Lev,

Re: systematic portrayal of violence against women, you said,
"I am yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it is on a systematic level."

That's called selective blindness.

If you replaced each image of a woman with that of a man (or boy), would that help you to see how many women feel about being consistently portrayed in these ways?

Also - no I don't understand how you differentiate between the throw rocks at boys campaign (a one-off and fairly trivial incidence of violence portrayed against men/boys which though initiated by a man, has men up in arms) and the disgust and rage that women like myself feel about portrayals of violence against women that permeate pornography, the least of which are the Hustler cartoons.

How do you justify the first yet discount the second ?

Pynchme,

I do not hold much hope for careful consideration of any material if you are inattentive to your own words. I also note that you actually don't seem to have understood the recommendations which states pornography as a symptom, not a cause, of sexual role conventions (cf., my response of April 18).

I also object to the way that you shift the goalposts. Previously you claimed that pornography should be absolved of the standards applied to other media, to which I responded that it is not.

Then you changed my response to the answer of systematic portrayal of violence against women.

That is incredibly dishonest of you. Factually incorrect in both instances and dishonest.

Although I do give you kudos for acknowledging that you don't know how to do differentiate between direct advocacy of violence against a class of people and the portrayal of an insensitive individual in a specific case.

That is unfortunate, because it is impossible for you to resolve this matter until you understand the distinction. For my part, I have expressed it as simply as I can.

Pynchme, when the violent porn images you refer to are sold on the front of Tshirts in department schools and aimed at the childrens market I'll join you in heartily condeming that. When there is a debate over children being allowed to wear or display those images in school I'll join you.

If an adult chooses to sit in their own home or a consenting friends place (away from kids) reciting derogatory statements about men or boys then it's none of my business as long as they don't then try and act out that stuff on someone who does not consent.

R0bert

Pynchme “Col you're a sad case if you equate masculinity with consumption of porn.”

Well I don’t and never have.

So I guess my “sadness” can be discounted to zero

Indeed, been on a cruise for past 10 days with a backlog of mobile messages asking for my consultant services, certainly a happy chappy here (not sad at all).

Now what’s your excuse?

“However, there is no reason why it can't fund social welfare and education programs that might help alleviate some of its worst effects.”

So long as you do not seek to use my taxes for them, you are free to run as many empty headed talk fests as you want.

“Those of us not in the industry nor in masturbation fantasy land, and therefore with no agenda to fulfil by porn's existence, concur.”

My support of individual rights means I will always support the porn industry’s right to sell its wares, just as I support a green grocer has a right to sell cucumbers (despite the alternative purposes I have heard them being used for – which I turn reminds me of DH Lawrence’s comparison of a fig to a lady’s vagina, although whilst 70 years ago he was, he is no longer muzzled by the censor).

Keep up with the pretentiousness and skimpily clad insults Pynchme. People like you seem only happy when you are bagging the indulgences of others.

Conclusion, what is “sad” about your posts is you having nothing more to do in life than to moan about how other folk get on and enjoy theirs.