I am with those who read what is a naive and mildly hysterical article full of hyperbole.

I would make these points

1 what people do in private is up to them.

2 everyone can choose to view or avoid viewing pornography.

We have the technology to lock out porn from our computers if we are fearful of it or concerned what our children might watch without over-the-shoulder supervision.

What you see on the internet is no different to what one might see in private, unless the ladies of the internet have been anatomically modified to be different to the ones we meet everyday.

The claim “The estimated 1,000 cases of drink spiking involving sexual assault in Australia in 2003 is a symptom of this training men are currently receiving through pornography.”

I find dubious.

The availability of drugs to overpower women is far more significant and serious than the availability of pornography.

If anything, viewing pornography is more likely to satiate any dark desire or fantasies and thus, reduce the incidence of actual assaults.

“Where do women fit in a society where large numbers of men are looking at pictures of women being brutalised and sexually humiliated”

Women are entitled to choose whether someone who watches “porn” (soft, harder or “getting firmer”) qualifies as acceptable to them.

“Women” fit into that society the same as they have always “fitted” into society since the dawn of time.

Today more than ever before, women have the independence to choose their partner. Those women need only to find the man who suits them. Maybe his proclivity for porn produces some benefits, especially if one prefers things beyond plain vanilla.

As with most posts, I concur with Leighs take on things.

As for derogatory depictions of women, the feminist industry is one which relies almost exclusively on “derogatory depictions of men”, their values and attitudes.

Leave peoples private choices as private choices and if you don’t like it, switch on net-nanny to keep your PC pure.

I'm disturbed by the (apparently) deliberate misreading of this article by those who claim it's an attack on men or wowserish.
Surely the point is that more & more of the porn available on-line IS about woman hatred. It is NOT erotica, it's not about consenting adults getting hot & sweaty. Even if it is acting, the script is the worry, like any bang-bang shoot-em-up.
When the erotica ceases and the abuse begins is not a particularly fine line - even the verbalisations are violent and/or demeaning.
This is NOT an argument for banning - et's all be aware of what's available the better to debate and defend against the baleful effects. Driving anything underground, drugs, alcohol, sex work, abortion only increases the dangers, enriches the criminal element and corrupts our (supposedly) guardian institutions like police, courts and legislature.

Pelican

'arguing that an attack on violent porn is an attack on all men.'

Absolute rubbish. I don't see anyone arguing this. The gist of most responses was that the AUTHOR is depicting men as brainless emotionless monkeys copying and acting out what they see on the internet.

'There is no doubt that violent porn, whether it depicts men or women perpetrating violence, is not what would be considered a healthy activity.'

I don't think I can agree with that. Who decides what is a healthy Fantasy? I don't see anyone having a problem with depictions of women dominating men and there is a lot of that fantsay depicted on the internet. I actually think SOAP's on tv depict men as being able to be stolen from one girl by another, or as bad boys who just need the love of a good woman to save them. Both terrible attitudes to men, but they are just fantasy. Women's porn.

Most men can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

I think some women's objection to porn is a deep fear they are being made redundant, and losing their traditional female power over men. They lose sex as a bargaining chip, as their partner can see other women naked and enjoy his own fantasy that doesn't involve her.

Men see porn as a sex aid, just like women see their sex toys. You don't see men wanting to ban women's sex toys.

I'm with the majority of posters in agreeing that the article is rather poorly written and somewhat hysterical.

Has she actually every done a search herself? If she had she would have found that not only is there stuff available that would appeal to men, but also to women of all proclivities. And just between you and me, if I was a male and took this stuff seriously I’d be deeply worried about the mediocre size of my penis. Not only the women look and behave unrealistically. Or have I missed out on something over the years?

I'm disturbed by the notion that men, or boys, can be depicted as unthinking, uncontrollable beings easily influenced and naturally drawn to evil. As a feminist I find that kind of thinking suggesting there is an excuse for a man behaving violently. Do men need protecting from themselves? A reverse of the ‘she can't help it she's just a hysterical little woman' of days gone by.

The world is not more violent now towards women than in the past. That’s a silly romantic notion. The world has become smaller, we are now confronted with all news from every part of the world, and more aware of what used to happen behind closed doors.

There is tons of forgettable and often deeply offensive material on the internet. Porn is not the only subject. Parents should see this as an opportunity to communicate with their children. Your children get to know you and your values, you get to know your children.

I knew I would cop flak over that one but so be it.

Read back through the posts Whitty you will see some that do argue that this is an attack on men.

Whitty your comment, to quote: "I think some women's objection to porn is a deep fear they are being made redundant, and losing their traditional female power over men. They lose sex as a bargaining chip, as their partner can see other women naked and enjoy his own fantasy that doesn't involve her."

All I can say about this is whatever has happened in your life to make you believe this you have only my sympathy and I mean that sincerely.

The article is talking about violent porn and I stand by my earlier comments.

Yvonne,

You speak much sense.

Pelican,

The distinction is that you are saying that to believe the Author is attacking men equates to believing an attack on violent porn is an attack on men. I don't agree. You can attack violent porn without attempting to portray men, as Yvonne puts it, as 'unthinking, uncontrollable beings easily influenced and naturally drawn to evil.'

amphibious,

'more & more of the porn available on-line IS about woman hatred.'
Where is the evidence for this? The author's opinion? Leaving aside the simplistic assumption that certain fantasies boil down to women hatred, I read an article recently that said statistically the booming area of porn is Amatuer porn. I can understand this. I think it's because it's more fun to see the women really enjoying themselves (and having real boobs and not looking so orange) than the fake american-accented oooh, ooooh. The bad acting is a turn off.

I think the author is somewhat hysterical, and attempting to portray a fringe activity as a mainstream one. You can say that we are '(apparently) deliberate misreading this article ', but I think it's pretty clear the author has tried to portray most porn as violent or 'pure woman hatred'.