combination of individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions presented itself as the most effective way to gain rich insight into individual experiences, and also assess the peer group dynamic. The rationale behind using focus groups was to gain access to young people’s discussion about pornography and explore the norms and values in relation to online pornography among the group members. In the interviews, I wanted to get more detailed and independent information about how each individual female and male participant talked about their experiences, when free to express
their opinions and experiences without the influence of peers. As Attwood claims, using qualitative work allows for the strong, complex and often contradictory meanings that individuals attach to sexuality-related topics to emerge, and for the context of the construction of said meanings to be properly acknowledged (Attwood: 2005: 65-66) – a rarity in public debates about porn.
The sample consisted of three focus group discussions and six individual interviews. The make-up of the focus groups varied: one with five young men; another with five young women; and an additional mixed gender group made up of two young men and two young women. All of the focus group participants were 18-21 years old. The interviews were with three young women and three young men, all between 21-25 years old. The choice to include those aged 18 and above was guided by logistics and ethical possibilities rather than a particular belief in appropriate age of consent, or the reality of porn consumption amongst
young people. By recruiting both male and female participants of two varying age groups,
the research aimed to shed light on how gender and age matter in young people’s talk about online pornography.
Recognising the taboo nature of admitting to watching porn and then talking about it with peers, the consumption of cyber-porn was not a pre-requisite for participation in the focus group discussions. Being a consumer of online porn - whether in the past and/or currently - was necessary for taking part in the interviews, as the main purpose of the individual discussions was to delve deeper into personal experiences with the medium and how, if at all, individuals felt their opinions of the medium had changed over time. All participants had to have a proficient level of spoken English and have clearly expressed an interest in discussing cyber-porn.
It is important to note that whilst the focus group and interview discussions generated rich data, the study met with some serious methodological challenges as it was being undertaken. Section 1.5 will give a more detailed explanation of the most serious of these challenges: recruiting participants as an ‘outsider’, reliant on one network to act as gatekeeper. Only by remaining methodologically adaptable was I able to overcome these difficulties and incorporate them into the research.
1.5 Recruitment: Sexmatters and Me
In recognising that young people are notoriously hard to gain access to, and that I signify a ‘double outsider’ (Hennick et al, 2011) - in that I am not only an independent researcher but a foreigner who does not speak the Dutch language - I saw tapping into an existing network that could facilitate recruitment as paramount to the workability of the project. To this end, I took advantage of my position as an intern at the Amsterdam based NGO Sexmatters to establish connections with young Dutch men and women. As an organisation that conducts workshops with older pupils in schools across Holland on issues associated with sex, gender
and sexual diversity, Sexmatters agreed to act as ‘gate keeper’ for my research. Eva – my
internship co-ordinator at Sexmatters – also agreed to help with translation during the focus groups. In return for their assistance, I would use the data generated to write a workshop addressing the issue of online pornography – a topic that has been highlighted as needing further attention, by both teachers and students in recent times.
After it became clear, late in the thesis time frame, that the initial plan - for me to use up-coming workshops to carry out my study - was no longer going to be possible,
contacts established through previous Sexmatters work were called upon.The mixed gender
focus group was arranged through a student who had remained in personal contact with Eva after having been involved in a Sexmatters workshop. The meeting took place during after-work hours at the Sexmatters office, with Eva present in case of language difficulties. Having exhausted all contacts outside of schools, it was ROC van Amsterdam (Regional Community College of Amsterdam), an institute at which I had attended a number of Sexmatters workshops during the months preceding data collection, that agreed to help me. The school allowed me to carry out both of the single gender focus groups during school hours, providing independent space and the use of an English teaching assistant for translation. Although the participants were also self-selected, the school environment and lack of initial student contact meant building rapport with students was more challenging.
After multiple attempts, the plan to arrange individual interviews with focus group participants who were self-proclaimed online porn consumers was foiled, due the fact that few explicitly expressed that they watched cyber-porn, and those who did failed to respond to my follow-up correspondence. With time constraints weighing heavily on the study, I decided to expanded the age bracket and target slightly older young people, the rationale
being their age would bring different insights into young people’s relationship with online porn, including reflections on how individual experiences of, and opinions on cyber-porn change over time. With the aim of interviewing three young Dutch men and three young Dutch women, the ‘snowball’ method was used after several initial participants were recruited through the Sexmatters network. The interviews lasted forty-five minutes to an hour, and were conducted mostly in the participant‘s home, or otherwise in a convenient quiet meeting place such as a private study room in the library.
