Melon Farmers

STICKY:  ChiefCensor       
- Please no spam, libel, slander, etc
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
- Islamic and races issues should be debated in the Religious Forum

 cor    {29186.   Posted 17-May-2013 Fri 12:41}       
phantom [29185]

i tend to think these things are blown out of proportion in order to take rights away from common people. Sure throw some kid in jail for owning a copy of the anarchists cook-book, but real terrorists will learn what they need from chemistry books, in library`s or on-line... the next logical step is to ban education. And not because idiots are easier to rule, but rather to `protect` people from themselves.

Similar with the 3D gun, anyone with little knowledge of CAD and a schematic or just a clear picture of any working gun can make one, gun powder is another matter, but are we going to ban pictures of guns next?

Basically i don`t think any legislation restricting information could make the world a safer place. In fact i think such legislation would be counter productive. Its worth knowing how to make nitroglycerin or plastic explosives, so i will know to inform the police if i see anyone buying the ingredients. Just like its worth knowing how easy it is to print a gun, so i will be adequately cautious around people who might have access to the necessary tools, and might be nuts enough to try.

 phantom    {29185.   Posted 17-May-2013 Fri 03:45}       
I wonder what people here make of the recent free speech conundrums thrown up in the US. Apparently some instructions on how to make pressure cooker bombs as used in the Boston bombings are online and have been deemed – on free speech grounds – to be immune to any take down orders, etc.

Meanwhile, some gun zealot has produced a 3D printer gun on CAD and put the plans online. They were downloaded over 100,000 times before they were taken down. Right now the authorities seem to be attempting to stall him with legal claims on breeches of gun export licences, etc. But again there seems little chance in the long run of stopping this, unless one creates a new offence.

The overlap between these cases and the traditional anti censorship argument is plain to see. Yet clearly we are in very new and uncomfortable territory.
And it`s also only a matter of time until Maria Eagle, Diane Abbott or some other harpie compare the `dangers` of online porn to 3D printer guns or pressure cooker bombs.
After all, I bet they`ll feel that it`s `just as bad`.

But yes, here we do seem to be faced with a freedom of speech argument which protects the publication of information which has potential for truly lethal outcomes on an unprecedented scale.

The believers of the utility of guns (`guns don`t kill, people do`, etc) would argue that this is an idea the authorities do not like and thus which they seek to suppress. The very fact that the powers that be seem to have silenced the gun plan maker with rather specious legalistic argument just for the time being, seems to back up that point.
It is in essence a case of not liking the message and thus quashing it.
That said, I find myself rather dismayed by the message too. And I`m a wishy-washy libertarian...

I`d hence bee interested how people here see the arguments of freedom of expression and the possible consequences thereof in this context.

 IanG    {29184.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 14:15}       
braintree, like they say, power corrupts and, these holier than thou types are the worst. At least the Judge seems to have been a little more level-headed.

 braintree    {29183.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 13:24}       
I opted to plead guilty to various charges due to the fact that the police had created 87 charges - basically one for every dvd they found when searching my house - even my solicitor and barrister agreed this was an unusual move - so even if I had gone for a trial on the fisting/urination dvd`s I didn`t think it was worthwhile because there were plenty of other charges I couldn`t fight , although none related to "obscene" material , so my argument was why bother to go through more months of stress when I was guilty of other charges anyway . In the end I think the only thing that would have changed would have been that my sentence would have been longer. The 2 cases I was thinking of were the controversial prosecution of the gay guy ( can`t recall his name) who held a job of importance and the other case (last year ?) where similar content was put in front of a jury and in both cases the defendant was found not guilty because the content was deemed to be not obscene / extreme.. I would expect that the police and CPS routinely break their own rules and create spurious invented charges in order to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser ones . In my case the officer in charge of the case presented a file that was about 4 inches thick in which he writes down the content of every dvd they seized which lead to 87 charges .I wonder how many hours that took . I bargained the 87 charges down to 21 but the CPS insisted on keeping 2 for the OPA and refused to budge when I asked for those to be dropped . I think the Judge who sentenced me saw through the stupidity of the case . He gave me 4 months for each charge to run concurrently but Trading Standards and the CPS were refused any costs and any fines - I didn`t pay a penny . In an outright lie the prosecuting barrister stood up and claimed my computer contained porn in an attempt to keep my computer - and it never contained even one shred of any porn - not even the usual run of the mill stuff - but the Judge , clearly annoyed at their nonsense told them to simply delete the porn and return it to me . In the end they did get to keep a couple of dvd players , dvd recorders and a satellite receiver . After they seized the original dvd recorder and satbox they returned months later and claimed that because I had replaced the devices with new ones it showed I was still selling porn , furthermore they unearthed a box of dvd`s in my garage that I had completely forgotten about and went ahead and invented charges of intent to supply relating to some of those discs too . Unfortunately I was able to see first hand that criminals do actually work in the police and will break their own rules to further their careers.

