//The de-regulated expansion of the online child sexual abuse industry is one of the more nefarious manifestations of late-capitalism//

Excuse me? You look for a whipping boy, and the first one you come up with is Capitalism? Oh, those people out there abusing these women aren't to blame, it's those greedy ISPs, wanting to make their filthy money. Now excuse me while I go back to my flat panel monitor and high speed ADSL. Grow up, the real people to blame are those out there MAKING this cr*p, they won't be stopped from doing that by blocking access to the site. Go out there and catch these sickos rather than sitting and complaining that your search for sex returned results for.. SURPRISE! SEX

And, for those interested, the rebuttal:

http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/googling-sex-online-opinion-response/

Just because you find something offensive does not mean you can call it child pornography.

The site clearly states that only adults are employed.

The site backs up this claim by linking their company names to the site and videos.

Despite these FACTS you prefer to proffer your claims that under age actors were used, and your basis for making these claims seems to be nothing more than your “spidey – sense” telling you that there must be children involved. Correct me if I am wrong, I would love to see any EVIDENCE you have of child abuse, any at all.

For someone claiming to be doing Post Doctoral research in the area of Censorship you have a serious deficit in knowledge regarding the topic. Before you submit any papers for grading I strongly suggest you visit and read http://libertus.net/

The reason why the ACMA may take action on your complaint has nothing to do with child pornography. The current Australian video Classification scheme forbids BDSM, fetishes and coercion. It is this forbidding of coercion under the Classification Scheme that allows the ACMA to take action regarding this site.

If you were properly researched in Australian Censorship you would know that this kind of material is not allowed in videos. It is however allowed in books and magazines, and has been for decades, and there are currently no plans to censor print media in the same way as video and the Internet. So, even if you are able to have the Internet censored the material which you personally find offensive will still be available for purchase in books and magazines.

In short, you have NOT found child pornography. And, the fact that you have found something that offends you is NO excuse to impose censorship on the rest of us.

'In other words, I have to pay a corporation to make sure that I am not traumatised by online child sexual abuse images.'

Hahahaha. Well, one option you may have missed is not searching for the material and clicking on the link. I have to wonder about your google settings too.

While I cant fathom the mindset of the target audience of that disgusting site you wrote the promo for (I wonder if you should be censored or locked up for reproducing it), until you have proof that the women involved were not acting and were under 18 I think you have zero legs to stand on.

You simply cant censor a fantasy. Or else Nancy Friday would be in huge trouble!

Dyler Turden,

Great name!

'It’s no different to television stories entreating us that crime is out of control by showing an undercover investigative reporter pretending to stagger up Kings Cross at three in the morning waving his wallet, and filming the results.'

So, so Funny.

I wrote a pretty annoyed yet comprehensive blog post at http://libertarianchimp.blogspot.com/2009/08/googling-sex-returns-sex-videos-o-oh.html

So you used a search engine to look for sex and found sex? Bloddy amazing! Did you expect search results for research into the eating habits of the Indian brown cockroach?

Try re-selecting safe search in Google, Yahoo or Bing: it's ON by default in all the major search engines and needs to be manually disabled by choice of the user. Use the facilities that are already in place before making unsupported wild claims of this nature.

My google results differ enormously from those you claim and I have search on the "medium" setting, not the default "safe".

What a beat up and crock of nothing.

'Welcome to the nastiest adult site on the net … Passed Out Pussy! We feature thousand of the most extreme teen porn movies ever taped! Our speciality is young girls drunk or drugged before they are brutally abused! A great win for our secular values. Sorry I had to remove the exclamation marks from the direct quote from the article as it seems only the writers are allowed to use them on OLO.

Hold on a second. You deliberately looked up offensive material, then blame your own actions on your ISP? Seriously? That's like calling up one of those sex phone lines advertised on late night TV, then when offended calling your phone company to complain. They should be responsible for whom you call, huh? I wonder if you also search for offensive books at the library, then complain to the librarians when you find something offensive.

Instead of spending $50 - 80 filtering software, how about changing your preferences to "Use strict filtering (Filter both explicit text and explicit images)" where it says "Preferences" on Google's front page. The offending site no longer comes up when you search for sex. Or better still stop searching for offensive material.

Where is your evidence that the girls featured on the site are under the age of 18? And I find it more likely that the girls are not being "raped" and are probably just acting. Blaming the ISP on you delibrately searching for material that obviously offends you is just plain moronic, if you don't want to see it then don't click on the link.

Yes, OK, Dr Bray went in search of explicit material and was shocked to find it.