The tables below present the respondents (using fictitious names) and relevant background information about them:
Individual Interviews:
Respondent Age Residence Education Level Relationship
Status Orientation Sexual Average current consumption per month (approx. no. of times) Peak consumption per month (approx. no. of times) Ahmed 21 Nieuwe
Meer Undergraduate Final Year Long Term Women 10 30 Joost 25 Amsterdam
Oost Masters Open Women + Men 16 80
Charlotte 24 Amsterdam
Nieuw-West Masters Single Men 2 5
Willem 25 Haarlem Masters Short Term Women 16 50
Jade 23 Rotterdam Masters Short Term Men 1 3
Faye 25 Amsterdam
Nieuw-West Masters Long Term Men 4 12
Mixed-Gender Focus Group:
Respondent Age Residence Education Level Relationship Status Sexual Orientation
Celine 21 Haarlem HBO Long Term Men
Jennifer 20 Haarlem HBO Single Men
Ralph 19 Haarlem HBO Long Term Men
Female-Only Focus Group:
Respondent Age Residence Education Level Relationship Status Sexual Orientation
Samantha 18 Diemen MBO Short Term Men
Chelsea 19 Amsterdam
Zuidoost MBO Single Men
Manouik 19 Nieuwe Meer MBO Short Term Men
Sheera 18 Aalsmeer MBO Single Men
Jessica 18 Diemen MBO Single Men
Male-Only Focus Group:
Respondent Age Residence Education Level Relationship Status Sexual Orientation
Alex 19 Nieuwe Meer MBO Single Women
Hendrik 19 Amsterdam
Nieuwe-West MBO Single Women
Yannick 18 Hoofddorp MBO Short Term Women
Oscar 18 Duivendrecht MBO Single Women
Jan 18 Amsterdam West MBO Single Women
Key:
HBO= University of Applied Science; MBO= Community College
1.6 Data Collection and Analysis
In recognising that online pornography is an uncommon discussion topic for most people, resources were developed that aimed to address the research questions, whilst attempting to create a relaxed environment that would help minimise participant inhibitions. In the case of the focus groups, particular care was taken to develop a guide that would encourage participation in the group discussion. After initial demographic questions were asked, several group activities were carried out. A ‘Definitions’ exercise involved participants shouting out their first thoughts after I had said the phrase ‘online porn’; it aimed to reveal on what terms participants think about cyber-porn, and also ‘break the ice’ with respect to
talking about porn. The activity ‘Agree/Disagree/It’s Complicated’ had participants individually decide on their response to a number of statements focusing on age, gender and defining the online porn genre, then defend it to the rest of the group. This started to reveal where individuals draw boundaries in their understanding of online porn, and gave insight into group dynamics, such as who was more dominating and who was more reluctant to speak up.
Following the group activities, the rest of the focus group guide acted as a checklist for the topics and issues to be covered. These included ‘individual experiences’; ‘interpretation of public discourse’; ‘differences between ‘real life’ and online porn’; ‘relevance of gender’; and ‘likes, dislikes and perversions’. Independent conversation was encouraged by asking the open question ‘What do you think about young people consuming online porn?’. Given the sensitive nature of the topic and the focus group context, intimate questions relating to sexual details about consuming online porn were not directly asked, but participants who felt comfortable revealing they watch were free to do so at their own ease. Although the pre-planned themes were covered, participants tended to lead the discussion into areas of most interest to them.
For the individual interviews the basic guide for the focus group discussions was used, with additional questions relating to specific individual views of online porn. After demographic questions were asked, discussion was stimulated with the opening question ‘Can you tell me about the first time you came across online pornography’. Wanting to gain insight into how consumers’ opinions on and experiences with online porn change over time – if at all – participants were asked to answers questions relating to ‘frequency of use’, ‘preferred genre’, ‘conditions of use’, ‘process of finding online porn’, ‘process of watching, ‘purpose of viewing’ and ‘discussing online porn with others’ from the perspective of both ‘then’ (when they first stared consuming) and ‘now’. I wanted to explore the differences in how individuals thought of ‘real life’ sex and sex in online porn, so questions relating to the benefits and drawbacks of both kinds of sex were asked. To the majority of questions participants were enthusiastic with their answers, often providing intimate details about their online porn related experiences. To conclude all focus group sessions and individual interviews, participants were asked if they had any questions for me or any queries about the research in general.
Having digitally recorded the interviews and focus groups, a precise transcription of each was made. Detailed memos written straight after the focus group sessions, relating to group dynamics and general thoughts about the discussion, accompanied the transcripts for coding. Through initial readings of the transcripts, a structure of themes developed; this was followed by more in-depth analysis through categorising the text, condensing the participants’ statements and interpreting the findings against dominant discourses and existing literature. As patterns emerged they were positioned in relation to other elements of the data. The aim was to identify patterns and common themes generated by both research methods, through an interpretive paradigm (Creswell, 2003): theory or patterns of meaning relating to young people’s relationship with pornography developed out of the data itself rather than vice versa.
1.7 Thesis Outline
Chapter two will be dedicated to operationalising the key research concepts (2.1), and a review of existing dominant discourses relating to young Dutch people’s relationship with pornography. Section 2.2 will start this review by contextualising the modern day porn arguments through the feminist ‘porn-wars’, in particular the case study of Andrea Dworkin – a notorious anti-porn activist – versus Gayle Rubin – a famous ‘pro-sex’ activist and academic. The problematic application of modern-day ‘pornographication’ arguments to young people will be discussed in section 2.3, through the work of Brian McNair, Mary Taylor and Kelly Quek, Clarissa Smith and Kendrick Walters. After this, using the work of Smith and Attwood, Linda Duits and Lisbet van Zoonen, and Frank Feludi, section 2.4 will explore the discourse that most public discussion and academic work adopts when talking about young people’s relationship with online porn: ‘risk and harm’. Using the work of Cas Wouters, Amy Schalet and Rachel Thompson, the final section of the chapter – section 2.5 – will explain how young people’s use of online porn is situated as deviant, by examining the way in which Dutch society validates young people’s sexuality through the ‘sex and love’ discourse.
