Upon reading my article on pornography a friend living in the US posted this link which refers to an article by David Hart.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm

This is a great article and a necessary addition to mine.

Sellick wrote:

"Pornography, if it is some kind of art, is bad art because it provides us with a distorted view of the world."

"But pornography is not important art, it does not reveal the human soul, it does not portray what is essentially human."

Don't give up your day job, Peter; with lines like that you'll fail Art History 101.

That art is a (frequently) distorted, rather than mimetic, representation of the world is surely the point; therein lies the essence of the creative process.

In a free society, art is no servant of your particular concept of "morality", nor of anyone else's! "Revelation of the human soul" is best left to religious iconography for the faithful; the imposition, by government, of the subjective ideas that you believe to constitute something called morality, on non-believers offends the separation of church and state that, thankfully, is embedded in our Constitution.

That's what liberal democracy's about.

If you don't like porn Peter Sellick stop buying it.

Five paragraphs, that must have been difficult. I think I'll simply have to ignore stuff like:
"Sexual activity is by its nature a promise of a future and is corrupted when that is not recognised."

Obviously addiction causes problems, so the issue is whether frequent or occasional use is damaging. And since Sells would like total censorship, all forms of pornography should be considered, which raises a definitional question. In the strict sense, parts of many M15 films would need to be removed. Sells confined himself to the primary usage group: men looking at porn that (increasingly) portrays women in a distorted manner. This ignores the use of pornography by women or gay porn, as well as porn that is tasteful and does not present a caricature of women or men.

"Pornography is a representation of just such a false world in which women possess no self, no soul, of their own."
There is truth to this but it is an exaggeration. Most porn is meant to cater to male fantasies and quick gratification, so it is no surprise that the women end up doing what the man wants, or that the focus isn't emotional connection or romance.

A lot of porn depicts women in an unreal manner or is misogynistic; the very nature of it is objectifying. Frequent use of this type can then have the affect of building unrealistic expectations, images and attitudes. However, occasional use or use by couples lacks these issues, and not everyone will be affected. I don't think people have a perfect ability to compartmentalise and distinguish between porn and reality, but some ability does exist. As a result I think a bigger problem arises with magazines like FHM, Ralph, etc. and oversexualisation in marketing; since these things connect distorted sexual images with normal life and promote objectification.

Pornography is unnecessary but many things are, including censorship, liberty is to be preferred. Only proportionate restrictions and regulations are justified.

I'm more concerned with the kind of publishing which is designed to make people feel bad about themselves. I've seen plenty of comment that suggests that much of the material in popular womens mags is designed to make women feel bad about their bodies (unless they buy the conveniently advertised products which will solve the problem).
Men's mags are starting to go down the same track. Have a snoop at the cover of a "Mens Health" mag.

I am not aware of any objective proof that the watching of porn is damaging. I can see how it could be damaging in conjunction with other distortions (say the guilt from watching it when your religion says its wrong). I do recall something published some months ago that suggests that men can reduce their risk of a type of prostrate cancer(I think) by coming at least 3 times a week - obvious health benefit.

The excessive use of idealised (buffed, airbrushed etc) bodies in the mainstream media is a much more serious issue for peoples emotional well being than anything porn can come up with. That stuff is killing teenagers and hurting adults trying to have real relationships.

R0bert

Sellick, wonderful article.

Why do i say this?

Because this article relates so closely to my life its not funny.

I am trying to get rid of my addiction to porn now, so i can lead a normal life again (but no, i dont look at gay porn).

I would also like to reaffirm that watching too much pornography does warp and twist your brain (i would know). Because, disgustingly enough you see nearly every woman as a "sex tool", and visualize her nude. This may sound crazy, but believe me it happens. I am actually afraid of even talking with any girl/woman for fear of what i might do to her (thus preventing me from having a normal relaxed conversation with a girl/woman).

I would like to add that all people who look at pornography are usually
1. Social Outcasts
2. Dateless
3. Wanting to suicide

I have been through all these stages over and over again, even the last stage. I have so much conflict for suicide because I know i would rot in hell if i destroy my body like that (I am a Christian). Note i am probably the only christian to experience this sort of addiction, so do not predjudice other christians for it.

If there is another article disscussing the same thought lines as this, I would be most grateful to get it

timmah your only able to speak for yourself here. I hope you are seeking professional help for your illness. I think you find it isn’t caused by porn.

So Robert, that safari suit IS made out of rubber? Porn is a bit like McDonalds, alright if you don't treat it as a staple diet. Some people are more twitched by it than others, and get addicted. (Ted Bundy being the poster boy) Mostly men I guess, are the market and demand it. However, it's about fantasy and sexuality in a safe world, where you have the remote (and every power that gives you.) Whilst not condoning the exploitation of women in porn (after all, women are the ones that should be making porn movies - at least they'd have a plot, better working conditions and some good looking men!.) In a healthy individual, porn has a context of exploring sexuality in a safe environment. Sex doesn't always have to be a big "From here to eternity" soul thing happening. Sometimes, it's just scratching an itch. It's a bodily function after all, and religion can make it as deep and meaningful as it wants, but the reason why we do it and get driven to do it is much more base than that. One should never equate sex with love unless it's there, but that doesn't mean that sex for sex's sake, or experimenting with porn means it's necessarily demeaning for women. I have much more umbrage about ads selling sex when it's only shoes for instance.

Females have produced and do produce porn that is targeted at a female audience. Nice plots, lots of airbrushing and use of 'Doris Day' lense, lots of gentle foreplay, loving and respectful intercourse... and not much in the way of sales. Men dont usually go for that style and consequently it doesn't sell very well, given that men are the main consumers of this stuff.

