We have so many movies advertised with people holding guns. Some movies make glamorous a spy with a license to kill. Exposing children and adults to scenes of violence are standard fare for TV and movies. Violence as entertainment sickens me. Yet detailed depictions of consensual sex between adults are considered items that should be carefully monitored and even banned.

It's crazy. On occasion I enjoy a bit of non-violent porn with adults consenting to various forms of sexual interaction. Better that than the kind of Anzac spirit which celebrates the ability of Australians to kill and be killed.

...If you are not an expert on the "striatal dopaminergic system or positron emission tomography", I suggest you withold comment on this article.

I think the "Taboo" is probably unbreakable, human beings are hard wired to think of sexual intercourse as always having consequences, even though those consequences are mostly mitigated in advanced societies like ours. This is why there's unanimous agreement that rape is as serious a a crime as attempted murder, back in the day rape would often result in grievous bodily harm and death from infection or during pregnancy. Porn is a luxury item, until recently it was expensive and required a certain amount of effort on the part of the consumer, ie they'd have to go to a book store, a cinema or wait for their purchases to arrive by mail, nowadays it's just taken for granted,it's part of the background noise of consumerism. The comparison to video games works on another level too , they're both formerly niche media consumed by enthusiasts which upon acceptance by the mainstream have become vehicles for mainly low quality "Shovelware" as it's called, cheap productions which are shoveled out the door of the studio. Daring readers might look up the work of the young actress mentioned in the article, I did and her work is exactly the type of low grade handycam shot scuzz I'm talking about.

Aren’t we just so confused when it comes to this sort of thing!

Porn of all sorts is available at your fingertips online via half a dozen clicks of the mouse. R and X rate imagery is all over the internet.

And yet if you so much as dare to expose your nether regions even momentarily at a beach, where lots of people are wearing the scant minimum, then you risk getting tangled up with the law, a big fine and a criminal record, for goodness sake!

The contradiction and absurdity couldn’t be greater.

I was sitting in a café the other day, writing an OLO post on my laptop and using a magazine as a mousepad. It was a girly mag, of the type that is commonly displayed in a newsagency – like People, Picture and Penthouse magazines. The cover was benign. The magazine was not opened, and I was entirely minding my own business.

Some silly woman made a complaint and the manager chatted me about having an inappropriate item displayed in public!

Hey, we humans are incredibly hypocritical and contradictory in all sorts of ways, but when it comes to porn or sex anything that even remotely alludes to it, our duplicity reaches its maximum.

Good on Colin Edwards and Rob Goodwin for bringing Sexpo to Townsville, and thus helping to break down this mindless duplicity a little.

"moral people with a well defined sense of right and wrong who feel, very passionately, that pornography should only be available when it features adults engaging in consensual, enjoyable sex"

Either I am badly misreading this or you are making the bizarre and incorrect assumption that pornography consists entirely of depictions of real people having real intercourse. Since the vast bulk of pornography consists of writing, pictures and videos that depict events that never happened -- and often never COULD happen -- I don't see why there is a problem about making it available no matter who or what it features.

If I'm allowed to read fictional books, view fictional pictures and watch fictional films about space pirates, dragons and secret agents surrounded by fawning women, why shouldn't I be allowed to read or view fictional pornography about equally improbable situations which would never be allowed or condoned in real life?

Surprise, surprise! An article that quotes (a) the manager of Sexpo Townsville (b) the Sex Party (c) a pro-pornography academic (and part-time Big Brother consultant) and (d) a rising porn star.

And guess what? They all believe that pornography is all part of a pleasurable lifestyle with lots of benefits to society. (So, in that case, it must be true.)

The bulk of the essay draws heavily from the research of Alan McKee. However, it neglects to mention that McKee’s research is primarily based on interviews with a number of Australians who MAKE porn and a survey of 1000 people who CONSUME porn. I think it would be safe to say that the overwhelming majority of those surveyed were men, who are so into pornography that they don't particularly give a damn about how it affects anything or anyone else – which must skew McKee’s ever so objective and scientific findings just a tad.

