A glass of wine a few times is not harmful, but 2 bottles a night is. The question is whether the harm suffered by the minority requires complete abstinence by everyone.

Porn is the same. What we have is the strait laced moral crusaders trying to enforce a total ban as they did with prohibition in the 20's. Given the internet's many loopholes, this ban is likely to meet with even less success if attempted.

Poirot I suspect that a big part of the response to Squeers comments is driven by being utterly over the standard feminist portrayal of male as selfish undisciplined brute who must be contained and controlled, woman as wise selfless nurturing goddess who must be released from the shackels of the masculine world which she has played no part in shaping (or if she did it was by way of cooperating with her oppressor). Themes which seem to form the underlying context for this article.

I don't like those responses to Squeers but share the 'so over it' feeling of how my gender is all to often portrayed.

I've got no idea how likely most men are to have a sexual interest in children or forced sex if raised outside a social context where those things are taboo's. Clearly history shows that there have been cases where rape during war has been common but soldier in historical war situations have not been men going about day to day lives of lives with family etc, they are generally men who've been heavily conditioned by their circumstances through some very harsh conditions.

Extrapolating from extremes has some big dangers.

R0bert

RObert,

From a female perspective, I find it perplexing (though enlightening) to read the "reactions" to Squeers' posts. It seems that the stock-standard unthinking and defensive response is to allude to the possibility of Squeers' as being deviant - simply because some men are "so over it".

I suggest that the responses are not only hitting below the belt, but also indicative of a lack of self-reflexive examination by men who wish to avoid rumination on the intersection between carnality and social intelligence.

I would prefer to look up to you guys, but what I'm witnessing would be more at home in a school playground.

Tony Lavis,
I said, <I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".>

"Context"! I meant that beneath the civilised and genteel persona we all try to construct there are more primal impulses, governed by the cultural/moral sophistications we adopt and impose upon them. A wanton rapist or paedophile is one who has rejected the constraints incumbent upon him as a social being in a nihilistic effort to pursue the ultimate satisfaction of incoherent-desire (the behaviour can also of course be the product of trauma and mental disorder). This was the motivation behind the Marquis de Sade's debauches, and the predicate of his pornographic fiction. It was also Wilde's central lesson, learned from his decadent aestheticism.
So when Houellebecq naively says <Speaking for myself I have absolutely no attraction to sexually immature females, and I can think of no circumstances where I could>. He's speaking from a self-secure position within the civilised/ethical (bourgeois) raiment he's manufactured for himself, the emperor's clothes we all wear. At bottom, though, we're all animals and capable of animalistic behaviour; indeed everything else (though not quite, imo) is ideological layering/self-censorship.
Thus in my first post I suggested the danger of, "a society devoted to peeling away the ideological layers". This is the logical doctrine/anarchism inherent in neo-liberalism, not because it's adherents believe in or could handle this kind of "freedom" (turpitude), but in order to secure the market and maximally profit in a morally deregulated/disenfranchised world. It's not a political agenda, but an economic one.
I expect there are already liberal-minded proponents of porn who argue it should be uncensored and unregulated, since it's "only virtual". Even child-pornography could be rationalised further by replacing the real victims with animated verisimilitude. It's only social-morality that currently objects; meanwhile, social norms have never before been subjected to such fundamental scepticism.
There are a great many voyeurs out there much less morally-upstanding than Houellebecq, and it's surely a concern that their primal drives are being cultivated and liberated in this way?

Come now Poirot, read the original quote.

' don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in *all* men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".'

I think it's fair enough for people to be offended by squeers opining it's just a few laws and morals stopping ALL men from becoming kiddie fiddlers. Which is why I stated, 'speaking for myself'.

He later softened to...

'I was saying that social morality is what prevents *many* men from over-stepping the mark, ergo that if morality is sufficiently compromised anything goes.'

I accept the retraction and give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Even squeers can go all ACA on us sometimes.

Regardless, rape is one thing, being attracted to children is another. Though I understand in todays vernacular paedophilia now seems to include sexually mature 'children' under 18. It's not the original meaning of the word.

Anyway, my point is 'man's carnal desires are more likely to overtake his social conditioning.'

Sure, I agree. But there has to be a carnal desire, and I don't believe a desire exists for most men for undeveloped children.

Tony,

' there are lot of women who call themselves feminists: they can't all be crazy people'

Well, generally when I say feminists, I'm talking about feminist social commentators. Most of your general female population are quite sane and pragmatic and reasonable (They don't have to create outrage for advertising revenue and peer kudos I suppose) , with the exception of the odd gender studies student. Glad you got the irony of my fighting stereotypes with stereotypes. They are all nuts though.

I agree, as do most men, with the simple tenets of equal pay, equal rights etc, it's when they go off on one assigning motivations to men's behaviour, and denouncing any responsibility of women ever in any social situation it gets amusing.

WmTrevor,

Only stupid people pay for porn. There is just so much free stuff around.

Jay,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13565#234581

Fantastic post. For problem users it's just a drug of flashing lights and not even about sex

An interesting question for squeers is whether this social conditioning applies for women. Does he believe women would rape men given the right conditions?

Poirot,

'It seems that the stock-standard unthinking and defensive response is to allude to the possibility of Squeers' as being deviant'

Not at all. He said all men, so he is including himself, and he has decided on that view based on an extrapolation of his own identified possible attraction to children. It's an understandable conclusion that a desire must be there, and it's an exercise in transference by squeers.

It's like a racist saying, 'but everyone deep down hates wogs'.

If there was no attraction, why would he consider such a thing. Relax squeers, it's merely the principle of the thing, you did call me bourgeois, but as I said, I think you have been seduced by hyperbowl.

See, if squeers said if there was no laws or morals, we would release our carnal desires on Derryn Hinch or Amanda Vandstone, then I would also retort with the same argument. ie. Speak for yourself squeers.