You were doing so well up till the last section, when you felt obliged to drag out the tattered old bugbear of 'Western capitalist society' and give it a good thumping, just for old time's sake. A little research will show you that 'violent pornography' has been a feature of EVERY society which has mastered writing or drawing, and has been rapidly adopted by those that don't when they encounter it. How about abandoning the usual suspects, and considering that maybe 'violent pornography' is something -- for some people at least -- that simply goes with being human?

My objection is to "violent" pornography being readily available to children and others who may not wish to encounter it.

I agree that "violent" porn is of interest to some people and I have no right to censor that interest. Neither do they have the right to impose it on me, and it has to be made accessible only to those who specifically seek it out.

The point about Western capitalism is not that it is the only form of society that produces violent porn, but that degradation and exploitation of all kinds are necessary to its survival.
Cheers, Jennifer.

Good article, agree with Briar Rose that Western Culture is not the only purveyor and consumer of violent and/or degrading porn.

Spent an entertaining second wondering what a painting of man being pleasured by an octopus would look like.

Pertinent point that Henson's profound images of children are regarded as porn - when focus should be on adults and child sold into sex slavery.

Others may find the new .xxx domain of interest:

http://theconversation.edu.au/xxx-domain-a-new-way-to-look-at-pornography-3242

'Neither do they have the right to impose it on me, and it has to be made accessible only to those who specifically seek it out.'

Just how does this work Jennifer? When is violent porn really imposed on people not looking for violent porn? I suppose you could make the case of people looking for non-violent porn and finding violent porn, but personally I have never really noticed a hell of a lot of violent porn. And let me tell you, I am a HUGE consumer of porn:-)

I think most people get to an age as teens, and they are interested in sex. So they look at every possible kink on the internet, are grossed out and intrigued and turned on and eventually their curiosity is sated.

I really believe most Kinks and Fetishes are based on childhood expereinces and life events, and the imagination. You just cannot make someone turned on by something they aren't already turned on by. Otherwise you could turn gay people straight.

So, that means the fear is that people will be 'validated' in their 'perversion' by the witnessing of porn catering to such tastes and of the realisation from this that there are inevitably others with similar tastes.

I then think of how this applies to homosexuality. I have heard many biggotted opinions on OLO that because homosexuality is more accepted in mainstream society, it 'encourages' people to homosexuality. This is plainly wrong in my view, so I also see it wrong that abusive porn leads to more sexually abusive people. It 'liberates' them.

And if you say the homosexual's 'perversion' is ok, as it is true to his sexual identity, so is someone who likes abusively having sex 'on' a woman.

In the end, as long as it remains a fantasy (Being sated yet validated by porn) or it happens between consenting adults where is the harm? Laws against sexual violence already exist.

Action is punished.

Thought is not.

I think that's good.

I don't argue for access to violent porn to be restricted because I fear viewing it will make people act out sexual violence. I don't think that's the case, and I've yet to find any evidence that it is.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people viewing violent porn if they wish to do so, and I'm not suggesting it should be banned or blocked. I would like to see safeguards in place that require passwords, payment, or some means of both warning of content, and preventing children from entering those sites. I don't think this is unreasonable, and it's what we do in other mediums.

I sometimes think that any suggestions about the regulation of violent internet porn are interpreted as an attack on freedom and civil liberties. I think that's an extreme position, and I can't see anything wrong with allowing those who want to see it to do that, while at the same time offering protections to those who don't. It seems to me that this approach ought to satisfy just about everybody, except the extremes at both ends of the argument.

'offering protections to those who don't.'

I just tire of the argument that violent porn is 'imposed' on people. It's no more imposed on people than Alan Jones. People who don't want to see violent porn very rarely if ever do see it currently. Just like I have very rarely ever seen Justin Bieber. Though James O'Conner does seem to be making his way back into the first 15.

I don't think any of the measures you mention are unreasonable, but I really don't see it as a significant problem. There is violence in Movies, CSI special sex victims unit on TV, there's all sorts of avenues that could be tightened up.

I think there is even the classification board that censors violent DVDs and refuses them classification.