Chapter three will present and analyse the data generated from the focus group discussions. This will start with a brief description of each focus group set-up and intra-group dynamics, in section 3.1. Using data from all three focus intra-groups, the way in which,
and the reason why participants claim online porn is ‘normal’ will be explained in section 3.2, referencing the work of Monique Mulholland. Section 3.3 will examine how age is presented as a negotiating factor by the male-only focus group – using the work of Allen McKee - and female-only focus group - using the work of Duits and van Zoonen, and Louisa Allen. Following this, section 3.4 will examine how relationship status is used as a negotiating tool, specifically by Celine and Bas – the ‘real life’ couple who participated in the mixed-gendered focus group. Dworkin and Rubin’s work will be referred to, along with Schalet’s and Olmstead et al’s. The final part of this chapter – section 3.5 – will explore how gender was used as a negotiating factor by all of the focus groups, using the work of Thomas Johansson and Nils Hammaren and Lena Berg to analyse the data.
Chapter four will present and analyse the data generated from the individual interviews. Section 4.1 will offer a brief description of each participant and give some background information relating to their ‘status’ as an online porn consumer. Using the work of Peter Gardos and David Mosher, Linda Williams and Lisa Diamond, section 4.2 will discuss some of the older young people’s ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ with regard to online porn; more specifically the reasons why the three (heterosexual) female participants prefer to watch lesbian pornography. Following that, section 4.3 will explore participants’ views of categorisation within online porn, using the work of Andrew Cooper et al, Zabet Patterson and Mireille Miller-Young. To conclude the chapter, section 4.4 will review the value a number of the participants place on discussing online porn in the educational setting, with reference to the work of Douglas Kellner and Jeff Share, Kath Albury and Margareta Forsberg.
In the fifth and final chapter, the main findings will be explored, in order to help answer the question ‘How do certain young Dutch men and women navigate online pornography?’ Section 5.1 will offer a summary of the findings from the focus group discussion; followed by section 5.2 which will do the same for the data generated by the individual interviews. Finally, Section 5.3 will state some of the limitations of the study and offer some recommendations for future academic work in this area of interest.
2 Theoretical Concepts and a Review of Dominant
Discourses
In this chapter detailed explanations of the way in which the key concepts have been operationalised will be offered, as well as a close examination of the dominant discourses that relate to online pornography and young Dutch people’s sexual cultures. An examination of these discourses provides a backdrop for the study, helping to explain the lack of academic research investigating young people’s relationship with online porn, and offering a narrative to which the participants’ accounts can be compared. Following the operationalising of the key concepts in section 2.1, section 2.2 will be dedicated to an examination of a pinnacle debate in the history of modern day pornography: the feminist ‘porn wars’. By using the arguments posed by Andrea Dworkin and Gayle Rubin as a case study, the foundations of today’s anti-porn and pro-porn movements are revealed. Following from the ‘porn wars’ debate, section 2.3 will review the ‘pornographication’ argument and the problems it poses for young people in their being labelled as ‘victims’ in relation to sexual cultures. Section 2.4 will then explore the discourse of ‘risk and harm’ that governs the majority of academic research and public discussion on online pornography, in particular young people’s relationship with it. Finally, section 2.5 will examine the Dutch ‘sex and love’ discourse that frames much of the discussion on issues relating to young people’s sexuality, including popular sex education programs. The chapter will conclude with a consideration of how this results in the ‘othering’ of sex practices such as online porn consumption, and what this says about broader Dutch norms and values.
2.1 Conceptualisation of the Key Concepts
In order to ensure clarity about the constructs being studied and help situate the research theoretically, further information about the way in which the study’s key concepts have been operationalised will be provided. These concepts are: ‘young people’; ‘navigate’; and ‘online pornography’.
2.1.1 ‘The Young Person’
The notion of ‘the young person’ has a long and complex past, reflecting the historical and political context of any given time. Researchers argue the emergence in Western Europe
since the 1960’s of welfare societies, secularisation, women’s emancipation and particularly the introduction of mass education has resulted in a prolonged period of youth for individuals today (Plug et al, 2003). Whilst legal definitions vary between nations, in Dutch policy ‘youth’ is generally defined as the age group 0-25 years, with those aged between 18-25 years being classified as ‘young adults’ within the broader grouping of ‘young people’ (protection-of-minors.eu, 2016). It is important to recognise the significance of the classification span beyond government law and policy, however, with research suggesting the years from late teens through to the mid-twenties have great psychological and social significance.
In his article entitled Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late
teens through the twenties, Jeffery Arnett argues these years of profound change are
important as they are a “...distinct period demographically, subjectively, and in terms of identity explorations” and therefore qualify a particular kind of development within cultures that allow young people an independent role for a prolonged period of time (Arnett, 2000: 469). In a nation widely regarded as one that highly values and promotes self-determination and self-reliance, Dutch youth are granted more independence, in terms of decision making and freedom of movement, at age 14 than in any other Western European country (Netherlands Youth Institute, 2014). The way in which young Dutch men and women are encouraged to self-direct their lives from a relatively young age supports the relevance of Arnett’s (2000) conception of the young person for this research.
Given the centrality within the study of young Dutch men and women’s relationship with online pornography, it is important to note the link Walter Kendrick makes between conceptions of ‘The Young Person’ and pornography in his book The Secret Museum:
Pornography in Modern Culture (1987). Kendrick (1987) demonstrates how mythical
constructions of ‘The Young Person’, based on fear of self-corruption and corruption of the ‘other’, have been used throughout history to justify control of pornography. In this sense Kendrick’s (1987) analysis will be acknowledged in the research as a way of placing young Dutch men and women’s personal opinions and experiences with online porn within the contemporary socio-cultural context of today.
