Warwick, despite some of the emotive and religious language, and disagreement with your views on homosexuality, you will get no argument from me.

As a mother I have witnessed the effect of hyper-sexualisation of a whole generation (or more) of children and the burden on parents to enforce a sense of self worth and confidence to stand up to those pressures.

It can be done but it is made much harder by changing societal norms and apathy.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister acknowledges Bonhoeffer yet continues to foster an economic situation that reduces chances of parents being able to choose to stay at home to raise their children and continues to be pressured by business groups whether it be on grocery prices and competition or lack of boundaries for business when it comes to media exploitation and sexualisation of children.

It is an emotive issue on both sides of the debate. The trouble is that often people like yourself or Melinda Reist who come out fighting on these matters, turns those with a more secular or liberal ideology off because of broader ideological differences.

It is difficult to separate the person from the idea sometimes but I do wish you some success in raising awareness and hopefully action on this issue. It is complicated because it is not just about the media and profit before values mindset, there are many contributing factors and pulling them all together will be difficult.

Your theme is important Warwick. The s*xualisation of children concerns many parents, and some men are speaking out about it.
In Adelaide on Monday Nov 23, noted Australian author Steve Biddulph will be addressing the "Bratz, Britney and bralettes: the s*xualisation of childhood" seminar, along with the redoubtable Julie Gale of Kids Free 2B Kids.
As Steve says "From tiny tots to late teens, girls are being preyed on, and damaged by, s*xualisation and media messages about weight, looks, clothes and behaviour. The messages they are getting are wrong. And the harm is real. And not just to girls." For more information about the event see www.youngmedia.org.au

Warwick,
I tried to raise my son allowing him to have his innocence and for 31/2 years that was being achieved
The thing was though I have a pretty rough past and my wife and now ex partner was involved with the people that I slowly tried to distance myself from
With my times in gaol and the rules that apply to the hurting of children I would think that each time I came home things would change but they didn't so I would pack a swag and roam hoping once more that when I went back to the town it would change but it never did
I have fought for over 12 years to break the stranglehold over the illegal removal of my son and to try to get him from the very people that allowed the things that you speak of but nobody would listen
The innocence of my son is now gone as well as my capacity to even talk to him and now I have to fight for my own freedom against they that would and have allowed the innocence of my son to be stolen

I wish you well and hope that you are successful in your crusade but bloke I am just a bloke that has to rough of a past to be much help I hope you can find those that can

Innocence of the children must and should be preserved

A quote from Nelson Mandela, "Any nation that does not care for and protect All its children does not deserve to be called a nation"

Best wishes
From Dave

As a counsellor who deals with the flood of men addicted to porn, I've watched this problem escalate from the relatively marginal to now quite literally epidemic proportions worldwide.

Warwick's last statistic, that the # of chidren needing protection has tripled over the past ten years, should surely shake us out of our slumber. Trust me, it will triple again if we stand idle doing nothing.

You might respond by distancing ourselves from Warwick's moral framework. Before you do, be sure that you have a solid moral framework upon which to take action yourself - it is the dismantling of moral frameworks that has led us to this juncture in the first place.

Regrets and hand wringing are no longer enough - our children and grandchildren are suffering unspeakably.

Men, write to your local MP - doesn't matter if your letter is not a masterpiece, just write, or ring him/her up. you will be amazed at the power that lies in your hands - history is filled with men who fought solitary battles against slavery and oppression and won.

'It is interesting that the Prime Minister acknowledges Bonhoeffer yet continues to foster an economic situation that reduces chances of parents being able to choose to stay at home to raise their children and continues to be pressured by business groups whether it be on grocery prices and competition or lack of boundaries for business when it comes to media exploitation and sexualisation of children.'

Not really that interesting. It's the nature of the beast.

Melinda Tankard-Reist (Give her both her both barrels please!). She's a social commentator you know.

This article shows a very simplistic understanding of sexual behaviour. Sexual behaviour is very often not about sex at all. It is not about satisfying sexual feelings but emotional ones. Sex is the place where many people try and satisfy emotional needs that cannot be met by sexual behaviour. It is common because it is private. No one likes to expose the fact that they do not know how to properly meet their emotional needs and quite often they go ‘underground’ to try and meet those needs. Sex becomes a kind of underground where people who have different emotional needs come into conflict with each other.
Pornographers, advertisers, entertainers, educators can all use sex to meet their emotional needs for power or control or influence. Sex gets used for all kinds of need. It is simplistic to say that it is just out of control testosterone and that all that is needed is some self discipline on the part of men. Likewise it is naive to say that all we need to do is ‘man-up’ and the perpetrators of sexualisation of children will disappear. That will not happen – they will simply find new outlets for their emotional immaturity that do just as much damage as sexualisation. Some may even get involved in religion and ‘religionise’ children with just as dire results as if they sexualised them.
The real problem is to educate children how to meet their emotional needs so that they do not have to go underground to satisfy that need. Many parents do not allow their children to meet those needs and force them to indulge in behaviours which are eventually destructive. Trying to blame men for a sexualised culture is very short sighted. Both men and women are equally responsible for stifling the emotional needs of children and both are equally culpable for the resulting underground behaviour of their children which carries over into their adult behaviour where they can become new ‘Hitlers’.

phanto you say Warwick is being simplistic?

