I've got to say legally available porn is unlikely to turn people into depraved sex monsters, but it is likely to turn them into, well, wa**ers with limited understanding of real loving sex. Most hardcore porn does not depict mutually pleasurable sex - it promotes male domination and sexual pleasure over any other form of sexual expression. The vast majority of the female actresses are faking it because VERY FEW females are capable of deriving sexual pleasure from anal sex or giving oral sex or having their face being ejaculated on.

You must admit its extremely sad that young women are willing to engage in these acts (some of which must be painful, humiliating as well as physically and emotionally damaging) and fake pleasure all for a bit of attention and/or money. What low self-esteem.

Adolescent boys who are exposed to porn as their main sexual education (and it is increasingly becoming so) are unlikely to become interested in their partner's pleasure - or even aware that their partner's pleasure is as important and as strong as their own. They are likely to view girls as objects that must be cajoled or bribed to serve a narrow range of sexual acts - not humans with desires and pleasure of their own.

The vast majority of porn is selfish and anti-love and sad and limiting of human sexual possibility. Its here to stay though. So, whatever you do make sure that your children get a reasonable sex education that stresses the importance of love and mutual respect and keep them away from internet access while they are alone. If they do view it out of curiosity tell them how exploitative it is (of the women involved and of the viewer themself) and that real sex can be so much more meaningful and pleasurable than this travesty.

chandralekha wrote, "The vast majority of the female actresses are faking it because VERY FEW females are capable of deriving sexual pleasure from anal sex or giving oral sex or having their face being ejaculated on."

I expect that the above statement would prove to be true in part, but but one female who would not entirely agree with the above statement would be US self-proclaimed lesbian Tristan Taormino (see http://www.puckerup.com/).

I think we should not be judgemental about sexual practices (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that are not considered mainstream, as long as they occur in private between consenting adults and no harm is done to anyone else.

Obviously, the definition of 'consent' is vexed given the desperate economic circumstances of many (but not all) women who act in pornographic movies, thanks to globalised 'free market' capitalism, but let's address the causes rather than the symptoms.

No doubt, free market ideologues, such as Peter Saunders (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=176) of the CIS, who advocates taking away unemployment benefits after six months, regardless of circumstances, would see no problem with women being forced to support themselves by acting in pornographic movies or prostitution as a result.

In the latter case, it is a fact that there are Australian women do support themselves through prostitution as a result of the already harsh punitive social welfare regime and the prohibitive rises in the cost of living, in particular, rent.

I found it hard to see how giving the federal Government a blank cheque the right to censor any material deemed "unwanted", in addition to explicit sexual material, will help us to fix the problems which drive women into the porn industry, prostitution and many other degrading livelihoods.

Can't believe people in this thread. The stuff you come out with is like, 3-5 decades old reasoning. Literally. Get out more. Read more ffs. You are absolutely nuts.

Rstuart.

Please reflect on your previous claims:

1. “ Porn has little correlation with sexual attacks on women. Most studies show a negative one - the more porn the safer women and kids are”. 26/11

2. “ From the data I have seen so far the most plausible interpretation is porn reduces attacks on women and children. You have links with data?” 27/11

Do not worry about Pelican’s links Rstuart. WHERE IS THE DATA YOU HAVE SEEN?

So what is it Rstuart? You have seen the data? You have not seen the data? You made it up?

Then:

“They did better than you. They had hard evidence showing correlation.” Eh……..wot?

“However, it doesn't tell us whether the urge for violence drives the liking for porn, or the porn drives the urge for violence or there is another common underlying factor.” Oh yeah…..right! Very important - I daresay.

So then you dredge up "data" from a report on the sexual habits of the Japanese - published last century with citations reverting to the 70s.

The other "data" was published by the Dept of Economics at Stanford. Competing interests? Please name Rstuart?

Meanwhile, you ask me to provide ABS data but where are YOUR ABS figures? Or could it be that the ABS have no data for the potential correlation between porn and sexual violence?

“Newspaper articles don't cut it.” Of course not - lies, damn lies and shonky statistics, unless the statistics in the articles suit your agenda Rstuart:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/20/goldsmith.pdf

"(Both numbers and victimisation rates of sexual assault in recorded crime statistics in Australia have increased in recent years. The overall recorded victimisation prevalence rates have risen by about one-third in ten years, from 0.07% (69.0 per 100,000 persons)in 1993 to 0.09% (91.7 per 100,000) in 2003.)" ABS

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4/$File/45230_2004.pdf

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/ (NT and ACT assaults not included.)

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/victims.html

Sorry Rstuart. I have more to do now then getting my head around the jiggling of your puppets through a maze of contradiction and obfuscation!

And besides, you're not very good at it!

You, on the other hand, dickie, are very good at it.

Dickie wrote:
“Nevertheless, the following links I offer for your perusal - links which suggest that viewing porn in fact increases the number of sexual assaults. In addition, while crime rates are generally down in Australia, sex attacks on men, women and children have increased significantly.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-6.htm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-127347758.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/07/1159641569552.html?page=fullpage

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/child-sex-crime-skyrockets/2008/06/24/1214073209189.html”

I took a look at the four sites Dickie mentioned:
The first stated:
“More specifically, the research, … shows a causal relationship between exposure to material of this type and aggressive behavior towards women.”

There are flaws in the above. The particular studies are not cited, and there is no control group of non-sexual violence. I contend that exposure to scenes of violence whether they are sexual or not increases the likelihood of the viewer practicing violence. I am most concerned with exposure to scenes of violence.

The second site mentioned frequent sex assaults in the schools but was flawed in two ways. It did not compare the frequency with the past and did not connect the assaults with viewing porn.

The third site mentioned porn addiction. However, it did not connect porn addiction with violent behaviour.

The fourth site contained the following:

An Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) report released yesterday found that the overall number of sexual assaults had increased by 20 per cent …, but said it could be due to an increase in the reporting of assaults, rather than an actual increase of the crime.

None of the sites mentioned contained any evidence definitely connecting sexual violence with the viewing of porn.

Dickie wrote:

“I’m astounded to learn that Davidf’s warped view sees hard porn as a “depiction of a loving sexual connection” and he believes there is nothing wrong in “showing it” to children.”

All hard porn does not depict a loving sexual connection but some does. However, I think seeing a violent cop show on TV does more damage to children than seeing a loving heterosexual act which probably does absolutely no damage.

Disagreeing with you does not justify you calling me ‘warped’. Let’s not call names. Is one forbidden to disagree with you?