But that's not the most important issue here. Isn't the point that we live in a society which harbors a group of individuals, however fringe, who believe it's ok, and even entertaining to not only rape young women, but to further extend that abuse and humiliation through the unlawful circulation of those images? I don't care how old the women are, if they have not given consent freely to both the sexual acts AND the distribution of the footage, that is a criminal offense.

Obviously the majority of men and women would find such behavior inexcusable and revolting and yet, rather than using this forum space to discuss these crucial issues, members have simply diverted attention away from sexual abuse, instead focussing on perceived holes in Bray's article.

As for labeling Bray herself a pervert, that is insulting and supercilious. Bray has also studied anorexia in the past, that does not mean she endorses eating disorders or self harm strategies. Being willing to study something as an academic (including going in search of data) does not mean that you endorse it or are an advocate for it.

Perhaps though she could have left the name of the place out of the article to stop some of the creeps who visit OLO hunting it down

I agree with other writers. You deliberately went to a porn site called "Pornhub" and express outrage for finding explicit pornographic material which you yourself searched out and then you blame your ISP for enabling you to do so. How irresponsible.
If you don't want a Google search to return pornography, set your search filter to "safe". Problem solved.
Making oblique references to Marxist theory by using a trendy Fredric Jameson type word like "late capitalism", doesn't in any way make your article legitimate sorry. It sounds to me like you got exactly what you were looking for.
The responsibility for regulating the internet lies not with the state, nor with ISPs, nor even with late capitalism, but with the individual. And if individuals such as Abigail Bray deliberately seek to break the law by accessing and distributing illegal material, their names should be passed on to the police who can investigate and lay charges if a crime has been committed.
Sounds like Ms. Bray has got all carried away.

A number of posters do seem to be missing a point the author makes early in the article "I wanted to test the claims of various anti-censorship voices who argue that hard core on-line sexual abuse material is rare and difficult to find"

Clearly that particular site is very easy to find and if the author's description of the content is correct it makes the difficult to find claim look silly.

I'd be surprised if the content was real, as other posters have pointed out large businesses would be silly to put their name to it.

R0bert

NinaF, it should be obvious that the site in question provides ONLY FICTION.

If anybody connected with the site had really been raped they could easily report it to the Police and the contents of the website would in itself all but guarantee a conviction.

Not to mention how unlikely it would be for the actors to willingly provide documentation of age had they actually been assaulted.

It is not clear that the site is illegal, many factors, such as production location, hosting location, are sales by download or posted DVD, would affect it's legality. Check the ACMA website and http://libertus.net/ to try and work this out. It could be quite legal to view the site.

I'm sure other less trusting types are questioning the coincidence that the website which was mistaken for child pornography happens to involve the abuse of women by “misogynists”. I'm sure it was pure coincidence that the one and only site she chose to investigate out of all the millions on the Internet was not on the subject of CFNM, Cougars, or “Forced Gays” where your indignation would be directed against middle aged women or the Gay Community.

The important facts are: the author attempted to test a theory, was unable to accurately recognize the subject of her own study, and therefore drew incorrect conclusions. At the University I attended undergraduates presenting such a flawed paper could expect a fail. A bias however popular is still bias.

R0bert, both you and the author are purposely misquoting Freedom lovers, we claimed that illegal and child pornography was difficult to accidentally come across, it is you and the author who have changed this to claim that it should be difficult to find any material that would offend someone given a long enough search.

The Womp, I'm not misquoting Freedom lovers, I'm directly quoting the author who attributes the claim to various anti-censorship voices.

Hopefully the author will pop in and clarify who the various voices are.

I noticed that you have turned "hard core on-line sexual abuse material is rare and difficult to find" into "it should be difficult to find any material that would offend someone given a long enough search", what's that about misquoting?

In this case it clearly did not involve a long or difficult search.

Perhaps the onus is on the author to demonstrate which anti-censorship voices are claiming that this material is hard to find.

My own sympaties lie with the anti-censorship side of the debate but I've got little time for either side when they deliberately misrepresent their opponents position to further their own cause.

R0bert

R0bert, you take posters here to task for not dealing with the author's point:

"I wanted to test the claims of various anti-censorship voices who argue that hard core on-line sexual abuse material is rare and difficult to find"

1) who exactly has claimed any such thing?

2) what does "sexual abuse material" mean? does it include only actual sexual abuse, or does it include fantasy and role-playing material? is the site that the author sought out of the former type or the latter?

it looks very much like a straw man to me, and a very flimsily constructed one.

The womp,

Even if the site is fictitious it presents as being actual. This sort of revolting trash endorses the rape of minors. I'm sorry. But there is no excuse for this and as tolerant as I am of people's sexual idiosyncracies, nothing gives license for this.

Has it not occurred to you that you do not need to commit a crime against a minor to be harming the cause and rights of minors everywhere? A representation of a rape (even if it is not an actual rape) is deeply concerning and problematic if it is being romanticised and eroticised as it is on this site.

