The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rape in Brisbane: just between friends > Comments

Rape in Brisbane: just between friends : Comments

By Caroline Spencer, published 18/3/2008

P****graphy has made it very sexy to hurt and humiliate women. This has to change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
What is with all these articles blaming pornography for the abuse of women? How do two incidences make a trend? How is the Internet "teaming" (I think she meant 'teeming') with bukkake sites? Got some statistics on that? And what happened to acknowledging that rape is violence-oriented, rather that sex?

Why are all these articles being published, with such little research done in them? I think that's a more relevant question than the article itself, really... :/
Posted by Chade, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 10:48:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never ceases to amaze me how such juvenile articles can actually be published. Given the standard of reasoning and presentation of evidence you have applied in the construction of this article, you would have been lucky to receive even a pass grade in ANY first-year social science class in ANY university in this country. Are you not just a tad embarrassed by the major gaps in your argument??

You simply cannot say ‘oh well, there’s group sex and gang-bangs involving mutually consenting adults in the pornography world, so therefore violent acts of non-consensual pack rape MUST be directly attributable to the former’. I mean, the inference simply does not stand up!

Quite seriously, how long do you think that humans (men) have been pack raping women for?? How many centuries?? How many millennia?!!

And of all the people who watch porn, even gang-bang porn, what percentage of this group do you think go on to commit hideously violent acts of pack rape?!!

In short, if you are going to continue to make wild causal attributions like that demonstrated in this highly amateurish article, you need to go back to uni (if you’ve been at all) and take a first-year course on constructing logical arguments and presenting evidence.
Posted by LSH, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 10:57:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh my god! I've just read that you're a PhD candidate! I'm honestly stunned... This must have at least something to do with the massive inflation of grades in Australian universities over the last few years...

I wonder, do they teach argument construction and logic at the Asia Institute?? The answer is probably self-evident...
Posted by LSH, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The pornography industry makes more money than the mainstream entertainment industry”

“Consuming pornography is no longer the pastime of a few men on the margins, nor is it an activity that is marginal to the lives of men.”

So the author seems to be acknowledging using pornography is a mainstream activity and presumably accepted as “normal” by most men.

Maybe we should nationalise it, run it as a government department if it is that popular (that will certainly ensure it is no longer profitable).

“To date there have been few acts of resistance to the sex industry. This has to change.”

That sounds like the rally cry of the anti-fox-hunting or anti-furrier brigades and others prepared to inflict criminal damage upon those who are exercising their legal rights.

Not the sort of thing this fellow would ever approve of and would actively oppose (by all legal means).

Maybe all the blokes out there should have a pro-porn rally?

The point with banning pornography is simple, laws will never curtail the excesses of the lunatic few, only limit the rights of the many.

Since the author has acknowledged the mainstream popularity of porn and since the overwhelmingly vast majority of those users do not rape, it is an overreaction to ban porn for those many when such a ban will unlikely curtail the actions of the lunatic few who do rape.

It is the same argument for not banning cars because of any accident mortality rate.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:08:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I agree with Col on this one.

I'm down with condemning the rape in this article. It's disgusting. We really should be discussing constructive means to address the problems.

Unfortunately, so many people are quick to blame it on things like porn or society.

The reality is, these men need to be dealt with harshly. That's the answer. Not some silly crusade against porn.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same. Next!
Posted by Vanilla, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:29:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is as dopey and uniformed as her last one.

Makes one cringe with horror if people like this represent up and coming academics who will be able to call themselves 'doctor'
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:32:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know why this does get published. Because feminist articles get lots of 'hits', hence advertising revenue. So next time a crap feminist article like this gets published, lets not encourage it by adding lots of forum entries. Lets take our gender politics discussions away from articles such as this and into the general discussion. Conversely feminist articles of better quality should be encouraged.

Otherwise you will get more of this kind of crap article.
Posted by Whitty, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 12:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I don't know this writer but she sure dobbed Catherine Lumby in it. Surely there has to be a post from Reist soon.

I think the jury is still out re the effects of pornography. Personally, I tend to think it's harmless but then again I've read enough police statements to know that in the most violent of sex crimes (still very small %) the perpetrator had a collection of hard core porn and said he was in part motivated to 'act out' the scenarios.

It's a complex issue which slashes right through almost every political position in the social sciences. Where do feminists draw the line on notions of freedom of speech, freedom to access pornography? etc. Does censorship work? Do crime rates drop? One can be way to the socialist green left but still advocate censorship or you can be on the far right and invoke (in America) one's Constitutional Rights to access pronography.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 12:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny how those who want to continue to perve on women and men in slavery are totally blinded to the obvious outcomes.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where's the proof, though, runner? You can make all the statements which you consider to be "obvious" you like, but without proof, they're blown away with the wind...
Posted by Chade, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 3:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again, the comments from the protagonist of the sex industry, or the “champions of fools” in this forum, highlight the element of university student/graduate given over to arrogance and blindness to any form of compassion towards a legitimate concern for women’s rights. I hold serious concerns about the output of universities when I read drivelous and hysterical comment such as yours with conclusions that obviously fall onto the wrong side of the argument for the wrong reasons.
Good on you Caroline; when women are equally represented in our parliaments, then will true change against the all consuming power of the depraved sex industry, in all its forms, come about in Australia .
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 3:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is designed to be inflammatory the sort of technique used to inflame the emotions of the lynch mob and too convince them that someone should/deserves to be lynched.

A while ago I read about how perhaps violence against women will increase for a number of reasons, but mainly in reaction to the negative portrayal of being classified and vilified as a member of the abusing class.

So in reality if this happens and I hope it doesn't. It will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think Christine Hoff Summers was the one who wrote how in gender studies the students were taught how to stoke their anger. This was achieved by focusing on the crimes committed by some men agianst some women. Again a similar tactic to sledging or used to form a lynch mob.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 5:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…when women are equally represented in our parliaments, then will true change against the all consuming power of the depraved sex industry, in all its forms, come about in Australia .
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 3:44:39 PM”

Oh yeah?
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I pointed out on another recent porn related thread research recently released by Murray Straus found a strong relationship between smacking children and sexual violence when children are adults. The likelyhood of sexual violence increases with the level of smacking.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228220451.htm

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:27:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst nominally rejecting non-consensual sex, the article is actually indicates the article is really anti-sex and specifically against pornography, not anti-choice. It also contains numerous errors of fact.

For starters, the act of bukkake does not involve "oral penetration". Whilst Caroline may find it, ahem, not to her taste, other women disagree. The founder of Cosmopolitan, Helen Gurley Brown, strongly advised in favour of semen as a natural skin cream, for example.

The article claims that the pornography industry makes more money that the mainstream entertainment industry, without any evidence of such an outrageous claim.

If - and only if - the author is genuine in their concern of the representation of women in pornography, rather than being opposed to sensual expressions themselves, the answer - pardon the pun - is staring you in the face. Make better pornography.

In closing I will add my voice to those who have expressed surprise that a presumably intelligent forum such as Online Opinion has been overrun by epistemologically weak articles on this subject. It can hardly do the University of Melbourne or QUT any benefit to their already suffering reputation.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 8:58:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, another unforunatately facile article from Caroline Norma.

"The pornography industry makes more money than the mainstream entertainment industry, so we can assume it’s not a few men that are enjoying themselves with pictures of men spraying their ejaculate all over naked women."

How exactly does that follow? As far as I can tell, bukake is a particularly extreme and unappealing form of porn. How is it representative of pornography generally? Most people I know would be quite revolted by bukake, but are quite appreciative of more tasteful depictions of erotica, including pornography.

This is not shaping up to be an earth-shattering dissertation.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 10:06:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think it's anything wrong with the UMelb or QUT in particular but more with gender studies courses generally. If you go to UMelb and get a PhD in an older, established discipline like languages, philosophy, history, politics etc, you are likely to get a good rigorous degree. But if you go and take one of the 'advocate' subjects like womens/gender studies or sociology (increasingly education and English too) then you're not likely to get much. It's evident from articles like this that gender studies just doesn't attract high quality candidates. It attracts candidates who already have a preconceived idea of the world and who want to reinforce their ideas through activist oriented 'research'.
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 8:20:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dane,

I don't think the problem is with a particular programme of study; whether it is gender studies, education or sociology (I say with qualifications in the latter, along with politics and philosophy). The problem is with the attention to reasoning and evidence, both are often lacking in what you've called 'advocate' research. After all it was sociology, via Durkheim, which really pushed the necessity of empirical rigor in the field of social inquiry.

A problem, I believe, lies with entrenched academics of dubious merit who haven't ensured that their students are of sufficient competence, and the editors of OnlineOpinion who ultimately responsible for publishing the piece.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 8:55:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner “Funny how those who want to continue to perve on women and men in slavery are totally blinded to the obvious outcomes.”

Maybe you could “flesh” that statement out a bit.

Put some substance to it, which we can them challenge.

People who make obtuse posts to forums should not bother, if they cannot stand behind them or effectively communicate what they mean.

Diver Dan “Again, the comments from the protagonist of the sex industry, or the “champions of fools” in this forum,”

Labeling people with derogatory names says more about you than them.

For myself, I believe it is better to be a “champion of free choice” than the dead hand of censorship.

I always pale when dullards come along with ideas to regulate this or ban that for some notion that it is immoral or otherwise injurious based on some subjective notion of “niceness” or belief it has some, invariably “unsubstantiated”, influence on the motivations of others.

Censorship is there to protect children from exposure to things they have lack the cognitive skills to understand or rationally process.

Censorship is an inappropriate process to impose of adults who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what pornography suites their personal taste and you and Caroline Norma are none qualified to tell them what they might be permitted.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 10:14:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, read your own post and learn by your own “scoldings”. Me; I am forever the sectarian on the issue of the sex industry, and proudly so. And Col , what’s your “beef” with drawing decent lines across morality by the use of censorship?
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 10:56:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"what’s your “beef” with drawing decent lines across morality by the use of censorship?"

I'm not Col but my beefs with the idea are
- no proof that it achieves worthwhile benefits.
- plenty of historical evidence that censorship can be a tool which when misused can do great harm.
- Some proof that limiting access to good infomation about sexual issues increases the risks of unwanted pregnancies, STD's etc. Those who want to further limit porn often seem to want to limit other information as well.
- Some indicators that improved access to porn may actually reduce the rates of sexual violence by some groups (teenage boys).
- My idea of what a decent line is might be quite different to the line someone else would draw.
- My morality might be quite different to what someone elses idea is. My morality is much more about how people are treated than who puts what where.

I do find it somewhat amazing that our TV, movie and game console screens are filled with images of killing and violence with only minimal complaint but the depiction of the unclothed human body or of human adults engaged in consentual sexual activity provokes such angst.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 12:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"....adults engaged in consentual sexual activity provokes such angst."

R0bert

She agreed to consensual sex with ONE of them. Are we saying she then asked for what happened?

Actually;....am I missing something here? Does anybody have ANY concern about what this girl went through?

That seems to have been completely lost in the argument about pornography and its effect on behaviour.

I KNOW that is the basis of this topic, but surely while we discuss the why's and wherefore's we have completely forgotten the effect on the victim.

Or are you saying there IS no victim?
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 12:53:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quote from the letters to the editor in the 'The Weekend Australian Magazine' (March 15-16 2008).

"The Porn Report excerpt 'Is it art or is it porn' fails to discuss the impact of pornography on relationships. Of the 1023 respondents to the survey for the research project...46 percent engaged in pornography with their partners. The questions should be asked: How many of these partners participated unwillingly, but do so in an effort to save or preserve the relationship? How many young women pretend to enjoy it, not wanting to appear "uncool" or too prudish? How many are dominated by their partners and are too scared or timid to firmly say, "No". I was one of these wives. The final straw for me was a pornographical DVD my husband brought. When I saw the soulless look in the eyes of the young woman who obviously was coerced, I cut the disk up into small pieces. I no longer tolerate any pornography in our home, but because of his continued interest, our marriage is hanging together by a thread."

More and more young women are refusing to enter into sexual relations with men as they are sick of them trying to ram stuff down their throats, up their vagines, and in the anus. Many of these women lay the blame for this behaviour on porn. You may discuss the pros and cons of banning pornography but this is the real reality.
Posted by Les, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Ginx, I don' think any of the posters here are excusing the rape.

It's unacceptable. I think everybody here accepts that - if there's no disagreement, then it's just a chorus of people condemning this act.

More productive discussions would revolve around the difficulties of rape trials, and what appropriate sentences are.

The point I made in my earlier post is that this silly crusade against porn is a distraction from the real issues.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The point I made in my earlier post is that this silly crusade against porn is a distraction from the real issues."
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:33:19 PM

___________

And the point I make TRTL, is that getting bogged down in what you and others see as a silly crusade ( my comments are NOT based on the merits OR otherwise, of that), IS detraction from the real issue: which IS the victim.

What concerns me is that the basis of intellectual argument of the causes of rape; what constitutes rape, from some very clever people, particularly in Court, which I AM familiar with, leaves the victim in a morass of such debate;- frequently allowing the perpetrator/s to get away with the crime. And it IS a crime.

I am NOT talking about the FACTS of such a case; I am talking about the familiar tactic of tying up a DEFINITION to such a degree that it gives a valid excuse to dismiss charges.

________________________

Good luck Les. You will do what you have to do when there is no other option.

_________________________

(No more posts from me on this for 24 hours. Is anyone else finding the post limit thing stifling? One way or tuther Freedom of Speech IS restricted; whether we like it or not!!)
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 2:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Les,

'The questions should be asked: How many of these partners participated unwillingly, but do so in an effort to save or preserve the relationship? How many young women pretend to enjoy it, not wanting to appear "uncool" or too prudish? How many are dominated by their partners and are too scared or timid to firmly say, "No".'

