According to Gail Dines porn makes men hate women, and so on that basis she is against all porn. If her logic is reasonable, which I would doubt, then I wonder how her logic applies to porn that doesn't contain women.

It's odd to see an anti-porn crusader who is apparently not motivated by religious motives. At least, there is no mention of religious affiliation on her website or Wikipedia entry, so either she is keeping it very quiet or she genuinely believes that a) porn is bad and b) we can stop it. I'm not sure about a) -- I tend to think that getting sexual relief from porn makes people happier and less likely to do stupid things in real life -- but I'm quite sure about b). It's ridiculous.

As a horny teenage boy I didn't have access to porn, so I got off on comic books and mainstream novels, where the dirty bits would always have the dogeared pages. Take away porn and people will go back to reading Harold Robbins and lusting after Superman and Marvel Girl. Take those away and people will draw their own rude pictures and masturbate to them, or pass around models of the Venus of Willendorf (Oooh, those curves!). The human imagination will use whatever materials it has, and if the purveyors of porn have to disguise it as something else -- as they did for centuries -- it will barely cause a blip in their sales.

Let's block and ban exploitation of others by all means, but not because it produces porn; because it's inherently unfair and dangerous. But let's also block the techno-wowsers, and for the same reason: people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Please cut the arrogant tone Alan. It's so predictable (and boring) to suggest that Gail Dines must have a personal problem simply because her strongly held views are different from your own. I know nothing of her personal life and neither do you, so where do you get off saying "Her personal pain is real and must be respected"? Personal attack is a time-honoured tactic of men when they are intimidated by a woman.
When I have heard Gail Dines interviewed over the last couple of weeks, her message has been clear. So-called "good" porn and bad porn are all unacceptable for two reasons: 1) because all porn exploits and degrades women (ALL women); and 2) the negative lessons about sex learned via pornography by boys and young men stay with them all through their lives.
A big 'thank you' to Gail for her clarity and courage. You are so right!

Professor Mckee, must you stoop to patronizing and pathologizing someone you don't agree with?

'I don’t know what has happened to Gail to bring her to this point in her life. She is clearly driven by deeply held, passionate responses to sex. That’s completely understandable. But Gail doesn’t just want understanding and support. ..... Her personal pain is real and must be respected. But it isn’t a strong position from which to make decisions about public policy. When we hear someone in the media telling us about the pain that they feel when they think about sex our response should be, of course, understanding. We should offer all the support that we can. But the correct response is not to say ‘How would you like public policy changed so that you feel better?’.

How is this a rational, informed, intellectual argument? Or is it your opinion that Gail as an individual is so dysfunctional that the only legitimate academic response to her work is this pitying dismissal?

I had never heard of Gail Dines until I heard what she had to say on Q & A last night. While I am against all forms of censorship, it concerns me a little that there is such a demand for what I consider the more "unnatural sex" that seems to be portrayed in pornography and presumably demanded by the viewers.

For the very young, it could be an influence that anal sex and aggression is a natural part of human relationship and I think that is a pity. Perhaps it is a latent part of male requirement in the same way as the fashion for "Brazilian waxing" seems to indicate to me that there is a preference for prepubescent girls. On the other hand it might just be an aid to oral sex.

As already mentioned, there will always be a market for pornography and in many ways I feel there is nothing unhealthy or unnatural in in portraying it in a mutually but wanton or licentious way. It is a very basic and atavistic trait.

It was interesting to note that at least one female member of the audience reminded the panel that it wasn't only men that liked to watch it and that many women found it appealing. Judging by the amount of females performing on line, which must run into hundreds of thousands, there must be a good number who are quite happy to engage and enjoy it. After all many women really enjoy being photographed by their partners.... So they are exhibitionists...whatever turns you on.

The embracement and promotion of the porn industry indicates how perverted our society has become. People who prostituted themselves in the 60's and 70's now encourage kids to be sexualised younger and younger. Teen suicide continues to increase, families have become less and less functional. All so sick hearts and minds can gratify sick desires and pornographiers make huge money. There is no difference between 'good'and bad porn. It is all filfthy and putrifies good sex designed to be had by a man and a woman in a lifelong commitment. It is no wonder that very few men and women are now able to keep a marriage vow as they are bombarded by this vomit.