The female producers targeting a female audience dont make any money and more often than not abandon the very small female audience and start producing for a male audience, in the interests of economic rationalism.

As in most forms of entertainment, people want escapism and fanatasy. On the point of fantasy and escapism l think that the average guy can tell the difference between largely unrealistic no strings sex on demand and the reality of the sort of effort and challenge that sex tends to present in real life.

In any event its a chicken and egg argument. Does life immitate art or does art immitate life. PS. art is neither good nor bad... it just is.

Peter Sellick

Congratulations. It's good to see a countercultural argument like yours on this matter that refers to psychological limitations rather than religious or puritanical dogma. However, while I agree with you regarding the neurotic effects of the addicitive misuse of pornography, our views diverge on how society should respond. Society, and affected individuals, will not mature beyond such addictions by outlawing them. Each individual needs to deal with their demons and other limitations, including addicitions such as these, and grow beyond them. Liberalism gives us the opportunity to mature by exposing us to the temptations and learning to resist them. If we remove the pornography, we merely divert the neurotic's addicition to another 'fix'. So yes to the support and growth but no to the censorship.

Timmah
Congratulations to you for your courage. Most people cannot understand what you are saying. They see the black and white, not the shades of grey. Good luck with your struggle. I wish you strength.

Greenlight.
My argument with liberalism is that it takes a stand against any moral position that limits the freedom of the individual as long as nobody gets hurt. This is a reaction to what is seen as arbitrary moralism from religion that seems to have no other warrant than "god said". This is why it is necessary for the church to explore and explain its moral stance in a deeper way. Liberalism would have each individual making up his or her own mind free of history. We see the result of this all the time, the only thing that guides us is desire. While the "whatever floats your boat" ethic may seem to set us free it is really a dangerous nihilism that values nothing but pleasure.

The main problem with porn that no-one has mentioned is that one man's Holy Writ is another man's pornography.

Di, a rubber safari suit sounds pretty uncomfortable.

There was a study reported on some months ago (and I don't have the details) which investigated myths about women in porn.

Sketchy unsubstantiated recollections for what I saw in the newspaper write up (now that has got to be reliable).
- The researchers were surprised by their findings.
- The portrayal of women was reasonably positive (within the constraints of the subject matter)
- The range of body types was much wider than expected.
- Women involved generally had fairly high job satisfaction and were well paid.

I'm assuming that there are exceptions to this.

For the record I don't like any kind of addiction. I do get addicted to coffee and posting on The Forum, every now and then I take a break from the former by choice and sometimes get to busy for the latter. I do get concerned that hurting people such as Timmins won't get the appropriate help needed because some church people will be happy to lay the blame for his issues with porn rather than encouraging him to get professional help. Timmins you are not alone as a christian struggling with porn, I've known others. One was my best friend at the time.

R0bert

Sorry Robert, just stretching the safari suit a bit too much in our previous posts. No offence meant at all. Addiction is weird and so is porn, just what is it's context? I was driving along this afternoon thinking how much it does exploit women and can be such a nasty thing, but still has it's place. Some of us want to be Paris Hilton and have the complacency to explore our sexuality (though i don't think that she is servicing anything other than her ego and bank balance). I don't know, I wouldn't necessarily think that porn as a titillation is a bad thing but it must be a pretty bad industry, i would think. But a bit like prostitution. It will always be there for the demand. If it was more regulated maybe it wouldn't be so sad. What are your thoughts?

Di, "porn will always be there for the demand" is a fair statement. Defining what porn is can be a difficulty.
Half a century ago, some nuns regarded school girls, who were in their charge, as pornographic by having highly polished shoes that might reflect their knickers to the delight of little boys.
Porn as per 1950's(or 2005)repressive Christianity? As per the culture of ultra-orthadox Rabbis or of their Islamic counterparts? Or the more liberal attitude of dear old Omah Khyam? The disingenuous prudery of Queen Victoria's affluent subjects?
In spite of a lot of wailing about society going to the dogs due to readily accessible adult and un-coerced pornography I am unconvinced that things are much worse than they were in that line than half a century ago. But:
I have great concern in relation to material available on the internet to young children - gratuitous pop-ups inviting visits to sites that are unsavoury by any decent standard. Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute has published papers on the matter; very good material. It pleads the case for filtering young and vulnerable children from such unsolicited stuff, about which any parent would have concern

Di, I took the Safari suit comment as a friendly play on our earlier discussions. Those thigh high boots and the horse might be relevant to the current thread - I'm still waiting for that DVD ;) .

I like colinsett's observations about the definition problem.

What are the real issues around porn. I don't know. It does not seem to be easy to work out what serious research has been done. Not a topic I have persued with great vigor either. The groups pushing biased research would seem to fall into three broad groupings that I can think of.
- Religious groups who want to impose their "moral" codes on the rest of us. An abuse of what Sells refers to when he says "This is why it is necessary for the church to explore and explain its moral stance in a deeper way".
- Sections of the womens movement who are uncomfortable with aspects of sexuality which appear to pander primarily to mens interests (that aspect may be overstated anyway). If you start with the assumption that pornography degrades women then you may never see it any other way.
- The porn industry. Seemingly big business with a desire to maintain some legitimacy to their operations. I suspect the fringe culture thing is also part of the marketing so the focus may be a bit indistinct. Probably not helpful to the current industry to be too mainstream.

If comparing to prostitution, reporting on the topic in Qld would suggest that women in the legal brothels are much better off than those on the streets. Maybe regulation has some merit but regulation based on the treatment of those involved not on the desire to control other's moral conduct.