That is obviously your reality, but I don't think that would be the case in the majority of cases. I know a few single girls with video collections. It's unrealistic to assume this is the norm as I think you have done. Certainly women are probably more likely to have different tastes. But when you say 'not wanting to appear "uncool" or too prudish?', that works both ways. Many women may like porn, but don't buy it as they fear they will be seen by others. The anonymity of the internet has seen a surge in women buying online for example. Romance novels also have a lot of sex in them, porn just happens to be acted out in explicit detail.

'More and more young women are refusing to enter into sexual relations with men'. Are you sure? You must mix in very different circles to myself.

Ginx,

I disagree. The definition of rape has been expanded recently. It used to men physically forcing yourself on someone, now it's rape if the women doesn't explicitly say yes I would like to have sex.
Posted by Whitty, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 2:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver-dan “Me; I am forever the sectarian on the issue of the sex industry, and proudly so.”

The dictionary describes “sectarian” variously as

a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect.
Narrow-minded; parochial.
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

If that is your take on yourself, then you have my condolences, it is nothing to be proud of.

However, your candor surely confirms, you would make an unsuitable representative to decide what should or should not be allowed in terms of a “sex-industry” to be accessed by other adults.

We are all the result of either the nature of nurture influences in our lives

Through our individual development, responsible parenting (nurturing) deals with removing any harmful influences of a “sex-industry” by censoring what is accessible by children.

It can be reasonably argued that adults are unlikely to be unduly influenced by similar exposure because they have developed sufficiently to recognize what is acceptable, from unacceptable, behaviour.

As for the "nature" reasons which may predicate rape: a sociopathic, psychopathic, narcissistic or other form of mental abhorrence / defect, will not be influenced by a ban on sex-industry, the rapists being predisposed and inclined to predatory behaviour, regardless.

The only reasoning left is you think banning or curtailing the “sex industry” would fill some personal sense of moral righteousness and I am afraid no laws are ever going to satisfy that need in you.

Individuals are entitled to exercise the own discretion on pornography and apply their own bigoted , narrow-minded and parochial view as to what they will watch and what they will ignore but that does not entitle them to impose their criteria on others.

Robert, please “jump in”. As usual, I find reason and balance in your post.

Ginx “Does anybody have ANY concern about what this girl went through?”

What the girl went through is outrageous.

However the debate is about whether incidence of rape correlate with access to pornography. Many of us believe no significant correlation exists.

Les “women are refusing “

that is a woman’s right.

I choose who I “bonk” with too.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 4:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Les writes

,More and more young women are refusing to enter into sexual relations with men as they are sick of them trying to ram stuff down their throats, up their vagines, and in the anus. Many of these women lay the blame for this behaviour on porn. You may discuss the pros and cons of banning pornography but this is the real reality.'

If you can't see the obvious fruit as mentioned by Les you are likely to deny smoking causes lung cancer. The same deniers are the first to scream about 'man made global warming' (sorry climate change). If it means rejecting porn for the common good of society very few who are in bondage to the crap are willing to do it. The selfishness of humans is incredible. I hope it isn't your child that is experimented on by others just as has been shown to happen frequently in communities after people feed on porn (perversion). I have no doubt our prisons also have many whites who have been in bondage to porn to the degree that they abuse kids and have no dignity left themselves.

The deniers want stats just so they can convince themselves that their little bit of indulgence is harmless. What a pathetic lot!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 10:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh runner,

Whatever you say is meaningless until you prove cause and effect. Why do you feel you are the judge of what behaviour is perverted? I wonder what is acceptable to you. One partner only for life, missionary only lights out, only to conceive then give yourself a few whips for being so bad and go to church and pray for a week. That's the reverse of the caricature you seem to paint on anyone who dares to want to look at humans doing what comes naturally. Should we ban churches because some ministers have sexually abused children?
Posted by Whitty, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col.

Sectarian seems to me to be the category people with my views on the subject of filth are relegated: And yes, I am proud to be seen as the “Bigot” if that is what it takes to hold that view.
Les; congratulations on your brave and lonely stand; and that is what it takes at times
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 20 March 2008 12:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<"Funny how those who want to continue to perve on women and men in slavery are totally blinded to the obvious outcomes.">
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:13:30 PM

I agree with Runner and with Dan. It's very interesting to observe the level of denial whereby some people dismiss the power of images to influence one's worldview. Advertisers, of course, are well aware of this phenomenon.

I wonder what proportion of the men posting in defence of porn would also defend cigarette advertising and the like as harmless.

Porn is ever more insidious because it links images where women are dehumanized with basic sex drive.

The bulk of it is created by men, for men - it's male fantasy that has little or nothing to do with women as people or women as they experience their sexuality. It therefore reinforces ideas that females are just bodies that are usable, discardable, contemptible.

In that upside down view; women are both virginal and sexually voracious. Consensual sex and rape merge into one so that neither is relevant - all that matters is the 10 second shudder gained at the expense of female dignity.

I hope that this writer continues to advocate for respectful and decent treatment of women. Good work.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 2:06:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, and bravo to the few men here who have a sense of decency and empathy towards others and who are unafraid to voice it even against the damning mob.

You give me hope - thank you.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 2:11:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver dan “Sectarian seems to me to be the category people with my views on the subject of filth are relegated: And yes, I am proud to be seen as the “Bigot” if that is what it takes to hold that view.”

I wrote in response to your declaration; as I quote you below:

“I am forever the sectarian on the issue of the sex industry, and proudly so.”

I did not “relegate” you to such a category. It is where you positioned yourself, with your own words.

I made the assumption that you would know the meaning of the word before you deployed it. Maybe I was wrong.

All I know is I could not ascribe such labels to myself and keep a straight face or expect to have anyone take seriously the views I espouse.

As I said before “If that is your take on yourself, then you have my condolences, it is nothing to be proud of.”

Definition of a bigot “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

Being an effective bigot relies on being in an unassailable position, from where you can hurl down edicts and pronouncements onto the heads of your hapless subjects.

I would observe you are in no such position either physically, morally or intellectually.

You are in a position where the hand of reason can easily reach out and slap you, exposing your “sectarian bigotry” for what it is, the last bastion of a small, uneducated mind. A mind incapable of accommodating an alternate or dissenting view.

That said, I do so welcome your input, it is good to listen to the words of bigots, it is a salutary reminder of how easily things can go pear shaped if the voice of reason is ever silenced by the bigots use of censorship, imposed in the name of “sectarian conformity”.

Pynchme “Consensual sex and rape merge into one so that neither is relevant”

Somehow I find your post impossible to take seriously. I assume you wrote it for a laugh.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 7:41:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

'it's male fantasy that has little or nothing to do with women as people or women as they experience their sexuality. '

If that was the majority male fantasy (Which I don't believe it is) why is that invalid? Why should women decide what is an acceptable male fantasy? Why do you see this fantasy as a problem? Do you think men cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality? Do you think women don't enjoy any similar fantasies? If not you should read Nancy Friday's 'Women on Top'!

'It therefore reinforces ideas that females are just bodies that are usable, discardable, contemptible.
'
How many men do you know who have have this idea of women, that would be so 'reinforced'? Just what kind of porn are you discussing here? The most popular porn is amatuer porn where women are active participants.
Posted by Whitty, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 1:41:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Glad I could do my bit to spread a little joy around, but can you explain what you found so amusing.

Thanks
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 27 March 2008 4:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Whitty, thank you for your questions. I doubt that I can answer them all in one limited post but I'll make a start.

W: "If that was the majority male fantasy (Which I don't believe it is) why is that invalid?"

P: Would you read this and tell me what you think:
http://www.xyonline.net/Just_a_john.shtml

W: Why do you see this fantasy as a problem? Do you think men cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality? Do you think women don't enjoy any similar fantasies? If not you should read Nancy Friday's 'Women on Top'!

P: I haven’t read that book but I’m not surprised by it. I looked at some summaries and reviews. One said that it was good because she learned how to please men. At any rate, for the time in which it was written (? 15 years ago) it reflects an effort by women to get out from under the double standard and to take control of their own sexuality. It’s now no secret that women are far from asexual. More on that later perhaps.

I think that a lot of men cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality. Men have commented that porn gives them ideas of what to expect; ideas of new things to try and there are men who are dissatisfied with reality-sex in comparison to porn.

W/P: 'It therefore reinforces ideas that females are just bodies that are usable, discardable, contemptible.

W: How many men do you know who have have this idea of women… (word count)

P: Three matters: rape; murder; abandonment, and how much amateur porn do you think would be generated if it were left up to women to initiate, film and distribute it? I would say there’d be some, but I think most women participate to please their partners. Some women have such low self-esteem that they depend on sexual interest and approval to feel validated. Some may obtain other rewards for participation.

Another writer proposed that porn is less a cause of how men generally regard women than a symptom of a wider social malaise. Whatcha reckon?
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 27 March 2008 9:53:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “explain what you found so amusing.”

This is a bit of a laugh, if you find,pretentiousness “funny”

“It's very interesting to observe the level of denial whereby some people dismiss the power of images to influence one's worldview.”

We are “reasoning” beings, our intelligence is able to distinguish between the facts and the fantasy of books or film.

“defend cigarette advertising and the like as harmless.”

The cigarette packet says “smoking is harmful to your health” not “watching this advert is harmful to your health”.

I am a reformed smoker, adverts assail me, to induce me to smoke. It amuses me, cigarette companies wasting their money, trying to seduce me.

“Porn is ever more insidious because it links images where women are dehumanized with basic sex drive.”

Really, the women in the porn I watch seem to be having a lovely time, lots of primeval panting and shuddering, hands, lips and tongues everywhere (and that’s just at foreplay).

Although I have heard it said, “sex is the most fun I have ever had, without actually laughing.”

“The bulk of it is created by men, for men,”

well I guess we might say, it is a male indulgence and a males sense of the visual.

I wonder how you view cosmetics?

The bulk of it created by who cares, for women, to indulge a woman’s feeling to be a perfect, sensual, self for her and to attract a lover.

“It therefore reinforces ideas that females are just bodies that are usable, discardable, contemptible.”

That has to be a joke, a bit of humorous sarcasm.

“Consensual sex and rape merge into one”

Big laugh that one. Consensual sex is about sex, including the wild side pursuits beyond “vanilla”, either the eruption of wild uncontrolled passion or the purposeful deferment of same, like tantric.

Rape has nothing to do with consensual sex.

Rape is about inflicting power and forced subjugation over an unwilling victim.

It is funny in the ridiculous sense, how anyone could be so off-the-mark to confuse the two.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 27 March 2008 11:40:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

' tell me what you think:'

That is a ridiculous article. For a start, the guy who spoke up on the bus could well have been attempting to not be a hypocrite as he views porn himself, rather than this supposed 'loyalty to men and their right to use women sexually'.

You just cant equate voyeurism to prostitution. I'm sure you'd get many a model pretty riled up if you tried that argument. And what of male porn actors? Is it assumed men enjoy sex and women do not?

Also notice how examples of porn in these articles are always of men dominating women, yet all the examples of women dominating men, even humiliating men, which are just as abundant in the porn world are never mentioned.

' rape; murder; abandonment'
Rape was around before porn, Men murder more men than women. Abandonment?

' I think most women participate to please their partners.'
Ah that old chestnut. Women can never do any 'wrong' unless influenced by a man. And feminists go on about Adam and Eve. In the last breath you were just talking about women taking 'control of their own sexuality'. Now it's men's fault. Let me tell you there are even quite a few beastiality, rape, incest fantasies in Nancy Friday.

I think the objection to porn is really an objection to men's sexuality. Feminists would be tearing strips off men if we objected to any expression of female sexuality. What if we campaign to ban romance novels and movies as they give women an unrealistic expectation of relationships?

I'm sure if men could satisfactorily replicate female genetalia, and used them as much as women we would be accused of reducing women to a just a vagina. Men are responsible for their partner's self esteem and body issues if they view porn, while women use super fast vibrating instruments and massive phalluses yet men take ownership of any resultant feelings of inadequacy. Also notice 'men come too fast', not 'women come too slow'. It's all part of this demonising of male sexuality.
Posted by Whitty, Friday, 28 March 2008 9:16:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

You seem to believe that the women that you're watching
are enjoying their porn participation. Why do you believe
that?
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 28 March 2008 6:15:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

Whilst not speaking for the Col, I am sure that some people don't enjoy the work they do and do it for the money, like a lot of people in a lot of jobs. I am also sure that some do enjoy and others are just neutral. There is undoubtable some out there which are forced into it as well (literally, not metaphorically).

Engaging in aesthetic criticism should be restricted to aesthetic and personal choice only. For moral judgement one should not look at the aesthetic content, but rather the moral conditions of the situation.

Pornography, like anything else, which involves people who are forced into the situation are morally repugnant and the perpetrators should be taken away from civil society. For those which who are doing it for the money without any real acceptance of their lot, is a question of welfare standards so people don't have to choose jobs that are somewhat distateful to them.

For those who are neutral or enjoy their work (for example, the films by http://www.candidaroyalle.com/) should be accepted for their freely chosen line of work.

The rights of sex workers are human rights. I urge you to respect them.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 28 March 2008 6:40:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Whitty,

You can’t have it all ways.

Either: Porn is acceptable to most men; therefore accurately reflects male sexuality and is mainstream. If that’s the case then porn is a symptom of the wider society – if it’s a symptom of a pre-existing state of being then one need not prove that porn causes abuse and hatred of women in the wider community, because the truth would be that the wider community of men already hates women and porn merely reflects that. If that’s so then it would be fair to say that I and anyone else opposed to porn condemns or demonizes male sexuality; but we have nothing to prove about porn specifically being harmful.

