Freedom from pornography is essential to health and happiness.
Lets try

Freedom from wosers is essential to health and happiness.

It always strikes me why are the religious so focused on sex between contenting adults

sick hearts require sick material. SBS is one of the greatest suppliers of perversion/porn.

runner, that argument may have been credible twenty years ago, but the internet has changed everything.

'runner, that argument may have been credible twenty years ago, but the internet has changed everything.'

Aidan murder is still murder, adultery still adultery, divorce still divorce, perversion still perversion. What don't you undertand?

Giday Kay

If wowser women would put out more.

Blokes wouldn't need pornography.

Not sexist, just practical.

Come on Kay, for most of human history our sex lives, like that of all animals on the planet, was carried out naturally in full view of a number of generations of our kind. It was a simple, natural part of life, generating no hang-ups or paranoia.

It was only the advent of religious control of our lives that sex moved to something dirty, to be carried out behind locked doors, in the dark, under a sheet, almost fully clothed.

Some people never actually grew up & enjoyed their sex lives as something pleasurable & natural. With articles like this it is obvious some never did make it to an adult attitude to sex.

Smarties have made money from this paranoia by giving us on the screen, that which we would have lived with naturally back in the cave.

It is your attitude that has set the scene & generated the pornography industry. In nature nothing is pornographic.

Well there's very little about porn that is honest!

And that has to include breathless women enjoying anal sex and or oral sex!

Yet there could be a place for it, if depicting genuine care and respect between partners who care one for the other, but not in the sacrificial way Sister Kay presents!

And we need to normalize such porn as we allow! We need to allow normality to return to porn, along with the pussy, pussy fur and natural human affection!

And as such it could be treated as age restricted education material on how to treat and respect a partner!

Personally, I find most of it dead boring and the best sleeping pill in the medicine cabinet!

There's a verbose top knot pigeon that regularly roosts on the power lines adjacent to the house, and his repeated catch cry seems to be, it's all B.S! And hardly a better way to describe most porn!

Even so, this is one horse that has well and truly bolted; and our best course of action would seem to be to represent as normal sex between caring partners, and just use that and a more liberal attitude/censorship to educate those who need that education, so that other stuff, the B.S., is chucked into the rubbish bin of history!

I mean, part of the problem has and remains prudes and control freaks who view natural human interaction as dirty! And it's not!

Neither is full frontal nudity bereft of the razor!

There is and old truism that goes, if the laundry isn't done at home, it has to be taken out!

If we allow more of the natural and normal stuff to be seen by those attracted to such things, then there will be less demand for the other; and remember prohibition just doesn't work, be it abortion, alcohol or porn.

Better we allow some of the more natural stuff and healthy attitudes, than force the genuinely curious to learn less than desirable attitudes towards women!
Rhrosty.

Oh Rhrosty

Mate, my sex life ain't half as horny as yours "that has to include breathless women enjoying anal sex and or oral sex!"

Hi Rhrosty, I don't know much about porn, not an expert like some here. I won't name names of course, but I gather there is a lot of sucking going on in porn.

I saw a joke somewhere recently, related to all that.

A lady was walking down the isle, all decked out in her weeding gown. She had a smug smile on her face, & the thought bubble said, "thank god I have now given my last blow job".

Do you think she was thinking about blowing her nail polish dry?

"When we're awake to this spiritual nature of ourselves and others, the need to objectify women or to allow ourselves to be objectified, to seek women as trophies to validate masculinity or to allow ourselves to be used in that way can no longer motivate us."

How true: one who achieves such freedom is well and truly on their way to God, so congratulations to Russell Brand, yet this is an advanced teaching and most people are not ready yet to benefit from it. The human journey has started with the animal and generally we so far advanced only a few millimetres from there.

The risk is that those readers/listeners who are not ready for this teaching will either come to despise religion including its more gradual teachings; or that transcendence be replaced by suppression.

Good one Has.

Another goes, well now we know why he works like a horse!

And the other one that goes, and possibly for the same individual taking that last long walk on death row? Who greets the ribald laughter of fellow crims, with the exasperated exclamation, it's alright for you guys to laugh. but yours would shrink too, if you was gonna die!