How do we find out the truth about this topic?

R0bert

(Deu 30:19 NRSV) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live,

(Deu 30:20 NRSV) loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

It is not a matter of the church imposing its morality on anyone as if that is an arbitrary matter but a matter of pointing towards what it has leant about how the grain of the universe runs for us. We do not need sociological or psychological surveys to make up our mind about porn or prostitution. What we do need is to have our lives formed by a tradition that has engaged with history, has struggled with the meaning of religion and which has come up with potent texts that change how we see our lives.

Again we find the hegemony of science proclaiming itself to be the only way to knowledge. Science will not give us a moral stance, it is value neutral. It will not tell us if porn is bad for us, that is why the Federal government could not make up its mind about he sale of porn in the ACT.

Unfortunately the propaganda of secularization beats us every time. Religious knowledge is confined to those poor souls who superstitiously believe in a God no one can prove exists. But our engagement with God can only be through the descriptions of His acts and commands, His Word. It is here that we find that the truth is spoken, that is how we are to decide on these things. Otherwise we are left to the kind of speculation about morality that has been so evident in the posts above

Gee Sells, your last post is as clear as mud. I do agree with Robert that the morality thingy shifts along with society, and certainly need to be monitored, but that doesn't mean we're all going to hell in a handbasket if we shine our shoes a bit too much for the nuns. I find it amazing that religion wants to take over, and dictate/control, people's sexuality so much. Yes, it can be a beautiful thing and an awful thing and it's individual. Not that I'm condoning a free for all. However, the more I look at posts and life, we have three things at the dinner party table... Religion, politics and sex. Religion wants to control all three. Politics likes to think occasionally they can control two at any given time (when one has a conservative govt) and Sex. Well, sex just keeps doing it in an industry that is as old as procreation. Trying to stamp out the sex industry is like prohibition.

Robert, thanks for the feedback. I shall certainly make sure those thigh high leather boots have a shine on them to put a smile on any nun's face! (So to speak)

Nice piece. Sex sells, porn sells, and the media and telecommunications keep pushing it. I've done my own independent survey of sorts over the past few years and women seem to be into it more than men. I might add that the women I know are intelligent educated, classy, sexy and not addicted to porn. Have you noticed that more and more adult companies are headed up by women. Women know what women want, and it's more than just a quick *uck, on or off screen. Heck, I’ve even sold the adult channels, ‘Adults Only’ and ‘Night Moves’ via my involvement in the Australian subscription television industry and the biggest complaint was “not enough pink bits” and "too soft". There's more interesting reading about the porn industry at both the websites of The Australian (Optus SinTel’s) and Media Man Australia. The Eros Journal, put out by the Eros Association, should be compulsory reading for politicians and mainstream media types.
Sexy Sydney Regards

Sells, we are unlikely to get agreement on this but hopefully we can have some fun anyway.

I'll make some kind of attempt to address the bits that seemed significant in your last post.

Firstly, I'm not convinced that the teachings of the Bible or church are telling me which way the grain runs (so to speak). True enough there are things in there which are usefull but overall I think we can do better. I have not studied other faiths enough to be as confident in my views in regard to alternative teachings but at the same time have not seen evidence to suggest that any have it nailed. Same for secular humanism, it's not there yet. The advantage being that secular belief structures can move on from what does not work rather than having to find dodge's to get around the absolute decree's of a god. There are thinsg to learn but I don't believe your faith can or should form the basis for my choices in life.

Secondly, science done right should be able to tell us more reliably is porn is good or bad for us than religion unless you are concerned about a god punishing you for being naughty. Studies which look at a range of factors can be fairly indicative. Science might struggle a bit on cause and effect (but I think that can be delt with to some extent), eg if timmah's assertion that porn users are social outcasts, dateless and suicidal were proven to be true then the question becomes are they like that because of using porn or do they use porn because it fills a need not being met elsewhere? I've asked similar questions myself about parts of the church. My concern is that all to often research about social issues gets done to suit desired outcomes rather than seeking truth.

R0bert

RObert.
There is misunderstanding about what I mean by the connection between God and scripture. It is certainly not the case, as in Islam and Mormonism, that scripture is beamed down to earth from God. Rather, it is the case that Israel, for some reason, was the first nation to take its history seriously and reflect on it, incorporating it into history, legend and poetry. This engagement with history is the foundation for the religion of Israel and is quite different from the mythological basis for of religions. The second thing that is important is that the God of Israel was not ordinary theism. There were many safeguards against thinking of God in the usual religious categories. This is where those strange texts in the OT fit, where YHWE is the unnamable name, the one who will be who he will be. The God of Israel could not be placed into any known category, He could not be defined. This saved Israel from the deadening effect of ordinary theism. Our problem is that we inherit an idea of God in the mode of religion, that is theism but this is wide of the mark for both Israel and the church.

As for you assessment of the potency of the Christian story, it is easy for me on the inside to see how potent that is and hard for you on the outside, particularly with all of the nonsense that is written about Christianity. When I look around at the other isms, particularly the secular ones they seem pathetic, they explain nothing and leave us in the dead end of our selves. What I have been trying to do, and evoking much resistance, is to explain recent theological positions (that derive form old ones) so you might see how rich it is. Part of the problem is that it is just so unfashionable to be Christian because the fundamentalists have devalued the language by over inflating Christian claims. It is difficult to clear a space for reasonable discussion.

There seems to be some idea that Christianity is against the sensual. O course there are examples from the Puritans to Catholic hysteria about sex. However if you read the Song of Solomon you will find language that is erotic in the extreme. Israel rejoiced in the relations between men and women. If the NT is read without the old then it is possible, under the influence of the dualism of Hellenic culture to see a division between body and soul that denigrates the body. This has caused much damage because it is a deviation from the original understanding. If Israel can paint a word picture of the erotic then we can certainly enjoy the nude.

