Good blog, I've watched this Dines a few times now and get angry every time. I think she just hates men and maybe all of humanity in general. She makes stuff up to convince herself that her position is based on reason. I think she has fooled herself but not too many other people.

The pervert industry is a protected species. To many have become enslaved to their lusts and want to defend their 'right'to remain there. The same people that scream so loud about cigarette packaging are often happy to turn a blind eye to this poison leading to the suicide of our young and the degradation of the human race. No other industry so demonstrates the depravity of the heart of man. This food for the corrupt nature of man leads to child abuse, spousal abuse, rape and degradation. Don't expect any Government funded studies to come to these conclusions. It would be easier to get truth on the man made gw nonsense which is nigh impossible.

Viewing pornography lead to abuse, does it, Runner?

Where is your evidence?

ozbib

use your brain. When a man watches men and woman having sex and then goes to work with all these images in his mind he is not thinking about how pretty his secretary's dress is. A certain percentage of men and woman will go on to commit every act of indecency you can think of. Paedophile Priests, School teachers, sports coaches have all been known to feed on this poison before abusing, raping or sodomising. I suggest you visit Prison and talk to any sex offender. You are unlikley to find one who isn't into the pervert industry. Evidence is ample but a deceived heart will never accept plain truth.

I think the moralisers that Jennifer so well describes broadly have a problem with sex full-stop.

There is a paradoxical alliance between hardcore feminists and rightwing politics. The rightwingers attempt to prove their pro-female credentials by backing the hardcore feminist anti-porn mantra.

Porn (if there is no violence or coercion) is a form of useful escapism which may well serve to reduce rape by acting as a celluloid substitute.

If someone is arguing "watching leads to doing" then how about the hundreds of shoot-em-up police, action man dramas watched by kiddies on TV, cinema and computer games. They haven't lead to sky high gun violence in Australia.

In talking to my female friends who view heaps of porn "Sex in the City" movie, series, Cleo and the Internet etc, they don't sense any male-rogue-chauvanism-pre-rape in it.

Conservative religious backed Senator Conroy's porn filter campaign is the thin end of the politicly correct censorship wedge that liberal and Labor Australians should fear.

Pete

runner wrote: "The same people that scream so loud about cigarette packaging are often happy to turn a blind eye to this poison leading to the suicide of our young and the degradation of the human race."

Dear runner,

You have made similar statements starting out with 'the same people'. Please be specific and name one or more persons 'that scream so loud about cigarette packaging' and 'are often happy to turn a blind eye to this poison leading to the suicide of our young and the degradation of the human race.'

When I lived in the United States I once went to a debate between Arlen Specter, a crusading district attorney, and an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer. Specter talked about unsavoury pornographic images and writing and how damaging they were.

The ACLU lawyer got up and recounted worthwhile things Specter had done in curbing organised crime and nabbing corrupt politicians. Specter visibly swelled with pride. Then the lawyer asked Specter if he had looked at and was familiar with all the types of pornography he had mentioned.

Specter answered, "Yes."

The lawyer then said, "Doesn't seem to have hurt you a bit."

Runner, I have never had a secretary, but I was having deep, dark depraved fantasies about other people's secretaries long before I discovered porn. Oddly enough, I never attempted to carry them out, because it occurred to me that, being real and people and not fictional characters, they might object. Anyone who can't make that simple distinction has worse problems, it seems to me, than merely dysfunctional sexual urges.

As for Dines, she seems to have done a remarkably good job of covering up her ideological roots, but the old adage: 'Scratch a bigot and you find a theist' seems very likely to hold true for her as well.

Immature, low status young males are the very ones who have the most trouble attracting a female, and it is this demographic group, that much of the sexually explicit media portraying women as "hoes" or body parts, is specifically engineered to appeal to.

Poorly socialised, often fatherless young boys of low intelligence are being presented with a media gererated image of women that portrays all women as nymphomaniacs lusting after the devotions of a male who treats them like dirt. It is not surprising that it is also this demographic group who are most at risk of getting into trouble by emulating the behaviour of their violent and mysogynist male on screen heroes.

Teaching poorly socialised and inadequate young men, who are very concerned about their poor self image, that a Real Man regards women as just meat for sex, is not a smart thing to do. Having our media reinforce the message and that treating women badly is the hallmark of a strong personality, not a weak one, will guarantee that men from this low socio economic group will continue to be be more prone to committing serious sexual crimes than men from other groups who display more intelligence and maturity.