Well, compared to the muddying of issues you have undertaken, yes. We really do need to look at things simplistically -

William Wilberforce looked at slavery VERY simplistically, and was accused of just that - a pretty good model for men to follow.

I'm with you Warwick - we need to stop all the prevaricating and philosophising - AND MAN UP!

Warrick, you really hit the nail on the head in this one. If only society recognised the collateral damage being done to women through men's vulnerability to women's exploitation, we might all live in a much more loving, respectful place. I look forward to reading the expected upcoming comments, however, I do suspect all those who read this article will succumb to your blatant logic. Keep up the great work Warrick!I look forward to reading your next insightful, uncompromised, courageous article.

Typical right-wing Christian dog-whistling, conflating Nazism, pedophilia, homosexuality, divorce and pornography, and treacle-coating the lot with a shonky veneer of "think of the children!" moralism.

You want to think of the children? Then tear down the churches. Centuries of abuse of children has been committed within the walls of Christianity. As Alfred Hitchcock said, when he spied a young boy walking with a priest, "run away, little boy! Run away as fast as you can!"

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt here, and just tell you to stick your crucifix where the Son don't shine, and don't come lecturing ME about how to raise my children.

There are already plenty of laws to protect everyone -- women, children and men -- from violent abuse. Why do we need laws to stop people seeing other people pleasuring each other sexually? My children have had access to the Internet from early youth, and they have undoubtedly seen far more sexual material than I had at their age. Some of it they find interesting. Some of it they find laughable. Some of it they find boring. But they are intelligent enough to decide for themselves what's real and what's pretend, just as they can with books, films and TV shows; and as a result they are much better equipped to deal with the real world of sex without prurience, without danger and without the crippling anxiety that many people in my generation went through.

There's nothing evil or corrupting in watching or reading about people making love; if there was we would all be slavering degenerates by our mid-twenties. This manufactured outrage would be much better directed against drunk drivers and neglectful parents -- these are much more real dangers to Australia's children.

The cause of child abuse is obvious. When children loose a natural parent, they are in a group with a horific risk of abuse.

Background:
We know smoking 'causes' cancer. Smoking increases the risk by 120%.

When children live in households without BOTH NATURAL parents, the risk of child abuse and neglect increases by 2,600% ! ! !

That's not twice, that's 26 times the risk !
(Citations available PartTimeParent@pobox.com)

To protect children, protect their relationship with BOTH NATURAL parents.

The most dangerous household for a child is a "mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" household. Not a loving step-parent not the NATURAL FATHER, but some other blow-in.

Cunning pedophiles don't become school teachers now-days. They romance a single mum and get her and access to the bedrooms of her lonely and vulnerable children.

But if the natural father is still allowed to remain in the child's lives, the pedophile stays well-clear... But he knows the natural father will probably find out, and the perpetrator will recieve very very rough justice from the real natural dad! A Dad's love is the greatest love of all... Trust me, the pedophile won't be capable of abuse again!

The other situation is the struggling single mum... How much easier it would be if natural dad could share the load? Most natural dads WANT to protect their kids... that's why the divorce court is full of "custody disputes", instead of "you can have them disputes".

Finally pedophiles target emotionally vulnerable children... fatherless children have a yearning for their natural father, and if he is not around, they crave 'father figure'. These are the vulnerable children so attractive to pedophiles!

Look at the news, every time there is a horribly abused or murdered child, the baby-in-the-suitcase, for example... they are almost always from "single mother", or "Mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" households

Protect children from abuse.
Don't give DOCS and the "nasty feminists" more power. By removing dads, they are making the problem worse, not better.

Simply protect children's human right to live with BOTH NATURAL PARENTS.
Research available
PartTimeParent@pobox.com

Jon J ... checking our history recently, I saw that our 14yo son had been googling "naked ladies", "boobs", etc. I just laughed. My wife worried for a couple of seconds, then shrugged and said, "oh well, in your day you and your mates nicked Playboys from the newsagent, these days it's the internet. I suppose I'd be more worried if he *wasn't* interested in such things.

partTimeParent ... could you please produce some kind of proof to back up your claims. And I don't mean bogus "research" produced by Christian zealots in the US, either.

Playboy is the favourite porn mag of paedophiles and kindy kids are blowing each other in the toilet block.

I can only sum up this article by borrowing from Winston Churchill: never in the field of sociology have so few demonstrated their misconceptions so fully to so many.

it is obvious that we still have a few loud perverts willing to defend the right for them to view any filth any though they know it leads to child sex abuse. Not surprising that these ones are willing to boast about how liberal they are. Such a shame that so many of these 'liberals' now run SBS and other disgusting porn outlets. They are the first to excuse disgusting behaviour when they feel their little world of porn is being threatened.

This week's competition: spot ten mistakes in the following message:

"it is obvious that we still have a few loud perverts willing to defend the right for them to view any filth any though they know it leads to child sex abuse. Not surprising that these ones are willing to boast about how liberal they are. Such a shame that so many of these 'liberals' now run SBS and other disgusting porn outlets. They are the first to excuse disgusting behaviour when they feel their little world of porn is being threatened."

Did you get them all, boys and girls? Good! Now it's back to Inspector Rex! This week's episode: Rex and Hoffman Make Babies!