I too have been watching Gail Dines' media tour of Australia, and can't help but come to the same conclusion as Alan. Something must have happened in her past to have made her hate men so much. The vitriol she directed at males on QandA was strange.

She is clearly blinded by what her idea of pornography is. I am an ordinary woman in my 30s, I watch porn occasionally, and I have never seen this horrendous porn that she speaks of. I have only seen consenting porn which looked like it was being enjoyed by all involved. I have seen amateur porn made be people who love each other.

Why is anal sex so wrong for women who enjoy it? Who do these people think they are telling me what I am and am not allowed to enjoy or do in my own bedroom. I am responsible for my own sexuality and sexual life, and not men; as Gail Dines seems to believe. I lead the action in the bedroom with my sexual partners, and I enjoy it.

Gail Dines and her ilk need to stay out of my bedroom - I'm having fun in there, and she's trying to ruin it.

Welcome to our new members;0)

While I can understand the thrust, oooh oooh, of her argument, Gail lost credability big time in attacking abby winters.

As a long time supporter of this site, I have to say it isn't even close to the same ball park as some of the sites she lumps it in with.

Sure certain types of porn if viewed too young, and in the absense of any other influence of parents and relationships with girls, could create too narrow a view of human sexuality. But I find it incedible that women are painted as slaves to men's sexual desires in the bedroom.

Why do we, in a society that promotes good communication in relationships, place responsibility on men to not ask for... say anal sex, as it is deemed impossible for women to assertively reject the activity if it doesn't interest them? Who defines 'natural' sex? If porn didn't exist, would men never experiment in the bedroom at all?

I believe in these less restrictive times, people are able to explore their sexual tastes and boundaries more fully and potentially can have much more rewarding sex lives. Except for one catch, this assumption from people like Gail, that women are simply unable to negotiate sex in a relationship, unable to be assertive.

The problem is deemed thus; Men see a sexual activity in porn. They find it exciting (How dare they seek sexual fulfillment or engage in fantasy, without a partner and without some woman's permission! How exploitative!). They suggest this activity to their partners and their partner, against her instincts 'degrades' herself by pleasing him. Well, I'm sure before Cosmo and Cleo there was less cunnilingus going on. Are men these days victims, exploited by women and their 'unnnatural' expectations from reading cosmo?

In the end these sorts of arguments are really a thinky veiled assertion that men's natural excitement for the naked female is somehow perverted, corrupt and abusive and exploitative by it's very essence, and that women (the pure gender) really only have sex because of the corrupting influence of men.

I too watched Gail last night on Q&A and enjoyed watching her difficulty debating this topic. I noticed when a male questioner claimed to enjoy pornography, she stated 'I have seen this sort of male before..' before attacking all men for their attitudes towards women. She even went so far as to state that all men think women deserve to be raped.

She was strangely silent however when a gay man discussed his porn habits, or when a women in the audience spoke of her experiences. This lead me to the conclusion that she has a pre-disposed opinion regarding porn, always viewing women as the victim of men, and actively seeking evidence to support her own opinion.

The entire panel on Q&A were very knowledgeable, wise, and were able to discuss these difficult issues in a constructive and educational manner. And Gail was also there.

I have heard of some really bizarre porn, and some that would definitely be degrading to women. With this I would say that Gail has a point.

Not being an expert on the subject and going on what I see locally available, I would define most of it as titillating rather than demeaning. Considering the number of couples that use pornography to spice up their intimate moments has increased dramatically over the years, and much of it is bought by women, I would struggle with the Black and white / fire and brimstone crusade that Gail is heading.

Like all fanatics reason is not a valued attribute.

I did a brief search to find her religious affiliation, but could not find even a jot. However, her co authoring with Jensen (a self avowed radical Christian) would indicate that she is probably not atheist or agnostic, and that her religious beliefs have been carefully guarded to avoid the "religious nut" tag.

The vast majority of men can distinguish fantasy from reality.