Lego, I would like to see the research that proves your claims. Pornography is consumed across all socio economic groups. Violence against women is perpetrated across all socio economic groups. I don't think this is a class issue. One of the failures of the media effects research is the premise that the research subjects are unintelligent and immature.
Jennifer.

Briar Rose, I am not a fan of any pornography, but I wonder what came first, the feelings of 'naughty' lust or the pornography?

Lust has been around for an eternity I would suggest. Many humans naturally feel lust, and many reserve it for their own partners.
Others fantasize about other people- be that real people around them, or people in pictures or on films etc.
Not all people in the latter category go out and rape or kill others though do they? Yet some people from the first category apparently have done as well.

What of all the rapes, paedophilia and sexual abuse that happened in our world BEFORE the days of widespread pornography? Surely that must mean that there are other reasons why some people are driven to these crimes?

Sure, we hear about the dreadful pornographic tapes or other materials found in the possession of some people who have committed terrible crimes, but what came first? Was it the deviant mind, or the pornography?

How come we don't have rampant sexual criminals all over the place, what with the mountain of sexually based media material so readily available to all these days? Why don't ALL people who ever viewed pornography rush out and commit sexually based crimes?

How do we justify denigrating the media in cases where young sex-based criminals were brought up in very strict religious homes where sex was considered 'dirty' and never spoken about, let alone shown anywhere in pictures or films?

I would suggest these sort of criminals have a whole lot of other issues that drove them to be like they are.

suzeonline, I totally agree with your post.

What's interesting, as you point out, is that while we live in a world where we are subjected to more images of all kinds than ever before, there isn't a corresponding amount, or even a great increase in the amount of violence and sexual violence. In fact, in 2010 in the US as an example FBI crime statistics dropped, while the purchase of guns for protection increased dramatically. This suggests that perhaps the media inspires fear, rather than acting out of violence? Interesting.

Jennifer I've posted links previously. If I get a chance I'll dig them out but there is some research from the scandanavian countries and the US which suggests a drop in sexual assault rates with internet takeup.

In the US case the rates of sexual assaults committed by teenage boy's dropped in proportion to the rate of internet takeup across states. There have been similar result's relating to the release of violent film's and corresponding drops in rates of violent crime.

The rates of other crimes did not drop with any correlation to internet access, no pattern of overall reduction in crime rates etc so it wasn't about better policing.

For those who can't see how it could be that access to the internet lowers sexual assault rates. Access to the internet generally means an increased likelyhood of access to porn. That gives a release which might otherwise be that much harder to come by.

I don't think that the case is thoroughly proven but plenty there is food for thought. It does seem to be better proven than claims that access to porn increases the risk to women.

I did have a comment on a point you made earlier. It's true that "Violence against women is perpetrated across all socio economic groups" but my impression is that it is far more prevelant in some socio-economic groups. It can happen in any home but is more likely in conjunction with other factors, alcohol or other substance abuse, poverty etc.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,
re your last paragraph: I agree the stats might indicate a socio economic bias in violence against women, however the factors that might influence this are that middle upper class violence is less reported and less evident, as lower socio economic groups are more readily surveilled by authorities. The more economically privileged demographic is considered less likely to report abuse, and their drinking drug habits are not as publicly accessible. Police are more likely to be involved in domestics disputes in lower socio economic groups. Middle upper class violence more likely to remain secret, and behind closed doors.

Re the research you mention - I find that very interesting, and at first blush, reasonable. Definitely worth pursuing in this country if we're serious about understanding the dynamics of sexual violence and pornography.

'The rates of other crimes did not drop with any correlation to internet access, no pattern of overall reduction in crime rates etc so it wasn't about better policing.'

I think you're really clutching at straws looking at correllations like that. I remember reading Freakonomics and their thesis was that the Police were claiming credit about zero tolerance but that the instances of single mothers had dropped significantly due to different legal treatment of abortion 20 years previously or something like that.

I always explain correllation by stating that Hot Cross Buns cause car accidents. When the sales of Hot Cross Buns rise, so do Car accidents. Think about it;-)

I think Suze's critique is more apt.

