" Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described images he had been shown by the police that “appeared” violent but were in fact consensual as “disgusting” and “revolting” ".

Doesn't it really make you wonder what kind of repressed sexual thoughts (mainly pushed by religious zealotry) are running rampant though some otherwise reasonable minds? And these folks are the ones who think their own inadequacies and repressions need to be imposed on the rest of the population.

Remember all the scandals several years ago in the US when several high profile evangelists were caught with their hands (or other parts) in the honey pot while forcefully advocating against the pleasures of the flesh. Some of our politicians come to mind also.

Anyone defending the pervert industry is either deceived or has a perverted mind. Maybe they justify showing nudes of young girls as young as 12 and call it art as seen in Sydney last night. I am sure many of the posters here would take their 12 year olds to nude beaches and allow every other perverted person to stare at her. Pornography is degrading and only serves to paint women, girls, men and boys as pure sex objects. The pervert industry has fooled many because they need their bit of sick gratification for the day and the industry wants your money. With views like Catherine's you can be sure her religous 'degree' must be in earth worshiping or something similar. Remind me not to send my kids to the same uni.

I’m not sure that rape is increasing, and I think men’s abuse of women is very minimal, (although much exaggerated by the feminist movement so as to maintain the feminist movement).

However I do think that the internet should be cleaned up. Feminist lies on the internet could be taken off for a start, and then proceed on to any violent material and pornography.

This article is also another feminist article on “men’s violence against women”, that doesn’t mention women’s violence against other women, or women’s violence against children, or women’s violence against men, or men’s violence against men.

Next feminists will be saying that they believe in equality and democracy, and taking a broad and unbiased view of the world.

It am always left at a loss when yet another woman defends the pornography industry. I just don't understand the motivation behind it. Why should images of woman drowning while being raped as their heads are being stuffed down toilets, pins being stuck up women's vaginas, woman having sex with animals (i could go on and on and on) be assessable for men to use to masturbate? The whole sex industry exists to provide men with a means of ejaculating. For this reason, and this reason only, women and girls around the world must suffer abhorant violence and abuse. Does anyone else find this situation difficult to accept, impossible to defend?

Les,
You seem to know a lot about porn (and after a quick look at the author’s blog site, she also seems to have a fascination with it), but I have read that about 40% of pornography users are women, and they probably use pornography to masturbate to or fantasies with in some way.

It appears to be another feminist myth or feminist lie that the only pornography users are male.

Dear HRS

I am exposed to this abhorant material through my work in the criminal justice system. I am sick of having to view porn material produced by men that depict their own daughters and other young children in porn inspired situations. I will not go into any detail but it is violent, degrading, and abusive, and porn inspired. I should add that these cases are not rare. Unfortunately, they are becoming more and more common. So HRS, i assure you I am not fascinated with this material, rather I am at the coal face trying to get justice for the victims of the men who are porn users.

Excellent article which, refreshingly quotes from the law lords discussions and detailed reasoning.

Final line “Meanwhile, murderers will still murder women and rapists will still rape women. Attributing it to pornography is not addressing the issue - it is distracting from it.”

I wholly agree, a fixation on pornography maybe considered unhealthy. However, I would apply the same test of "unhealthy fixation" to both the consumers and the antagonists of pornography.

regarding

“If you need ‘violent pornography’ to get you through the night, you have serious problems and should get help … If you ‘get off’ on watching any of the things listed as ‘extreme porn’, you are a sick individual”

It is only the authoritarian social systems which think they have the right to decide who is sick and who is not.

In a democratic system, it is up to the individual to decide, for themselves, if they should get help, regardless of how “sick” others may brand them.

In a democracy, the point of initiation for “state intervention” is when someone’s actions are either illegal (child porn and non-consentual acts) or have affected another, non-consenting individual.

Les “I am exposed to this abhorant material through my work in the criminal justice system. I am sick of having to view porn material”

I suggest you get a different job.

That way you do not have to be exposed to this “abhorrent material”, you will no longer feel sick and the rest of us will not be pressured to fall into line with the delicate balance of your metabolism.

Re “the victims of the men who are porn users”

Real research suggests the use of porn reduces the number of victims, not, as you imply, contributed to them.