Shame on this site and its scumful following

Wow.....I only read through a couple of the venemous comments after this article and couldn't tolerate the stupidity any longer. I did catch a couple of things though:

someone said: "you googled sex and found sex"

no, she googled sex and found rape, degradation, torture, violence.

If you think that this is sex, you've got bigger problems than can be addressed here and I feel sorry for you.

someone else said "you can't censor a fantasy."

So this is a "fantasy?" Firstly, why on earth are men fantasising about raping and abusing women, second, why are people facilitating such a "fantasy" and why are you defending it? What other violence do you defend? Is it the case that if you can masturbate to it then it must be allowed? Do men view their orgasms to be so important that they would dehumanise, degrade and hurt others? What the hell is wrong with some men?

But it's not a "fantasy" someone actually carried it out, many people did and others are invited to follow suit, according to what Abigail found.

Abigail, thank you for adding your voice to the chorus of those who think that the abuse of women and children is a crime and that we should not be exposed to the footage of such. Ignore the neanderthals defending the right of men to assault women and film it in order to facilitate ejaculation. They need help.

Elka

That must be feigned horror or you haven't spoken with many other women or read about women's fantasies. See here:

http://www.healthyplace.com/sex/psychology-of-sex/womens-top-ten-sexual-fantasies/menu-id-1482/

Have you looked at some of the gay and lesbian pornography sites?

Fantasy is just that and it doesn't imply intent.

Women will not gain from a return to the wowerism and censorship of the Fifties.

Bushbasher quotes Abigail, "I wanted to test the claims of various anti-censorship voices who argue that hard core on-line sexual abuse material is rare and difficult to find", and asks:
1) who exactly has claimed any such thing?

This is in fact a very common claim of pro-abuse voices (who call themselves anti-censorship voices). It is a claim made by Philip Jenkins in Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet, which is quoted widely (google it) by these "voices".

It is not difficult at all to find or stumble onto "hard core on-line sexual abuse material": mis-typing google as googlf used to bring up a series of cascading "rape sites" desperately trying to download themselves onto your computer.

I cannot quite grasp how such rape sites, or the site pointed to by Abigail, are "fiction" or "fantasy": gee, they look like real vaginas, real penises, real abuse, and real fear and pain to me, not imaginary vaginas or imaginary "sex".

Hele

'a series of cascading "rape sites" desperately trying to download themselves onto your computer'

Just when I thought the pro-censorship arguments couldn't get any more ridiculous...

For one thing, the main claim was that genuine CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is very difficult to find, and one of the people making that claim was a spokesman for the Australian Federal Police whose JOB it is to invade online paeodphile rings and collect evidence to produce arrests. Have a listen to ABC Radio's Background Briefing of 15 March 2009 - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2512171.htm (Download Audio link is in orange near the top).

The depicitions in the website videos mentioned in Abigail's article might look like "real" abuse to you, but that's probably because that's what actors *DO*. What amuses me is that people are deriding the men in the videos on the website, but not the women. Considering that ALL of the participants are paid actors (and as someone else said, how long do you think the site would have lasted if just ONE woman came forward and alleged *actual* rape??), doesn't the blame lie in both beds? Or are we too caught up in throwing the "misogynist" label around like red paint on a fur coat?

Wanting to bring an end to the glorification of sexual violence is a genuinely laudible goal, and one that should be encouraged, but it's despicable that those of us wanting to protect the freedoms of this nation's citizens should have to put up with pointless attacks alleging that we're all sexual predators or promoters of same. But I suppose that's to be expected when that sort of behaviour is exhibited by government Ministers.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. It is not the fact that the Author typed in sex into Google and got back (surprise, surprise) porn sites, but that minors can enter these key words.

The strict filtering controls on Google do not work. Even thou I run Trend Micro with Parent Controls on, it cannot filter out abuse images in Google Images.

Even with strict filter set on, typing in just one word into Google Images such as tied will still bring back extreme images. Incredibly, at the top of the page, Google announces that you have Strict Filtering on and invites you to change to a lower setting with just a click. There is also no way to lock this setting in. Bing is the same.

However, the search engine www.altavista.com has very strong filtering and you will not see the extreme images for the search term tied as you do in Google. Whats more, AltaVista allows you to password protect the filtering settings preventing others from changing.

Regardless of one's attitudes to websites that simulate graphically such crimes as rape, I think that most reasonable adults would agree that it would be desirable to prevent minors from accessing them where possible. While I agree that Abigail Bray's methodology is woeful and that she seems to know little about either Web technology or pornography, I think that her general point is quite valid - at least to the extent that it should be easier for parents to control the material that their kids access online.

