Well I agree Foxy and crew that relationships are changing, and for the better I think.

However I don't think that pornography is as mainstream as the links posted by Cornflower would have the public believe. I think only someone quite naive would fail to question who is making claims that push the idea that all 'normal' people use porn.

For example, one of those links quotes "Theresa Flynt, vice president of marketing for Hustler video" - and also of course Larry Flynt's daughter. Harry Flynt is creator/owner of grubby Hustler and he posits himself as a crusader protecting free speech. He has another daughter btw (I think her name is Tonia) who is an anti-pornography campaigner.

In any case, the figures cited are a bit misleading in that they infer that 1/3 of women seek out pornography. However, Nielsen/NetRatings found that "approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female; during the same period, nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month."

That isn't 1 in 3 of all women; or even of all women online or necessarily of one country (we would need more info from Neilson to know that) - but 1 in 3 of whatever number it was that were already seeking pornography.

Also, has anyone ever participated in a Neilson tracking exercise? I think the people who agree to install Neilson software and have their internet activity logged somewhere else is another subgroup again - a convenience sample I think.

Mind you, the figures could be much higher - what number of people outside of Neilson customers seek pornography? Who knows.

We then have the figure that 13 million US women were checking porn once a month. Well the population of adult women in the US is approximately 100 million females - maybe more. That isn't 1 in 3, so the Neilson ratings survey is likely to be lower amongst general internet users.

cont/d

We then have another typical beat up trying to push pornography use into the mainstream in such a way that it's so 'normal' that someone would be an oddball not to be using it.

The beat up is from the UK SUN, heaven forbid (Rupert Murdoch) headline screaming "66% of WOMEN WATCH PORN". Further along we read that The SUN obtained those results from conducting its own survey amongst 1,000 of its own readers who answered a "risqué questionnaire". I suspect that the SUN would appeal to a fairly specific demographic.

It was reported in 2006 (London's The Business) that R Murdoch was building a porn empire of his own including owning and operating porn channels for his Sky biz.

Violet Blue makes her income writing and blogging about sex issues including porn - which sok. However, interesting that she had enough money to sue a pornography performer by the same name, who had made over 300 pornography films - but didn't have enough money to mount a legal response to hang on to the performance name she'd used for about 7 years. I take it one makes more more from pimping off these performers (producing, selling, writing about porn) than most of them make from performing.

Therefore, who is pushing porn as a cultural norm? None other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it.

Anyway, in the upshot I think that use or participation has to be a decision based on personal moral values. However I think it pays to be properly informed about it and to know who is really pulling the strings behind it.

Once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible.

LOL, Pynchme, you're funny. If only you put the same effort into understandimng the flaws in the so-called research you so uncritically regurgitate elsewhere.

The difference, of course, is that the rest of the stuff you put up is simply telling you what you want to hear, whereas the stuff you're critiquing here isn't.

That's the trouble with feminists in a nutshell: they only hear people who play to their prejudices - nothing else penetrates.

Mind you, I daresay that Theresa Flynt probably knows a bit more about porn and her clientele than you do.

Pynchme:"who is pushing porn as a cultural norm? None other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it."

Who is puching feminism as a cultural norm? none other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it.

Too true...

Gee Antiseptic rushing in to defend pornography. Who'd have guessed.

Not everyone working in human services: hospitals, community and NGOs, is feminist.

Also, more than half my clients are male.

You never seem to question the way that you're exploited by other men - that's a pity.

As I said, once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible.

Dear oh dear. I was a bit worried when Cornflower posted several reasonable comments on various threads in the past week, but I see s/he's reverted to form.

Of course the contemporary explosion in the production and use of pornography can be attributed in part to the 'sexual revolution' of the 1960s and 70s. The lifting of censorship of so-called 'obscene' literature and images led directly to the legitimation and normalisation of material that had hitherto been prohibited.

A good example from the time is the film 'Deep Throat', which although pretty tame by today's standards, remains the most profitable pornographic film ever made. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that positive for its lead actress, 'Linda Lovelace'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace

Similarly, second-wave feminism and the gay rights movement can't be separated from the 'sexual revolution' - they were very much part of it. Cornflower is correct that the advent of the contraceptive Pill was a major part of the 'sexual revolution', but the revolution was by no means confined to the enhanced ability of heterosexual women and men to engage in non-procreative sex.

It seems arbitrary and churlish to me to try and confine a discussion about the effects of the 'sexual revolution' on women to narrowly defined aspects of it, as Hanrahan and Cornflower seem to want us to. Overall, I think that the 'sexual revolution' (which is still ongoing) has been positive for both women and men, but to try and assert that everything that has emanated from it has been socially desirable is simplistic at best.

<<< Overall, I think that the 'sexual revolution' (which is still ongoing) has been positive for both women and men, but to try and assert that everything that has emanated from it has been socially desirable is simplistic at best. >>>

<<< once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible. >>>

The above comments sum up the current situation, quite well.

Men continue to be exploited by men and a minority of women, not so conversely women continue to be exploited by a minority of men and women - women don't really want cocks in all their orifices, simultaneously - believe it or not. Both men and women are to blame for this absurdity.

Hmmmm, wake up guys you are being taken for a ride by some of your brothers and the result is doing sweet FA for your sex-life if you base your lovemaking skills on porn.

Sorry to disillusion you Anti.