Great piece, Can't wait for for the religous right to post...Not.

Wow. What an excellent piece - a rousing challenge to a lot of fixed assumptions. It's totally made me think. Top work.

I am sure Sarah's children are going to be very proud of their mum when they read this article. She could start training them now to be porn stars as their is obviously nothing wrong with it in her eyes. Of course no mention of the sexual abuse of children as a result of porn which is so clearly demonstrated in the indigenous communities. Do you work for the 'adult' industry on the side?

That's a pretty stupid rhetorical last question, runner... try reading their blog instead of spouting ridiculous assumptions, statements and innuendo.

runner,

Why do you assume that people cannot be proud, or at least neutral, of being an advocate for the adult industry? Is it because you think that sex is 'dirty' or something? Are you still freaked out by the concept that your parents had sex, at least once?

It's quite simple runner, if you don't like looking at people doing the wild thing in front of a camera DON'T WATCH IT. Problem solved.

This aside, the article was a decent piece of work by a person who clearly knows that human tastes are variable and has actually bothered to do a modicum of research on the topic. Congratulations.

good article...and if such a young person can apply such reasoning mind to a biased manipulative article by horin and show its glaring failures by identifying where the 'reasonable ordinary person' mark should be...why does the editor of a large reliant newspaper publishes this article without fear of public/legal reaction...

I would like to add that sex presents as one part of activities with pleasure/relationship/procreation...and these groups are not mutually exclusive...and I agree that each group is so broad in personal preference that criticizing one aspect is obviously stupid...unless...makes me wonder about horin's sexual activities...

And as a male I already struggle with the 'pleasure' section...if only I can achieve those core muscles and abdominal strength to go like a stallion long after female has ejaculated while holding on to mine...sigh...

Sam

I'm not going to comment on the subject matter, other than to point out the irony of the repeated use of terms like 'no one religion' and 'a broad church' to describe p*rnography...

Lev

you ask 'Why do you assume that people cannot be proud, or at least neutral, of being an advocate for the adult industry? Is it because you think that sex is 'dirty' or something? Are you still freaked out by the concept that your parents had sex, at least once?'

The obvious fruit of the pervert industry is relationship breakdown, unfaithfulness and child molestation. The gift of sex within marriage has the opposite fruits to those listed above. I find it interesting that those wanting to promote the pervert industry are often offended when asked if they would be happy for their daughters to perform sex for the public. Any legitimisation of this money making industry should be given the scorn it deserves. To try and pretend it somehow is good for society is an absolute joke. The champions of this industry are the first to shout when boys and girls are viewed as sex objects. Total hypocrisy!

Fantastic.

Hate to be boring, but I sense objection to porn from this writer is a 'feminist' issue, rather than a puritanical one.

If you look at porn as a maturbation aide, then why is all great and liberating for women to use vibrators that can vibrate faster than any mans fingers or toungue, and massive dildos, but somehow a man is responsible for a woman's feelings of inadequacy when it comes to viewing porn.

Whitty, sorry, you've lost me. Which writer are you referring to?

Yeah I realised that wasn't clear but there is no facility to edit. I was referring to Adele Horin.

Runner,

You make a number of assertions that "the pervert industry" causes relationship breakdown, unfaithfulness and child molestation.

Can you prove this? Because the empirical evidence, as you say, suggests hypocrisy on behalf of the religious institutions.

http://www.deception.com.au/

Further, as has already been shown to you in the past, that there is indeed correlations between the prevalence of sexual publications and sexual violence. Although, not the correlation you would expect.

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

I also ask you to give an example of "those wanting to promote the pervert industry are often offended when asked if they would be happy for their daughters to perform sex for the public".

Runner “The obvious fruit of the pervert industry is relationship breakdown, unfaithfulness and child molestation.”

Actually, relationship breakdown, unfaithfulness and child molestation is more likely to be the result of sexual repression than access to porn.

