Can secular thinking solve porn's evils?

Pornocracy (2025), by Jo Bartosch and Robert Jessel, is a clarion call for a legislative and cultural revolution, one in which the depravity of pornography is recognised, its façade of respectability is pulled down, and the entire industry which profits from it is overthrown.

Their provocative title refers to the "system where our minds, relationships and laws are shaped by global-scale sexual exploitation." It is this which they seek to expose (which Pornocracy does comprehensively) and then dismantle (here, the results are more mixed).

This is not easy reading: this book doesn’t shrink from presenting the horrors of pornography, the exploitation which produces it, the damage it does those who view it and the dark places to which it takes us as a culture, and as individuals.

The reality of pornography

Bartosch and Jessel are right to decry pornography’s baseless respectability, and to give the lie to its rhetoric: porn as harmless fun, which everyone watches, and which only life-denying, sexually-repressed bigots would oppose. We can only be grateful for the careful work that has gone into the book.

Just as valuable is the assessment of pornography’s effect on us. Pornocracy unmasks the "limbic capitalism" which preys so effectively on our neural anticipation and pleasure systems: as the authors conclude, "It turns out our nature is depressingly easy to manipulate." And there are many who profit handsomely from manipulating us.

Moreover, Bartosch and Jessel describe the shocking way in which sexual desire is malleable, such that viewers of pornography find themselves driven to more extreme content: "That is the power of the Pornocracy: it does not serve our sexual tastes; it shapes them."

Immorality

These are helpful insights, gathered usefully and articulated pungently, though none of them are new. What is unmissable in Pornocracy is its didactic quality and longing for moral clarity. At one juncture in their argument, the authors write: “…morality is not a dirty word. Why shouldn't we take a moral standpoint on something that is overwhelmingly likely to be damaging to at least some of its users? And disastrous not only to these individuals but - as with substance addictions - to those around them? To say nothing of the damage and degradation done to the performers?”

This is what is so striking: the sexual revolution of the 20th century severely curtailed this kind of thinking and thus created the atmosphere in which pornography use could come under the category of private morality, of choices that reflected human autonomy and which nobody could or should judge. It is refreshing to read the authors rage justly against an evil institution, and Christians must applaud the desire to reject pornography wholesale.

Indeed, for all that this book makes reasoned and clear arguments, we must hear the longing within it: for sexuality that is neither inhumane and cruel, for sexual relationships characterised by vulnerability, intimacy and mutuality, for children to be protected from sexualisation and exploitation, and for women to be treated with dignity and respect. These are beautiful longings.

'Religion'

But can Pornocracy’s longings be attained on its terms? I am not hopeful. While "morality" is not a dirty word for the authors, religion is; at key junctures, the writers take pains to disavow "faith-based" morality. They are putting forward a secular case against pornography, and while part of me cheers on any opposition to this evil, I have my reservations.

The authors inveigh against faith-based morality, but any other kind will be found distressingly contingent. One of the authors writes: “I believe it is shameful to masturbate to scenes of coercion; to view real or simulated child abuse; to get off on incest and misogyny and much more besides.” The word "belief" is crucial. Jessel’s examples are all deeply indebted to the Christian revolution which enshrined a distinctive, Biblical ethic even as it undermined the pre-existing pagan sexual morality (which would have felt shame in very different places).

For another thing, can Pornocracy’s secular arguments compel real moral change? They observe that "pushback against porn can only be effective once we recognise it as a threat to the species." But recognising this threat to our societies, cultures and even species can easily coexist with continuing to use it as an individual. More to the point, their own study shows the extent to which pornography reconfigures the user’s desires, thinking and biology. There simply isn’t the power required to compel the changes that are being asked for here.

Jessel’s moving and laudable desire to introduce "shame as a catalyst for positive change" is complicated by his recognition that pornography users are caught up in a denial which shame can’t help. He writes that the kind of shame that changes things "is an emotion that is revealed, not imposed." Exactly: revelation is required here, more truly even than Jessel knows.

The Case against the Sexual Revolution

Which leaves me with two reflections. First, there is a more successful alternative to Pornocracy: Louise Perry’s 2022 book, The Case against the Sexual Revolution, not only offers much of the same analysis but also goes deeper, querying the inadequacy of "consent" as our single moral foundation for sexual ethics. Digging that deep has been personally transformative for Perry; she shared the following in an interview a couple of months ago: “…I have, since writing the book, become a Christian… One of the reasons that I ended up becoming a Christian is because I realised that if it were supernaturally true, you would expect it to be sociologically true. And observing quite how sociologically true it is was very persuasive to me.”

We may pray for Bartosch, Jessel, and readers of this work to follow their moral intuitions and longings out to where they point, as Perry has.

Godliness

Secondly, reading Pornocracy leaves one thankful for the power of godliness. Paul warns Timothy not to associate with people who have "a form of godliness" but deny its power (2 Timothy 3v5). It’s a sobering warning, but there is a valuable flipside to it: godliness has a power that Bartosch and Jessel are longing for, a power to challenge sexual exploitation and restrain illegitimate desire.

Pornocracy calls for a cultural and legislative revolution: I would welcome that warmly, though I suspect I’ll wait a long time for it to come. But there is a spiritual revolution which can begin now, as we follow the Lord Jesus Christ and welcome His Spirit’s work to make us holy.

In Jesus, as Paul writes to Titus, the "grace of God" has appeared, which "teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age" (Titus 2v11-12).