I just don't see in the normal life of a teenager them being served up violent porn when they do a google search. If they are that keen to see violent porn, they will. Just like getting hold of cigarettes and beer, it can and will be done. Generally, most people live their lives totally immune from violent porn, just like midget porn, ch*cks with d*cks, amputee porn, animal porn etc.

Sure you can put your measures in place, but I don't see why it's such a 'hot topic'. Actually I do, that's what gets my goat.

Yo are probably THE most reasonable commentator on such and I am glad your stuff gets published as it balances out the MTRs and Dines of this world. The thing is, what you propose will never satisfy the likes of those anyway.

'I sometimes think that any suggestions about the regulation of violent internet porn are interpreted as an attack on freedom and civil liberties.'

Yeah, well, thin edge of the wedge and all that. I see vigilence in this area as very important. Conroy's gettin' his filter ready.

Houllie - What's important about the measures I suggest, or more to the point, the fact that I'm suggesting them, is that they do challenge those who will censor everything if they get a chance, by offering to meet them half way. These people have already got rid of music videos, advertisements etc just by lobbying and threatening the companies responsible for them via petitions.

I'm trying to make a space for the debate that isn't at either extreme, because I think the (almost) middle ground approach defuses the influence of the panicked extremists who call for banning and censorship of whatever it is they dislike.

I'm opposed to the filter proposition, but I fear it may become a reality if nobody reasonably challenges the forces that are driving it. There's no point in just telling them they're wowsers or idiots, that won't defuse their arguments. Only reason can do that, with reasonable alternatives to the extremist censorship they demand.

On my blog there's a commenter (Matthew) who has some interesting and reassuring things to say about accessing internet porn and I wish I'd known them before I wrote the article because I would have included his information. http://www.noplaceforsheep.com

Haha Jen I suppose you're just a more generous person than my good self...

'by offering to meet them half way'

I think doing so gives them oxygen. Give them an inch and they take a mile. I honestly don't think you would at all sway them to meet you at all.

But that's just me.

'Only reason can do that, with reasonable alternatives to the extremist censorship they demand.'

I read that Michael's post and I agree with him. It's not actually such a great fear about censorship that's the issue, it's in the ideological grounds it's existence validates.

You have to keep the expectation in society that parents be responsible for their children. If you tell them all is safe, no need to take an interest in what the kiddies are up to, the government will save our kiddies then I think that's silly. I see the parent as the arbiter of what values they want for their kids, and at what age they are exposed to what.

Porn censorship is a green light to the idea of governmnet deciding values, and also a tick to the attitudes of MTR that sex is bad, unless at night in the missionary position, with your husband and only for conception.

Governments are normally behind the people when it comes to technology.

Remember this.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/teen-cracks-au84-million-porn-filter-in-30-minutes-339281500.htm

Driving stuff underground, whether it be drugs, porn, vampire play, is to me a very naive way of doing things.

In all this I wonder, why the medium is so important. Why aren't fictional stories to be treated in the same way? You don't see certain books at borders not sold to minors. If they did, then it would encourage reading.

You're infinitely more qualified to comment on the effects of porn and violence and violent porn and video games, but I see it as all pretty harmless. Most people over 12 can seperate fantasy from reality I reckon.

Dark humour and ironically extreme violence is the teens answer to wowsers to a larg degree.

Unfortunately I have to agree with the comments about the internet being out of control. I have long thought that the relevant internet protocols should be modified to allow the tracing of illegal and anti-social activities.
Most users of porn are male, and it's usually accompanied by masturbation. If a porn user has a partner, they would tend to view the use of porn as akin to infidelity. That's a legitimate viewpoint, but there is a significant difference. If a male were to have an affair, the new partner would expect a degree of intimacy from him, whereas the computer screen requires nothing from him. So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything, which then distorts his relationship with his partner. That's what's wrong with porn.

Ah John,

'So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything, which then distorts his relationship with his partner.'

So how does this differ from masturbation without the aid of porn?

'If a porn user has a partner, they would tend to view the use of porn as akin to infidelity.'

For devout Christians perhaps, but I don't think in general society. Do you feel the same about vibrators? About romance novels and movies, is that cheating?