I'm not advocating compulsory censorship - rather, surely it's possible for the Federal government to provide easily understood information about the filtering technology that's available, including free options such as the Alta Vista search engine suggested by Chris Abood above.

isabelberners:

i'm sorry but i'm too busy to go fishing with google, and it's not my job. if there are such 'voices" (plural) or "common claim" (plural) as abigail and you suggest then it's up to you to provide the evidence.

chris abood:

it is of course valid to want to limit material that children can see, though probably pretty futile. but the "won't somebody please think of the children!" argument has a tried and true history of of being way overplayed, and of being used dishonestly as an argument to limit what adults can see and do. children are not that fragile. and, yesterday's horrible pornography is today's cover of woman's weekly.

in any case, i don't see that abigail is making that argument. she is arguing, against what seems to be a straw man, that "sexual abuse material" (i'm still not sure what means) and (what she unsupportedly claims to be) child pornography are easy to find.

all of you:

you really must learn the difference between fantasy and reality. such sites may not be to your taste, but that is no grounds for misrepresenting what the sites actually are.

Dyler,

'Wanting to bring an end to the glorification of sexual violence is a genuinely laudible goal, and one that should be encouraged, but it's despicable that those of us wanting to protect the freedoms of this nation's citizens should have to put up with pointless attacks alleging that we're all sexual predators or promoters of same. But I suppose that's to be expected when that sort of behaviour is exhibited by government Ministers.'

Amen. There we have a conclusive summary of the posts thus far.

Elka, ninaf,

I'd like to direct you to a great book called 'Women on Top' by Nancy Friday. Contained therein is many great female fantasies of Rape, Bestiality and Incest. It's a great read of true fantasies written down by women, under the guise of exploring women's fantasies and liberating them from their sexual hang-ups.

So this is a "fantasy?"
Yep

'why on earth are men fantasising about raping and abusing women,'
Don't know, but they do, and so do many women. Not my taste, but rape is up there as a fairly popular fantasy. It's something to do with sexual guilt for women and control for men. It works the other way around too. There's sites where men are humiliated and raped with strap-ons.

'second, why are people facilitating such a "fantasy" and why are you defending it?'
Because it's part of life and repressing people's sexual fantasies doesn't make them go away. That's what Nancy F was exploring with women and their fantasies.

'What other violence do you defend?'

I don't defend violence, I merely denounce thought crime.

'they would dehumanise, degrade and hurt others?'

No they don't and they wouldn't. It's just a fantasy.

'But it's not a "fantasy" someone actually carried it out, '

Tell me, when you go to the movies, you think it's all real don't ya? C'mon!

BTW: Another good book I'd like you to peruse is Germain Greer's book of naked little boys. She promoted it by saying "A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men.":-)

CJ Morgan, the Howard government launched Net Alert (http://www.netalert.gov.au/) in 2007. Parents could download a filter for free (the program was halted by the Rudd government in December 2008 without reason). The government also sent out a glossy pamphlet regarding online safety and had adverts on TV. Surely you must have been aware of this.

Back to Abigail's piece, I'm stuffed if I can find any links to Passed Out Pussy on Porn Hub. I searched for about 10 minutes, and then gave up. I did find a cached version of the website, and there are no children in the pictures. I find it amazingly deceitful to claim these pictures (while they are rather deprived and awful) are child sexual abuse material just because some of the actors may look like they’re 16 or 17. That’s what I love about people like Abigail. If you can’t find evidence for your wild allegations, change the definition and parameters until it you find that evidence. Also good work picking a site that’s now dead.

Ninaf,

once again the site does not have minors, clearly states that only adults are employed, and NO EVIDENCE has been produced to the contrary. I'm sorry if you are unable to distinguish between fiction and non fiction, but that is your own problem to deal with.

There is no verifiable academic evidence for a causal link between pornography and any behaviour. None anywhere, and having seen the quality of work by Bray I feel safe indeed in assuming that she will be unable to produce any evidence.

So, in short, you are calling for action on a misidentified problem, with no proven causal effect, by the use of a solution which also has no published proof of efficacy. Also, as I said previously, such material will be available in print media, regardless of Internet Censorship.

I'll be sticking to logic and evidence rather than your calls for panicked action.

Elka,

the most vitriol I have seen here has issued from yourself. The discussion here has been about the Academic quality of work and dubious nature of “facts” presented by someone trying to represent themselves as an Academic. Good luck with your attempts to sway opinion with the use of name calling and disparaging an entire gender, it hasn't worked for Conroy, but do as you please.

Chris Abood,

parents are already aware that pornography is available on the Internet and take appropriate measures. Recent surveying by the ACMA found that the majority of Australian parents are currently happy with their Internet experience.

