Simon Danczuk has watched porn, as have virtually all men. In one of the most important and closely fought elections in a generation, this apparently qualifies as a news story. Rochdale’s Labour MP has aroused much attention because of his Twitter habits: the deeply controversial backbencher blames a faulty iPhone for his account favouriting hardcore pornography. Accident or not, Danczuk “admits” – as his titillated critics describe it, though they really mean “confesses” as though an ungodly sin has been committed – to having watched porn. “I am a man of the world,” he protests. “I wouldn’t deny that sort of thing. I think we should not be too sanctimonious about this.”
A little disclaimer: Danczuk is not my No 1 fan, having once castigated me for hailing from the “posh part of Stockport”. There is no shortage of reasons for me to criticise Danczuk: our views on social security and immigration differ to say the least; though I note he is currently battling uber-troll K*tie H*pkins for stirring up racial hatred against British Pakistanis.
But watching porn? So what? A few years ago, Montreal University academics tried finding men who had never looked at pornography. Guess how many they found? Zero. In the space of a year, just one website – Porn Hub – received 23.5 million hits from London alone.
There are debates to be had about porn. Heterosexual porn frequently replicates and reinforces misogynistic attitudes towards women, as sexual objects who exist to sexually gratify men. It can promote body images that are unrealistic, undermining people’s self-esteem and encouraging unhealthy attitudes. Young people are increasingly exposed to pornography, often from a young age, when their brains are still malleable, and we don’t fully know the potential consequences. Addiction to porn is a problem, but so is addiction to anything.
Three judges were recently sacked for watching porn on the job. None of it was illegal, but they were still publicly embarrassed and dismissed. Yes, there’s clearly a sound argument that judges should be doing their jobs, not getting off on porn. Fair enough, but there’s all sorts of procrastination that goes on in the workplace. Who knows, maybe an otherwise tense judge seeking a quick bit of relief will concentrate better. Surely someone should at least commission some research into it.
But that’s not really what this whole Danczuk affair is about. Let’s be honest: we have entirely contradictory views about what we’d like MPs to be. We want them to be outspoken and independent-minded folk, and then we castigate them for going off-message. We want them to be like us, yet lambast them if they show the sorts of alleged weaknesses many of us have. We want them to be free-spirited, flourishing individuals and brain-dead robots all at the same time. My list of complaints against Britain’s political elite is long indeed – including that it is in the pocket of corporate power – but when it comes to personality, they just cannot win.
I doubt many of those mocking Danczuk would be all that comfortable with a quick trawl through their own internet history being made public. Twitter is often a dizzying frenzy of rocks being thrown by those who undoubtedly have their own share of “sins”.
Danczuk is a human being with flaws: for me, it’s the political flaws that matter. If we want MPs to be robots, fine. But in that case let’s stop complaining that there aren’t enough MPs who are people like us.