Great article, I have often wondered why we havn't gotten rid of porn and violence on television before, its immoral and devalues our society. Reducing women and children to sexual objects for the pleasure of men shouild be punished by the death penalty, because this scum does not deserve to live with the rest of us.

Oh Dear!

It seems it has become rather fashionable to attack porn. Maybe Dorwkin has been reincarnated.

<There is no discussion of the 13 million human beings currently trafficked for sexual purposes (prostitution, pornography) around the world.>

Where Are All The Sex Slaves?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4389/

... In late 2005, police in Birmingham carried out a media splash of a raid against a brothel and claimed to have ‘rescued’ 19 women who had been trafficked to the UK and enslaved as prostitutes (8). A few days later, 13 of the women were released when it turned out that they were ‘voluntarily working in the sex industry’; the remaining six, who also denied having been trafficked, were imprisoned at Yarlswood detention centre in Bedfordshire and threatened with deportation back to their countries of origin.

So I wonder why this sudden increase in interest in banning porn?

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon,

Daphne Patai in Heterophobia wrote that feminists want to micro manage our lives.

What is the point of the constant stream of these "p0rnz0r iz bad 4 j00" articles? This was better than some of the others, and actually referred to some data. It's a pity, however, that it was too busy insulting the research rather than actually addressing it.

This article should be titled 'common denials' rather than common misconceptions especially when it comes to the porn industry. Most of the denials come from the general public who want to indulge in their own little bit of perversion despite the very obvious outcomes for society. The promotion of men and women as purely sex objects has no doubt led to rape, child abuse and every other perversion these money makers (mainly men) could dream up. It is laughable how any decent women could be so deceived to see that they have been duped by the pathetic secular thinking of so many. No wonder few can hold a marriage together. I do take some heart that many of the young people today seem to have more morals than those of the 60s, 70. and 80s. Many of these people from past eras have stuffed up their own marriages are intent in covering their own guilt by promoting this filth as normal to their own kids. Wake up Australia.

Dear James H:
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon,
would you be able to supply a source where MacKinnon says this please?
No? Didnt think so.
Helen

Well said, Runner. None of those atrocities existed before porn, and getting rid of porn will make them all go away.

Great article Antonella. In addition to all the things you mentioned that the authors of The Porn Report made no comment on - "rocketing rates of cyberporn and sex addiction, the increase in divorces citing pornography addiction as a key issue, the impact of pornography on rape, the global commodification of women’s bodies, the social and legal ramifications of commercialising sexuality, or the grotesque social problems caused by pornography" - they also forgot to mention the fact that the existence of pornography subordinates ALL women. It's no wonder that society finds it so easy to trivialise women's opinions and exclude women from serious decision-making arenas. We have to keep speaking out against the huge and influential pornography industry till those in power decide to listen.
bettymc

This was a fine commentary on what the report wasn't.

And yet, we still know nothing of what it WAS, save for the fact that Ms Gambotto-Burke is quite talented at drawing out the utter extremes of the situation.

I don't see anything by way of suggestions, solutions or practicalities. Just one big anti-porn polemic.

The real question that matters on issues such as this if you believe there are problems in the pornography industry, is simply thus:

1) Do you support the censorship of pornography and to what extent
2) On the other hand, would you prefer to see more regulation in terms of the production of pornography.

If there are indeed these stories of rape and destruction in the pornography industries, then we should be getting more community (non-religious I might add, if their interest is more in censorship than assistance) groups and government agencies involved, and have far greater transparency. Heck, even an annual report and something akin to licence system would be a great idea, as it could incorporate things like STD checks.

These would be the measures I would suggest would help the situation.

On the other hand, there are those who just have conservative hangups on sex, and want to censor and control what people have the right to watch.

Outside of child pornography, I can see no justification in banning any pornography, provided the depictions involved are just that (not actual rape).
To those who accuse this as a defence of pornography, I say no, I've not much interest in it. I just absolutely hate the idea of other people censoring what we have the right to watch and I won't stand for it.

But those who wish to dictate such things often would rather paint the opponents of censorship as pornography advocates. I am no such thing, and I'm supportive of measures to regulate this industry.

Just don't go telling us you've the right to tell people what they can and can't do in their own homes if they're not hurting anyone.

"... relevant to a trafficking victim whose life will be extinguished once she is past her sexual prime?"

Did you know that trafficked women and children have been used in sweatshops to make clothes? We should ban clothes too! Clothes are nothing but a symbol of how we oppress those poor women!

"Does a prostituted victim of child abuse, multiple bashings and/or rapes ... benefit from the knowledge that 58 per cent of the women in Australia’s bestselling pornographic DVDs do not have large breasts?"

That's an impressive non-sequitur (the article is full of them). The information is met to demonstrate that pornography isn't completely focused on large breasts and so doesn't pose as great a threat to female self image as some people claim.

"rocketing rates of cyberporn and sex addiction, the increase in divorces citing pornography addiction as a key issue, the impact of pornography on rape, the global commodification of women’s bodies, the social and legal ramifications of commercialising sexuality, or the grotesque social problems caused by pornography"

What about the rocketing rates of internet addictions fueled by online forums, the increase in divorce from internet infidelities, the impact of the internet on bullying, murder and stalking, the global commodification of people's social lives, the social and legal ramifications of commercialising social networks or the grotesque social problems cause by isolation through indirect human communication? Quick, we'd better ban the internet!

Or maybe we could be rational, recognize that for the majority of people pornography is a simple and enjoyable thing and any harms should be dealt with in a focused and direct way rather than using some sort of moralistic absurdities.

I don't like porn, doesn't really make me feel powerful or proud as a woman.

Besides from what I've seen, a porn flick doesn't really need to be any longer than 5 minutes, after that I would suggest it has served it purpose ;-D

There is no doubt that some of it is really nasty and demeaning not just to women but to many of the porn actors.

A healthy person with a strong sense of self and respect for people, is not going to be 'perverted' by porn. The sickos who do get off on the 'snuff' or rape scenes are people with personality or mental disorders to begin with. That said, I shudder to think of the warped imprint that could affect a child who views porn - even mild stuff can result in an obsession that lasts all their life, for example, a shoe fetish - now that's quite harmless, but there are worse fetishes to have than that... and can actually be damaging to long term relationships if a partner does not share the same fetish.

What to do?

Banning porn won't make a bit of difference, instead it will go the way all items do that are in high demand but not legal.

Ensure our children are brought up with a healthy respect for themselves and others, that neither sex is for the use of the other.

Dare I say that men and women are entitled to be treated with equal respect?

Whilst the individual instances you raised are very important and rightly condemned, it is not the purpose of the academics to take individual instances out of context; after all, it would be quite a lengthy report if they had to discuss every viewing of an adult movie which was enjoyed in the privacy of one's own home. Nor is it the purposes of the report to comment on international trafficking or the production of rape pornography in Bosnia. These are already dealt with, and largely appropriately, in Australian law.

The issue which they are dealing with is the effects of legal pornography in Australia. "In the first comprehensive examination of the production and consumption of pornography in Australia"... etc.

A far better review of the text in question is found by Kate Holden:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23317844-5003900,00.html

Well spotted isabelberners, the quote from Mackinnon is indeed false (cf., http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp). I do wish people were more careful with their research and especially attributing quotations. Dworkin on the other hand compares heterosexual intercourse to atrocities worse than Auschwitz or the Gulag! (cf., http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseI.html) and in Anticlimax, Melbourne University's Sheila Jeffreys claims that heterosexuality is a system of oppression more effective than apartheid or capitalism and that all paedophiles are male.

The author fails to distinguish between depictions of normal consensual sexual activity and depictions of grossly abusive behaviour involving sex.

The implication that women are excessively trusting, easily manipulated and seemingly incapable of informed consent is strange to say the least.