R0bert,

yes, I did take liberties in quotes I attributed to you, sorry. But, I was having difficulty working within the number of words allowed in the forum, and trying to distinguish what the actual quote was that Bray was testing.

Judging from this short test by Bray, the academic quality of her major work should be interesting to see indeed. I also have to wonder as to the reason for her lack of participation here. If she can't deal with the criticism of the ordinary public I don't see how she will deal with peer review.

The Womp, thanks. I'd like to see who the various voices are and the context of the claims (if they are legitimate).

The only causal links that I've seen are indications of trends in reductions of sexual assault by teenage boys corresponding to internet takeup. I did see some material calling that finding into question a while ago but I've not quite worked out if it was a genuine concern over the methodology or just someone not liking the findings.

I don't get why people like the kind of porn described but then I don't get the endless fasination with celebrities in some quarters either. Both are normally harmless but can be damaging when someone does not keep it in context.

R0bert

The thing is though, it really doesn't matter. The internet was originally designed to be an information distribution system to survive any kind of attack on it. Hence its incipient resistance to censorship. Even hard-core China regularly backs down (green dam for example). So what if ISPs started filtering search results. I couldn't care less. A quick re-route through a free VPN would annul any such filter in about 3 seconds flat. For example.
Moral outrage and regulation? State censorship and control of fantasy? Really, who gives a hoot. Short of shutting the whole thing down (and interestingly, even North Korea can't quite seem to do that) there is just no way to stop the flow of traffic happening. Not even having mentioned what 60% of net traffic is these days and what no filter could even hope to impede: BitTorrent. Let people like the good doctor bray. The internet is indestructible.

R0bert

<< The only causal links that I've seen are indications of trends in reductions of sexual assault by teenage boys corresponding to internet takeup. >>

Yes, I have read about that on a couple of sites, I think that one was on the BBC. What I find counter-intuitive about the claims, maybe you have some views on this, is how does watching women/girls being raped (whether faked or not I am not pursuing) but sex where the male is clearly dominant, how this reduces sexual assualts in the real world. I puzzle over this and can't help but find it disturbing that watching people in humiliating sex (and I know the same applies to same-sex acts), but in an effort to keep it simple, I wish to know why so many males enjoy sex where women are clearly presented as little more than objects. It is not just about visuals, because then just the observation of the sex act itself would be sufficient, but there is a huge market for this type of sex.

Before I am cast as a feminazi for daring to ask, I would appreciate some thought as to why some males find this entertaining and how this reduces sexual assault.

Fractelle,

'I would appreciate some thought as to why some males find this entertaining and how this reduces sexual assault.'

See if you behaved like that all the time, nobody would call you a feminazi. Good question.

'how this reduces sexual assaults in the real world.'

I'm not convinced it does. But I'm also not convinced it encourages sexual assaults either. (which would be the feminist line I'd imagine). It's a fantasy. Men are probably about as likely to act it out as the many women who fantasise about being raped.

'I wish to know why so many males enjoy sex where women are clearly presented as little more than objects.'

In general they aren't. Although it is faked, the penthouse type porn always put details about the woman and her fantasies. So there is a desire to know her mind, even if only in terms of her kinky sexual desires.

In terms of the rape porn, well, I cant see how it could turn anyone on. But a theory I have come up with, that I know you'll hate and reject, goes something like this...

As the expectation of men has changed over the years, it's become increasingly implied that men's sexual desire is dirty, and that unless there are candles and romantic music attached the man is 'objectifying' the woman. There was the stage of the SNAG, etc where men were encouraged to be more 'sensitive', and just raw-ly lusting over a woman was considered disrespectful in some way. Any aggression in the bedroom was made taboo by the threat of feminist extrapolation to rape.

It's almost like an overcompensation, or a reflex for men to enjoy rough lustful sex, with no guilt that they are the 'abuser', or the 'pervert'.

So in some respects it's an anti-PC thing like 'The Footy Show'. The weird thing is there's probably heaps of women with a metrosexual guy who wished he wasn't so sensitive and that he'd put her on her knees and give her a good rough shagging, rather than 'make love' by candle light all the time.

continued...

Also I fear it may be a symptom of men feeling powerless with women, and having an outlet where they can pretend they are in control. Now any feminists will always bang on about men having all the power, but perhaps this is pretty clear evidence that a lot of men don't feel very powerful in their relationships with women.

Maybe they're emotionally controlled by the women in their lives, or are reduced to a begger for sex in the relationship which they resent, or they don't have the communication skills or balls to ask for the dirty sex they want from their partners for fear of rejection (maybe due to this snag business above), or they don't want to feel they will be seen by women as close to a rapist via an extrapolation of their sexual aggression and lust.