Or that of his partner, who asks him, put one hand in, now the other, now clap. Can't? Tight ain't I?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

And or the same partner, (widowed) who explains to the judge, I was just walking my dog Tiz; and I have an unusual hip related affliction that means I can only walk with a lot of forward pelvic thrusting; and I was looking for my dog your honor, which explains why I was patrolling the neighborhood, yelling out, here tiz, here tiz! Honest injun your honor!
Rhrosty.

And one for us old blokes Has.

There was an old-timer, in for his annual checkup, and as the Doctor examined his xrays, there was an unusual amount of very sympathetic tut tutting!

Eventually the Doctor turn to the old bloke and remarked, I'm sorry old mate, but you're going to have to give up sex!

Whadda you mean doc, the oldie replied, talking about it or thinking about it?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

I can't see me racing to take life choices advice from Russell Brand funny though he is as a comedian.

I continue to be left with the impression that these attacks on the use of porn "for the well being of users of porn" by the religious are about as honest as religious writers opposing same sex marriage out of their deep concern that children get to grow up with both natural parents.

I suspect that most of the opposition is driven by the devaluing of the power of sex as a control mechanism. A topic of interest to both the controlling within relationships and many of the religious.

There are some legitimate concerns about the conditions that some of those creating porn work under (as there are for most of our modern consumer goods). There does not appear to be a compelling case that those concerns represent a significant proportion of porn or that the issues are nearly as serious as those facing workers in many other industries.

There are those who do damage themselves through addiction, obsession and or guilt just as there are those who are damaged by similar outcomes of religious belief taken to extremes.

There are what appear to be some very common and strong differences in sex drive between men and women especially when children arrive in a relationship. I've yet to see much in the way of anti-porn crusaders encouraging non-porn users to ensure their partners sexual needs are catered to with a regularity and enthusiasm to remove the interest and energy in porn which is generally a poor substitute for the real thing. That would seem a fairly logical element to include if the concern was genuinely about the well being of relationships.

R0bert

Pete

'If wowser women would put out more. Blokes wouldn't need pornography.'

There are at least 50 shades of enculturated male entitlement in that statement! It reduces human sexuality to merely a service women are expected to perform for men.

To turn your own rhetoric around ... If men didn't expect women to 'put out more', they wouldn't turn women off sex.

Ya right Killarney

So when I read Sister Maria's wee copy of "Fifty Shades of Grey" I was fairly shocked at how popular it is amongst woman.

It is apparently fine for woman to read it - because it is an "emancipating tool".

Sort of like a paper dildo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#Controversies

@ Killarney, "It reduces human sexuality to merely a service women are expected to perform for men." Why else would you enter into a relationship with a woman considering what a lot of men have to put up with just to satisfy their needs?

Fewer & fewer men are making a commitment these days. A lot of them have discovered there are other ways for them to get their jollies.

Fewer and fewer women are making a commitment these days.
Maybe more women enjoy pornography than anyone thinks?
Personally, I hated the "Fifty Shades..." book, as I don't find controlling men attractive at all.

Hasbeen and RHosty, I have a joke for you :
What is the difference between men and women?
A woman wants one man to satisfy her every need, while a man wants every woman to satisfy his one need!

Pete

'So when I read Sister Maria's wee copy of "Fifty Shades of Grey" I was fairly shocked at how popular it is amongst woman.'

Well, yeah! 50 Shades of Female Degradation had a high 6-figure global marketing campaign to get women to read the books and to now get women’s bums on seats in cinemas. All in the name of women’s supposed ‘erotica’.

I recall that 20 years ago, millions of kids around the global were made to think that they had to possess a big stash of rubber dinosaurs – all at their parent’s expense. Marketing makes fools of us all.

Roscop

'Fewer & fewer men are making a commitment these days. A lot of them have discovered there are other ways for them to get their jollies.'

Oh, no … NO! Say it isn’t so!

You mean … if women actually admit that they don’t want to be lusted after, stalked, bound, gagged and tortured to fulfil men’s sexual fantasies, they might not want to marry us?

Quelle horreur!

And by the way ... where do these spoilt-brat men seek to 'get their jollies' from?

Answer: Other women. Divide and conquer. Knock yourself out, guys. But where does it really leave you?