The vast majority of men can appreciate a beautiful woman without objectifying her.

The vast majority of women can assertively reject sexual activities they don't feel they would enjoy.

Men (and women) who would like to experiment sexually should be encouraged to communicate their desires to their partner.

Women (and men) should be expected to assertively reject activities they don't wish to partake in. It's part of being an adult.

Men's imagination is resourceful enough to come up with anal sex even in the absence of porn.

There are sexual activities called voyeurism and exhibitionism that many couples mutually enjoy, creating pornography themselves. Ditto domination and submission.

There is no possible intellectual justification for the statement 'all porn exploits and degrades women (ALL women)'. Particularly with Gay porn and amatuer porn made and consumed by consneting adults.

Nudity is the natural state we are born in. Those believe in god must accept god made us this way.

A picture of someone is an object. You cant objectify an object. There is a difference between a picture and reality.

Women are sexual beings. You cant sexualise a sexual being.

Some women genuinley like it rough.

Many women fantasise about rape so as to enjoy guilt free desire.

Read Nancy Friday's Women on Top.

Romantic movies give women unrealistic expectations of men in relationships. Men are happy to correct these expectations and be assertive in a relationship. Except if sex is about to be withdrawn, then sometimes a $20 flower doesn't seem like such a rip-off. Do men have rape fantasies; Being raped by florists on valentines day?

'I have heard of some really bizarre porn, and some that would definitely be degrading to women. With this I would say that Gail has a point.'
There is porn where men have their penis trampled by women and are kicked in the groin, spat at and humiliated. Is this degrading to men? Should this be used to represent all porn?

BTW: The difference between erotic art and porn is all in the lighting.

I thought Howard Jacobsen was masterful on Q and A last night and really shredded Gail Dines (in a nice way). Early on when Dines started talking she made some interesting points. But when her ideas were tested she got dogmatic and unreasonable. Her bit about how porn makers could get sued for harm was so deeply flawed it wasn't funny. Well it was a bit funny. Anybody who uses porn as a how to manual is an idiot. At the end when Dines suggested that there be a 'Perp Walk' and Canold responded that the suggestion didn't even make sense as an idea - that was gold. A surprisingly good Q and A.

One point of disagreement with the article "The only person it isn’t clear to is Gail Dines."

Unfortunately Gail is not alone, there are others like her.

A couple of points stuck out. Gail gave the impression that where she does consult 'facts' about porn usage it's about what sell's. One of the panelists made the point that amateur porn is a big component of online porn.

It was also pointed out that Gail's views on porn usage and it's effects on men are not all that different to the "covered meat" thinking.

The Q&A episode is available for download from the ABC.

R0bert

The internet is for porn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo

enjoy

There a gulf of difference between positive and negative pornography; not just in terms of impacts on women, but on men also.
This is an almost unresearched area, but I believe it holds a large part of the key towards creating harmony between women and men.
Our traditional analysis on the effects of porn - and the way we bring up our girls and boys - is at best half the story. More here, including a number of things I wish someone had told me when I was a teenager:
http://chriseven.blogspot.com/2011/04/some-truths-about-pornography.html

Thanks for the forum.

I think Gail Dines has been completely misrepresented in this article. She is focussed on the trends and changes in the porn industry and all commentators seem to neglect that.

Thank you for an insightful article. In my view, "You don't ban a whole industry because of a few bad eggs." I've referenced your article in my comments at http://bit.ly/jN1vVL

I thought she came across as a bit of a crazed zealot on Q&A and didn't do her cause much good at all.

She may have started off each argument OK but they all eventually turned into rants.

It was all generalisations with no real evidence and no chance of rebuttal.

Her allegation that the Porn Industry started in about 1956 was also a bit odd. I think it's been around for much longer than that and there were other magazines before Playboy.

Apparently the largest growth area in that marketplace is from home-made amateurs and that is overwhelmingly voluntary with no real need for exploitation.

She also failed to mention what sort of exploitation and violence may exist in Lesbian-based porn and just presumed that it's all male vs female.

Wobbles

Agreed.

