If you believe "the scheme that will make the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally block up to one in 12 legitimate sites, will miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and is very easily sidestepped. The government of the day may add any ‘unwanted’ site to a secret blacklist under the scheme.

Our Government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Can you join me and take action on the net today to save the net?"

Attend the rallies next Saturday December 13th to show that you don't want compulsory filters on the internet http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=463?dc=590,194135,3

Best article on porn Ive read for yonks, Melinda.
Youve got a good heart in an increasingly dark age.

How to kill a civilisation?
Just allow porn to sweep it from one end to the other.

Many years ago I came across a book written by a charismatic christian pastor by the name of Jack Burrell (What Will Become of Australia by Jack Burrell...excerps from it are on the internet these days, finally) and Jack was speaking about a series of revelations The Lord had Given him, mainly about an invader taking land off Australians, and Jack was saying that God showed Him more than just an enemy on Australian soil, but that there was going to be a day coming when lust would sweep the land destroying families and making no woman or girl safe even in their own homes.

Jacks revelation came about 1973 -74 and wasnt written up until about 1975.

Ivan Milat showed us that the lone wolfs are out there, prowling for victims.
I believe if we dont stop them...they will stop us.
There isnt one of those lone wolfs who isnt porn-fired!

God bless any politician, or writer, who has the courage to truly see what is happening... and who is willing to pick up the sword of Righteousness to kill the dragon and his porn.

Sex is legal,enjoyable and essential for the continuation of the species.
Violence is illegal,painful and often kills.
Free to air TV shows much violence but very little sex.
Censor TV not the internet.
Half of American films on TV begin with someone being violently assaulted or murdered and that is just the comedies.
Let us not go the American way.
Instead do as in Europe.
Sex is fun.
Most Americans are Christian so violence is OK but sex is taboo.
Advocating violence (as part of pornography or not) must already be illegal so Mr policeman ,go get them.

Don't bother reporting research Melinda. You don't really believe that the ever growing population of porn users are interested in anything but themselves. They would rather indulge in their own lusts than prevent numerous women and men being degraded. They would rather maintain their dogmas (its my right) than reduce child sexual abuse. They are the first to scream when some homosexual paedophile priest commits a crime and then the first to defend perverted artists. You can't win a logical arguement with those who are so enslaved with their own lust that they are happy to support the putrid eros foundation and its like.

"Our Government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither."

What's your solution, Billie?

I've supported every GetUp! campaign since its inception but I won't be supporting this one. No thinking adult likes censorship. I certainly don't. But in the absence of any workable alternatives, right now it is for me, and many others, the far lesser of two evils.

The only alternative I've seen suggested by the anti-censorship enthusiasts to date is that it's up to parents to protect their children and to instil in them the sorts of attitudes that will immune them to the negative influences of pornography. This sounds great in theory, but as Melinda's litany of examples and statistics clearly demonstrates, it's failing miserably in practice. Many parents are just not up to the task and those who are are seeing their best efforts beaten through the sheer volumes, the easy accessibility and the natural curiosity and vulnerability of children. My own son, a good decade ago as a young teenager, had assembled a sizable and no doubt well-worn collection of pornography on the net until I accidentally stumbled across it. He's a fantastic young adult now, but who knows what legacy this exposure has had on his attitudes toward women and his intimate relationships with them.

Thanks Melinda for once again alerting us to the extent of this problem. You'll be crucified for your efforts. You'll again be called a prude, a wowser, a Catholic and whatever other inventive invective your detractors can conjure up to discredit your arguments. Through all this though, nothing will change the horror of the stats and studies you've presented.

I'm still waiting to be shown how society will benefit through turning a blind eye to the current unfettered proliferation of pornographic imagery, and the way in which it degrades and sexually objectifies women, children and animals. I know it's a boon to highly sexually-charged and sex-obsessed males, but I've yet to see how it benefits the rest of us.

I wonder Runner how you can walk down the street,do you run into people all the time, because you must never look up,look at newsagents,read papers,watch movies, look at Ads on TV,all that sexual perversion and only you can save us.
As I said before if you cant control what your kids see thats your problem not mine,and please don,t run around as per Conroy accusing people like me of being Pedos because we disagree with your rather blinkered view of the world.
Or do you want to drag us back to the 50s because it is not going to happen

I agree with Melinda's stance on this issue. From experience, I suspect the OLO supporters will be very much in the minority.

Bronwyn has pretty much echoed my thoughts on this so I won't repeat those. There seems to be a bit of overwrought hysteria over Internet censorship.

If it was political censorship I would agree in terms of freedom of speech, 'big brother' etc but in this case we are talking about protection for children.

Censorship is not always about control but protection. We have to distinguish between the two. We place ratings on movies and games for this reason and make laws against criminal activity for the greater good.

What is...."Inappropriate" content?

I'd say it is whatever we by our democratic processes SAY it is.

There is a snowflakes chance in hell of pleasing everyone..so why bother trying?

THE PROGRESSION....
<<the images and symbols of pornography have become mainstream, with sexually suggestive content on billboards, kids clothing, in games and music videos.>>

So....logically and reasonably, if those pornographic themese have become mainstream.. 2 observations are needed.

1/ What has BECOME of "mainstream" society?
2/ What will the Porn industry come up with NEXT to 'push the boundaries' so that something is seen as 'naughty' again..(ie.. out of the mainstream) and thus 'alluring' to the adventurous mind.