'For those who can't see how it could be that access to the internet lowers sexual assault rates. Access to the internet generally means an increased likelyhood of access to porn. That gives a release which might otherwise be that much harder to come by. '

I think pornography is easy enough to come by even without the internet. The feminists will spit and cuss at you r0bert as they're constantly trying to promote that rape has nothing to do with sex and is all about power. They see rape as an ideaological crime where the individual rapists are making a statement on behalf of all men. Similar to the average porn consumer.

See, the end game is really the promotion of the idea that mens sexual desire is innately abusive, predatory and perverted. It's a small jump the feminist wants people to make, from 'viewing porn degrades all women', to 'the very act of desiring or being 'gratified' by naked women is in and of itself abusive'. Therefore since your average hetero male wants to see women naked, your average man is abusive. Or men's sexual desire is abusive.

I can see how rape would be about power when you realise how say MTR, Dines etc look at the world. I get the feeling they are actually affronted that men would even so much as desire a woman without 'permission', let alone achieve 'gratification'.

So, I like to make my own similar jump, all being fair, and state these women's objection to porn is all about power. They don't wish men to be gratified without permission. It's very close to a dom/sub relationship. This is actually a turn on for some men. I've seen web sites where the guy is tied up, begging for permission for release, and he even has to do it himself in the end while being humiliated about how perverted and pathetic he is. I think in my mind that depicts perfectly the dynamics of male/female relationships that would be acceptable to MTR and Dines.

So, rape would be the ultimate betrayal of this control women 'should' have over men's sexual release.

I suppose it's all about a fear of rejection from men deep down.

Men are rightly ridiculed if they are at all threatened by women using vibes or dildos, but it seems that's considered an 'empowering' and 'liberating' thing for a woman to do. But when a man uses visual stimulation, it's a different ball game.

I suppose the hole in all that is that men don't necessarily need porn. But then women don't necessarily need female sex aids, and I am yet to see any denouncement of the use of female sex aids.
It's a simple double standard.

Although correlation doesn't prove causation it indicates there may be a relationship. About 15 years after the Roe vs. Wade decision by the Supreme Court of the US concerning abortion crime rates started to drop. That indicated the possibility that pregnant women aware that they could not raise a child properly got an abortion. Their decision not to give birth may have reduced the crime rate.

Exactly what I said David.

Is there an echo?

Dear Houellebecq,

You did say that. However, you said it while I was keying in my comments and didn't see it.

*So, I like to make my own similar jump, all being fair, and state these women's objection to porn is all about power. They don't wish men to be gratified without permission*

Ah Houllie, your post absolutaly hit the nail on the head!

Some women will cry out against porn, yet drag a dildo out of
their drawer.

I doubt it is about permission Yabby and Houlley. Why would it be?

There is no doubt Gail Dines believes in what she preaches and she did not present as someone who is out to degrade or subjugate men. Her opinion of men appeared very healthy on Q&A.

Dines places greater emphasis on porn's influence around attitudes toward women. On this my thoughts are similar to suzeonline's excellent summary. Sex and sexual imagery has always been around in some form. An exposed ankle in the Victorian era might just as equally titillate as a rounded breast in a modern magazine - attitudes around sex are influenced by cultural norms. Which also suggests degrading acts in some porn movies may shape some ideas around sexuality - but to what extent?

I don't think porn reduces respect for women for the majority of men. Men who harbour deep resentment for women or predatory men have become that way despite porn. Hatred is not logical or rational but runs deep and while not being an expert, I would guess it has more to do other life experiences and attitudes learnt in the home.

There is a difference between mainstream porn and illegal porn that involves rape, child pornography and snuff movies and the judicial system has already taken care of those aspects.

Most men can distinguish between the images seen in porn and real life. Sexual attraction is biological and has been since neanderthal man.

Dear runner,

Please be specific and name one or more persons 'that scream so loud about cigarette packaging' and 'are often happy to turn a blind eye to this poison leading to the suicide of our young and the degradation of the human race.'

pelican,

'There is no doubt Gail Dines believes in what she preaches and she did not present as someone who is out to degrade or subjugate men. Her opinion of men appeared very healthy on Q&A. '

Ummm, 'amoral life support systems for erect penises?'

I beg to differ.

She sounds even more upset about men using porn than MTR, who brings out the 'male gratification' term with such obvious disgust. See, in their eyes, there is no harmless, healthy, victimless, erotic imagery. I'd wager even if men only got off to cartoons, they would still be against it. Which makes one wonder whether a man using his minds eye to create pornography is even degrading women too.