Cheating involves a deception, what if there is no deception?

And what rights do couples really have to control over their partner's private self pleasure? Is all masturbation cheating in a monogamous relationship?

'I have long thought that the relevant internet protocols should be modified to allow the tracing of illegal and anti-social activities.'

Anti-social? As defined by who? Do you believe in ASBOs? The criminalising of otherwise legal behaviour aimed at the mentally ill, drug dependent and underpriveledged.

'So it teaches him to get his jollies without giving anything'

You seem to think that there should be some price on orgasms.

Has it ever occurred to you that porn is consumed by women too?

briar rose
Houllebecq is right.

People can "protect" themselves by not seeking it out, simple as that. Problem solved. Your argument is rubbish, and so is John's. It's just the usual dreary old attack of the wowser know-it-alls, motivated by moral horror, and trying to dictate the terms of everyone else's sexuality. Violence is already illegal, and that's the top and bottom of the whole issue.

In a former age you would have favoured banning masturbation as an "abuse", or banning adultery, or banning fornication. You're just not happy unless you're banning something are you? The "half way" argument is rubbish. If there's no justification for banning something in the first place, then half banning it is no advance, is it

Peter, I don't think you read the article I wrote or the comments I made.

I suggested content warnings and restricted access to violent porn as a way of addressing the concerns of people whose only solution is to ban as much as they can. These people are not going to go away, and they've successfully managed to really and truly ban, not restrict, but BAN, quite a bit of popular culture in the last 12 months. Not even violent porn,but popular culture. So it seems to me a matter of common sense that instead of allowing them complete control, we try for some negotiation with them.

I stated that there is no way anyone is going to stop porn being produced and viewed, that is, "banned."

Nowhere do I suggest "banning" anything. Perhaps you don't know the difference between restricted access and banning. Try looking at a dictionary because it's a rather important distinction.

What an extraordinary and aggressive outburst. But it does prove my point about extremists. Neither extreme of the debate can tolerate the slightest suggestion of a reasonable middle ground such as leaving the violent porn for those who want to watch it, while offering some protections for those who don't, and children. What is your problem with that? How does that stop you or anybody watching whatever they like?

I don't know why you would object to a rating on internet porn and content warnings, just as we have on movies, television, dvd's etc. That's a rating. Not a ban. Have a look at "rating" while you're in the dictionary looking at "restricted," they're in the same section, starts with 'r," and "w" for "warning" comes a bit later on.

Then maybe you could read the article and comments again with your newly acquired understanding of the English language.
Jennifer.

Jennifer, I know you mean well, but I doubt that any of the disgusting individuals who produce or sell violent porn (as opposed to the usual porno sites) would agree to negotiate about anything.

I also doubt that it is that easy for children to access violent porn anyway.
Don't you need a credit card to actually see any of the real action on these sort of sites?
The apparently very active Houellebecq should be able to enlighten us on this point?

if people can't see that woman being pleasured by an Octopus or dog is not demeaning to humans then they are unlikely to face the truth when it comes to the effects of pornogrsphy on society. Anything to justify their sick little fettish.

Suze -
I agree with you – there’s no possibility of negotiating with the producers of violent porn.

I was thinking more of attempting negotiations with people like Dines, MTR, Hamilton etc who want to ban everything they find offensive, and working out a classification and restricted access system instead of the internet filter they want so badly.

That might well be just as impossible, but when the only people engaged in the “debate” are the extremists from both sides, all we have is hysteria, and petulant demands that everything or nothing be allowed.

As to how easily violent porn is accessed, that depends who you’re talking to. Some people are certain that it’s very difficult to find, others claim that any ten year old can pull it up with one Google. The only way to really know would be to conduct some personal research, but I’m not about to spend any of my life trawling porn sites. So I opt for the middle ground and argue for safeguards.

I also think people looking for porn have a right not to be assaulted by violent images they don’t want to see. Just because you want to look at porn doesn’t mean you’ve relinquished the right to choose what kind of porn you want to look at.