T'riffic article — I agree wholeheartedly.

Les, I am a woman and a feminist who defends the industry for much the same reasons as Caroline Shepard. For a start, I believe in freedom of expression. I also believe there's nothing wrong with men masturbating — or women either — and aids to sexual enjoyment I regard in general as Good Things. Porn heightens sexual pleasure.

The examples you use are largely of illegal acts — adults are not allowed to have sex with children or animals. All areas of human endeavour appears are violated by lawbreakers, and porn is not exception — but illegal acts within pornography does not invalidate the whole industry.

I believe we need to be ruthlessly honest about pornography. There are myths on both the pro side and the anti side. It's a myth that porn is predominantly violent — the vast majority of porn is made for men and depicts women in various states of sexual bliss. That's what most men want to see — women getting off on a d!ck they can imagine is their own. Of course, there are a gazillion variations on this, some ghastly and violent, and women enjoy porn too, but that's the brass tacks of it.

On the pro side, men sometimes mythologise their own ability to tell if a woman is "really enjoying it". It's a myth that most women who work in porn get sexual gratification from their jobs and earn lots of money which they use to pay their way through law school. Statistics are hard to come by, but the truth is that many if not most don't much like it, but are in the game to fund a drug habit. (And sometimes a boyfriend's drug habit too.) While they often earn more money than sex workers, the system is the same as the real acting world — the wages are not high unless you're a star. The more legal porn is, the more the women and men who work in it can get the best deal for the work they do.

cont...

cont...

Porn can, of course, be problematic. I know men who have felt they've become addicted to it at different points in their life. Some regret the proliferation of porn on the internet, because they rigmarole of acquiring and storing magazines provided a natural containment to what can become obsession.

And it's certainly true that some porn depicts violent sex. I'm not into it myself, but, as long as it is made legally, it is hard not to see why that is not a valid expression of some people's sexual tastes — however abhorrent those tastes may seem to you or me. As the author points out, porn does not make people "flip". No study has ever proven a link between porn and rape.

I appreciate that the porn you've seen, and the victims of illegal acts, have distressed you. They would distress me too. But it is the illegality that should concern us, not porn itself.

I am not huge consumer of porn — very occasionally, I look, and really just at one website which is very arty and includes a lot of antiquities. But I believe it has a right to exist, employers are obligated to provide safe working conditions, and people who enjoy porn should not be made to feel ashamed about it.

Good article. Sums up the situation quite well.

In response to posters:

runner states: "I am sure many of the posters here would take their 12 year olds to nude beaches and allow every other perverted person to stare at her."

Care to point the finger? Because I'm am sure you're using this to smear those who consistently defend freedom of speech, regardless of whether they personally find such an idea repugnant.

I sincerely doubt the posters here would do what you describe, and don't think you're doing your own image any favours by casting such nasty aspersions.

Neither does the assumption: "you can be sure her religous 'degree' must be in earth worshiping or something similar."

If you're going to keep banging on about 'earth worshipping' you best learn to put a second 'P' in there, however might I humbly suggest you look outside your own need to worship things, and call atheists and agnostics by what they really are, lest they respond in kind by calling you a sky-deity-cross-fanatic.

HRS: "However I do think that the internet should be cleaned up."

Classic. Then we can move on to getting all that damn fish urine out of the ocean.

Les - I understand your point. However, I don't think many defend violent porn per-se. They oppose a government's right to crack down on any form of expression that doesn't hurt someone directly.
The harmful things of which you speak, can just as easily be ascribed to action or horror movies. I grant you, the sexual element here is unpleasant and confronting, but I for one, wouldn't trust what we have the right to view to our governments.

Most of this has been hashed out in these threads:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1644#31661

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1654#31974

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7114#108907

They're similar.
A bunch of wowsers pop in to say how evil porn is. Others chime in to defend freedom of speech.
They then point out that the actual statistics indicate this is a tenuous claim, and that's being generous.
Then the wowsers fail utterly to provide any kind of backing, but continue in the same vein regardless.

