X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Blogs Coffee House

Is the permissive society causing pain and harm?

26 November 2013

12:12 PM

26 November 2013

12:12 PM

It was a curious coincidence, don’t you think, that the sexual conduct findings that the Lancet published today coincided with the publication of a report from the Deputy Children’s Commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, about child-on-child sexual violence? The two stories were juxtaposed uncomfortably in the news.

In the case of the Lancet survey, which is conducted every decade, it was comically hard for broadcasters to know how to play the findings, which were a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand women are becoming more like men and admitting to significantly more sexual partners – ‘of both sexes!’ marvelled John Humphrys, on the Today programme – than before. So yay! On the downside, both men and women in the 16-44 age group are having rather less sex than a decade ago, which the report suggests may be attributable to tiredness, or, more yuckily, to couples having recourse to online sex rather than actual intercourse. Not so hot, then.

[Alt-Text]


The report from the children’s commissioner was accompanied by studies from the University of Bedfordshire and from London Metropolitan University about the extent of gang-related sexual violence, and it was, by contrast, just scary. Ms Berelowitz admitted to being frankly appalled by the ‘sheer levels of sadism’ uncovered by the findings; it was about teenagers exploiting teenagers, about girls in gang-dominated neighbourhoods accepting rape and being common sexual property as a reality of life, one of those things you grow up to, and with. Actually, Camila Batmanghelijh, whose charity, Kids Company, is on the front line on this one, has been banging on about this issue for some time – and her take on it is that it’s partly to do with the home lives of gang members which tend to feature absent fathers and a succession of adult males in their mothers’ lives. Naturally, many then play out the same scenario themselves.

What’s pretty clear is that the problem is emphatically part of gang culture – no surprises there – but if we are to believe Ms Berelowitz, similar attitudes and expectations hold good in other parts of the country, though perhaps not to the same extent; places, dear reader, where you and I might live. And if you buy the Deputy Children’s Commissioner’s contention that the music industry – and I think we know what bit of it she’s talking about – and online pornography have played a part in warping young men’s sexual expectations, well those things aren’t confined to Brixton, Croydon and Haringey. I find myself irresistibly drawn to Norman Tebbit’s bleak judgment that the permissive society is an unfree society; viz, the freedom of individuals to flog pornography has rather horrible consequences for the liberties of very young girls.

But back to the Lancet survey. It’s fair to say that its findings suggest that quite a lot of people may be having a lovely time – though it remains undeniably the case that men seem to be getting their fill rather more than women, especially when they get older (a matter that feminists ought perhaps to get exercised about). But even in this relatively upbeat scenario, there are shadows of sexual violence: one in ten women said they’d had sex against their will, and it’s not clear whether this was simply to be obliging, or whether it was to do with hardcore coercion. Either way, it’s a flipside to the joyous promiscuity suggested elsewhere.

Is there a connection between the greater sexual liberty evident in the Lancet survey and the Deputy Children’s Commissioner’s report? Perhaps there is, in the sense that there is now, to a rather larger extent than before, a culture of sexual entitlement. That is to say, there may be a widespread view among men that since most people seem to be getting it, everyone is entitled to a share. Chastity isn’t a virtue much valued in the culture (except, paradoxically in the gangs, who tend to equate sexual experience with sexual availability) which means that a protection that was available to teenage girls in the fifties, when respectability was an asset rather than otherwise, isn’t available now. In other words, a situation in which women are free to be more adventurous is also one in which sexual rejection is more difficult for brutish young men to accept. Actually, I’m just guessing. But then, in this fraught area, everyone is.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close