Yes Newt, now that you've pointed it out I see the irony.

Lol talk about suddenly seeing the elephant in the room :)

EotN,

Your supposed irony is totally false, and evidently I refer you to my previous comments on the matter (April 1, 7:26:55). You are confusing the content of a sexual act with the circumstances of consent.

There is a negative correlation between the availability of sexually explicit media and the incidence of sexual violence. You may to choose to interpret those facts with a special theory you've cooked up (which I am sure you would not use if the reverse were the case), but they remain facts nonetheless. As for the first being an abstract, surely you can go down to your local university and read it?

I had already read the various articles and especially those by Diana Russell. Apart from the fact Russell's works on this subject are between 15 and 25 years old; I read them as an undergraduate doing women's studies. Whilst strong on the matter of particular case studies, there is an total absence of the empirical correlations in the referenced articles.

I am still yet to encounter any empirically sound study which correlates an increase in sexually explicit material with an actual increase of sexual violence. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

I note that you continue to assume that all pornography must be hate speech, must require 'sexually degraded women' etc. As has already been shown, these are crass and quite foolish generalisations, which either show you're ignorant of the genre, or you're not prepared to accept material which is contrary to your predetermined view.

Pornography is NOT a "safety valve" or "a safe outlet for men who would otherwise commit aggression". Nonsense! Pornography has NO "cathartic" effect:

http://www.againstpornography.org/debunkmythofcatharsis.html

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/myth3.html

And I also love those websites. They're so well made and well-researched (whether porn apologists believe it or not):

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/articles_gender.html

Checking out MaggieH's website, I am even more convinced that there is an obvious relationship between pornography and rape:

http://www.againstpornography.org/socialsciencestudies.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/womenstestimony.html

http://www.againstpornography.org/professionaltestimony.html

That poor young woman in Brisbane. Those ten men, who gang-raped her, have damaged her life forever. But that doesn't seem to matter to porn apologists -- they most probably have been influenced by porn's negative effects. Pornography is minogyny!

As someone else pointed out before: "It’s very interesting to observe the level of denial whereby some people dismiss the power of images to influence one’s worldview. Advertisers, of course, are well aware of this phenomenon. I wonder what proportion of the men posting in defence of porn would also defend cigarette advertising and the like as harmless. Porn is ever more insidious because it links images where women are dehumanized with basic sex drive."

I agree.

Hey Chade,
Are you also going to argue that images of thin women do not at all influence women's perceptions of their own bodies? Or that racial stereotypes used in the media influence white people's views of minorities? Why the heck is porn of all things absolved of any responsibility or influence in our society? If porn had no effect on people you would never defend it.
I am so sick and tired of porn apologists, of people trying to use the "cathartic" argument.
And just google the word "rape porn" on a search engine and you will have your research done for you...

TurningRightThenLeft
You think that rape is a natural instinct? You said it is "silly" to blame society and its media for forms of sexual terrorism like rape. Then what do you think is the cause of rape? If you really believed that rape is wrong you would never defend the very culture and its products that condone and perpetuate rape and rape-apologist attitudes.
Yeah, I agree, we should deal with these men VERY harshly. We should throw all rapists in prison for their lifetime and then we should punish the idiots that apologize for these men and support the very culture that socializes boys into rapists in the first place.
The utter defensiveness of these (pre-dominantly, though not all) male commenters is just proving even more the point that porn is mainstream, misogynist, and needs to by deconstructed and criticized for what it is: the filming of rape or rape role-play.

Pynchme “Col I see that you have jumped on the oppose-censorship-bandwagon”

You maybe correct. i have made that assumption, that censorship is your objective.

Re “you really want us to believe that you're using porn to do your bit to prevent censorship?”

That is a nonsensical suggestion.

I watch and read what I choose, with regard to my own evolved choices and without deference to you or any government or theological edicts.

What I am saying is people elected governments to represent their views, not to direct or regulate those views.

“why not just say, "NO!" to violent and degrading images of women and sex ?”

Because what is “violent” and what is “degrading” are subjective evaluations, thus “no” could mean to some folk (for instance fundamental Islamists), depictions of ladies wearing anything less than a burkah is “degrading”.

Then what gets banned would depend upon the subjective values of the appointed censor and I think such a role, with such authority, might be a very attractive opportunity for those of a fundamentalist perspective.

Re “Porn is also counter evolutionary when people who use it perceive it as some sort of 'need' (instead of a selfish 'want') “

Everyone is motivated by wants, it is why “logic” has a hard time against “emotion” and simply put why more money is spent on fashionable clothes than income protection insurance (the immediate satisfaction of an emotional want versus logical need).

As for “selfish wants”, that is your subjective (emotional) argument coming out .
An objective argument would recognize a something as a want, without the presumption to it being “selfish” in nature (selfish = nasty = immoral, emotional trigger)

Relationship instability has masses of inputs. Pornography might be one among hundreds but is likely, insignificant to changes in more liberal divorce laws and other social attitudes.

So, if I am wrong and you do not seek to inflict upon mature adults either a complete ban or invasive censorship of access to view whatever they want, what do you suggest?

What strategies do you want to see in place, instead of censorship?