Many children and adults watching this x-rated porn start to think that this behavior is normal, and that this is an acceptable way of treating females. Ok, not every man will go as far as offending in ways such as rape or pedophilia but to have this abnormal view or what sex is all about in your head, and think that it is normal will not benefit anyone - and especially not the females who will be the object of these views.

Its a bit like what would happen if the only thing that many in the middle east saw about the US was the Jerry Springer show, and took this to be their "normal" image of the US. You can't get a rounded view from extreme content. Its just not balanced.

We shouldn't allow the proliferation of pornography which distorts the views of many in society and gives them the totally wrong idea about sex, totally removed from love.

If a naked woman/man or a picture of a naked woman/man or some one mentioning naked women/men "makes" you objectify women/men or "makes" you commit the vulgar statutory crimes of rape or incest then Your problem is not porn. Your problem is that your mental maturation has been stunted or diseased by other factors greater than any picture or language could ever suggest to promote anyone "doing what the pictures told them".

Though I must confess my mower gets up to some quite nasty language. If I'm ever caught indiscriminately launching 80mike mortars from my yard at my neighbours I'll try it out on the Judge. The mower made me do it. I'm sure I'll be heard out.

Check, check, check. Jerry, pull the high end out will ya. I'm still getting some hiss back here.

“A toxic trifecta of drugs, alcohol and pornography is fuelling a culture of violence against women and children. “

Add a fourth – social welfare payments. – if some folk had to actually “earn” a living, instead of receiving handouts, they might have less free-time in which to drink, abuse their children and other family members (as well as themselves if they are deploying pornography in the most usual manner).

As for “We need to address the harm caused by pornography everywhere.”

Alcoholics cannot handle alcohol but plenty of folk, myself included, enjoy alcohol in moderation and without any detrimental impact.

Millions of folk buy petrol every week not to sniff.

Now we get to the point of the “Wowser Tankard” diatribe

“But pornography feeds and legitimises violence against women and children of all backgrounds. Some have argued that pornography is as harmful to women as racist material is to the people it targets. The proliferation of pornography leads to increases in sexual violence against all women.”

Wrong!

The argument that pornography actually satiates some desires and therefore contributes to a reduction of abuse could equally be made.

In my time I have been exposed to some very erotic and some “baser” presentations of pornography.
Like millions of other men, I am not driven to act out my sexual fantasies based on that exposure.

Turning a liberal society into some sort of anti-porn police state is no answer, anymore than prohibition stopped the operation of speak-easys in USA in 1920’s.

That some individuals (apparently of an indigenous origin) cannot deal with naked pictures of women is no reason to ban all men from viewing pictures of naked women, anymore than the existence of petrol sniffers is a reason to make “opal” (anti-sniffing petrol) the only thing to be pumped out of any bowser in Australia.

No one is forced to read porn, so lets respect grown-ups sufficiently to make their own choiceson the matter of pornography.

MaryW "Up to a third of child sex offenders said they had viewed pornography prior to offending."

What did the other 2/3 view?

While watching the re-runs of the Benny Hill show an older relative noted that 30+ years ago the series was denounced as smut. They were days when everything closed on Sunday and boys lived in fear of the regular thrashings at school. Those were days when boys took risks and had schoolyard fights that were supposed to make men of them. Apparently, girls were relegated to the kitchen to peel potatoes and be 'nice'. Great days for those who believed that their leaders knew what was best for them and information flow was restricted to 'never you mind'.

Am I right in assuming that many of those who worry-wort about what other adults watch are keen to return to those days?

My concern about the article is that it is opportunist and hijacks the debate about child abuse and neglect. Fact is, over decades there have been numerous summits on child abuse and neglect with all levels of government and peak agencies involved but where are the practical results?

It is time that the implementation of such initiatives was properly audited because although much paper has been produced by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the original problems have increased dramatically, not diminished. Maybe there are too many people meeting, administering, liaising, coordinating and publicising and there are too few people actually at the sharp end achieving results. Maybe what government does best is bury problems under tonnes of glossy brochures.

We really should insist that any approval of government funds is accompanied by a simple English statement of goals and measures of attainment (of those goals). Sunset clauses would also help.

It is astounding how politicians and bureaucrats can avoid accountability. In the case of child abuse and neglect they are all shrugging their shoulders as though they had never encountered the problem before.

So dear author, what about a some hard words and suggestions to 'keep the B's honest' this time around. Arguably child abuse and neglect are more worthwhile targets than Benny Hill and those dirty women's and men's magazines.

I am hardly surprised that many hear have decided to present opinion without knowledge.

- M. Whitehouse. "Up to a third of child sex offenders said they had viewed pornography prior to offending." Even if your statistic is true (which it probably isn't), would you care to think about it? You have just said that 2/3rds of those who commit child sex offenses *don't* view erotic material. You have just implied that viewing such material *reduces* the probability of CSA.

Further you claim "[r]ape and porn may have always existed but never in my face before like it is today". Perhaps you should avail yourself of an education in history. You can start with the first link below.

- Runner. I am impressed by your ability to make assertions without evidence. You claim that "[P]ornography is about selfishness, violence and manipulation", and undoubtably some is - and much is not. You appear to be extremely unfamiliar with the genre. The fact however that you have generalised to an absolute level indicates the limitations to your reasoning. I challenge you to raise a genuinely moral reason why people of their own free will cannot perform sexual acts in front of a camera.

You may also note I didn't not write that you would not want your daughter marrying a black man or a Jew, just that your attitude is similar. The fact that you would be "heartbroken" if she reveals herself to be a lesbian, proves this. I suggest to you that if you do not love a person who engages in whatever choices they desire, of their own violition and reason, then your love is quite truncuated, incomplete and indeed quite false.

Once again, I reiterate that the clear link is that sexual violence and pornography have an *inverse* correlation.

The following are recent peer reviewed publications which I suppose many wish were untrue. But facts, as always, remain stubborn.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

For those who are genuinely interested in learning, or have their assumptions challenged, I recommend these papers for their procedural exactness, empirical range and scholarly approach.

Lev, I've not read all the way through the Japanese study but the other two were very interesting. At least we know one source for a positive correlation between pornography and sexual violence - Reagan's political rather than scientific commission.

I can't imagine such evidence will have much impact on religious extremists though. They are quite happily able to ignore the correlations between good sex education and a lowering of the rates of unwanted pregnancies so a correlation between access to porn and a lowering of reported rape cases is hardly likely to phase them. At least one of those pushing the porn causes rape line also thinks creation has a better scientific basis than evolution - go figure.

R0bert