2.1.2 ‘Navigate’
This research aims to uncover the ways in which young people ‘navigate’ cyber-porn: in other words, how young Dutch men and women make sense of online pornography, the surrounding discourses, and their associated experiences with it. The use of the term ‘navigate’ reflects an understanding that for many young Dutch men and women daily living is a complex journey, through which societal expectations and personal desires have to be juggled in order to ‘pass’ as a ‘successful’ young person. In other words: “To create one’s own lifestyle and identity, while at the same time positioning oneself vis-à-vis and conforming to the norms and values of society, is a ‘project’ characterised by impermanence, uncertainty, and ambivalence” (Mansson and Lofgren-Martenson, 2007: 243).
The complexity of the management role young people must take on when it comes to dealing with the issue of online pornography is demonstrated by Sven-Axel Mansson and Lotta Lofgren-Martenson – professor of gender and sexuality, specialising in pornography and internet sexuality, and professor of sexology - in their study with young Swedish men and women. The increase in exposure of young people to online porn means individuals are required to take a strategic position on the subject through attempting to balance the tension between the dominant negative societal attitude, and the ‘normality’ of the ongoing presence of the medium in their lives (Mansson and Lofgren-Martenson, 2007).
By drawing on Mansson and Lofgren-Martenson’s (2007) conceptualisation of ‘navigate’, the research aligns itself with theories of youth sexual agency that recognise sexual agency not only as the ability to practice autonomy and contribute to desired positive change, but also to manage societal norms and values – sometimes through one’s capacity to “...endure, suffer and persist.” (Cense, 2014). Bell captures the ongoing nature of the obstacles faced by young people in the context of their sexual cultures when he describes sexual agency as “the processes whereby young people become sexually active and the strategies, actions and negotiations involved in maintaining relationships and navigating broader social expectations” (Bell, 2012: 284).
2.1.3 ‘Online Pornography’
There is no doubt that the internet is the key variable in explaining the increase in pornography in recent times, due to the availability and anonymity it offers. While there is
general agreement that pornography itself refers to “any sexually explicit material displaying genitalia with the aim of sexual arousal or fantasy” (Short et al, 2011), the way in which technology allows pornography to be accessed and viewed differently calls for the use of more specific definitions. As Short et al argue in their review of internet pornography use research, with such a vast array of cyber-porn available, studies need to include a definition of online porn that refers to both the form and function of the online porn in question (Short et al, 2011: 21).
Although viewer-responsive online pornography would be an interesting site of investigation, limits placed on the study in terms of time and resources means the research will not include online porn where the viewer plays an active role in the action or activity, such as sexually explicit games, chat rooms and sexting. While narrative-based-porn is also available online, pictures, clips, GIFs and film footage will be taken as the utilised measure in the study as visual stimuli are much more common, reflecting the way in which ‘the visual’ plays a dominant role in our online worlds (Joy et al, 2009). The research will allow the participants to define the purpose of viewing pornography for themselves, whilst acknowledging the three main common reasons for watching the medium, highlighted by authors such as Goodson et al (2000) in their study with American college students: obtaining sexually related information; establishing personal connections; and for sexual entertainment or arousal.
The study will not be overly concerned with questioning how participants choose to define online pornography, recognising that throughout history definitions of the medium have acted first and foremost as a way to regulate discourses of sexuality (Hald, 2015). Instead, the interaction between the young people and the accounts they give will act as an indicator of how certain young Dutch men and women work with current understandings of ‘online pornography’.
2.2
A Brief look at the Feminist ‘Porn Wars’: Dworkin vs Rubin
Discussion about pornography has traditionally been situated within the realm of feminism, where opposing ideas about the cultural meaning and representation of sex have long been a major point of controversy permeating academic writing, activism and media production. As part of a collective of debates broadly relating to sexuality, the ‘porn wars’ is most
strongly associated with the 1970’s and 1980’s, when differences of opinion between those identifying as anti-porn feminists and others claiming to be pro-sex feminists, led to a deeply polarised movement.
Central to this debate is the distinction between porn as a source reinforcing patriarchy, and porn as a source of female sexual liberation. For anti-porn feminists, pornography was understood to be a form of violence against women, in both its creation and consumption by men (Segal and McIntosh, 1993: 5). In her book Pornography: Men
Possessing Women (1981), Andrea Dworkin - one of the most prominent anti-porn writers
and activists of the time – argues that the very existence of pornography denies women basic human rights. By tracing the meaning of the word ‘pornography’ back to ancient Greek times when ‘porne’ meant “whore”, Dworkin claims sexually explicit material epitomises the way in which the degradation of women is valued as the highest form of sexual pleasure (Dworkin, 1981: 199-201). By including the personal stories of women who have been victims of sexual assault in the introduction of the book (Dworkin, 1981: xiii-lvi), Dworkin attempts to draw parallels between pornography and acts of violence in real life. Dworkin’s argument is totalising: porn is considered both a theoretical and literal tool of female oppression. For Dworkin and those who align themselves with her arguments, there is no such thing as ‘just’ porn consumption; only viewing that causes harm to those involved, those watching, and women in general.
