cont'd to Blenk:

Since you raised the topic of violence in pornography, however, research covering content analyses of pornography indicates that violence is prevalent.

"... what appears to be a first in pornography content analysis research, we found an additional particular sex act that can arguably be placed in the category of degradation: the “azs-to-mouth” sequence, which appeared in nearly half of the scenes. In an analysis of the meaning of that act, Dines (2006) states:

One of the newer marketing ploys in gonzo is called ATM (ass to
mouth),7 where the male performer anally penetrates a woman and
then sticks his penis into her mouth, often joking about her having
to eat sh/t. In this pornography the code of debasement is most
stark. There is no apparent increase in male sexual pleasure by
moving directly from the anus to the mouth outside of the
humiliation that the woman must endure. (p. 286) If we accept Dines' argument and add "ass-to-mouth" to the category of degradation, the frequency of women being degraded in current popular pornography is phenomenally higher in our findings than in any of the previous studies.

Aggression and Sexual Behavior in Pornography 24 Our study also indicates an unequivocal rise of aggression in pornography. Past estimates have ranged from 13.6% to 27.9% of scenes in adult films containing aggression (Barron & Kimmel, 2000; Cowan et al., 1988; Duncan, 1991; Monk-Turner & Purcell, 1999).

Our study found 48% of scenes portrayed verbal aggression and a full 88.2% portrayed physical aggression in some form. If we combine both physical and verbal aggression, our findings indicate that nearly 90% of the scenes contained at least one aggressive act, with an average of 12 acts of aggression per scene. The prevalence of aggression and violence in our content analysis has repercussions for potential effects on viewers (e.g., Donnerstein et al., 1987; Linz et al., 1987)."

You have your view of pornography. I think anyone watching it becomes desensitized to what it's portraying and what those portrayals say about how women and children are valued in society.

- and btw: I agree with Severin.

- and btw: Antiseptic you have posted that misinformation before and I showed you the judgment then, so your information should be more accurate by now. According to the family court document the judge didn't classify the porn-father's crime at the lower end of anything.
He wasn't just watching cartoons or even just watching; but also re-recording. You also forgot to mention that the father was "badgering" his daughter and had been caught with his trousers down and apparently aroused, at his (? 5 yr old at the time I think it was) daughter's bedside where she was also sans pyjama bottoms.
- The father excused his behaviour by blaming his missus and saying that he was impulsive when using marijuana to relax.

Another obvious problem is that the father said that the girls needed to go through his bedroom during the night to use the bathroom. I don't see how putting a lock on their bedroom door to keep him out is going to stop them from needing to go through his room during the night. Supervised day visits seem to me to be the best solution.

Pelican, thank you, your post was most timely and perfectly expressed the point that I and others are making:

The use of children to create pornography harms those children.

The possession of such porn is rightly illegal and the behaviour of the father in Patricia Merkin's article is verifiable.

The portrayal of anyone being harmed or abused (whether the person has given consent or not) for the pleasure of others is quite rightly questionable. Would Rstuart & Anti like to watch porn where men have their genitals crushed for the titillation of others? What would they say about people who liked seeing men humiliated the same way women and children are? Fact is, this type of 'entertainment' is as far from the right to freedom of expression as caging animals is about humane farming.

I agree with Pynchme.

Pynchme

Please don't let our history cloud your interpretation of my views. I would never watch that type of porn, I don't defend it and I suspect that few people would. Therefore, I still argue that it is unreasonable to generalise about men from the existence of this porn.

I understand that you are upset, but I suggest that you reserve your anger for the people who actually create a market for this type of porn.

RStuart

I believe that there are some people in our society who would abuse children, were it not for the strong taboo against this behaviour. While I agree that it is possible to photograph a child semi-naked without hurting them, making possession of these images legal sends a dangerous message to a part of our society.

There is undoubtedly a lot of bias against fathers in the family courts. In an effort to address this, courts seem to be awarding some fathers automatic rights without taking into consideration the particulars of each case. Some men, as some women, do not deserve to have custody of their children but the Courts make no effort to delve into the particulars of each case. Is it laziness, lack of time, apathy, a quick fix to a bad bias against fathers? Clearly in all cases the welfare of the children should be of paramount importance, obviously in this case it was not, as I suspect in many many other cases. To argue that a woman has automatically greater rights to custody just because biologically men cannot conceive and give birth, is an insult to all the fathers who care deeply and love their children as equally as their mothers. A great number of women use their children as weapons to punish their partners for not being what they imagined they would be, or fall out of love with them, or because their partners are out of love with them and decide to separate. So this is their revenge, use the fathers as cash cows and with the help of the courts, deny them custody or in some cases limit their access to the children they know they love. Where is there justice in the law? Why not take the time and put in the effort to evaluate each situation carefully and thoroughly and ascertain that these decisions are indeed in the best interests of the children, not in either of the parents alone? Is the law indeed just an ass?