As for the history of porn, Karma Sutra, cave paintings, carvings on many a temple (not Christian/Islamic ones of course).

As for contemporary porn being 'good' or 'bad' - if you wouldn't want your name and photo on the front page of a tabloid watching your fave porn, it is quite possibly bad. Or another way to tell: your teen children - would you want them thinking that what is shown is 'normal' and 'expected' - rather than being about choice. I wouldn't want boys expecting anal sex on a first date, or that all girls are supposed to enjoy being peed on. There's a lot in porn that requires maturity and respect for people not being lost along the journey. Teens aren't really all that good at impulse control and this is where I am concerned.

As for Gail Dines, all she has achieved is much the same response as M Tankard-Reist and that is a view that any woman who complains about porn is a control-freak, femi-nazi, leaving no room for intelligent discussion.

There are people who relish the very dark side of porn (paedophilia, torture.. etc) and will use the arguments of women like Gail as fodder for this side of the industry.

I think Gails views say far more about her then on the rest of us.

Oh what a vicious cycle;

Women reject men, men turn to porn as a last resort, porn demeans women, etc.

Of course, as said at the start of the thread- what about porn that involves men?
Or Homo-erotic porn to be precise?

CofaB

"all porn exploits and degrades women (ALL women)"

I can't understand that point of view.

Do you think that sex of itself exploits and degrades all women?

If so, why?

And if not, what has all porn got in common but depictions of sex?

Why is depiction of sex exploitative and degrading if sex of itself isn't?

Cofa:"all porn exploits and degrades women (ALL women)"
Peter:”I can't understand that point of view.”

Me either. And I hate people saying I’m being degraded without my permission.

ChrisEven:”if on a psychological level you have some unresolved discomfort with women, then chances are you will find yourself viewing material that is at times disrespectful to women.”

This makes sense, thanks Chris. And here we could add that people with some unresolved discomfort with men also might find themselves viewing material that is at times disrespectful to men. Like television adverts and posters in police stations etc.

Solly:”The only fair point she makes is that some extreme forms of porn should be prohibited.”

Why? I don’t understand, porn is like the movies and all acts (I’m struggling for the right word there) legal or illegal are acceptable in movies. Or is there fictional and non-fictional porn? Can someone tell me and not make me go watch some cause unless there is a good story line it bores me.

Some people just never understood the implications of "my body, my choice".

Great as a slogan for something you agree with but a disaster when it's about choices you don't like.

People choosing to be involved in the making and use of porn are making choices with their bodies which some others are uncomfortable with.

Many of the anti-porn arguments have a very similar ring to the anti-abortion arguments.

R0bert

Gail Dines makes a very large and invalid leap early on in her article when she jumps from talking about a soft-core amateur site like Abby Winters to "Gonzo" porn, and then treats them all as being the same.

From what I have seen, on amateur sites like Abby Winters, the couples are actually freely consenting to what they are doing, and they actually enjoy it. On other sites, none of that is the case.

Gail Dines does make some valid points.

First, she's right in saying that the basic reason for the existence of porn is to allow men to view images of women in order to gain sexual gratification. If that in itself is bad, then all porn is bad. However I doubt that many people would agree that it is.

Secondly, she's right that there is some truly horrible porn on the internet, stuff that is legal but cruel, degrading and just plain disgusting. And from what I've seen around the internet, there's much more of the horrible stuff around than the Abby Winters type.

Thirdly, I can't help thinking that she's right in saying that having so much of the horrible stuff available must at least be likely to have some effects on people's behaviour. Anal sex for example is de rigeur on most porn sites, and from what one reads and hears it's now quite common among ordinary people. Thirty years ago it was virtually unheard of. Are the two connected? I don't know, but I suspect they are.

And if practices like anal sex are learned through them being seen on porn sites, then isn't there at least a danger that boys and men who look at certain porn sites may come to think that it's normal practice to be cruel to their partners, to degrade and humiliate them?

Getting back to Gail Dines, I don't think it's right to let the fact that she is a pain in the neck distract from the valid points she makes. But she shouldn't adopt the untenable position that all porn is equally bad.

