There was a time, not so long ago, when female breasts appeared daily in some national newspapers. It was part of a culture that stripped and infantilised women, presenting very young “girls” with a nod and a wink, as though it was all a joke. Feminists who objected were dismissed as killjoys, even though the campaign against what became known as “Page 3” was ultimately successful.
This week’s Panorama programme revisited that era, focusing on the alleged activities of one man, David Sullivan, who made a fortune from sex shops and sleazy tabloid newspapers. The allegations against Sullivan, which he angrily denies, are that he “interviewed” young women at his mansion in Essex and demanded sex in return for furthering their careers as “glamour models”. The women’s stories were horrible.
When the claims were put to Sullivan, he soon resigned as joint chair of West Ham football club, although he denies any illegal conduct and remains its largest shareholder, owning 38.8% of the club. It may be the first big challenge for the new independent football regulator, which has powers to remove owners judged not to meet “required levels of honesty, integrity, competence and financial soundness”.
What was most striking about the programme, however, was the insight it offered into a period of purported sexual freedom. This was a time when “soft porn” was normalised in tabloid newspapers, as though everyone involved was a consenting adult and the whole thing was just harmless fun. In reality, the “girls” who appeared in the “Countdown to 16” feature in Sullivan’s Sunday Sport were so young that they would now be legally regarded as children, according to the Children Act 2004. Even without the allegations of sexual predation being levelled at Sullivan, the inequality and exploitation inherent in the porn industry was always hiding in plain sight.
It’s worth remembering that his titles tapped into a culture where one of the most popular shows on primetime TV featured the comedian Benny Hill, who regularly appeared grinning smugly (and fully clothed) alongside a troupe of young women in swimming costumes and bikinis. “Scantily clad” was one of the favoured euphemisms of the time, while semi-naked women in newspapers were described as “topless”. A telling critique of the sexual revolution of the 1960s is that it mainly benefited heterosexual men, and the way young women were exhibited in popular culture a couple of decades later was one of its most perverse outcomes.
Footage of Sullivan preening himself in the 80s and 90s is toe-curling to watch. His career is an indictment of the faux-liberation promoted by the commercial sex industry, pretending that the “product” – young and inexperienced women – had as much power and choice as the men who controlled them.
There is a paradox here: porn exited most tabloid newspapers decades ago, but it simply migrated elsewhere. The porn industry is more ubiquitous than ever, accessible until last year, at least, by any schoolchild who owns a smartphone, and most of the content these days is anything but soft. Videos showing rape, strangulation and sexual humiliation have become routine, accompanied by an epidemic of violence against women. According to official statistics, girls between 15 and 19 experience one of the highest rates of sexual assault, a circumstance often blamed on repeated exposure of boys and young men to violent porn.
Becoming an OnlyFans “star” is the current version of the 1980s “glamour model”, with the same promise of wealth and fame. The women who spoke to Panorama talked about the dreadful impact of their alleged encounters with Sullivan, including feeling suicidal. It’s hard to believe that young women who consent to ever more extreme stunts on OnlyFans will emerge entirely unscathed. But there is a big difference: owners of sites like Pornhub keep a low profile, avoiding the publicity chased by Sullivan when he owned the Sport titles.
The day of the highly visible porn baron is over. Sullivan is 77 and feels like a relic, a cut-price version of the Hugh Hefners and Larry Flynts who dominated the US porn industry for so many decades. But that isn’t to let Sullivan, or our own era, off the hook. The culture he promoted in the 80s and 90s was anything but benign, encouraging the notion that women’s bodies are consumable objects. It was the precursor of the 21st-century porn industry, creating the conditions for something much worse.
Joan Smith is an author, journalist and a former chair of the mayor of London’s violence against women and girls board.