Regarding "1" I think nothing has really changed, it's just that our true existing nature is less restrained and our carnal appetites have simply surfaced. "

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness," (Rom 1:18)

Regarding "2".. I think all existing boundaries of age and gender and what constitutes violence and erotica will be challenged, including bestiality etc.

The simple but sad truth is.. once you begin the downward slide into the pornographic cesspool of filth and human degradation, it's a one way ride on a highway to hell.

When we as a community turn back to the Almighty, and repent of our sin, embracing the new life in Christ.. only then will the shackles of downward spiraling carnality be released

“How many other mistakes have the Board made over the years these titles have been sold? Someone needs to audit the Board.”

If the executory performance of the board is so poor

Abandon it altogether

Save the tax payer the costs of its administration

After all, tax payers are “grown ups”, required to pay taxes, forced to vote (under penalty of fines) and some are potentially liable for conscription should the time arise. I figure the bearers of such burdens are fully capable of carrying the weight of their own viewing decisions

http://www.torproject.org/

This little program is apparently the one that will bypass the filters.

I showed to my brother who is a top programmer and he said yes it's good.

As a programmer, I would have to say that anyone who supports ISP-level filtering, is either a wowser with radical (and most likely religiously driven) ideas, or is a well-meaning, naive person who obviously doesn't have a very good understanding of Information Technology.

The filter won't do anything to stop hardcore and child pornography, and most illegal sites are already blocked by ISPs anyway. All this will do, is slow-down our already embarrassing broadband speeds, increase the prices of our already expensive internet connections, block many legitimate and innocent websites with false-positives and allow the government-of-the-day to determine what is acceptable for our viewing.

Arguing that censorship is a worth the risk in order to protect the kiddies is pointless and totally irrelevant. The vast majority of digital hardcore and child pornography is distributed by other means and ISP-level content filters are easy enough to get around. There's no way of ever stopping their circumvention either - many kids these days already know how to do it. One thing's for sure though, if this democracy-eroding proposal goes though, I for one will be bypassing it on pure principal.

To assume that this won't eventually become political censorship is naive in the extreme. There's no way anyone be sure of this when the list of "unwanted" material will be changed without our knowing.

I've been a Labor voter my whole life, but I don't think I'll ever vote for them again. If I had to choose between ISP-level filtering and Workchoices, I'd take Workchoices any day - and that's saying something.

Hey Adam,

What do you think of that Tor thing in the link I put on?

Censorship to porn is what the GST is to tax dodgers. It doesn't work.

Hi Meredith,

I've never had any experience with Tor, but I had a quick look at the link you provided and yes, it looks very good.

The only problem with bypassing filtering though, is that it can slow your connection down a bit. But that's a sacrifice I'm sure many will be willing to make if it means they can be sure that no legitimate sites are mistakenly blocked in their Google searches.

I've worked with content filtering a lot in my career and I can affirm that false-positives will be a very frequent occurrence - no matter how finely tuned the filter is.

meredith: "What do you think of that Tor thing in the link I put on?"

I am a computer programmer too. Tor works, as in it is impossible to block at the ISP level. You would expect it to. It was developed by the US Department of Defence explicitly as a means of forcing the US ideal of free speech onto countries like China. However, it has its drawbacks. It can be very slow and unreliable. You can get anything you want with Tor, but you have to be persistent.

There are easier ways. If you have a mates with the material, just get them to email it, or send it via a chat room, or put it up on your free web page at google or whatever. If it is large then it will be available via peer to peer (P2P) programs like Lime Wire. You can also use HTTPS encrypted proxies, which are available for free in the US, or download VPN software. If you want performance, then for about AUD$12 per year you can run your very own private proxy in the US.

Each of these solutions can't be easily blocked by the filters. Email and chat rooms can't be blocked at all. Attempts to slow down P2P in the US ("throttle" in internet parlance) brought forth new P2P programs that encrypted everything, making filtering dammed near impossible. Public VPN's and HTTPS proxies might be blocked, but they won't even know about your private one.

China has for all practical purposes given up on the filters like the ones proposed for Australia. Instead they insist everyone hands over their ID before walking into an internet cafe, they put cameras in them, and they discourage private connections and monitor those that exists, and they occasionally shoot people who get caught looking at the wrong thing. Works a treat.

How to filter the internet:
1. Take a glass of water. That is the internet.
2. Add a drop of dye. That is the nasty bits.
3. Cups your hands. That is the filter.
4. Bliss?!?

At first, I was going to dismiss the Australian Sex Party as a rather pointless publicity stunt.

However, after reading this article, I think that perhaps we have need of such a party after all.

Tankard Reist worked for former Senator Brian Harradine a staunch catholic and anti-porn crusader (the Senator Fielding of his day).

She won't put this on her profile though, because she has such an agenda. You'll note the religious nuts (Gibo and runner) were very quick to endorse this message.

Bronwyn, predictably is as foolish and ignorant as always. There are many alternatives already. ISPs already censor feeds for concerned parents, and the Liberal governments proposals also offer tools free if anyone wanted it.

runner: "Don't bother reporting research Melinda."