Some of Gail Dines' comments on Q&A the other night have been misrepresented. In response to one of author Howard Jacobsen's more negative comments about men, Gail Dines defended men by saying she does not buy the argument that men are born bad. Leslie Cannold mirrored those views.

My thoughts are similar to those of snake and Shadow Minister. There is obviously some porn that degrades both women and men (there are two participants) and the more horrific versions of porn could be labelled as bad pornography.

As one commentator on Q&A proposed it is difficult to provide evidence that porn is having a negative effect on society. How do you prove all porn is a negative influence? Much of the evidence and research is related to porn addiction, porn digested prior to commiting rape as has been done in some prison studies. However, what is cause and what is correlation. Both those behaviours sit at the extreme end of the scale.

Porn is titillating not demeaning for the most part. The issue of porn addiction is a separate one like any addiction.

Parental influence has to come into play, teaching children to be respectful of others will probably dictate the social morays much more than whether or not porn is damaging to views on sexuality. When porn came in a brown paper bag or was sold under the table, we did not see major changes in attitudes around sexuality.

The biggest problem IMO around sexuality is sexualisation of children and raunch culture which affects mainly tweens and older. Kids mature at different rates but generally do better when they are allowed to spend some time just being a kid. Access to porn on the Net is probably a bigger issue and that can be solved by parental controls (at least in one's own home).

I too watched QANDA,what a breath of fresh air to have the floor held by a woman, Prof Gail Dines, whose intelligence and authority as an author and academic left the other panelists for dead. Although Howard made a comeback and Leslie, the other female,tried to get into the centre the panellists were hopelssly muddled. The other male, author of a novel set in Australia where males amuse themselves by pack raping a female stalked and kidnapped, this is porn masquerading as literature. Bring on the debate , boys, we are ready for you.

So many people and particularly male people are confused about the issues of sex education, sexuality, the rights of others,in short human relationships of which the physical act of sex is only a part. To put it another way,w---ing is something males have done , historically and biologically speaking,in adolescence while they remain unmated. For millions( possibly billions ) of male persons to want to sit in front of a computer watching other people having sex in all positions, possibly animals, playing with themselves is beyond sad. It is called being ruined for life, males who become porn addicts will not get a mate. And even if they do they are potenially a risk to children ie paedaphilia. Already in the suburbs there are families where girls are being groomed for stardom in porn movies.

I for one will be supporting the Stop Porn Make Love Not Hate campaign.

As as for this MCKee, I have never heard of him. Say again, he is sitting around on the taxpayers dime watching porn filth and calling it research? And his self appointed title chief investigator sound like like something out of the McCarthy witchhunts. It stinks of a big ego. Its time for Australian males to stop w---ing get back to work and start manning up to some pressing global issue

JP49,

'Anal sex for example is de rigeur on most porn sites, and from what one reads and hears it's now quite common among ordinary people. Thirty years ago it was virtually unheard of. Are the two connected? I suspect they are.'

Is that necessarily bad? As I said, cunnilingus I would wager is more a common part of most couple's sex lives than 50 years ago.

BTW: I think anal sex goes back a lot longer than 30 years. 'virtually unheard of' . Hahaha.

'Secondly, she's right that there is some truly horrible porn on the internet, stuff that is legal but cruel, degrading and just plain disgusting. And from what I've seen around the internet, there's much more of the horrible stuff around than the Abby Winters type. '

Who defines disgusting, and remember, it's fantasy. There are plenty of male humiliation sites too. Any kink or fetish can be found. I think it's healthy. Why are we trying to fit people into some arbitrary definition of 'normal sex'?

Anyway, amatuer porn is by far the most common on the internet. The ethical issue there is how many of the girls up there know they're up there? Ex boyfriends posting stuff up for example. That's a much more salient issue than fantasy as portrayed by actors.

pelican,

'When porn came in a brown paper bag or was sold under the table, we did not see major changes in attitudes around sexuality.'

But were those attitudes any better? I'll wager guys in this day and age are more enthusiastic to please their women. Wham Bam, thankyou man doesn't cut it these days. So what if men decide they'd like to partake in more adverterous acts? 2 minute missionary is out, oral sex, anal sex, toys, all sorts of stuff is more common. Good.