In her favour many aspects of pornography can be harmful to society in that certain disturbed individuals are provided with additional ideas for humiliation and degradation of others and anything which depicts abuse as a form of entertainment is disturbing.

Unfortunately,this type of debate often misses the point and deteriorates into an emotionally driven anti-male and anti-heterosexual rant and we are no further advanced than we were 30 years ago.

The evils of society run a lot deeper than the viewing of pornographic material. In the cause-effect relationship it's an indirect variable. It may contribute to wrong doings but it's not the problem.

As with the trafficking of human beings it's to my understanding that this is illegal. So I presume that banning pornography will simply compound legalities in the issue. It won't prevent trafficking of human beings.

Re ““rape porn” is typed into Google, the very first entry out of a mere 5,320,000”

Guess what, I googled “S_h_*_t for brains” and got 436,000 hits

Regarding Ted Bundy, I would not trust anything which a convicted psychopath/sociopath would say. Part of the disorder is the ability to lie convincingly. Another part (common to many psychological disorders) is the transference of responsibility from one self to anyone or anything, saying what ever is needed to ingratiate the psychopath with the interviewer/reader.

Example, Aileen Wuornos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos), in one of her TV interviews, blamed the police, saying they knew she was killing folk and did not stop her so she would become a serial killer.

That the article author does not like the outcome of the report is a matter of “so what”.

If she wants to convince us of a correlation between sexual abuse and pornography then she can go collect the factual statistics.

Considering anecdotal evidence is unreliable because

the sample sizes are too small to claim to be nationally representative

the qualitative considerations of the enquiry can be extremely broad and subjective, thus unless the correct questions are used in research, ambiguous and deceptive responses pervert the result.

In short, this article is dealing in emotions. It is pandering to the emotional supposition “it is bad, it must be banned”.

It is a criticism of someone else’s view. It adds nothing to the debate, other than criticisim of something the author has got her knickers twisted about. It fails to make any conclusion (beyond go read what Ted Bundy said), which reduces it to a “Rant”.

TLTR “Outside of child pornography, I can see no justification in banning any pornography, provided the depictions involved are just that (not actual rape).”

Your exclusion of those categories is reasonable, both would need to suborn illegal acts, each existing beyond the maxim of “consenting adults”.

I see several other posters correctly echo your view to respecting what amounts to the actions of “consenting adults”. May the voice of their reason sound loud over the hysteria of the pro-censorship lobby.

Dear James H, Also please give a source for this quotation:

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine [sic] MacKinnon

It is certainly not from MacKinnon. Also the sentence is a grammatical mess, so the person who did make it up should try harder next time.

I suppose one could blame the internets for these lies (or should one say "mis-speakings"?), but they circulated long before the web was invented.

Helen

Lev (on page 2) has already posted the relevant snopes article to that, Helen...

Antonella, I think you miss understand why the authors said "We’ve got numbers".

It is not always obvious when someone is getting upset at something real, or at something that they are imagining - ie a fantasy. For example, George Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and as a consequence he invaded Iraq. Now as it happened the number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq was 0. This number is not unlike the numbers the authors of the book were alluding to. It shows that Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was a fantasy. Unfortunately we didn't know that at the time, and as a result thousands if not millions of people have died unnecessarily.

The authors of "The Porn Book" want to ensure that thinking people knew they were not indulging in a fantasy. So they presented numbers. Numbers that could be independently checked and verified. Those numbers show that the porn does not lead to rape or violence. This is not to say the effect is 0, just that it is so small it can't be measured.

So if you have visions of men seeing porn and then committing atrocious action of violence upon women and children, be assured these visions aren't real: they are a fantasy. It doesn't happen. You and your children are not at risk because men read porn. You are getting worked up about an imaginary threat - not unlike a small child terrified by the boogyman under their bed.

It seems this particular fantasy is troubling you. As it is a particularly lurid and violent one, that isn't surprising. If it is troubling you, the best course of action isn't to scream at the top of your lungs that you are being persecuted by horrible imaginary daemons like you have done here. Try seeing a doctor instead.

Daphne Patai, Professing Feminism page 129

<Dworkin & MacKinnon have long argued that in a patriarchial society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women as a group are not in a stong enough social position to give meaningful consent.>

<Most feminists want have it both ways.. They would like retain the charge that rape is a terrible violation of human rights and at the same time stretch the legal definition of the crime beyond all reason.> pg 129.

Christine Hoff Sommers in "Who Stole Feminism" page 231 writes Catharine MacKinnon;

<"Sexual desire in women, at least in this culture is socially constructed.."

http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-favourite-feminist-quotes.html

For the other quotes.

Now I don't know how reliable snope is?

This discussion has not given much attention to the women and girls used in porn. They bleed and suffer considerable pain. They take muscle relaxants, painkillers and local anaesthetics in the vagina. They receive ‘money shots’ of semen from huge numbers of men at a time as in Bukakke porn, on the face and all over the body, they are penetrated by penises and hands over several hours, often by many different men since gang rape is such a staple. These are violent behaviours that would be terrifying and inconceivable to those not inured to the abuse of porn through childhood sexual exploitation or the gradual induction that some girls receive. Girls may enter porn wanting to do ‘fashion’ shots. They may be brought by boyfriends/pimps. Many of the most famous porn stars were well under 18 when they were first abused on set. They start out in the least abusive practices which then increase in severity. They are often homeless and with no resources and under tremendous pressure. Pornography needs to be understood as violence against women. It is not a private practice that people should be allowed to view in their own homes. There is a solution. Perpetrators of violence against women need to feel the force of the law. Buying sexual services is now illegal in Sweden, South Africa, Latvia. Norway and UK are likely to join this group in 2008. Unfortunately these new laws do not include paying women to be penetrated in pornography. But they could easily be extended to do so. It is high time those discussing porn stopped seeing it as a harmless form of photography. It is a practice of violence against the poor and disadvantaged, those made homeless by sexual abuse, often very young or trafficked women and girls. Much porn is now made in poor countries where it is easier to gain sexual access to girls and women who are under debt bondage and treated as possessions by their pimps. Enough already!

Christabel.

Christabel,

Would you care to consider the views of sex workers themselves in Sweden over the laws introduced in 1999?

No? Why not? Aren't sex worker's rights deserving human rights? Are the women (or men) somehow less capable of making decisions about the industry they work in?

In case you are ignorant of these considerations here's some reading for you.

http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden/
http://www.petraostergren.com/content/blogcategory/20/38/
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/rosswed.html
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/jd/rap/2004/0034/ddd/pdfv/232216-purchasing_sexual_services_in_sweden_and_the_nederlands.pdf
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_europap.html
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/nordicpros.html
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/livjessen.html

We live freely – not by living by sexual impulse, or by feeding our sexual desire in pornography only to find it claims our sexual freedom... for sooner or later that desire for love that was once healthy, but decomposes into self-serving satisfaction, bleeds through our whole lives. This only advances our society as a whole by teaching us to live by impulsive desire, and do what's right for you. By seeking only to serve our own desires, those we love no longer are a part and one ends up loosing the love they desired in the first place.

Historian Arnold Toynbee explained that a society's creative energy is tied to the control of sexual drives. Sexual self-control is linked directly to national strength and accomplishment; lack of self-control with national weakness and deterioration. Toynbee's research indicated that of history's twenty-one greatest civilizations, nineteen perished from internal moral corruption, not external enemies.

After ten years of relentless research of more than eighty civilizations, J.D. Unwin also concluded. "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom: the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation."

I'm so sorry to hear that so many men still think porn is healthy and good for them. You're being lied to...

And lo! It came to pass; yea verily I say unto you: God is here!! He is on OLO.

And there was much rejoicing, and stuff....