Or: Fewer men need porn and therefore porn is not representative of male sexuality and is not mainstream. If it’s not mainstream then it deviates from the norm. I do condemn the expression of male sexuality as portrayed in porn; however, it could not be concluded that I (or anyone else) condemns male sexuality because there would be the ‘norm’ of male sexuality that exists outside of porn.

Re: romance novels and so on – they’re dopey, but nobody is hurt in the making or consumption of them. Also, what do they reflect about men ? Whatever it is; it isn’t hatred or a desire for violence.

“The images that we reenact over and over again have absolutely nothing to do with our personal sexuality. I would say that what's shown is basically -- it's not revolutionary, it’s not different, it’s the same old, same old, it’s women in uncomfortable positions pretending they feel good, and what's revolutionary about that? What's liberating about that?” - Porn actress Sarah-Katherine, interviewed by Chyng Sun

I believe that much (perhaps all) of porn is harmful, dehumanizing to all humans, counter intuitive, contrary to evolution of the species; false, misleading, a lie, exploitative of humans and animals, destructive, cruel and unjustifiable.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 29 March 2008 4:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

Chyng Sun's selective interviews are inevitably countered by those who work in the industry themselves. As a trivial response, I provide the following fron Nina Hartley (make sure you read this: http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html) one of a number of self-described feminist porn actress. And even if one looks closely at the unreferenced comment by Sarah-Katherine closely, the answer should be obvious to anyone - Sarah-Katherine should work with scripts that are more to her liking. It is not as if there is high capital barriers to market entry.

As for your response to Whitty, actually they can have it both ways because what we are talking about is a genre, with diverse individual instances and expressions - it is as widespread as human sexuality itself. It is totally erroneous to classify all pornography as a single expression and such comments display a profound ignorance of not just this genre but of all genres.

Your beliefs (and indeed, that is what they are) are based on false assumptions rather than wide-scale empirical evidence collected without prejudice. Once again I ask to at least try to show some respect to those who engage in this line of work and not to condemn their activities simply because you can't get over you personal distate for it.
Posted by Lev, Saturday, 29 March 2008 10:16:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

you took the words out of my mouth.

Pynchme,

Your argument isn't coherrant. You put this huge jump of illogic that all porn is an expression of hatred of women, regardless of whether life imitates art or art imitates life.

'we have nothing to prove about porn specifically being harmful'
Just how do you come to this conclusion? I'm fascinated.

Just what kind of porn are you looking at, that's supposedly mainstream, that reflect hatred or a desire for violence? And as I said, if not mainstream, why do we only ever hear about this, and not the vast number of male domination and humiliation by a female porn?

'women in uncomfortable positions pretending they feel good'
Again, as I said, do you think that the men are enjoying themselves? It's called acting you know. And no it's not very good, that's why the real thing (amatuer) is becoming so popular. AV equipment has become cheaper, and porn actors are becoming redundant. The audience want's to be able to believe the participants are really enjoying themselves.

In summary, porn has many genres, spanning the whole of especially male sexuality, but people like youself cherrypick certain themes you find offensive to women, ignore themes where women are dominators or aggressors or humiliators, and make out all porn to be some expression of hatred of women. You're a wowser.
Posted by Whitty, Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “You seem to believe that the women that you're watching are enjoying their porn participation.”

There is nothing to suggest they are not and I assume they are rewarded well for their efforts.

I can distinguish between play acting and real life. It is not difficult for a developed mind to avoid confusion.

The costume drama of BBC Horatio Hornblower are depictions of life on an 18th century ship (sanitized ones at that, there was more buggery going on in real life). I do not think they actually killed any of those horrid Napoleonic Frenchies in the making of the series, despite them being blown up and falling down dead.

As for “I believe that much (perhaps all) of porn is harmful, dehumanizing to all humans, counter intuitive, contrary to evolution of the species; false, misleading, a lie, exploitative of humans and animals, destructive, cruel and unjustifiable.”

Good job you have a few commas in that list, you would have exploded without them.

For myself, I believe the moon is made of green cheese,
the bible has been to politically interfered with too many times to bear any resemblance to the word of God and

your list compiled was in haste and lacking in reasoned consideration, particularly the bit about “contrary to evolution of the species”

please do give us a larff, expand on that one.

We are all entitled to believe whatever we want.

However, such beliefs do not entitle us to censor or ban the actions of other cognitive individuals to indulge themselves in what ever sexual practices they choose, watching porn included.

Lev and Whitty, I agree with both your posts.

I have, in real life, experimented with some “women in uncomfortable positions”.

The result was they felt good, in a kinky way but you have to be there to understand and I am afraid much of “vanilla world” just don’t get it.

Their loss.

Most of my female partners have enjoyed watching "porn", the story of 'O' being particualrly popular among the ladies, the original book written by one too.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:51:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lev, Whitty and Col,

It's very difficult to respond to all 3 of you to the extent that your posts deserve with the posting and word length restrictions. So I'll do what I can in each post to all of you at once.

First Lev - thanks for the links. I think you'd better know up front that those sites were already known to me. I still read them all again. Of the first - Candida - have you read it in full yourself? I agree with of her stated opinions about the bulk of porn, sexuality and relationships, misuse of animals and so on.

Of the second link - very USA. It's quite interesting that she refers to the division of feminist views and of course tries to align anti-porn feminists with conservatism - yet nothing could be more conservative than selling out to the traditional, patriarchal money market. At the same time she attempts to disassociate herself from expressions of more lurid pornography. Quite a feat when pornographers and pro-porn advocates themselves raise the impossibility of distinguishing even between extreme and ordinary porn (whatever that is)in their opposition to censorship. Anyway, you might read up on the recent UK enquiry and debate on that.

Maybe more women as producers of pornography is the answer to many of my concerns; however, I doubt it. At base it is still about trading in human bodies and lives at the push of market forces. It is still trafficking. It misrepresents the beauty of sex and ignores emotional depth. In any case, female directed porn is a very small enclave in the industry.

As for not respecting the human rights of sex workers, I'd be most interested to hear more on that in detail.

As to Col's remark about punctuation; that wasn't an expression of emotion - it was listed so because of post restrictions.

As for selecting quotes; I can find hundreds. Perhaps you should do the same; you might learn something. You can also consider stories like those of Linda Marciano, Traci Lords, Texas and others.

http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/06/02/what-porn-is-selections-from-mainstream-porn.aspx
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

I have been an active political supporter of Candida and her reformist allies for the better part of a decade. I am yet to encounter anything she says which I disagree with. There is nothing "American" about Nina Hartley's article with the exception of the context in which it is set. Politically she is discussing the universal right of people to control their own bodies.

I cannot accept the claim that "nothing could be more conservative than selling out to the traditional, patriarchal money market". That suggests that anyone who works with money and in the marketplace is now in that category, including yourself perhaps. The butcher, the baker, the weaver and spinner; all do their work for money and we all better off for it. Being able to receive recompense for one's labours and to be able to freely trade goods and services is an act of emancipation, not oppression.

By the same token, it is quite evident that there is a gender imbalance in the distribution of wealth and (to a lesser extent) income. Because of that reason it is not at all surprising that most erotica is produced for male purchase. In popular tourist destinations in developing nations it is not at all uncommon for wealthy older women to hire young men for their pleasures.

Whilst there is people who are prepared to buy sexual services and there are people who are prepared to provide that service for financial recompense, it will exist - and it is their right to do so.

I went through the hyperlink you provided in detail - and every single instance of concern is a matter of better regulation, not abolition. Which makes the title of the site erroneous.

By respecting the rights of sex workers what I mean is that you grant the people concerned to have control of their own bodies. I would hope that you are capable of doing this, on the recipricol basis that you probably want to have the right to control your own body. At the moment you are not doing this.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 30 March 2008 9:48:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miss Moderate here, embarking on a post that will slightly agree and slightly disagree with everyone.

Enjoying watching other people have sex is a deeply human thing. Particularly a male thing, but also something women enjoy. It's not going anywhere - getting rid of it would just drive it underground. It's true that it reduces both women and men to their constituent parts — to bum and breast and dick. But who cares? Watching raw naked bodies is fun.

My view is that it's safe enough for consumers, but we do need to work on making it safer for participants.

That Col thinks he can tell whether porn actors are enjoying it is laughable. This is the one thing that Whitty gets that men-in-general often don't. I am pro-porn, but I am anti-fooling yourself that porn is anything other than a pretty depressing industry. It is an *absolute myth* that, as Col suggests, the actors are "handsomely rewarded". Like the real acting world, a few stars make gazillions, most get about the same amount of money they'd get turning a trick.

And everyone has simply ignored drugs. Porn sets are saturated in drugs, they are the reason why people are there and the reason why they can get through it. Dealing with the porn industry necessarily involves dealing with its drug issues.

I'm not suggesting it's all doom and gloom, but for every empowered "I'm working my way through law school!" babe there are a hundred young women who have been sexually abused or, for whatever reasons, have few options, but are extremely pretty. They are very often not happy people. It is very hard to get real statistics about the porn industry because most people have some barrow to push, but some women who work in the industry believe that *most* women who end up acting in porn were sexually abused as children.
Posted by Vanilla, Sunday, 30 March 2008 10:19:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

In short, porn actors are indeed pretending to enjoy themselves. It's their job to make men think their turn-on is real, and women are very good at that. On set they are fully stocked with fluffers — people ones and inanimate ones — that help the actors mimic real sexual responses. I would second Pynchme's call to listen to people who have worked in the industry. You'll find all sorts of responses, not necessarily along any party lines.

I agree with Whitty — the answer lies in amateur porn, with truly enthusiastic volunteers. Also in improving the real industry so that the actors and film-makers get *more* money, and the people who need help can get help rather than get exploited. The reality is that porn actors are probably never going to have fun at work, but they can produce material safely and without harm. Fantasy is an integral part of really raunchy sex, but people who enjoy porn shouldn't fool themselves that it's completely benign.
Posted by Vanilla, Sunday, 30 March 2008 10:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme having gone on about posting restrictions, you then twitter on about commas and punctuation, rather than address, in the limits of the posting allowance, the question I asked of you

Which was

““contrary to evolution of the species” - please do give us a larff, expand on that one.”

I await your explanation to the effect of porn on the evolution of the species.

Maybe you could complete the sentence by dealing with religion and the effect that has on evolution too.

Re your posted link.

Great

I particularly liked the following quotes

From an historic perspective:

“"Everything you could pervert yourself to has been available for centuries. Making more pictures of it doesn't affect an already saturated population."

From an educational perspective

"Deep Throat has brought joy into many lives in America. Not only is it art, but it is an instructional video. It should be required in public schools as instructional video in proper technique."

followed up with

"Yes I agree. Too many times in my high school youth was felletio a mediocre experience."

More

The pornography industry's revenue

Annual U.S. revenues
• Estimated revenue for pornography: $12 billion
• Box office for mainstream films: $9 billion
Annual worldwide revenues
• Estimated revenue for pornography: $57 billion
• Box office for mainstream films: $23 billion
It seems to me, if attending movies is seen as a “conventional society mainstream activity”, the only difference with porn is, it is even more a “conventional society mainstream activity”.

One of the claims, that porn is detrimental to normal relationships and with reference to the occurrence of rape within the total population; if porn were responsible for rape, I would expect there to be far more incidences of rape occurring.

That there is not, can only support the view that there is no correlation of occurance between watching porn and assaults on women.

No correlation, no basis for assuming any socially detrimental effect from watching porn.

Appropriate quotes

“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”

“Censorship is more depraving and corrupting than anything pornography can produce.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:43:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, Whitty and Vanilla.

Lev - it's very American in references to NOW and accusations against feminists of being misandrist. She's a strange sort of feminist if she doesn't know that very few feminists "hate" men. Probably fewer than in the wider population of non-feminists. Most of us have lovers, spouses, sons. It's bizarre to see a feminist accusing others of misandry and posing as a liberator while capitalizing off the exploitation of people who she admits may participate because of a lack of economic alternative.

Since she claims to have ivy league credentials; one assumes she started working in porn because she likes it (fair enough) but what has she done to improve the lot of people then working within it? One wonders why she's not opposing the more odious elements that characterize the wider industry. I think she might have been one producer who has ben credited with introducing safe sex actions for performers; if so that's good, whether her motive was commitment to improving work conditions or avoiding lawsuits for AIDs transmission.

Anyway, you say that my views are only my opinion and call for empirical evidence. What evidence do you have that porn does no harm?
If you think I am stating opinion from a distance, you are mistaken; but it's irrelevant - of course whatever is raised in concern or opposition must be discounted as trivial and sorta out of the loop or something.

Accusations of disrespect to the workers involved; well, since I am one of the people who work in mopping up some of the casualties, I don't see concern; advocacy; expressions of dissent or opposition as the least bit disrespectful. I have other involvements btw beyond my work. Human Rights are about the individual of course; but also about being in balance with the greater good.

Thanks for your replies btw.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 30 March 2008 6:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I mentioned it before probably a couple of times that the lust of today was prophesied by the christians in the mid-1970's.
A time would come, Pastor Jack Burrell said in his book WHAT WILL BECOME OF AUSTRALIA 1975, when no woman would be safe anywhere, even in their homes.
Porn would be spread throughout all of western society by the media, and the porn industry, and give rise to rapist after rapist.
I guess we are seeing this prophecy fulfilled now in 2008 with the fruits of the decadence of modern male youth (porn addicted) and the media abuse of the material... all of it spoken about by The Lord all those years ago.
In Jacks book he also spoke of a day when God would allow an invader from the north also because of the sins of the people...if they failed to repent.
Want some advice girls?
Dont ever! be caught alone with a male you dont know. Even then plan to protect yourself from him. Dont ever leave doors and windows unlocked. It will probably take years before governments acknowledge what they have been part of enough to ban the foul rubbish material.
Posted by Gibo, Sunday, 30 March 2008 6:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

Whilst the reference to NOW is contextually American, we have our equivalents here (e.g., WEL). As for some feminists being misandrists, well I certainly encountered those in Australia as well - most notoriously being Sheila Jeffreys who claims that all paedophiles are male, and that exploitation of women is derived from the act of heterosexual intercourse.