As I said, why do we negate any responsibility of female partners to communicate their likes in the bedroom. If a guy has 'unrealistic expectations', it's up to his partner to correct them. Then both can move on to someone more suited sexually if need be.

Hestia,

You do know the sales figures for vibrators around the world don't you?

If there's any concern about how long heterosexual people have been engaging in anal sex, please check out the entry on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex

It seems it's been happening for thousands of years, well before the porn industry as we know it existed.

Michael.

<Me either. And I hate people saying I’m being degraded without my permission.

<Posted by Jewely, Wednesday, 25 May 2011 9:16:04 PM>

Good on ya Jewely.

The porn industry exists because there is a market. It not only can exploit women, but it also exploits men as well.

However human beings are also sexual beings, with a wide variety of preferences, turns on's and turn off's.

I think it was Saint Augustine, who started the ball rolling in determining what was sinful and what was allowed, and it has been going on ever since.

Hestia I think that a lot of men would prefer to make love than watch porn. The reality is that for most men once kid's are around their partners sexual appetite takes a big dive.

There are a whole bunch of reasons for that, some valid some not. Regardless it results in a lot of men in monogamous relationship's not having their sexual needs met within that relationship. Most don't just move on and women tend to be very bitter about the ones that do.

Most don't choose to have affairs, many find that porn helps get the physical release even though it's a poor substitute for physical intimacy with a loved partner.

I wrote some weeks back about a book I'd just finished reading called "365 nights". It's written by a woman who decided a year of daily sex would be a memorable 40th present for her husband. He missed one night early on (New Years I think) but otherwise from memory he went about 10 months before he asked for a night off. I'm guessing that he did not look at much porn that year.

By all means support a "Make Love not Hate" campaign, in the mean time while it's gathering steam maybe a little less effort being disgusted by what others do in private.

Porn is a far better alternative than growing bitterness from unmet needs, it's a far better alternative than affairs, it's a far better alternative than pressuring a partner into sex that they don't want.

It is a poor substitute for the real thing but for many the real thing is way to rare.

R0bert

Waste of breath r0bert I think she's a one time poster. There are quite a few on this topic, I always wonder why this happens on some topics. It's good for new people to be drawn here by an article or an issue, but I don't see the point if you're going to just dump and leave. Oh well.

I watched Q and A since you and pelican have joined their marketing team lately. That Leslie Cannold I didn't think I liked her (Is she the one working with the NRL? Maybe I'm confused) but she made the most sense. She's quite attractive too:-) the photos around don't do her justice at all.

Houellebecq you may be right but I hope that there is some points in there for others who don't like porn but are a little more open minded.

R0bert

I think one of the reasons pornography is thought of as degrading is because God, or nature, has contrived to place the genitalia of women in such an infernally inconvenient location, that you've virtually got to up-end 'em to to get a good look at it.

I'm with Houllebecq on this one. We are all adults, ergo we all have the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality, to apply the good bits of fantasy-land selectively and appropriately to real situations, and to leave aside the rest for our own self-gratification, all the while without letting it get out of control, and without feeling ashamed of our own natures and curiosities. Anything else is unhealthy.

The angle I would like to take to this however is that, like any other form of aesthetic discipline, the difference between being into good or bad porn must surely accord with the level of taste that the person looking at it cultivates within themselves. To my mind, it is inescapably true that there is very little in the way of tasteful or sophisticated pornography. And I rather suspect that the reason for this is that sexuality is still a very under-explored phenomenon in public discourse - and the worst of this is that, because a lot of pornography is so gauche it ends up being exploitative, and vulnerable to bad-faith attacks.

But, given that we are all adults etc etc, I would like to suggest that instead of banning porn as Gail Dines would have it, we need to cultivate a culture of analysis and criticism of porn, in the same way that films, art, music, and restaurants are dissected, discussed and appraised. Because until such time as we can do this, the vast majority of porn will continue to languish in the murky realms of unaccountability, and will be a target for the un-reflexive, narcissistic Gail Dineses of this world.