Misleading, Shelby. Nobody said porn was 'good' for people. Just like any movie, it's not 'good' or 'bad'.

There are only questions as to whether anybody should have the right to censor what others watch, if that material has not been produced using illegal practices (i.e. rape or child porn).

Given that none - not one - person who has said here, that they're opposed to porn, has shown any evidence at all, let alone credible evidence, that porn has anything to do with rape, it's pretty clear to me they're driven by rhetoric over reality.

Shelby: I'm so sorry to hear that so many people still think religion is healthy and good for them. You're being lied to...

Where's the difference in terms of a sensible statement, except there's less correlation between porn use and war?

40 YRS AS A PAROLE OFFICER. NEVER MET A SEX OFFENDER WHO HADN'T BEEN ON A DIES OF PRON.

It's true, OE.

Similarly, I never met a rapist who didn't eat food, or a male rapist without a penis.

Clearly, food and penises must be removed.

All I can say is DUH! of course people with aggressive sex drives will go for porn.

But that's no argument that the porn is causing it. Heck, it's just as logical - in fact, more so - to argue that porn creates an alternative outlet for sexual urges, as opposed to rape.

Christabel,

Let us assume that you are for the most part right. Lets assume that all women would prefer not to work in the sex industry, and those that do are poor and have nowhere to turn to. You also imply that they are strong armed into it, but that isn't legal in the OECD countries where most of our porn comes from. Girl are free to enter and leave the industry as they please. If anyone forces them to do otherwise I imagine they leave themselves open to charges or rape or false imprisonment.

As I understand it, you say you want to ban the sex industry "protect the girls". But the girls by your logic are only there because they have no choice. If there was some other choice - the dole, another job, moving back in with Mum or Dad - they would take it. So, presumably they work in the sex industry to put a roof over their heads, or to feed themselves or send their kids to school, or whatever - ie the situation has to be desperate. Because YOU don't like the sex industry YOU want this avenue taken away from them. They can sit in the street and starve, I presume.

Not that they would, of course. Every adult in Australia right now has lots of choice, so the women who work in the sex industry must find something attractive about it.

Despite all your posturing, I don't think you give a rats about women in the sex industry. Your main interest seems to be banning porn because you find the thought of men looking at it offensive. Concern about the women is just a convenient foil for the rest of us while you busily go about forcing your prejudices down their throats.

I’m not a great believer in censorship but balance is important. It seems to me that porn degrades the relationship between male and female.
Love is really about wanting good for the person loved and the sexual act is the expression of mutual love. But porn denies this and distorts our perception of the relationship. All exploitation of either women or men sexually or otherwise is really inappropriate. Unfortunately we don’t always live up to ideals but the world might be a better place if we all tried more often.

phonsie

phonsie, in some circumstances it may degrade relationships between men and women (or maybe men and men or women and women). Thats the choice of those involved not mine or yours.

I think it could be argued that greed does far more to degrade the relationship between people. One or both parties aspiring for the McMansion or new furniture, trip etc and one or both sacrificing time in the relationship trying to achieve that goal for their own wants or to respond to pressure from a partner.

It's fairly obvious that those who try and use sex to control a partner in a monogamous relationship harm the relationship.

Lots of things can harm relationships, they are tricky things relationships. Best built on mutual respect and love with an acceptance that sometimes the others needs or wants may not be our own.

R0bert

rstuart, you said: If anyone forces them to do otherwise I imagine they leave themselves open to charges or rape or false imprisonment. It would seem you're "imagining" something without any actual knowledge. How about you get some facts by reading a book with true stories of real people, such as "Not for Sale" by David Batsone. Then you will realise the incredible difficulty faced by those who seek to bring to justice the people responsible for forcing girls and women to work in the sex trade. It is a complex issue without simple solutions but the reality is that it is an industry NOT without many victims.

Whilst a film of a sex scene with a gun held to a woman's head might not be able to be proved to be actual rape, it certainly cannot be denied that it is particularly honouring to the woman in that position.

Also, your apparent "logic" that rescuing girls/women from the sex industry would remove their avenue of provision for their basic needs, is simplistic and shows an unawareness of the rehabilitation work being done by organisations who actually ARE providing alternatives for these girls.

When you say "I don't think you give a rats about women in the sex industry. Your main interest seems to be banning porn because you find the thought of men looking at it offensive" you are assuming an awful lot about the original poster.

Let's focus on the real people involved in the making of pornography and the wives and girlfriends of those who watch it.

<Despite all your posturing, I don't think you give a rats about women in the sex industry. Your main interest seems to be banning porn because you find the thought of men looking at it offensive. Concern about the women is just a convenient foil for the rest of us while you busily go about forcing your prejudices down their throats.>

Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 3 April 2008 5:44:19 PM

Very good point and perhaps has more than an element of truth to it.

So what you are saying is that they only care about women in the sex industry because it is an indirect avenue to launch an attack on heterosexual men

Ryna,

My "logic" wasn't just simplistic, its wrong because the initial premises are wrong. If the original poster was correct, all you would have to do to close down the sex industry is ensure they had other avenues employment available to them that suited their lifestyle. But it doesn't work, does it? The allure is too strong.

The point Christabel was making was that the sex industry is both dangerous and obnoxious, so much so girls work in it must be being exploited. Wrong. I have no doubt that most women feel that way towards it. But women who have been working for a decade or so in the sex industry obviously don't. Maybe there are other jobs out there they would prefer - but the sex industry pays well. So they make their choice - a choice you evidently want removed because you don't like it.

A film of a girl with a gun held to her head is unpleasant. Sadly we see it all the time on prime time television - people with guns held to their head being forced to do things that don't want to do. If there was strong evidence that when people watch such scenes they felt compelled to do the same thing I would be standing beside you in wanting them banned. I don't particularly like those scenes either, as it happens. But as "The Porn Book" said, "we have numbers", and those numbers show that normal people don't go and break the law simply because they see them broken on television. Other people do apparently enjoy watching such scenes. I don't see why they should be robbed of their enjoyment simply because I disapprove of what is being depicted.

In the end, I think the word "rehabilitation" is what gives you away. Girls who work in the sex industry aren't sick. There is nothing wrong with them. They just have a different outlook on life to you. The very thought that they should be "rehabilitated" to live their life the way you want them to sends shivers down my spine.

Porn is an addictive, guilt-producing, drug. It is not liberating for any of the 3 parties (at least) involved; the porn viewer, the porn doer or the porn maker/profiteer. All 3 parties continue in shame, guilt and fear and have lives that are wrecked and ultimately hopeless. I haven't read this report, but I know from personal experience that the comments above are all true - and are true for most if not all other people caught up in porn. Porn done/watched/capitalised upon in the shadows produces less than human beings in the light.

Liam mully “I haven't read this report, but I know from personal experience that the comments above are all true”

From reading the rest of your post I can see how ignorance becomes you. You don’t need to bother to read all the report but let me relay the conclusions

Conclusions of http://www.porn-report.com/402-performers-in-pornography.htm

“The approach we propose in this area is a cautious but urgent one. Caution we believe to be required from the incomplete character of the evidence currently available. Urgency, however, arises from the extremely serious nature of the harms apparently being inflicted on many young and vulnerable people.”

NOTE “incomplete character of the evidence currently available”

However,

A Danish study, across four countries, suggests the rate of assault declined after Pornography was legalized.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf

And

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=commstudies

will take you to a controlled test.

My paraphrasing of the conclusions: “no effect” between exposure to pornography and the desire to engage is a sexual assault.

Pornography, even if it were a contributory factor to rape, which it clearly is not, would not be the only or exclusive factor.

