One of the first tasks of any porn researcher is to develop sets of skills for dealing with the zombie concepts, evidence and theories that underpin claims of the 'effects' of porn consumption, and sister arguments framed around discourses of harm. Those skills have been in considerable demand recently following the publication of an article in The British Journal of Criminology (Vera Gray et al. 2021) that was uncritically circulated by almost every news outlet in the UK and abroad. Based on work undertaken by researchers in law, sociology and computing at Durham University, the article made confident claims that it had gathered 'the largest research sample of online pornographic content to date' to discover that 'one in eight titles shown to first-time users on the first page of mainstream porn sites describe sexual activity that constitutes sexual violence'. There are many things to find fault with about this research from a methodological perspective (the team demonstrably have neither expertise nor even knowledge of media studies research methods) and in terms of basic levels of scholarship. Vera-Gray et al. selectively cite porn researchers who publish in this journal and thereby misrepresent them and the field.It would be all too easy, then, to disregard this research as merely ill-conceived and poorly executed was it not for the fact that such investigations, founded on an a priori hypothesis, speak so loudly to policy agendas around online harms and the regulation of adult content. Consequently, they are circulated and replicated as headlines with no context and no challenge to definitions and methodsfor example, Vera-Gray et al. defined the search terms 'teen', 'stepbrother', 'stepmother' and other variations on the 'step' theme as sexual violence. No wonder, then, that they should find so many forms of 'sexual violence' in their dataset. Unfortunately, this research looks set to join the equally flawed earlier research by Bridges et al. (2010) in being endlessly cited by legislators and policy-makers intent on censoring adult content. Indeed, recent articles in the mainstream press (for example, the highly emotive and selectively evidenced piece by Nicholas Kristof [2021]) reminds us that Porn Studies, as a journal and a field of study, is located in the wider context in which arguments, raging since the 1970s, ebb and flow. It is evident that we are currently in a period where the 'harm agenda' is resurgentindeed, the current climate is intensely and increasingly anti-sex work and anti-porn and, most worryingly, increasingly successful in efforts to de-platform sexual content. These are issues and trends to be examined in an upcoming issue of this journal.
This issueThis general issue of the journal, published at a point when old debates around harm seem to have been reheated for a new audience, draws attention to two of the most prevalent themes in porn studies research: historical/archaeological investigations and the relations between porn and digital and social mediarelations that are productive a...