Originally published in: Sexualities http://sex.sagepub.com Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) Vol 12(5): 613–628 DOI: 10.1177/1363460709340371 Hard Times and Rough Rides: The Legal and Ethical Impossibilities of Researching ‘ Shock’ Pornographies Dr Steve Jones and Dr Sharif Mowlabocus ‘Extreme’ pornography has recently come under intense scrutiny within the context of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which was introduced by the British Government in 2007, and which will make the possession of extreme pornographic material a criminal offence. The Act is viewed by many as a direct response to a campaign launched following the murder of Jane Longhurst in 2003. During the trial, the prosecution drew particular attention to the defendant’s (Graham Coutts) fetish for erotic asphyxia, linking Longhurst’s murder to pornographic images downloaded by the defendant. The Act focuses on the representation of ‘extreme’ sexual behaviours, defining an ‘extreme pornographic image’ as one which ‘appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal’, including depictions of: (a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life, (b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal. The legislation poses difficulties for researchers, and it is on the methodologies and ethics of researching extreme pornographies that this paper is focused. We have chosen to focus our discussion on the issue of scholarly research only, as the effects on teaching pornography raise separate concerns and require their own detailed investigation. Those wishing to pursue this line of enquiry may wish to begin by exploring the existing literature dealing with ethical issues raised by "porno-pedagogy" (Austin, 1999; Curry, 1996; Driver, 2004; Jenkins, 2004; Kirkham & Skeggs, 1996; Kleinhans, 1996; Lehman, 2006; and Reading, 2005). We begin by setting the debate in context, examining the Bill in relation to the media effects model, and drawing attention to the mutable nature of extreme pornographies as a genre. This is a particularly important consideration given that extreme pornographies regularly blur boundaries between porn and horror. We demonstrate how the researcher of extreme pornographies must contend with the ambiguous interpretation of images in the legislation. We also investigate who is permitted to view extreme imagery and the motivations that justify access. This discussion necessarily underscores the methodological and ethical implications of undertaking such research in the academic context. One may seek to justify the need to study extreme material, yet defending the right for open access to the same material beyond the academy poses its own problems. Originally published in: Sexualities http://sex.sagepub.com Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) Vol 12(5): 613–628 DOI: 10.1177/1363460709340371 What is Extreme Pornography? Genre, Convention and the Challenges of Identification The focus on visual media in the Longhurst case is reminiscent of the James Bulger case of 1993, where it was rumoured that his murderers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had been influenced by a certificated horror film - Child ’s Play 3 (1991) - though they were never proven to have actually seen the film in question (Kerekes & Slater, 2001: 325). Both cases demonstrate the pervasiveness of an outmoded media effects model, in which images are seen as a stimulus for behaviours (see Segal, 1993 for a critique of this model). The extreme pornography legislation responds to a campaign which argued for a connection between representation and violence. Longhurst ’s murderer was said to be ‘obsessed’ with violent and necrophilic Internet porn, and as Longhurst’s sister, Sue Barnett, argued, ‘ *t+he most effective strategy was always going to be to make it illegal to view *extreme+ material’ (in O’ Brien, 2006). The model of media effects utilized here has been widely questioned by psychologists, as well as media and film academics (Gauntlett, 2001; Baron, 1983; Zillman & Bryant, 1984). Critical focus has instead turned to a paradigm that places as much emphasis on the point of decoding as encoding. According to this model, the production of meaning is not characterized as static but as a dynamic process in which the audience produces a range of meanings and understandings from any given text based on their own cultural position (Hall, 1973). However, in the Longhurst case, the hypodermic effects model is linked with a mode of consumption that involves an aberrant decoding of images that does not correspond with the reading intended in its production. According to the legislation, the consumption of images extracted from otherwise non-pornographic classified films can become prosecutable if it is considered that they have been used ‘solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal’. This would mean that the images of mutilation from a certificated