To find out the causal influences on crime is difficult , using the key words “sex crime causes” produced the following

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4463713 has “causes of sex crimes in adolescence” but it is written in German.

http://www.aardvarc.org/rape/about/whowhy.shtml makes a good attempt and notably does not mention “pornography” among the causes

An Australian paper http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb54.pdf/$file/cjb54.pdf

Has a reasoned conclusion which acknowledges the multiple influences which contribute to any type of crime, which you may find useful.

So if you want to make an adult contribution to an adult topic, I would suggest you do some basic research and reading instead of bring forth with half-baked emotional opinion pieces which have no basis in fact and would better be left unsaid (in the interests of any credibility which you might cherish).

A question for you..

Why is it that child pornography is scorned and the perpetrators hated and hunted down by the media but when a pornographic model comes 'of age' pornography is suddenly not only condoned but celebrated by Australian society?

I am so glad legislation is in place to protect children from pornographic abuse and harm but what about adults? Yes, they may be adults over the age of consent but that does not mean they are in a position to make sound decisions benefiting their emotional, psychological, physical and spiritual wellbeing. Obviously NOT! Even though our dulled consciences would say otherwise as we try desperately to justify our addiction to pornography.

Let us not stop speaking against what is so detrimental to our communities.

Nugsy “Why is it that child pornography is scorned and the perpetrators hated and hunted down by the media but when a pornographic model comes 'of age' pornography is suddenly not only condoned but celebrated by Australian society?”

I am not sure if it is celebrated but it should certainly be tolerated.

As to your comment

“Yes, they may be adults over the age of consent but that does not mean they are in a position to make sound decisions benefiting their emotional, psychological, physical and spiritual wellbeing. Obviously NOT!”

Oh I so totally agree. So many lack the basic decision making skills!

Hence, we end up with a KRudd government.

That surely proves how some folk have an impaired ability to make sound decisions.

I suppose you think we should disenfranchise them too?

Not stop at denying them the right to make their own decisions in terms of their “emotional, psychological, physical and spiritual well being” but at the same time, deny them the right to make a decision to who will govern, in their name and for their own good!

Yeah well get this.

I will always support the limitation of government power especially in the arena of censorship

We all, occassionally, make poor decisions for ourselves (I know I have made some “doozies” ) but the mistakes we make for ourselves are invariably lesser and more easy to correct than when government makes the mistakes on our behalf.

And at least we “grow” as individuals, from the decision making experience.

All that censorship does in deny us that growth opportunity.

“Let us not stop speaking against what is so detrimental to our communities.”

Absolutely Agree and I am doing that here and now. Censorship is what is detrimental and the greater risk to our quality of life

I can choose to ignore pornography,
I do not get the choice to ignore censorship.

That pornography is destructive should be plain to all, and I have most certainly experienced its harmfulness in my life. The overwhelming majority of those who consume pornography are men, and by and large the objects of their lust-fantasy are women, many of whom end up being nothing but impersonal sex-things for use in personal and selfish gratification. And because women are typified as such, those men who regularly consume pornography end up with a twisted perspective of women and their value: women become less human - with all their innate value and worth - and more sex-fantasy objects; no longer so much as someone's daughters, sisters, mothers, friends, but a thing to gratify sexual desires, fantasy or real.

Pornography is harmful, and is truly profitable only for one group: the multi-billion dollar sex/pornography industry.

It concern me that so many people are willing to countenance censorship.

I also suspect that the plethora of new posters have come a-runnin from some kind of anti-pornography website, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

I'd like to give you an example of what can happen when we allow our government to dictate issues of censorship, instead of giving the population the freedom to choose.

How many of the advocates of pornography censorship, are aware of the Chinese cultural revolution?

Chairman Mao effectively decided that sex was immoral, and was only to be undertaken as a means of procreation. Men and women were made to dress in an identical fashion, and marriages were selected by the government.

Is this an acceptable alternative? It created misery for a generation, which is still being felt, but now the country is moving toward a more sexually free culture. Still, knowledge of STDs and some pretty basic sex education remains a mystery for many citizens.

So why do I bring this up?

This is a precise example of restrictive social engineering - that's what's so important here, because at the core, what Mao was attempting, and what the censorship lobby are attempting are identical.

The idea is, to change what people want.

You, are trying to change people. You want to alter them. You want to make them have less of a sex drive.

You believe you have the right to dictate to other people what they should be like.

Social engineering is not acceptable, when there is no choice involved. Social engineering takes many forms - I don't mind advertisements for things like healthy eating habits, etc, because I'm free to refuse - but the alternative, would be banning junk food.

Regardless of what YOU or I think or porn, it's not up to us to make that decision.

Because people watch porn, they're not automatically going to commit rape - therefore, those people have the right to watch it, if they're not hurting anyone.

That's the endgame here. It really is that simple.

Gee Grodo, I'm impressed by your ability to post so many ignorant generalisations in one paragraph. It's like you have paid any attention at all to the discussion in this and other threads or the evidence provided which seem to run contrary to your shrill assertions.

It would do yourself, Nugsy, and Yindin well to actually research the issue properly - if you're capable of working out that what if something is not to your taste it doesn't mean that it is morally wrong.

Yes Turnleftthenright, it is that simple! Pornography does hurt people. Exactly the reason it should be stopped. How can you deny that it hurts everyone associated with it? You can not intellectualize something that affects the core of a person? Think of the issue in the first person. What would it be like to be used in porn? What would it mean your life was like?

Lev

‘It would do yourself [Grodo], Nugsy, and Yindin well to actually research the issue properly - if you're capable of working out that what if something is not to your taste it doesn't mean that it is morally wrong.’

Statements admonishing people about their research-challenged status do nothing more than give the speaker a sense of self-righteous superiority. Frankly, I believe research has become the misguided Delphic Oracle of modern society.

As the author chillingly shows, research on pornography can be compromised by many variables, including the gender politics of the funding body, the researchers’ objectivity, the methodology used and the selectivity of content. Likewise, much of the research on pornography in current Western society is conducted within the context of a culture in which women still remain unequal to men and are far, far more sexualised in the public domain than men are. These factors alone render many pornography research outcomes less than useful.

TRTL

At the time of the Communist and Cultural Revolutions in China, the West was not exactly a garden of promiscuity and free love. According to my mother, sexual repression was so bad in the 50s that many of her friends believed you could get pregnant just from kissing. She herself didn’t even know that the vagina and urinary tract were two different anatomical orifices until after she was married.

Also, you are judging censorship within the context of a totalitarian society, one that was totally devoid of the healthy checks and balances of democratic societies. You portray censorship as having an automatic endgame of complete and total social engineering – discounting the balancing motion of social pendulums moving forward and back.

In recent decades the pendulum has moved way too far towards excessive levels of pornography and an all-pervading presence of it in the public domain. It’s time for the pendulum to fall back again.

"you are judging censorship within the context of a totalitarian society, one that was totally devoid of the healthy checks and balances of democratic societies."

Yes.

And the cornerstone of these checks and balances?

Complete freedom of expression between adults, with the only exception being incitements to violence.

As for the 50s mention you make - absolutely. It was terrible wasn't it? Good thing we now have a freer society.

Did anyone pay attention to OE.
His testimony was of great value.
He said in 40years as a parole officer he hadnt met one sex offender who hadnt fed on a diet of porn.
Its the testimony of the witnesses that are more important to the porn/sex crime side of the argument than millions of words otherwise. No one wants the witnesses... just the talk.

and a very warm welcome to you too, Col Rouge.

I should have been clearer when I said, “I haven't read this report, but I know from personal experience that the comments above are all true”. I was referring to the personal testimonies of users of porn that had posted before and after my post. Of course I wouldn't comment on a report I haven't even read! Sorry for the mis-understanding.

I will endeavour to be much clearer next time.

It was a general, personal involvement with the crippling effects of porn that I wrote from. I still maintain what I said and don't take back a word.

I haven't read the articles you mentioned yet, but will in the future.

