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.