Boaz tells us:

>>[Pornography] 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.<<

Boaz, you fail to mention David's love for Jonathan. Any particular reason?

I don't believe anyone's opinion of pornography will be altered by the submissions here. Perhaps both sides have agendas they would rather we didn't know about.

My own view (and, as the old saying goes, I don't even own a pornograph) is that pornography comes in many shapes and sizes. And while the anti-pornographers use the most horrific examples to support their case, the pro-pornography folks consider only the mildest and least degrading bits in establishing their position.

This leads to a situation where neither side actually hears the other.

The antis case is like suggesting, having seen Formula One cars belting round a track at 300kph, driving cars should be banned.

This can be “proven” by reference to the Boaz effect:

>>Of course, when the industry has gone as far as the law allows, it will seek to either go underground or change the law so it can:
-Show more
-Show for longer
-Show other combinations (human/animal action, defacating, Urinating etc, Multiple penetrations)<<

So, once you have driven at 60kph, you are going to want to drive at 70... then 80... heavens, where will it end? In Boaz logic, pottering off to the shops in the Honda Civic is just the beginning of a horrible slippery slope.

But of course, if we were actually to be faced with a bunch of Schumachers driving Ferraris every time we crossed the road - hey, who can argue that it is not dangerous?

Opinions are useful when they can be heard. In this particular case, I don't believe that the opinionators are listening even to their own arguments.

Amitarian... you have a point there about McConville.

As I've often heard said "Any" publicity is good publicity.
Still, I forgot McConvilles connection with the topic quite early, and see it as an opportunity to explore a serious aspect of social life with other posters.

Pericles...

Some holes in your logic there. People don't normally drive cars for a 'rush' they just want to get from A to B. Granted, there is a period in most young mens lives when to go faster and to get to that speed more quickly is a rush,.. been there, done that and its just like my description of Porn. You have a standard car, want it to go faster, so, shave the head, port and polish, but you still want more so... extractors, fuel injection, ..close but not quite there.. so...Turbo charger.... then you find your out of money and are 32 and single. So.. u wake up and shape up.. or become an alcholic.
Ok.. a bit graphic but relevant to a degree.

David and Johnathan ? good grief, you have been reading too many gay articles. Why does it surprise you that a man can love a man very deeply, in a non sexual way ? I'd be pretty appreciative of the care of a Johnathon if his father was trying to kill me too.

My reasoning about Porn, is treating it as an addiction. The Purveyors of Porn have a financial interest in maintaining the 'rush' factor. Like any addiction or shallow life experience, the novelty wears off. I don't know why you question this widely accepted fact of psychology ?

KEVIN.. didn't mean to sound like a know_it_all .. I think my arguments are sustainable quite apart from reference to religion.
You know me by now, I will always point to Christ as He who gives our lives their true meaning and restores our full humanity.
Jesus words "If any man looks at a woman with lust.. he has committed adultery" do not mean we are to lack sexual desire, but that it should be rightly directed.

Pericles, good points but I'm seeing the debate a bit differently. I've not noticed support for the extreme versions portraying rape or other non consentual sexual activities. What we do have is some people seeking to ban the whole thing because of the extreme version. I'm seeing much of the other commentary as attempts to rebutt the dishonesty of that portrayal rather than a denial of the existance of that material.

Your rebuttal of BD's points are valid, and as BD points out people often grow out of youthfull obsessions as they age. Others don't but maybe learn more about consequences and moderate behaviours. If David does not like the story you mentioned he could look to the biblical love story of Amnon and Tamar or that of David and Bathsheba.

R0bert

On Perth TV News this evening there was an account of a professional survey of Australians' attitude to, and the nationwide availability of X rated videos/DVDs. This survey was recently commissioned by the so-called adult industry, but this should not, in itself, bring the findings into doubt.

Not offended by X rated videos/DVDs 70%

Think they should be legally available all over Australia 76%

A spokesperson for the relatively tiny religious extremist lobby group Australian Family Association said that such material is offensive to women and that the survey must have questioned a disproportionate number of men to get such a result.

When you think about it, many surveys over many years have repeatedly shown that a similar proportion of Australians would like to see voluntary euthanasia legalised. Well, successive Australian governments have ignored the wishes of most Australians in this respect and instead have followed the demands of the minority religious extremists. So, in this dishonest parody of a so-called democracy, what can we expect will be the likely outcome of the current X rated material survey?

Democracy has nothing to do with going with the majority opinion. It has to do with moderating majority force in order to protect the existence of minoritys/minority opinion -- to provide public space for the existence of more than a monochromatic population.

The result of a true democratic republic is peaceful coexistence which requires the rule of law. The latter is designed to minimize violence between groups, so that all groups can live lives of fulfillment. A majority vote in a gang or criminal enterprise is not evidence of a democracy as the outcome of the vote is likely violence/destruction of non-gang/enterprise members.

That pornography does violence to those depicted is a reality. That a majority of Australians are for pornography does not change the harm. It just says that a majority of Australians don't mind the harm committed.

The scope, nature and persistence of the harm should be investigated by bona fide social scientists, not by people like D'Amato. Such an investigation of the facts, before any conclusions are reached, would be more akin to a true scientific investigation based on reality.

If it is then found to be scientifically true that pornography requires extensive violence to the depicted, then the extreme position would be the one that insists that the damage continue.

From Kevin Doyle, "Cambodia's Child Sex Crackdown" Oct.5, 2006:

...At Henning's apartment, tucked away in a leafy neighborhood favored by foreign aid workers...Keo Thea sifted through the country's largest ever haul of hardcore child pornography. Amongst the bondage gear, handcuffs, whips... [deputy police chief] Keo Thea's unit found soft cuddly children's toys. There was also video and photographic cameras, and l8 videotapes, each one hour long, depicting the S&M-style rape and torture of young local children by the tall, gaunt 62-year old and another German, Thomas Englehardt,42....

"I am sending a message to pedophiles to not come here. I promise you,
you will be arrested and sent to jail in Cambodia or you will be extradited and jailed in your own country," he [Keo Thea] said.

Hawaiilawyer, why do you continue to portray what is probably an extreme fringe of pornography as though it were the whole? Are you incapable of recognising that almost everything comes in differing shades?

Child pornograpy is evil because it cannot involve informed consent by the child. That does not make all pornography child porn nor does it make all porn violent nor does it mean that all porn depicts women as victims nor does it mean that all porn does violence to those portrayed in it. Simple concept, why do you have so much trouble with it?

You continue to clutter up what could be a useful discussion with your dishonest representation of the issue. Who do you think you are going to help by so conspicuously misrepresenting what anyone with the willingness to check can disprove.

You are much more likely to influence opinions if you deal with the issue honestly and focus your wrath on the particular section of porn that does harm those portrayed. Child porn is something which we should be working to stop, any recreation involving violence which has not been consented to by participants should be stopped. It seems as though you do have detailed knowledge of the harm done by a section of the porn industry, stuff that most of us can learn from you about if you'll just try and be a bit more balanced in your posts.

There is some common ground there which most of us can probably agree on but it is hard to get there while you continue to insist on a massive misrepresentation of what is happening.

R0bert