Col Rouge, you say

"Censorship is what is detrimental and the greater risk to our quality of life

"I can choose to ignore pornography,
I do not get the choice to ignore censorship".

What if someone is addicted to porn? Have they the ability to choose like your good self? I have had mates who are addicted to alcohol and couldn't choose to not drink. They had to be brought to a situation where they realised they were a slave. Other friends whose marriages and relationships have been wrecked by pornography, they were not in a position to choose - they couldn't. At some point some higher authority, has to step in. (We're a long way from the stifling picture you conjure up of China, in Australia). Count your freedoms!

I'm glad censors stop us from seeing extremely violent acts on the news. I'm glad Police put up a shield to cover the deceased after a car accident.

I'm so glad that Playschool exists, cause it bears testimony to the fact that deep down, after all is said and done, and we've all read the extremely interesting facts and figures on things, blah, blah blah, etc., etc. - ULTIMATELY WE ALL KNOW THAT GLOATING OVER SOMEONE ELSES BODY FOR OUR SATIFISFACTION IS WRONG.

So un-P.C. How ignorant I must be!.

Censorship is everywhere - get over it. Actually; rather than focus in on all the ways that it so inhibits your freedom, have a grain of love for your fellow person who can't help/save himself in the midst of their addiction and support the Government who is trying to find a way of legislating to support them.

Liam Mully “What if someone is addicted to porn?”

What is someone is addicted to the self-righteous arrogance and faux-piety of “Religious Fundamentalism (supposed denomination is irrelevant)?

“Have they the ability to choose like your good self? I have had mates who are addicted to” BIBLE BASHING“and couldn't choose to not PREACH.

They had to be brought to a situation where they realised they were a slave TO BIGOTRY.

“Other friends whose marriages and relationships have been wrecked by” RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

“they were not in a position to choose - they couldn't.”

“At some point some higher authority, has to step in. (We're a long way from the stifling picture you conjure up of China, in Australia). Count your freedoms!”

See just change a few words and I can challenge you with the same “reasoning” which you challenge me with.

How does it sound?

The excesses of religious intolerance and bigotry have, through the ages, resulted in more misery, more human degradation, more death than pornography. No Wars in the name of Pornography.

So who is this “higher authority"? government?

Keating government,

Keating, a sham marriage, wife dispensed with once he was out of office.
Evans and Kernow adulterers
Richardson secret Swiss bank accounts
Bob Collins pedophile

Is that an example of the “higher authority” you wish to “step in”
I would rather step in dog droppings, it would smell sweeter.

So if not government, maybe a religious authority would suit

Hollingworth the archbishop cover-upper in charge of his bunch of perverts
The Church of Rome, infested with pedophiles

“I'm glad censors stop us”
You might prefer a more “stern hand” than the rest of us, I do not know, it depends on what “rocks your boat”.

“Censorship is everywhere - get over it.”

Yes, in the “public arena” and we should never forget the demands of public decency is an entirely different “place” to the privacy which we respect and expect to enjoy as consenting adults.

As for “addiction”, that is a fraud and you know it. Although, addiction to porn does give “shooting up” an entirely new definition.

Col Rouge, I am sad that you seem never to have met anyone who really loves The Lord and serves others with His love and compassion. Maybe you could read about Billy Graham, Watchman Nee, Brother Yun, Smith Wigglesworth, Charles Newington, Jordan Tetley and Mother Teresa, to mention only a few. They are true, obedient and compassion men and women full of integrity following in the footsteps of Christ.

Other than that, trying to protect individuals in society from pornography has nothing to do with religion.

Nugsy, I was going to respond to comment that "age of consent ... does not mean they are in a position to make sound decisions". I was planning to say if that is your real concern, then I presume that setting the minimum age for people working in the pornographic industry to 21 would address it. I was then planning to add that I'd bet it wasn't your real concern. Is was just some straw man argument for your real agenda: banning pornography.

Ahh, but I see you admit as much in a later post. What a shame, you stole my thunder. I wonder if you actually care about the age issue at all?

I was also going to point out the figure Antonella and evidently yourself say are wrong were peer reviewed, replicated, and hotly debated by people who spend their lifetimes do this sort of thing. But whats the point? Antonella and probably you and already know this is the case.

You evidently have a thing about pornography. Fine, I can understand that, and should we every meet I would respect it. I hope most people do, to the extent of ensuring they don't leave it lying around where you and your family might stumble across it.

I have a thing about honesty. It really irks me when someone gets so tied up with a point of view they feign ignorance, resorting to lies and deceit in order to support it, as you appear to have done here. To me someone looking at picture, unpleasant or not is a non-event - primarily because the negative effects on others its has on others is so small as to be near impossible to measure.

But lies and deceit - well they have real impacts. We have recently gone to war on the basis of a pack of lies. We have miss-treated immigrants because they threw their own kids into the water - only they didn't. So to see you engage in the same behaviour that leads to those sorts of outcomes really irks me.

rstuart, I am concerned about a lot of issues to do with pornography of which there are many. Age of consent is but one. I wouldn't waste my time writing in a forum if I wasn't truly concerned. I don't know anyone but yourself who would brand me a liar.
I am interested in your point of view and do not judge you for your informed views. I would prefer to have an open and respectful conversation about an issue that we both feel compelled to express our views about. May we both be better informed because of it.

NUGSY “They are true, obedient and compassion men and women full of integrity following in the footsteps of Christ.”

And they did not work to remove Hollingsworth or the Bishop of Boston etc.

It is impossible for “integrity” and “religious coverup” to coexist within the same person.

“Other than that, trying to protect individuals in society from pornography has nothing to do with religion.”

What you seek is to protect individuals, not from pornography but from themselves and you do not have the authority either moral or intellectual to do that.

As for “nothing to do with religion”, if it did not have something to do with religion, you would not have felt the need to list the names of a bunch of religious zealots and suggest they were walking in the footsteps of Christ.

Just another lie by the “faithful”.

Which suggests

To rstuart “I wouldn't waste my time writing in a forum if I wasn't truly concerned. I don't know anyone but yourself who would brand me a liar.”

Make that two.

To rstuart “May we both be better informed because of it.”

I have posted several objective links on this and other threads which cover this matter. Maybe you could catch up with some authoritive and objective posts to balance the links I have already posted.

Or are you simply going to ignore the reason and descend into rant like most of the other posters, example Gibo, on your side of the debate?

Col Rouge "you could catch up with some authoritive and objective posts". As it happens I read an online journal, one of whose favorite hobby horses is this area. It seems the results studies range from finding a slight positive correlation to finding none. I could not point to one and call it authoritative. A better thing to look at would be a document summarizing a range of studies - which I take it is what The Porn Book does.

NUBSY - Yes, you are right. I should not say of said you were deliberately lying - I apologise. The truth is more likely a combination of things. At first glance it does seem porn would lead to the example quoted of young girl being raped. And secondly I gather that conclusion agrees with your chosen way of life. So its rather a comfortable rut to sit in. Which would be fine - I am sure I sit in a few of those ruts myself, except you say you take these issues seriously, and then espouse your gut feelings as "the truth".

If you really take these issues seriously that some time to learn more about it. You might start with wikipedia's article on porn. Here is an extract from it:

>historically high availability of pornography in many developed
>European countries (e.g. Netherlands, Sweden) has lead some
>researchers to conclude that ... an increased availability of
>pornography in a society equates to a decrease in sexual crime.
>... Japan, which is noted for its large output of rape fantasy
>pornography, has the lowest reported sex crime rate in the
>industrialized world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Anti-pornography_movement

Rstuart, on rereading of my post I can see how you made the assumption I was referring to you and not to NUGSY.

My post “To rstuart “May we both be better informed because of it.””

Was what was stated by NUGSY to you.