The church certainly has some things to say about sexual morality that many find offensive. It says that faithfulness is inextricably associated with sex. We may argue that since we have contraception this does not have to be the case and we can sleep with who we wish on no more than a whim. This is one of the great freedoms of modern life. But how many wish to exercise this freedom as a matter of course? Most people settle down to one partner and realize that infidelity is poison to that partnership. Screwing around is a symptom of a deeper problem for us. How do we comfort ourselves in a world shorn of the transcendent?

"Do we not smell God decaying? - Gods too decay! God is dead. God stays dead. And we have slain him. How shall we console ourselves, chief of all murderers. The holiest and the most powerful that the world has ever possessed has ebbed its blood away beneath our knives - who will wipe this blood from our fingers? What water can make us clean? What propitiations and sacred rites will we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods, in order to seem worthy of them? Nietzsche" “The Madman.”

How do we comfort ourselves in the face of this deed?

I'd like to know why religion is so FIXATED with the sex THINGY. It kind of takes the fun out of it and turns it into a turgid little piece of disgusting laundry that seems to give it a bad name. Religion is so uptight with sex outside of the married parent's procreating room -we'll all be horribly exploited, either as sex fiends or victims. A Slave to our Passions! Where's the healthy bits in between? Loosen up Sells! Sex is like driving a car. One should be responsible for one's driving, veer off when a dangerous driver crosses your path, respect the roundabout thingy, hit the brakes when you think it's neccessary and always figure you know more than the other idiots on the road. You can bang on about porn all you like, it's like bad drivers. Some people will never get it and should never get their licence, however, porn, like learning to drive, is a given coming of age without the necessary L plates for a lot. All we can do is watch the road. And shine our thigh high boots.

Robert,
I’m not sure whether porn is a good thing, but from the physical aspect of the male body, ejaculation becomes necessary. The older the sperm, the less fertile it becomes, so the male body continuously and naturally produces new sperm. This means that the old sperm has to be released, which can occur through intercourse, wet dreams, masturbation etc.

There is now a dilemma in society, in that people are getting married latter, and divorce and separation is much more common. This means that there are more people living alone, and sexual intercourse occurs less frequently than normal or natural (and numerous studies have shown that both husbands and wives have better and more satisfactory sex lives than single people, despite the media which tries to portray the opposite).

So porn is likely to become more common, as a substitute for normal human sexual relations, and I think normal human sexual relations occur in monogamous relationships, as polygamous relationships become far too complicated, particularly if there are children involved.

Overall, I think the whole thing is not very healthy for society

Sells, I suspect a significant proportion of "christians" in Australia would not agree with "It is certainly not the case, as in Islam and Mormonism, that scripture is beamed down to earth from God.". Most of the churches I've ever had anything to do with hold that the bible is the inspired word of God, perfect etc. They might not like a comparison with Islam or Mormonism.

Timkins, certainly appears that monogamous relationships work best for people with my cultural background. I've seen indicators that other approaches work well in other cultures but not studied the topic in depth. We are to some extent the product of the cultures we grow up in. I do wander how much harm the focus on monogamy does to some people and relationships. I can think of a lot worse things than infidelity that people do to each other in relationships that we seem to treat much less seriously. Good points you make about the medical aspects.

Di, to pick up on the driving metaphore.
- A saturday afternoon watching people driving cars on telly generally involves high powered race cars on a race track rather than suburban run abouts in normal traffic.
- If we see anything of the building and maintenance of the car it is a short summary, with most of the viewing time being devoted to the racing (and a bit to tyre changes in pit lane).
- The drivers are generally more skilled than average.
- Most of while quietly dreamin of owning a super car still choose to buy something a bit more realistic.
- Most viewers know that the race cars cost a lot to operate and are difficult to keep running.
- Most people can go without watching cars race with no problem but enjoy it from time to time. A small number of others get addicted.
- Some people don't approve of car racing and would like to see it banned. Some of them probably watch the races when they think nobody knows and feel guilty for doing so.

R0bert

RObert
I am sure you are right about “most Christians” thinking that the bible was beamed down from God intact. Again I get on to my old hobby horse; this is a very modern notion that could only be derived from the sort of God who was imagined by a people who could only see the world in terms of cause and effect. Once the turn to nature and its explanation in terms of cause and effect had happened it was applied to theology as well. So we get god as supernatural consciousness magically communicating his will via a strange mixture of texts that include history, poetry, hymns, legends, myths, national stories and look all too human. Strange way for a thinking being to communicate his will! Again we must try to look beyond or context and begin to see how the early church understood its texts. How did it decide which books were in and which out? Why was the gospel of Thomas excluded and John included? There decisions were guided by an inherited ethos, which the church calls the Holy Spirit. There is not a lot of mystery in this, a board of directors do the same.

Luckily, theology is not democratic; it is not determined by how many people in the pews or out believe. It has been my continuing and sad experience that the level of theological education in the church is woeful.

Sell's I hope I don't find anything else pressing to add to this discussion before tomorrow night.

Totally agree with your last post.

Another aspect of this discussion which has been briefly touched on previously got me thinking some more on my way home from an art class tonight.

We were painting from the model in class. Certainly not something I would consider pornographic. I enjoy the learning and the challenge of trying to capture something of the model in paint but the process is very unsexy.

I remember the nude sculptures in St Peter's basillica and contrasted that to the approach taken to the human body (and art in general) in australian evangelical churches. Not very likely to see detailed anatomy up on the wall of the local baptist church.