Nina Hartley is a political and practical activist for the rights of women to control their own body. She is also an advocate, both political and practical, in sex education. In the field of erotica she has worked with other women, including Candida Royale, in producing "women positive" pornography. I would consider this to be sufficient.

As for the suggestion that I claim that there is "no harm" with pornography, actually I would suggest that it is positive.

Large-scale empirical studies from Northwestern University (D'Amato, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper 2006), Stanford and Clemson Universities (Kendall, 2006), and Hawaii University with the Japanese Institute of Police Science (Diamond, Uchiyama, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1999) indicate that an increase in the availability of sexually explicit material has correlated with a decline in sexual violence of comparable significance.This concurs with prior research from Scandinavia and Western Europe (Kutchinsky, 1985, 1991).

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

I am yet to encounter any empirically sound study which correlates an increase in sexually explicit material with an actual increase of sexual violence.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 30 March 2008 8:44:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That poor woman. It's so awful! She's far away from being the only one to whom it's happened to.

Yes, pornography is really harmful.

Please check out my feminist website www.againstpornography.org

It contains numerous studies and testimonies, and it answers many questions.

I’m just honestly talking about the research I've made and the important books I've read. The informations I gathered on my website led me to the conclusion that pornography is indeed harmful to women and girls and absolutely infefensible.

And I know that porn apologists will disagree with me but it really seriously sickens me that some people are so fervent in defending this kind of atrociously misogynistic propaganda!
Posted by MaggieH, Monday, 31 March 2008 5:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaggieH, it isn't porn that's being defended. I've not watched porn since I was a teenager and I probably wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was removed.

There are wider issues of free speech here. It's not the removal of porn that I object to, if people did that willingly I'd think it was a good thing.

But I am absolutely vehemently opposed to any moves to restrict it.

Let me put it this way - the other night, I watched the film 'Mr Brooks.'

The movie is about a serial killer - and I thought it was quite a good film. But like the other tens of thousands of people who will have watched it, I abhor the idea of serial killers, and I'd be quite offended if anyone suggested that because I enjoyed this film, I would in any way condone murder.

How is this different? Pornography and action movies both can contain things that wouldn't be legal, were they not merely depictions.

As I see it, there are only two avenues that you can argue a point of difference upon:

1) Issues related to sexuality are somehow different to issues of mere entertainment.

2) The negative social issues mentioned by other posters, which often accompany the production of pornography.

In relation to point 1)
You can't determine whether or not people watching these movies are going to undertake violence, what's more, that's not up to you or anyone else.
It's likely that unbalanced people would watch a movie about serial killers too, but not everyone is.
Regardless of how you feel, outside of child porn which necessitates production involving people under the age of consent, it isn't up to anyone to judge the entertainment people consume.

You. Have. No. Right. Nor does anyone else.

In relation to point 2) I'd say that just because these things often accompany production, you can't outlaw it. They're separate issues. Drugs and matters of coercion are already illegal. This point is an argument for greater transparency and more regulation and observation of the pornography industry.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pornography is sexualised violence against women and it desensitises men to women’s full humanity - it advertises misogyny, and it works the same as any other advertising campaign. Porn as we know it is in frenzy, it is pure and unadulterated woman hatred and young men are absorbing the message via porn that women are purely here for male pleasure and that we enjoy being hurt, degraded and humiliated. That girls ordeal was straight out of a pornography narrative, where women are seen as not fully human…is it any wonder these men have problems relating to females as anything else but receptacles for their eroticised hatred
Posted by eye of newt, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eye of the newt,

I humbly suggest that you have only knowledgeable a limited range of this genre and you have converted these specific examples to universal instances. In other words, you're engaging in a bit of a fallacy. May I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit; to paraphrase Annie Sprinkle, the answer to bad porn is more good porn - and if you think there is no such thing, then you're not anti-porn, you're anti-sex. Just try not to impose that particular taste on others, OK?

MaggieH,

I have, and not for the first time, reviewed your website. Contrary to what you claim, your conclusion was cleary reached prior to the gathering of the information. In other words, you're suffering from confirmation bias - as you clearly state. You will only accept negative viewpoints of pornography. I do note the site is extremely thick on rhetoric and extremely thin on material with large scale empirical evidence. I think I know why as well.

Interesting though, on the definitions page there is an attempt to distinguish between pornography and erotica. The former is described as sexualised images created under conditions of slavery and the latter as that created freely. If that is the case, then surely the nearly all of what most people call pornography, including yourself, is actually erotica, regardless of how distatesful you may find the particular content?
Posted by Lev, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:46:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Caroline Norma,

In case you read here, I wanted to let you know that your article is unbelievably courageous and I just posted about it on my blog (where porn apologists cannot roam free -- they can go defend their woman-hating propaganda material elsewhere). I've not got any time to waste in arguing with people who value hate material over women and girls' lives.

Pro-porners have corporate media, lobbyists, lawyers, managers, marketeers, industry analysts, paid writers of “opinion” and “journalism”, money, publicists, etc. to defend their fallacious arguments supporting this misogynistic industry.

There is a clear link between pornography and sexual violence against women:

http://www.againstpornography.org/effectsandharms.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html

And thank you so much, Ms. Norma, for pointing that out. Your article is great! And please don't listen to what pro-porners are saying.
Posted by MaggieH, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev - to use the "anti-sex" rhetoric is extremely lazy and suggests the absence of any constructive analysis or argument.

For example I may critique 'junk food' a la "MacDonald's" style. Does this suggest that I am "anti-food" no of course not just anti-trash food. OK?

Also please remember that porn is NOT sex.
Posted by eye of newt, Monday, 31 March 2008 10:39:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, you said: "I have, and not for the first time, reviewed your website. Contrary to what you claim, your conclusion was cleary reached prior to the gathering of the information. In other words, you're suffering from confirmation bias - as you clearly state. You will only accept negative viewpoints of pornography. I do note the site is extremely thick on rhetoric and extremely thin on material with large scale empirical evidence. I think I know why as well"

I completely disagree with you. Maggie's website is a great, amazing website and a well-researched one. (Non-porn apologists: see for yourself: http://againstpornography.org/ )

As a feminist (who responeded on MaggieH's blog) said in response:

-- "Where would those men have got the idea to plan the thing so efficiently, and then act out something seen so often in porn? There's no way anyone could ever convince me that bukakke is a natural thing and the drive to do it comes from biology. It's totally a learned thing, and we don't even need to ask the question "where would they learn this from" because bukakke only appears in porn."

Couldn't agree more. I also agree with eye of newt.

Keep up the good work, Ms. Norma. You are very brave. Feminist critiques of pornography are becoming increasingly rare. Anyone interested in the research that has been made on pornography, anyone interested in seeing what is usually censored from mainsteam media (which is tied to the porn industry): please visit this comprehensive website http://www.againstpornography.org/ for more information.
Posted by Cloud32, Monday, 31 March 2008 10:58:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TLTR agree. Censorship of pornography remains “Censorship”

I fear the pro / anti porn debate is similar to the pro-choice / anti abortion debate.

(I know I tick the personal choice column for both). Some may even suggest, in my tolerance of pornography, I am a “Pro-porner”

I would wear such a title with pride against the alternate title of “Pro-Censor”.

Some folk here think cognitive adults, with right to elect the government of their choice, do not have the right to make viewing/reading decisions for themselves. Seeking instead for some government or religiously inclined censor to be appointed to decide for all of us.

Under our system of laws, neither “government” nor the “religiously inclined” have the authority to enter someone’s house and stop them watching or engaging with other “consenting adults” in what ever pursuit takes their fancy.

If our laws were to allow government to enter someone’s house to intervene so, we will have moved to a terrible place in which anything can be banned not only because it is morally dubious but because it might be seen as against the interests of the “censoring authority”.

The old saying “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” remains true.

Those who do not want to view pornography are not required to do so.

Those who support the notion that government should appoint “Censors” and “moral guardians” need to ask who will “control” the beast they seek to unleash?

I would observe, every centre of “power” works first toward two ends

1 to make its powerbase more secure, thus ensuring it perpetuates its future
2 expand the reach of its authority.

Those are dangerous opportunities to present to anyone, especially when we have seen, time and time again, how both government and religious authorities, through out the ages, have never been able to prevent the “incubation” of the morally corrupt.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 March 2008 11:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And as another feminist said on the blog of Maggie (from againstpornography.org):

"...those porn apologist comments were sickening. They, the 10 rapists, have ruined that young woman's life. For what? A few hours of their own 'pleasure'? What happened in that apartment was an exact porn script, yet the porn apologists have trouble with the causal link? Will they not see this link unless the rapists start quoting porn film titles mid-rape?... It is bad enough that he is a rapist, but to organise a gang rape? That is conspiracy to commit a crime, as well as the crime itself. One point that the porn apologists miss, they claim that 'porn doesn't cause these gang rapes, it was already inherent in the individual'. Well, what an outstanding co-incidence that one rapist just happens to know nine others, nine others he trusts 'won't tell'. Logic must dictate that the chances of this many rapists knowing each other is about the same as winning the lottery -- unless of course, they have been conditioned into being rapists. The porn apologists are... anti-male. Radfems lay the blame on rape culture at the door of porn and the machismo upbringing of males. The porn apologists say "no causality between this trend of gang rapes and DIY porn, and the porn saturation. These guys would do it anyway" (sentiment gleaned from the comments). Well the increasing frequency of these gang rapes being filmed, using the porn apologist view, would indicate that there are a significant amount of 'bad apples' in the male basket... The gang rape is male bonding, over the bodies of females, to 'defeat the common enemy'. Nothing says misogyny like gang rape. Nothing says misogyny than the symbolic humiliation of bukake. I am not sure when the rest of the female population is going to wake up to rampant misogyny sanctioned by society. We are already at 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 females will be raped within their lifetimes. When does critical mass occur among females? When rape is 1 in 2, or 99% of the female population?"
Posted by Stormy1, Monday, 31 March 2008 11:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strange how ten men accused of rape all happen to know that each one of them is an innate rapist!! Even worse are the hysterical pro-porners excuses and justifications for this horrific case wherein ten men deliberately imitated violent pornographic acts just so they could 'get their rocks off!!'

This case proves once again there is most certainly a link between men's production, consumption of pornography and endemic male sexual violence being committed against women. What will it take before pro-porners and apologists for male sexual violence against accept that pornography systematically dehumanises women and teaches men and boys to view all women and girls as men's ejaculatory refuse bins.

Claiming the female author is ignorant and ill-informed is another tactic designed to deflect attention away from male accountability. The UN time and again announces male sexual violence against women is global and endemic. Does this mean the UN is ill-informed and ignorant? Of course not but there is always that last resort - denial - deny it happened, deny pornography is women-hated in its most virulent and dehumanising manner. Just keep on denying the evidence and facts.
Posted by Breeze, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 3:06:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the things i have learnt is to be extremely cautious about "News Stories".

The death of quality journalism - or - how to give a story Google juice

<The temptation to choose and shape stories to maximise ad revenue may be overwhelming, especially when most online media sites are still losing money or surviving on wafer-thin profit margins.>

stromy1,

<We are already at 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 females will be raped within their lifetimes. When does critical mass occur among females?>

Your figures are wrong.

I dont suppose you have read Katie Roiphe "the morning after".

<rampant misogyny sanctioned by society.>

This is the biggest load of crap out. Our society does not sanction misogyny and where misogyny exists it is not rampant. Perhaps more correctly our society sanctions Misandry, but then I suppose an expert like you has not read any books on Misandry. such as Legalising Misandry, or Spreading Misandry.

Sadly incidence similar to what happened in Brisbane or Werribee happened long before the invention of the moblie phone cameras, long before the internet became available. To blame porn for these incidences is nothing more than a red herring.

A ban on porn would lead to greater criminal involvement than there is currently, with more criminal involvement violence will increase.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 6:15:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What have we got here - a sorority anti-porn spamfest?

Strange that the latest registered OLO users are Breeze, Stormy1, Cloud32, eye of newt and MaggieH, and they've all posted in this thread saying virtually identical things.

Girls, the link between pornography and rape is that of correlation, not causation, no matter how much you dislike pornography and/or erotica. It's not hysterical to point that out, but it is to make the tenuous and unproven causal link that you all seem to have made remarkably similarly in your very first posts to this forum.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 6:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not anti-choice. I donate to a very popular pro-abortion organization where I live. Obviously, being a radical feminist in a pornified culture, I am fully aware that whenever a woman speaks out against pornography, she is hated, rejected, even called names (on other webspaces).

Pro-porners jump in, keep defending their porn over women's lives with such an outrageous fervor. The porn videos/pictures are more important than the lives of women and girls who have been coerced into sex, raped/gang-raped by some porn users. These pornographic images are seen as a lot more essential to life than women's safety to pro-porners, and porn is valued over female lives in their eyes. The "free speech" of the woman-hating propaganda material that is called pornography matters much more than the speech of the women and girls who have been, are, and will be raped and silenced. Distressing. Unfair.

I do not believe in "biological" explanation such as "if those guys did this, that just means they are 'naturally bad' people". Men who rape have been socially conditioned and influenced by patriarchal pornified culture to such behavior. I'm not saying that every single porn user becomes a rapist; I'm only saying that there is damn well a strong link between pornography and rape and there's thorough research that has been made to prove that. Rapists are not born; they are made, into a culture that implicitly condones rape in the first place (see http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0903-05.htm ).

Pornography encourages people to disregard others' pain for one's own pleasure. Why do some people have to be so cruel to believe that women and girls' lives and safety matter less than this woman-hatred propaganda material (porn) that is used by (primarily) males when they want a selfish orgasm? An orgasm at the expense of millions and millions of female human beings who are raped?

