'Brothels in residential neighbourhoods'.
I really don't understand the problem with that. Unless it's offensive for people to be seen coyly entering and leaving a building. In a residential area! How scandalous!

'Sex shops on major roads', 'Brothels in residential neighbourhoods'

Actually. I have the answer! Let's have all sex shops in residential neighbourhoods, and brothels on the major roads!

David, you are still making the assumption that people who might describe themselves as feminists or Christians are on the same page vis a vis prostitution and pornography. (I am still unsure of what constitutes a 'feminist' as the range of definitions or perceptions even on OLO are enlightening)

(As indicated by the ranging opinions on the violent porn/pornography threads from both feminists and Christians.)

If the range of articles on OLO are a reflection of real life perceptions then you will have seen that some of the feminist writers have affilitaion with Christian lobby groups and are sympathetic to your views and some are not.

"It seems that when there is an obvious detrimental movement in society, ..."

There always seems to be an elephant in the room when David starts on this particular bandwagon. The assumption is that someone who shares David's views will get to decide what is immoral or an "obvious detrimental movement in society".

David is in a mixed race marriage and is a passionate advocate for mixed race marriages. We don't have to look far back in history to find a period when a lot of people would have considered mix race marriage immoral and detrimental to society. The old half casts get the worst of both races thinking.

Would David find it acceptable if his new commissioner of morals was someone who considered mixed race marriage immoral and detrimental to society? Would he find it acceptable if his marriage did not share the same legal protections as hetrosexual, monoracial couples? Maybe even to have the physical expression of his love for partner declared illegal because others considered it immoral?

I suspect not.

Prostitution is a different issue but at the heart of the issues lies the concept of consenting adults being able to make their own choices and an acceptance that what is considered immoral and or detrimental to society often is not.

R0bert

R0bert and Pelican, whether feminists and chrisitians have a wide variety of viewpoints or not, they still support the central structures that are occupied by the extremists of either group, which lobby the government (feminists even have an office and minister in our federal government to push their agenda). The softer edges conceal the extremist centre of both groups. On OLO we have observed both (C.Norma as a submitter among others for feminism and Gibo/BOAZ as commenters for Christianity). Their ideas lie at the political centre of their respective groups.

-=-=
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123330.html

"In the 1980s, conservatives and feminists joined to fight a common nemesis: the spread of pornography. Unlike past campaigns to stamp out smut, this one was based not only on morality but also public safety. They argued that hard-core erotica was intolerable because it promoted sexual violence against women.

"Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice," wrote feminist author Robin Morgan"
-==-=

It's a very disturbing situation though and one that hasn't yet been exposed in the mainstream media yet(at least prominent and sustained exposure).

In Australia these groups have diminished press and broadcast/entertainment freedom over the last several decades.

Hi Robert. (the Hefalump here)
something you said deserved closer scrutiny.

You suggest that some things might be declared 'detrimental' by some little club of do gooders who dislike some behavior, and wish to stamp it out. Ok.. good point.

But I deflect that with the simple solution that any consideration of detriment, should be based on evidence which is obvious to all.

For example, the link between alchohol and violence is pretty well established, and the kind of violence often cited is 'domestic' violence.

In the period referred to in the article, (I hope you managed to read it) they refer to the link between:

Alchohol, poor judgement, prostitutes, and soldiers going down the gurgler with STDs and being unable to perform in the military.

Regarding morality in general, and the abuse of women in particular, surely it is obvious (?) that to 'commodify' a human body is detrimental to the individual and society.

Let me give you an example from 'my Journey' :) my goodness.. there was soooo much that impacted on me, that's why my head was spinning and then I 'spilled' it in 3 posts and 2 threads.

One of my peers, (one of the few divorced ones) shared with me about his 'indulging' in 'student sponsorship' in Melbourne. This is a euphemism for him visiting brothels, and requesting young girls, who happen to be like 19, and looking for extra income through casual prostitution. (students)

Try as I might, I cannot see how this is in any way beneficial for all concerned. He has daughters. He related how he might feel if his own daughter DID this..... now.. take a moment to reflect on this.. do you have a daughter? I do, and the thought of her doing that makes me sick. Can this be good? I'll guarantee the girls don't tell mum or dad about their extra income stream....