I note Sarah@VTAY commented on the low self esteem etc of some women, I would surmise, the “low self esteem” etc. existed well before these ladies erstwhile partners started looking at porn sites and maybe the poor frustrated fellows were driven to seek out porn as an outlet for their fantasies, failing to find any sexual satisfaction from within their real life relationship with their ladiess of low self esteem.

Blaming a website for a relationship breakdown is the lamest excuse I have ever heard.
Blaming a website for low self esteem is just another excuse.

When these fragile women of “low self esteem” get to understand their partners might want to experience more than “missionary vanilla” and that if they were to behave as a responsible partner, it is withing their authority to cater to the needs of their supposed "loved one", then they might find their relationship improves and the attention they receive enhances their “self esteem”.

Speaking personally I find their is nothing like a bit of porn to inspire “creativity” in the bedroom (and laundry and garden shed and occasionally the middle of a forest) and lets face it, what private individuals do in private is entirely up to them and not a matter for public criticism.

Oh, I cannot speak for women but take it as read, most blokes would delight in being viewed as a “sex object”

Very well said Lev and Col.

As for this Adele Horin character, if that's the standard of opinion writers the newspapers are finding, I'm changing careers.

Runner,

Do you realise the irony of your assumptions, considering the article debunked the exact same kind of assumptions? It's a pity you can't be a bit more grown-up about the whole topic.

<<The obvious fruit of the pervert industry is relationship breakdown, unfaithfulness and child molestation.>>

On the contrary porn can help to save relationships and prevent unfaithfulness by adding a bit of spice to a couple's sex life. Spice that couples sometimes go looking for elsewhere if they can't find it with their lazy, repetitive missionary partners.

As for child molestation, there are many reasons why it occurs in remote Aboriginal communities: Lack of law and order; serious alcohol abuse; petrol sniffing; lack of mental health care and rehabilitation...

But your ability to focus on, and imagine such a strong link between pornography and child molestation is very concerning, and I suggest you don't watch any more then you may have already seen.

I'll be interested to see the references you provide for Lev in regards to your claims.

<<I find it interesting that those wanting to promote the pervert industry are often offended when asked if they would be happy for their daughters to perform sex for the public.>>

Can't wait to see your references to this claim either...

<<The champions of this industry are the first to shout when boys and girls are viewed as sex objects.>>

Really? The first?!

You mean THEY beat YOU to the mark? Wow, they must be fast!

"Right underneath it, on the home page is a screeching polemical by Adele Horin on how porn is "poisoning couples and destroying families".

But this is just marketing. The best type of marketing for such 'products' is always the negative "thou shalt not" - and those doing the marketing know this.

It's jsut the same with guns and knives. There are many ways to talk things up using doublespeak.

All I know, as a trained observer, is that PORN IS KILLING SOCIETY. Out of this one dark, demon-infested room comes all of todays sex crime including the lone wolf sex killers like I. Milat who stalk women with vicious intent. Ban the porn. Make it a criminal offence to possess it and the landscape will return to a quieter time. People will respect each other more and Apocalypto will not occur. What a fool world we are becoming!

There is so much wrong with this article, it’s hard to know where to start. Anti-anti-pornography articles all seem to share the same brand of doublethink – That is, if you criticise pornography, you must have issues about people having sex. The idea that people who criticise pornography actually have issues about pornography never seems to enter the anti-anti-pornographers’ heads.

Ms @VTAY defiantly asserts that ‘“porn” is a term that covers an incredibly broad range of content that caters to an even broader range of people’, but she seems incapable of extending that concept to pornography criticism, which also caters to a very broad range of perspectives. Adele Horin’s article mostly focuses on one of these perspectives – the effect on some women who have been in relationships with men who suffer porn addiction. She could have chosen a thousand other perspectives, but this was the one she wanted to write about.