Killarney,

"You mean … if women actually admit that they don’t want to be lusted after, stalked, bound, gagged and tortured to fulfil men’s sexual fantasies, they might not want to marry us?"

Well if they would just accept being "gagged", that would enhance some womens' chances somewhat.

"And by the way ... where do these spoilt-brat men seek to 'get their jollies' from?

Answer: Other women. Divide and conquer. Knock yourself out, guys. But where does it really leave you?"

...in the afterglow lol!

no truer word than the prophet Jeremiah who speaks about how deceitful man's heart is. The denial from those who want to protect their little grubby addictions is incredible. Again those kids who are fiddled with, the women who are raped and the teen suicide comes second to the rights of those who want to indulge in porn. Oh well just keep spending more money on studies that deny the obvious. Porn is epidemic in INdigeneous communities and guess what. Oh we can't go there.

The very worst sexual deviants are those men who put themselves out there as our society's moral compass, in the form of religious leaders, and perpetrate or cover up sexual abuse against children....

'The very worst sexual deviants are those men who put themselves out there as our society's moral compass, in the form of religious leaders, and perpetrate or cover up sexual abuse against children.... '

yeah Susie I see you are showing yourself as an immoral compass. No doubt with no base to draw morals from.

runner, in response to your earlier question, SBS is still SBS but the stuff it shows generally has some artistic value and is very tame compared to what's easily available online. So while you may have been able to credibly claim that "SBS is one of the greatest suppliers of perversion/porn" back when if you wanted the X rated videos you had to get them from the ACT, those days are long gone.

' SBS is still SBS but the stuff it shows generally has some artistic value '

Oh yes Aidan the old lefty line. Photgraphing young girls in the nude art by the lefities but perversion from the righties. I would of thought Rolf and Jimmy both would of dispelled that myth. Sure crimminal elements are the greatest supply of porn but that does not absolve the tax payer funded national broadcasters. They then have the nerve to criticse the industry while showing the filfth themselves.

runner, there's an enormous difference between nudity and sex.. Rolf and Jimmy weren't "photographing young girls in the nude", they were sexually abusing them. And the greatest supply of porn is from legal websites, not "criminal elements".

Runner, you are the least likely one on this forum to lecture anyone about morals.

As for SBS showing 'perversion', you must be a very delicate individual indeed if you think that channel shows porn!

I think you must belong to one of those ancient Christian groups who insist 'their' women cover up, lest they show an ankle or an outline of their natural body, that may send all males in the near vicinity into a mad sexual frenzy?

You must have more in common with some of the Muslim fundamentalists than you realize!

'You must have more in common with some of the Muslim fundamentalists than you realize!'

maybe you have more in common with the porn industry than you realize Susie.

Oh runner

You're sounding increasingly like a senior churchman at a Royal Commission.

Did not Churchill say "rum, choir boys and the lash"?

Adult woman never appear to be on a Holy Man's target list.

That'll be 88 Hale and Hearty Marys instead!

Lol Runner, good comeback!
No denial about the sight of any exposed female flesh driving you into a frenzy though?

Perhaps you should stop watching all that 'porn' you are so knowledgable about on SBS?
Or do you need to report back to your elders exactly what the latest perversions on TV are these days?

The amusing irony is that Christian fundamentalists are the biggest consumers of porn. I suspect the staunch anti-porn rhetoric we continuously hear from them is more the result of a guilty conscience.

"Runner, you are the least likely one on this forum to lecture anyone about morals."

Suseonline I have to disagree with that but maybe you meant something different. runner is by far the most likely to be lecture others about morals but possibly has the least credibility of anybody on OLO in regards to what others suspect of his personal morals.

I suspect further comment on my suspicions of what runners mind and morals actually are would breach some of OLO's rules but I've not seen anything in the years of runners postings to suggest some kind of moral compass of any value.

R0bert

Porn's popular because people don't get enough sex. Over to you Kay to help fix this. It was Bettina Arndt's study - The Sex Dairies, that showed most guys wern't getting nearly enough and the best thing woman could do is start having more sex with their partners.

So.. once again... over to you...

Valley Guy

'It was Bettina Arndt's study - The Sex Dairies, that showed most guys wern't getting nearly enough and the best thing woman could do is start having more sex with their partners.'