There is no doubt, the religious right are absolutaly obsessed
with sex!

When I was a teenager, those kids who grew up with the odd Playboy
lying around, once their curiousity was satisfied, just treated
it as normal and natural. It was the kids from religious households
who went beserk, for teenagers are rebellious and commonly do whatever
is banned, the more parents ban it, the more they do it.

Whilst the religious treat sex as a perversion, their followers will
act in exactly that light.

Go to a sex shop in Holland, its not full of Dutch, but full of
people from countries where porn is banned, like the Middle East
etc.

It was the religious right who taught every American kid what a
blow job is, by nailing Bill Clinton to the cross.

To sum up
- there are problems in the world
- a lot of children get some access to porn and have a look at some point
- some adults abuse children
- unstated ( a lot of people with little or no access to porn have sexually abused children during history, at a guess it was not all that easy for priests, monks, nuns and many others to get access to porn before the advent of the internet )
- the solution is of course to attack porn (and promote a particular religion) rather than the unhealthy, guilt and shame based views of sexuality promigated by so many adherants of that religion.

No I don't buy it. I suspect a far greater contributer of sexual problems and abuse is the distorted and confused and disfunctional messages rather than access to porn or liberal attitudes to other consenting adults sexual choices.

R0bert

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9593#155125

Clownfish, The research I will quote is published research, peer reviewed, in repudible journals, some work done by a Professor, published in newspapers, not yet in a journal article and some info gleaned from FOI requests from DOCS or other child protection bodies in each State. All repudible sources.

Please note that the 'child porn' and the 'sexualisation of kids' campaign that we are all seeing is not a result of the dying christian religion, but the idealogical opposite... Look at Michael Carr-Gregg, the first google result is ... Michael Carr-Gregg Psychologist In this hard-hitting book, bestselling book, Michael Carr-Gregg focuses on the special trials of raising adolescent girls today.. etc...

He is a leftie pro-feminist anti-christian zealot. He is hand-on-heart with the nasty-feminisits, (the arch anti-christians), and pushing the sexualisation of kids as a new scarry monster, the fundamental result of capitalism and having men in positions of power.

This is a bizzare contradiction. That the people most responsible for sexual dysfunction (the nasty-feminists) are linking themselves with the protection of childhood innocence! Perverse logic.

Again, If you want more partTimeParent@pobox.co

If the evidence is solid and verified, post links to the thread. You're undermining your own argument by asking people to email.

Many of us have access to academic literature databases, so even if you just post the authors and titles and we can look them up.

Right now it looks like you're trying to harvest email addresses to spam with deranged fundamentalist muck.

I agree with Sancho. You would have to be very wary about contacting an email address posted by partimeparent.

In fact I am very wary about responding to anything written by the author Warwick Marsh.

He always seems to have his rent-a-crowd bitter male followers and accompanying Christian fundamentalists ranting and raving about what the 'nasty feminists' have done to the world.

No thanks- they will be happy to know I am out of this one.

Among all of the posts criticising Warwick I see not one genuine acknowledgment of the truly epidemic and horrific nature of what is happening in our society. Our obsession with pleasure, especially vicarious sex, is blinding us to the pain and suffering on the other side of the screen.

Some 300,000 children will be sexually exploited this year in the USA - for profit! As posted yesterday, I see far too much of the collateral damage myself in counselling men addicted to this trash.

Though abuse of the innocent has always been with us to some extent, we are now seeing a literal explosion of abuse and exploitation that is unprecedented.

Either prove otherwise, or get out of the debate, because merely slandering those who really do care and want to be part of a solution is effectively stripping yourself of any semblance of humanity.

Rob R,
A lot of people want to talk of solutions and stopping all kinds of abuse but you wont get much assistance from many on this Forum
As long as it is not them it is okay
Society is just grooming the next generation of abusers,drug addicts and drunks
Children were once allowed be children but today they are being taught to be adults while still children
Society has just about made me sick and yet I am supposed to be a low life because I have done time in gaol but half of the ones that condemn me wouldn't last six months on the other side of the wall

Thanks anyway
From Dave

"but you wont get much assistance from many on this Forum " - not when it's about using the abuse of children as an excuse to promote the views of a religion with a long history of sexually abusing children and creating unhealthy views of human sexuality.

If the author and others want to "man up" then they could address that history and be outspoken about change within the church and it's teaching.

R0bert

Well said, RObert.

The alarm bells go off as soon as one sees the author trying to draw some parallel between pre-war Nazi Germany and the supposed 'moral decline' in Australia today.

The obvious irony is that the Nazi Party rose to power largely based on a platform of morals and good old family values. So let's look at what the Nazis promoted:

"When Adolf Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933, Adolf Sellman, a spokesman for the West German Morality League, reported that all filth (i.e., pornography, homosexuality) and trash vanished from the public domain, that prostitution was banished, and that a correct population policy (i.e., racial purity) was established."

"Everything that respectable citizens deemed sexually improper, if not abnormal, and all that conflicted with general average notions of morality could now be punished by a range of penalties, which included imprisonment, internment in a concentration camp, and execution."

"(Hitler) felt that youthful urges toward sex could be overcome by physical education and that the "filth" existing in the theater, art, literature, movies, and press had to be eliminated by censorship and outright repression."