Also, why is Sarah so outraged by Dr Patrick Cames’ claim that ‘3-6 per cent’ of people are sex addicts? All addictions command a certain percentage of any population, and a figure of 3-6 per cent isn’t all that bad – in fact, rather conservative. And, as for him being a ‘self-styled “expert” from the United States, whose chosen field has nothing to do with the degree they received their doctorate in’, I would hardly consider a PhD in counsellor education as having ‘nothing to do’ with the study of sex addiction – unlike Ms @VTAY, who is an ‘honours student in Food Science and Nutrition’.

Lev

As with most information put out by the Pervert for Profit industry we see nothing but dishonesty. The claims of 85% reduction of rape in US being totally dishonest (surprise surprise). Read the following

'Would you try to put out a fire with gasoline?

No? Then you might disagree with an MSNBC online article, "Porn: Good for America !" by Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor. Reynolds suggests that pornography reduces rape!

As proof, Reynolds quotes a U.S. Department of Justice claim that in 2004 rape of "people" over age 12 radically decreased with an "85 percent decline in the per-capita rape rate since 1979" (DOJ's National Crime Victimization Survey of "thousands of respondents 12 and older").
But the FBI also estimates that "34 percent of female sex assault victims" are "under age 12" (National Incident-Based Reporting System, July 2000).Since the DOJ data excludes rape of children under age 12, child rape may be up 85 percent, for all we know.'

In 2005 the NSW Police Commissioner said that child abuse (including sexual abuse) has doubled in the last decade.

You and AJ Phillips can quote all the lies you like. The facts are that the fruit of the perversion industry break up families and increase sexual abuse among children. Think about it next time you are enjoying it.
Last year our Premier Mr Carpenter did the greatest dummy spit seen in Parliament when asked if he would like his daughters to go into the prostitution industry ( I don't blame him). Most users of porn are so caught and bound by their own lusts that they really don't care about the effects until they hit home.

Runner,

You are taking the same feeble approach that Creationists take on the topic of the origins of life. Trying to disprove one theory doesn't prove another.

In regards to the 'Porn: Good for America!' article. I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestions of someone, trying to say that porn was good for America, were entirely false. People often cherry-pick their arguments, twist facts and tell half-truths to prove their points - just like Creationists.

But that doesn't mean your assertions (and Reynolds') are correct...

<<As proof, Reynolds quotes a U.S. Department of Justice claim that in 2004 rape of "people" over age 12 radically decreased with an "85 percent decline in the per-capita rape rate since 1979"...>>

An Assumption.

That 85% could be attributed to many other factors such as less unwanted babies being brought into the world with the more wide spread use of abortion.

<<Since the DOJ data excludes rape of children under age 12, child rape may be up 85 percent, for all we know'>>

An assumption.

But assuming you're correct, how do you know this has to do with pornography? You're trying to prove your point by attacking the same kind of assumptions that you yourself are making.

Oh, the irony!

<<In 2005 the NSW Police Commissioner said that child abuse (including sexual abuse) has doubled in the last decade.>>

Again, how do you know this is related to pornography? How do the police know that it has actually doubled, when victims were regressively less likely to report rape the further back in time you go?

<<You and AJ Phillips can quote all the lies you like.>>

Now your just being childish. How do you know that the links Lev has provided, are lies? Have you researched this matter? Did you even read the links? No.

<<The facts are that the fruit of the perversion industry break up families and increase sexual abuse among children.>>

And you still haven't provided any references to these 'facts'.

<<Think about it next time you are enjoying it.>>

More childishness. Where did we say we watched it?

Grow-up, Runner!

Runner, quoting Judith Reisman "child rape may be up 85 percent, for all we know". Maybe it has declined by 85 percent, for all we know. Maybe the universe was created by a great Sky Daddy who reveals himself only to certain individuals to write perfect, eternal sacred texts. Maybe a rainbow spouts from your rear as you read this!