I'd agree, runner. She doesn't seem to understand what she is reporting, and so it likely to mislead. Indeed she does so here. She reports (correctly) there is a large body of evidence showing that a persons liking for porn is directly related to their propensity for sexual attacks. Pity she didn't go further and try and find the driver for that relationship. She might of learnt something. But I have not yet seen Melinda show any interest in learning something that goes against her cherished prejudices.

Melinda does here what she always does. She finds an easy target (like who is going to support an old man saying "a 71-year-old man wanting innocent looking girls for arousal") and works herself up into a puritanical frenzy about it. Its another example of her not having a clue about finding cause so you can reduce the unwanted effect. The single example tells you almost nothing.

But then, perhaps she never really meant it to. Her method seems to be to titillate prudish older women into a sustained lather. To be fair, it is always remarkably successful. In this piece she managed to avoid directly suggesting the internet should be filtered, so they didn't have to bother their conscience with that particular irritant.

Bronwyn: "I'm still waiting to be shown how society will benefit through turning a blind eye to the current unfettered proliferation of pornographic imagery"

Stop waiting Bronwyn. You were shown, but you ignored it.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8200#128519

You have also been shown here and elsewhere why the proposed solution won't work. You have been shown the proposed solution is open to abuse by those who run it. You have been shown it will make internet access more expensive for all of us, and slow the internet down to boot. You have even been shown it may lead that list of the worst of the worst URL's been leaked to paedophiles and our kids. Yet you ignore all of that too, apparently because it doesn't suit your prejudices. You and Melinda make a great pair.

Dear undidly,

>Sex is legal,enjoyable and essential for the continuation of the species.

Not all sex is legal, not all sex is enjoyable (alas), & oddly enough sex is not essential for the continuation of the species.

>Violence is illegal,painful and often kills.

Not all violence is illegal or is experienced as painful, & very little of it in Australia is practised with the aim of killing.

>Free to air TV shows much violence but very little sex.

Free to air tv shows a lot of both.

>Censor TV not the internet.
Half of American films on TV begin with someone being violently assaulted or murdered and that is just the comedies.
Let us not go the American way.
Instead do as in Europe.
Sex is fun.

I'm sure women like Linda Boreman – or for that matter, Leigh Leigh, Anita Cobby, Tegan Wagner, & millions of other women (and men) would have a different opinion on this question.

>Most Americans are Christian so violence is OK but sex is taboo.

Last I noticed, Americans seem to be doing a lot of both, whether they are Christians or not.

Why not simply use the same test in regard to this question as we do with most others concerning people's actions, ie people should be free to act or speak as they wish unless they harm others. Why should porn have any immunity if there is harm? That is, the question is not whether we should be free, as we are all agreed on that. The question is what is to count as harm, & hence can be legitimately regulated.

I don't think that it is a good situation that children have access to violence, sex, porn and other stuff so easily through the internet. I definitely believe this is a bad development, however, censorship is a very strong action against that.
However, I believe that some other way has to be found in order to control internet content.

So why is it that an increased availability of pornography in Japan is coincident with a reduction in sexual crime?

"Many men who commit crimes of sexual violence live on a diet of pornography. (Dr William Marshall, Use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child molesters and non-offenders, Journal of Sex Research, 25, (1998): 267)."

However, according to this article:

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

" The actual evidence in this report, however, seems at closer scrutiny, to indicate that pornography used by adult sex offenders is viewed immediately prior to their offense. Unstated, but contained within the Marshall study, is evidence that exposure to pornography was usually absent from the offenders' experiences during formative years.

This seems to be a crucial consideration. Most frequently, as it was found in the 1960s before the influx of sexually explicit materials in the United States, those who committed sex crimes typically had less exposure to SEM in their background than others and the offenders generally were individuals usually deeply religious and socially and politically conservative (Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christenson, 1965). Since then, most researchers have found similarly. The upbringing of sex offenders was usually sexually repressive, often they had an overtly religious background and held rigid conservative attitudes toward sexuality (Conyers & Harvey, 1996; Dougher, 1988); their upbringing had usually been ritualistically moralistic and conservative rather than permissive. During adolescence and adulthood, sex offenders were generally found not to have used erotic or pornographic materials any more than any other groups of individuals or even less so (Goldstein & Kant, 1973, Propper, 1972). Walker (1970) reported that sex criminals were several years older than noncriminals before they first saw pictures of intercourse."

This article confused me a lot. I've always observed that in countries where openess regarding sex was the norm sex-related crimes were very low. Studies back this up. I've always been a lot more concerned with violence and its impact than sex so must confess haven't kept up with recent dialogs or research in this area.

But the research cited in this article seems to argue that there IS a basis for assuming a link between marriage/relationship breakdown and sexually explicit content and, arguably, with sex/violent crime - at least in a measurable amount of cases.

If this is the case then why should Australian and American society function in a completely different direction to the Scandanavian countries, Japan and other countries where open access to explicit material has always been available and where such policy works to reduce sexual crimes? Is it because in Australia and America this is only a comparatively recent construct? Is it something to do with the influence of fundamentalist Christianity? Does anyone know of any research in this area (i.e. the opposing affects of the same policies in different countries?). I find it thought-provoking.

In re ISP filters etc. Living in China I can back up the comments of the computer tekkies who stated how easy it is to by-pass so-called firewalls. It was common prctice here before restrictions were lifted. However, most people - fanned by misinformation from foreign journalists - did not seem to realise that, by the time of the Olympics and with the advent of Internet chatrooms the CCP had slowly given up on controlling political content and the main body of restrictions pertained to kiddie-porn.