A poster supporting Gail stated all porn degrades all women. This kind of rhetoric is common among certain brands of feminist. Remember Dines' last article rated ANY porn as equally damaging. Have you seen Abby Winters site?

This abhorrence of men having any sexual desire for any woman except their partner at the time of coitus (I'm not sure if you're allowed to fantasise about your partner without her permission, and whether that is objectifying and degrading her) can only be described as a total rejection of male sexual desire, outside the context of a woman consenting to it.

I reckon it's about control of men, based on a fear of rejection.

Violence against women may involve all class groups, Jennifer, but men from the E demographic are for more prone to violent criminal behaviour than men from the ABC&D’s. The five demographic groups generally correspond to a sliding scale of intelligence, with the Alphas generally having the highest intelligence while the E demographic has usually the lowest intelligence.

Unsurprisingly, recidivist criminal behaviour is most commonly associated with the E demographic. In the USA, African Americans are very overly represented in prison, with one half of all black Americans aged between 18 and 55 either in jail, or on parole. According to the behavioral scientists who wrote the book “The Bell Curve”, the mean IQ score for black Americans is 85, as opposed to 103 for the “white” population, and 106 for Asian Americans.

The E demographic in the USA is very overly represented by African Americans, and African women are murdered at a rate seven times higher than their white sisters. This statistic is repeated in Australia, where the homicide of aboriginal women is several times higher than for white women. So endemic is violence towards women in aboriginal culture, that aboriginal men who kill their spouses are routinely only charged with manslaughter. You may remember the case of the aboriginal man who had murdered his wife, who was then convicted of abducting, bashing, and anally raping a 14 year old aboriginal girl. He only got 12 months because the magistrate realized that such violence was “traditional.”

One only has to examine the cultural values of intellectually challenged US ghetto blacks to understand the reasons for their high rates of misogyny. Young black men are being bombarded by rap music media messages which instruct them that life revolves around drugs, guns, violence, money, hatred of white people, and a misogynistic view of women.

pelican this is a very useful point to make:

"There is a difference between mainstream porn and illegal porn that involves rape, child pornography and snuff movies and the judicial system has already taken care of those aspects."

From a legal point of view then, it seems that the determining factor in differentiating acceptable and unacceptable porn is whether or not all the people appearing in it are doing so willingly. Of course there are good arguments to suggest that many people who ostensibly do it willingly are actually doing it because they have few other options for making money - and so you could say that there is a degree of exploitation going on in these cases. But if you take out the presumptions and value judgements made by Dines and her ilk then I think this notion of willingness is what we're left with, and is a good place to start.

And yes, I agree entirely with the article - healthy, functional human beings all have moral compasses and can make ethical choices all by themselves!

I do take issue with holding up Abby Winters as an example of responsible porn though, as has been done in many places. I must say I think that site is in pretty poor taste and is actually quite exploitative in comparison to, say, MET or Domai. On one of their preview videos they actually have a roomfull of naked girls doing gymnastics, for pete's sake!! (though sometimes I wonder whether some porn is directed at satisfying the entirely scientific curiosities of amateur anatomists and gynecologists).

As I think I said in a post on another Gail Dines-related article, I think part of the reason that pornography gets up whatever orifice (sorry couldn't resist that one) of people like Gail Dines is that we still have a long way to go before we are able to depict sex and eroticism in a way that does justice to the emotions involved. Most of it isn't exactly high quality filmmaking, and until we can develop a culture of discussion and critique of the ins and outs (there he goes again!) of quality porn then it will continue to languish at the bottom of the DVD bargain bin. However it strikes me that we're still not mature enough as a society to achieve this.

Yoo hoo Jennifer.

If you are interested in a causal link between media pornography and sexual violence towards women, could I recommend FBI profiler Roy Hazlewood’s book “the Evil that men Do”.

Hazlehurst states that in the prudish “50’s, the only "over the counter" pornography that was available was the “Detective Magazine” genre. These magazines were not sexually explicit, nor did they show nudity, as that would not have been tolerated in that era. Instead these magazines titillated their readers with stories about violence inflicted on women in bondage situations. The covers of these magazines typically showed a bound and gagged terror struck woman, cringing before a menacing male. The stories inside emphasized violence against women with erotic acts.

The moral guardians of that era considered these magazines puerile but harmless.

