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.