As a direct rebuttal to anti-pornography arguments, Gayle Rubin - a key figure in the sex-positive feminist movement and accomplished sex and gender theorist – accused Dworkin and her fellows of wrongly conflating pornography and violence in framing sexually explicit material as the source of the serious problems women face (Rubin, 1986: 244). In her essay entitled Misguided, dangerous and wrong: an analysis of anti-pornography
politics, Rubin claims the arguments made by anti-porn activists only help serve a
hegemonic feminist analysis of sex, rather than encourage an approach that embraces sexual diversity and individual choice (Rubin, 1986). She accuses the anti-porn movement of exaggerating the presence of BDSM in the porn genre, and of doing a disservice to individuals who do enjoy consensual sadomasochistic sex, by taking the practices out of context and using them as a scaremongering tactic (Rubin, 1986: 246-248). In response to the claim that sexually explicit material plays a critical role in encouraging real life violence, Rubin situates contemporary porn historically to prove that porn did not, and does not, exist
in the societies where women are most oppressed (Rubin, 1986: 250-251). Ultimately, Rubin requests a move away from arguments that are based on taste rather than proven harm, which trivialise real violence and distract attention away from fundamental issues (Rubin, 1986: 251). Sex-positive feminists like Rubin see pornography as a medium for female sexual expression, and therefore suggest that it can be engaged with politically without promoting sexual repression.
The central question that the debate between Dworkin and Rubin raises is whether consumers of pornography are learning meaningless fantasy or misogyny. More broadly, the feminist ‘porn wars’ acts as a strong example of the way in which the medium of pornography can be used as a base on which to debate notions of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sex, and polarised conceptions of sex as ‘pleasure’ or ‘danger’. Despite the voices of figures such as Dworkin and Rubin no longer being as prominent, discussion both within the movement and in wider society today continues to draw upon these ideas, particularly in reference to whether we now find ourselves in a ‘pornified’ Western world.
2.3 ‘Pornographication’ Discourse
In the last couple of decades there has been an increase in academic and popular discourses tracing the emergence of what is claimed to be an ever more sexualised culture in the West. ‘Pornographication’, ‘pornification’ and ‘porno-chic’ are all terms that have been used by commentators to describe the increasing accessibility and acceptability of pornography and the way in which porn imagery has seeped into non-pornographic forms of popular culture. One of the key texts of the movement is Brain McNair’s Mediated Sex: Pornography and
Postmodern Culture, in which ‘‘pornographication of the mainstream’’ is defined as ‘‘the
incorporation of pornographic imagery and iconography into a variety of popular culture forms, such as advertising, popular fiction and Hollywood cinema’’ (McNair, 1996: 137). Rather than offering a critical reading of this process, McNair frames pornographication as mainly beneficial, arguing that his work is strongly associated with feminist and cultural studies movements that aim to redefine porn as a form of sexual representation which can have positive uses and provide personal fulfilment (McNair, 1996: 5).
Since the mid-1990’s the number of concepts building from McNair’s theory of pornographication has risen, but as Mary Tyler and Kelly Quek argue in their article
use of such terms is often critical in approach, whilst offering little genuine analysis of the supposed trend (Tyler and Quek, 2016: 3). The confusion that has developed out of the conflation of terms such as pornographication and sexualisation in academic texts and government reports has resulted in a lack of possibility to engage with issues such as young people’s sexual cultures in a productive feminist manner (Taylor and Quek, 2016: 12). In this sense, an increase in academic and public discussion on ‘pornographication’ has limited the way in which young people’s sexuality can be spoken about.
In her article entitled Pornographication: A Discourse for all Seasons Clarissa Smith - professor of sexual cultures specialising in sexually explicit media texts and co-editor of Porn
Studies – identifies problems in the use of ‘pornographication’ and ‘pornification’ on similar
grounds, accusing the terms of being of limited use, given they are “so saturated in the languages and references of concern and regulation” (Smith, 2010: 104). Smith claims McNair’s original radical vision of sex and sexuality acting as a transgressive force against the boundaries of public and private – the “democratization of desire” – has been hijacked by critics who use the term ‘pornographication’ in a one-size-fits-all fashion, in order to avoid proper intellectual engagement with the particularities of sexually explicit media’s history, production and consumption (Smith, 2010: 105-106). Smith sees the creation of the category ‘pornified’ as an act of regulation on ‘problematic’ behaviour, practices and actions; in being labelled, solutions can be offered which work in favour of dominant discourses (Smith, 2010: 106).
By citing Kendrick’s The Secret Museum (1987) in demonstrating how the roles of victim, villain and expert are often entrenched in the use of these terms, Smith supports the idea of the centrality of ‘The Young Person’ in the framing of pornography in public discourse (Smith, 2010: 106). She indicates that when it comes to the tale of pornography, the only role young people are offered is ‘victim’. What is most worrying is that research hypotheses often reflect public discourse, with many studies investigating young people’s relationship with sexually explicit material adopting a narrative that paints young people as inherently vulnerable, and online porn as inherently harmful.
2.4 ‘Risk and Harm’ Discourse
The crux of the ‘risk’ and harm’ narrative is a belief that there is a direct relationship between what young people view in online porn and how they will then think and behave.
The ‘cause and effect’ argument that accompanies this narrative has been fought on religious and moral grounds by those claiming to defend societal values, by feminists claiming that porn objectifies women and encourages male violence, and by public figures concerned about young people’s sexual and emotional development.