Romany, the article isn't confusing, so much as selective with its facts. One piece of hard evidence that Tankard Reist cites is a study by Vega and Malamuth. I will quote myself from a previous thread in relation to this study. "According to that article, high porn use does correlate with high levels of sexual aggression in a tiny minority (approx %1) of the sample. High porn use is a risk factor in certain high-risk groups" In other words, for those predisposed to sexual aggression, heavy use of porn may correlate with increased levels of sexual aggression. But correlation isn't causation, as the authors are careful to emphasize. The abstract (can't find the full text) of the study is here http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17441011 and a similar article is available here http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/00arsr11.pdf

Not precisely sure of the value of "other researchers have found a clear relationship between sexually callous attitudes and histories of forceful, coercive, aggressive sexual conquests", ie callous people act callously. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Can't find the full text or abstract of the Marshall article, so I'm not sure about it.

I'd be interested to read the Michelle Evans article, but I can't find it. The abstract of her thesis is here, her "civil rights" approach is based on the work of MacKinnon and Dworkin. http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/pubfiles/adt-MU20060502.151829/01Front.pdf

For more info on Tankard Reist, an informative (though biased) bio is here http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/

I don't know about you, but an alliance of Dworkin-style feminists with evangelicals and the Catholic Church doesn't much thrill me.

Romany I've got the impression from previous reading on the topic that it's a mix of selective quotations, possible use of advocacy research etc. There is some very interesting material from the USA which shows a clear drop in rates of sexual assault committed by teenage boys corresponding to rates of internet takeup in different US states. They've checked against other crime rates to ensure that the changes don't relate to improved policing. I've referenced the material previously but don't have the link handy. As far as I can tell the research was not sponsored by the porn industry.

Someone else (CJ or Col I think) has posted similar material from Scandanavia.

Some of the research I've seen which finds a link between viewing porn and increased levels of sexual aggression seems to involve getting Uni students to watch porn in a controlled environment and then having them interviewed by an attractive woman afterwards. Hardly a real world situation and I've not seen any indication that any of the subjects have assaulted the interviewer (or anybody else) after viewing porn.

R0bert

Thanks for that info R Stuart.

As for the debate on sex crime and porn, does it worsen or lessen the problem? I think a bit of both.

Johnj - thank you for the links - though I have a bit of trouble with pdf files, I found it worth going back then and re-reading the article in the light of this both this background material and the bio. Ahhh...now I get it.

Robert, yeah, thanks to you also. As I said, its an area which I haven't kept up with lately so I was seriously beginning to wonder if some whole new paradigm shift had taken place while I've been up here.

Although there's a lot of silly devils around on OLO ( I guess I'm one of them, according to some people) I always appreciate the fact that people can always be relied upon to respond to appeals for help. Thanks guys. Now I know what I'm dealing with I'll view any further articles by this writer with the info you provided in mind.

For those of you arguing that it is healthy for young children to watch porn (in the interests of a well rounded and healthy society) may I ask:

1. Is there any age at all that you might consider it inappropriate for a child to view porn (whether accessed by accident or intentionally)?

2. How does viewing violent porn and similar (rape, animal, incest etc) aid in developing this healthy societal view about sex?

3. Is there any sort of porn that you would consider inappropriate for children to view?

I would agree that societies where there is more openness about sex usually indicates a stronger sense of democracy and equality between the sexes. (Unlike those countries who still believe women should be totally covered up) But to argue that porn contributes to this wellbeing is a bit thin.

We can link always find stats and articles that support one particular point of view. When it comes down to it, the best evidence is experience - watching your own kids, raising children and dealing with children in a professional capacity.

It does not take much nouse to realise that children are more sexualised today often at quite a young age and while they come into possessing this knowledge they do not simultaneously possess the maturity, empathy or discernment to match that knowledge.

Yes we are all sexual beings, but is there is a point to which we have to make age appropriate decisions to protect children until they reach a certain level of maturity. Is there anything wrong with the old adage that lets children enjoy being children for its own sake because we are a long time an adult?

Pelican addresses "those of you arguing that it is healthy for young children to watch porn." Are you reading a different thread to the rest of us? Who exactly has advocated that? I can understand strong feelings on the issue, but weren't you were the one who complained about "overwrought hysteria" earlier in the thread?

For the technicalities of the issue people might be interested in the Whirlpool (Australian broadband discussion forum) wiki on Cleanfeed http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=cleanfeed

The folks on Whirlpool have worked themselves into a frenzy on Cleanfeed. A sample may be found here http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1097810 They are now on their 16th thread (each of 50 pages) on this topic. Thats right, they are approaching 1,000 pages of posts on this issue....

pelican: "Is there any age at all that you might consider it inappropriate for a child to view porn (whether accessed by accident or intentionally)?"

Nope. If they are looking at it intentionally, the game is over pelican. You've lost control, and can only hope whatever you have done so far was enough. If they see it accidentally, see david f's reply. It reflects my own experience.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8200#128236

pelican: "How does viewing violent porn and similar"

My instinct, like yours I suspect, is to censor stuff that directly incites violence, or produces immediate harm - porn or otherwise. And there some very good studies showing societies and social groups that don't defend themselves against direct attack usually disintegrate. That said, numerous examples show censorship is a poor defence. A stellar example of good defence is how our own Muslims handled their Mufti. Once his ideas hit the mainstream press, he was effectively silenced - no censorship required. If the poisonous ideals fed to the UK bombers had been in public view, there would have been no UK bombings. Such examples illustrate why I view any attempt at censorship with deep suspicion.