There's another study done by Men's Health that showed that, while about 90% of men reported they always have an orgasm during sex, only 54% of women reported the same.

So ... men are spectacularly failing women in the sack, but rather than learn a bit about REAL female sexuality and anatomy, it seems men would rather bully, threaten and shame women into giving men more of something that women only have a 54% chance of enjoying.

Let's face it, guys. If you only had a 54% chance of having an orgasm every time you have sex, would you still be complaining that 'you're not getting nearly enough'? I think you'd start losing interest pretty quickly.

So Killarney, does failure to have an orgasm mean that the activity is unsatisfying? And why do you think the male is at fault? I understand you are a woman and will have a more intimate knowledge of the female orgasm than me. Perhaps it is a 100% occurrence for you, and perhaps not. But if it isn't, your experience is not necessarily typical as you are but a single data point. Here is a link to a page on the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Canada which deals with some of the myths you appear to believe. http://sogc.org/publications/female-orgasms-myths-and-facts/

I hate these things deteriorating into arm wrestles over sexual politics when the answers probably lie elsewhere.

Graham

Your choice of wording says it all. If a woman does not have an orgasm, it's because of a 'failure' on her part.

However, the anatomical facts are straightforward. Women do not have orgasms through intercourse alone. Men do.

We live in a society that dictates sexuality in terms of what gives men pleasure - not women.

Frankly, I have zero tolerance for men who continually complain that women are not giving them enough sex (so that they have to turn to pornography, extra marital affairs, lusting after younger women, using prostitutes etc etc).

If you prefer to scapegoat me as the one doing the 'arm-wrestling' rather than the patronising, intolerant comments by men on this thread that women are 'not putting out' enough, then so be it.

<We live in a society that dictates sexuality in terms of what gives men pleasure
< not women.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 12 April 2015 12:52:13 AM

What a total load of utter nonsense. Virtually all the women's magazines at some point have had information about women achieving orgasms. Then there is the joy of sex books, not to mention any number of workshops such as Tantric sex.

There is even a very special cunningligous technique.

Lately on TV there have been ads for Cougar Life.com.

<If you prefer to scapegoat me as the one doing the 'arm-wrestling' rather than the
<patronising, intolerant comments by men on this thread that women are 'not putting
out'
<enough, then so be it.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 12 April 2015 12:52:13 AM

Killarney maybe it is you who is the one who is doing the arm wrestling. But you can start without me as there is very little point in trying to discuss things with you. You perhaps even claim that men do not communicate, but may it is you who is not doing the listening.

"A large amount of my pleasure is from being able to give my partner pleasure."

Casanova

It may not be an exact quote, but it is close enough.

Reading through all the comments thus far, I wonder how many have actually bothered to read the article.

As a 'normal' bloke I enjoy seeing beautiful women and to be honest, the less clothes the better. I'm a child of the 60's, so prudishness is not in my nature. Like probably every bloke on the planet I've viewed porn on the internet and I have seen erotic images I would have never thought of in a million years. Some of those images appeared unexpected, even disturbing, and at the time I wished I hadn't seen them.

I've come to the conclusion porn is highly addictive, more addictive than any drug. Porn is readily available at any time of the day and it's free.

I suspect there are thousands of men who replace their inability to be in real relationships and/or failed relationships with porn and self gratification. I also suspect porn turns some men into psycho-sexual deviants. For some, porn may pollute of their psyche irreparably.

As a person with a somewhat addictive personality I choose to not look at porn any longer. I feel healthier not succumbing to the temptation to view porn when bored, or when there's nothing on TV or as reaction to an almost uncontrollable urge. This is my personal choice; it works for me.

Spirituality has always been a part of my life; not religion, religious dogma, or a particular faith. I believe we are all spiritual beings, even if we hate such a notion. I didn't see anything in the article that wasn't simply sharing a mature point of view on a risqué subject. I don't believe the author was preaching or pointing the finger. To me the message in the article was simply that there is more to life than porn.

I need no more than one good woman Suse!

Satisfying one is already enough, without looking for more pain or frustration.