It may be ironic they are watching rape porn because they fear being seen as a rapist, but that's why it is acted out in fantasy rather than reality. In reality these men are probably terrified of women, and terrified how women judge them because they have tiny weiners.

So the rape fantasy for women takes away their guilt at being sexual, because it's all the man's fault she's doing these nasty lustful things. He's making her do it, so she can enjoy the sex and have no guilt. It frees her. The rape fantasy for men takes away their guilt that they are too submissive in their relationships with women overall, and that they are emasculated and hen-pecked. It's a fantasy whereby they have some control over obtaining their sexual needs and aren't begging for it all the time, and they aren't always partaking in the act in what they perceive is their partner's terms, where it's all candles and cuddles.

That's why I think rapists and guys who watch rape porn are quite pathetic really.

Fractelle, I don't get the appeal of abusive and or violent porn. Likewise the over the top makeup, silicone or steroid enhanced actors don't do it for me.

As for the reduction in sexual assault rates, the material I've seen suggests that the rates involving assaults by teenage boys drop corresponding to internet takeup. That makes sense to me, social and ethical skills along with values are still very much under development. Hormones are raging. Access to other forms of sexual outlet is hindered at every turn, negotiating consent as an underage person is very difficult, assess to prostitutes is generally out of the question for legal and financial reason's, printed material can be difficult to get (and parents seem to like discovering that stuff and making an issue of it).

Pressures build with few or no socially acceptable outlets for youths who lack the life skills which most adults aquire over time. Along comes the internet which many in that demographic will negotiate better than their parents, with access to a wide variety of material (and no giveaway magazine behind the cupboard). Sometimes substitutes meet a need which can be a real pain otherwise.

For adults there are still some social stigma's against the use of prostitutes (look at the nature of some of the personal attacks in recent threads against some where it's claimed that they use prostitutes). Masturbation still carries some stigma (lessening but still around) and access to porn seems to be regularly under attack.

There's still a mix of social values which don't necessarily work well together contributing to the angst in this area.

There are issues around legitimate expectations of fidelity in relationships which don't always go well with the legitimate expectation that sexual activity should not be forced on a partner. We can talk about ideals but those don't always match the reality of peoples lives.

R0bert

R0bert

<< There's still a mix of social values which don't necessarily work well together contributing to the angst in this area. >>

No kidding.

I accept that you aren't into degrading porn, which is why I feel I can discuss this issue with you.

There are a significant number of bitter (presumed mature) men posting on the "A-lot-more-to-learn-than-where-babies-come-from" thread, claiming that flirting is something that women do to men to "tease" or "lead on".

The points you raised in your post can all be solved with education. I do not see how masturbating to internet porn develops social skills or respect needed for interaction with young women and adult women. That is why I find it counter-intuitive.

As for raging hormones; we all went through our teens, male and female. I couldn't wait to start having sex, so I did and wish I had had more education before I dived in and knew more about saying "no" and meaning it.

Excusing young men (and young women) for bad behaviour because of hormones is a complete cop-out. Most males manage to grow-up without raping or developing a fetish for degrading porn: at least in the pre-internet days.

We cannot protect our children from the media, their peers or predatory adults. But we can educate them. One of the messages I 'get' constantly from a certain group of males on OLO is hatred. So I have to ask, "what are they teaching their sons and daughters"?

Teaching that masturbation is acceptable would be a start for helping those raging desires. I would also consider an introduction to sex via a brothel (where workers and clients are medically assessed; the workers having to provide a doctor's certificate).

And loads of opportunities for teens to socialise with each other. I don't want any young boys to grow into men who have no respect or compassion for others. And the same for young girls.

I know those statistics that show a reduction in sexual assault, but I don't see how we are achieving a climate where both sexes feel trust for each other.

fractelle, i certainly wouldn't characterise you or your question as feminazi, though given some of the nonsense on this thread, one must be cautious to avoid being jumped on.

i don't claim my pop psychology to be any deeper than that of anybody who has already responded, but i think the responses are definitely missing something, and worry me to some extent.

everybody seems to be writing (albeit tolerantly) in terms of what's wrong with people who view "violent" or "degrading" or "objectifying" porn. i'm not sure i buy that, that there's anything wrong with these people. not at least without an argument. and, as hoellebecq has pointed out, it's misleading to focus upon men.

yesteryear's "degrading" or "kinky" sex is now, for most, completely standard. oral sex, for example worries no one these days, except a few religious loons. but, until very recently, oral sex was definitely at or beyond the limit, condemned by many a psychologist, and not uncommonly illegal.

the fact of the matter is that many loving couples do what seems to me many strange things to express their love and desire. i may not understand it, though i don't feel it is beyond understanding. and i would look to understand it, not to judge it, not even judging it to excuse it. i am definitely not going to rush to judgment, saying that i regard what they are doing as wrong, or dirty, or destructive, or anything at all.

now, the viewing of porn reflecting such "odd" sex acts is a step removed. but i think if you want to understand the viewing of "odd" porn, you must first understand that it may not in fact be "odd".

