Looks like this is a real whore.nets nest!

I think the real issue is just where do you draw the censorship line. I am sure once scatologist’s fantasy is another bestiality minded individual’s worst nightmare.

It has been said elsewhere (in earlier articles here on OLO and further a field) that contemporary heterosexual porn places a greater emphasis on anal penetration - obviously the homosexual lobby's attempt at gaining wider acceptance of this practice...

Anyway the wind is up and I've got other kites to fly...

After a read of the comments, I thought I might weight in...

In a nutshell, my argument is that porn does not dictate sexual urges; it emerges from, and is a manifestation of, such urges. Therefore, a ban would achieve little -- not to mention the implications for civil liberties.

Some feminists, like Norma, argue that porn dictates the content and direction of men's sexual drives. I am arguing, via Freud, that dark desires are a part of human nature, and that porn is merely a crass, commercialized expression of these desires. (And neither is it just men who have such desires: Nancy Friday's research into female sexual psychology shows that violent fantasies are surprisingly common amongst women also). Now, for well-adjusted individuals these fantasies are only enacted in a situation of mutual consent, if at all. In childhood we are all taught the difference between fantasy and reality (Bambi isn't really dead, etc.) and, by extension, that anything one sees on a screen is 'pretend' and should not be enacted in real life. This is the point where porn's power to subvert our nascent sexual urges is defused.

So Norma is right in one sense: Theoretically, if a child was exposed to violent porn *from infancy all through childhood*, the behaviour seen on screen would most certainly become normalised. But we're talking about adults here. The responsibility to prevent access to online porn for adolescents and children -- and to provide moral education about sexual violence -- falls squarely on the shoulders of parents.

Thx for the comments!

The contention that the State cannot dictate terms in respect of porno cannot be accepted. The state is not seperate from people.Any order from the Government should be taken as the collective will of the people.The State has the responsibility of controlling harmful activities of individuals. Individuals'rights cannot encroach upon public welfare and disturb peace.
People in porno business or who go for porno materials, it appears, must have some organic problem.

Ezhil “The contention that the State cannot dictate terms in respect of porno cannot be accepted.”

The “contention” that the state should ”dictate” anything is “contentious”.

“Any order from the Government should be taken as the collective will of the people.”

Really?

That is the thought behind despots, who insist they are acting on behalf of the people, (whilst having their opponents “censored”, with a bullet).

“The State has the responsibility of controlling harmful activities of individuals.”
“Individuals'rights cannot encroach upon public welfare and disturb peace.”

If I attack, rob or murder someone else, I am performing a harmful activity, which encroaches upon the rights of others and disturbs the peace

I am not sure what “public welfare” is but it sounds too much like “the common good” and I have never met anyone who has met anyone who has shaken hands with “the common good”.

If I am watching porn in the privacy of my own home, I am not performing a harmful activity, nor am I encroaching on the rights of others nor disturbing the peace.

Government is neither all seeing or all knowing (you just need to talk to some public service dullard to realise that). One of the duties of government is to respect the privacy of the citizen, unless you feel living under a Stalinist style regime is just fine and I, personally, do not feel that way and based on the fact that every Stalinist regime which has come into existence has been the result of violent revolution, rather than democratic election, not many other folk do either.

“People in porno business or who go for porno materials, it appears, must have some organic problem.”

That is straight subjective conjecture.

I would observe, people who support censorship and the absolute authority of the state have greater organic problems than those folk who seek to enjoy pornography in the privacy of their own homes or on other licensed or “adult restricted” premises.

So Ezhil, not sure if you are a religiously minded individual or not.
But if you are, just consider me your local heretic.

Dear Lev,
Thank you for your references in respect earlier man's porno activities. I don't have time to go through all those things. But one thing I want to tell you is that we must be able to distinguish ourselves from the earlier man if we accept that we are a civilised lot.
Ezhil

Dear Col.Rouge,
Thank you for your comments.I feel that you will be a better heretic for people of your ilk.With so much of distrust in the governments, we are heading towards what? It is all of us who elect the representatives. After electing a government talking ill of it is childish.I don't deny that wrong people get elected. But whose fault is it? People get a government that they deserve!The quality of government reflects the quality of the people.
The accessibility of pornos to children cannot be prevented in the present scenario. We don't have safeguards to that effect. Children see pornos in the internet because it is available. Why it is availabe? Because it is being made (with money in mind).
You are talking about your privacy more and more.Chlidren know that adults are seeing pornos. Naturally they also will be tempted to see it. Therefore the privacy you are talking about is not a private affair at all in the real sense. Therby you are acting against the welfare of people in general and children in particular.
Let us, as seniors,be good role models for decent behaviour. Let the issue be discussed by a panel of psychologists,psychiatrists
and social activists.
Ezhil