Once it was "dare we write?" now its "what shall we write?" and the saps at Online Opinion will spew it up on the site. To choose this article implies the rejection of another. I agree, this is an all time low for OLO.

"Theorists of public morality—from the ancient Greek philosophers and Roman jurists on—have noticed that apparently private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests.

Even in defending what he believes is a moral right to pornography, Ronald Dworkin has identified the public nature of the interests damaged in communities in which pornography becomes freely available and widely circulates. Legal recognition of the right to pornography would:

“sharply limit the ability of individuals consciously and reflectively to influence the conditions of their own and their children’s development. It would limit their ability to bring about the cultural structure they think best, a structure in which sexual experience generally has dignity and beauty, without which their own and their families’ sexual experience are likely to have these qualities in less degree.”

It is in a special way a matter of justice to children. Parents’ efforts to bring up their children as respecters of themselves and others will be helped or hindered—perhaps profoundly—by the cultural structure in which children are reared. Whether children themselves ever get a glimpse of pornographic images in childhood is a side issue. A decent social milieu cannot be established or maintained simply by shielding children from such images. It is the attitudes, habits, dispositions, imagination, ideology, values, and choices shaped by a culture in which pornography flourishes that will, in the end, deprive many children of what can without logical or moral strain be characterized as their right to a healthy sexuality.

We know that a more-or-less unbridled culture of pornography can result in a sexualisation of children which robs them of their innocence and even places them in jeopardy of sexual exploitation by adults. Can anyone honestly deny that we have ourselves witnessed a shameful sexualisation of children in our own culture?"

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/opinion/george.html

Religious zealots and feminists share a creepy obsession with sex and for both sex is a tool to control others.

Erotica has been enjoyed by men and women since time began. There are plenty of examples available from the ancient world, for example Hindu depictions of sex. There are plenty of nudes and with over-emphasised genitals in Aboriginal rock drawings. Should the offending bits be covered?

Anyone ever stopped to wonder why feminists and priests have far dirtier minds than the rest of us?

Runner, I wasn't advocating an "everything goes" approach at all. I was merely making the point, that your link between pornography and sexual assault is dubious. Hamlet pointed out the basic logic there quite nicely.

The message I was putting across, was its easy to pick a minority (i.e. sex offenders) then group them in a majority (i.e. people who watch porn) and draw a link between the two. Although it would be illogical, I could just as simply link sex crime to consumption of certain kinds of food or even an interest in certain kinds of sports. It's based on the same fallacy.

The reason for my 'duh' approach, was that sex offenders are going to have an aggressive sex drive. Of course they will watch porn.

Plenty of people who watch porn don't have this aggression. And removing porn, won't get rid of paedophiles. It will just make them more curious.

TRTL,

I didn't say:"you've been told these stores stock pornography". Of course they would. Do you think that a few toys would cover the market?

I said:"I have been told that almost all sales at those places are pornography". This was just to suggest that irony might be involved if the study about couples was correct due to the advertising suggesting that they will spice up rather than turn off couple's sex life.

"These statements are a tad telling - are you perhaps ashamed of open sexuality? You argue against his using one study, then do the exact same thing."

The "study" was nonsense. That is what I was arguing. There is no basis for arguing that a correlation in the circumstances is a causation. As the subject matter is rape, known to be about power rather than sex, alarm bells should ring in anyone's mind.

I referred to another study which I have not analysed just for an off hand comment about advertising. It may not be correct but don't use the comment to analyse me or get otherwise sidetracked. The essential thing I wanted to point out is that we know that rape is about power not sex and then there is an attempt to claim that porn brings down rape using dodgy statistics. That is ridiculous.

"The message I was putting across, ...Although it would be illogical, I could just as simply link sex crime to ... It's based on the same fallacy."

What goes around comes around huh?

"I disagree with McConvill in most instances, but I'd agree with most of what he says here.."

The basis of his argument is that porn reduces rape. Are you saying that you agree?

Ahh, nice reply mjpb.

In actual fact, I don't think pornography increases or decreases rape. I think rapists are rapists, and whether they rape or not is a decision made by them with little regard to what they've watched. I would find it just as easy to believe that watching some porn relieves tension that could otherwise manifest in various ways, as I could that watching porn influences people to undertake violent acts.
Both are just as plausible, and I can't say I know the figures.
I'm somewhat dubious on McConville's statistics in general, though basically, when I say I agree, I'm just glad to see a right winger expressing a "live and let live" kind of argument.

Essentially, my argument is - it's porn. Live and let live. If it isn't your thing, well, deal with it rather than trying to tell others what not to watch.

Besides, you'll never destroy porn, people have been watching naked bodies for thousands of years. In this age of digital communication, it simply won't work.

(P.S. mjpb, I still think your earlier post indicated a certain level of hesitancy to approach pornographic issues - this may not be the case, but it was an underlying suggestion in the language of the post - "I stumbled across," "I have been told,"

This may not be the case, but I don't think it's an unreasonable inference to draw from that particular post

Thanks for your most recent reply,

"In actual fact, I don't think pornography increases or decreases rape. I think rapists are rapists, and whether they rape or not is a decision made by them with little regard to what they've watched."

I expect that you are correct. It reminds me of an anecdote I heard from a psychologist.
Picture a rapist making excuses)
Rapist: I couldn't control the irresistable impulses.
Psych: Not even when you knew that it would traumatise the lady?
Rapist: No they were too strong.
Psych: So if the focus had been on your welfare not hers you would have done the same?
Rapist: ?
Psych: If a police officer was standing there you would have raped anyway?
Rapist: (No answer)

"I'm somewhat dubious on McConville's statistics in general, though basically, when I say I agree, I'm just glad to see a right winger expressing a "live and let live" kind of argument."

I am on the other hand quite focussed on how he grabbed onto something totally implausible and apparently used it as the basis for his argument. His live and let live seemed to be hanging off the end after being apparently satisfied that a power crime is genuinely wiped away by perusing porn.

"Essentially, my argument is ..."

As I said that didn't seem to be the argument of the article. It seemed to want to rely upon a dodgy claim.

"P.S. mjpb, ..."

Are you a psychologist? You seem to take a definite interest in human behaviour. I am definitely avoiding a discussion of the substantive issue that flows as I don't want to get bogged down in any more online debates. I am taking up too much time with online discussions already.