You should too pelican. Where porn is dragged out into the open, like in Scandinavian countries, Japan and so on, women are treated very well. I'd wager one reason is because when men can't just view it in private the girls make them very aware of their opinions of it at an early age. It is an education young Australian males don't get.

Instinct, even powerful instinct, can be wrong.

pelican: "always find stats and articles that support one particular point of view."

Sigh. "Yes" I yell, head in hands. But real, hard figures are the best method we have of exploring the world we live in. I'd say the only reliable method. They are dammed hard to use, and finding them takes a huge amount of effort. Still, this is the first time I have ever seen MTR make any attempt to do so. I hope it is the first step in a long journey for her.

pelican, I doubt that there are any easy answers to your questions. The point I'd draw the line is between adolescents seeking the stuff out or an adult using it to try to sexualise them.

It's an issue I'm trying to deal with, my son is showing signs of interest but has had enough religious teaching to feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing. That leads to a reluctance to discuss what's happening with responsible adults and from what I can gather attempts to find out more in secret. In my view a dangerous mix.

I've not followed the research on the impacts of the violent stuff other than reading other peoples comments and my impresssion of that is access to violent porn may actually reduce the incidence of violent sexual assault. It seems to be a chicken and egg argument, does exposure to porn increase sexual appetite or does sexual appetite increase the interest in porn? I tend to think the latter.

R0bert

Compulsory filters are a ludicrous idea as explained by AdamD and rstuart. Thanks for that info- like Romany, I needed some more info especially about the technical side. Knowing this made my ‘against compulsory filtering’ position stronger.
Why would we want to be stuck with negatives (more government interference and slower internet speed) without positives (it does not effectively protect children)?

As a young child of primary school age, on my way to and from school, I passed a sex shop every day. Not only magazines but sex toys too were on display.
Nobody seemed to have a problem with the shop being there- none of my classmates seemed to be paying much attention to it. Once I went in with a friend and purchased one of the magazines out of curiosity. There were no age restrictions. We found the pictures of nude women and the stories very boring.
After our curiosity was killed by the naked truth, we were much more interested in the candy store across the road.

My great-grand parents owned a pub in the Amsterdam Red Light district where prostitutes met their clients, including regulars and quite a lot of sailors. My Grandmother, from the age of six till she married at 20, helped serve during school nights and on weekends. She loved their happy faces, the music, singing and the dancing.
The regulars –prostitutes as well as their regular clients- were very fond of her, but no one ever sexually assaulted her even though she was in contact with the prostitutes and their clients almost every day. She was treated with respect.

She also was aware of the consequences of sex at an age when, these days, children similar in age as my grandmother had no idea where babies came from, my grandmother decided to remain abstinent of sex until marriage.

Continued…

LOL, even just TALKING about porn filters slows down loading of the page! It took a good 20 minutes to just load this New Post page and another 10 to preview! Posting it might take ages, too!

Continued story...
She not only served prostitutes at the pub, but also lived above this pub and amid prostitutes who sat in red-light windows half naked. Because of the location of the pub and apartment above it, she was the only child living in this adult neighbourhood. The prostitutes loved her and spoiled her generously with lollies and treats. My great-grand parents never stopped her from befriending and visiting the prostitutes; they knew them all and must’ve trusted them.
It did my gran no damage at all, she felt accepted and loved there.
She had a warm and caring nature, and was a very open-minded woman with a great social life while raising 4 children including my mother.

Now, imagine that she had lived and worked as the only child not amid prostitutes but amid celibate priests, and had visited them at their private homes, helped out at the Church etc.
Would she have had a greater chance of being sexually assaulted?
I believe so.

That’s why I wished that Churches used their donations more wisely, i.e. to purchase (on-line) porn or hire prostitutes whenever priests have ‘the urge’. Because they expect celibacy or can’t express themselves sexually, because they’re deprived of something that is innate, natural and healthy, they end up frustrated monsters.
We all know that the Church had to pay out large amounts of compensation because priests sexually assaulted minors.

Seriously, being sexually frustrated is unhealthy and obviously has turned some people into monsters.

BTW Billie I signed the petition, thanks.

Celivia I had the same experience trying to get onto OLO today.

I thought I might cop it for my last post. However, the aim was to make you think about the issue from another point of view. While I understand that no-one is advocating that children actively access and view porn, the point is that they can easily be subjected to porn sites using fairly inoccuous search terms.

I recently was searching sites in relation to horticulture and included in the listing was a couple of porn sites very vaguely or not even vaguely related to the search terms. It doesn't happen often because we do have a moderate filter and some parental controls but it is not 100%. We have always spoken openly about sex at our house, it is not taboo, just as we speak about drugs, politics, the environment and any other issue.

The point is it is too easy to access porn. As I have said previously on another site it should be easy enough to have a choice of filtered and unfiltered streams via one's ISP. Surely if we can land men on the moon we can develop an efficient and fast filtered internet for those who prefer it - particularly if one has children.

Romany: "most people ... did not seem to realise that the CCP had slowly given up on controlling political content and the main body of restrictions pertained to kiddie-porn."

