Yes, But No! Watching Porn is Individual Choice, But It's Also Crime Against Women

Porn as terminology, has three very clear aspects. One is the moralistic debate: to watch or not to watch? Here, not just India, but every single country, including the most liberal, western countries are involved. The second part of the debate is: who produces porn and why? And the third is, simply, how much of the porn ­industry universe is connected to human trafficking and­sexual offences against women.

Let us look at all three aspects independent of each other.

First question first. When we delve into that inquiry, the simple thing is to say that바카라”regardless of the moralistic issue of what kind of people watch porn, what kind of perversion is involved etc바카라”people in every democratic set-up should have the right to watch the kind of content they want. Most producers of porn say they are making artistic films, a far cry from ­reality. What it has is a tremendous amount of titillation바카라”in fact, more. It바카라™s almost like watching live sex. That is what porn is. Morally speaking, to watch or not to watch is an individual바카라™s decision. There can be various segments to this debate바카라”how many people watch porn, how much, and how is it connected to their sexual preferences, be it straight, gay, LGBTQ etc. At the end of the day, the internet is a plethora of experiences, and the freedom to immerse oneself in that rests with the ­ind­ividual entirely. Such a moral debate is avoidable in a ­democratic country like ours. We should rest the matter there, each to her preference, let the choice remain with the people.

ALSO READ:

Question two: how much of this is connected to human ­trafficking, sexual escorts etc? When child porn was banned in India, there was a hint of debate about it being a matter of 바카라˜choice바카라™. But even the bitterest critics of regulation gave in when statistics started flowing that child porn all over the world was connected to paedophilia. Now, extend that to crime against women and you see why jurisprudence and law-making should take precedence over people바카라™s choice. If porn sites are surrogate channels for human trafficking, escort services (a field where 바카라˜choice바카라™ is often a chimera) and sexual violence against women, there can be no debate about their criminality. A deeper zone of grey and black exists beyond the public바카라™s erogenous zone바카라”and the justice paradigms of any country should respond to it. India, which reports some of the highest sexual crimes against women, is no ­exception. What are porn streaming services up to? If found to be liable to cause harm to women, there should be an absolute and total clampdown on them, not just regulation.

ALSO READ:

The third question: who produces porn? All kinds of people. We are in the middle of a controversy about a very famous Bollywood couple being embroiled in a case. We must remember, porn is globally one of the biggest cash cow industries. It바카라™s a very good business to be in for a lot of people. Morally speaking, how good or bad is producing porn? It is the same question as asking, how good or bad is it to own an escort service. Individual choice, if you must. But even if you extinguish the choice of others in the process? We look at the output, not at the process of what바카라™s achieving that output. The only thing to ask is, does the act of producing porn entail or lead to crime against women? If yes, it바카라™s a crime and calls for eradication, after a thorough ­investigation of their 바카라˜business바카라™ networks and models.

ALSO READ:

A lot of people say porn stars are celebrated people. I have no issues about women or men, who, out of personal choice, ­create porn for their living. I don바카라™t think there바카라™s any moralistic debate there. If it바카라™s consensual, if there바카라™s choice involved and it바카라™s a source of employment, so be it. We must not apply the larger criminology of it there. But people often do not consider what has kept India alive as a country. We can바카라™t afford to lose sight of what a responsible business is. And businesses that thrive on objectifying women have clear repercussions. There was recently a horrific case where women of a certain community were put on auction on a YouTube channel. One shudders at the thought of where we are going.

The rapid pace of technological change necessitates that the government take steps to ensure women and children바카라™s ­interests are protected online. Technology always outpaces ­governance and the harm inflicted in the digital sphere can quickly overwhelm the state바카라™s capacity. Tomorrow, when ­algorithms completely inundate us and take over our lives, they will not think like us with their emotional minds. They will only look at what is selling. Before that totally amoral day dawns, a deeper conversation needs to occur.

(This appeared in the print edition as "Yes, But No!")

ALSO READ

(The writer, an actress, is a former national secretary of the BJP and a CBFC member. Views are personal.)