"...the official ideal was one of sexual restraint. Sex education emphasized self-denial, self-control, will power, and discipline."

"One of the more ironic contradictions of the Nazis is that they claimed on their ascendancy to power to be restoring old-fashioned family virtues. Though they did officially eliminate pornography, the total effect of their administration was to establish one of the most obscene regimes in human history."

(From "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia - section "Nazis and Sex": http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH18.HTM#b1-NAZIS%20AND%20SEX )

Sound familiar?

Sorry Pelican but Warwick comes a cross to me, like a man on a crusade who is so obsessed with his own moral code he's lost the plot and sees everything in black or white. then again this is fine for a stump preacher but tends to be more of a hindrance to the practical day to day reality.

Much of what he says is emotive and perhaps true in one context but somewhat less than conducive to to common sense and rational behaviour by the public i.e. the hysteria surrounding Ferguson.

RobB worries me too in that his views are so strident as to call into question his objectivity. With such strident views I wonder how he manages objectivity when counseling.

I would want to see proof that what he reports isn't a higher desire to seek help than in the past (a change in Current mores).
I wonder if a similar head per capita ratio was there before but like spousal abuse simply not reported.

A bit like the pygmy blue tongue considered extinct for 60 years therefore not looked for.... they were simply looking in the wrong place, the species was alive and well.

The problem with causes is that one has to be sensational to bet attention but be careful not to over sell the threat less one causes greater fear than it solves. This can lead to vigilantism or being ignored. Sadly the author does both

I agree with Phanto, If we raise well balanced children these issues would not happen as often. Except 5 year olds playing with each. Back in my day that was called doctors and nurses and considered normal, though uncomfortable. You certainly did not encourage it but did not call the police for crying out loud.

Today we have kids living in cities, detached from nature, overweight and robotic. We are asking for increased problems in self esteem.

Then as any good nanny state does, blame someone else for our own deficiencies in parenting.

Warwick Marsh, I am the sort of person who is normally swayed by figures and the figures what you gave us were pretty remarkable. Novel too - I have never seen anything like them.

If your figures stacked up you might have a case. I was hoping for ABS stats or something. Remarkable figures require authoritative sources and all that.

The sites you gave me were pretty remarkable - but in all the wrong ways. In order to have a hope of convincing anyone you need to quote credible sources.

Let's get the bonfires going for all those naughty books.

Anyone got a flaming cross?

I think we need more light and less heat in here. Perhaps we should define our terms?

The problem I have with the author's take on things is that the Christian church must be the most sex-negative belief system in the history of the world. They literally think everything except monogamous marriage as virgins, faithful til death, is the model of human sexuality, and everything else is a distortion of it.

Of course, if you take that as your model, then you'll find lots of consensual sex by sexually mature people, and call it "abuse", "exploitation", "violence", "assault", "hyper-sexualisation", and so on.

If we take, say 18, as being the age of sexual maturity, the problem is, *in fact* development is a continuous process, and everyone in the population has by that age reached puberty, and has sexual feelings, thoughts and desire, and the majority have acted on them.

It is perverse, for purposes of a discussion of sexuality, to label everyone under 18 as a "child", and any sexual activity as "abuse" and "hypersexualisation".

And clearly the reason the author is doing it is because of an ulterior motive - to try to villify and ban as much sex as he can, and as the church has done over and over again in its long history.

But if 18, or 16, or any arbitrary age is not to be the cut-off point, how does one define "hyper-sexualisation" (ie over-sexualisation) without defining normal sexuality? And then a) the variability of normal sexuality is at odds with the author's Christian views, and
b) why should everyone be forced into compliance with non-normal but non-abusive sexuality?

But if the only criterion is that sexuality must be non-abusive, that leaves nothing of the author's original argument, which is based on age.

PartTime Parent
"When children live in households without BOTH NATURAL parents, the risk of child abuse and neglect increases by 2,600% ! ! ! "

That is very interesting and I have heard similar statistics before. Could you please link us to a source for that - not the email, but an original source or one that can lead to an original source?

Peter I'd start with a look around the National Child Protection Clearinghouse - http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/ I've seen some detail on the breakdown of family type and the proportion of children in that family type previously but can't find it currently.

There is a summary sheet at
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.pdf and an interesting read at http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/ncpass/ncpass.pdf

The bit's that stick out for me. - Kids are safest in natural two parent families but that does not prove cause and effect. There is a high prevelance of other issues which often travel with substantiated child abuse and neglect - family violence, poverty, substance abuse, mental illness etc. All factors which probably increase the likelyhood of the natural parents not staying together in the first place.

Placing pressure on disfunctional parents to stay together probably won't make kids safer. At a guess if we could tidy up the mess around family law which keeps parents in conflict (CSA, winner takes it all property settlements etc) we could probably cut down a proportion of the risks for kids from seperated families.

Reading comments in what I've skimmed of the above documents and in previous reading a lot of the "increase" in child abuse can be attributed to improved community awareness and a greater likelyhood of reporting, to changes in definition to cover emotional abuse and other related fators.

R0bert

Examinator
I agree with your comments but in some aspects this article raises some good points in terms of child protection. I do believe that we have lost the plot on some of the issues Warwick raises. It is a case of playing the ball and not the man.