Count me in with "most people". Part of the issue is China is so bloody big, and the media report on the most sensational aspects. So you see reports of people throw for doing something fairly innocuous in western terms, and maybe later comments this is a one off incident in a far off province. It is very hard to judge what is typical. China did itself absolutely no favours in this regard by setting up protest zones, then sentencing two old women to 1 year "labour re-education" for applying to use them.

pelican: "Surely if we can land men on the moon we can develop an efficient and fast filtered internet for those who prefer it - particularly if one has children."

If you mean ISP filters internet connections for those who want it - we already do pelican. Yes, they cost more and are slightly slower and so aren't particularly popular. But they are available in every area. Here is a list:

http://www.iia.net.au/

The filter salesman say they are fast, efficient and accurate. If you think they are necessary at all then that is probably true enough. So you have everything you wished for, pelican. They only thing they aren't is mandatory.

pelican: "I recently was searching sites in relation to horticulture and included in the listing was a couple of porn sites very vaguely or not even vaguely related to the search terms."

You were using Google? If so turn on Google safe search. Its under "preferences" on the search page. Its not perfect, but every additional layer of filters reduces the things that slip through. They also increase the odds of not seeing a link you were after, of course.

Celivia

Thanks for that fantastic and colourful story about your grandmother and also your personal experience.

I recall my student days when I lived in St Kilda on a particularly notorious street. The flat opposite to me was rented by a street-worker; she preferred to work for herself rather than a brothel because she could refuse whomever she wanted and all the money she earned remained hers. She would also see regular clients at her flat. Her door was directly opposite mine and occasionally I'd get a knock at the door from one of her clients by mistake. There was never any problem I just explained "wrong door, you need that door". Never was I hassled, OK occasionally asked if I 'worked' too, but I never felt I was in any kind of danger.

At night I would often go to the Espy, the Prince - terrific band pubs and frequently curb-crawlers would pull up beside me, in fact I didn't even have to be dressed up these ever hopeful men would stop me at any time of the day. Again, while some could be a bit persistent I never experienced any trouble at all. Where there were problems were from young hoons from the outer suburbs. But I digress, my point is we underestimate men that somehow the sex industry be it porn or prostitution will lead men to harass and abuse women and children.

There is always the deviant who will be triggered by porn, but what percentage of the population are these people? Less than 1%? Kmart catalogues are sufficient for these nutters.

As for filters, waste of time (literally) and will never be a substitute for education of our children. Most kids who grow up on farms have a healthy attitude towards sex and clearly growing up in Amsterdam has the advantage of developing a tolerant attitude to the diversity of the human race.

Child porn is illegal as it rightly should. Government controlled censorship of the net should be banned as well.

rstuart,

to get a different take on China, rather than relying on main-stream media, go to one of the blog sites I've mentioned before: Chinasmack, Angry Chinese Blogger and Chinalyst spring to mind. You'll laugh, you'll cry - but you'll never be bored!

Growing up with two generations of people connected with the theatre and media, my kids were pretty blase about soft porn and stuff we occasionally saw. Chancing upon some woman gasping and moaning in simulated ecstacy, my mother would say prosaicilly "Poor dear, probably gasping for a cup of tea. I do hope the director gives them enough breaks." A naked and tumescent man would bring the recollection "I say, George, do you remember that time you got yours caught in a fan?"(true story!. And a drawer!)

We had friend, daughter of an academy-award winning actor, who was the model for a very famous Chek. painter and a picture of her beauticul body, albeit painted green, hung on many walls. She'd tell us how the picture was painted in winter and the artist wouldn't let her have a jacket. Finally, he allowed his cat to curl up in her lap but, when she got home, she found fleas in her pubic hair and was furious.

What with stories of fleas and fans and cups of tea, not much titillation survived for my sons.

Celivia writes

'That’s why I wished that Churches used their donations more wisely, i.e. to purchase (on-line) porn or hire prostitutes whenever priests have ‘the urge’. Because they expect celibacy or can’t express themselves sexually, because they’re deprived of something that is innate, natural and healthy, they end up frustrated monsters.'

You obviously choose not to accept the simple fact that lust leads to more lust. That is why the perverts who use porn have to have something more perverted or bizzare material than before. It would be interesting to find out how many suicide full of guilt and filth after realising that no amount of this crap can satisfy the inner longing of man's soul.To the Catholic churches credit ( of whom I am no fan) they are trying now not to recruit homosexuals to become priests. This will cut down drastically the rate of paedophille in the catholic church. These 'frustrated monsters' are actually bound by their own lust and no doubt often feed on porn and perversion. You seem to either be in denial or have things back the front.

runner, lust is a natural biological process that is the cause of why people procreate.

I see yet another child porn bust including a former Victorian QC.
'Child protection operations teams seized more than 15,000 videos and 500,000 images of child abuse which were shared between members of a peer-to-peer network.
The images and video included the sexual abuse of children as young as 12 months old.'

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24784454-661,00.html

With so many sick judges, artists and priests it is no wonder we have trouble having any sort of child protection in place. It makes me wonder how many of the champions of porn on OLO are into this sick material.

As I have said many times enjoy your bit of perversion and don't worry about the innocent children being abused. These same idiots who support porn are likely to oppose a child getting smacked for disobedience. NO wonder our children are not safe.