This is a ridiculous argument. When doing a comparative study one uses a consistent data set. You have demonstrably failed to address the multiple, international, peer-reviewed studies and their wide data set because you have an ideological opposition to their *results*. Instead you quote from a short article from Dr. Judith Reisman. A little research shows that Reisman is not to be taken seriously on such matters, given her extremely flawed inquiries on Dr. Kinsey and her utterly unscientific (indeed, quite lunatic) speculation of "erototoxins".

Further, you appear to be wrong when you claim the NSW Police Commissioner said child abuse had doubled in the past decade. In reality it was 5% increase in 5 years.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/horrific-child-abuse-figures-spur-crusade/2005/10/23/1130006005893.html

Finally, I knew that you were going to cite Mr. Carpenter, and this elucidates your confusion. Alan Carpenter is a politician who was attempting to develop a legal *neutral* approach to commercial sexual activity (cf., Hansard, Thursday, 17th and 18th October 2007). I ask you yet again to find a person from a proponent body (say, someone from Scarlett Alliace, the Prostitutes Collective, the Eros Fondation) who would be offended if their daughters (or even their sons) performed public sex.

BTW, Runner, can you give a date when Alan Carpenter allegedly spat the dummy in Parliament on the question that you suggest? Because I have done a search of the West Australian Hansard and it doesn't appear to be there.

One of these days Runner you may consider giving facts and reasons a higher status than faith and ideology.

Lev

In the Sydney morning Herald on 24 Oct 2005 the Adam Blakester concurs with the NSW Police Minister '"The number of children abused has doubled in the last decade, which concurs with the point Commissioner Moroney's is making," said Adam Blakester, executive officer of the NAPCAN Foundation, a child abuse prevention agency.

Mr Carpenters dummy spit is recorded on You Tube. It happened on September 10 2007 as a result of a question from Mr Johnston.
Lev
One of these days you will be able to accept facts as to the depravity and destruction caused by pornography on a society instead of using lies and statistics backed up by porn perverts in order to make profit !

Runner,

I have news for you: Adam Blakester is not the NSW Police Commissioner. So you're wrong again.

You say Alan Carpenter's response is on You Tube? Really? Please show where.

You say it happened on September 10, 2007. Really? Was Parliament sitting that day Runner? It seems that it wasn't. There is no Hansard of that day.

So with a bit more searching to make up for your incompetence on such matters, I discovered a comment by the Member for Hillaries on September 12 i.e.,

"No, that issue was dealt with because it was a problem. We supported that. At the end of the day, the government will be turning brothels into legal businesses. Once brothels become legal businesses, would the Attorney General want his daughter to work in one? If the Minister for Culture and the Arts and Tourism had a daughter, would she want her daughter to work in a brothel?"

There is no evidence of a response negative or otherwise and Hansard tends to be pretty good at recording such things.

Finally, I note that offer no proof that the academic articles previously cited are written by "porn perverts in order to make a profit".

You really are just trying to find the results that suit your prejudices. I am very glad I don't think that way.

My mistake, it was Hansard of the 19th. But if you read on Alan Carpenter does take Mr. Johnson to the cleaners.. why? Because the member who was so opposed to the legalisation of brothels thought it was OK for a person to work with children if they had previously been convicted for having sex with animals!

"It is not an offence against a child, nor is it a violent offence", Mr. Johnson said in Hansard.

Oh dear. It would seem that those who don't want to grant sex workers the rights accorded to other workers think that bestiality is OK.

My, my. What a strange moral universe they must live in, eh runner?

Gibo “All I know, as a trained observer, is that PORN IS KILLING SOCIETY.”

All I know is, as a trained participant (in society), porn is killing no one.

So how about some scientific/statistical analysis and research finds from all your “observations” Gibo?

I would point out, however, that according to most authorities, those who “matter” are those who participate rather than who merely “observe” – unless you are alluding to some personal voyeuristic proclivity.