I'm advised that women on top achieve more organisms than the old, slam wham thank-you mam, missionary position; unless it's practiced with the Lady on top and the male is the one in the gynecological examination position.

And you only start to move when your partner no longer can; to extend her pleasure for far longer, and make it more intense; and her completely paralyzed with pleasure.

And given the natural reactions of a woman experiencing a full blown organism; the best ever sex a man can enjoy; and once experienced, everything else is just never satisfying foreplay; albeit, the most essential part of satisfying sex for your partner.

So take your time, until have her begging for union, you sneaky B!

Moreover, in time it'll be the female partner asking, how you feeling hon?

There's an old Irish saying, a woman happy in bed is a woman happily wed. And the Chinese would add, a happy wife is a happy life!

Just don't mistake lust for love. Which inevitably leads to one day waking beside a complete stranger you may not even like, breakups and partners blaming the other.

You do need some physical chemistry, to be sure, but genuinely liking someone and friendship is more important at the start!

In all those porn films or movies, is someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife!

And if you like that sort of thing, then imagine its your wife/mother/daughter being used so very badly; and just to earn money!

Besides, why be a spectator, when you can be an active participant!

And there's nothing more erotic than watching a fully aroused Lady working her special magic on you on top!

Just be certain that's what you BOTH want; and for all the right reasons; and you are BOTH FULLY PREPARED to accept all the possible consequences!
Rhrosty.

I see Robert still in denial our adamic natures. Attack the messenger because you have no answers. Pathetic!

ConservativeHippie,

Just a reminder to a child of the Sixties that sex censorship was the chosen strategy, the thin edge of the wedge, to achieve the desired broader censorship to hide government decisions.

History easily repeats itself where lessons of the past are forgotten.

While I agree that there is some pornography that ought be unlawful, where it affects minors and bestiality for examples, the freedom of speech that is a protection against tyrants requires access to information.

In the Fifties the censorship that was ramped up during the world war was deliberately carried forward by vested interests who did not want to be questioned and held responsible for their decisions and corruption in peacetime. That includes the churches of course, whose power and socio-political legitimacy (as chronic dabblers in social policy) depended on broad censorship. Sex censorship was a well publicised but secondary concern - of the Roman Catholic church for instance.

There are parallels in present times and example could be the sex-obsessed feminists, who are wowsers and very much into sex censorship. -However that serves more the crucial objective of not being questioned on anything, ie censorship, because their ideology is based on very flawed premises and they know that!

Scratch an activist pushing sex censorship and usually you will find an authoritarian with something to hide and a vested interest in NOT being held accountable.

Sex censorship is the thin edge of the wedge.

Hi Killarney, you were the one that raised the issue of a failure of 46% of women to have orgasm and blamed males. I merely suggested it could be more complex than your suggestion that men were somehow at fault - "...men are spectacularly failing women in the sack, but rather than learn a bit about REAL female sexuality and anatomy, it seems men would rather bully, threaten and shame women into giving men more".

If you'd read the article I linked to it suggested that orgasm is that intercourse can be quite enjoyable without orgasm, and that a number of people enjoy the experience without climaxing. It also gives a variety of reasons why climax may not happen.

Kay Stroud writes; "......we each have an inherent spiritual strength to enable us to shut that laptop down when we need to."
Her assertion is utter twaddle of course. Is our "spiritual strength" the only guide to when our need arises and/or the only kind of strength capable of ensuring that the carnal need can be subsumed in a divine euphoria? Not only do I function normally without an atom of spirituality, I insist that as a responsible adult who has achieved most of the admired goals in society, that I am well capable of self responsibility and am indebted to no one for that characteristic. This not a boast but a correction of Stroud's smug presumption that she speaks for me, that everyone is too weak to be responsible unless their intellectual realms are enshrouded in her impenetrable spiritual fog.