And yep...the danger is in the underlying agenda I can see that too. :)

pelican, the problem from your point of view is that no-one has posted an article here on OLO that has done a much better job than Warwick has here. They are all the same - heavy on emotion pleas and light on hard evidence showing the problems they cite cause the problems they worry about.

This article did initially spark my interest when I saw the stats that Warwick quoted - but it turned out they were very rubbery. In particular the wording of "number of children _needing_ protection" - pity is wasn't the "number of children _in_ protection according to ABS stats". Needing is such a flexible word, isn't it? The rest of them weren't changes at all - for all I know they could have remained the same despite this supposedly rampant "sexualisation of children" going on in our midst.

To have a hope of putting a convincing argument, someone has to define what observable phenomena that cause sexualisation of children, some other observable phenomena that are the harmful effects of sexualisation of children and then show that changes in one cause changes in the other.

Until that happens articles like this one can easily be dismissed as just strident moral bleating. You do seem to have a handle on this stuff. Why don't you write one?

RObert
"but you wont get much assistance from many on this Forum " - not when it's about using the abuse of children as an excuse to promote the views of a religion with a long history of sexually abusing children and creating unhealthy views of human sexuality.

If the author and others want to "man up" then they could address that history and be outspoken about change within the church and it's teaching.

I am the author of the quoted words and you can be assured that I ain't about supporting the "religous" societies of this or any other country
The so-called ones that swear allegance to the laws of god are the very ones that took me from my mother and my son from his parents allowing lies perjury and continued abuse of my son and not even giving him an education
These people being The Solicitors,Magistrates,Barristers and Judges who claim to uphold the laws and swear an oath on the bible claiming it the words of God
I stand against child abuse in all forms and plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman
If you are going to make claims against me and what I stand for at least get your facts straight
What they have done to my innocent son is unforgivable and to think I am supposed to be low life because I have done time but many that have been tied to my sons case wouldn't last 6 months the other side of the wall for what they want to and do, do to children
Thanks Dave
If you want to know more contact graysond49@yahoo.com and your correspondence will only be between you and I unless you take it further

A correction in my last post

"I stand against child abuse in all forms and plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman"

Should have been

I stand against child abuse in all forms and FOR plain and simple decency to thy fellow man/woman

I apologise for the error
Thanks from
Dave

Dave your post read as an attack on those who disagree with the author of this thread and his supporters.

You also also said in relation to other posters on this forum
"As long as it is not them it is okay
Society is just grooming the next generation of abusers,drug addicts and drunks
Children were once allowed be children but today they are being taught to be adults while still children "

Frankly offensive comments. My choice and I presume the choice of others posting on this thread to disagree with the religious ideology behind this thread and most of the posts supporting it does not imply any of what followed in your post.

R0bert

It is a terrible thing to see our culture degrade itself in this way. Children need to be raised and nurtured to become natural strong members of our society. As a teacher I see many children negatively affected by the downgrading of parental authority and having it replaced by the government and their agencies. With the weakening of the central basis of our society on the family and supported by a government centered on our Judeo-Christian values issues such as pornography appear to be on the rise. regards bbfjohns

Here are some citations about the fact that living with mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend (or living without BOTH Natural parents as the most dangerous household for kids.

"When children live in households without BOTH NATURAL parents, the risk of child abuse and neglect increases by 2,600% ! ! ! "

There are several sources I can point you to, since I don't own a web site.

You can contact Michael Woods, an academic from the University of Western Sydney, he has the raw data gleaned from the WA Department for Child Protection (the other states refused to provide figures). These figures are just the raw rates of perpetrator natural father/natural mother/other family/other firend/stranger.

If you add the fact that most children spend most of their childhoods living with both natural parents (even with divorce rates at 50%because divorce at 15 means the child spends 15/18ths of their childhood with both natural parents)... this is from the ABS.

2: http://www.mensrights.com.au/dads_not_the_demons.pdf

2: Federal Parliament
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/family_law/submissions/sublist.htm
Look at the attachment under submission 110...
"110 Mr James Adams (PDF 192KB), Attachment (PDF 2681KB)"

3: Here is a list of research references Re: Shared Custody
http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/custody.html

I have to agree with Robert here. The religious certainly have
no moral claims here, given the history of child abuse within
various religious communities. Blaming it all on porn is rather
simplistic and wrong.

It seems that many many adults too, will go to extreme lengths,
to conform, comply, fit in, gain acceptance etc. Peer pressure
seems to matter enormously.

As an extreme example, this story blew me away, why on earth
would they bother?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8352711.stm

Looking back, perhaps I was fortunate. My old man was extremely
tough on me. Others got pocket money, I had to work for it.
When I mentioned others, he made it clear that I was not others,
that I should have my own values, beliefs, etc, not follow the
crowd. I never forgot it.

Yet most of the peer pressure to do with sex, comes from other
kids. Kids are inquisitive by nature. We were in grade 3, when
we were drawing things on the school blackboard, explaining to
each other how it all worked :)

Now the grown ups might well have thought we were innocents, but
the reality was far from it.

Today's kids simply have an easier way of learning. Google anything
and you have answers.