Johnthecounsellor – there are many reasons why someone wants to avoid intimacy with a partner, some of them understandable, it depends on the individual context. If they can’t do this using porn, they’ll find another way. It’s too easy to blame porn for problems, when it’s an expression of a problem that already exists. Many people use work to avoid intimacy, or hobbies – are you suggesting we should all give up work and hobbies because of that?

>> I also think people looking for porn have a right not to be assaulted by violent images they don’t want to see. Just because you want to look at porn doesn’t mean you’ve relinquished the right to choose what kind of porn you want to look at. <<

Exactly.

Why is there such a knee(?)jerk reaction (by much the same OLO posters) whenever discussing the dark and dubious part of the porn industry?

Jennifer is not calling to ban ALL forms of porn - just the stuff which is really nasty like paedophilia, snuff films, some forms of bestiality (animals cannot give consent), clearly violent and degrading acts on people (is anyone really financially compensated sufficiently?).

It is a difficult subject and sexual imagery that doesn't bother me does concern the MTR brigade. Which is why a ratings system such as we already have for movies and books and even the .XXX domain I linked to previously would help.

I don't think we can eradicate the really degrading type of porn, but we can make attempts to restrict access to the types who enjoy seeing people sexually degraded (make it really expensive for a start which would hopefully mean the 'actors' would receive a generous payment).

As for masturbating to porn being akin to infidelity - what utter nonsense! Infidelity requires communication, relating to another person, planning, maybe even a lovely meal - entirely different to a quick wank.

“What is your problem with that?”
Firstly as you’ve expressed it, you’re going to “leave” “violent porn” to those who want to look at it, and offer some protection to those who don’t want to look at it.

But those who don’t want to look at it already have all the protection they need, without having to restrict anyone else’s liberty. Don’t look at it!

So what’s wrong with it is:
1. It restricts people’s liberty for no good reason
2. It entails state regulation of sexuality which cannot be anything but arbitrary.
3. It uses force and threats to do it – you’re not talking about a voluntary system, are you? You’re talking about a compulsory system backed up by fines and threats of imprisonment. The operative part of your scheme is no different to the operative part of banning something.

A classic example of the problem is how states have handled restriction of so-called “paedophilia”. In the USA, this is taken to mean nude pictures of anyone under the age of 18. But men’s desire to look at sexually mature young women is normal human behaviour, and now the sex Nazis have cast it in the same mould as a psychiatric criminal perversion, in the same moral category as raping four year olds!

Or what about the recent case in Australia, where a guy was convicted of having pictures of characters from The Simpsons having sex? We’ve reached the stage where the state is enforcing human rights for cartoon characters.

The state cannot be trusted to enforce sexual normality. The traditional wowsers have always seen sexuality as intrinsically abusive and a distortion of God's divine plan for monogamous marriage. They have now been joined by many feminists who regard all porn - ie pictures of sex - as intrinsically "violent" to women.

But rape and the abuse of children are already illegal, and there is no issue that that is as it should be. These laws are straight-out laws of sexual morality. They are inspired by the moral horror of the prurient intolerant, not by a desire to “protect” anything legitimate.

Everyone who wants to restrict others liberty for no good reason always calls their opponents “extremists”.

Since it takes political action to oppose the wowsersand busybodies either way, oppose them on principle for not having justified their desire to meddle in other people’s business just because they don’t like something! What’s to stop the state defining violent porn as meaning all pictures of sex?

Well suze, I don't like to 'blow my own trumpet', but I do have some experience. I am excited at the prospect of doing some research for you.

In all honesty, I don't think a teen who is looking for something else, will find violent porn. If they're looking for porn, they may 'accidently' find stuff that one could consider abusive, though I would argue not have it imposed upon them.

They would have to click on a quite low resolution 'thumbnail' of a resonably tame picture (compared to the rest of the content) to see any of this. If I was a lawyerly type, I think it would be pretty easy to convict that they got what they were looking for. Obviously curiosity plays a part, but I cant agree that the mythical power of porn can make a kid into something they don't find arousing. Granny porn? :-) Ewwww!

Anyway, Hormone fuelled teens have an imagination that would send the censors into the red zone. How will you stop that? Is it only real if you see it in a picture? Do books count? With new technology one day we may be able to censor their imagination! Think about it!