film such as Saw (2004) or of asphyxiation in a film such as Rope (1948) could be deemed pornographic if they were proven to have been isolated from the rest of the text by the viewer for the purposes of sexual gratification. Pornography evades legal definition, as famously concretized in Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s declaration ‘I know it when I see it’ (Stewart, 1964). Much debate over categorising obscene imagery is centred on American legislation, not least in relation to the constitutional right to free speech (see Klein, 2006; McGuire & Caldeira, 1993; Miller, 2000; and Robbins, 1973, for examples). In Britain, the Obscene Publications Acts (1857, 1959 and 1964), the Protection of Children Act (1978), and the Sexual Offences Act (2003) have been invoked to cover most cases involving images that may be considered pornographic, but these benchmarks are far from indisputable. While Kieran (2002) provides a critical overview of attempts to answer the question ‘what is obscenity?’, defining pornography is made difficult by the wide variety of pornographies that are available: Hard-core and Soft-core; Heterosexual, Homosexual, and Bisexual; Art, Alt and Freak porn (for critical responses to this variety, see Dyer, 1985; Ellis et al., 1986; Church Gibson & Gibson, 1993; Straayer, 1996; Strossen, 1995; and Williams, 1989). Originally published in: Sexualities http://sex.sagepub.com Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) Vol 12(5): 613–628 DOI: 10.1177/1363460709340371 Additionally, in its imperative to cater as widely as possible, pornography tends to adopt and combine a host of generic conventions, often blurring boundaries. Pornographic film has a long-established tradition of appropriating narratives and motifs from other genres, as titles such as Jurassic Pork (1995), Malcolm XXX (1992), or In Diana Jones and the Temple of Poon (1996) illustrate (see Hunter, 2006; and Smith, 2009). However, films that combine hard-core sex with graphic violence, such as Porn of the Dead (2006), BoneSaw (2006), and XXXorcist (2006) move beyond parody and generic ‘ borrowing’ to a point where the audience may become uncertain as to exactly what genre of film they are watching - the film being at once ‘too horrific’ to be porn, and too sexually focused to be horror. As O’Toole writes, ‘placing deeply tangled issues like desire and consent alongside hard-core sex is making a juxtaposition most people find simply unacceptable’ (1999: 359). The Extreme Porn Act concretizes such a fear, and thus if either horror or porn texts blur their generic boundaries too far, they are deemed "extreme". While the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) certificated Saw and Hostel (2005) as belonging to the horror genre, they have been dubbed ‘ Torture Porn’ in their critical reception because of their graphic and excessive depictions of violence and mutilation (Edelstein, 2006). The labelling of a horror cycle as a type of pornography in the popular press echoes the arguments of earlier pro-censorship, anti-pornography feminists which have often coupled sex and violence (Radford & Russell, 1992: 203-19). Indeed this combination is at the root of the influential Dworkin/Mackinnon view of pornography as a degrading and violent attack upon women and women’s rights (see Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1988). The horror film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), has been envisaged as porn on this basis (Everywoman, 1988: 19) despite not containing a single sexual act, while the British group, Campaign Against Pornography and Censorship include ‘torture, flaying, cannibalism, crushing of breasts in vices, exploding vaginas packed with hand-grenades, eyes gouged out, beatings, dismemberings, and burnings’ in their discussion of what constitutes hard-core pornography (Smith, 1993: 72 - 81). Such confusions reveal a crisis over what the term ‘porn’ signifies - suggesting that porn may be less concerned with images of sexual pleasure than with various attempts to expose the body. But if this is the case, then the Act is even more disconcerting, given that it hinges on an ability to identify what is both ‘pornographic’ and ‘extreme ’. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the Act is its ambiguity, which provides the scope for a multitude of acts and practices to come under increased scrutiny and potentially face prosecution. Organisations such as Liberty, Backlash, the Libertarian Alliance, the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, and Consenting Adult Action Network have disputed the Act, especially in regard to the potential persecution of persons engaging in consensual sadomasochistic activities (Melonfarmers, (a) n.d.). What might be considered extreme pornography under the legislation? As should have already become clear, the answer is contentious to say the least, owing to the vagaries of the law.