it all sounds a little naive. a reference to the "medical journal" in question would have helped: without it, the author simply has no evidence for her claims, much less her speculations. it would also be of interest to have considered the issue of whether some women also enjoy pornography and violent fantasies, and what this might imply for her concerns.

It does sound somewhat hysterical.

I don't doubt there's an array of nasty pornography on the web, though I doubt most horny teenagers would choose the brutal pornography over standard fare.

Because the worst exists, there's no reason to assume large numbers of people will opt for those kinds.

As for the idea that men won't be able to believe women are people too, with feelings and so on... on that, I'm extremely sceptical. Most men have mothers, sisters, wives.
They're not some ignorant porn-addicted wretch, unable to differentiate between what is on screen and what is reality.
This assumption is rather insulting, actually. Of course the vast majority can tell women are people with feelings too.

This piece reads as if all men are ignorant sociopaths, unable to appreciate other people's feelings.

The 2007 medical journal finding that “high pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression” means that if you observe that someone has a high (relative to the average) pornography consumption, then you may predict, with a better than random chance of being right, that the person will be involved in sexual aggression.

But that's all it means. It doesn't tell you that pornography consumption causes sexual aggression, and certainly doesn't tell you that more sexual aggression will result from the increased availability of pornography.

I sometimes think that medical articles on such things (and many others) should come with a warning:

"WARNING - This article contains data of a highly statistical nature, and should only be quoted by qualified professionals. Its use by untrained people can seriously damage their credibility."

So, according to this article, parents don't teach their son(s) on how to treat people from an early age, rather they learn it when they're 16-17 and see women involved in pornography online.

I note that no statistics are mentioned on the pornography found on the net that are specifically degrading to women; rather, the article just says "lots".

Perhaps readers might take this seriously if the author had done some research - or, if they had, included it in the article instead of unsupported statements...

“A survey taken in the US in 2005 found that 38 per cent of 16 to 17-year-old boys had sought out pornography on the Internet.”

Note “a survey”. This is an old trick used by people without evidence expecting you to believe them. There might or might not be a survey.

What about the girls, Caroline? They are, after all, half the performers in straight pornography.

So far, this contribution seems to be the usual attack on those ‘dirty’ little boys and men, rather than any attempt to protect women. Let’s read on.

Third paragraph, and it’s still males abusing a poor, innocent females.

Four paragraph, more “women hatred”. The women are just “pretending” to enjoy the experience. How does our contributor know that, one wonders? We can be fairly sure that a PhD study at the Asia Institute has nothing to do with the subject. What are her qualifications for knowing how males enjoy themselves: key hole peeping, perhaps?

Paragraph five doesn’t tell us how the medical journal made its ‘findings’. Not very good for someone doing a PhD. If she thinks that pornography contributes to what she claims it does, she should be able to prove it, not just name an arcane journal most people have never seen.

Chapter six continues on, assuming that the unproven “… 2007 study’s finding linking pornography to male sexual aggression…” is universally accepted. The “estimated 1,000 cases of drink spiking” here are also dubious. We can just as easily “estimate” that x number of not so sugary and spicy girls have hit the sauce and done the old come on, only to be met with the guilt and fear in the morning, and cry drink spiking to hide their behaviour from mummy and daddy.

Continued....

Continued...

Single sentence ‘paragraphs’ seven to nine’ wonder where women fit
into a world where “large numbers” (who says?) of evil men are “looking at pictures”; when “our male leaders” might have had their brains affected by pornography so that the maybe unable to see women as human beings. This is sheer hysteria.

What about the increasing number of females involved in porn? What about the fact that women don’t wear stays, hoops and bustles anymore, and like sex wherever they can get it – often rough stuff- just as same as males? Is Caroline Norma really that naïve?

Does she think that females are still delicate flowers for whom the “coming decades” (Para. 10) will be “uncharted territory for women”?

The rest of this tiresome tirade against males continues to be just that to the end. Caroline Norma has asked and listened to women! Which women? How many women? She doesn’t say; she has no evidence, again.

I am past the stage where I am interested in women, sex or pornography. But, I still recognise an attack on my gender when I see it. This is a beauty!