I think Les is blurring the lines between adult pornography and child pornography, that are two different things, and exploitation is morally wrong and subversive, I agree, but adult pornography is not the same. Many adult developers are serious about age restrictions, all models are required to be over the legal age and this is something that is taken seriously. As a publisher of adult literature (or erotica, which is sometimes considered as ‘porn’ by some people) and erotic art, I don’t see how this form of expression is subversive.

I think many Australians don’t understand the UK Law and what it really means. It is basically founded on an old obscenity law, that did see novels like Lady Chatterley’s Lover prosecuted in law courts for being obscene.
And what is porn? It appears that everyone has their own definition of porn. So the question remains, do people go back in time, and ban books like Lady Chatterley’s Lover and remove imagery from sexual instructional guides like Alex Comfort’s Joy of Sex, or do we spend more time debating the issue, being real and faithful to the era we are living in, rather than opting for the band-aid approach? Band aids don’t last long.

The UK law is interesting, considering the current talk of Australian Internet filters after the recent federal budget. The amount this Rudd government proposes to spend on such a filter is hideously absurd. To subsidize telcos and ISP's to filter porn, based on an opt-out system, is a waste of money, and many know this. Parents should actually parent, and take more control or interest in what their children may be viewing on the net. The idea of spending millions of dollars, to effectively fund telcos and other corporations to develop filtering is an insult to many Australians who are struggling to make ends meet, and using porn as the excuse is BS

I agree that this is a very good article about a 'touchy' subject :)

While we can expect more from the wowsers, Caroline Shepherd points out the argument that trumps all others in this case - i.e. that it is preposterous to outlaw the viewing of images of behaviour that is not illegal.

I cannot believe the 'new prudery'. The idiocy in relation to the banning of an exhibition of nude photographic art yesterday is another case in point. Adults are responsible for their own behaviour - the State has no business in their bedrooms - or living rooms and art galleries!

Excellent article, Caroline.

I find it strange and a bit too Orwellian that the UK has take this sort of step to regulate what people can look at, find arousing, and utilize for sexual pleasure, or that the feel they can regulate fantasy.

I also find it typical to see people conflagrating child pornography with pornography which is made by adults in a legal industry- where proof of age and consent are regulated pretty heavily.

There is nothing anyone can say that is going to make me think the following is not more than a little off: I, as an adult woman, can make a pornographic image I find to be erotic. I can consent to it, even enjoy it, and see that everyone else involved has consented. I can have legal documentation backing up this fact, I can send it freely to someone in the UK, and they can be arrested merely for looking at it, even though they were not involved in it’s production at all. They can be arrested for it’s possession, on the slim chance it “might” make them harm another human being.

I wonder if the UK has a plan to arrest those in possession of music with violent lyrics, books with violent passages, televisions which show violent and sexually violent shows or movies, art that is violent, video games which are violent, or hey, alcohol (which is a factor in many cases of rape and violence).

At this point, Caroline, people in the UK could be arrested for looking at my blog.

And the idea that women could not or do not find “extreme” pornography erotic? That, simply put, is erroneous.

This mentality of censorship is well-rooted in Australia thanks to a coalition of christians and feminists.

The Holy Bible has the best description of the problem when it says in Jeremiah 17:9 that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked...".
What we feed it will live to do actions, one way or the other.
I see pornography as "What kind of world do we want to live in?"
A world with at least some discipline and a lessening of the sex crime rate... or a world where anything goes.
The porn issue is not a complex one.
We ban it and allow civilisation to breath again...or fail to ban it and we live with the crims and the increasing misery they bring to women and children.
I believe we stand right now, today, in 2008 on the very edge of a fall into apocalypto.
I hope wisdom prevails.

G'Day from "Thought Crime Britain" ;-)

It's good to see that news of this ludicrous law has spread to the rest of the world and that others agree that it is completely ridiculous and draconian.

The idea is that, somehow, viewing images of consenting adults engaged in consensual activities will so derange us that we'll go out and commit violent sexual crimes, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back that claim up.

Unfortunately it's depressing to see people like "runner" bringing up the red herring of child pornography when Coutts was not convicted of any such offence.

It's similarly depressing to hear "Les" echoing Liz Longhurst (and Lord Hunt and Mary Whitehouse) that *their* personal tastes should determine what *we* can see. Personally I consider Neighbours to be tosh that should never be broadcast, but I don't say others shouldn't watch it because I don't like it!