RObert
"Dave your post read as an attack on those who disagree with the author of this thread and his supporters."

That could very well be the case as most want to attack at his religious side and not recognise the issues of stopping child abuse and letting a little bit of decency to descend into society
I couldn't give a ratsar/e about his beliefs one way or another or anyone elses for that matter as long as they stop the abuse of children and show a bit of decency to one another

You also also said in relation to other posters on this forum
"As long as it is not them it is okay
Society is just grooming the next generation of abusers,drug addicts and drunks
Children were once allowed be children but today they are being taught to be adults while still children "

Well isn't society doing just that have a look around for once and see whether the abuse of children is lessening, whether alcohol, drugs, pornography and violence is lessening

Frankly offensive comments. My choice and I presume the choice of others posting on this thread to disagree with the religious ideology behind this thread and most of the posts supporting it does not imply any of what followed in your post.

You can all disagree with the religious ideologies as much as you want and will probably get my support but noone will have my support while ever they ignore child abuse

"Any nation that does not care for and protect ALL its children does not deserve to be called a nation" Nelson Mandela

Thanks
from Dave

I agree with Dave.

People who want to keep children safe come from a variety of backgrounds. Do we think they should all conform to the same belief (or non-belief) system? There is then no logical reason to attack this writer's belief system. The issue is child abuse.

Surely people are not making the absurd proposition that child abuse doesn't happen amongst the population of non-religious people.

Anyway I don't care what perspective someone comes from - if they are pro protecting children and human rights for children they have at least that much to their credit.

Right on Warwick. You are absolutely right about porn and its ill effects. I know personally of its power and ability to turn every woman into no more than a piece of meat in the eye of its consumers.

Thankfully my life is now free of this brutal master, but it was not without a hell (every pun intended) of a fight.

Good on Senator Conroy for his brave fight to rid the web (in Australia at least) of this scourge (and this is coming from someone who hasn't voted labor in some time...! :)

Cheers mate. cmpmal

cmpmal: I take it you've overcome or at least learned to subdue some sort of preoccupation with porn.

If it's too painful or awkward I understand; but if you're able - would you tell us a little about the situation and how you succeeded in managing it.

If you can't post, would you email pynchme@yahoo.com

A long personal interaction won't happen - I am just interested in gaining knowledge of how people handle these issues,

Many thanks,
pynch

Partimeparent, you may well be right in saying that most child abuse happens in homes where there are step-fathers present, as opposed to natural fathers.

What I don't understand is what you are getting at as far as a solution goes?

Are you suggesting unhappy, adulterous or abusive couples stay together for the sake of the children?
Are you suggesting that previously non-abusive men or women becomes abusive if they move in with new partners and their children?

Are you suggesting there could ever be a world where all couples got on and stayed together along with their natural children?

What about all the people that lose their partners through death?
Tough luck for them aye?

Wouldn't that also condemn separated or divorced parents like yourself to a lonely life without new partners?

suzeonline:
"Partimeparent, you may well be right in saying that most child abuse happens in homes where there are step-fathers present, as opposed to natural fathers. What I don't understand is what you are getting at as far as a solution goes? Are you suggesting unhappy, adulterous or abusive couples stay together for the sake of the children?

No. But the safest child is a child who lives with BOTH natural parents - even if they are in TWO houses. Shared parenting should be the holy-grail of child protection, as there is a second loving parent keeping an eye out for any signs of abuse, neglect or simply un-happiness.

And incresing rates of shared parenting decreases divorce rates... since neither parent gets to keep everything - So the profit-motive for divorce is removed. Remember three-quarters of divorces are initiated by the mother (Who is pretty sure she'll keep everything, kids, house, 80% of assets, 50% of his after-tax income as "Child support")

Yes, Shared parenting won't always work, but it should be encouraged.

Until Howards reforms to the divorce laws, 97.5% of kids whose parents fought for them in court, lost one of their parents (Official Divorce/Family Court records). Changes are being prepared now by Rudd for a roll-back of the modest improvements, and more children will lose parents. More children will be put at risk.

Remember there are Divorce court CUSTODY disputes, not TAKE THE CHILD AWAY disputes.

The greatest love of all is a parents love for their child.
So sole custody is the greatest crime.

Partimeparent, I see where you are coming from, but I am sure you are aware of many instances where shared parenting is not in the best interests of the children?

If the Rudd government are thinking of rolling back some of the earlier Family Court reforms, they must have very good reasons.

And please don't start ranting about the rabid feminists out there just waiting for the chance to take all children away from all men!
The governments consist of mostly men, so I can't see any feminist agenda being allowed to flourish really.

So that leaves data of some sort. Could it be that child safety has not improved since the 50/50 shared parenting law came in?
Could it simply mean that many very angry ex-partners out there are just hell-bent on exacting revenge on their ex-partners, that having equal custody made little difference to how they treated their children and ex-partners?

No doubt, you will fill me in on the details.

partTimeParent: <"And incresing rates of shared parenting decreases divorce rates... since neither parent gets to keep everything - So the profit-motive for divorce is removed. Remember three-quarters of divorces are initiated by the mother (Who is pretty sure she'll keep everything, kids, house, 80% of assets, 50% of his after-tax income as "Child support")">

Oh puhleeze - have you any proof that women receive that much "profit"?