This kind of happy pornography research is not interested in how negatively a lot of women feel about the way pornography portrays women, or how negatively non-users of porn feel about the increasing pornification of our public spaces, or how negatively wives and partners of porn addicts feel about its effects on their relationships, or how negatively many porn ‘stars’ feel about being sex-trafficked and/or turning to drugs to keep them going in a sleazy, exploitive industry, or how it entrenches a disproportionate power distribution across the genders.

Just lie back and think of all the good it’s doing our society - because the porn makers, porn sellers and porn users say so.

good grooming to teach women and men that their worth is tied up in their sexual performance. Well at least a few receive their pleasure in being perverts legally despite the damage to thousands of girls who can't match up. Selfishness and perversion wins out over common decency. Well I suppose of few more psychology classes in moral relativism might deaden the already seared consciences.

Killarney, who do you suggest McKee should have used as his research respondents?

>>who do you suggest McKee should have used as his research respondents?<<

A group of erotophobic wowsers of course: it's the only way to get accurate findings on the attitudes of porn users. Or at least the sort of findings Killarney would like to see.

Cheers,

Tony

Waterhole: ‘Killarney, who do you suggest McKee should have used as his research respondents?’

The very people he chose, of course. He set out to show that pornography has positive benefits on society. To do so, he strictly limited his research to a specific group of people whose vested interests, attitudes and behaviours would ‘prove’ that premise.

Based on that taxpayer funded research, he then wrote a commercially profitable book that has made him a must-call authority for anyone who wishes to promote ‘happy pornography’ awareness.

Tony: If you wish to reserve the right to label all porn critics as ‘erotophobic wowsers’, then porn critics reserve the equal and opposite right to label all porn defenders as ‘sex-addicted perverts’ or similar. Neither stance achieves anything other than a sense of self-righteousness in the labeller.

Well done Killarney - you weren't that far away after all. Cancer research and almost any other research I can immediately think of is conducted using (typical) respondents and the general (read commercial )outcome for the researcher is generally the same.

On the same subject but different - Sexpo's are not necessarily all about porn.

Thanks, Killarney, for providing some balance to the ‘independent’ research discussed in the article.

I haven’t been afforded the luxury of government money to do research on pornography. But my experience tells me that men and women see porn very differently. Generally speaking, one group can see the allure and the other can’t. To the extent that pornography is a significant factor in our climbing divorce rates and other social destructions.

I was pleased to see when I filled my car up last weekend that the local Shell service station had moved the magazine rack away from the main walkway to a more sided position. The more ‘girly’ magazines (described above as ‘benign’) were placed behind a type of opaque plastic screen so that the ‘benign’ images weren’t so right in your face as compared with what often happens these days when you try to buy some milk or petrol.

I wish to thank this Shell service station for probably responding to its customers’ wishes. I will likely be frequenting this Shell store more often. This may be to their financial and commercial advantage. And money finishing in someone’s pocket is what commerce is all about. I sense that is what Sexpo is mainly about. It’s not about sex. It’s not about health. It’s about growing an industry, for better or for worse.

Dan, so you think that the covers of the likes of People magazine are not benign?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=people+magazine&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address&rlz=1I7MXGB_enAU510&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jrK-UK-UN4TTigLtzoHwDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=559#hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-au%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7MXGB_enAU510&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=people+magazine&oq=people+magazine&gs_l=img.12..0l10.142211.143119.4.145517.5.5.0.0.0.0.295.577.3j1j1.5.0...0.0...1c.1.7-cZ2szf-Ek&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cce07018d982c4ed&bpcl=39468505&biw=1280&bih=559

Penthouse is perhaps a little less benign, but hardly of concern in the way it might be publicly displayed:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=people+magazine&hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address&rlz=1I7MXGB_enAU510&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jrK-UK-UN4TTigLtzoHwDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=559#hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-au%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7MXGB_enAU510&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=penthouse+magazine&oq=penthouse+magazine&gs_l=img.12...8306.11660.2.13433.14.14.0.0.0.0.340.1781.7j2j3j1.13.0...0.0...1c.1.of5oQfOND6E&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cce07018d982c4ed&bpcl=39468505&biw=1280&bih=559

Perhaps these magazines have these sorts of covers and are prominently displayed in various types of outlets because that is what works for both the seller and the buyer, and is not of undue concern to the vast majority of people.

