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.