In the end the point is moot really. The only way to regulate this stuff would really be quite draconian. Mentioning China is not hyperbole. Kids are on P2P networks for music and movies, and although I have never used this stuff for porn, they could get all sorts of stuff on there apparently. The internet is designed to be open and laws governing it cant be inforced across all international boundaries, and that power the populace has is integral to democracy now that the internet is so much a part of people's lives.

The only %100 effective control is at the home. By the parents

BTW: 'Gore Gallary', which showed real-life police shots of terrible accidents was much more disturbing for me at that age.

We are in a ludicrous situation in which adolescents can be charged with child sexual abuse in this country for “sexting” one another. Society is a work in progress. Child pornography legislation did not take teenagers “sexting” into account as it wasn’t an issue when it was passed, and could hardly have been foreseen.

While you and Houllie, Peter, are sure that it’s very difficult to access violent porn, there are others who disagree with you on that. The answer is to get some reliable research going into this, it shouldn’t be difficult, it’s not rocket science. And the state could usefully fund that. Then we’d know.

To be continued

There are clinicians who say that they are seeing an increasing number of clients with porn related issues, sometimes described as addictive. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe these clinicians are lying. You don’t have to be Freud to realize that intense, early formative sexual experiences can have an effect on sexual functioning, not necessarily negative but sometimes negative.

So it doesn’t sound like a very good idea for the young to be learning about sex from violent porn on the Internet. It isn’t going to mess up everybody’s head as the anti porn crowd ludicrously claim, but it has risks. It can also be difficult to engage in real life sex if you have learned to sexually respond primarily to violent images.

The area is horribly under researched, and if the state wanted to do something useful it could fund such research.

Just because you and Houllie may have watched a ton of porn and not experienced any of these difficulties doesn’t mean they don’t exist for some people. Your argument is like saying cigarettes aren't harmful because you’ve been smoking all your life and you’ve never got lung cancer. Think outside the self-box. People who have experienced distress and dysfunction are hardly likely to front up on a forum like this and say so.

I don’t think anyone has the right to argue against the possible negative effects of violent porn, or its accessibility, when we don’t have the research and the knowledge we need to make informed decisions about it.

Unless you can come up with substantial proof that violent porn is inaccessible to children, and unless you can come up with substantial proof that violent porn is not a factor in sexual dysfunction, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. All you’re saying is it hasn’t bothered you

"Unless you can come up with substantial proof that violent porn is inaccessible to children, and unless you can come up with substantial proof that violent porn is not a factor in sexual dysfunction, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. All you’re saying is it hasn’t bothered you".

This is true, but I do think that having some people relate their personal experiences can be a catalyst for further interest and, eventually, research. Supposedly child abuse wasn't widely recognised as a phenomenon until Mary Ellen McCormack's neighbour, having been fobbed off by the police, alerted the animal welfare services of the girl's plight. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs22/ And ok I admit that's a gratuitously extreme example, but still...

If I wasn't at work right now I'd google "pornography addicts' support groups", but perhaps someone who's not being spied upon could. I think we might be surprised at what banks of personal experiences that might turn up.

[cont]

"Hormone fuelled teens have an imagination that would send the censors into the red zone."

Yes I agree another problem is that we don't have a particularly good understanding of adolescent, or even pre-adolescent sexuality. I would say it's quite conceivable that a large proportion of current consumers of internet pornography would be under 18, and maybe some of that is kids looking at violent porn. I'm going to resist the temptation to get personal here, but suffice to say that I have read in blog comments, and in some of Shere Hite's work for example, people reporting that they started having sado-masochistic fantasies from a ver early age - like 5 or 6. Why is this? and what's the extent of it? and what would these kids' reactions be to seeing violent pornography? We simply don't know - but if we want to research the effects of violent pornography then we have to at least start musing on these questions as a precursor.

And as briar rose, and also Nina Funnell in the SMH last weekend have pointed out, criminalising consensual adolescent sexuality by treating sexting in the same way as would be child pornography is deeply inappropriate.