I find the very notion that something like this should be hidden away or put back in an inconspicuous position very prudish. I mean, what on earth is wrong with a magazine having a sexy young woman in a bikini in a sexy pose on the cover, or the same sort of thing with men?

Fact is that we do have this, all over the country, in places that women and children frequent, and it is not normally of any significant concern to anyone.

It is always good to discover new things.

This article tells me that Sexpo really isn't about sex.

As far as I can tell, Sexpo isn't about sex, in precisely the same way that the Australian International Motor Show isn't about cars, the Sydney International Boat Show isn't about boats, the Sydney Home Show isn't about home renovation and design, the Sydney International Food Festival isn't about food etc...

What the article doesn't tell us is how Sexpo isn't about sex, yet manages to skirt around the labelling requirements in the Competition and Consumer Act...

What's wrong with 'girly' mags? Even if you're not interested in girls I don't see why you'd be offended. Why does nobody get offended by all the buff shirtless blokes on men's 'health' magazines?

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,
Why do you end every post with the word ‘cheers’, even after you set out to offend people (name calling, such as ‘erotophobic wowsers’)? You don’t see the incongruity?

Ludwig,
I don’t know what qualifies you to speak on behalf of “the vast majority of people”. Why do I find magazines portraying sexually provocative images in milk bars offensive?

As you say, sexually provocative poses may work great for the buyer who’s looking to buy a girly magazine. It doesn’t work so great for a guy who comes to the shop to buy some petrol or an ice-cream. Women I know who might sun bake would probably cover up and slip something over their bikini when they walk down the street or enter a milk bar to buy an ice-cream. They do this out of decency and not wanting to offend. I don’t expect to be confronted by a bikini clad women selling herself when I go to a petrol station to buy an ice-cream. Likewise, I don’t expect to be confronted with glaring pictures of them doing the same.

Poor delicate Dan S de Merengue. May you be confronted in life by nothing worse than pictures of scantily clad and naked women. Be of stout heart.

"I don’t expect to be confronted by a bikini clad women selling herself when I go to a petrol station to buy an ice-cream." Of course not Dan… You'd only be expecting to buy her stories and pay for her articles.

Besides, you know if your eye causes you to sin to gouge it out and throw it away since it's better to enter eternal life with only one eye then to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell, where your ice cream will melt.

As for Pericles', "It is always good to discover new things." The answer is in the title…

"Sexpo: it really isn't about sex"

Therefore, it really is about the po!

<< Ludwig, I don’t know what qualifies you to speak on behalf of “the vast majority of people”. >>

Dan, why would you assume that I’m speaking on behalf of anyone? I am presenting my views, end of story.

<< As you say, sexually provocative poses may work great for the buyer who’s looking to buy a girly magazine >>

Yes, and for the retailer who might pick up extra sales from guys who didn’t intend to buy any such thing but saw them on display as they walked in and decided to indulge. A smart tactic by the business owner to put this sort of thing where it can achieve that sort of result, I would say.

<< It doesn’t work so great for a guy who comes to the shop to buy some petrol or an ice-cream. >>

It probably does for some. And for those it doesn’t work for, it doesn’t present anything negative, distasteful or offensive either. It is neutral to most people who are not interested in it.

<< Women I know who might sun bake would probably cover up and slip something over their bikini when they walk down the street or enter a milk bar to buy an ice-cream. >>

Really? I don’t know where you live but there are plenty of bikini-clad lovelies walking along roadsides and into shops near the beach in north Queensland! Lots today here at Mission Beach! ( :>)

continued

Ok, so the very sight of a magazine cover with spunky young scantily clad woman on the cover is a bit much for some people. So then, what about the content of some of these magazines?

I was amazed to discover that People, Picture and Penthouse magazines, which all have full frontal nudity, are unrestricted! They are recommended for readers over the age of 15 but can presumably be bought legally by any child. I started a general thread on this subject: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5230

Now, you can see women in bikinis at many beaches all around the country. Children of all ages and men of all shapes and sizes mix it with bikini babes with no problems. So what on earth would be wrong with magazines with scantily clad women on the cover on prominent display just boggles my mind.

