From Sean Bruich, Texas prof condemns porn, Jan.26, 2006:

"The charge of pornography is the sexualization of male dominance and female subordination, and that's the appeal to men," Jensen claimed. He then detailed recent trends in pornography tending toward more hostile acts...it's designed to be that way..."

"Cruelty and degradation becomes largely invisible to those who watch it," he said. "[Porn] industry people don't recognize that it's the sexualization of domination and submission. In fact, most men who use it don't recognize it."

...Jensen also argued that for some men, repeated use of porn can blur the line between reality and fantasy.[END]

Where do the girls come from that appear in porn? They could be trafficked minors.An example of the methods traffickers use to ensure their "supply" (one has to ask for what -- prostitution and/or pornography?):

From Gordon Thomas, Captive Market: The sexual slave traffic in children (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas100806.htm)

"Girls who've shown signs of disobedience have had their feet cemented into washbasins before being dumped in the Aegean Sea. Others have been horrifically tortured...The victims do not officially exist and are powerless to resist...."

In 200l, the naked bodies of several girls were found in a river near Arizona Market. They bore the hallmarks of Russian mafia-style killings; hands had been tied behind their backs and their feet set in concrete. Their breasts had been slashed off.

Arizona Market is situated close to the Bosnian headquarters of the US peacekeeping force. During 2002, six Russian soldiers...gang-raped two girls in the Arizona Market. As they were "owned" by the club owner, the soldiers paid him a small sum in compensation. No other charges were brought against the rapists.

Those who survive such inhumane treatment are often sold on the international slave market....

The global traffic in children for commercial sexual exploitation involves torture and their premeditated rape and mutilation....

This terrible human abuse, the prerogative of no one race or colour, continues to occur under all religions, and where there is no religion. The sexual traffic in children is the product of greed and lust....

Boaz

"Pornography feeds lust.
Yabby,erectile function is related to sexual desire and in marraige its not ‘lust’ but passion and love."

personally I can't make such generalisaitions - there have been many cases of husbands raping wives and, as you can see form Robert's link above, many people involved in pornography in a fulfilling way - it is down to the individual, and how confident, mature and sure of themselves they are.

I generally thought most people watched pronography "to relieve" rather than feed their lust - which is why I can understand that it is now being observed that in places where it is freely available, the levels of sexual violence decrease.

Generalisations on such issues never work - the quality and tone of the material watched are also important as well as the nature of each individual involved.

To believe the overtly, "Old Testament Christians" on this thread, any man in Australia who had ever watched a porno is ergo a rapist - just as it seems, research being carried out is beginning to suggest the opposite.

Consent! Consent! Consent! Consent! Consent! Consent!

This seems to be at the real heart of this discussion; funny how things seem to get better between people when the word consent is involved?

Kev.... Thanks.

"it is down to the individual"

I have another term for that "Make_it_up_as_you_go" morality.

I've mentioned it like a thousand times here so I'm sure you know it.

In a way, that's how it is in relation to Christ, which is the answer also to Shmuckies question "What then do we do with the unconverted...those who don't agree with or want to follow Christ...do we force them" ?

Its the same answer. "Its up to you" There is no room for 'forced' conversions in Christ. Such a 'conversion' would not be genuine and thus pointless except for political purposes.

Consent in regard to Porn actors is meaningless, because thieves consent to rob places. The foundation is 'what is moral and immoral' ? It matters not that the participants enjoy what they do, get paid good money or whatever.

The alleged link between a reduction in sexual crime and the consumption of pornography has already been well debunked in various posts.
Is it not obvious that looking at images will, like a 'hit' of a drug, only last so long ? Isn't it obvious that familiarity breeds contempt, and consumers of Porn will always be looking for that more 'edgy' stuff ? which shows more, for longer..etc etc...or the real thing ?

To me, blind Nellie can see it.

Ask this. Is the Porn industry seeking to 'loosen' or 'tighten' the ratings of xx and xxx videos ? If they seek to 'loosen' -why ?
Why is there pressure to lower ages of consent ? Why ? What implications would that have for the Porn industry ?

