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)