However, public nudity is a very restricted activity, which is highly illegal in most places. How then can there be several popular magazines that can freely display it and be unrestricted to anyone who wants to buy or peruse them? It doesn’t add up!

>>Therefore, it really is about the po!<<

The word expo - on which Sexpo is based - is short for exposition. I think there's a case to be made here for changing the name of the event to Sexposition.

It certainly clears up Pericles' problem: it's not about the sex - it's about the position.

Cheers,

Tony

Ludwig,
Your view is that "the vast majority of people" think overt displays on the covers of girly magazines are benign and inoffensive. This is your experience gained from living near Mission Beach, Nth Queensland.

After having consulted all these people, would you say they're mostly okay with other unwanted sexual advances as they go about their daily activities? Are they mostly okay with other attempts from strangers to sexualise their children?

If they are mostly okay, I suppose they consider it worthy for the noble cause of connecting those needy magazine sellers with more hungry buyers. 

The article argues that the pornography debate shifts when porn is framed as commercial expression.

It does not champion McKee's research. It points out that his research misrepresents the claims made by other studies into the effects of porn, and it points to the limitations of his analysis; he doesn't consider that the relationships between porn and its consumers must change if watching porn is watching people working, not having fun. sure, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same thing, either.

This doesn't make people who like porn scumbags. The choices they make are much like the ones we all make in consumer culture. Watching Stefania Mafra may be no more or no less moral than buying an iPad that was made under working conditions that amount to forced labour.

But nor are those who worry about porn to be condemned as 'wowsers'. Research on pornography shows a range of social influences, where pornography works in different ways, for different people, in different contexts. When it comes to depictions of sexuality and gender relations, there probably are other media genres that send out more troubling messages-the literature argues so-but the solution to this is to consider how questions about porn fit within a wider discussion about how media cultures limit the social imaginations of its audiences by telling them the same stories, over and over again. That's why porn is about so much more than porn.

<< This is your experience gained from living near Mission Beach, Nth Queensland. >>

Dan, you are asserting something about which you completely don’t know the veracity of. You can’t do that. You can’t assert something unless you absolutely know it is true!

Of course it is not true. I am expressing my views based on my experiences of living and travelling all over this country over several decades. What I observe in Mission Beach applies on the coast all over the country. North Queensland coastal communities are not significantly less prudish than the beaches of The Gold Coast, Sydney or Perth.

And the manner in which girly mags and the like are displayed also seems to be much the same right across the country.

Now, you’ve lost me with the tenet of your post. What’s the connection between supposed sexual advances and the display of girly mags? Are you suggesting that if this material was hidden away, young women would suffer less unwanted sexual advances and children wouldn’t be as sexualised as they now are??

I thought you would have jumped to agreement with me regarding the inappropriateness of magazines with blatant nudity and very strongly sexual written material being unrestricted to minors.

', where your ice cream will melt.'

LMAO.

Dan S de Merengue,

Wow. I cant wait to go to the Servo now! The marvels of technology, making magazines that can make sexual advances...

I'm reminded of this classic Beavis and Butthead.

http://www.snogglenews.com/shows/beavis-butthead/s05e47

Good Post Andy,

however,

'the solution to this is to consider how questions about porn fit within a wider discussion about how media cultures limit the social imaginations of its audiences by telling them the same stories, over and over again.'

You can apply that to anything. Womens magazines for a start, and on a tangent, google type predictive searching tools and targeted marketing ideas in general. The fact people concentrate on porn rather than the plethora of other genres is because they're wowsers.

I really believe it's impossible to not come to the conclusion that people rallying against porn are more than likely either rad fems or churchies. Still, it's fun scratching the surface to find out which one.

Ah, scratch and sniff. Remember those stickers

Ludwig,
I can understand you possibly misconstruing what I was saying, as I was trying to be succinct and use as few words as possible. Yet since you’ve questioned me again, I’ll try to be clear.