The tragedy is, that it builds bad brain chemistry. It makes neuronic connections between areas which should not be connected. (yes, I just got my Neuroscience degree :) (not)
It reduces our abiilty to love purely. It detracts from the richness of what it is to be human. It destroys Gods image in us.

Lets contemplate great romances rather than porn. Try the story of Jacob's love for Rachel and BOAZ' love for Ruth or Joseph's love for Mary as starters.

Thanks Boaz - but as usual - the religious believe they have all the answers - they KNOW so they TELL, dismissing anything that other humans may discover - especially if those discoveries do not confirm or conform to the world veiw of the religious.

The religious will say anything to get their way - including lying about information directly underneath their noses. In the case of Old Testament Christian leaders like Bush and Blair for example, this could mean lying about WMDs etc...

Still, as we already know, all that eye for an eye in the Old Testament means such people are now blind, being lead by and leading other blind people.

Hi wavingcat,

After reading the statistical paper that is the basis of D'Amato's and therefore McConvill's assertions, I can tell you that there is not very much truth in them, to say the very least. The relevant paper is here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf

It says the following, specifically of the rape statistic:

"This finding should be regarded with extreme caution."

It continues:

"Before the redesign in 1992 the survey did not ask respondents whether they had been victims of sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape. Some victims of these crimes may have reported such victimizations in response to questions about rape or other forms of violence. It is not possible to determine to what extent crimes now categorized as sexual assaults were included in the data as rape or attempted rape in earlier years. To the extent that this occurred, estimates of rape prior to the redesign would not be comparable to those since the redesign."

That is, the correlation alleged by D'Amato is a statistical artifact due to the overhaul of the survey instrument in 1992, which coincided with the earliest dawning of the public internet access era; and its own promulgators stated that the basis of this artifact should be treated with extreme caution.

Given the extent to which McConvill's piece has lured forum contributors to get stuck into each other, he must be well pleased: it's produced the sort of engagement that online trolls normally generate, which might well have been his actual intention (see http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=1238).

In future I'd suggest that McConvill's contributions be lumped where they belong: as less readable rejects from the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman school of intended controversy, with a loopy sexual bent added for extra zing. Sadly, I think McConvill would be chuffed to be seen that way (as do Bolt and Akerman, sans sex); attention is oxygen for these guys.

From "Prostitution: what is it really like..." (www.communitycare.co.uk) Sept.27, 2006 post

...Most punters [customers of prostitutes] don't care about you. As a prostitute you don't exist, you are just a shell. You're not a person, you're an object, a sex object.

Men like the power they have over prostitutes. That's why the girls get raped. They drive you out to the middle of nowhere and rape you, just because they can. I was held for over six hours once.

Nothing is done when women are raped, especially working girls...Three of my best friends have been killed while working as prostitutes. [END]

Any social science surveys done of the rate of rapes of prostitutes (who don't count, and presumably, aren't counted)?

If someone doesn't count, then their injuries don't count, and the latter aren't registered in "reality" as "true" injuries. How convenient. No one cares about the injuries to a prostitute. So, then, how does one count the rate of rapes?

Plato (non-Christian) counted males as of the Mind, and females of the Body. The mind was the way to heaven, the body, to an endless circle of reincarnation (those more fully of the flesh being, as a category, unspiritual) [from "Timaeus"]. Part of Plato's legacy to modern man is this presumably "non-religious," "neutral," or "secular" distinction between males and females, minds and bodies, spirit and flesh which continues to this day.

Prostitutes are condemned at the outset because they are categorized (because we are all to some degree in thrall or enslaved to Plato's distinction) as "flesh," and therefore they don't count. Their injuries don't count. Therefore,I presume that D'Amato doesn't count raped prostitutes. Prostitutes, as naturally unspiritual, can't be raped, and if they are, it is not to be prosecuted, again -- because they don't count. D'Amato, I presume, does not count them.

Should we give Plato/D'Amato the unilateral right to decide whose injuries are to be counted, and whose not? Now that is true mind control.