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.