Generally, I wrote in to support of what Killarney was saying. After that, I wrote a comment in support of the Shell service station I recently visited, which has chosen (perhaps for commercial reasons?) to put some of the more ‘girly’ magazines out of site of the bulk of customers and into the part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.

I thought what the Shell did was a move in the right direction, countering what Killarney was describing as the “increasing pornification of our public spaces.” It is a public offense to force yourself sexually, even visually, onto an unwary or unwilling recipient. For a different example, I remember, going to an international cricket match where certain spectators held up a banner that read, “Show us your tits”. I thought that was offensive. So did the police who immediately confiscated the banner.

I find the overt display of sexually provocative images in public places such as milk bars, supermarkets and cafés offensive. The justification that the use of attractive girls in provocative poses spins money and is good for print circulation doesn’t make it more acceptable to me. That only speaks of exploitation. They are an unwelcome intrusion into our public space. If they are meant, according to some body or other, to be suitable only for over 15 year olds, why are they foisted upon everybody, even those younger than that? Therefore, the unwanted sexual advances I was referring to above were those of these magazine publishers. And yes, moving the images away would be a small step towards unpolluting our environment and moving society towards a more realistic and healthier sexual mindset.

I do agree, and am surprised along with you, about those magazines with blatant nudity being unrestricted to minors, if that is your contention.

' out of site of the bulk of customers and into the part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.'

Interesting. I don't really like the Royal family, can I request magazines with pictures of the Royals to be put in part of the shop where only the people who are looking for them will find them.

What about gun magazines, or contact sport magazines, or gossip magazines, or contraceptives, or political material in newspapers. What is it about the human body that is so offensive, that it maintains this stigma. Even if you reject that it's just nudity, and propose that it's sex, what is to be so hidden about sex?

I propose the magazines that sell most widely can make claim to be the magazines with most popular interest, and should hold pride of place in the most easily accessible place.

Gossip is not considered virtuous, but we have walls of magazines devoted to it and nobody raises an eyebrow. If privacy is something to be valued, and sex is considered a private thing, why does the intrusion of people's privacy for profit not get a mention.

It seems social voyeurism is ok, but not sexual.

We live in a the most voyeuristic society ever, with grief porn and reality TV, gossip magazines, yet it's only the sex part people get upset about.

Why is sex and sexuality to be either

a) Hidden
b) Censored to include only themes decided upon by 'society'

Sex isn't a fringe activity. Being aroused is not a danger. Appreciating beauty, and sexual desire are not deviant. Why are they to be hidden and considered 'fringe'.

'moving society towards a more realistic and healthier sexual mindset.'
According to who? What is 'healthy' sex and who gets to define it? You I suppose.

'I find the overt display of sexually provocative images in public places such as milk bars, supermarkets and cafés offensive'

I don't.

Thanks Dan for the clarification.

But I think Houellie has put it very well.

There are lots of things I find distasteful that are out there in the public arena and in your face all the time. Even if some people do consider sexual imagery to be one of these, why should it be singled out?

The other side of the coin to putting this stuff away in the back corner is to realise that we are very sexual beings and that we shouldn’t be ashamed of it. Indeed we should roll with it. The public display of magazines of the likes of People and Picture, and even topless babes sometimes on the cover of Penthouse, should not be a problem to anyone.

It could be a whole lot more overt. On a scale of one to ten, I reckon what we have now in newsagencies, servos and the like is well and truly on the mild side of the midpoint, say, about a three at most.

Perhaps that’s worth thinking about: the midpoint between no display of anything with any sexual connotations and the display of full-on X-rated pornographic imagery would I think be considerably on the stronger side of what we now have. And maybe it is this point of balance that we should be trying to strike.

Shell might have moved their filthy magazines to the back of the store but any kid can still get a municipal library card and borrow a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Disgusting.

Cheers,

Tony

Ah yes, I remember that incident.

>>...an international cricket match where certain spectators held up a banner that read, “Show us your tits”<<

Shortly after that Shane Warne went on a diet.

I am offended by Killarney and Dan S de Merengue's perspective and they are invading my public space.

I think this is grounds for regulation of their views.