BTW, Les, given your exposure to "abhorrent" material at work, how many violent sexual offences have you committed? None? But surely it's so corrosive that you *must* have been influenced by it! Or are *you* a paragon of Moral Virtue, but we "others" cannot be trusted to behave in a sensible and adult way?

Of course if people actually checked facts instead of just spouting what they "believe" (which is as useful in a sensible debate as "I heard from a bloke in the pub") they'd find research like that from Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i which studied the increasing availability of pornography in the USA and Japan and concluded:

"It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

Still, why let the facts get in the way of good old Moral Outrage?

PS RenEV says "I wonder if the UK has a plan to arrest those in possession of [...]", the answer is probably "All in good time" from those who passed this law...

It's true runner. A terrible thing that children are naked underneath the God-given clothes provided for them. Shame on the Sydney artist for turning anyone who saw those images into a pervert!

Although I think there is a more important campaign for you to energetically pursue. Animals. Yes, animals. Much ignored but animals are free, according to pervert secular law, to roam around naked. I saw two dogs the other day in public, engagin in acts which was clearly immoral and unnatural.

I urge you to cast your energies towards a campaign to ensure that animals are clothed in public. It's disgusting that they parade around like they do!

The Bill Henson issue is a completely different matter, it's about minors, and not adult pornography, so I don't know why it is making an appearance here.

For all those who are spitting the dummy about the recent Henson fiasco here in Sydney, I challenge them to the following question:

If you were the parent of a 12 or 13 year old child, would you let nude images of your child (posing in the same manner as the confiscated images) be uploaded onto a web site for the world to see?

Yes or no?

Artists use sensationalism all the time so they can make a buck, and that is what Henson has done. All those images are darkly lit, they're like basic photography 101, and yet, because of the name, they are now equivalent to Picasso? LOL

I'm really interested in the follow up or the investigation into the parental consent issue because the child models weren't Australian, they were from Europe, so it raises another question:

Why didn't Henson use Australian or American child models?

Lev,

You seem a master at ignoring man's depravity. You are obviously blinded to the fact that if you took these pictures you would be charged by police. You comparing naked animals with naked 13 year old girls is deceitful or a demonstration of your ignorance of law and decency. Your defense of porn would leaves me to think you have a vested interest.
TRTL

If you want to defend people who take photos of 13 year old girls naked in the name of free speech you have the right to do so. I also have the right to call your view perverted along with the artist and every paedophile who calls this pornography art.

Ah, but runner, ask yourself - are you providing any kind of real insight?
Sure, you can flick any number of insulting comments my way. Given that I've so vociferously defended people's right to free speech then yes, I suppose that comes with the territory.

I suppose I could just as easily flick all manner of insulting comments back your way, but really, where would that leave us?

I'd argue for starters that if you were indeed going to call someone 'perverted' you'd have to establish that they were indeed interested in such imagery, and for perverted reasons at that, rather than a very widely held belief that government interference in personal choice is a dangerous thing.

But I suppose that requires a little more introspection, consideration and thoughtful comment, and a little less by way of self-righteous barely literate hateful smears, but hey.
I guess that's your interpretation of a Christian attitude.

You people admonishing Henson disgust me.

TRTL

You defend your right to defend the indefensible ( an obvious outcome of no absolutes). I defend my right to call any view that promotes child porn as perverted. I am amazed you take such offense.

TLTR “Ah, but runner, ask yourself - are you providing any kind of real insight”

A fair question TLTR. My observation, runner has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of intellectual prowess needed to vocalize the real argument.

Instead she relies on a smash-and-grab approach to debate.

Other folk who do similar are commonly called “trolls”.

If it posts like a troll and it reasons like a troll, then it must be a troll (repeat offender type).

You see the same mindless parroting, as an inferior alternative to reasoning, among the Christian fundamentalists who actually believe the Bible is the literal world of God (King James Version only, of course) or live in fear of being excommunicated incase they 'think' more independently than the Papists allow.

runner,

I am quite aware of man's depravity. Most of seems to be performed with religious justifications. Crusades, Jihads, The Draconian Ordinance, Nazi-Christian Judenhaas, the child-rape factory managed by the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, and all those murders who say "God told me to do it"... and so on.