The connection to these (gang) rapes, the way they happen, the pattern clearly show the link between pornography and sexual violence against women. When are people out there going to wake up and see, eventually notice this incontestable link? ( http://www.againstpornography.org/effectsandharms.html )
Posted by MaggieH, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 6:36:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cloud32,

I am sure, according to your belief, it is a great website. That does not change the fact that it suffers from selection bias and that MaggieH is being quite dishonest when she states that she came to her conclusions on the basis of accumulated evidence. Further, it is thick on rhetoric and lacking large scale evidence. These are simply facts.

Regarding the bukkake rape, the 'blogger is confused. They are condemning a specific sexual act rather the circumstances of participation. If people voluntarily engage in bukkake there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever on a moral level. It is it forced onto others that's another matter. It is not the content of the act, but the consent of the participants that moral judgements are determined by.

eye of the newt,

Your erroneous analogy suggests that all pornography is the equivalent of "trash food". I have no doubt that a great deal is, but that's the same with all mass media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeons_Law). I refer you, as I have others, to the works of Candida Royale, Nina Hartley and others and the Annual Feminist Porn Awards (http://www.goodforher.com/Feminist_Porn_Awards.html). There are people out there making a genuine improvements to mass erotica.

In other words, criticise what is bad, support what is good but most importantly, allow people to make their own choices on the matter.

All,

I am still yet to encounter any empirically sound study which correlates an increase in sexually explicit material with an actual increase of sexual violence. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

Let me put this simply; if you support a woman's right to control her own body, that means that yo must also:

a) Support her right to seek an abortion AND
b) Support her right not to be raped AND
c) Support her right to participate in sexually explicit media of her own violation AND etc.,

Either you support a person's right to control their own body or you don't. If you don't then you're not better than the nine men in the original article.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 7:26:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree with you, MaggieH. It's so sickening that some people are valuing pornography over women and girls' lives and safety!

In other words, to pro-porners: the pornographic images *do* matter (*women don't*) and these images are *more important* than the women and girls who are raped or gang-raped. And there's a clear link to porn. I want to scream in rage!

BTW, I love your website http://www.againstpornography.org/ and your blog. Great anti-porn resources. Keep up the good work! Pro-porners don't believe you and other feminists, but we don't have to go along with what they say.

MaggieH, you said: "Obviously, being a radical feminist in a pornified culture, I am fully aware that whenever a woman speaks out against pornography, she is hated, rejected, even called names (on other webspaces)."

You forgot to mention that when a woman opposes pornography she is also often refered to as a liar, as somebody here implied that you were lying about the research you've made for your site -- saying that you reached your conclusion before searching that amount of resource that's on it or something similar, but I *can* see that you've definitely made the conclusion that pornography's harmful after gathering all the informations.

That poor girl (in Brisbane). Pornography fosters misogyny!
Posted by Cloud32, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 9:32:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaggieH, frankly, you're being quite dismissive of other views.

You continually label your adversaries as 'pro-porners.'

I already explained, I've no particlar desire to watch porn.

I just hate the idea of censorship.

Intead, you're just labelling anyone who disagrees with you, a 'pro-porner' instead of actually engaging on the issues being raised.

This gives me no faith whatsoever in the idea that you're actually considering the issue.

What's more, Cloud32's explanation only confirmed Lev's point.

He said that it was clear you had adopted a stance, and only received information that confirmed it.

Cloud32 jumps in to defend it, but makes the point (no-pro-porners there).

Which proves that you're only receiving the information you want to hear and you won't allow any dissenting views.

Dissenting views are crucial in our society.

The fact that you're not taking in other views at all, or even remotely addressing the issues of censorship, makes me think you're the last person in the entire world who should have any say over what is censored, as I don't trust you in the least to make a reasoned judgement.

But go ahead. Continually label those who hate your censorship platform as 'pro porners.'

But if you're going to keep doing that, I reserve the right to call you a moralising fascist.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 9:51:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, does anyone spot the irony in Lev’s claim that pornography prevents rape…on an article such as this, which reads as a typical porn scene of a filmed gang rape?

Anyway, Lev’s first link is to an abstract. The other two (which I am familiar with) suggest a correlation between porn use and the decline in rape ‘reporting’ and ‘convictions’ - can you see the disconnect here? Unless a rape follows the stereotypical narrative many women are reluctant to report rape as rape as we are assured that once we get to court we will be disbelieved.

Maybe too many judges and juries are numbed by their porn use.

Reflected of course by stormys’s UK figures.

If you bothered to read Maggie’s links to Diana Russell’s research, you would find that there is a direct link to pornography use and the desensitisation of men towards sexually abusing women. I will leave you to check them out.

Now that aside, if folks need pictures of women being degraded violated and harmed to achieve orgasm - then what is that saying about you?

Moreover, even let us suppose that porn did prevent rape…so what? Is a steady stream of sexually degraded women necessary in order to prevent men from turning into rapists? What is that saying about men?

Moreover do not patronise me with the assumptions that I am unfamiliar with porn and that I need to ‘educate‘ my self with the likes of ‘Nina Hartley‘ - far from it.

Pornography is Hate Speech and propaganda against women as KKK literature is to African Americans and on some level you know this and that is why it gets you off.

ALL oppression is linked.

In addition, no one is mentioning ‘censorship’, which would be futile anyway as this, would do nothing to challenge the mindset of misogyny.

It’s attitudes towards the female that needs to change and that is what feminism and the likes of this article are about. No one is trying to take porn away all we ask for is to admit that it is fuelling woman hating
Posted by eye of newt, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 9:53:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaggieH

I never thought I would find common ground with a feminist pro abortionist. You however are spot on when it comes to the damage the pervert industry does to women and men.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 10:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Co-posters -

Apologies for my absence. Been busy. Lev when I came back to post some links to studies I see that it's already been done.

Col I see that you have jumped on the oppose-censorship-bandwagon. Apart from the fact that I, nor anyone else I think, has asked for censorship (maybe if I thought it would work I would though), you really want us to believe that you're using porn to do your bit to prevent censorship? Well that's a knee slapper.

Are you saying that you can't stop without censorship stopping it for you? How about men just decide not to use violent images that hurt women to stimulate themselves sexually.

If one cares so much about avoiding censorship; why not just say, "NO!" to violent and degrading images of women and sex ? Wouldn't that satisfy everyone's concerns ? Why can't that be done?

You wanted me to explain the counter to evolution of the species. My key argument is that we as a species have progressed to ideas about individuals having the right to personal safety; protection from oppression; human dignity; equal access to society's resources and so forth. We know this because such ideas are enshrined in law and in agreements such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

When someone's person is invaded against their will (as in rape) or they are coerced by economic necessity; immediate force or whatever into surrendering their body to people who have greater power - that is counter to what we have all deemed as good for society. It is counter evolutionary.

Porn is also counter evolutionary when people who use it perceive it as some sort of 'need' (instead of a selfish 'want') that is comparable to or more important than the exchange of emotional care that occurs in a relationship with another adult. Some of the studies cited by another poster show that men who used porn were less inclined towards long term, stable relationships - the very foundation of all society.

Btw Col, have you ever seen a movie called Idiocracy ?
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 1:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Newt, now that you've pointed it out I see the irony.

Lol talk about suddenly seeing the elephant in the room :)
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 1:33:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EotN,

Your supposed irony is totally false, and evidently I refer you to my previous comments on the matter (April 1, 7:26:55). You are confusing the content of a sexual act with the circumstances of consent.

There is a negative correlation between the availability of sexually explicit media and the incidence of sexual violence. You may to choose to interpret those facts with a special theory you've cooked up (which I am sure you would not use if the reverse were the case), but they remain facts nonetheless. As for the first being an abstract, surely you can go down to your local university and read it?

I had already read the various articles and especially those by Diana Russell. Apart from the fact Russell's works on this subject are between 15 and 25 years old; I read them as an undergraduate doing women's studies. Whilst strong on the matter of particular case studies, there is an total absence of the empirical correlations in the referenced articles.

I am still yet to encounter any empirically sound study which correlates an increase in sexually explicit material with an actual increase of sexual violence. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

I note that you continue to assume that all pornography must be hate speech, must require 'sexually degraded women' etc. As has already been shown, these are crass and quite foolish generalisations, which either show you're ignorant of the genre, or you're not prepared to accept material which is contrary to your predetermined view.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 7:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pornography is NOT a "safety valve" or "a safe outlet for men who would otherwise commit aggression". Nonsense! Pornography has NO "cathartic" effect:

http://www.againstpornography.org/debunkmythofcatharsis.html

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/myth3.html

And I also love those websites. They're so well made and well-researched (whether porn apologists believe it or not):

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/articles_gender.html

Checking out MaggieH's website, I am even more convinced that there is an obvious relationship between pornography and rape:

http://www.againstpornography.org/socialsciencestudies.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/womenstestimony.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/professionaltestimony.html

That poor young woman in Brisbane. Those ten men, who gang-raped her, have damaged her life forever. But that doesn't seem to matter to porn apologists -- they most probably have been influenced by porn's negative effects. Pornography is minogyny!

As someone else pointed out before: "It’s very interesting to observe the level of denial whereby some people dismiss the power of images to influence one’s worldview. Advertisers, of course, are well aware of this phenomenon. I wonder what proportion of the men posting in defence of porn would also defend cigarette advertising and the like as harmless. Porn is ever more insidious because it links images where women are dehumanized with basic sex drive."

I agree.
Posted by Stormy1, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Chade,
Are you also going to argue that images of thin women do not at all influence women's perceptions of their own bodies? Or that racial stereotypes used in the media influence white people's views of minorities? Why the heck is porn of all things absolved of any responsibility or influence in our society? If porn had no effect on people you would never defend it.
I am so sick and tired of porn apologists, of people trying to use the "cathartic" argument.
And just google the word "rape porn" on a search engine and you will have your research done for you...
Posted by Rychousmama, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurningRightThenLeft
You think that rape is a natural instinct? You said it is "silly" to blame society and its media for forms of sexual terrorism like rape. Then what do you think is the cause of rape? If you really believed that rape is wrong you would never defend the very culture and its products that condone and perpetuate rape and rape-apologist attitudes.
Yeah, I agree, we should deal with these men VERY harshly. We should throw all rapists in prison for their lifetime and then we should punish the idiots that apologize for these men and support the very culture that socializes boys into rapists in the first place.
The utter defensiveness of these (pre-dominantly, though not all) male commenters is just proving even more the point that porn is mainstream, misogynist, and needs to by deconstructed and criticized for what it is: the filming of rape or rape role-play.
Posted by Rychousmama, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:21:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “Col I see that you have jumped on the oppose-censorship-bandwagon”

You maybe correct. i have made that assumption, that censorship is your objective.

Re “you really want us to believe that you're using porn to do your bit to prevent censorship?”

That is a nonsensical suggestion.

I watch and read what I choose, with regard to my own evolved choices and without deference to you or any government or theological edicts.

What I am saying is people elected governments to represent their views, not to direct or regulate those views.

“why not just say, "NO!" to violent and degrading images of women and sex ?”

Because what is “violent” and what is “degrading” are subjective evaluations, thus “no” could mean to some folk (for instance fundamental Islamists), depictions of ladies wearing anything less than a burkah is “degrading”.

Then what gets banned would depend upon the subjective values of the appointed censor and I think such a role, with such authority, might be a very attractive opportunity for those of a fundamentalist perspective.

Re “Porn is also counter evolutionary when people who use it perceive it as some sort of 'need' (instead of a selfish 'want') “

Everyone is motivated by wants, it is why “logic” has a hard time against “emotion” and simply put why more money is spent on fashionable clothes than income protection insurance (the immediate satisfaction of an emotional want versus logical need).

As for “selfish wants”, that is your subjective (emotional) argument coming out .
An objective argument would recognize a something as a want, without the presumption to it being “selfish” in nature (selfish = nasty = immoral, emotional trigger)

Relationship instability has masses of inputs. Pornography might be one among hundreds but is likely, insignificant to changes in more liberal divorce laws and other social attitudes.

So, if I am wrong and you do not seek to inflict upon mature adults either a complete ban or invasive censorship of access to view whatever they want, what do you suggest?

What strategies do you want to see in place, instead of censorship?
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev - so you get to determine ‘consent’ do you? How do you know a woman is not trafficked or under some sort of duress including coercion or other factors such as addictions or poverty? You do know that around 75% of female porn performers are survivors of childhood sexual abuse; including incest? Namely "acting out" (Google it there’s tons of proof) And yes, fwiw, I am a sexual abuse/rape counsellor with over ten years experience.

You call this consent?

As far as “feminist pornography” goes… as long as we have patriarchy, there will not ever be “feminist porn” and after the collapse of the pat, it will be redundant anyway because we will not have the tight binary hierarchal codes of masculinity that we have now.

Re your cherished “empirical evidence” yes there is a study (someone may have the link here) which was so conclusive that they were forbid to repeat (by the psychological ethics committee) for fear of ‘damaging’ male participants. You do realise that pornography is ran by very RICH and POWERFUL men, who let's face it (men) run the entire world, so what is so amazing that anti porn research is blocked and silenced. It amazes me how many people think we live in this democratic - free world - free speech - utopia!

Look at what happened to this girl Lev and show some respect before you comment with your dripping male porn goggled vision on an article showing how porn has destroyed a young girls life…Bukkake anyone?

Freshly googled by newt...

“British Bukkake Babes features some of the cum hungriest, amateur sluts around. These girls love sex and are used to begging for cum. …”

So do Saatchi & Saatchi have to jump through empirical hoops to prove that THEIR advertising works? No because we all KNOW that propaganda, and lies work.

Lev you are a rape apologist - if not worse - and I refuse to engage with you further….skin crawling.