I apologise. I was responding to NUGSY and bungled it.

I did not intend to challenge you, your reference links or to suggest the “rant” was yours.

The comment was directed at NUGSY and I apologise to you for my poor deployment of English

I think that the key is that there is porn and there is porn!

Soft porn isn't nearly as dangerous or damaging as hard porn.

When all porn is presented and treated as the same it doesn't allow for difference. And there is a difference.

Jolanda Challita
Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/
Our children deserve better

Jolanda, you say "Soft porn isn't nearly as dangerous or damaging as ...". This implies soft porn is somehow "dangerous".

Common sense would lead you to believe that. It seems that people looking at porn might be inspired to do "pornish things", rather looking at pictures of glamours holiday destinations might make you want to go there.

But when you try to verify this actually happens - you can't. And its not for lack of trying. Women in particular find porn threatening. Their concern has lead to a lot of effort being put into proving there is a link between porn and violence against women. There have been innumerable studies. They either show a small positive correlation or none. (They generally don't go looking for the reverse - that porn reduces violence against women.) This is exactly the patten you would expect to see if the link either doesn't exist, or is so small it can't be measured. The small positive correlations are caused because sometimes they get unlucky in the people they choose to test - ie a random variation.

I am not sure what you call "hard porn". Does depictions of rape count as hard porn? If so, did you see my quote above? Japanese men seem to find depictions of fantasy rape particularly appealing. There is more porn of this type in Japan than just about anywhere else. Yet Japan has the lowest incidence of violence against women in the world. Even a single statistic like that should make you doubt, or at least question your common sense conclusions.

Antonella's argument was essentially that these real world figures don't count for anything. The attitude reminds me of child who, on hearing something they would rather not know, sticks their fingers into their ears and screams "I can't hear you" to drown other the others. Its irritating at best. But when you are trying to ban something that 1/2 the adult population enjoys, expect the reaction you see here.

Hello all,

I refer to the comment from Desipis,

'Or maybe we could be rational, recognize that for the majority of people pornography is a simple and enjoyable thing and any harms should be dealt with in a focused and direct way rather than using some sort of moralistic absurdities.'

I don't think that it is a 'moralistic absurdity' to fight against porn, and amongst other things below are a couple of reasons.

It may appear to be 'simple and enjoyable' for those viewing the material however this cannot be further from the truth, despite if you acknowledge it or not every time you view porn your opinion/perception of people changes. In most cases it will lead a person to view their partner (long term or short term) as a provider, or an avenue for pleasure rather than as a human who is to be respected, loved, cherished and cared for.

I was appalled to hear a father express, 'Well at least she knows she is a girl', after his daughter (approximately 6 years old) briefly lifted up her dress which she was playing with. It makes me sick to think of what that father is going to teach that little girl about self worth. No loving parent would approve of this father's comment, let alone their child being involved in the production of pornography.

I believe that we most definitely need to fight against the production of pornography and I encourage everyone to boycott the industry.

For those who would like to be free from your addiction to porn please email 'info@thefight.com.au' and request some help.

Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments.

"It may appear to be 'simple and enjoyable' for those viewing the material however this cannot be further from the truth, despite if you acknowledge it or not every time you view porn your opinion/perception of people changes."

It might. It might not. Frankly, the casual ignorance of this statement astounds me.

Isn't it great that we live in a society, where we can change our opinions, and our opinions are our own, instead of pre-judged to be acceptable according to those in charge?

Consider this - every time you view an action movie, you become more desensitised to violence. Is it okay to ban action films?

How about this - with each advertisement on television that advertises, say, McDonalds, you become a little more likely to buy that junkfood, which in the long run will fuel obesity and ill health.

Is it okay to ban these advertisements, or even the restaurants?

It isn't up to anyone else to determine how we "think."

As adults, in Australia, we have the absolute right to make our own decisions. Once those decisions break the law and hurt others, then we are punished - but we NEVER EVER have the right to try and 'shape' how people think.

That's a hideous concept. So damn simplistic. Have you considered the regimes in the past that try to determine what people think?

The great firewall of China? The McCarthyist era in the US? The Saudi Arabian religious dictatorship?

Sure, they're extreme examples. But that's an inevitable outcome when those in charge think they have the right to mould people in what they consider to be the ideal outcome.

Good grief. Save us from those who have the arrogance to think they can shape how people 'should' be.

TurnRightThenLeft, thank you for taking the time to read my comments and reply.

'As adults, in Australia, we have the absolute right to make our own decisions. Once those decisions break the law and hurt others, then we are punished - but we NEVER EVER have the right to try and 'shape' how people think …..'

If you had a friend and you knew they were about to do something which would hurt them and/or others, but they did not think so, would you not try to change ('shape') their thinking?

'It might. It might not. Frankly, the casual ignorance of this statement astounds me.'

The statement I made is not 'casually ignorant', it is based on personal experience, both from my own life and from speaking with others moderately and heavily effected by pornography, along with volunteers/councillors who help those effected by pornography.

I agree that every time we view an action movie, we become more desensitised to violence, and therefore availability of violent material is an important issue for this country to debate.

However, the main difference I see between violent movies and pornography is that people in violent movies don't actually die, or get shot or whatever, but people involved in producing pornographic material actually are violated/exploited (there are no special effects), not to mention increased ongoing emotional trauma.

I ask you, would you be ok with your child being involved with the production of pornographic material? If not, then why do you support anyone else's child being involved?

If we as a society are prepared to accept the violation/exploitation of another human for a moment of 'pleasure', then we need to have a serious look in the mirror, as this attitude is completely unacceptable and will continue to destroy lives.

right or wrong:

"If you had a friend and you knew they were about to do something which would hurt them and/or others, but they did not think so, would you not try to change ('shape') their thinking?"

If done through debate, information or reasoned arguments it is s fine. If through unwelcome interference in other peoples lives, such as "fight[ing] against the production of pornography" then no it is not OK.

"it is based on personal experience, both from my own life and from speaking with others moderately and heavily effected by pornography"

Which means you have no specific knowledge about the millions of people unaffected by pornography. Care to point out any scientific studies that show pornography is more addictive and harmful that things like caffeine, alcohol and tobacco?

"but people involved in producing pornographic material actually are violated/exploited."

You say that like being naked or having sex is a bad thing. The presence of a camera doesn't magically create a harmful environment where the wasn't one otherwise. It's true that some pornography is created through illegitimate means using violence or human trafficking. However attempts to prohibit all pornography will have little impact on this as there is already a demonstrated the will to break laws and social standards. All a prohibition will do is shift the demand currently geared towards legitimately created pornography underground, increasing demand for the creation of pornography that actually is harmful.

"I ask you, would you be OK with your child..."

That's twice you've brought up children when no one is debating the validity of child pornography.

"If we as a society are prepared to accept the violation/exploitation of another human for a moment of 'pleasure'..."

Most human pleasures have at one time or another involved disturbing levels of exploitation. Alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, chocolate, movies, television, books, toys... all of them have been the product of exploitation at one point. Banning something because in some cases it can result result in exploitation leaves us with a very bland life to live.

Desipis said it quite well, right or wrong. Your analogy with a friend about to make a mistake is quite flawed.

I'm not disputing your right to reason with people that they shouldn't watch porn. I'm arguing that nobody should have the right to censor it.

The real question is, would you insist on seizing control of what decisions your friend is allowed to make?

In fact, that still isn't quite right - Would you prevent your friend from having a choice in the first place, regardless of whether it was stupid?

And in doing so, wouldn't it be fair to say that you've no respect for this 'friend's' judgement - all the more outrageous, when you don't even know this friend, and presume to judge what decisions they can and can't make.

As I've said in other threads, social engineering is okay as long as it's voluntary or passive.