 sergio    {29182.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 05:03}       
BBFC R18 cuts for April 2013
Number of items= 55
No. Cuts=9
Cuts ratio=16%

Cuts of interest:
FUCKED! - DOUBLE DRILLED
Cuts required to remove non-consensual scenarios in which performers are chased, caught, and forced to submit to sex. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

 IanG    {29181.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 18:04}       
braintree, I don`t know when or if fisting has ever been put before a jury for `obscenity`. I believe you had the chance to do so but opted to plead gulty instead. What I do know is that the City of London Police cleared photos of anal fisting for public exhibition at the Barbican in 2008, presumably after consulting with the CPS.

To understand what`s going on at the BBFC we must understand what the VRA requires and what`s already been decided in court. The BBFC are required to "prevent any harm which may be caused"..."with special regard to viewing in the home where children may see the material". As we know, explicit vanilla consensual adult sex, as currently passed at R18, was declared safe for under 18s to view by the High Court in 2000. It is clear then that the BBFC/CPS believe that R18 type material MUST be safe for under 18s to view, thus ANY type of extraordinary sexual activity, such as urolagnia, fisting, choking, bondage, extreme insertions etc. which may be seen and copied by children, have some potential to "corrupt and deprave" - i.e. they are as the BBFC put it "potential obscenity".

In their annual report, the BBFC state that all harmful material is removed from R18 such that R18 contains only common (read `normal`) sexual activities such as cunnilingus, felatio and anal/vaginal penetration. Any potentially dangerous activities such as extreme insertions, choking/gagging, restraint etc. have been removed, along with any `potentially obscene` material - that is, IF seen by minors - such as fisting, urolagnia etc.

UK Juries do not believe hardcore porn can "corrupt and deprave" adults. Even scatalogical material was aquitted of obscenity in 1999 (Perrin v R) where only paying adults could access it. Perrin was only found guilty for the free clips on the website that could be viewed by anyone including children.

It is simply the fact that children might see something other than ordinary/common/`normal` sexual activities (that have been declared safe for them to view) that prevents the BBFC allowing `proper` hardcore material at R18. R18 only contains explicit consensual adult sex, it does not contain `hardcore` material which features activities which could well be `potentially obscene` if viewed (and copied) by youngsters.

This is of course why I`ve been saying OFCOM and ATVOD are acting totally illegally since they decided R18-type material was `harmful` to children. It isn`t and it never has been, as was confirmed in 2000 by order of the High Court based on the evidence from 30+ child welfare experts from around the world. Both OFCOM and ATVOD are acting contradictory to the way the UK`s media certification body, the BBFC, were ORDERED to interpret the law with regard to pornography by the High Court.

 braintree    {29180.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 13:01}       
Surely the BBFC and the CPS should now remove fisting from the list of so called obscene acts , mainly because both times I know of when the footage has been shown to a jury it`s been cleared. Seems the CPS think they know better.
When was the last successful prosecution of fisting being found obscene by a jury ?

 phantom    {29179.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 04:21}       
Regarding the CPS` professed change of heart.

"There has to be a likelihood of serious injury - this is more than just a risk ."

That is the point I`ve been banging on about since the year dot.
I recall writing letter after letter about this very point. What constitutes a likelihood? What is the difference between a likelihood and a risk? How likely must a likelihood be?

I always argued that it was the addition of the `likely` which turned this from a bad law into a law of nigh on limitless potential for harm.
After all, anything can be deemed likely. Just pay the prosecutor enough money and he`ll argue that vigorous coitus may cause physical harm.