As for “Out of this one dark, demon-infested room comes all of todays sex crime including the lone wolf sex killers like I. Milat who stalk women with vicious intent. Ban the porn.”

Plenty of folk enjoy immersing themselves in porn yet do not harm a single living soul.

I would further note women were being abused long before even books like “Fanny Hill” were written by John Cleland in 1748.

I am absolutely certain that “sex crimes” were being committed long before the Romans invented orgies.

As for “What a fool world we are becoming”

Seems to me, based on the clear evidence of mans historic co-existence with the pornographic and salacious, we “became” what we “are” several millennia ago.

Pretending pornography it is all somehow a “new indulgence” will only hold credence in a commune of simpletons and the emotionally challenged.

You argue strongly and passionately, Sarah. I am not sure Adele Horin is worth the effort, though. Its a bit like the battle between runner and then rest in these comments. Runners is stuck to his dogma rock like a barnacle to a rock, and you have to wonder what others hope to gain by attempting to dislodge him.

If you want to point your guns at a more worthy target, try this: Senator Stephen Conroy mandatory filtering proposal. You can read about in lots of places, here is one of his media, releases about it (and no, I didn't make a typo):

http://www.senatorconroy.com/meida108.html

What he is proposing is mandatory ISP filtering of web pages. Every ISP will be required to filter web content so that you can't see what the government censors deem inappropriate. It is "mandatory" in the sense that the filters will be on unless you put your name on a government managed list of "those who want to watch porn". This list is being marketed as a great way of tracking child abusers and other perverts.

I don't know how this works, but apparently when a politician wants to make something like this to happen he can fire up a publicity machine that writes articles like this:

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23021828-5013038,00.html

Rstuart “What he is proposing is mandatory ISP filtering of web pages. Every ISP will be required to filter web content so that you can't see what the government censors deem inappropriate. It is "mandatory" in the sense that the filters will be on unless you put your name on a government managed list of "those who want to watch porn". This list is being marketed as a great way of tracking child abusers and other perverts.”

I would agree with your criticism of any such scheme.

Anything where government requires the people it is supposed to serve to declare their personal private habits is morally offence and, without being dramatic, the thin end of a very big wedge.

In China the state has decided their population is not allowed to participate in certain religious devotions and not only bans viewing but imprisons the participants. With the introduction of a censorship tool and a list of “non-conformists to the social norms”, all it takes is a politicians signature and religious and political websites become similarly flagged.

I use the “VET” system. The comprehensive censorship component, which blocks out porn (can only be overridden by the administrator, only on a site-by-view basis) the VET system is suitable for parents seeking to regulate access for the children in their care, especially as the process extends to chat rooms and other venues of “risk”.

I did try it but found, for myself, the filtering interference was intolerable and inappropriate. So I have since disabled the filtering system as an option within the VET package. I would, however, keep it on a machine if it were being used by a child in my care for those who may be interested, I can recommend using VET it includes a lot more “protection” beyond its filtering attributes.

Since tools like VET are around, we do not need the state to tell us what we are allowed to watch and certainly not by declaring an interest, which some faceless bureaucrat then has secret access to.

The best comment on the issue I heard from a friend is "porn is like alcohol. Some is light and subtle some is cheap and coarse. too much is bad for you."

There are serious problems when a man wants sex every day while the wife wants it only once a month. Porn is seldom the root cause of the problem.

Unless someone can make a cogent argument against porn supported by real evidence of social damage, the case is weaker than the argument against alcohol.

The rejoinder "would you like you daughter doing it" is trite and the fall back when there is no real argument.

While porn is still not discussed in polite society, and there is a valid argument that some of it degrades women, the fact that women are using it to spice up their intimate relations, would indicate that it is becoming more mainstream.

It is never going to be eliminated, and the best that can be done is to regulate its excesses as has been done with alcohol. In the interim prudes like Adele Horin are f**ting against thunder.