Not this rubbish again.
There are already strong standards that ban most of the porn listed by anti-porn advocates, as well as keep pornographic material out of they public eye and the workplace, and laws that prevent people from sexually harassing or demeaning others in the workplace also- whether those men were porn consumers, or simply people who were too used to getting sex in clubs.

And this is where the whole 'porn is bad for society' argument really falls apart; hardly anyone actually VIEWS porn. Internet statistics show the vast majority of internet activity is for research, communication and business. Usually most people who view porn are recreational couples, or individuals who are at the point in their lives where they are unable, or uncomfortable in a relationship for existing reasons to prompt their habits (young males, or older single males), and usually curious more than anything.

Instead, the majority of other people in society get negative sexual stereotypes from prime-time TV and music videos that their children watch.

Ironically, the people that advocate against porn would be appalled at the prospect of being expected to entertain a relationship with the kind of people they are banning from porn- yet fail to realize that they are doing the exact same thing TO those people, who might not want to engage in relationships of any sort.

In the same vein of 'husbands looking at porn'- that is called adultery- yet we don't ban extra-marital sex to prevent that.

Poirot,
"negative aspersions"

Negative aspersions!

Well isn't that what feminism is all about. Boiling up a witch’s brew of negative aspersions about those evil males.

There are even some evil males that have girlie calendars hanging on the wall.

Imagine that.

Just waiting for a feminist to build and run a garage to see what they hang on the wall.

In fact, still waiting for a feminist to build and run a garage.

If we must clean up the visual violence against women, we must start by reassuring young girls they are accepted without having to undress to appeal to men. The problem is not the men it is the insecure women who feel they must undress to appeal to men.

Philo,
"Visual violence" is it now?

Sorry to disapoint you, but many women (if not most) want to be seen.

Here are some pictures of women who want to be seen.

http://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/

"The problem is not the men it is the insecure women who feel they must undress to appeal to men."

I don't think there's any problem with women who feel they must undress to appeal to men. What problem is there in that? That's an absurd suggestion.

Peter Hume,
I probably need to clarify. Women who undress for money and are willing to pose as subservent animals are no more than prostitutes. These women are of the opinion to please men they must demean themselves as mere objects of male pleasure.