So when you concentrate on nudity and media of sex between consenting adults, rather than those genuine depravities I will gently mock this obsession of yours. In particular your confusion between nudity and pornography and perhaps even more so, your extremely strange sense of casuality.

According to your reasoning, Rembrant's painting of his son, Titus, should have been illegal as the boy is nude. "La Fornarina" by Raphael, should also fall under the category. The impressionist Mary Cassat also, Henry Scott Tuke, the contemporary photographer Frederick Monsen, Edward Weston, Ruth Bernhard and Jerry Avenaim..... and so on - up to an including every Australian parent who has a photo of their children nude in a bathub as a babe.

Lev

I guess now we'll have to cover all those little boy statues peeing into fountains, depraved indeed....

Do Henson's pictures of pubescent 13 year old girls have any aesthetic merit? Ofcourse they do. If I said no I would be dishonest. Is the model in any way compromised or put in the way of danger of any sexual predator who might happen to recognise her? It's not only her but those who may have a passing resemblance to her who would be in considerable danger.

The statue of David has always drawn admiration Does it have any aesthetic qualities? YES...may be more for women.he is well-hung,actually. Does it put David in harm's way? No. Not unless replicas are bought for masturbatory purposes.

Or should we now smash all those garden statues of little boys pissing into a fountain and while we are about it getting all politically correct put a pair of underpants on to David. And on all his replicas...or smash the bloody things.

Put the welfare and protection of children before all else,PLEASE.

socratease

I am not sure if the governments on all continents are on drugs or not, but how about a life sentience's for all child sex offenders?

Problem solved.

In order for an ethic to be demonstrably ethical it must be tested as valid in nearly all situations. Unless the teaching of philosophy has changed in the last 30 years.

But situational ethics has taken over. If a school teacher is accused of looking up a seated 12 year olds dress he (wouldn't be a she) can and has been dismissed. The young man in question that I knew was a gifted teacher, he quit in disgust and became a lawyer.

But a group of Chardonnay swilling secular progressives can appreciate the naked body of a female adolescent and it is supposed to be unassailably and socially acceptable. If the same wine lover would view the photo on the DET website they would be prosecuted. Now that is a simple undeniable fact as the viewer is not an art teacher.

To say, “pornography killed Jane Longhurst”, therefore, is grossly simplistic.

Very true.

Just as it is grossly simplistic to say, "lax gun laws killed xyz" and yet this country has invested over 650 million and counting on stiff firearm regulations. Misappropriated millions pursuing a myth while the money could have and should have been spent on mental health.

Both the UKs pornography legislation and our firearm regulations are examples of the propensity of western governments to cave into populist feel good notions to combat problems that are centred in mental health.

The topic is about adult porn not Bill Henson's recent images.

As for the comparison between Henson and Rembrandt and Italian renaissance art, puhlease! There is no comparison.Henson likes to cause sensation. Anyone can take pictures like that.

Why can't anyone stick to the topic. Bill Henson is yesterday's news.

AnaM:

The reason that those who support this and similar laws keep bringing up child porn is that they want to create an association between the two since most "ordinary decent people" will then think "if this has anything to do with protecting kids I'm all for it!"

The UK Home Office did the same in their original Consultation document on this law with similar irrelevant references.

Of course what these supporters *really* want is to outlaw *any* imagery they don't like, but they know that they're not going to get their way if they just say "ban all porn", so they have to con people into believing that, somehow, passing a law like this will "protect children".

This is utter nonsense (just as ridiculous as was Martin Salter MP's assertion that "Snuff Films" actually exist and that women are actually being raped and killed in the stuff he wanted outlawed) but if you keep telling the "big lie" for long enough, people start thinking it's true.

And so, step by step, the right of adults to decide for themselves what they may or may not view, is slowly whittled away and suddenly they find that they can be criminalised possessing images of *legal* and *consensual* acts!

AnaM > ", puhlease! Henson likes to cause sensation. Anyone can take pictures like that. "

Do you call that an argument? Next time dignify yourself with one. If you don't have one your comment and opinion is worthless.

Causing sensation is not illegal/wrong (thankfully). Try to cause a sensation in China if you want to see what happens.