The forensic scientists became concerned with these magazines when they were found to be in the possession of every serious sexual offender. Interviews with convicted serious sexual offenders revealed that this type of pornography was extremely important to them and among their most treasured possessions. The profilers were able to prove definite links between some of the stories and actual acts committed upon abducted women.

By the 70’s, pornography laws had become so liberalized that other magazines like Hustler and Playboy had taken up the profitable pornography theme. But the industry never forgot the findings of the FBI and they (quite creditably) never mixed eroticism with violence again. It was just too dangerous. Today’s printed pornography always shows sexual acts which are friendly and fun.

I don't know Abby Winters, haven't watched porn for a long time. The real thing will always be far more exciting.

This blog gave an interesting take on it:

http://domrant.blogspot.com/2011/05/qanda-gail-dines-and-second-wave.html

Houlley
That quote is taken out of context and it was not a broad brush stroke about men. It was more to do with the effect of porn on men from her POV. It might be perceived as equally insulting that Dines does not credit men with enough sense or the moral compass as Sam Jandwich put it, to make wise and humane choices.

Q&A was the first time I had heard of Dines so my impression of her is only from that show. When I get the time I might read her book, but there are many others beckoning on the bedside table. I don't know if Dines offers any real evidence that porn is making women targets or that men are being unreasonable about sex, or raping more women or disrespecting women. Men are in porn movies too.

My experience is that men and women are not all that different in essentials, valuing the 'whole' of a person including the sexual component but more as the entree than the main meal. The odd miscreant does not a whole species make.

Sorry, Lego, I'm not ignoring your information, just had some stuff to attend to.

I'm not informed enough to dispute or agree with the material you've provided, but I find it intriguing.

I'm not sure what is the purpose of framing the information in racial terms, unless you want to make a point that men of colour in lower socio economic groups are more likely to be violent against women than white men of that demographic.

In an Internet world the opportunity to censor images that we used to have is lost, probably forever. What we need is sophisticated software that can be used individually when necessary to prevent access by children who shouldn't have to deal with these images. The days you describe in your second post are over - whether that's a good or bad thing is part of the debate, I think.

The guy who runs Abbywinters was accused of coercing models, suspected of using underage girls in shoots, had lax record keeping practices and allowed photographs and videos to be distributed in contravention of the terms of the model release contracts.
The company has vacated it's Australian offices is now run from Amsterdam.

I've given a detailed account of the research on the effects of porn use among young heterosexual men in a book chapter in the recent book 'Everyday Pornography'. You can find the book chapter here:
http://www.xyonline.net/content/young-men-using-pornography
Best wishes,
Michael Flood.

I don't know why I do this to myself, but I read Michael Flood's chapter in my lunch hour... and here's a 350-odd word analysis:

Michael, you haven't answered the chicken and egg dilemma: does consumption of pornography lead to the formation of attitudes and behaviours, or do a person's attitudes and behaviours determine their use of pornography? On balance, I would say that the evidence you present could only lead to the conclusion that "people are highly diverse, and peoples' sexual tastes and predilections are correspondingly diverse", and nothing more. The most telling statement you make in your discussion is that "a series of studies have (sic) found that relationships between pornography consumption and attitudes towards women are either weak or non-existent" (p174). This to me suggests that evidence may indicate that people's attitudes, desires, and predispositions determine their pornography use, and not vice versa. But generally it's pretty obvious that more research is needed before you would be entitled to say anything substantial based on this discussion.

You fail to mention mens' wider social contexts, in particular the family and socio-economic environments in which they grew up, which I'll think you'll find are a major source of these attitudes, desires, and predispositions. And if you are worried about the deleterious effects of pornography (they do exist, though you don't mention them), then this is what you should be targeting.

And yet, following the presentation of your evidence, you go on to state towards the end of your piece that "if we agree that boys' and young men's use of pornography [...] is harmful, what do we do about it?", without making any attempt to substantiate this or relate it to your earlier discussion. Could you perhaps explain then, why you think it is harmful?

I do however wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that "pornography education" is a good way to address difficulties surrounding pornography. I've said before that a culture of critique could improve the quality of pornography, and would also reduce our anxieties surrounding sex, as well as the propensity of the pornography industry to exploit people.