If you want to put messages out there saying porn is harmful, don't watch it, then that's fine - even though I think many people will dispute your claims.

As an example of passive social engineering - I wouldn't mind the government advertising, say, healthy food, as an alternative to junkfood, in an effort to curb obesity in the population.

That's all well and good.

But if the government then decided that they would BAN junkfood and not even give us the choice, then I'd be up in arms. I eat reasonably healthy and probably wouldn't be one of the more affected people, but I'd be incredibly pissed off that the government thought it had the right to actually restrict this - and I view pornography in the same manner.

If there has been an actual rape, or exploitation of children, then of course a crime has been committed in producing the pornography, and of course it can be banned - but not when it's consenting adults who have made their own decision.

Nobody has the right to paternalistically remove that decision from them.

Col Rouge,

If you can show me in my post where I mentioned the below words or their implied meaning, that you acuse me of using I would be grateful.

"BIBLE BASHING", "PREACH", "BIGOTRY", "RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE".

Up until this point I thought I was dealing with a mature adult.

Obviously not.

When you argue your point logically, and not too "emotionally" which is what you accused me of in my first post, I'll be happy to continue chatting.

right or wrong,

You say "you had a friend and you knew they were about to do something which would hurt them and/or others ...". The answer to you question might be obvious, but its applicability to porn isn't. If my friend is looking at or making porn, who is being hurt?

You say "moderately and heavily effected by pornography". How does someone behave when "effected by pornography"? I have never seen it. Is someone the heavily effected person happy or sad? I met a guy who was heavily effected my model train sets not so long ago. He had a large shed full of "stuff" and it overflowed into the yard. The place was a mess, and all those bits and pieces must of cost a pretty penny. He looked pretty happy though, and had lot of friends around who also liked model trains. His wife didn't seems to share his views on it. I'll grant you is a dangerous place for your average male to visit. It drags you in - there are so many toys and tools to play with.

And: "I agree that every time we view an action movie, we become more desensitised to violence". I have to disagree with yourself and TRTL here. The effect is mild, if present at all.

Finally: "people in violent movies don't actually die, or get shot or whatever, but people involved in producing pornographic material actually violated". People who have consensual sex aren't being are violated. A rapist violates his victim, but I don't violate my wife, a girl on a one-night-stand isn't violated by her consort, my son doesn't violate his girlfriend, and a girl who decides to sleep with the football team isn't being violated by them. Frankly, that would be the most twisted view of sex I have seen in this entire thread.

RorW “In most cases it will lead a person to view their partner (long term or short term) as a provider, or an avenue for pleasur.”

What happens between consenting adults is not yours to approve, disapprove, control or direct.

It is an assumption which is beyond your ability to make.

You may be able to speak for yourself and possibly for someone who may be particularly close to you but you have insufficient data to assume it is generally true.

“was appalled to hear a father express,”

I am a father, your observations do not apply to me. All you refer to are the actions of an unrepresentative individual.

“If you had a friend and you knew they were about to do something which would hurt them and/or others, but they did not think so, would you not try to change ('shape') their thinking?”

The rights of the one who seeks to change a friend do not extend beyond the right of the friend to follow their own will.

We must consider what “would you not try to change ('shape') their thinking?” means

What may be considered “reasonable” and what is “unreasonable”?

I would suggest talking to a friend to persuade them to think differently is reasonable

I would suggest seeking to censor someone’s right to access or participate in what is legal is not.

Certainly no ‘friend’ of mine would expect to retain my friendship by exercising such arrogance.

“The statement I made is not 'casually ignorant',”

Then support your assertion by producing the statistical and objective research result.

Until you do, I am afraid “anecdotal” reference of people who may be seen to have a particular vested interest, does not stack up against the available objective research which says otherwise.

“but people involved in producing pornographic material actually are violated/exploited”

Produce the objective data to support that assertion?

And again, why should a porn actor or actress listen to you and decide to forego being paid for pursuing their “dramatic craft”?

Who are you to defend people from themselves?

Who has authority to defend you from yourself?

TRTL

'As adults, in Australia, we have the absolute right to make our own decisions. Once those decisions break the law and hurt others, then we are punished - but we NEVER EVER have the right to try and 'shape' how people think …..'

Who says that putting more controls on the availability of pornography is ‘shaping’ how people think? All it’s ‘shaping’ is the availability of pornography. People can think what they like.

Controlling people’s ability to smoke, litter, walk their dogs without a leash, eat junk food, avoid tax etc are just part of the checks and balances of a society that wants to maintain a balance between the two extremes of what is reasonably safe and what is irresponsible and dangerous.

But for some reason, any suggestion of putting controls on pornography sends people’s anti-wowserism meters into overdrive. It’s automatically assumed that there is absolutely no middle ground between the total, unconditional availability of pornography to anyone who wants it, and a total blackout on anyone even being allowed to think of sex. This is not only unrealistic; it’s crazy!

I also tend to notice that, while there is never a shortage of people defending our right to view pornography unchecked and unregulated, there is a curious inhibition about introducing sex education in schools or other youth programs. I also notice among the young people I know – who have ready access to pornography and have grown up surrounded by sexual imagery in the public domain – that they blush scarlet when you use words like vulva, prostate, fallopian tubes, urinary tract or pubic hair in general conversation.

The strange paradox of the society we live in today is that we can get all the pornography we want, but we still have a lot of trouble freely speaking to one another, or to our children, about human sexuality.

SJF,

"Who says that putting more controls on the availability of pornography is ‘shaping’ how people think?"

Read "right or wrong"'s comments.

"Controlling people’s ability to smoke, litter, walk their dogs without a leash, eat junk food, avoid tax etc"

All of those things listed that actually are regulated are regulated because the actions directly impact on other people who do not consent to the interaction. Creating or viewing pornography only directly impacts people who are consenting to their involvement (and is already illegal if such consent does not exist).

"The strange paradox of the society we live in today is that we can get all the pornography we want, but we still have a lot of trouble freely speaking to one another, or to our children, about human sexuality."

And a lack of sex education is something that causes problems in society. Imagine if instead of teaching real physics in schools all we had were Hollywood movies, or instead of teaching kids about the real Australia all we taught was Waltzing Matilda and Blue Healers, or if instead of teaching kids about philosophy and ethics we teach them to live their lives based on fairy tales (oh, wait...)

You can't blame the problems from a poor sex education on pornography, and I'd be very surprised if you found someone in favour of unrestricted access to porn who was against comprehensive sex education.

"...that they blush scarlet when you use words like vulva, prostate, fallopian tubes, urinary tract or pubic hair in general conversation."

Which is a result of the way sex is stigmatised in todays society, which is the main cause of unhealthy attitudes towards sex.

The thing is rstuart is that I think that porn cheapens the human race and drops standards. It is just my opinion of course.

Jolanda,

Sturgeon's Law applies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeons_Law). If you think that porn cheapens the human race and drops standards, you may as well apply that to all popular culture. Evidently you also need to view some better porn; start will I Modi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Modi), and work up from there.

I notice that you also claim that "soft porn isn't nearly as dangerous or damaging as hard porn". I am aware of at least two empirical studies both of which show that it is the degree of degradation, not the level of sexual explicitness, that is dangerous and damaging. I am yet to be shown a study which shows the contrary.

"Attitudinal effects of degrading themes and sexual explicitness in video materials", Golde JA, Strassberg DS, Turner CM and Lowe K (2000), Sex Abuse, 12(3), 223-32

"Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually degrading depictions of women”, Linz DG, Donnerstein E and Penrod S (1988), J Pers Soc Psychol, 55(5), 758-68

Liam Mully “if you can show me in my post where I mentioned the below words or their implied meaning, that you acuse me of using I would be grateful.

"BIBLE BASHING", "PREACH", "BIGOTRY", "RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE".