And, anyone can NOT take pictures like that, BUT EVEN IF THEY COULD, that is completely irrelevent to whether something should be illegal/considered wrong.

When it comes to discourse about pornography, what we need is not a continuation of the old religious-wowsers v. privacy-freedom debate, but a whole new set of debating rules.

In terms of sexuality, society has gone from one extreme to the other. Once, sex was hidden from the mainstream culture; today it pervades every aspect of the public domain.

Once mainstream religion was a major social force in society; today it has lost much of its following and, consequently, much of its ability to control public behaviour and sexuality.

Factor in also, the rapidly changing status of women and the pervasiveness of the media culture.

Women’s dramatically increased role in the workplace (and other areas) makes them much more active contributors to the (visible) economy than in the past. The continuing pornographic portrayal of women as being ‘done to’, rather than ‘doing’, is at odds with their increasingly active participation in public life. (This is what underlies the feminist argument that pornography ‘degrades’ women – not a belief that men are beasts.)

And finally, regardless of how ruggedly individual we like to think we are, we are still very much influenced by what we view and listen to.

For example, we are willing to acknowledge that the advertising industry exists in order to create scenarios that heighten experience and thus influence people to buy a product, live a certain lifestyle or vote for a particular candidate. Yet, we are not willing to acknowledge that the pornography industry, which exists to create scenarios specifically designed to heighten sexual experience, will only have minimal-to-no influence over how we think and behave.

It is not giving in to the wowsers to allow some degree of pornography regulation. Life, society and sexuality have changed dramatically over the last thirty years. With the sheer pervasiveness of pornography and sexuality in the public domain, the time is fast approaching when we may need freedom FROM sex rather than freedom OF it.

SJF, I disagree very strongly with your comment, or at least believe you are mistaken in your application of beliefs. Ironic, considering your opinion is formed by the society you describe or your own prejudices.

SJF>"Once, sex was hidden from the mainstream culture; today it pervades every aspect of the public domain."

This is a complex point because it's rather broad and vague claim you make and you use a confusing mix of terminology to make your point (and I am willing to question your own intentions and agenda here)

SJF> "sexuality and pornography is so pervasive"

You think pornography is so pervasive but why? it is all but illegal in Australia. It is certainly frowned upon and not sold in public. Pornographic advertising is illegal.

That's a seriously deficient proposition you put forth.

Ok, so you only think sexuality is pervasive? For one, this is irrelevent. It is not illegal to use sexuality in advertising/entertainment. And sexuality can be used in all but the most repressive regimes. Is that where you want to go?

Secondly your perception of the prevalence of sexuality is because you are aging. People who resist change (the elderly and religious, the conservatives) have been present blocking cultural progression at every stage of history. The prevalence of sexuality has always been a problem with the older generation. Same with the "evil young people".

Knowing this, you should NOT feel put out by it. For if you are you are automatically desiring repression of the next generation, according to your wishes. That is extremely foolish and selfish.

Lastly, an analogy. Just like rednecks and religious bigots want freedom FROM seeing gay people rather than freedom OF gay people.

SJF:

"The continuing pornographic portrayal of women as being ‘done to’, rather than ‘doing’, is at odds with their increasingly active participation in public life."

How much porn have you viewed recently?! How about all that porn which shows women "doing" unto men? Are they just pandering to male fantasies (as the feminists would have us believe)?

Have you heard of a UK group called Feminists Against Censorship whose members are women who say "It's my damn body, I'll do what I like with it, even if if some 'feminists' think I'm letting the side down!"

And your comparison of porn and advertising is flawed because advertising is aimed at *creating* a need so you will buy the product. Porn, however, *fulfils* a need that already exists.

That was the reasoning behind the "Extreme Porn" law in the UK, ie that if we see this stuff, we're so weak minded we'll go out and try to copy it no matter the consequences.

Well, sorry, but I think the vast majority of people have a little more sense than that.

As to "It is not giving in to the wowsers to allow some degree of pornography regulation", that is balderdash! It is the argument of "I don't like this so *YOU* shouldn't be allowed to see it" and says that *your* tastes should determine what others can see.

I can make my own decisions. I don't need you to do it for me.