What I would like to add though, is that the reason I engage with these debates - even though I find them rather insignificant, all told - is that I think it's important to emphasise that patriarchy holds absolutely no malevolence towards women, and that we seriously need to get away from the notion that it does. Patriarchy is after all the source of the criminalisation of rape, paedophilia, and exploitation in all its forms. And what Patriarchy would like most is to have men and women work together to tackle injustices and inequalities wherever they exist. However, men can neither read womens' minds (though we spend our lives trying!), nor are we emotional pillars of basalt. Men aren't always able to recognise when women feel as though they are being badly treated. And the best way to rectify this is for women (and "pro-feminist men", if you like, though I personally have met very few men in my 33 years on this planet who would not fit that description) to tell men in a respectful, sincere, meaningful way when we are getting in the way. But whatever you do, don't ever claim that it is somehow in men's nature to objectify, exploit, or control women, and that we should be ashamed of who we are and what we like, because, being the emotional creatures that we are, it hurts so much when you do this that we are likely to start wondering why we bother, and to protect ourselves from these insults by excluding women from our emotional lives.

And I must say, one of the many reasons that I have recently become a fan of Jennifer Wilson's writing is that she is someone who is prepared to argue along the same lines. And in any case, in my 33 years on this planet I have met very few women who don't agree with this perspective.

Dear Jennifer.

You are claiming that the media has no significant effect on behaviour. If you really think that, then stop and listen very carefully. You will hear the advertising executives at Mojo and Saatchi & Saatchi laughing their heads off. The media is largely financed by the advertising industry which claims the exact opposite to what you believe.

The media has the power to set fashions, sell products, endorse candidates, influence elections, provoke wars, propagate lies, cause controversies, provoke violence, and arouse emotions, something which all governments, both democratic and totalitarian, are fully aware of.

The link between media and real life violence has been proven over and over again. It is a fact that the surging rates of violent criminal behaviour now being witnessed in the West are at least partly caused by the glamourisation of violent criminal behaviour by the media. Now this same media is bombarding our children with children with graphic pornography. What effects this will have in the future is difficult to predict, because children have rarely been raised in environments where sexual images are easy to obtain.

But one portent of things to come is that Sydney’s Daily Telegraph once had an item about the epidemic of little boys feeling up little girls in pre schools, behaviour never noticed before.

If a man came to your house and began showing dirty pictures to your kids, you would punch him in the nose throw him off your property. But apparently you see nothing wrong with television executives shoving exactly the same images in your children’s faces by having “Big Brother, Uncut” released at the start of every school holiday.

Lego, I am not claiming that the media has "No significant effect on behaviour." The argument (and an argument made by many more experienced in the field than me) is that we as yet have no conclusive evidence of what the effects of media are on behaviour.

There is a good argument, proposed by the late academic George Gerbner and well supported by other researchers, that media violence increases our fear of violence, but not the acting out of violence. There are very good arguments against the way research into media violence is conducted. As you no doubt are aware, the terms of reference for a study carry a great deal of weight on the outcome and conclusions.

I can see that you have very strong feelings about the way you believe media influences children and society. I understand that, it's shared by many, and many people would like more information and research on just how media affects behaviour. I refer you to the last paragraph of my article. Don't shoot the messenger - I want a safer world just as much as you do, but I don't want panic merchants peddling catastrophic expectations without evidence.

Sam Jandwich, you did a public service in reading and reporting back on that book chapter - the points you make are consistent with many observations about how this sort of research is conducted, and how we have to be cautious about the results.

Jay Of Melbourne,

'The guy who runs Abbywinters was accused of coercing models, suspected of using underage girls in shoots, had lax record keeping practices and allowed photographs and videos to be distributed in contravention of the terms of the model release contracts.'

Accused, suspected, 'allowed' blah blah. I think they are a target *because* they are generally so ethical and attempt to authentically portray women a in realistic way.

The whole day to day show of Abby Winters is run by models. In fact a few models have trained in film making and other careers at the place. There is about 5 shoots ever that have featured a guy, all the photographers are women, nothing is scripted and models involve themselves based on 3 Tiers of graphic content. They don't have any fake breasted girls and have all races, some obviously butch lesbian models, and some frankly rather plain models.

I think it's quite unique in the porn world, so it attracts people trying to shoot holes in it.

There was ONE controversy to do with a model who didn't think AW was doing enough to stop pirating (bit torrent etc) which is a pretty naive accusation. If it was that easy I don't think the recording industry would be so up in arms.

