Routledge ’Porn Studies’

Academics, human rights activists, and mental health professionals are protesting the upcoming journal ‘Porn Studies’ from Routledge, to be published in 2014 — the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the subject.

The editors and proposed editorial board of ‘Porn Studies’ overwhelming have a very strong pro-porn slant. Highly biased — but, the journal has been given a title that implies objectivity and neutrality. The petition urges Routledge to rebalance the diversity of the board to include all perspectives and to take a more critical and unbiased approach for the research and analysis of porn. Or alternatively, to change the journal title to reflect the current bias:

“While we agree that pornography and porn culture demand and deserve more critical attention, as a group of academics, activists, anti-violence experts, health professionals, and educators, we are deeply concerned about the journal’s intention and focus and about its editorial board, which is uniformly pro-porn.”

“Routledge is in a position of authority, and framing the editorial “experts” on porn as pro-porn under the auspices of neutrality (which is what the journal title does) further fosters the normalization of porn and misrepresents the academic, political and ideological debates about the issue. The composition of the editorial board (at least thus far) risks marginalizing any critical or anti porn position… In the interest of academic integrity and thorough critical inquiry, it is imperative that a journal titled Porn Studies creates space for critical analyses of porn from diverse and divergent perspectives.”

Please sign the petition and forward to anyone who may also be interested:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/porn_studies_bias

Implications of studies published in this new journal could be far reaching.

The board’s position is that porn is healthy, harmless, and the positives outweight the negatives — ignoring sexual violence, exploitation, abuse, emotional and mental health issues, sexual dysfunction, addiction, escalation into depravity, destructive impact on marriages and relationships, the long-term effects of porn on society, women, men, family, and children.

Members on the board include Marty Klein – as we know, he minimizes our grievances and denies the reality of our trauma, blames partners for the porn user’s secrecy, deception, and lack of intimacy, and labels us attackers, dictators, jealous, weak, hysterical, coercive, and power hungry controllers.

Lili from PoSARC has an excellent write up:
http://www.posarc.com/blog/item/research-project-on-porn

Gary Wilson also has a neat summary that I’ll quote below:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201305/drumroll-academic-journal-porn-fans

—-

“There is nothing in the list of proposed topics about the adverse effects of Internet porn on users. In fact, all of the 32 board members for the new journal appear to think porn’s benefits far outweigh its costs.

Imagine a “Dietetics Studies Journal” in the Land of the Obese, whose board consists only of the Chairman of the Board of PepsiCo, the CEOs of Nestle and Pillsbury, and a marketing exec from Kraft, and you have a good feel for the bias of the upcoming journal.

23 of the total 32 board members specialize in media and film studies, which suggests that a better name for the journal would be Porn Film Today. None have extensive background in physiology, neuroscience, adolescent development or addiction. Indeed, a mere 3 of the 32 have PhDs in psychology.

Worse yet, none appear to have any clinical experience with the kinds of issues today’s porn can cause—with the exception of Marty Klein, darling of the Adult Video Network. AVN honored Klein with his own porn star page to show its gratitude. It should. Klein has repeatedly emphasized porn’s harmlessness.

The new journal’s board is overwhelmingly composed of artists and theorists who think Internet porn is the greatest thing since the invention of “talkies.” Here’s a sprinkling of the talent the new journal will tap, beginning with its editors, Smith and Attwood.

• Clarissa Smith – In a recent “Intelligence Squared” debate, Smith, representing the pro-porn side, announced that “Pornography is good for us.”

• Fiona Attwood and Clarissa Smith were co-authors of a survey of people who “use and enjoy porn.” Alas, the press then predictably glosses over such limitations, misleading readers that an objective study has concluded that “porn is great.”

• Australian board member Kath Albury, did her own dodgy survey with fellow board member Alan McKee in 2008, funded in part by actual pornography businesses. “The authors claim that the harm of pornography is negligible and is, in any case, outweighed by the expressed pleasure of its users.”

• Alan McKee – “Pornography is actually good for you in many ways.”

• Violet Blue – Blue says you should think of erotica as a tool in a woman’s sexual arsenal. “It can be as reliable as a woman’s vibrator.” (Link not included: NSFW.)

• Meg Barker  – “Most of my research has been conducted within sexual communities, focusing on bisexuality, BDSM, and open non-monogamy.”

• Tristan Taormino – Pornographic film maker and actress, creator of “Rough Sex #2” and “House of Ass,” among others.

Expect this bunch to churn out the erotic equivalent of food studies entitled, “The Life-Enhancing Aspects of Deep-Fried Banana Splits.” Why? Because the Porn Studies Journal board members have made it their mission to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, just like the old song advised.”