In the introduction to their special journal issue ‘Investigating young people's sexual cultures’, Attwood and Smith suggest the increase in claims about the supposed harm ‘sexualisation’ of young people is causing, is due to the combination of “a tradition of suspicion” that surrounds media technologies, sex and young people, and the more contemporary challenge posed to traditional authorities ruling sexual behaviour, by changes to the significance of sex in contemporary western societies (Attwood and Smith, 2011: 235-236). They argue that even when the intention is to care for young people, concerns about ‘risk’ and ‘harm’ work to control young men and women through scaremongering and silencing their individual experiences (Attwood and Smith, 2011: 241).
Linda Duits and Lisebet van Zoonen – professors of social science, specialising in popular culture - accuse the vast amount of current research focused on effects, of being naïve to the realities of young people’s sexual cultures, blinded by a hidden political agenda that favours feminist anti-porn arguments, rather than the subjects themselves (Duits and van Zoonen, 2011: 2). In their article entitled Coming to Term with Sexualisation Duits and van Zoonen argue current policy relating to ‘sexualisation’ of young people offers the same cause and effect political analysis and solutions as in the 1980’s, but in recent times the distinct politicised language of that period has been replaced by ‘neutral’ academic language of psychological research (Duits and van Zoonen, 2011: 5-6). This straightforward cause and effect approach, they argue, “meets cultural demands for simple understandings and solutions to complex social problems” as part of the wider neo-liberal agenda that aims to place responsibility for media effects with the media consumer (Duits and van Zoonen, 2011: 7).
Using research taken from Duits’ (2008) ethnographic research, which aimed to give relative autonomy to the young Dutch female participants by allowing them to reflect on themselves, their peers and their cultural environment in discussion about sexualisation, Duits and van Zoonen demonstrate that young people’s understanding of sexual cultures is a complex mix of social and family background, everyday life experiences and personal reactions (Duits and van Zoonen, 2011: 16-19). They use their findings to show the disparity
between young people’s reported accounts and policy, as the latter is defined by language of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘risk’ which denies young people agency and strength (Duits and van Zoonen, 2011: 20-22).
The notions of ‘risk’ and ‘harm’ related to young people’s use of pornography must be considered within the broader context of a general growth in Western societal anxiety and concern. A culture of fear has been created which, as Frank Furedi states in his essay
The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself: How human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty, relies on the notion of vulnerability that assigns
to the individual (in this case the young person) a passive and dependent role (Furedi, 2007: 7). As a professor of sociology specialising in the sociology of fear, education and knowledge, Ferudi claims that children and young people are groups that are most strikingly assumed to be vulnerable in today’s Western societies – this vulnerability often treated as intrinsic to their identities and personhoods (Furedi, 2007: 7). In the case of young people’s relationship with pornography, cyber-porn represents a formidable power that young men and women must manage. Through the constant amplification of its supposed risk to young men and women, young people’s individual choice when it comes to online porn becomes more and more restricted.
2.5 Dutch ‘Sex and Love’ Discourse
In his article comparing attitudes to teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and America since the 1880’s, Cas Wouters, a key figure in the Dutch figurational sociology movement, who specialises in the changing behaviour of different generations, suggests that one of the defining features of the supposed Dutch liberal attitude to sex is the way in which views on young men and women’s sexuality have evolved since the 1960s (Wouters, 2013). He claims that previously, regulation of young people’s sexuality in the Netherlands was traditionally conservative, as in other Western nations such as America and the UK; however, the last fifty years has seen the emergence and development of a new rule, allowing young men and women to have sex provided they are emotionally ‘ready’ and ‘attached’ to a partner (Wouters, 2013). As Wouter argues, it was at this point that the principal condition for adolescents’ engaging in sex, of ‘feeling strongly for each other’ became a trend; “learning to have a sexual relationship implied learning to have a relationship” (Wouters, 2013: 439).
In a sense, love and ‘making love’ were increasingly perceived as an inter-linked, necessary learning process (Wouters, 2013).
In her book ‘Not Under My Roof’: Parents, Teens and The Culture of Sex (2011), Amy Schalet, American specialist on youth sexual cultures, highlights the prevalence of this trend in the Netherlands whilst uncovering the differences between Dutch and American modern approaches to young people’s sexuality. Schalet illustrates the way in which a web of meaning about young people’s sexuality in the Netherlands is formed from the intertwining of three dominant cultural frames: ‘normality’; relationship-based sexual interaction; and self-regulation (Schalet, 2011: 36-43). She argues that within institutions such as the family and education system, there is a blurring of love and lust through the teaching and encouragement of a relationship-based approach to sexuality, which is centred on feelings and attachment (Schalet, 2011: 36-38). Whilst this approach may appear reasonable – particularly when compared to approaches taken in nations such as the US – similarly to other authors, Schalet (2011) recognises the way in which this cultural process of ‘normalisation’ gives rise to ‘othering’: the ‘normal’ is established in opposition to non-normalised sexualities.
In an article entitled Raging Hormones, Regulated Love: Adolescent Sexuality and the
Construction of the Modern Individual in the United States and the Netherlands, Schalet
more clearly argues that whilst the older forms of hierarchical codes of behaviour have been replaced by a system that values an equal share of power in all forms of relationship, Dutch society is still ruled by a form of regulation – one which has at its heart the expectation that individuals will control their sexual impulses (Schalet, 2000: 81). Whilst individuals may be free from many external rules, the internally entrenched compulsion for “consideration, flexibility and negotiation” means they are bound by their own conformity, and the new taboos which bring the community together (Schalet, 2000: 81-82).