"It makes me wonder how many of the champions of porn on OLO are into this sick material." Posted by runner, Thursday, 11 December 2008 11:44:21 AM

I'm hoping that post gets left up. A low even for runner. Will David (Boaz) see fit to chastise his fellow believer for his enthusiastic phrasing or will it be treated as acceptable behaviour for one who cliams to follow christ. Is the comment in keeping with the teaching of christ and the example of the early church as David commented on elsewhere?

If nothing else leaving the post up serves as a reminder to all of what kind of person runner is.

R0bert

Whats wrong with it RObert?

I would say that all of the champions of porn on OLO were into this sick material.

Why would they champion it, if they werent engaged in 'flesh activity' with pictures of naked men and women?

I think you just like to chase the christians here on OLO RObert:)

Gibo just before I add you to the list to ask David about.

Are you supporting runners vile suggestion that those who are opposed to censorship of erotic material featuring adults are into child pornography? Your wording is even stronger than runners but it's possible that you have not understood what runner is alleging.

Are you accusing those on OLO who take a different view to yourself to adult porn of being users of child porn?

R0bert

Youre well know to me as an 'entrapper of christians' here on OLO RObert.

Its shows in the way you word your accusations.
Manipulation, in any form, is well known to christians as witchcraft.

Check the MANIPULATION section of
http://www.mcleanministries.com/custom.html

Irrespective, I will give an answer.

My answer is this... "those who enagage pornography as a "masturbation tool" will, IF the alternative of child porn is available to them to use, will use it as well.
If they can get it they will use it, the heart drifting from the adult porn over to the child porn, and back again.

I know the heart more than you young RObert because Ive studied it in relation to Gods Word and I know all about the lust of that most wicked of organs.
The Bible refers to it as evil above all.

Runner was fine in what he said and what he MAY have inferred.

Porn is porn. To the porner, he will accept the lot if its in front of him.

Gibo: "Manipulation, in any form, is well known to christians as witchcraft."

!

Gibo,

I haven't read it fully, but that is quite a good link.

Especially as the manipulation he is referring to is usually within the church, and I've experienced plenty of that.

I'd be interested to know more about this ministry, and will look at this more thoroughly later.

"If they can get it they will use it"

With respect, bullsh!t.
Normal people shudder at the thought.

I've long suspected that R0bert's a witch.

Seriously, I find the sorts of inferences made by Gibo and runner about those who don't share their extremely prudish worldview as offensive as they are lunatic. What a nasty, miserable pair of godbothering wowsers.

Runner “simple fact that lust leads to more lust.”

And repression leads to more repression, for much the same reason.

Personally, I find “lust” far more interesting than “repression”, although lots of masochists would disagree.

This topic has been done to death and is starting to bore me.

The point with internet censorship is

The only people who should even be considered as warranting censorship are juveniles.
You cannot go on the internet these days without a proper anti-virus package or your machine will crash within a day.
Anti-virus packages come with filtering software which parents can use to censor their child’s viewing.

That leaves the rest of us to decide, for ourselves, what we view and what we do not view.

Tankard Riest and her fellow control freaks, have no authority to even express an opinion over what myself or any other adult can view in magazines, books or the internet etc,

let alone tell me they have decided that some internet sites are outlawed,

any more than I have a right to tell them which churches will be allowed to hold services and which will not.

Gibo “Porn is porn. To the porner, he will accept the lot if its in front of him.”

And by whose authority do you take unto yourself the right to decide what another adult ‘porn-fan’ will be allowed to view ?

It seems to me those who support internet censorship believe they are sponsored by God to make the rest of us righteous.

I will accept their authority, just as soon as they can present a duly authorized warrant card – signed by God, of course -

and when they accept my God-given right to burn down churches.

actually, if I declare that I worship the naked image of young adult females...

does that make my porn collection a religious icon and thus protected under freedom of religion?

Are you alright RObert?

I accuse you here on this comment about being an 'entrapper of christians' and that manipulation is actually witchcraft... then you go right over to the "Man charged with posting video" General Comments and start manipulating Polycarp for comment on Runner and myself.

Are you alright RObert?
Its how high school children behave.

COL ROUGE.

You can do what you want. God is every mans Judge.

But I do find it odd, very odd, that a grown mature man has a porn collection.

Question.
Do you know the ages of all of the girls in your porn collection?
Some might appear older than they are... when they actually are younger (under 18)...thus involving you in child porn.

Maybe you ought to purge the collection before 'net cops' get a wind.
They watch everything you know.

Gibo I'll withhold further comment on your's and runners posts for the time being to see if David has the guts to confront you as a fellow believer over your online behaviour. I doubt that he will but it's fair that he be given the chance.

R0bert

Gibo, I note you've quoted (apparently with approval) the "Witchcraft" section of the McLean Ministries website http://www.mcleanministries.com/custom.html

Perhaps you'd like to tell us if you also endorse the "Islamic-Christian Alliance" section of the same website? In it Rev. Bill McLean declares that "I do believe that the Koran is the Word of God." http://www.mcleanministries.com/ICA.html

Seems ironic to me that you can denigrate a thoughtful poster like R0bert by reference to material you obviously haven't fully digested yourself, eh?

Hi Johnj.
I only went looking for a reference that showed that manipulation was witchcraft.
I only looked for that... and looked at nothing else... so I support nothing else on that site until Ive read it.
I always knew manipulation was witchcraft, which it is...I just needed a reference to that fact.
You might not support RObert.
He's been chasing christians here for so long trying with all thats in him to catch them out... that no one can remember when he started.