It is nice to see that they now - five years into this debacle - actually acknowledge that they have a problem with that point, albeit that I`m sure they feel that this is merely a detail which can be dealt with by issuing some more arbitrary guidelines, plucked out of thin air.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the view of former Labour MP Eric Martlew (he didn`t contest his seat at the last election, having chosen to spend more time with his family, after his expenses were published), whom I met regarding this law and who at the time proved very hostile to any criticism of anything issued forth by the Blair/Brown duumvirate.

He assured me that no law was really comprehensible (thus, this one didn`t need to be) and that any problem or lack of clarity would be thrashed out and defined in the courts (thus, obvious errors or broad ambiguities I was pointing out needn`t be amended by parliament).

So, after such lackadaisical parliamentary scrutiny and five years of legal farce involving tigers, Frosties and mayoral aides we now finally are getting to a point where the CPS are at least beginning to concede there is a problem.

We all know now that this law is going to stay. We all know that it has supplanted the OPA as the punitive tool of choice of the police and CPS by now. We all know that the LibDem carrot of the Great Repeal Act is never going to happen (Clegg thought it too much hard work (!!!) and handed it to Theresa May`s Tory Home Office, where it has died an inevitable death.).

But at least now some of the most frightening potential of this Blairite horror story is being cropped back with the prosecutors beginning to acknowledge that it can`t be made to fit anything to which they choose to apply it.

But it is frustrating to think that, had some MPs like Eric `Expenses` Martlew listened to the warnings, then people like Simon Walsh would not have had their lives ruined for no reason at all.

So I think we should consider the fiascos surrounding the Dangerous Pictures Act so far as a fitting monument to Eric `Expenses` Martlew and friends.

Yes, you were right, Mr Martlew, the courts are thrashing things out and gradually the statute is becoming more defined.
And, I guess, the destruction of people like Walsh is a price worth paying in this evolution.
After all, the alternative would have been for MPs to apply proper scrutiny to the law at the time of its transition through parliament. Unthinkable.

 sergio    {29178.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 02:17}       
`The chokers and the "idiots" and the men who are still happy to have sex with a tired, unhappy, defensive woman all exist. And if you are a sex worker, how do you know whether your next client will be one of them?`

How do you know when you will die! GEt out of this totally unsafe `profession`! Your next client will kill you!

Feminism 101.
------

`The inevitable response to the Invisible Men Project will be that these opinions have been cherry-picked, and are not representative of what I imagine is probably now referred to as "the punting community". While there is some truth in that - from what I can see, the majority of posts on Punternet are merely quietly depressing...`

Truth? There is some truth in that the comments have been cherry picked?
OMG! Men really are depressing.

 sergio    {29177.   Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:22}       
My email to BBFC:
The CPS seems to have altered/changed/rethought their attitude to
fisting images.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to
a person`s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion
of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a
way that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation
of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that
cases of `fisting` involve images that show activity that is likely to
result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with
particular care. Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should
be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for
the District Judge or jury.

Will the BBFC being altering/changing/rethinking their attitude to
these video images?
---------------------------

Reply from BBFC:
`The guidance you have quoted from relates to the offence of possession of extreme pornography under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. However, the BBFC does not cut images of this particular practice on those grounds. We cut such images from sex works, and did so long before the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was introduced, on the basis of potential obscenity. Current advice from the relevant enforcement agencies suggests that sex works containing images of this practice remain likely to be considered obscene under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act. `

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {29176.   Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:03}       
Sergio, many thanks, an interesting update.

The CPS have a disgraceful attitude that they will never say that they accept that fisting isn`t likely to be harmful, and so not prosecute it. They seem to have their own morality in which fisting is harmful, but they are only backing off because (non existant) harm is unsurprisingly hard to prove.

 phantom    {29175.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 13:07}       
Alright... who`s going to tell the Daily Mail? lol

 sergio    {29174.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 12:00}       
Cps changes law
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person`s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a way that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that cases of `fisting` involve images that show activity that is likely to result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with particular care. Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for the District Judge or jury.

 sergio    {29173.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 11:48}       
http://lawandsexuality.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/extreme-porn-event

Not sure of date.

--------
Jackofkent still not published his article on shit play extreme porn Simon Walsh case.

 cor    {29172.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 10:22}       
Spiderschwein[29171]

Just a few counter points you`ve probably already thought of..