However, I guess you know that anyway - all part of the abuser mentality…

Chow.
Posted by eye of newt, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:38:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormy1,

Your assertions, no matter how shrill, do not change the facts.

1) http://www.againstpornography.org/debunkmythofcatharsis.html

There is claimed empirical correlation that availability of pornography increases the reported incidence of rape is a largely study of the period 1964 to 1977 and was published in 1984 by Dr. John Court. I shall point out to you that Dr. Court is a former leader of the Festival of Light, an ultra-fundamentalist Christian sect. It is largely recognised that his work is not reliable. Indeed, Dr. Court cherry-picked the two dates and gave a percentage change rather and increment figure. "As Dr Brannigan notes Dr Court's data 'falsely depicts an increase where the trend has been the opposite'."

There is more on Dr. Court here: http://libertus.net/censor/xrhoax6.html

2) http://www.oneangrygirl.net/myth3.html

Shows correlations of surveyed laboratory experiments (I'm a little surprised they've left out more contemporary research, but perhaps that's not to their liking).

"And I also love those websites. They're so well made and well-researched (whether porn apologists believe it or not):"

Every single one provided fails basic html validation. They are poorly made and the quality of research is rather undergraduate.

3) http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html

In the very opening chapter she excludes sexually explicit material which is considered to be "freely made" as pornography. However this is not followed in subsequent research. Thus the entire study is axiomatically flawed (not to mention working with material that's approximately 25 years old. Times - and material - has changed).

4) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/articles_gender.html

Nothing of relevance.

"That poor young woman in Brisbane. Those ten men, who gang-raped her, have damaged her life forever."

Actually it matters a great deal. It matters because they did not respect her right to choose what she did with her own body. That's something you don't seem to respect either.

"It's very interesting to observe the level of denial whereby some people dismiss the power of images to influence one’s worldview" etc.

Once again there is the confusion between the content and consent. It seems that some people just lack the braion to tell the difference between a consensual sexual act and a forced sexual act.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:59:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rychousmama

"TurningRightThenLeft
You think that rape is a natural instinct? You said it is "silly" to blame society and its media for forms of sexual terrorism like rape. Then what do you think is the cause of rape? If you really believed that rape is wrong you would never defend the very culture and its products that condone and perpetuate rape and rape-apologist attitudes."

You're misrepresenting me. That's dishonest.

Where the hell did I say rape was natural?

It's restrictive forms of social engineering I hate. If you're using quote marks, be precise as well - I never used the word "silly" but if you were just paraphrasing my views, then I suppose that sentence alone is accurate.

Murder isn't natural either - you going to ban murder mysteries? Action films? Thrillers? Dramas with violence?

You can argue that watching a rape DVD is unhealthy and it would be better if they didn't exist.

I agree. But banning a depiction because you don't approve of it is unacceptable. That's the key difference I'm making - I accept the banning of child pornography and the filming of actual rape scenes as opposed to depictions because those things are illegal, not to mention heinous.

But you can't mould society by telling people what they can't watch.

I don't trust anyone to do that.

Sure, you can indulge in social engineering via soft things like recommendations for healthy food and the like, but you can't go that extra step and ban junk food..

As for those who are claiming censorship isn't their goal, what is? To raise awareness it's destructive? (Which in terms of viewers, not porn actors, I think the evidence indicates the opposite).

It's not going to go away. Then what?

I'm also curious as to the morality of denying any pornography to people who have say, a physical deformity, but still have sexual urges.

Final points: Why the hell are you protesting porn, but not picketing gruesome movies about serial killers? If it's about rape porn, where's the acceptance that standard porn is harmless?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 1:58:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eyeofnewt “Lev so you get to determine ‘consent’ do you?“

You are construing a presumptive condition.

Asking Lev to defend the issue of “consent”

It is not up to him to determine that consent has been given but up to you to prove it has not.

“You do know that around 75% of female porn performers are survivors of childhood sexual abuse; including incest?”

The activities of adult pornography performers is, logically, subsequent to whatever childhood they may have had and, thus, not a contributory factor in their childhood abuse.

Thus, whilst a 75% of female porn performers may well have been abused in their past and 25% not so suffered, it is their current cognitive reasoning which allows them to “consent” to participation in any porn production.

I would also suggest, a sense of “exhibitionism” is among the personal characteristics which allow ladies to perform in a pornographic act or the production of pornographic media, regardless of her childhood experiences.

“(men) run the entire world”

I must tell you of my admiration for Margaret Thatcher one day.

Of course, the “men who run the world”, in a western democratic sense, are elected by all and thus if women do not like it they are free and entitled to stand for positions of power.

“forbid to repeat (by the psychological ethics committee) “

I have run the ethic committee of a professional body. Such action would only be taken because the text improperly, unfairly and possibly illegally, trampled upon the reputation of the profession.

Googling “female pornography performers and sexual abuse”

Apart from propaganda from the misandrist industry, this is objective

Conclusions of http://www.porn-report.com/402-performers-in-pornography.htm

“The approach we propose in this area is a cautious but urgent one. Caution we believe to be required from the incomplete character of the evidence currently available. Urgency, however, arises from the extremely serious nature of the harms apparently being inflicted on many young and vulnerable people.

“young and vulnerable” can only pertain to below age of consent and not “Consenting Adults”

Regarding “harm”, Silicosis is known to be harmful but miners still mine coal.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 4:48:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eep - I did use the word silly in my earlier posts (I was looking at the more recent ones).

Nevertheless, as I said, that sentence is accurate, though it's the only one, and it's still evident that equating a position that opposes censorship, as being supportive of rape is dishonest.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 4:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EotN,

No, I don't get to determine consent and nor do you. It is up to the participant themselves to decide that - unless they are so mentally incompetent or immature that they cannot make decisions about their own body.

We don't have patriarchy and haven't for decades. Patriarchy is the formal and exclusive rule by men. The suffragettes put an end to that, thank goodness, and was followed up by various anti-discrimination laws. At best one can say there is patriarchial (adjective) system, but not a patriarchy (noun). We certainly don't have tight binary codes of masculinity either - masclinity is a very fluid concept.

Thus, despite your claims, there is such a thing as feminist pornography. You might not like it, but feminism is a pretty diverse ideology (although clearly some wish that it wasn't). Yes, the majority of sexually explicit material is financed and produced by men and for a male market, which is hardly surprising given the distribution of wealth and income. According to contemporary research that is changing significantly (cf.,: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23317844-5003900,00.html)

Empirical evidence is indeed cherished by me. I am the sort of person who can only be swayed by the better argument, not the loudest assertion. I do not treat any propositions with religious adherence. YMMV.

Once again I note a failure to distinguish between sexual content and sexual consent. The fact that advertisers or anyone else suggests that some people enjoy a particular sex act, no matter how distatesful to an individual (it may even make your skin crawl), does not make an iota difference to the actual conditions of consent. That is what is actually important here; it wasn't the act of bukkake that was morally wrong, it was the fact that the victim didn't have a choice.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 3 April 2008 4:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turning R then L.: The difference with murder stories and the like is that the stories usually indicate that murder is wrong, that people who murder exist outside the norm and that murderers end up worse off for their crimes.

Whether or not we are looking at real or simulated rape is, from a viewer perspective, neither here nor there. Nobody cared whether the Marlborough Man was actually enjoying a smoke or just pretending to be.

So what is the porn narrative? What is the outcome or narrative 'truth' conveyed to viewers? Does the sexually aggressive performer listen to the recipient's protests and stop? Is the aggressive partner ever anything but sated and victorious ?

- and for those creatures who are not included in things like the UN Declaration of Human Rights because of course they are not human - who speaks for them ? What about their dignity and some sort of entitlement to be treated so.

Where advertising is concerned; look at how the Marlborough Man has been disgraced. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should he be restored to his previous grandeur - if so why. If not, why not?

Whitty: You may insist on empirical evidence. One hopes that you understand the limitations of empiricism especially when qualitiative information is excluded. I hope you understand that empiricism is never value free and never complete.

I ask you who defend porn so avidly to consider the humanity; or lack thereof, of what you enthusiastically promote.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 4 April 2008 12:52:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pornography harms women - ten studies complete with abstracts. Included at the bottom of the second link are the harms to men and children.

http://geekette.mysite.orange.co.uk/

http://geekette.mysite.orange.co.uk/
Posted by eye of newt, Friday, 4 April 2008 5:23:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks EoTN, that was a nice try. However the social sciences are just as precise as the physical sciences, and one must read even abstracts with care.

Study 1) "Results revealed that men exposed to degrading material, regardless of explicitness, were significantly more likely to express attitudes supportive of rape, while explicitness had no significant main or interactive effect on these attitudes."

In other words, sexually explicit porn wasn't a problem, it was degrading material regardless of explicitness. Thus the study is endorsing exactly what organisations like the Eros Foundation propose - Non-Violent Erotica.

Study 2) ".. the female experimenter found the gender schematic males who had viewed the pornographic video to be significantly more sexually motivated than subjects in the three other conditions."

People feel sexual desire after watching sexually explicit movies. Who would have thunk it?

Study 3) "Results indicate no relationship between sexually liberal attitudes and rape, but that sex magazine readership, urbanization, poverty, and a high percentage of divorced men are each significantly associated with the incidence of reported rape."

Perhaps the other correlations should be compared?

Study 4) "There were no differences in response between the R-rated teen sex film and the X-rated, sexually explicit, nonviolent film..."

Another study which indicates that it is not the sexually explicit material that is the issue.

Study 5) OK, this one constitutes an empirical study that correlates exposure to pornography to violence.

Study 6) Irrelevant.

Study 7) A meta-analysis.

Study 8) "high pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression."

A study of sexual obsessive-compulsive disorder?

Study 9) "This meta-analytic review...under laboratory conditions"

No further comment necessary.

Study 10) "...quantitatively summarizes the literature.."

Yet another meta-analysis.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 4 April 2008 7:31:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev good summary.

I found the follwoing interesting
"Further analyses revealed that the predictive utility of pornography was due to its discriminative ability only among men classified (based on their other risk characteristics) at relatively high risk for sexual aggression"

There seems to be a lot of confusion between cause and effect, sexually aggressive people are more likely to use porn (and probably hard core porn) than others does not mean porn harms people or causes sexuall aggression.

Someone watching porn in a controlled situation (even if private) may well leave the experience substantially turned on but sexually frustrated. What a surprise.

None of the abstracts I read showed a real link to harm to women resulting from porn usage.

My understanding is that for the vast bulk of porn users porn has little effect other than pleasure. For other more sexually agressive users porn provides a release which lessens the chances of them taking what they can't otherwise get and for a small group hard core porn provides inspiration for abuse.

It's that middle group those who talk about harm to women from porn should be most focussed on if reports of falling rates of sexual assual in conjunction with increased access to porn are correct.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 April 2008 7:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good posts Lev and Robert

EyeOfNewt Regarding specific studies into pornography: taken from some posts I made in another thread

This link

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=commstudies

for a controlled test.

Paraphrasing the conclusions: “no effect” between exposure to pornography and the desire to engage is a sexual assault.

A Danish study, across four countries, suggests the rate of assault declined after Pornography was legalized.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf

This report might imply a ban might well increase the incidence of rape (simple logic, if removing a ban reduces the incidence of event, reinstalling a ban will increase the incidence of an event).

I would further note, authoritive long term trend data is hard to find. The US Dept of Justice has plotted the incidence of “forcible rape” from 1960 to 2006.

The incidence of per 100,000 of population, progressively increased between 1960 (9.6) through to 1992 (42.8) and since then has progressively declined by 2006 (30.9), the last year of available data.

The rate of annual decline post 1993 is almost the same as the rate of annual increase pre 1993.

Not sure what happened in 1993. I am certain it was not a prohibition on pornography.

I use links which have some credibility, government reports or government statistics department data, research papers which describe fully the processes and methods used etc.

I find the link you supplied gave prominence to a Star Wars stormtrooper and published abbreviated summations under “Porn Sudies”

I looked up “sudies”, it must be a made up word, maybe like the words of those 10 supposed studies, used to support your case.

I will not bother to read the rest. I am sure Lev’s summary is are perfectly adequate analysis of the twaddle
.
I will ask you this, you were arguing from the position of a person who deserved general respect on a presumption of being an objective independent voice

You are now someone who relies on reference data from a site whose agenda is “to campaign against the sex and pornography industries”.

Somehow I think whilst you might still be here, your “credibility“ has left the building.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 April 2008 11:11:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points pynchme:

You say I defend porn avidly. I don't. I oppose censorship avidly.

You state: "The difference with murder stories and the like is that the stories usually indicate that murder is wrong, that people who murder exist outside the norm and that murderers end up worse off for their crime."

'Usually.' So would you condone the banning of action films where the murderer outwits their pursuers? It might make for a clever film.

This 'difference' appears very weak to me.

The fact of the matter is, you are dictating to people what they should, and shouldn't be watching. I simply can't abide that.

I've never watched rape pornography and think it's disgusting.

My defence is against the well meaning, but misguided people who think censorship is the answer. I view it as an attack on our rights.

Generally, I wouldn't mind too much if rape pornography was banned.

But I don't trust any of the anti-porn brigade, and the posters here have given me no reason to believe it's just rape porn they're concerned with. It strikes me as far more likely to be a trojan horse to attack pornography in general.

What next? Banning rough, albeit consensual sex? S&M?

At the end of the day, it's not up to you. Or anyone. That's the viewer's business.

Restrictive social engineering isn't right. Passive, (i.e. advertisements, messages) yes, okay. But you can't engineer what people do and don't like.

That's what makes people who they are, and even if we don't like them, that's their business. If they actually commit a rape or an illegal act, then we stop them.

But it's not up to us to change these people, if they're not hurting anyone.