And please rest assured that I do think it is damaging for children to see some types of pornography, and the nature of this damage depends on the age of the child, and on what's depicted. Showing porn to kids is recognised as a form of child abuse after all. But basically what I'm saying is that there is still an awful lot we don't know about the effects of pornography - and certainly nowhere near enough to allow Gail Tankard Bray to make the claims that they do.

Briar rose
You've got the onus of proof back the front. The starting point is not that everything should be illegal, unless people can obtain their freedom by pleading for the gracious permission of the self-opinionated officious busybodies of the anti-sex brigade.

To say people need "protecting" implies something that's dangerous in the first place. But no-one has established that. All we've established is that some people *don't like* looking at certain things and are so self-centred that they want to make it a thought crime for other people to do so!. It's they who need to think outside the self-box, not those who resent their freedoms being violated for no good reason.

So seeing that you cannot defend your argument as it relates to adults, you fall back to the ole stand-by "What about the widdwe chiwdwen?"

Well the children are the children of their parents, and the responsibility for parenting them is on the parents. The parents should control what they watch, and if they can't be bothered, there is *no ground* for bullying and threatening and violating the liberties other people minding their own business.

Picture the scene: the Reverend Fred Nile is at home one night, quietly pootling on his computer, looking up the Lives of the Saints, or the Sermons of the Pious, singing a little ditty of serene contentment "Tum tiddle bom pom", when all of a sudden
"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhh!" his eyes a-pop, his tonsils a-wobble, he JUST HAPPENS to click on a picture of a donkey phucking a woman.

Sorry but the whole scenario you are conjuring is just complete bullsh!t.

What are these intolerant meddling know-it-alls even doing surfing these sites in the first place?

And if it's so corrupting for other people to look at them, what about the poor government employees who are going to be looking at this stuff all day long? Who's going to "protect" them?

It is vicious nonsense from start to finish. These people should be jeered and laughed to scorn, not humoured by restricting other people's liberty "just a little bit".

Oh Jen,

My opinion, from my extensive research, is my opinion.

'I don’t think anyone has the right to argue against the possible negative effects of violent porn, or its accessibility, when we don’t have the research and the knowledge we need to make informed decisions about it. '

I think I have a 'right' to argue what I please. Well even if I don't I have just exercised it.

I think you seem to be getting a bit worked up. As I said, I have no great qualms about your opinions about porn, and I don't see your measures as entirely unreasonable, I am concerned about 2 things. The thin edge of the wedge, and the current inadequacies of censoring the internet.

I understand society must attempt to protect children whose parents are either naive or recalcitrant, though I am not sure about Mr Hume. I don't think it's accurate to lump us together as one and the same position.

I do agree with him however, that the burden of proof doesn't lie with those who don't see the harm. The burden of proof definately lies with those who want to create new regulation and legislation.

In regards to addiction, I can easily see this as a problem. Someone who gives their brain a reward via dopamine/seratonin (Not sure which sexual arousal/orgasm would promote, possibly both) from an activity, especially an activity that can be used as escapism is no doubt able to be used as a drug. Just like poker machines I would imagine.

But a dependency of a drug comes after the fact of disfunction, pain, etc. It's a symptom.

Though, just like annorexia, both disfunctions are directly or indirectly somehow blamed on men's 'attitude to women'.ie being attracted to them. It's an ideological trogen horse, and a way of controlling men just like 'nymphomania' in days of yore.

The motivation of some is to pin failed relationships purely on the dirty male lust (porn), just as womens body issues are blamed on the male gaze. The theme is always mens desire is inately destructive and abusive.

Nobody is currently in a position to ascertain whether or not there is harm caused, or what that harm might be, except anecdotally, because enough research has not been done. There are a lot of people from various areas expressing concerns. I don’t believe it's reasonable to dismiss concerns out of hand because people like Hume spit the dummy every time he thinks he might possibly be inconvenienced, or his freedom curtailed, when nobody is suggesting that in the first place. It’s like listening to a two-year-old who thinks someone’s taking his ice cream away.

Houllie it wasn’t my intention to lump you in with Hume, I apologise.