Up until this point I thought I was dealing with a mature adult.

Obviously not.”

Those words are what I overlaid on your post.

They substitute for “Alcohol”, “Drink”, I added “to Bigotry” after your original words “were a slave”
And finally “Religious intolerance” substituted for pornography.

Which explains why I made the comment

“See just change a few words and I can challenge you with the same “reasoning” which you challenge me with.”

Oh except, I used UPPER case to distinguish my insertions to your original words.

As for “mature adult” consider me young at heart in contrast to your posting style of the already dead.



Jolanda “The thing is rstuart is that I think that porn cheapens the human race and drops standards. It is just my opinion of course.”

What individuals choose to enjoy in the privacy of their own home or in properly licenced premises is up to them.

What cheapens the human race and drops standards is the unwarranted interference by the state in using draconian legislation or censorship of some form to curtail individual rights to engage privately, in whatever they want either alone or with other consenting adults.

I fail to see how me looking are naked women “cheapens” the human race.

The first real life naked woman I ever saw was in an art college life drawing class and all these years later, I still enjoy seeing naked women.

I think women are inherently beautiful and far more interesting to look at than men but that is my subjective standard. My partner enjoys seeing naked men far more than I do.

As for “drops standards”

Anyone can only support a standard when they can exercise the choice to do so.

Censorship, by its very nature, drops the “standard” to zero because when all choice is denied, no one can aspire to any standard.

SJF, "Who says that putting more controls on the availability of pornography is ‘shaping’ how people think?".

It's the main premise of the original article. A quote from it: "girl raped by a pornography-saturated 10-year-old boy". The argument made by article was something like "The Porn Book purports to have figures showing pornography doesn't shape behaviour, but they are so inconsequential as to be bizarre."

Every post that supports the original article has, to the man, continued with this argument alone. Yiden: "Reducing women and children to sexual objects", runner: "led to rape", bettymc: "impact of pornography on rape", Fractle: "shudder to think of the warped imprint", and on and on it goes. Its almost as if they think repeating it makes it true. And then you come along and imply no-one is making that argument. Ye Gods!

Another argument can be made: 1/2 the population dislike porn, some to the point of disgust. Ignoring their feelings on the matter is in my mind wrong, and as a practical matter impossible in a democracy like ours. Fortunately compromise is possible - restrict porn so it only visible to those that seek it out. We implement that compromise now - I think reasonably well, but I am sure an argument could be made for some place that we aren't doing it so well. It would be an argument acknowledging that 1/2 the population liked porn, 1/2 don't, and proposing some change in the compromise.

No one writing in support of the article makes an argument like that. Instead what we see are arguments for banning porn entirely, without consideration or compromise given to the other side. Since most studies show porn does no harm its a bit hard to justify this. You certainly can't with an argument based on getting the compromise right. So that argument is ignored, the science dismissed with appeals to "common sense" supported by lurid fantasy's, and porn is portrayed as destroying society or some such nonsense. Most would call this lying. The icing on the cake is while doing this they claim the moral high ground.

Rstuart

I have not once called for an outright ban on porn, nor do I tell people how to llive their lives.

I do have concerns about hardcore porn and how it stereostypes women AND the impact of these images has on younger people who are still understanding their sexuality.

I can't help but notice that those who believe porn is harmless are all hetero and mostly male.

Some have even argued that porn reduces rape. I have to ask what kind of person thinks seeing people being raped has a healthy attitude to sex and the people upon whom the rape is conducted?

Please also see my post at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1644&page=0#32203
Which compares stereotypes in advertising and in porn.

Also, if you believe that the sex-industry is a healthy and worthy career would you encourage your children into it? If yes, please tell me why.

My issue is that porn is based on a very narrow aspect of hetero male sexuality (not all men find hardcore all that enthralling either) - there is little in it for women that is particularly of sexual interest/arousal. Once you've seen one dick going in and out of a vagina/anus/mouth....

I want quality, I don't watch trash TV or trashy movies and I would like to see porn that actually presents women in a positive way rather than as objects. There is some, but not much that caters to female sexuality.

What I find particularly worrisome is that ANY criticism of porn is seen as an attack by the "boys club" here. It is not. Women like to have fun too, our sexuality is never presented in anything but as serving males. BORING.

Also disturbing, is the lack of comment on the need for comprehensive education of our children to ensure that they grow up with respect for their bodies and those of others. Yet porn is available at the touch of a keyboard. Absurd and sad.

Fractelle,

- "those who believe porn is harmless are all hetero"

That's plain wrong.

- "and mostly male."

Yes, and the other side is mostly female. Is this significant? Are you saying more weight should be put on one sides opinions because of their gender?

- "what person seeing people being raped has a healthy attitude to sex"

A male person, usually. Perhaps Japanese. Japanese men like porn depicting fantasy rape - more so than any other race on the planet. They are also the least likely to perpetrate violence on women.

- "compares stereotypes in advertising and in porn"

And the relevance to porn being harmful would be?

- "would you encourage your children into it"

No. But I wouldn't be upset over it either. Its not like they are going to do themselves permanent harm by working in it. They are after all free to leave at any time. Commuting on a motor bike, working in a physically dangerous industry (eq journalist in a war zone) - that would scare me. But I don't to get say in whether they do those things either. That is how it should be, I think. Not stepping aside for the younger generation would be far more unhealthy for our society than them not allowing them the freedom to look at inappropriate pictures.

- "What I find particularly worrisome is that ANY criticism ..."

Descriptions of bleeding vagina's and pornography soaked teenage rape goes beyond ANY criticism, doesn't it?

- "BORING."

Is that your only criticism of it? And merely being boring warrants you spending this many words on it? Admit it. It does more than just bore you.

- "Also disturbing, is the .. respect ..."

Actually some of the figures from The Porn Book that Antonella dismissed as "inconsequential" showed that women were in control of the sex that occurred, had normal bodies, and in general were treated with respect. Maybe we should use them as educational videos? NO, I hear you say? Then the issue can't be respect, can it? What is it you don't like about them?

I am so bored of reading the same thing from the pro-pornography fellas. Stop trying to justify your perverted actions with meaningless words.

Goodbye!

Fractelle “I do have concerns about hardcore porn and how it stereostypes women AND the impact of these images has on younger people who are still understanding their sexuality.”

Hence, the repeated opinions expressed by those like me, to censor children’s exposure.

“I can't help but notice that those who believe porn is harmless are all hetero and mostly male.”

Oh that might be considered as almost “sexist” but rest assured, my “feminine side” is in complete agreement with my masculine side.

Just as they are in complete agreement about the individual choice on the matter of abortion and the preeminent right of a lady to decide.

“Some have even argued that porn reduces rape.”

And produced links to objective studies to support that view.

“ I have to ask what kind of person thinks seeing people being raped has a healthy attitude to sex and the people upon whom the rape is conducted?””

Well for starters, not all pornography evolves around “seeing people being raped” and as has been said by others who support freedom over censorship, the acceptable limits are defined by the legality of the act, hence the right to view child pornography is not being defended, nor is the right to view someone who is not consenting.

“seeing people being raped” implies non-consent.

Your referenced previous post includes “The hetero male contingent on OLO claim that porn is all harmless fun.”

I am not arguing the pornography is harmless, any more than gambling, drinking, smoking are harmless.

What I do advocate is, despite any “subjective assessment” which you perceive, it does not entitle you to censor the “harmful” choices of others.

people voted for Krudd.
My opinion, a singularly harmful act.

Yet I do not claim the right to direct them to vote liberal and thereby avoid the harm.

“I want quality,”

We all want “quality”, even when we do not know what to do with it.

Wanting “quality” would mean you can tell Mozart from Beethoven, Hepworth from Cellini , Canaletto from Botticelli.

I know I can, but I don’t expect others to.