In her article entitled Moral Rhetoric and Public Health Pragmatism: The Recent
Politics of Sex Education, Rachel Thompson – a professor of youth studies – claims sex
education programs are an important indicator of where boundaries are drawn within a society, in that they reveal political ideologies and tensions that exist within them (Thompson, 1994: 40). One of the key tensions the programs bring into focus is public acknowledgement of young people’s sexuality and the topics of discussion it encompasses (Thompson, 1994: 40). In evaluating popular sex education programs within the
Netherlands, it would be fair to say that approaches to dealing with the topic of online pornography highlight judgements about what constitutes appropriate young people’s sexuality, and also flag cyber-porn as one of the particular Dutch taboos to which Schalet (2000; 2011) refers.
While Rutgers – one of the main sexual and reproductive health and rights organisations, providing sex education materials to institutions across Holland and a number of other nations – state in a blog post by their Managing Director, Dianda Veldman, that they promote conversation instead of censorship when it comes to online porn (Veldman, 2015), the approach they advise appears to focus on encouraging young people to value ‘real life’ sex above that depicted in pornography. By framing the conversation as a solution to combat the supposed negative effects of porn consumption (Veldman, 2015), Rutgers imply that all types of pornography are the same, and do not have a role to play in healthy sexual development. Those who choose to consume porn are framed as ill-informed, lacking the critical skills needed to make positive sex-related decisions (Veldman, 2015). Rather than advocating open conversation, encouraging diversity and free thinking, the Rutgers approach appears to encourage young people to disengage from pornography, and align themselves with the form of young people’s sexuality that Rutgers have validated.
The question for the research is, how do young people deal with this framing of pornography by Dutch institutions? And to what extent does it and other dominant discourses affect how they manage their experiences of and opinions on online pornography?
2.6 Chapter Summary
By conceptualising key theoretical terms and reviewing the dominant discourses relating to young people’s relationship with online pornography in the Netherlands, this chapter has contextualised the research and laid the foundations for answering sub-question five, which relates to establishing the disparities – if any - between the topics’ dominant discourses, and the narratives offered by participants.
A brief review of the feminist ‘porn-wars’, through the case study of Andrea Dworkin versus Gayle Rubin, situated anti- and pro- porn arguments in the realm where they traditionally emanate from, uncovering the basis of the debate about whether online
porn is a vehicle for patriarchy, or a sexually liberating tool. An exploration of modern ‘pornographication’ arguments then revealed the way in which generalised claims about how the West is becoming increasingly ‘sexualised’, demonise young people’s sexual cultures, making it extremely difficult to talk about young people’s use of online porn in any other way than a narrative that frames ‘the Young Person’ as victim. A review of ‘risk and harm’ discourse reveals how these arguments are often embodied in public discussion and academic ‘cause and effect’ investigation into online pornography - in particular young people’s relationship with it. As part of a wider growth in a Western ‘culture of fear’, these arguments often simply reflect feminist anti-porn claims from the past, but dressed up in ‘neutral’ language of psychology. The final review, of a discourse specific to the context of Holland - Dutch ‘sex and love’ discourse – explored the way in which young people’s sexual cultures are regulated through national valuing of sex in a relationship; online porn is framed as a poor substitute for the intertwine of sex and love in ‘real life’ and therefore deemed a form of non-normalised sexuality.
3 Focus Group Data
In this chapter a number of the factors that appear to influence the way in which focus group participants negotiate online pornography will be reviewed and analysed. In order to contextualise the data, section 3.1 will offer a description of my interpretation of each group dynamic, taken from the focus group memos I created at the time. In section 3.2, the way in which the participants of all three focus groups constructed the presence of online pornography as ‘normal’, and what this says about the dominant discourses of ‘risk and harm’, will be explained. Following this, section 3.3 will examine the difference in the way in which young men in the male-only focus group and young women in the female-only group, negotiate an appropriate age for online porn consumption; for the former group, being based on male-ritual practices, and for the latter, on biological conceptions of age-appropriate sexual behaviour. Section 3.4 will be dedicated to examining how relationship status influences understandings of online porn, using Celine and Bas’ interaction as a case study to demonstrate how contrasting opinions between couples, about the medium, can illuminate broader differences in personal approaches to love and sex. Section 3.5 will conclude the chapter through an exploration of how, despite strong gendered norms and values about online porn consumption, young women still attempt to situate themselves as autonomous actors when it comes to negotiating the medium and the dominant discourses that surround it.
For reference, within the quotes ‘RK’ represents my speech; and the following acronyms will be used: mixed-gendered focus group (MGFG); male-only focus group (MOFG); and female-only focus group (FOFG).
3.1 Talking Group Dynamics
The first focus group I carried out was with the mixed gendered group: a close set of four friends whose sense of ease with one another became obvious within the first couple of minutes of meeting. Ralph, the original contact and the person who had brought the group together for the session, introduced himself and the others, before we made our way inside to settle down and get started. Their well-spoken English and dress implied that the participants were all from relatively affluent white-Dutch backgrounds – a fact later confirmed when it was established they come from small villages near Haarlem and are
completing the VWO track at highschool in the hope of getting into university. I was re-assured by my initial reading of the group dynamic, feeling that the relatively comfortable attitude Ralph, Bas, Jennifer and Celine were displaying would help facilitate fruitful discussion.
