Hasbeen, your two comments about Barry are pure gold. They should be read carefully by every bloke on this thread.

That women are fickle is well-known. That she who refused Barry intimacy then accused him of failing to engage in it demonstrates that where conscience is concerned, women, in the main, have none!

Thanks for the 'Barry' story. Caveat Emptor.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Come now, Houellie,

Note the word "potential"...not "certainty" or inevitability".

Nup - what took place here was a bunch of men getting indignant. And, in order to ease their offended sensibilities, they chose to tar and feather the author of their discomfort with ignominy.

I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls. It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way.

Squeers, so people should be locked up for looking at pictures of sex, is that what you're saying? But if not, doesn't that mean you're in favour of the dreaded bougeois neoliberal freedom to choose?

Thanks for doing the legwork, WmTrevor.

>>There seemed to be broad consensus that global annual revenues are in the region of $100 billion.<<

I simply couldn't find any number that was not merely repeating a figure they had heard somewhere. There was one site that had the $100 billion revenue figure (which itself is a very long way from the $100 billion profit that Ms. Bueskins invited us to entertain), together with a category breakdown, but regrettably it did not disclose any sources either. The categories selected were themselves quite interesting - "Exotic Dance Clubs" are included, but once again, no insight into whether the dollar amounts included drinks, meals etc. as well as "services".

http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html

I guess we'll never know.

One note of interest is the breakdown by country, with 72% of these revenues estimated to be derived from only three nations - China, Korea and Japan. Per capita, the winner was Korea at $527 per annum - so next time you see statistics on the population of South Korea broken down by age and sex, you will understand the reason.

For those that way inclined, the site provides much detail of where to get hold of pornography, who produces it, and how many 8 -16 year olds go looking for it online (90%!!), "most while doing homework".

It doesn't say whether this was research in order to complete the homework, or whether the kids were just goofing off. More significantly, of course, it illustrates that looking for online porn between the ages of eight and sixteen is most certainly not an exclusively male activity... even if the male contingent was 100%, it still means that 80% of girls between those ages do the same stuff.

Altogether, though, a most unconvincing set of figures. I wonder if the author genuinely does have access to some real numbers. If not, she shows a cavalier disregard for the value of actual facts, an attitude that - one can opine - necessarily infects the rest of her homily.

Poirot,

We will have to agree to disagree.

'Note the word "potential"...not "certainty" or inevitability".'

My comprehension, such as it is, reads that the 'potential' is the potential to act, and the 'carnal desire' for children is the certainty. Therefore, the paedophilia is innate, and there is just a barrier in the way.

As I said, I agree about the potential to act out 'carnal desires', but there has to be a desire for children there in the first place. Squeers has the desire for children as a given, and I cant agree.

'what took place here was a bunch of men getting indignant.'

Too rite when someone calls you a paedophile. You try being a man in this world with young girls.

'I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls.'
How sexist.

'It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way.'

I didn't cast aspersions at all, and when he clarified to many from all, I immediately gave him benefit of the doubt. I said speaking for my self, and that I was creeped out by his suggestion of the innate paedophilia of men.

But you keep with your psychoanalysis, trying to pour more scorn and insinuation on men who dare to feel indignant about it being suggested they are paedophiles by nature, with a thin veil of laws and morals holding them back from acting on their desires.

Houellebecq,
apologies for talking past you, above, rather than to you. I'd written an apology but had to delete it to keep within the word-count.

<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.'>

The "many" implication was that some men are "not" prevented by morality, a given, but I don't resile from the second clause, that no morality means anything goes--which hardly equates to, "quick, we can all grab a kiddie!", but that there's nothing to prevent whatever happens to be the penchant. "Potential" was my qualifier (thanks Poirot), and not the only one.
A state of anarchy would be bad enough, though in all likelihood the depths of depravity would not be plumbed because we'd all be busy trying to survive. The kind of "idle" amorality, however, that the evolving, market-driven, porn industry facilitates, is much more dangerous in terms of breeding that kind of potential. Porn addiction is a growing phenomenon and presumably the users are not content to watch tired old reruns, or one channel.

Apropos your "interesting question"; my brother claimed to have been raped once, but was more upset about having his navy uniform torn and soiled. I can't speak for the ladies, but I doubt their carnal drives are as incoherent as men's. As I indicated in my first post, I think many women are "too" constrained by morality, or as I said, "straight-laced to compete with porn stars". I suggested the marriage covenant be abandoned; the dilemma for me is I want our society to change radically, not merely slide into the gutter.
Anyway, I understand that my plain speaking touches raw nerves and men are tired of being the villain. Ideology is insubstantial but credulous representation is still mostly what we are as social beings.
Sorry for calling you "bourgeois" (imagine what Col would say!), but it was the word's very definition!

I'm hoping to hear from Briar Rose! This is her area and she must be able to counter my contentions?