If it's known somebody watches rape pornography, they will undergo social alienation. People will respect them less. This is all well and good, and I don't have any issues with that.

But taking the matter that step further, to censorship, isn't right.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 4 April 2008 11:23:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, there is no reason to be dismissive of meta-analytic studies unless you've examined the collected data and found that they haven't accounted for bias and paradox. There is some very good information and interpretations in the material that was provided.
Nevermind that even then there was a study or two to which you couldn't respond.

Col those links to which you refer were I think part of the Meese Commission enquiry and never gained much credibility. As to figures declining; all sorts of crime has been declining and that's wonderful, but porn is hardly the valiant element. Declines in crime can be attributed to many complex factors.

I know that nothing whatsoever will tear you fellows away from your petty orgasmic inspirations. No study; no information; no amount of distress or pain suffered by participants; rape survivors; young women growing up; people dealing with partners who can't leave it alone. Your sense of humanity has been hardened to me, me and more about me.

As to censorship, the argument is quite tired and stale. There are all sorts of restrictions on freedom of speech that we encounter every day in the interest of maintaining a functioning social system.
If porn - largely run and propogated by crime networks - is your idea of a valid source of morality that should have unfettered run; then how can you justify allowing restrictions in advertising, movies and general media.

http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/cn6/1996/media/gallagh.htm

That touches on the issue of freedom of speech versus human rights for women.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 7 April 2008 7:10:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col you asked for strategies.

I don't know that I can think of all that's possible, but here are some ideas.

1. Stop. As a man just decide that you are no longer going to relish images that degrade women.

2. Taxation of porn sites on their traffic through servers. Some of that money to be used to fund welfare programs that would provide alternative options for women who go into porn because of financial need; drug rehabiitation; health services.

3. Education in society about safe sex. Despite the mantra that some porn producers now have their performers undergo health checks; there are windows of waiting time for results and infections continue.

4. Participatory programs concerned with male ritualization and masculinity.

5. Restrictions on imagery. This is difficult; as shown in the recent UK discussions. The industry itself says it can't, or perhaps it refuses to, distinguish between what constitutes hard porn and what is soft porn/erotica. Some images should be restricted (eg: rape) and some more highly taxed. Presumably the cost will be passed onto the porn fan and might discourage younger men/boys/women/girls from early exposure.

6. Regulation of production sites to ensure the greatest level of safety for participants; to ensure that participants are there of their own free will and are aware of the health risks. Sites subject to health inspection so that there is transparency.

7. Management of wages; wage rates and taxation, just like any other income earning business, to ensure collection of taxes and fair wages and benefits to people who perform.

Maybe some of you can think of some additional or better ways of protecting porn performers and of helping deter younger people, especially children, from access.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 7 April 2008 7:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with these arguments from the pro-censorship crowd is that some people want to make specific cases universal cases and they cannot distinguish between the circumstances of an act and the content of an act.

Because they think some porn is degrading to women (I would love to hear what an objective standard of "degrading" is supposed to be), they then demand that all men (and women) stop watching all porn.

Because some porn is controlled by criminal cartels on an international scale, at least according to one study, they claim

Even if the above criteria included the overwhelming majority of cases, applying specific laws to particular instances is ALWAYS - wrong.

I cannot fathom what sort of foggy mind is required to do this.

PS: The dismissal of the meta-analytic studies was on the ground that I requested empirical studies. Meta-analysis - which I have studied a lot of - does not provide NEW empirical data.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 7 April 2008 7:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

1. Stop. As a man just decide that you are no longer going to relish images that degrade women. - images that degrade either women or men are not of interest to me (although some may use different criteria to define degrade). Others may have yet different criteria. I oppose censorship of all sorts of things so I don't want to start here just because I may not like certain images.

2. Taxation of porn sites on their traffic through servers. Some of that money to be used to fund welfare programs that would provide alternative options for women who go into porn because of financial need; drug rehabiitation; health services. - not really sure I want the government finding a revenue source like that. It tends to distort their involvement and generally they find reasons for the money to go elsewhere.

3. Education in society about safe sex. Despite the mantra that some porn producers now have their performers undergo health checks; there are windows of waiting time for results and infections continue. - agreed.

4. Participatory programs concerned with male ritualization and masculinity. - Who gets to decide what is appropriate for those programs? Could be good but so easily abused in the wrong hands.

5. Restrictions on imagery. This is difficult; as shown in the recent UK discussions. The industry itself says it can't, or perhaps it refuses to, distinguish between what constitutes hard porn and what is soft porn/erotica. Some images should be restricted (eg: rape) and some more highly taxed. Presumably the cost will be passed onto the porn fan and might discourage younger men/boys/women/girls from early exposure. - again the values issue comes in and the inverse correlation between violent images and actual violence. Maybe the net effect would be to increase violence, especially sexual violence which is hardly a prefered outcome.

Cont'd

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 April 2008 8:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

6. Regulation of production sites to ensure the greatest level of safety for participants; to ensure that participants are there of their own free will and are aware of the health risks. Sites subject to health inspection so that there is transparency. - An independant certification for a porn site that it met those kind of standards could be a great aid for porn users as long as it didn't become a back door tax system.

7. Management of wages; wage rates and taxation, just like any other income earning business, to ensure collection of taxes and fair wages and benefits to people who perform. - As per the previous item, independant certification on a site could be good.

One of the things that sticks in my mind is that the US study into decreased rates of sexual assault shows that the greatest impact is for mid to late teens.

Somehow we need to avoid early sexualisation of children but recognise that teenagers have some stuff to deal with that is not successfully managed by prohibition and denial.

A topic that needs an honest debate away from the moralising.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 April 2008 8:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1 stop As a man just decide …

Why?

I like images of women. Naked, clothed and semi naked, standing up, laying down, fat ones, thin ones and any permutation/combination of positions states of undress and sizes in between. That's before considering the wilder side, which you would not be able to handle but which I do enjoy with a consenting partner.

What you think is degrading and what I think will be totally different.

I will and do act upon my own view.
As for yours, get used to feeling frustrated and ignored.

2 Taxation of porn sites on their traffic through servers.

Impossible, imposing taxes on foreign owned, operated and located servers.
Locally sold porn is already taxed, GST.

3. Education in society about safe sex.
“Porn” does not require the user to engage with another.
Education on safe sex would be redundant.
There is nothing safer than not engaging with anyone else.

4. Participatory programs concerned with male ritualization and masculinity.
As an adult male, I would be offended if anyone tried to force me to engage in such a programme and like 99% of the other males I would reject attending completely

You are asking for men volunteer to be emasculated. Nice for you but it will not fly.

5 Restrictions on imagery.
Censorship. Rejected from the beginning of this and other threads

6. Regulation of production sites
7. Management of wages; wage rates and taxation
Impossible when most of the product is sourced from overseas.


Your suggestions suck.

They are the usual authoritarian panaceas which impose restrictions totally inappropriate to the perceived problem, which do not work for the reasons I have annotated above.

Robert
“Somehow we need to avoid early sexualisation of children but recognise that teenagers have some stuff to deal with that is not successfully managed by prohibition and denial.”

I have already made concrete suggestions on how to censor any access a child might have to pornography.

However, pynchme is not that specific. She expects adults to be, likewise, forced to kowtow to her bigotry, small mindedness and authoritarian moralizing.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 April 2008 9:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's just imagine that women are as human as males?? Yeah long shot I know.

I'm at the conclusion that the men on here are getting off on women trying to persuade them that we are as equal as men.

Bit like racism - trying to persuade white male supremacist's that poc are equal to whites.

Sexism->racism->same stink.
Posted by eye of newt, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 10:54:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “Col those links to which you refer were I think part of the Meese Commission enquiry and never gained much credibility.”

Do not know which ones you are referring to, but they have some credibility if I link to them, I check what I link to for reasonableness and method.

EyeofNewt “Let's just imagine that women are as human as males??.”

This male has never presumed otherwise. It is just images of naked men do not “float my boat”, although there are lots of poofters out there who get off on images of the naked male and my fiancé too… she enjoys a casual glimpse of me coming out the shower, hot, wet and ready to “rumba”.

“Yeah long shot I know” – ah sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

“I'm at the conclusion that the men on here are getting off on women trying to persuade them that we are as equal as men.”

I am of the conclusion you are at a loss to write anything but are getting off on seeing “Eye of Newt” in print.

As for trying to persuade me of female equality, well, you are preaching to the converted. It is simple. I first see the individual.

“Bit like racism - trying to persuade white male supremacist's that poc are equal to whites.”

Ah “poc” people of colour, do you mean Indians and Africans, asiatics and negros.

Several of my best friends are Sri Lankan, all definitely non-white.
None of them ever refers to themselves as a “person of colour”.
What a patronizing term, almost as bad a “n*gger”.

Although, if you saw me you would definitely say he is “white” he cannot sun bath because the dazzle off that white chest would be a danger to passing shipping.

“Sexism->racism->same stink.”

All the “isms” share the same characteristics

Just like religious fundamentalism. . .

Just like feminism…

So EoN, got any more pretentious comments to use as vehicles for sarcasm?
If you have I am happy to reply, in kind.

As they say,

Bring it all on.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 11:52:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, Lev, R0bert and others,

"I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face."

-Porn actor and activist Bill Margold, quoted in Stoller and Levine's Coming Attractions

"People want more. They want to know how many dicks you can shove up an ass...It's like Fear Factor meets Jackass. Make it more hard, make it more nasty, make it more relentless....You need a good guy, who's been around and can give a good scene, fuckin'em hard. I did my homework. These guys are intense."

-Pornographer Mitchell Spinelli

You accuse people who are opposed to the promotion of violence against and degradation of women of moralizing; being authoritarian and pro-censorship. None of my suggestions included censorship. However censorship exists - it's a reality of many other aspects of our lives. Not all speech is protected as free speech. There is no argument for why pornography should be subject to less scrutiny (ie: zero) than any other media.

When you talk about moralizing - we are all moralizing. You impose your morals and value judgements on me and my sex when you decide that people who hold views like those quoted above will determine how women are portrayed and treated, and how young men and women will be taught about the value of women as human beings.

The Declaration of Human Rights IS a set of morals - whether you like it or not.

Col, contrary to your cherished personal place in the scheme of things, the reference to safe sex education wasn't about you, it was for the performers (who are typically paid about $50.00 extra to perform without protection) and for youngsters who might miss the fact that casual, anonymous sharing of bodily fluids is a risk to health
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 10 April 2008 7:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since you have lost your capacity to empathize, let's try a scenario.

Let's say I become a porn producer and decide to flood the public with images of men. My particular target is the young mind - male youth to show them what their purpose in life is to women; women to show them how men really, secretly like to be treated.

My images include (borrowed from someone else writing about porn images of women):

Groups of women grabbing a strange man off the street; raping him with broomsticks until he finally smiles, ejaculates and begs, "Encore". Snipping balls off with pliers; sticking wire up penile openings; pictures of men on their backs with a jackhammer held against their genitals by a super amazon woman (borrowed from Hustler mag) with the caption, "The cure for men who can't get it up."

Let's say a feminist mag has a cartoon of two women talking. One is splattered with (someone else's) blood; holding a gun and saying, "The hubby and I are having a little tiff. Got any buckshot ?"

A picture of a man who has hung himself (suicide); the woman coming home looks and the caption is, "Great. No dick again tonight."

If I love and defend those images; would you conclude that I like and respect men or that I loathe them ?

Porn is not sex. It's not sex education. It's pictorialized and vaunted hatred of women.

That is why I am proposing programs about masculinity and ritualization of males into adulthood - you must be unaware that such programs; largely run by men for men (and boys) already exist, as does a body of literature on those topics. I don't think they get enough funding to make them a widespread option. I wish they did.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 10 April 2008 8:25:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have.”

Not me but keep going I am sure you will eventually come up with something which “floats my boat”.

Re “None of my suggestions included censorship.”

5. Restrictions on imagery.

You might not but most people call it “censorship”.

So you are talking of sex education in the context of “health and safety at work”.

You should be specific if that is what you really mean.

I wonder if every other business is up to date with all those regulations ?

getting paid extra is a negotiation. At least you agree the actors get paid and even paid extra for additional risk. I would not comment of the adequacy of the amount (we could spend a lifetime discussing the morality of pay rates) but you acknowledge the principle, that is what matters.

“and for youngsters who might miss the fact that casual, anonymous sharing of bodily fluids is a risk to health”

You keep coming back to these “youngsters”, that would be “kiddy porn”, illegal and not being defended by anyone on my side of the debate.

If they are of age to vote, they count as “adults” not “youngsters”.

You might not like it, get the voting age raised.

“Since you have lost your capacity to empathize,”

You have no clue to the “empathy” I may have with anyone, you are just trying to fire cheap shots and not very well.

Your “programs about masculinity and ritualization of males” is institutional emasculation and is the sort of horror which I would expect from some wannabe despot in a skirt.

The idea of such programs is an offense to reasonable minded people who have respect for individual values

Post your drivel Pynchme, I will always challenge it to stop people like you ever getting political power.

Your programmes are no different to “Snuff” porn because you would have to “snuff” out individual rights to enforce people into your “programmes”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 10 April 2008 9:30:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

What is that you continue to think that individual instances of all genres indicate the genre as a whole? If I provide quote from Valerie Solanas should we pretend that all women think like that? Individual instances which one dislikes are deserving of individual criticism. It is both crass and myopic to engage in such generalisations.

It becomes even more foolish when one uses a single quote from "Coming Attractions" (Yale University Press, 1993, 246pp) a book which also points out that the authors could not find a single instance of a performer being coerced into entering the sex industry, rather most were simply rebels and non-conformists who stayed for a couple of movies and moved on.