As the participants started to answer the initial demographic questions, the extent to which the group was made up of well-established friendships became clear: all individuals had known each other for a minimum of five years, with Bas and Ralph’s friendship spanning a total of seven years. In response to questions regarding sexual orientation and relationship status, it was established that Ralph identified as gay and Celine, Jennifer and Bas as heterosexual. It was also revealed that Bas and Celine were in a relationship and had been for the last two years. The prospect of a couple dynamic within the focus group had not been a previous consideration, as Celine only joined the research after a last minute drop-out. Highly intrigued, but slightly apprehensive, I made a mental note to keep this relationship at the forefront of consideration when assessing the group dynamic during the session. In particular, the ways in which Celine and Bas’s reported attitudes and behaviours differed and how – if at all - this tension affected the general feeling of the group.
The gender dynamic within the focus group was also of particular relevance, given that it involved both men and women. Whilst the participants appeared generally relaxed, the young men were more confident in situating themselves comfortably in the space and responding to initial questions. Awareness of the upcoming discussion, on a controversial topic, may have been the source of slight discomfort for Celine and Jennifer, but I think their reactions are more telling of the general trend in mixed-gendered research, for men to be more self-assured and confident in their demeanour and narrative than women (Hollander, 2004). Ralph’s confidence could also be seen as him taking advantage of the host-like position he gained from organising the group, a trend that Hollander (2004) identifies.
The focus group with young women was the first of two sessions run with pupils at ‘ROC van Amsterdam’. As the young women started to arrive at the room we had been
allocated, the influence the school environment might have on the group became apparent.
Tessa, Britt, Maaike, Simone and Sophie all appeared apprehensive, hardly communicating with one another as they sat down. Throughout individual introductions they remained relatively quiet, a sign of their discomfort with the situation and possible mistrust of me. Appearing as a stranger without an initial contact such as Ralph, I realised in the young
women‘s eyes, the study could be perceived as an extension of school. In recognising that research undertaken in schools is affected by the way in which the school environment polices social meanings (Albury, 2007), addressing issues such as embarrassment and anxiety, as well as unequal power-play between (adult) researcher and (young, female) participants, was vital for encouraging a healthy dynamic.
Although the mixed-gendered group had been self-selected, unlike Ralph and friends, the young women were not a pre-existing friendship group so it was unsurprising that the group dynamic was not as naturally relaxed. As with most focus group discussions, it quickly became obvious which participants would play more central roles in the discussion. Both Britt and Simone had a dominating influence on the dynamic of the group from the beginning, but in rather different ways. Britt was keen to engage in conversation, intrigued by other participants’ views and sometimes probing the topic in question further – in short, Britt’s was a ‘dominant voice’, in that she spoke most often. Simone dominated more through the tone she adopted in verbalising her dislike of pornography, and the moral judgement she placed over those who watch it – it was more what she said, and the way she expressed it, than how frequently it was mentioned. In recognising that dominance can obscure an individual opinion that actually reflects the view of multiple participants (Smithson, 2000), the dynamic was kept at the forefront of consideration.
The final focus group was also conducted at ‘ROC van Amsterdam’, with five young male pupils: Alex, Hendrik, Yannick, Oscar and Jan. Having yet to conduct a male-only discussion, I experienced a degree of trepidation as I considered the challenges faced by authors such as McGeeney (2015) in addressing practices of hyper-masculinity, when discussing issues of sex and sexuality in focus group sessions with young men. As the participants began to arrive, my anxiety dissipated; the young men were polite, greeting me in a courteous manner before taking a seat at the table. Although the young men appeared relatively content, the dynamic felt slightly stilted by a sense of awkwardness which was reflected in their body language. In particular Yannick and Oscar, who sat with their arms crossed, looking down at the table. As predicted, my perceived gender was influencing the dynamic of the group. As Allen (2005) argues, the gender of the researcher can affect the participants’ sense of comfort in talking unconventionally about topics associated with masculinity, sex and sexuality.
This was confirmed by the interest of a number of the young men about why I was studying the topic of online pornography; in asking the question “did you choose this topic or was it given to you?” there was a sense that for Jan, my gender put into question my motive behind studying the topic. For them, it was my opinion as a women, on online porn, that they were intrigued by, not necessarily my opinion as a researcher. Within the group there was no one particular character than dominated the discussion, another sign that there may have been some reluctance to fully engage, due in part to the disparity between their gender and mine. Rather than accept the young men’s consciousness of my gender as a hindrance to the data collection, I decided to follow the advice of authors such as Allen (2005) and remain reflexive, feed it into the experience and recognise it as an insight into how the young men perform their sexualities.
3.2 Part of the Everyday: “...online porn is normal now”
The accounts of the young Dutch men and women involved in the research add to the claim made by a number of studies from across the Western world, that for a vast number of young people today, online pornography is simply a fact of modern day life. Irrespective of moral judgement and personal experience, the participants in the focus groups appeared to accept the ‘normality’ of young people’s exposure to cyber-porn, a point well made by Maaike (FOFG):
“It’s 2016, online porn is normal now. Maybe a few years ago young people were unaware, but not now I don't think. It’s just one of those things these days for us; it doesn’t
necessarily have anything to do with you, but it’s there for sure”
This sentiment was echoed across the discussions, where the ease of accessibility and wide range of pornographic material available online was often confirmed by group agreement. Not a single participant defied this consensus, with a number of individual accounts likening young people’s relationship with online porn to other technological phenomena of this age, such as “searching for cat clips online” (Alex; MOFG). The way in which some participants presented online porn as a medium that can cater to a limitless array of sexual tastes, and the supposed ease with which this can be done, is captured by Oscar and Hendrik (both MOFG):