Is what is in St Peter's art or porn? What about pictures of those same sculptures and paintings in the hands of a teenage boy?

What about the attire worn by the worship leaders at Hillsong (I channel flick sometimes) if viewed by someone from a culture requiring complete cover up for women?

What about those polished thigh high boots of Di's - fashion statement or porn? Hopefully there is nobody sick enough to want to watch DVD's of people wearing Safari suits.

The boundaries of what constitutes porn relate very much to the attitudes of the viewer.

R0bert

RObert
I think it is hard to find the boundary between porn and art. There is a painting by Gustave Courbet in the Musee D’Orsay that was hung only in private rooms and behind screens by its owners. Interestingly I had to do quite a search for it on the web. This is a very sexy painting. You are the art student, you tell me if this is porn or does it matter? http://windshoes.new21.org/art-gallery/courbet/17-origin.jpg

I find it interesting that there has been some embarrassment connected to the painting although it is included in the museum’s book. I think my point is that this painting is more sexy than most porn which you must agree is mostly very bad art. I have yet to see a painting of a couple engaged in coitus or indeed engaged in any sexual act. Why this is so, given the breaking down of almost all artistic boundaries in our time, escapes me but it does point to a reticence in these things. It is as if representation of sex borders on kitsch, like an over glorious sunset, it is just too much.

There is certainly in the tradition a crossover of the erotic and the religious. The Song of Solomon is about fleshly love but it is also used as an analogy of the relationship between humanity and God. All of the aspects of male/female relationship, love, passion, hatred, faithfulness, unfaithfulness are mirrored in that relationship. I have always thought it quaint that in the wedding liturgy marriage is compared to the relationship between God and His church, but you see the connection.

BTW the nude was introduced into Medieval painting via paintings of Adam and Eve, I guess before the nude was rediscovered in the Renaissance from the Greeks.

I am not sure the boundary is defined by the viewer. Courbet’s painting is a definite turn on, does that make it porn

Robert, after your post, I shall never navigate my way around the local roundabout again without a vision of.. pressing my brutal and relentless, stilleto heeled, toe capped steel leather (thigh high, natch!) boots down onto the hot sweaty brake that's just begging under my feet for forgiveness. I refuse, but ... I brake anyway. Just in time. Lucky I'm With Amiee. Sorry... is that porn or insurance? Regards,

R0bert, somewhere out there, there will be, I can assure you, someone sick enough to get off on people in safari suits. If you want sick, it's easy to find - my personal favourites are the people who want to be amputees, or the people who deliberately aim to get infected with AIDS. I tend to find this somewhat more reprehensible than looking at pictures of copulation. Your point about art in the hands of teenage boys is well made. Given the tendency of teenage boys to get an erection when travelling on the top deck of a bus, I think we must assume nearly everything can be a means of arousal for the poor creatures. But the real worry about porn is the awful prose it er, comes, with. When we moved into our present house, there were a couple of porn video covers left in the shed. I saved one in disbelief at the liner note style. "Antonio Passolini draws back the meat curtains to reveal the bizarre secrets and sacred rituals of the sisterhood of Sappho". Or better still, "For the first time in his illustrious career, Passolini forgoes plot and character study". Yeah, right.

Anomie,
I think that teenage boys do not get an erection from riding on a bus, and such stereotyping and maligning remarks about boys is uncalled for, but unfortunately becoming more common within society.

Presumably, Timkins, you're not old enough to remember double-decker buses (although presumably old enough to remember the unwelcome, often public spontaneous erections which are part of puberty). The double-decker bus problem is a pretty-well universal groan moment among men of a certain age when they recall their youth. Probably has something to do with the swaying of the bus, and the vibration. Not stereotyping, just recalling what was once a common embarrassment.

I say do away with drugs such as viagra and get more double decker buses. Tickets please!

Sels, I'm an art student only in terms of doing some evening classes for fun.

I had a look at the link you sent. I'll go for art but it's fairly easy to see how it could be porn for some people. As is the case with any static image it only gives part of the picture, no face no hands. Just the bits the cynic might suggest are the only ones men are really interested in. Is the artist making a comment about that or giving us an eyefull?

anomie, thanks for clearing up the mystery of why the Brits keep using double decker buses. Most people buy printed porn to read the articles don't they? Maybe the prose is better in magazines.

R0bert

Anomie,
From an article at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548898574.html

“John Marsden, the best selling adolescent fiction writer, and author of the non-fiction books Secret Men’s Business and The Boy You Brought Home, says teenage boys are also among the most maligned group in our society. “They are more maligned than any other age group and gender. The media portrays them as either drug-crazed, illiterate, unemployable, suicidal, failing at school, sex criminals or vandals. So adults tend to treat them more suspiciously and that causes them (unconsciously) to become angry or frustrated or alienated.”

I think you are making up stories about boys and buses, but like so many other social issues, the knee jerk reaction of so many people is to point their finger at a male, and now they will often point their finger at younger males, as younger males are less able to defend themselves.

In the area of porn, I understand that women view porn as much as men, but to me it seems that porn is a substitute only. Odd how our society is evolving.

Sorry, Timkins, I have a 19-year-old son. I love him devotedly. I can say with absolute certainty that I love him more than I ever thought it possible I could love anyone, and I would never dream of maligning him. You seem to mistake affectionate recognition of the risibility of some biological imperatives for a profound loathing of maleness. Not so. Try not to be so touchy. You damage a plausible case by doing so. Not everyone who smiles at male behaviour is anti-male. Not everyone who smiles at female behaviour is anti-female. And it is foolish and divisive to suggest otherwise. As it is to imply that any suggestion that males are imperfect is an attack. What it may well be is a simple recognition that human beings are imperfect, and sometimes laughable, no matter what their sex.