(The only stats I have ever seen related to after divorce financial status shows that women and children live in relative poverty; while the male goes forward with his career etc.).

Also, are you saying that you believe that women have a plan to get married and have children just to screw some bloke over ?

Sounds like sour egos to me. I suggest that some men just can't face the fact that a woman would rather be alone than with them.

Also, you seem to never consider that maybe relationships break down because of all sorts of reasons like drug and alcohol use; infidelity; gambling and the like.

What sort of a person needs the partner to be deprived of the means for independent survival, to force them to stay. What sort of person insists that someone who doesn't want them should stay?

If a fellow is a genuine good bloke; a some woman is too stupid or immoral to appreciate love, loyalty and kindness, then he's well rid of her isn't he?

Suzie my impression was that Labor opposed the reforms at the time and if they are rolling back changes it has more to do with philosophy than child protection.

The majority of politicians being male does not stop them showing a lack of concern for other men or children. Nor does it stop them taking a paternalistic view of women.

There are certainly cases where shared care is not workable but if both parents want the care of their children then those situations should be dealt with on their merits rather than on a gendered basis. The old system was pretty much if shared care could not be agreed to (or could be made unworkable) mum got the care except in the most extreme of situations. It was a system built around gendered stereotypes, in my view based on paternalistic assumptions about roles in the family.

My impression is that a lot of feminist support for it was the sticking up for women aspect. In other ways it was contradictory to a lot of feminist effort - a gendered approach to child residency after seperation reinforces the idea of the womans place being as primary carer of children and the male as financial provider.

R0bert

Thanks for that RObert, and you may well be right with those observations.
However, what worries me is that any laws forcing couples to have 50/50 custody of children after separation forces some parents to remain in unhappy, unfaithful or abusive relationships rather than risk losing their children 50% of the time to the other parent.

All separation/custody disputes should be judged on their own merit, and the children placed in the most suitable custody arrangement for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of their parents. If that means that, especially very young children, should remain with their mother most of the time, then so be it.

As it is, children are used as pawns in a war between their parents.
I should know- I was one of those children once.
The children's needs should come before any gender-related issues.

Suzie lots of men have stayed in unhappy, unfaithful or abusive relationships rather than risk losing their children not just 50% of the time but 80 to 100% of the time.

I don't put enough trust in the system to want to see children removed almost entirely from a parents care because someone else decides that their best interests might lie elsewhere (assuming that care is within the legally acceptable bounds).

Not many would accept that if it was applied to intact families regardless of how well children might be raised by another family. Imagine the outcry if DOC's or others were in the habit of taking children away from their parents and giving them to other's to care for not because of abuse or neglect but because it was decided that the other family could provide a better overall upbringing. Shared care is not perfect but the tyrany which comes when the state starts to discriminate is far worse.

If every case is open to evaluation and external judgement even where the care is within the normal parameters then kid's will be pawns in battles far more often than if the state only makes a care decision when one or both parents have breached the normal boundaries which might result in children being taken from their care.

I don't think that there is a perfect system but a system which rewards adversarial behaviour creates and maintains conflict and problems.

We have guidelines in place for when external agencies should become involved in determining care placement for children, those should be the ones which impact on all families and parents. If they are not good enough to protect children then they should be fixed for all children.

R0bert

RObert,
"Imagine the outcry if DOC's or others were in the habit of taking children away from their parents and giving them to other's to care for not because of abuse or neglect but because it was decided that the other family could provide a better overall upbringing. Shared care is not perfect but the tyrany which comes when the state starts to discriminate is far worse."

RObert,
My son was removed from both Parents and given to my now ex's mother and father while my ex was under a Mental Health Program suffering Reactive Depression caused Childhood trauma she suffered as a child at the hands of her mother
He has been locked from my life by the very people that made the original allegation of Bashed and Starved which was not believed by DoCS (Court Transcript available) yet where is the "Outcry" it must just be "Imagined". I can prove what I say and my e-mail has been left often enough for people to obtain the proof
Thanks From
Dave

Good on ya Warwick.
We need more people calling a spade a spade.
Our children are not our future, they are our NOW but tomorrow they will be the leaders of the world, we will be directly responsible for the way they turn out, regardless of the interference in good child raising by governments and social commentators that propound despicable practices of humanism, secularism, materialism etc as commented by Warwick.

A real man (and woman for that matter) stands up for what he believes in and passes it on to his children and says let love and truth and justice prevail.

There is no space in a society that wants to maintain its integrity for shallow love, half truth and preferential justice.

As was said by Milton,
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

We do live in a democratic society where government and bureaucratic decisions are open for inspection and remedy by the people.
Stand up for LOVE, TRUTH and JUSTICE.

Lets here more from you Warwick.

Dave based on what you have described here I'm assuming that you were seperated at the time and that DOC's treated it as a child protection case regardless of how valid that was.

I'm talking about the imagined situation where they decided based on their own world view that although your child's safety was not at any known risk children were removed from parents and placed in someone else's care because someone thought it was in the child's best interest. The other family might have a better home, possibly more refined parenting skills or maybe work arrangements which work a bit better than yours for parenting. Those who want custody cases based on a childs best interests are proposing something like that.