In the end the accusations revolved around one model who regretted her work, and thought AW should inform all models their pictures may end up elsewhere. Fair call, but hardly so scandalous. There was one model that had somehow fraudulent OS identification I believe.

LEGO,

I think you have to accept that the media and advertising execs work within the realm of the tastes and desires of society to begin with.

It's almost as if you credit the media for coming up with male attraction to beautiful women. All they do is exploit male attraction to beautiful women. Do you think the media could make homosexual sex so trendy and market it so well that gay sex was a popular as coke?

Hi Jenniffer, I’m Baaaack. Got chucked off again for abusing some David Hicks kiss- ass.

The evidence that violent media has a causal link to real life violence is overwhelming. There were to the year 1997, there were extant “over 2000" scientific reports definitely proving that link. One of the scientific papers was submitted by the US American Medical Association, the same organization which led the fight against the tobacco companies.

The two most significant reports are the two US Surgeon General’s reports into the effects of media violence on society. In one report, you will find the historic “Joint Statement” made by the six leading medical, psychological and psychiatric institutions in the USA, who testified before the US Congress that the link between violent media and real life violence was overwhelming. Their individual reports used expressions like “the scientific debate is over”, “there is absolutely no doubt…..” and “the link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science, over and over again.”

The comparisons between the tobacco industry, and the media, is obvious. Both of these fabulously wealthy industries knew all along that their products were harming their own consumers, but both denied that this was so. Both industries were vice industries targeting children, the intellectually challenged, and the immature. It was only government intervention which prevents the media today from advertising cigarettes, but the media is still helpful of its tobacco company corporate cronies by using “incidental” smoking scenes in movies to boost sales.

The difference between the two industries, is that one has been exposed, but the other has escaped public scrutiny. This is because the very same people who can be relied upon to man the barricades against every corporate malfeasance suddenly developed acute myopia when it came to attacking the media. Too many trendy lefties were employed by the media and any attack upon the media was seen as an attack upon their own self interest.

In the seventies, the stunts of professional stunt motorcyclists like “Evel Kneval” were shown on TV. Hospital Emergency Room staff coined the expression “Evel Kneval Sydrome” to describe the smashed bodies of adolescent boys who had been seriously injured imitating the stunts that they saw on TV. The staff were also treating children for seriously burned faces who imitated the fire eating stunts of the rock band KISS.

After the release of the cartoon “TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES”, teachers of young children all over the world were horrified to see little kids karate kicking each other all over school playgrounds. “The Three Stooges” was banned from TV in NSW because of the number of children being admitted to hospitals with damages eyeballs who were imitating the “eye poking” slapstick antics of The Stooges.”

In 1973, a movie called DOOMESDAY FLIGHT was released which showed a novel way to extort money from airline companies. Within weeks of its release, extortion demands using the same movie methodology were made against QANTAS, Pan Am, TWA, NorthWest, and Eastern Airlines. Five years later the movie was re-released and another wave of extortion demands followed. This movie is now no longer shown as it is just too dangerous.

In California, two adolescent boys were convicted of murdering an elderly hobo by beating and stabbing him to death. Before he died, one of the boys poured a full container of salt on the man’s wounds. When asked by investigators why he had done that, the he replied “I dunno, I just seen it done on TV.”

In Lebanon, a hanging of two convicted murderers was seen shown live on TV. Within days, two Lebanese school kids were "hanged by their playmates at school in separate incidents, and their lives were only saved when alert teachers intervened.

You are very disappointing Wilson. I read your other article on gendered baby clothes and thought here is a female academic who actually has something to say.Most female academics are too smug with their good fortune at getting a man's life to bother with political discourse. Then I read this rehashed tripe pretending to be a rebuttal of Dr Dines research. And you Wilson, a woman who claims to have been a clinician in the child abuse sector. That was a waste of twenty years, you clearly learnt nothing about why men prey on children, grooming them and then raping them and then normalising the situation. Why don t these men have sex with adult women? They have a sexual distress thats why. Just like millions of men all over the world now thanks to internet porn and a culture, as you put it in the other article ,of predetermining a female humans life even before she draws breath. The porn culture is fouling everything just like the slave culture centuries ago. Now males ( they will never become men now) are so fuzzied of brain they cant even be present while their wife is giving birth because they think it is disgusting. Everything is genitals.Unless we stop this plague where will civilisation end up?