Anomie,
I think you are making up more stories. Male maligners routinely disguise their maligning as humour, but it is noticed that you have not made negative references about the female body. How cowardly.

Perhaps you should just stick with the subject of porn

Timkins, lighten up buddy. I don't think Anomie was attacking anybody and your attack is unlikely to win anybody to your viewpoint.

Human sexuality is such a confused mess at times that having a friendly laugh is probably one of the best things we can do. It's not just teenage boys who get erections at inappropriate times but personally I'd rather deal with that side of the coin than live with the turmoil of body image that so many females seem to have to deal with.

Hopefully Anomie with a sense of humor and a recognition of human nature will be able to help her son through a potentially rough time without adding guilt to the mix.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert,
I would think that porn has become more common, to such an extent that sex in the media has become gratuitous. Each movie now has to have a gratuitous sex scene and a gratuitous car chase scene. Most movies have a gratuitous sex scene half way through, and a gratuitous car chase scene at the end, although this can be reversed, and some movies have gratuitous sex throughout, or gratuitous car chase scenes throughout.

Having gratuitous sex throughout probably constitutes porn, but gratuitous car chase scenes could also be construed as a type of porn. The emphasis would be on gratuitous, and what sells in the market place.

However a more important issue for many males is the fact that they are now guilty until proven innocent, and allegations of sexual misconduct can be made, and it is up to the male to prove those allegations are incorrect.

There are basically no male kindergarten teachers anymore, and many male teachers have left the primary school system, or will not join, because just one allegation of sexual misconduct can ruin them for life. The allegation need not be proven, just made.

I personally know of one man who went to jail for 5 years for sexual assault (or rape), when there was no physical evidence provided. Just her word against his.

I also made a formal complaint about an author in a newspaper, who had written about a personal issue with her 10 yr old son, and her son’s identity was also made known to the public (which is outside of codes of conduct for the APC). However that complaint was dismissed, as the author said the piece was humorous, but if a male had written similar about his daughter, he would be thrown in jail, or thrown out of journalism at least.

Apparently females think about sex and view porn just as much as males. But a male is now guilty until proven innocent, while females are always innocent. So unfortunately, even “humour” about boy’s sexuality can very much harm boys in the current environment

So now I know why my thigh high, nun shined, leather boots were only effective on double decker London buses with a conductor! Dammit! I always thought it was me! Timkins, we all know that boys are susceptible to their turgid, raging hormones at the ripe old age of 13 of thinking unspeakable things, as we mess through the fug of adolescence (girls don't weather so well either). Most of us remember what it was like (I still cringe). But as adults, we can only help them through it. It worries me that porn is so rampant. Getting back to the issue, I think it does have its place, but it doesn't have to be disrespectful, it depends on how the individual looks at it and how they've been brought up to see sex. It's a bit like fast food, don't make a regular diet out of it. Sexuality is supposed to be a healthy part of a human being, if it's degraded or degrading or twisted, then porn buys into that personality. Then we should look at the reasons why porn becomes so twisted to an individual. It can be scary stuff, but there's porn and there's porn. I don't believe in a blanket ban. Or a safari suit for that matter.

Recent posts in this thread remind me of the unfortunate phenomenon to which anomie refers - only in my case single-deckers were equally sources of rampant priapism. I used to travel an hour to and from high school by bus, and many times I had to navigate the aisle with school bag held firmly to the front, or with my shirt 'casually' untucked. Curiously, these rather 'uplifting' experiences were rarely associated with any overtly erotic thoughts, let alone images (I used to try - vainly - to think of anything *but* matters sexual). Mind you, I used to occasionally be somewhat titillated by rare glimpses of the frilly bloomers that private school girls wore back then...

Despite the apparent disbelief of some, I think this is quite a normal (if embarrassing) experience for adolescent boys. My 14 year-old son confirms this and says it's still a source of discomfort and amusement among his mates.

Mind you, a huge difference is that he and I can talk about it. When I was his age there is no way I would have discussed unwanted erections with my old man - or pornography for that matter. Given the advent of the Internet and video, we've had conversations about pornography since he was about 10.

Interestingly, like me, his biggest problem with porn is that it is mostly incredibly boring.

Garra, i think it's a bit of a win that you can discuss the perils of embarrassing adolescence with your son and come to the conclusion together about porn. Which makes me think that most people can grow up with the sex thing happening in a healthy manner which takes the power out of porn - that we are not slaves to it. A healthy attitude and the ability to be able to discuss it without all the stealth and guilt does take the teeth out of it and let young people see it much more realistically. No matter how embarrasing your son finds growing up, isn't it great that he can discuss it with you? And then learn that it's not him, it's just growing up. He sounds like he's going to be quite the well adjusted young man with your influence. Now, how's he going musically hmmm.? Introduced him to Leonard Cohen yet?

Peter,

I think your article was brave and necessary. I am a twenty-five year old woman and it is only after years of trial and error that I have realized the massive dupe that society pushes on both men and women regarding the sexual act - executed with glamorous stylized precision - as realization of an end to loneliness.

I think in today's hyper consumerist society the things we want, such as love, companionship, mutual respect and affirmation of the self are so often stripped down and linked to a product, an instant hit, one that, like the final kiss of a romantic movie...promises to go on for ever.

Pornography represents the high watermark of this kind of stupidity. And it reinforces attitudes in men that an end to feelings of alienation and frustration can be achieved with the click of a button, instant gratification, which of course requires the complete flattening of the other person at the end of that fantasy.

