A woman says the widespread use of explicit material is putting her off sex, and she wants protection from pornography. Mariella Frostrup says she is not alone
The dilemma Why is it only children who we think might want to be protected from pornography? Do the rest of us have to live in this grossly objectifying and demeaning culture just because some people want access to porn? I find it interesting that objection to sexually explicit material finds a place as a parental issue – but it's much wider than that. I predict that there will be movements not only against pornography but actually against sex – that's the logical conclusion of all this, particularly with an ageing demographic. And I feel drawn that way. How important is sex? To whom? Why is it shaping our public and virtual spaces to such a degree?
Mariella replies It's a question I've been asking myself, too. Just the other night as I drove into London I was confronted by a giant billboard selling me "Pussy". There wasn't a feline in sight, just a photo of a new energy drink with the tagline: "The drink's pure. It's your mind that's the problem."
I have to admit I'm fast losing my sense of humour. It was unacceptable for the BBC to play the No 2 single "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" in its entirety during the chart countdown despite it being a legitimate, if childish, way for those who didn't venerate Lady Thatcher to have their voices heard, yet it's OK to advertise a soft drink by naming it after slang for female genitalia? Where was the Advertising Standards Authority when that one was signed off?
We seem to have become immune to the corrosive practice of using women's bodies to sell products and the widespread impact of the avalanche of pornography, spreading like a virus online. The links between demeaning representations of women and girls and the continuing (and in many areas escalating) violence against them is well documented, yet we continue to tolerate the abuse of one sex for the supposed delectation of another. It's insulting to the intelligence of grown-ups and incredibly damaging to children. While schools are allowed to opt out of sex education, children increasingly get theirs online by watching the abuse (erroneously labelled pornography) which has replaced the misty-lensed erotica of days gone by.
Recently a friend told me that her 10-year-old son had been sent home from school for grabbing an older girl's breasts in the playground, squeezing them and going "barp, barp" to impress his little boy gang. When his mortified mother asked what had possessed him, he said he'd watched a TV comedy where he'd seen a guy do it and everyone laughed. And that's an innocent example. On my recent Radio 4 series Bringing Up Britain, Sue Berelowitz, the deputy children's commissioner, revealed that an entire class of Year 6 kids – 11-year-olds – who they'd consulted for their report on the sexualisation of children had all watched pornography online.
Enjoying pornography may be a human right for consenting adults but perhaps we could adopt the German model, where those wanting to watch sex online have to opt in by signing up at their local post office. It would certainly sort the men from the boys, quite literally, which would be a step in the right direction. We are battling a tsunami of smut that, far from being postmodern, clever or even sexy, is conceived to appeal to our basest instincts, stereotyping men as brainless Neanderthals and women as legitimate prey. Men should be up in arms about the insult to their intelligence and to the women they love – mothers, sisters, wives and daughters – but the voice of opposition continues to be the preserve of the likes of Women's Hour and a few female commentators branded po-faced hysterics.
Ironically, with sex all around, it's interesting to learn from my postbag that many people feel like you: less and less inclined to actually have it. First our friendships were claimed by the virtual world; now our sex lives seem headed in the same direction. Were I to write a sci-fi novel I'd set it in the near future, with humans becoming like the hideous breeder rats in James Herbert's novel Lair– deformed, amorphous lumps doing only what they are programmed for.
Once upon a time I thought the feminists of the 1970s were a pretty humourless lot, but increasingly I'm missing their strident voices as we continue to tolerate the status quo – the sexual objectification of half of the population while brainwashing the other half to be so primitively programmed they fail to understand the boundaries of mutual respect. Surely it makes losers of both sexes?
If you have a dilemma, send a brief email to mariella.frostrup@observer.co.uk. To have your say on this week's column, go to guardian.co.uk/dearmariella. Follow Mariella on Twitter @mariellaf1