Thats what he does.
Its his game.

He's been chasing christians here for so long trying with all thats in him to catch them out... that no one can remember when he started. "

Just the dishonest extremist ones, I've got no problem with those who live out their faith with integrity and without using their faith as an excuse for their hateful natures and their attempts to impose the consequences of their faith on others who don't follow their faith.

I have the vein hope that you might if confronted with your own double standards and lies see the disparity with the beliefs you claim to have - so far to no avail. If nothing else others may be protected from your deceits.

In the case of this article the dishonest manipulation of stats, emotions and fears to try and impose a regeim of censorship on the choices of adults to try and satisfy your own warped mindsets.

Mindsets that don't seem to be able to comprehend that for most adults children are not sexually interesting, they have not developed yet so child porn can not meet the same needs as adult porn for those without an existing sexual interest in children. Mindsets that do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of consent and which continue to assume that sexual stimulation always trumps other values such as respect for other poeples autonomy.

Mindsets that seem to think that a god of truth is served by deceit, that a god who supposedly gave free will to man kind is somehow served by attempts to overtly restrict the exercise of that free will by those who don't hold to your faith.

Gibo I'm not out to catch out all christians but I do think that there is value in exposing the lies, deceit and hatred which a small number of you are so passionate about.

R0bert

I dont want to talk to you RObert because you will twist what I say. I know you as a 'hunter of christians'.
Thats how I interpet your writings.
Youre a headhunter no matter what you say.

I think youre on some very misguided mission for someone or other.

If you repent... I will talk to you then.

RObert= headhunter of Christians! LOL now I’ve heard it all.

Gibo, seriously, RObert just asks questions about some things that some Christians say.
In another thread recently, I mentioned that the Christians on OLO (apart from one or two, occasionally) mostly let each other get away with claiming anything (related to Christianity) and never question each other.
I didn’t think I was ‘hunting’ anyone and I think that RObert is saying something similar. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions about ludicrous statements.

That Runner implies that the posters on OLO who reject the idea of compulsory filters are into child porn says more about his warped mind than about any porn lovers’ minds.

I happen to find porn quite boring to watch and don’t waste time on it, but I wouldn’t judge anyone who enjoys it, let alone dump a compulsory filter in their pc.
I’m so over fundamentalists who continuously tell others how to behave, what to wear, who they can or can’t marry or have sex with or in this case, what they can or cannot watch.

Runner, yes I would agree that addiction to anything is a problem including addiction to porn but not everyone who enjoys porn is addicted. Many watch it occasionally. Much like enjoying a glass of wine or smoking a joint occasionally doesn’t mean one is addicted.

Gibo brings up ONE reasonable argument to think about though- how would we know whether a porn star is really at the legal age?
I hope that there is adequate control on the age of the models/porn stars.
Also, some countries consider 18 the legal age and some countries 16, so when someone watches porn from overseas it might be illegal to watch it in Australia if the girls in the flick are 16.

Crikey - R0bert's not only a witch, but also a "hunter of Christians" - and a "headhunter" to boot!

And there I was thinking he's one of the most consistently reasonable contributors to this forum.

Fortunately, Gibo has now convinced me that the evil R0bert needs a good "canning".

Gibo “But I do find it odd, very odd, that a grown mature man has a porn collection.”

I collect for its artistic merit, Gibo…

As they say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
and doubtless, what you might consider “outrageous” I consider “normal, everyday”…

DH Lawrence was considered a pornographer until the 1970s. since then’ Lady Chatterleys Lover’ has been read freely by millions so too his naughty Aussie tale, ‘Kangaroo’. John Cleland’s ‘Fanny Hill’ is a bawdy tale likewise censored and banned from publication for our 200 years.

Aubrey Beardsley was an exquisite Victorian pen and ink illustrator. He did the artwork for Oscar Wilde’s original publication of his book “Salome”. He died very young of consumption, otherwise I feel sure he would have become far more of an icon of that era, he had such volumes of raw talent.

I have no doubt, what so ever, that you and many others would call his art “pornography”.

So I will ask you a question

Considering that I do not attempt to force you to read or view anything which I consider “morally acceptable”, -

please explain by what right are you are entitled to forcibly (through censorship) deny me the right to read or view what you consider ‘morally unacceptable”?

But I am pleased you have no authority to impose the strict limits upon human creativity which you demand here and I will work to my dying breath to ensure the small minds who demand limits never prevail.

Oh and I have a lot of reproductions of Salvador Dali works which you would find equally offensive…

Hey Robert “dont want to talk to you RObert because you will twist what I say. I know you as a 'hunter of christians'.”

Some would find a compliment in there Robert…

I don’t think you are a hunter, nor a stalker LOL… it is a great line though… ROFLMAO

Thanks to those who've had some fun with the accusations leveled against me. I'm getting some good laughs out of it.

I am a little bothered by CJ's "the evil R0bert needs a good "canning"." - I hope that's for legitimate disciplinary reasons and not some perverse interest in hitting others buttocks. If the job does need doing perhaps CJ could outsourse the task to someone a lot less male.

Col I do take some comfort in Gibo' dislike of me. I'd hate to have to share dinner with his heroes (Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker etc).

R0bert