I have male friends who are successful, rampantly promiscuous and then whinge about how unhappy they are in the brief moments of contemplation between distraction. And then they say things like "geez i'd really like to be married or in love." I see female friends hurt again and again in uncommitted relationships with men hoping that if she sleeps with him enought she will "bag him." constant reciprocal damage between the sexes is no way to live. thank you for highlighting this in your article.

Monika,
I take some issue with some of what you are saying, as you seem to be inferring that porn is a “male thing”, (eg “And it reinforces attitudes in men that an end to feelings of alienation and frustration” etc).

However I think that women are now consuming as much, if not more, porn than men, particularly “soft porn”, which is being extensively marketed and sold to women by other women.

In the latest issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, the main feature article is titled “Could it be the new Casual Sex ?”, while Dolly magazine has the latest results of the “Body Image Survey” with “Boob, bums and other random bits.”

Most of this could be regarded as “soft porn”, and the actual journalistic standard is normally about the quality of 10 week old corn flakes. (eg. “Want to know how to wear shorts and heels without looking like a playboy model? Our fashion editor gives you the inside tips.”)

These magazines sell more copies than all other magazines combined, so women are selling soft porn to other women by the truckload.

Quite often the men in these magazines are maligned (i.e. A woman can now say anything she feels like about a male) or they treated as a type of fashion accessory that can be “picked up” and then disposed of on a whim. So this is mass produced porn that is being extensively marketed, and in the process, sex and human relations are being sold as a product and eventually cheapened.

Although it has become connivent to do so, not all social problems can be blamed on them males.

Timkins, I think men get the better end of the deal on that one. Most of the material you talk about appears to be designed to make women feel bad about themselves (with the ever present hope that by buying XYZ they can get closer to the ideal). Rather sad isn't it.

Add to that the kind of stuff that Monica refers to when she says "I think in today's hyper consumerist society the things we want, such as love, companionship, mutual respect and affirmation of the self are so often stripped down and linked to a product, an instant hit, one that, like the final kiss of a romantic movie...promises to go on for ever."

I suspect that most porn (I have not done extensive field studies) does not try an portray itself as representing real life. Porn might come out looking slightly better (scary thought). I'm guessing that most porn users know it is make believe, not sure I can say the same about the average magazine reader?

Robert

Timkins,

Rest assured that my intention was not to malign you or your gender. I don't think that men or to blame, or that women are to blame.

Rather than blame casting between genders I think that we need to take a long hard look at some disturbing trends that are obviously emerging in a society. Why are so many people depressed, alienated, lonely , addicted to shopping/sex/port any other distraction that is fine in moderation but which in recent times seems to be embraced beyond all reason?

I personally find that the kind of articles you describe in Cosmo appalling and dehumanising of men as well. However in my opinion the 'Sex and the City' mentality, or "do-me-feminism" as it has been often called, is a sympton of the same problem of problem of alienation in a mass consumerist society.

The messages that these women's magazines send out are just as destructive as the ones from porn - at least no one is exploited in the making (although some of sarah jessica's outfits would have to be violating some kinda human right to dignity..)

We are talking about women who want love who think that men just want sex. Often these women think, "I am not going to get what I want anyway, so I am going to try and empower myself by acting like a man (or like how I think a man acts)." It is a defence mechanism whereby you deny what you really want so that you are not hurt when you don't wind up getting it.

I don't think these women sleep around and get eating disorders as a rite of passages because they are morons, and I don't think that men are developing an overreliance on sexual instant gratification and port because they are bastards. I think that with the current emphasis on 'the act' something critical has been lost. It is a shame that what has been lost is intimacy..without it most of us can barely function....

Monika,
I would agree with your post. The majority of women’s magazines are now basically disguised porn, with a major emphasis on sex, and the relationships being portrayed or advertised in the articles are short term, hedonistic, and ad hoc type relationships.

It is interesting in a way, because I think women are being conditioned to read it. Whether it is natural for women to read it I am uncertain.

Consider “Marie Claire” magazine, which is actually is for the 30 + woman. The latest issue has the usual diets such as “The Wine, Chocolate, and Cheese Diet”, together with articles on “Hot Sex” and “803 Sexy Looks”.

Previous issues had articles such as “Be Gutsy in Bed”, “Sex, Men and Your Body”, “Angelina Jolie Spills All About Sex, World Poverty and Brad Pitt”, “Four Ways to Face Your Fears and Have Better Sex”, “Secrets to a Sexy Celeb Body”, “Pro Sex Tips”, “On Sex, Power and Getting What You Want”, “Sex with Strangers”, “Extreme Sex Boosters”, “874 Hot Sexy Looks”, “Crazy Sex Tips That Work”, “How Many Orgasms Could You Have in 2 Days” etc, etc, etc.

Sex is by far the most common topic, (not intimacy, family, long term human relationships etc), and basically the magazine is disguised porn, but there are numerous other magazines exactly the same, and women buy enormous number of copies of these magazines.

Again I don’t know if women have an innate desire to read this type of material, or they use it as a type of substitute, or they have become conditioned to reading it, but it has certainly become more popular in time.

I actually worked in a company where the Personnel Relations Officer banned men from reading magazines such as Playboy in the lunch rooms during lunch hour, but she allowed women to read magazines such as Marie Clarie. The women thought it hilarious.

After your post Timkins, the only thing in my head is Paul Simon's '50 Ways to Leave your lover", I'm gonna slip out the back Jack, on this one, it's going nowhere after what Garra said. A healthy mind with great guidance says it all.