R0bert

suzeonline
"... instances where shared parenting is not in the best interests of the children?" Of couse there are situations where shared parenting is not in the children's best interests, but until Howard reformed it, only 2.5% of kids left the divorce with both parents in their lives... nobody can say with a straight face that 97.5% of kids have a parent who is so bad that the kid is better off without that parent.

As I said, shared parenting is in GENERAL the best outcome for kids after divorce, Not always, but in general.

"If the Rudd government (are changing something)...they must have very good reasons!" Oh yes, the government only ever makes good decisions, and Santa is real and pigs fly. Seriously though, there are good reasons... the huge power of the business lobby that profits from the conflict that child-removal creates. If you want to make somebody fight, take their children away... and this fight feeds many lawyers, social workers, and other professional feminists.

"The governments consist of mostly men, so I can't see any feminist agenda being allowed to flourish really." How many professional men's activists are there? None! Perhaps Dads In Distress (with a paid staff of two) fits the bill? How many professional feminists are there? too many to count!

"So that leaves data of some sort"
There is heaps of data, heaps... but the data goes against what the politically powerfull lobbies and business interests want. So it is ignored

Pynchme "Have you any proof that women receive that much "profit"(by divorce)? The only stats I have ever seen related to after divorce financial status shows that women and children live in relative poverty; while the male goes forward with his career etc."

The truth is that Women and men both suffer about equally financially by divorce. You are refering to the often quoted (but fraudulant and discredited "research" by sociologist Lenore Weitzman who said "Women and children suffer a 73 percent decline in their standard of living in the first year after divorce. Men, on the other hand, had a 42 percent increase." This is a hugely quoted statistic, cited everywhere. Three hundred forty-eight social science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 appeals court cases. That’s a famous statistic. And it is lies, pure academic misconduct!

The truth is
1:Weitzman admitted it was a "mistake", but it did take her more than 10 years to admit the mistake. the figures were reversed.
2: Post divorce, men and women come out almost exactly equally in terms of wealth and standard of living.

DIANE O’CONNELL and SANFORD BRAVER have written this book about what they say are myths about divorced dads. Myths like the famous Weitzman statistic about men’s living standards increasing while women’s declined 73 percent.

Sources:
1: http://www.hisside.com/2_29_04.htm
2: http://www.amazon.com/Divorced-Dads-Sanford-Braver/dp/087477862X
3: "Deadbeat Dad Image A Myth, Study Finds" May 5, 1999 - The New York Times Quoted on http://deltabravo.net/custody/baddadmyth2.php

Pynchme "Also, are you saying that you believe that women have a plan to get married and have children just to screw some bloke over ?" No, but when the going gets tough, or just boring in a marrig, as it nearly always does, she has no incentive to work at making the relationaship work... she can throw him out and keep everything. Why work for a compromise

RObert,
"Dave based on what you have described here I'm assuming that you were seperated at the time and that DOC's treated it as a child protection case regardless of how valid that was"

No, this was not the case my wife and now former partner separated at in 1995 and my wife signed custody of our son over to me and I worked the hours out so that my wife had 49% of time with our son and I had 51% so as to meet the criteria of the sole Parent(major carer)
Don't get me wrong until my wife was called back to work early she showed all the instincts and attributes of a good mother and it seemed to have settled her where she was being a good wife but things that I can't say here, prevailed and led to a separation
We tried rebuilding the marriage in 1996 for our son to have both parents in the same house as that is what he wanted
This is why I say to contact direct because I am not great at writing and can't seem to get the whole story out
All privacy will be adhered to and I will not (what's the word?) harass anyone by that contact it is only so I can tell the whole story

Quotes
"Any Nation that does not care for and protect ALL its children does not deserve to be called a Nation" Nelson Mandela

"I HAVE A DREAM" Martin Luther-King
Thanks for your time
From Dave

I know that many of the contributors on OLO get hung-up about relevant statistics and credible research links, but common sense alone proves that the widespread use of pornography in our society is indefensible.
1. It exploits vulnerable women whilst making the producers rich, thus perpetuating the cycle (read about Linda Lovelace’s sad life)
2. It is often misogynistic, fuelling already unbalanced views of women
3. Like any addictive behaviour, pornography starts at a low level and due to the law of diminishing returns, greater and more extreme thrills are required to achieve the same stimulation. This ends in shame and guilt for the user, not joy. It is a false god, promising control yet delivering slavery.
4. It destroys the intimacy between husband and wife. It never enhances it.
5. Boys whose parents watch pornography will inevitably be exposed to it and probably be caught up in it themselves.
6. Children exposed to pornography lose their innocence. There is a world of difference in playing doctors & nurses and performing fellatio. The act of love is a sacred thing, done privately for a reason. How many of us would like to be viewed in public making love to our beloved?
7. The acceptance or mere tolerance of pornography now will ensure that in the near future it will be on our TV sets. History is a testament to our plummeting moral values. What is X-rated now, will soon be R, then MA and so on.
8. If pornography is such a great thing, why is it viewed in such secrecy and surrounded by shame? We know it is wrong, but we are sucked in by it.
Whatever affects us affects our kids. They look to us as role models, for protection.
As Warwick said, let’s "man up" and find alternative solutions to our sexual issues. Pornography is NOT the answer, it only causes more problems.