I’m not a great fan of the thin edge of the wedge and slippery slope fallacies.

I haven’t suggested “censoring the internet.” I have no idea how that can be done and I’m not sure anybody has at this stage. I’ve suggested restricted access to violent porn sites of the kind that already exists in all other media.

As we already have restrictions in place in all media other than the Internet, the precedent for legislation is well and truly set. I'm not suggesting new legislation, only that we bring the Internet into line with legislation that already exists. If you don’t want restrictions on the Internet the burden is on you to prove why the Internet should be exempt from existing legislation that operates everywhere else.

Now you’ve decided to introduce gender bias, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my arguments and I'm not even going there.

Yes, porn addiction is a symptom and a symptom has to be treated as well as the cause. Drug addiction is a symptom and we treat it – where did this idea come from that because it’s a symptom it doesn’t require treatment just as much as its cause?
to be continued

OMG, Peter, you can’t get past your horror at the possibility of something being “banned” can you, even though I’m not suggesting banning anything.

I’ve made this same argument for research I don’t know how many times to the MTR and Dines brigade when they claim everything is harmful and everything should be banned, and they are just as resistant to it as you. Different sides of the same coin, I’m beginning to think.

I don’t know how suggesting we research the effects of violent porn is “threatening or bullying or violating the rights of others” but you seem to get apoplectic at the very thought of even an inquiry. I don’t agree with banning violent porn, I think that’s a useless tactic, so I’m not arguing for you or anyone else to be deprived of your sexual freedoms and the liberty to view anything you want to view.

What is your problem?

As for the child issue – they do grow up to be adults you know. Most people want them to get the best start they can so the adults they become aren’t too dysfunctional. And as I mentioned children in the article, I’m hardly resorting to them now because I’m losing an argument with you.

Of course parents are primarily responsible for their children, and I imagine that if we were able to adapt some kind of (already existing in other media) porn classification system for the Internet, parents would be primarily responsible for implementing and monitoring it. How will this interfere with your sexual liberty? How is this interfering with your freedom?

If people are turning up in increasing numbers looking for psychological assistance for the effects of pornography on their lives then it’s reasonable to conclude that for some people pornography of some kind is proving dangerous. That is, unless all those people are lying to clinicians, or all the clinicians who make these claims are lying.

Restrictions already exist across the media. Why should the Internet be exempt from them? That's for you to prove, not me

Your argument only makes sense if you've established a reason to restrict anything in the first place, but you haven't. Therefore you haven't got to the stage of being able to dismiss anyone's objections to encroachments on their liberty, including being forced to pay for any of this.

According to your theory, I should be able to restrict anyone else's freedom, even if I can't show that what they're doing is harmful, by just asserting that hypothetical "research" might or would show it is harmful. What infringement of liberty would that *not* justify?

You still haven't defined violent porn.

And what kind of "harm" are you supposing comes from watching violent porn? Are we talking brain rupture?

Who's the "we" you keep referring to? Obviously it can't refer to everyone who disagrees, or doesn't care, or who prefers to spend their own income than have it confiscated for these purposes.

Arguing by reference to pre-existing infringements of liberty is not valid, unless the original infringement is valid. It's like the people who argue that, because you need a license to have a dog, therefore you should need a license to have a baby. You need to justify infringements on liberty in the first place. You haven't done that. The fact that other infringements of liberty have already been done elsewhere does not, of itself, justify new ones. There's lots of unjustified infringements of liberty!

The question is whether the publication by internet of what you call violent porn involves aggression against the personal or property rights of others. It doesn't, which means aggression against the personal or property rights of the publishers or consumers is not justified.

As for not banning, you are advocating the use of force or threats to get the money to do the research, and to produce, run, and enforce the system of classification.

I admit I get sick of the never-ending calls of busybodies coming up with new ideas for how there can be more policing and regulation of anything and everything.

Just because some people don't like something, doesn't mean they are justified in forcing other people to pay for or do anything; and that's all you've got so far for an argument.

There is no valid problem in the first place, but if there is, the solution is for those people to learn a little tolerance, and if they need to, stop watching TV or surfing the net so much.

You know ... freedom?