Di,
I would think a healthy mind is important, and no matter how porn in the adult world is accepted or excused (eg as art, a substitute, an aberration etc), when there is too much porn in the adult world, it tends to overflow down into the world of children.

If someone mentions porn, then many people would think of dirty old men in raincoats, (or boys on buses), but the most common porn in literature by far is with women’s magazines which sell vast quantities. The adult women’s magazines such as Marie Claire have their “younger sister” brands also, such as Girlfriend, Dolly etc.

My daughter’s grandmother kept buying my daughter TotalGirl magazine (which is targeted at the pre-teen girls). One day I finally got her to actually read what was in the magazine, and she immediately stopped buying it, and I would hardly regard that particular grandmother as having a closed mind

Suffering from insomnia the other night I watched one of those movies that has Peter Sellers place about six parts. It was set in WWII Paris in a brothel and was full of that awful English, post war slap and tickle attitude to sex. It was pornography in which no body parts were seen but a school boy purile attitude to sex was dominant. The beautiful young maid of the brothel earned her stripes by seducing a Japanese general, much to the amusement of all. I guess it was made in the late 50s or early 60 at the beginning of the sexual revolution in which we found ourselves liberated from Puritanism and prudery. The result was awful kitch in which dreadful acts were passed off as amusing. A differnt kind of porn.

I find this a strange article indeed – it actually criticises pornography without suggesting

A How or that it even should be banned

Or

B How it could be improved.

It whines on about the “truth” and suggests “pornography” is some sort of Lie

Sells even says

“The reason we avoid looking at pornography is the same reason we should avoid going to the casino, because we know they represent unreal worlds that are dangerous because they appeal to universal appetites.”

Avoiding or participating in the “temptations” of pornography is the same as the casino – they certainly are – and it is not up to Sells to direct us “libertarians” on our indulgence in either.

Further his responses include “My argument with liberalism is that it takes a stand against any moral position that limits the freedom of the individual as long as nobody gets hurt.”

If no one gets “hurt”– is it any of your business?
What right do you have to criticise the actions of people who hold no fealty to your view or social position?

Sells – FYI I often meet friends for dinner at the casino and never bother to risk a cent on tables or poker machines.

What you might consider “pornographic”, I manage to ingest, by way of both word and image, with modesty and without harm to my psychological well being. (WOW first time I have ever managed to get "pornographic" and "Modesty" into the same sentence)

Having read what you had to say – I find it unimpressive, full of platitudes and devoid of anything of substance or value

Col, pretty much in agreement with you but I am hoping that you have misunderstood Sell's.

Unlike some of his co-faith posters I think Sells does not favor christian rule of law in the land. If I am understanding him he is trying to make us aware of the perils we face in exercising our liberty rather than seeking a change of law.

A legitimate role provided such commentary does not become intrusive (we could have some fun devising warning labels for the covers of pornographic products - excessive use of this product may ?).

I disagree with the accuracy of the findings Sells uses to base his views on. A study over 2000 years old is not a good place to start.

R0bert

Now this is going to offend you, Timkins, but I agree with you. Women's magazines horrify me. The soft porn Sex and the City wannabe stuff is foul. The "Change Your Entire Body to Get a Man" rubbish is worse. But the celeb "Baby Bliss" "Break-up" and "Body Image" triumvirate is virulently pernicious tripe which would be the very first thing I would opt to ban were I (a) in a position to do so, and (b) not inclined to regard censorship on the grounds of taste as the slipperiest of slopes. I trust you don't read Woman's Day, No Idea and the rest of the garbage (and I certainly don't recommend you do so). But the SMH has a feature on "What the Gossip Mags Say" every Wednesday, should you want a taste of what's on offer. It's vile reading, but of a certain macabre anthropological interest. What is published in these scandal-sheets is patronising, cheerfully fictional, and vanishingly petty-minded. And women read it in droves. I look at it and, I fear, occasionally begin to wonder if universal suffrage was such a good idea. Why is there no brain dead equivalent for males which sells in anything like such numbers?

RObert, The bible is hardly a "study 2000years old" it is rather the account of the struggle of one small nation with religion, community, nation, death, suffering etc. It can speak only tangentially on modern subjects of which it had no experience. It is more a map of the human heart than a handbook as is the Quoran. As such it is wonderfully broad as my article on Lot and his daughters makes plain.

Anomie,
I would prefer that the women’s magazines are considerably modified also, particularly those that target younger women and girls. Looking at the web-site of afore mentioned TotalGirl magazine, it has the normal sections on “Gossip” and what is “Hot” etc, and a quiz on “Where do you think Paris should have her dream wedding?”

Who knows how long Paris will be married for (ie one day, one week, one year etc), or whether or not she is getting married as a type of publicity stunt, but I would not regard Paris Hilton as being a particularly good role model for young pre-teen girls. On the whole, the magazine is based on novelty, gimmick, fad, commercialism, suggestive sex, and basically it has no educational or intellectual content. I don’t suppose it could be classified as porn, but it teaches young girls to lead a “stimulus rich, experience poor” lifestyle, and perhaps religions are quite different, and attempt to teach more moderation, and to fully experience different facets of life.

To my knowledge there are no equivalent magazines aimed at younger boys, and men’s adult type magazines such as Playboy normally sell very few copies, and I don’t even know why newsagencies stock them. (ie most don’t even make the top 100 of magazines sold I believe).

There is a difficulty in that those males who have tried to have these female type magazines modified have usually met a brick wall, and I think various religious and family organisations have met with similar results. I believe it is normally inferred that they are trying to deny women freedom of speech.

So basically it is up to women themselves to have that type of literature modified, for the sake of younger women and young girls at least.