"For most of human existence, humans have been brutish, violent, and interested in harming other members of their race. Does that commend the continuance of harm?"

Well thats where you in the US have to ask yourself some hard
questions, for IMHO your society in general, comes
across as one that promotes violence. Look at the US gun culture,
violence portrayed as heroic in US tv and films etc, etc. Even
the US army and prez, wanting to dominate the planet.

Mixing US violent culture with porn might well be a problem, but
when it comes to porn, I had an interesting experience some years ago.
I visited Holland on a trip and went into one of their
sex shops and got talking to one of the staff. The place was packed,
but mainly by tourists from countries where porn is not available
or banned. For the Dutch, as for the Danish etc, its all just a
big yawn basically.

The US is the most most religious Western country, so perhaps
the problem is linked to that puritanical mindframe mixed with
the promotion of violence, as being the real problem. Look
how worked up the Americans got over Clinton's fling, in Europe
that would hardly have been an issue.

For those of us who see sex as something fairly normal and natural,
porn was fun when seen for the first time in our teens, after that
we moved on. But for those who get off on it, ok, no big deal,
as I always say, "whatever gets you through the night" :)

David Boaz,

You say "without divinely revealed truth, right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and usually simply become 'Legal and Illegal.'"

So which divinely revealed truth are 'we' all to follow.. yours?, the Pope's, the Mad Mullah's of Tehran?

No, the truth is that people in western countries have to act without divinely revealed truth, because all the divinely revealed truth that's out there is full of contradiction and disagreement.

The truth is that secular morality is more reliable and consistent than faith based morality. Why, because it is based on philosophy and debate. Not some magical directive from on high.

Do you really believe we should all throw out our mags, our dvds and stop browsing the internet merely because you, divinely inspired though you say you are, say so.

Isn't that a slippery slope toward everyone converting to whatever religios group shouts the loudest?

Kalweb - i'm sure everyone sympathises with what happened to you but please don't make such ridiculous statements:

"The bottom line is - if you have not been bashed ++++ and raped ++ as I was (by two men who dragged me off the street behind a church), I say that you do not have a clue. "

I have never had an abortion but enjoy having an opinion on the subject.

I also haven't (yet) considered euthanasia but have strong view concerning the subject.

So please remove yourself from the moral high ground you are currently occupying due to this elitist victim mentality and join in the discussion where all opinions are valid regardless of life experience.

i think its is a shame that rape is linked to pornography, and kalweb unless these people where caught and they had a stick book in their back pocket or you found during trial they where sexual perversive and influenced to rape by pornography, whilst i sympathise with your experience i think your link may not be founded.

Rape occurred long before pornography did. So how can we say this is a cause?

Mr Madden,

If you were actually to examine the false props to Mr McConvill's article (the D'Amato sheet and the single ABS statistic) you would see that they simply do not support his arguments for facilitating greater access to pornography in the public space.

One needn't be a feminist or a 'person of faith' to find Mr McConvill's argument without merit; writing as one who is neither, it's exceptionally poor and unsupported on its own terms.

It seems clear that private access to nondenigratory, nonviolent pornography, as a private custom, is no longer unacceptable, however damaging it might be to the people employed to produce it, who seem to have poor prospects, little education, low self-esteem and often addiction problems too. But as you responded in an earlier post, such employment is evidently useful to the individual as a short-term means to funding their addiction. I'd suggest that most people would think that that is a sad fact, although that didn't seem to shine through your earlier contribution.

But the point at issue seems to be the one you dismissed; that of new delivery systems. Mr McConvill's argument sought to go beyond the de facto private access moral that I mentioned above, by promoting pornography as a beneficial phenomenon and the idea that public space access to pornography might be a good thing, on the unsubstantiated premise that it might lessen frequency of rape.

I hope that you can see that Mr McConvill's assertion is itself a proposition about morals, and moreover, one that you haven't take the slightest issue with. If you think that it is a supportable proposition, why do you not support it? If you do not, why do you bother to denigrate other contributors to this forum?

amitarian

I did say "Your assertion that prostitution leads to heroin is just as misguided as saying porn reduces the incidence of rape."

I do not agree with the basic logic of the article.

"It seems clear that private access to nondenigratory, nonviolent pornography, as a private custom, is no longer unacceptable" says who?

"If you do not, why do you bother to denigrate other contributors to this forum? "

Cause I do not suffer fools lightly, I do not have long to live so I gave up being "nice" to people, I tell it how I see it - sometimes to provoke a response, sometimes because the poster is a dill.

Do I put you down as a fool or a dill?