All the author's arguments were refuted in her article on prostitution, which argued similarly that something is harmful - without any evidence of it being actually harmful - for no other reason than that opinionated third parties from the coercive anti-sex brigade declare it to be harmful.

She was unable to defend her stupid argument then, and she's unable to defend it now.

Her argument here is pornography is "harm" because a Tribunal said it is. So what? That's completely circular. It's harmful because a Tribunal said it is, and a Tribunal said it is because it's harm.

The fact that someone sees something they don't like, doesn't mean they're being discriminated against, let alone "harmed". It means the author's fundamental tenet - that people are entitled to employment without seeing anything they don't like - is morally wrong. If those women didn't like working there, they should have quit and got a job where their delicate sensibilities were not disturbed by the need to tolerate other human beings.

Sexuality is normal and natural and if people want to display pictures of it in their own private property that is all of their business and none of anyone else's. Those who don't like it should go and start their own business!

Besides, all human action intrinsically involves discrimination, and sex is intrinsically sexually discrminatory. According to the author's imbecile logic, sexual preference should be illegal because it's "disciminatory". Public male/female toilets should be illegal - "discriminatory". Having separate toilets is so "harmful". That's the intellectual level of this drivel.

You are discriminating against me in writing your article. You are making expressions that I find offensive, and calling for the use of violence that I find threatening and humiliating. *Therefore* according to your own logic, please admit that you should be imprisoned for this offence, you fascist idiot.

Runner my post was only very slightly tongue in cheek.

Although I was even then a bit of an old prude, I found that all the boobs & barely covered butts were of no interest at all. Probably the fact that, unlike bikini babes on the Gold Coast beaches, these bodies were not being displayed, they were just there, & so matter of fact that they were not interesting.

As a bloke who had come to build a jetty, or sort out the power house, I was "plantation" business, & of little interest to the locals.

Vanna,

That's rich coming from someone who rarely posts a sentence on this forum without utilising the word "feminist" in a derogatory manner.(Boring...zzzzzz)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12717#219809

Poirot, feMANazism was invented by closet communazi, corporate paedophiles & fauxMANistas for the specific purpose of destroying the family on the way to creating an international socialist nirvana after the family & PROTESTANT christian democracy was destroyed.

All loony left political literature, policy & principle platforms calls unequivocally for the destruction of centrist christian family democracy first, so that marxists can "stride through the wreckage creators". All of it also calls for the destruction of all systems of morals & ethics as well as no mercy for the children of the middle class bourgoise, that is every Australian child, Poirot, if you are incapable of reading/understanding plain simple english.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw&feature=related misogynist oppression of women by the filthy stinking, super rich, international banksters/socialists & feMANazis.

http://femkgb.blogspot.com/2010/11/julia-dillhard-and-feminist-kgb-in.html this one is a beauty guys the article has hyperlinks to heaps of other articles on the net.

Oh & Poirot, i have never, ever seen Vanna or any other male say anything even slightly negative about women in general, we have only ever questioned the extremism of the noisy minority of feMANazis.

Formersnag,

Absolutely!...we're so lucky on OLO to have such a wise commentator as yourself - in fact, you've turned out to be a veritable font of Protestant wisdom.

I would have never gleaned for myself the threat emanating from such avenues, but for your far-ranging commentary. It's spot-on in its assertions regarding feMANazi-aliceinwonderland-you-name-it-communist-corporate- filthy-stinking-rich-banksters-conspiracies-not-to-mention-its penchant-for-verbal-diarrhea....... it's great that you have taken up the cudgel with your regular balanced and reasonable warnings on such matters.

Bravo!

(Oh, and Formersnag, it wouldn't take me long to rustle up plenty of negative aspersions cast (why are aspersions always cast?) by the inimitable vanna - which, if I get the time, I might do a little later in the day : )

Gotta love your posts, Arjay.

>>The vast majority of porn is revolting and demeaning to the status of women... This type of porn is truly evil and demeaning to all our humanity.<<

You're obviously quite knowledgeable on the subject, so what, in your opinion, would be the sort of porn that is not "revolting and demeaning to the status of women"?

I know you tell us this category is only in the minority, but I'm just curious to understand where you see the boundary line to be.