I do not understand why the simple concepts of not engaging in generalisation and not confusing content for circumstances seem beyond your cognitive ability. If I may invoke Godwin's Law, Adolf Hitler said that his work was in the name of the Saviour. He was, publically and privately, and ardent Christian. Do we therefore conclude that all Christians are Nazis? If not, why are you attempting to do exactly the same thing with sexually explicit media?

There is no innate tie between sexually explicitness in media and hatred of women. If you want to criticise individual cases, fine go right ahead, I'll probably agree with you in most examples. But the moment you start to generalise like you have through this entire thread, is when you lose me.

As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I suggest you actually read it. Especially Article 19. That is a Declaration which includes all sexually explicit media. Now show me a contrary article which includes ALL sexually explicit media.

Moral reasoning is based on the free consent of participants. Anything else is an authoritarian imposition which shows as much dignity and respect to other humans as those men did to the women in Brisbane in the original post.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 11 April 2008 12:51:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brisbane has a sexual problem caused by the government allowing sex shops to be open as these business's as they are not just business's it is the way to catch HIV AIDS and train people into sexual predator's by repeatative viewing and training people to rape.Men women and children are raped by the pornographic trade thus throwing what is left after the pornograghic trade into the sextrade becoming sex workers.Your have to get into the mind of these sex store owners and all they care about is money and people become human garbage which is wrong.Australian inteligence security organisations are like child rapists because they only care for themselves and the people with the big dollars like the pornographic industry they protect.I am against rape and murder .Remember the family comes first and food on the table as the big marino is slowly dieing.David.
Posted by mattermotor, Monday, 14 April 2008 8:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col you're a sad case if you equate masculinity with consumption of porn. You need to research mens programs and reflect on the content. There is a good book about it all that you might find a useful background. It's called Mens Ways of Being.

Lev do you honestly think that I am unaware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? You may consider that other forms of media are subject to certain restrictions - classification; times and places of distribution and so on. Freedom of Speech has never been absolute. What's more; Australia doesn't have a local constitution that ensures it.

In any case, I value freedom of speech. Indeed, using your own words a few posts ago, I request that you treat my opinions with a modicum of respect. Col also would abide better by the Article he purports to protect by reading my posts properly and attempting to comprehend them, or by not responding, if reading them is too much of a strain.

None of my suggestions included denying you fellows your immense pleasure in porn. However, there is no reason why it can't fund social welfare and education programs that might help alleviate some of its worst effects. Now, you can call for reductionist evidence all that you like, the more salient question is, "Has porn ever caused anyone any harm?" In which case, there is an endless stream of anecdotal (qualitative) evidence that it does.

As to the UDHR, you might also browse Articles 1, 5, 6, 26, 29 and 30. You might also read CEDAW, which Australia has ratified. It cites porn as one of the aspects of expressed hatred towards women.

Those of us not in the industry nor in masturbation fantasy land, and therefore with no agenda to fulfil by porn's existence, concur.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 14 April 2008 9:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

1) The fact that free speech is not enshrined in the Australian constitution should be irrelevant to the argument. To argue law qua law is to assume that existing law is always correct (in which case, why bother with discussing law reform?). To argue that free speech is not an absolute is correct; and indeed you have raised the classic restrictions. However the burden of proof lies on those who want to restrict particular speech and for particular reasons.

2) I have read the UDHR, in three languages, and there is nothing in the articles you cite that can be construed as an explicit or implicit restriction on sexually explicit media. Article 19 however is an explicit statement in its favour of its production, distribution and exchange.

3) Likewise WRT to CEDAW (which I can only read in two languages), there is no article which that can be construed as a restriction on the production, distribution and exchange of sexually explicit media. Please show where it cites pornography as an example of expressed hatred towards women. I do not think you will find pornography mentioned in any of articles. It will be interesting to see if you can acknowledge your error on the matter.

4) Your rejection of the opinions of those in the industry is risible. Do you reject the opinions of climatologists on matters concerning the climate? Of plumbers on matters of plumbing? If not, on what basis do you reject the opinions of sex workers on matters of sexual work? As for the second assertion, to associate an overriding purient interest with pre-supposed consumers, is both childish and contemptous. The discussion here is matters of moral rights and social effects.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 6:09:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Those of us not in the industry nor in masturbation fantasy land, and therefore with no agenda to fulfil by porn's existence, concur."

Is that like saying a homophobe has no agenda to fulfil by homosexualities existance so their judgement on those matters can be trusted?

Those strongly opposed to something have an agenda just as manufaturers and users do. It's just agenda is a different one.

mattermotor, "Brisbane has a sexual problem caused by the government allowing sex shops to be open as these business's as they are not just business's it is the way to catch HIV AIDS and train people into sexual predator's by repeatative viewing and training people to rape." - do you have evidence of that? Independant studies, crime stats matched to distribution mappings of sex shops etc or is that just made up specualtion.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 11:01:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same woman as last time. "Internet a dark age....." Absolutely disgusting display of feminist pandering and thinly disguised misandrism.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 17 April 2008 4:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are the CEDAW recommendations that apply to each article:

Articles 2 (f), 5 and 10 (c)

11. Traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as family violence and abuse, forced marriage, dowry deaths, acid attacks and female circumcision. Such prejudices and practices may justify gender-based violence as a form of protection or control of women. The effect of such violence on the physical and mental integrity of women is to deprive them of the equal enjoyment, exercise and knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While this comment addresses mainly actual or threatened violence the underlying consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in subordinate roles and contribute to their low level of political participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities.

12. These attitudes also contribute to the propagation of pornography and the depiction and other commercial exploitation of women as sexual objects, rather than as individuals. This in turn contributes to gender-based violence.

Article 6

http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=99&lid=4712&less=false

Congratulations on your linguistic skills.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 17 April 2008 9:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That document is nothing but contemptible propaganda. You can wrap it up all you want and claim how Australia ratified it makes the document legitimate, but it's absolute rubbish and always will be. Where do these document recognise the rights and needs of men? They do not, because they are sexist. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE THE PROROGATIVE OF NEITHER SEX. Women do not need special rights or attention to deal with abuses, since they ALREADY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS. Violence is violence, regardless of gender.

Australia could ratify Mein Kampf and you would still be here citing it. Why? Because like a child you think what the government and the fools in the bureacracy of it who have been raised to believe lies are as authoritative as your parents, or God. What the government says, is correct. What actually is (the truth), is wrong, according to that document and yourself, who cites it as a doceument of authority.

Here's an exercise. Replace the word man with woman in that article and you will see that is nothing but a sham. Men's genitals are mutilated by the million and where is the ratification outlawing the practice? Exactly.

Lastly the precise descriptions in that document Pynchme are not based on anything and were written by people with specific agendas. It is not based on reality. As a man who has seen a fair amount of pornography, I know with almost complete certainty that the descriptions contained in that document were written by frigid bureacrats with religious backgrounds and upbringing.

Pornography objectifies BOTH SEXES.
And that is ok. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S A PRODUCT.
THE MEDIA OBJECTIFIES PEOPLE.
YOU OBJECTIFY PEOPLE. EVERYONE DOES.

Pornography is VOLUNTARY. DO you understand what that actually means? It means women CHOOSE to be in the business, and are provided with opportunities according to their VOLUNTARY LIMITS. Now take your sexism elsewhere.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 18 April 2008 2:52:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steele,

The concerns you raise about the legitimacy of Human Rights are fair enough I think and are not new.

In the absence of religious convictions and all of that; the UDHR, put together after WW2, has gained in laying out some sort of basis for treating each other decently. It doesn't have a higher, mystical authority - I suppose one could say it's some sort of consensus to which certain countries subscribe. The accompanying conventions acknowledge specific issues on which all participants agree.

However, a discussion of the legitimacy of Human Rights and conventions takes us into another whole arena. There is probably a forum around here somewhere that is more suitable for extensive discussion of it.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 18 April 2008 5:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

You seem to be confused of the Articles of CEDAW, which you originally cited, and the general recommendations on the convention which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

The actual articles are here:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

In any case a careful reading of what you provided the recommendation does not provide for a restriction on the production, distribution and exchange of sexually explicit media. Rather it comments on how the Articles 2 (f), 5 and 10 (c) can be used to reduce the "[t]raditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate" and (erroneously) claims that these attitudes contribute to the propogation of pornography.

I say erroneously because even if the attitudes were completely abolished I am quite cerain we would still have sexually explicit media. In fact, it is quite possible we would have more of it.

Further, contrary to your claim Australia has not ratified CEDAW, rather it has made a declaration with reservations. I would be pleased if you could provide evidence of Australia's ratification.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm
Posted by Lev, Friday, 18 April 2008 7:37:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev I don't recall saying anything about ratification. I have been thinking more broadly about pornography. As I understand it though, Australia ratified CEDAW on 28 July 1983 but hasn't yet signed the Optional Protocol. It's not unusual anyway for countries to negotiate to suit local conditions, as your link shows.

All of that is interesting but diverts from the discussion - my point was to show that pornography as a form of violence against women is recognized as a human rights issue.

It would help if the industry would distinguish between erotica and violent porn, but according to presentations at the UK discussions, pro-porn people say that can't be done.

Btw: re: freedom of speech and hate material. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!

Now that's considered hate speech (and I agree, but that's beside the point just now.)

So what's the difference to this, which I know is mild and one of thousands of images.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS8.jpg

or this:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS250.jpg

Why should pornography be absolved of any of the standards to which other media is subject?

https://www.againstpornography.org/censoredtruth.html
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 20 April 2008 2:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

"I don't recall saying anything about ratification."

In which case you are extremely inattentive to very own words (cf., April 14).

Well? Can you admit to being wrong?

"Btw: re: freedom of speech and hate material. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!"

Direct advocacy of violence against a group of people. May not constitute "fighting words" on the grounds of satire, but I suspect it would be a lineball legal decision.

"So what's the difference to this, which I know is mild and one of thousands of images. http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS8.jpg"

Does not advocate violence against an person. Has a inconsiderate individual, but that's not the same thing. Do you understand the difference?

"Why should pornography be absolved of any of the standards to which other media is subject?"

I am yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it is on a systematic level.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 20 April 2008 9:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes inattentive to my own words - I forgot that post (always late and rushing, sorry) but Australia has ratified CEDAW, as I said, though it has lodged reservations re: the Optional Protocol. So apart from forgetting that I lready mentioned that, what bit is it that you want me to admit to? Whatever it is I don't mind; I just don't get your point.

My point is that pornography as a form of violence against women is recognized as a Human Rights issue. In fact Australia cited acknowledgement of that in the report about the Beijing Platform for action years ago, where quite a bit was said about restricting or classifying certain content in various forms of media.

Also, I don't think the reservations to the Optional Protocol lodged by Australia included anything in support of pornography. In any case, we're getting bogged down in parochial hoo-hah. The fact is that for the purposes of achieving international Human Rights, pornography has been noted as antithetical to HR for women.

Here's a story for you:

http://www.nerve.com/regulars/badsex/025/index.asp?page=1
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 2:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

Re: systematic portrayal of violence against women, you said,
"I am yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it is on a systematic level."

That's called selective blindness.

If you replaced each image of a woman with that of a man (or boy), would that help you to see how many women feel about being consistently portrayed in these ways?

Also - no I don't understand how you differentiate between the throw rocks at boys campaign (a one-off and fairly trivial incidence of violence portrayed against men/boys which though initiated by a man, has men up in arms) and the disgust and rage that women like myself feel about portrayals of violence against women that permeate pornography, the least of which are the Hustler cartoons.

How do you justify the first yet discount the second ?
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 3:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

I do not hold much hope for careful consideration of any material if you are inattentive to your own words. I also note that you actually don't seem to have understood the recommendations which states pornography as a symptom, not a cause, of sexual role conventions (cf., my response of April 18).

I also object to the way that you shift the goalposts. Previously you claimed that pornography should be absolved of the standards applied to other media, to which I responded that it is not.

Then you changed my response to the answer of systematic portrayal of violence against women.

That is incredibly dishonest of you. Factually incorrect in both instances and dishonest.

Although I do give you kudos for acknowledging that you don't know how to do differentiate between direct advocacy of violence against a class of people and the portrayal of an insensitive individual in a specific case.

That is unfortunate, because it is impossible for you to resolve this matter until you understand the distinction. For my part, I have expressed it as simply as I can.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 9:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme, when the violent porn images you refer to are sold on the front of Tshirts in department schools and aimed at the childrens market I'll join you in heartily condeming that. When there is a debate over children being allowed to wear or display those images in school I'll join you.

If an adult chooses to sit in their own home or a consenting friends place (away from kids) reciting derogatory statements about men or boys then it's none of my business as long as they don't then try and act out that stuff on someone who does not consent.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 10:25:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme “Col you're a sad case if you equate masculinity with consumption of porn.”

Well I don’t and never have.

So I guess my “sadness” can be discounted to zero

Indeed, been on a cruise for past 10 days with a backlog of mobile messages asking for my consultant services, certainly a happy chappy here (not sad at all).

Now what’s your excuse?

“However, there is no reason why it can't fund social welfare and education programs that might help alleviate some of its worst effects.”

So long as you do not seek to use my taxes for them, you are free to run as many empty headed talk fests as you want.

“Those of us not in the industry nor in masturbation fantasy land, and therefore with no agenda to fulfil by porn's existence, concur.”

My support of individual rights means I will always support the porn industry’s right to sell its wares, just as I support a green grocer has a right to sell cucumbers (despite the alternative purposes I have heard them being used for – which I turn reminds me of DH Lawrence’s comparison of a fig to a lady’s vagina, although whilst 70 years ago he was, he is no longer muzzled by the censor).

Keep up with the pretentiousness and skimpily clad insults Pynchme. People like you seem only happy when you are bagging the indulgences of others.

Conclusion, what is “sad” about your posts is you having nothing more to do in life than to moan about how other folk get on and enjoy theirs.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 April 2008 3:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy