Killarney,

If you want to comment on the article in a supportive way - then just do it.

What's the use of coming on to a thread just to belligerently inform everyone that you think they're bullies? You haven't added anything - or been opposed - or bullied, so there's no need for the provocative attitude.

Squeers

I only saw your comment after I posted. Actually, I agree with much of your first post. And I have no problem with your criticising the article as lightweight. But an article doesn't have to studiously adhere to logic and reason to make a truthful point.

I myself have lost count of the marriages among my friends, family and acquaintances that have been destroyed by the husband's addiction to porn. What strikes me in every case is that the husband is completely unrepentent about the pain he inflicts on his partner. This is not so surprising, as there is an underlying consensus in society to defend porn as freedom of expression. There is also a corresponding denial that this particular form of freedom of expression is almost exclusively one that asserts male privilege and domination over women.

If a discussion can stay with that premise, fine. But more often than not, it will not proceed beyond that point as the patriarchal shutters clamp down hard against any further exploration of the topic.

Poirot

'What's the use of coming on to a thread just to belligerently inform everyone that you think they're bullies?'

Because they ARE being bullies. They have been bullying the OLO gender threads for years. And it's time someone called them out on their methods.

And BTW, you're not doing them any favours rushing to their defence. You're just keeping them in their safe little cocoon of patriarchal denial.

The facts are there for all to see. This article was overwhelmingly supported by its readers. If it makes you feel better to believe that those readers refrained from posting because of apathy or a lack of reasonable arguments, then by all means do so. I believe, however, that they stayed away because some battles are just not worth fighting.

Killarney,

In my relatively short time on the internet, it's come to my attention that the people who complain most about bullying are usually bullies or manipulating types themselves.

You're not doing the "gentle readers" a favour by portraying them as precious little flowers who are intimidated by the big bad wolves on OLO. This is a forum for discussion and debate, not a boxing ring.

Are you trying to tell me that out of the blue 74 "readers" - who would have otherwise commented - held themselves back from posting on OLO because they thought they might get bullied?
There aren't a great many women posting here because it seems they prefer more female orientated forums where they can bitch away ad infinitum without being challenged by a bloke.

Killarney "Because they ARE being bullies. They have been bullying the OLO gender threads for years. And it's time someone called them out on their methods."

It's so convenient to call on those you disagree with as "bullies;" in effect you no longer have to critique the arguments they present. Which is ironic considering you stated in an earlier post that these bullies were resorting to ad hominem.
As with many other feminist articles here, very rarely are they ever defended. There seems to be a number of questions or problems they simply will not even try and defend when called out on.

The problem of porn in marriage is no one else's problem other than the couples involved. It is up to each individual couple to work out between themselves how to deal with this issue, that's if it is even an issue. One wonders what moral busybodies like Ms Bueskens' solution is. She seems more intent on pouring guilt and shame on the male sex drive than anything else. If she thinks making men feel guilt is the solution, then she only shows her inexperience on such problems.

Make no mistake. The male sex drive will exist regardless of the moral musings of armchair critics. The sex impulse is either discharged, repressed, or sublimated, it does not disappear. It is like telling a fire it shouldn't be hot by yelling harmful comments at it. This is the reality. The way forward on this issue would be for couples to recognize this fact and then provide practical solutions to it. (Whatever that is I'll leave it up to your imagination). Of course, at this point the feminists will argue that the man just looks at his partner as a sex object. But again, we just fall back into the yelling at the fire scenario. A repressed sexual impulse will only remain repressed for so long before it finds other ways of creeping out.

"The facts are there for all to see."… Some are, Killarney, but so are assertions. You might be correct that the article was overwhelmingly supported with 73 likes (75 at last check) and one Google plus recommendation but it's only your guess that they read it. They may have just liked the title.

A psychotherapist who was a lecturer in Sociology and Gender Studies at The University of Melbourne and Deakin University between 2002-09 does herself no credit in being unable to distinguish between revenue and profit - the main point of my post. Or if you think that sentence was patronising I'll rephrase it and assume that she does know the difference and deliberately misrepresented the situation.

I also think it's worth repeating, "Whatever the comings and goings of the charge that 'porn hurts women' - the estimate that global annual revenues from prostitution are four times that of porn at $400 billion seems to me to say much more about both genders."

Not wanting to clamp down hard against any further exploration of the topic, I find this claim "I myself have lost count of the marriages among my friends, family and acquaintances that have been destroyed by the husband's addiction to porn." difficult to believe.

You must be capable of estimating how many female friends, family and acquaintances you have; and of those how many were married; and of those how many are no longer; and of those how many 'failed' because of the husband's addiction to porn and not because of some other reason.

The fact that these marriages failed doesn't seem to say much for an assertion of male privilege and domination over women – it seems to me to make a point of asserted female independence.