Fractelle, it's not counter intuitive if you think that for some porn provides a release for tensions which they may not have other practical releases for. For others it probably bears no relation to their real world interests (people who like Die Hard movies don't necessarily like real world violence). For a small minority it may serve as inspiration. Porn's a poor substitute for the real thing but sometimes a substitute serves a purpose.

I don't excuse sexual assault because of raging hormones but do think that we need to be careful not to create no win situations for teenagers to the extent that it becomes just another thing that they are not allowed to do. As you point out teaching that masturbation is acceptable makes sense but many adults still seem to struggle with that especially if it involves visual aids (which do make a difference to many males).

The tough bit in that may be seperating grooming of kids with porn by adults from exploring by the kids - not something I've thought a lot about but it strikes me as an issue.

I'm assuming that those who will be prevented from perpetrating a sexual assault through access to porn have already pretty much missed the boat on some important life skills. I doubt that respect for the other gender will be enhanced by denial of access to porn, rather that if there is a linkage then taste in porn might be impacted by the persons values.

Good contexts for plenty of social interaction makes sense.

"One of the messages I 'get' constantly from a certain group of males on OLO is hatred.", I started on a comment about that but right now I'm not getting the words I need. As I've said before, treat them as you would like to be treated and see what difference it makes. I suspect that it won't always work but I'm optomistic enough to think that it helps.

Time for me to get some sleep.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

I see from your response I failed to make my points very clear.

Not only have I been subject to a tirade of personal abuse from a particular subset of male posters, but so too have most female posters on OLO - even the completely kindhearted Foxy.

This is the result of a failure (in the past) to adequately educate and socialise young people (male and female) to respect each other. For all that porn may be some kind of release valve for young males and that it may have resulted in a reduction of sexual assaults, is not an adequate solution to relating to women. How many of these young men will grow up with completely unrealistic ideas about women and join the embittered, sad men encountered here on OLO?

My points about sexual education and socialisation were very clear. It is not too late to save young men from being socially inept.

Nor have I said anything about banning porn - life is an obstacle course - the best we can do for our children is to prepare them. As we do by teaching car driving, information regarding alcohol and other drugs, so too with social interaction between the sexes.

Contd

Contd.

To reiterate, we have on OLO a group of middle-aged men who equate flirting with cock-teasing. Clearly there is a break down of communication between some males and some females.

Women who believe that the only way they can progress in this world is through manipulating men and the men who see all women as being like this are, unfortunately, a large enough percentage of the population to be a real problem – reflected in the high divorce rate. Some men and women have expectations about each other that are completely at odds with reality.

As for you telling me how to treat people:

I write my posts sincerely and if what I have to say is disagreeable to some - that is not my problem. I write as if to intelligent adults, which is how I like to be treated. However, many here construe a difference of opinion to be a personal slur - that I cannot control. But I can choose to ignore those who persist in verbal assault.

Bushbasher

The topic is about young men accessing porn on the net. I am sure there are young girls who do so as well, however I was addressing the topic and also the fact that the bulk of porn is consumed by males. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is not of the slightest concern to me – although in order to consent to anything it helps to be fully informed.

:)

Fractelle: 'However, many here construe a difference of opinion to be a personal slur - that I cannot control. But I can choose to ignore those who persist in verbal assault.'

Fractelle: 'No wonder you fail at, or are miserable in, your relationships with women. Then I have to wonder at the calibre of woman who would bother with you to begin with.'

(Note: not one post in that thread even addressed one of her posts let alone contained personal comments or abuse prior to this)

Ah, it's like shelling peas. This victim positioning from Fractelle is so tiresome.

People seem to be forgetting the point of the original article. It was supposed to be a serious presentation from an Academic about anomalies found during research for a major work.

The important issues that have arisen from this article are:
* Dr Bray apparently can't distinguish the subject of her own study, and therefore probably also hasn't properly defined the subject of her own study.
* The level of understanding of how to use the Internet exhibited by Dr Bray is woeful, and clearly influencing her ability properly set up tests and gauge results.
* Dr Bray's understanding of current Australian Censorship Legislation is equally woeful.
* There is such a clear bias exhibited in this short work that I fail to see how Dr Bray can continue with the major work since the probability that it is also based on bias rather than evidence is so high.

