Nayeefa,

You need to go back to school. If the prevaling sexual assault rate is 0.6% and it reduces to 0.3% that is a 50% reduction as per the article. The group in question was over 18s. For Australia that would be in the order of 15,000,000 people. This means the number of victims over the given period has fallen from 90,000 to 45,000. Hardly an insignificant reduction.

Of course, whether this reduction can be attributed to increased access to internet porn is debatable, but the onus of proving internet smut is harmful surely lies with those who wish to restrict the people's rights through censorship. As it stands, there is more evidence to the contrary.

Freedom of expression, like the internet, is a mixed bag. Yes you get to say and publish what you like, but with that right, you also have to hear and see that which offends. It is fundamental to democracy that if citizens wish the former right, they must endure the later duty.

Spoil sport!
You would deny the Church the power of sexual guilt and deprive politicians of an issue? One sure to command much support and give a superior glow to the speaker, though the majority view may in fact be with those who are silent.

The Church and law says the body naked is obscene and the former that lust alone is a sin of hell. Copulation seen-blindness or am I out of date?

Read the early Church dogma the range of sinful sexual thoughts and acts. Condoms when HIV ? Acts in general, only some parts to be touched others in terms of genetic or legal relationship and find yourself lucky to be just castigated or prevented from watching sexual congress. see Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven By Uta Ranke Heineman 1990 ISBN 0 385 26527 1

Except race horses (and other animals of course), though these days one indulges in AI for value. The outcome could be $ Anyway animal passions are natural and our avoidance of them sets humans apart as God’s vessel.

Granted some legal restraints are needed for personal protection including from patriearchy and responsibility for any issue but beyond that?

Much of what offends is by custom. Much praised by those who would induce fear and grant themselves power.
I understand sex education is about the biology not the pleasure including looking and may still leave a child with crippling emotional trauma. Still unable to fully participate in sexual union.

No masturbation and madness are not causal but hell and sex is.
Studies galore but all read with the implanted sexual distaste that is our heritage.

This is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read. Ted Bundy serial rapist and murderer said before being put to death that he had not met one fellow sex offender who was not into pornography. Anyone with any contact with sexual offenders in prison will confirm that the offenders are almost all involved in pornography. Many of the outlying aboriginal communities receive mail orders from ACT of x rated pornography. To find a young indigneous girl in prison who has not been abused is almost impossible.

If the author and others want to gratify their sexual appetites on pornography so be it but to try and come up with statistics showing porn up and rape down is laughable. I have no doubt that porn up, child molestation up, pack rape up and every other gross crime you could think of. A far percentage of children and adults act out what they watch.

Tell the woman whose 12 year old raped a 3 year old that pornography is harmless. After finding out that this boy was not a victim of abuse but simply had acted out what he had watched.

It might ease the conscience of some by coming up with suspect stats but anyone honest knows that lust isn't satisfied by pornography. It just creates a desire for more lust. People desire something a bit more perverted than the last time.

For me the more pornography can be kept from the public the safer our daughters and wives from predators. It seems ironic that womens groups are happy to have themselves portrayed as porn stars created to please the appetites of men.

Oh, come on Runner. You say that bundy mentioned he hadn't met one sex offender who wasn't interested in pornography.

I say, well duh.

I haven't met one obese person, who didn't like food.
Should we ban food?

I haven't met one serial hacker, who didn't know how to use a computer.
Should we ban computers?

I haven't met one bomber who didn't know how to light a fire.
Should we ban matches?

I haven't met one morphine addict, who'd never used morphine.
Should we ban painkillers?

I haven't met one masochist, who didn't know how to use painful items.
Should we ban knives?

I haven't met one obsessed fan of violent television, who hasn't watched television.
Should we ban television?

I could go on all day. I trust I've made my point.
It's these kind of arguments that really irritate me.

Ho hum... pornography. Mostly boring really.
But what adults look at in private in really their own business. I'm not convinced that it either reduces the rate of sexual assault or increases it. Banning it would drive it underground.

I suspect people who commit sexual assaults are more into power and humiliating their victims than sexual gratification. They might use violent pornography (and I personally think there is no place for violent pornography - I draw the line at that - though maybe it means I have double standards) but I don't think it creates them.

Occasionally you hear of reports where bullies try to intimidate others by showing them porn, knowing that they would be upset and undermined by it. They are simply bullies and would find another way to harass their victims if porn wasn't available. It's the individual at play using what is available as a tool. It doesn't cause the bullying.

I take it TurnRightThenLeft that with your arguement everything goes. Why not supply pornography for the paedophile in prison. I thought it was obvious that someone eating themselves to death is a little different from a pervert who feeds on pornography and then rapes a little boy or girl. I thought it was obvious that we don't need to ban TV but we do need to ban sexual acts with animals on TV. I thought it was obvious that though we can't ban matches we can do all we can to stop idiots blowing up innocent people. Maybe if it is your wife/sister or kid that is attacked by one of the sickos who has fed off pornography u might find it less needful to defend the indefencible.