Ms Stroud, like thousands of evangelistic believers before her, reveals a prurient pre-occupation with sex archaic in its precepts and infantile in its presumptions. Humankind is no less inclined to regular, if not constant, sexual activity than any other genus in the Animal Kingdom. Natural processes, like that of evolution, ensured we were well endowed with its urges and practical usage. Life, as a force in nature, is little understood but it is a fundamental of lfe that, through sex, it prevails and procreates. Pornography is a feature of a sexual humanity and our pre-occupation with this is a fundamental element of who we are.....a primate generously endowed with the ability to think creatively and by doing so can begin to understand ourselves and to ply ourselves with worrisome questions. As a prescient poster pointed out previously....."there is no pornography in nature" but I would add that this is so except for the human genus Homo. To claim we cannot be healthy and happy unless pornography is eradicated is no more true than claiming humans cannot appreciate beauty, innocence or justice without allowing that such appreciation emanates from a spiritual or supernatural source. Ergo and ipso facto such fantasy is religious balderdash.

Balderdash, there's a word we haven't seen/heard since the turn of the Century, Pogi.

What aspect off pornography are you defending? There is as wide a range of pornography as there is human nature. Humans unlike the animals can be extreme, they can be saintly or completely evil and everything in-between.

Unfortunately the demand for porno has created a market with no moral limitations. For those sick minds that desire to see rapes, humiliation, torture, child abuse, even murder, it's all there.

One doesn't need to be spiritual to see that extreme pornography is potentially dangerous and mind polluting.

Where do you draw the line Pogi? And if you do draw a line, on what grounds? Why is your line more appropriate than someone else's based on spiritual reasons.

Pogi is correct on several counts:

One CAN function normally without spirituality.
Whether "normal" functioning is desirable is a different question.

Rather than a spiritual motivation to shut that laptop down, one could have another, competing, material motivation, such as achieving most of the admired goals in society.
Whether the desire for admiration (or in the least, social recognition) is desirable is a different question.

Yes, Pornography is a feature of a sexual humanity and humans are indeed a primate generously endowed with the ability to think creatively.

However, Pogi believes that "our pre-occupation with this is a fundamental element of who we are".

Our pre-occupation with pornography AND with achieving the admired goals in society AND with several other human behaviours, has nothing to do with who we truly are - it has everything to do with our false identification with the human organism.

The problem with pornography is not its inhumanity, but its tendency to keep us attached to the human existence, or even more generally to material existence. Pornography, however, is far from being the only weakness which keeps us so attached.

Aspects of materialism can compete over one's psyche, but only spirituality takes us out of this swamp of materialism altogether.

yuyutsu, " Aspects of materialism can compete over one's psyche, but only spirituality takes us out of this swamp of materialism altogether."

Gee Yuyutsu, I don't know whether the Pope and all the rest of the Catholic crowd living at the Vatican are supposed to be 'spiritual' or not, but they sure seem to be materialistic!
Have you seen all the wealthy trinkets and property that church owns?

I wouldn't call anyone's propensity for watching pornography materialistic in any case.
I would call it sick in many instances....

Dear Suse,

I think that the current pope is less materialistic than the average one and the average cardinals. As for the others at the Vatican, you may well be right: yes, they are "supposed" to be spiritual, but historically they were often not up to it.

Regarding the propensity to watch pornography, 'sick' and 'materialistic' are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go well together.

Jean Auel who wrote Clan of the Cave Bear also wrote The Plains of Passage, which would be more correctly titled the Plains of Passion.

She wrote some very erotic descriptions, which went on for a number of pages. So is her work eroticism or pornography?

The study referenced by the article actually found a correlation between , viewing explicit material on line and a number of 'risky' behaviors - drinking and so on .

Correlation is not the same as causation, at all.

Reading an erotic description stimulates the imagination. There is also an exchange of intellect between the reader and author.

No intellect is required to view porno.

ConservativeHippie writes; "Where do you draw the line Pogi? And if you do draw a line, on what grounds? Why is your line more appropriate than someone else's based on spiritual reasons." I reject Stroud's and others' assertions that in order to meet some arbitrary and grotesquely archaic base-lines of moral "purity" one must be one of the flock. My response to her clearly reminds her that there are other legitimate views and that if she writes presumptive piffle as she has then it will be challenged forthrightly.

You ask, "What aspect off pornography are you defending?" I made no attempt at categorising "aspects" of pornography. As in many pursuits humans indulge in, our 21st century way of life caters to those extremes in the worship of freedom of speech and/or other modes of self-expression. Society has laws which prohibit and punish the worst aspects of those extremes. If Stroud had shown some capacity for discrimination, had recognised that pornography is not saturated with and drenched in "rapes, humiliation, torture, child abuse, even murder", had moderated her tendency toward condemning a whole for the actions of a few and written in this vein then I may not have been prompted to offer a comment. You are in fact implying that I bear the burden that rightly is on Stroud's shoulders.