For the people wanting to assert that Dr Bray's “discoveries” are likely to lead to some undesirable behaviour and therefore action is required, the onus is on you, and Dr Bray, to provide EVIDENCE that there is a causal link between the viewing the material in question and any behaviour. I have previously said no such evidence exists. The onus however is still on you to provide evidence, or admit there is no link between this material and any behaviour.

If you are not going to use evidence or proper Academic standards then Dr Bray should not be using her Academic credentials. And, the opinions stated as to the “likely results” of viewing such material should be clearly defined as just that, baseless opinion derived from bias, fear and a callous disregard for the freedoms of others.

fractelle, the topic for you may be men accessing porn, but that is not bray's topic. of course, you're free to slide/alter the topic however you wish. but given bray's article, i think you've chosen a confusing thread to do so. if you wish to discuss men accessing porn, it would be clearer to do so free of the atmosphere of bray's charges of abuse and child porn.

womp, i thought everyone had already agreed that bray's article is tendentious nonsense.

Fractelle, "To reiterate, we have on OLO a group of middle-aged men who equate flirting with cock-teasing. Clearly there is a break down of communication between some males and some females."

I think you are talking about very low level flirting that has been regarded as social oiling, although many men - as can be seen by the reactions on OLO - do regard all flirting as unnecessary and misleading. So I reckon it is best avoided unless both sides have the sort of long term relationship that ensures complete understanding of each other's values and motivations.

Frankly I cannot see how flirting would be supported by say Moira Carmody where men say (and they do) that it is a major impediment to
understanding the woman's interest and desires. For there to be ethical consent surely there should be ethical negotiation (ongoing negotiation as Moira would have it) and the one-sided artifice of flirting is not conducive to that.

Moira says that young people have great difficulty in establishing the rapport that is a pre-requisite for negotiation and ethical consent. Discouraging flirtation by girls, who readily mimic their mothers and celebrities, would go a long way towards improving things for youth.

Moira says that young women experience difficulty in saying no. So their flirtation says yes and presumably they remain mum for the deed, regretting it later. Not a good look at all.

Psychologists regularly express concern about flirting as a damaging game, for example Eric Berne who is of world renown:

http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_rapo.htm

I agree with Elka, Monday, 24 August 2009 10:35:46 PM

someone said: "you googled sex and found sex"
no, she googled sex and found rape, degradation, torture, violence.

The article may have talked about internet censorship but has everyone missed the bit where this site was recommending:

Some guys help a girl home when she has had to [sic] much to drink. We say, call your friends, bring out the camera and then take turns to f### that drunk slut to a pulp!! Make sure you film evey [sic] minute of her humiliation and brutal f### that passed out little f### hole so hard that her grand daughters will be sore!!.

This is inciting violence.

Have you also not drawn the connections between the attitudes and behaviours of various "football" players involved in sexual abuse of women, particularly in groups? Or the horrific gang rapes in Sydney in 2000/01? all these real life events mirror the sort of activities promoted here and I'd bet any money the perpetrators had watched plenty of porn just like it prior to committing their acts of violence.

Nevermind the legalities of censorship laws - the bigger question is why is there a demand for 'fantasy' sexual violence against women and what can we do about reducing the 'demand' for such material?

Jenny E

Once again it is a work of fiction.

There is no link between the website and the incidents you have mentioned. In fact you have effect preceding cause by almost a decade.

The whole “argument”, for want of a better word, put forward by Dr Bray and the other panic merchants here is exactly the same as the argument used by some fringe groups claiming that “Harry Potter” promotes Demon Worship. Both Dr Bray's followers and the Anti Potter Groups have been repeatedly told that it is a work of fiction, both choose to ignore this fact. Both Dr Bray's followers and the Anti Potter Groups have been repeatedly told that there is no evidence to support their claims, both groups ignore this fact and refuse to produce any evidence. Both Dr Bray's followers and the Anti Potter Groups have been repeatedly told that their so called solutions represent little more than Censorship imposed on the whole community to appease a small minority who think their biased, evidenceless, opinions are more important than the freedom of the whole community.

Before now I have had no real interest in the type of rape material found on the website, but following the display of bias, contempt for evidence and Academic methods, combined with willful disregard for the freedoms of others I have found here, I think I will force myself to view some of this sort of this material. You don't seem to want to listen to reasoned argument, so the only course open is to support your opposition, however disgusting they may be.

"but following the display of bias, contempt for evidence and Academic methods, combined with willful disregard for the freedoms of others I have found here, I think I will force myself to view some of this sort of this material." - I get what you are saying but I just can't go there when dealing with homophobes, when dealing with the ant-abortion crowd etc and a variety of other groups who oppose things I either can't or won't do but in which I support the rights of others.

R0bert