Actually Ginx, I don' think any of the posters here are excusing the rape.

It's unacceptable. I think everybody here accepts that - if there's no disagreement, then it's just a chorus of people condemning this act.

More productive discussions would revolve around the difficulties of rape trials, and what appropriate sentences are.

The point I made in my earlier post is that this silly crusade against porn is a distraction from the real issues.

"The point I made in my earlier post is that this silly crusade against porn is a distraction from the real issues."
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:33:19 PM

___________

And the point I make TRTL, is that getting bogged down in what you and others see as a silly crusade ( my comments are NOT based on the merits OR otherwise, of that), IS detraction from the real issue: which IS the victim.

What concerns me is that the basis of intellectual argument of the causes of rape; what constitutes rape, from some very clever people, particularly in Court, which I AM familiar with, leaves the victim in a morass of such debate;- frequently allowing the perpetrator/s to get away with the crime. And it IS a crime.

I am NOT talking about the FACTS of such a case; I am talking about the familiar tactic of tying up a DEFINITION to such a degree that it gives a valid excuse to dismiss charges.

________________________

Good luck Les. You will do what you have to do when there is no other option.

_________________________

(No more posts from me on this for 24 hours. Is anyone else finding the post limit thing stifling? One way or tuther Freedom of Speech IS restricted; whether we like it or not!!)

Les,

'The questions should be asked: How many of these partners participated unwillingly, but do so in an effort to save or preserve the relationship? How many young women pretend to enjoy it, not wanting to appear "uncool" or too prudish? How many are dominated by their partners and are too scared or timid to firmly say, "No".'

That is obviously your reality, but I don't think that would be the case in the majority of cases. I know a few single girls with video collections. It's unrealistic to assume this is the norm as I think you have done. Certainly women are probably more likely to have different tastes. But when you say 'not wanting to appear "uncool" or too prudish?', that works both ways. Many women may like porn, but don't buy it as they fear they will be seen by others. The anonymity of the internet has seen a surge in women buying online for example. Romance novels also have a lot of sex in them, porn just happens to be acted out in explicit detail.

'More and more young women are refusing to enter into sexual relations with men'. Are you sure? You must mix in very different circles to myself.

Ginx,

I disagree. The definition of rape has been expanded recently. It used to men physically forcing yourself on someone, now it's rape if the women doesn't explicitly say yes I would like to have sex.

Diver-dan “Me; I am forever the sectarian on the issue of the sex industry, and proudly so.”

The dictionary describes “sectarian” variously as

a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect.
Narrow-minded; parochial.
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

If that is your take on yourself, then you have my condolences, it is nothing to be proud of.

However, your candor surely confirms, you would make an unsuitable representative to decide what should or should not be allowed in terms of a “sex-industry” to be accessed by other adults.

We are all the result of either the nature of nurture influences in our lives

Through our individual development, responsible parenting (nurturing) deals with removing any harmful influences of a “sex-industry” by censoring what is accessible by children.

It can be reasonably argued that adults are unlikely to be unduly influenced by similar exposure because they have developed sufficiently to recognize what is acceptable, from unacceptable, behaviour.

As for the "nature" reasons which may predicate rape: a sociopathic, psychopathic, narcissistic or other form of mental abhorrence / defect, will not be influenced by a ban on sex-industry, the rapists being predisposed and inclined to predatory behaviour, regardless.

The only reasoning left is you think banning or curtailing the “sex industry” would fill some personal sense of moral righteousness and I am afraid no laws are ever going to satisfy that need in you.

Individuals are entitled to exercise the own discretion on pornography and apply their own bigoted , narrow-minded and parochial view as to what they will watch and what they will ignore but that does not entitle them to impose their criteria on others.

Robert, please “jump in”. As usual, I find reason and balance in your post.

Ginx “Does anybody have ANY concern about what this girl went through?”

What the girl went through is outrageous.

However the debate is about whether incidence of rape correlate with access to pornography. Many of us believe no significant correlation exists.

Les “women are refusing “

that is a woman’s right.

I choose who I “bonk” with too.

Les writes

,More and more young women are refusing to enter into sexual relations with men as they are sick of them trying to ram stuff down their throats, up their vagines, and in the anus. Many of these women lay the blame for this behaviour on porn. You may discuss the pros and cons of banning pornography but this is the real reality.'

If you can't see the obvious fruit as mentioned by Les you are likely to deny smoking causes lung cancer. The same deniers are the first to scream about 'man made global warming' (sorry climate change). If it means rejecting porn for the common good of society very few who are in bondage to the crap are willing to do it. The selfishness of humans is incredible. I hope it isn't your child that is experimented on by others just as has been shown to happen frequently in communities after people feed on porn (perversion). I have no doubt our prisons also have many whites who have been in bondage to porn to the degree that they abuse kids and have no dignity left themselves.

The deniers want stats just so they can convince themselves that their little bit of indulgence is harmless. What a pathetic lot!

Oh runner,

Whatever you say is meaningless until you prove cause and effect. Why do you feel you are the judge of what behaviour is perverted? I wonder what is acceptable to you. One partner only for life, missionary only lights out, only to conceive then give yourself a few whips for being so bad and go to church and pray for a week. That's the reverse of the caricature you seem to paint on anyone who dares to want to look at humans doing what comes naturally. Should we ban churches because some ministers have sexually abused children?