You observe, "Unfortunately the demand for porno has created a market with no moral limitations." which can be said in condemnation of quite a few human demands. I'm sure I'll find some who agree when I cite the religion "industry", the pharmaceuticals industry and the banking and finance industry as three aspects of society which have been responsible for awful extremes of behaviour that offends acceptable moral standards.

My confrontation of Stroud was composed to give her a taste of her own medicine. As if she is the one being condemned for the incorrectness of her way of life, as if she must be wrong in the universality of her beliefs. When faced with equally strong opposing convictions, the faithful usually pretend the problem never existed in the first place.

Yuyutsu writes, "Rather than a spiritual motivation to shut that laptop down, one could have another, competing, material motivation, such as achieving most of the admired goals in society" I confess that my use of "admired" may be construed as a seeking or presumption of admiration. I was using the word in a slightly mock-heroic sense which may be inappropriate in this context. I accept your "recognition" as a better word. But, I will not accept that a competing, material motivation is of lesser worth than any other.

You also write, "Our pre-occupation with pornography AND with achieving the admired goals in society AND with several other human behaviours, has nothing to do with who we truly are - it has everything to do with our false identification with the human organism." I'm most interested in what you mean by "false identification". It's relevance to the contentions in Stroud's article though may be contentious in itself but I'm still interested. What are we other than a "human organism"?

Further you write, "The problem with pornography is not its inhumanity...." The inference to be drawn here is that all pornography is inhuman, is dirty and disgusting and so you are committing the same error that Stroud makes and admitting of an illegitimate presumption. Yours is a long, long way from a universally held opinion.

And, ".....but its tendency to keep us attached to the human existence, or even more generally to material existence" Too right it does and a lot of people of every nation, colour and creed live a happier, less stressful existence because of its availability. Chanting songs of subservience and reciting paeans of praise just doesn't cut it.

Homo sapiens sapiens is an animal. Because humankind is an integral part of nature we are incapable of doing anything "unnatural". Rose Sayers' line in the movie The African Queen, "Nature, Mister Allnutt, is what we are here to rise above", reflected moral attitudes of the time and circumstance but are hardly appropriate in the 21st century. That humans are here in fulfilment of some divine scheme is self-indulgent sophistry.

ConservativeHippie writes, "Reading an erotic description stimulates the imagination. There is also an exchange of intellect between the reader and author. No intellect is required to view porno."

This intellect is happy to suspend critical thinking and indulge a lascivious proclivity for an hour or two.

As to the suspension of critical thinking..........the flock do it their entire lives.

Dear Pogi,

First, I'm sorry for my ambiguous statement -"The problem with pornography is not its inhumanity....": I see that it could be understood as if I claimed that pornography is inhuman, where in fact the opposite is true. In context, I simply meant that "the problem with pornography is different than proposed", but I was wrong to assume that it will be understood this way.

Yes, Homo sapiens sapiens is an animal and as an integral part of nature is incapable of doing anything "unnatural". If you conceive of yourself as one of those animals, then it would seem to you as if you also are similarly incapable.

Imagine a perfectly clean and transparent sheet of glass. Now place a yellow flower behind it: the glass looks yellow, then place a blue flower behind it and the glass will look blue, but in truth the glass has no colour at all and was never affected by the change of flowers.

Similarly, while we live through a human body, it's as if we placed a human behind that transparent glass so we tend to see ourselves as human - when that human is young, you think "I am young" and when that human is old you think "I am old". If you were indeed human, then are you this young-human or that old-human?

You are neither! You can tell apart the animal through which you seem to operate because yourself you have no properties, such as colour, to obstruct and override the vision of the animal behind the glass. Yet this animal is, metaphorically speaking, "behind" you, it's not you, yet you falsely identify with it.

Pornography is one, but just one among many things which keeps alive this false identification with one's body. It is part and parcel of the human nature, whereas the identification with this human nature is what keeps us in bondage and suffering.