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.