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.