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.