"it is genuinely unhealthy to be as thin as is demanded"
well, I`ve seen reports stating that underweight people will live longer and age slower due to a process in the body that slows the Hayflick phenomenon during periods of fasting. This may be controversial but no one is arguing that fat people live longer..

"a lot of the pressure amongst teenage girls to lose ridiculous quantities of weight.."
and a lot of pressure amongst teenage girls and boys to gain ridiculous quantities of weight from the fast food industry "I`m loving it" slogan should be "I`m getting fat".

"I`m a fat bastard anyhow" - yes me too, and enough people are like us that they call it an epidemic, so where the hell is all the thin people? maybe we need more pressure from the magazines lol.


phantom[29170]
Just to point out, i see very few beards on men in porn... where is the moral outrage lol.

 Spiderschwein    {29171.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 02:35}       
Although Gustave Courbet`s "L`Origine du Monde" did have a full on bush, and the lady in question was no stick insect either. Mainly because he was trying to break from the smooth, idealistic nudes of academic artists, and was considered a lot more erotic as a result of this, and Shakespeare referred in his "Venus & Adonis" to "sweet bottom grass."

And indeed, in pr0n and erotic art for a long time after that, everything was hairy, pretty much, and the lawn wasn`t really mowed on a widespread basis until the 1990s, and waxing, eletrolysis, and multi-bladed razors had already been around for many years by then.

I do think that a lot of idealised body images nowadays are rather unrealistic and deeply unpleasant in what is pushed, and I do think something should be done about it, but I. this is usually in mainstream advertising and fashion photography, not pr0n, II. it is genuinely unhealthy to be as thin as is demanded, III. the thing that should be done is clearly not to ban it or adopt a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut regulations like compulsory minimum sizes for models but to spread awareness that it`s all because of photoshop and self-induced vomiting that this happens, IV. the fashion industry is a plastic-walled money trench ruled over by snobbish he-bitches so nobody with any sense takes it seriously, V. a lot of the pressure amongst teenage girls to lose ridiculous quantities of weight and look like supermodels comes from, yes, other teenage girls, not from external influences, or from their boy friends, who are just thankful on the whole that any female would give them the time of day, and VI. I`m a fat bastard anyhow, so what do I know :P

 phantom    {29170.   Posted 11-May-2013 Sat 15:09}       
Ah yes, the shaved fanny... :)
It`s simple.

- People see shaved genitalia in porn.
- Porn is bad and makes people do bad things.
- Thus, people are shaving due to porn. Manipulated. Devoid of free will.

Hence the alliance of feminists and the religious against the denuded pubis. These days the universal evil is no longer `the devil drink`. It`s porn. And they`re seeking to establish an altogether new prohibition era. No doubt, because the first one worked so well.... ;)
And they`ll clutch at any argument.

But please, someone take a look at art. Yep, I`m all highbrow again. My apologies. The pure aesthetes of artistic creation never seemed much taken by the idea of a woolly nether region. If anything it tends to be a whisp.
So one might say that, from a aesthetic perspective, the denuded - or at least thoroughly trimmed - pubic area has been established for the past five hundred years. So don`t blame Heffner. Blame Leonardo.

It thus can be argued that people were waiting for the right technology to come along, rather than it being the malign influence of internet porn.

And talking of technology, it`s worth pointing out that it was one of those technology providers - namely Wilkinson Sword - who were at the source of ladies shaving their armpits. Apparently it was some PR guru`s brilliant idea to market shaving kit for female underarm grooming on the basis of aesthetics and hygiene.
It caught on and nowadays people here make jokes about many continental ladies not doing the same thing.

So yes, if the religious decry porn as evil for inducing pubic shaving then - by the same logic - they must do the same for Wilkinson Sword.
Else they`re logic is flawed. God vs Wilkinson sword would be an interesting contest....

I say this only about the religious, as the feminists more than likely refuse to shave their underarms anyhow. Which is much the way they feel about trimming nasal hair, controlling body odour - or dieting....

 Spiderschwein    {29169.   Posted 11-May-2013 Sat 03:37}       
I have to say, although I`m no fan of the shaved quim (I much prefer a nice muff) it is a mountain out of a molehill. What business is it of others if some people choose to denude their genitals?

 mediasnoops2    {29168.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 14:24}       
Feminist organisations have aligned themselves with Christian groups to try and supress sexuality and free sexual expression. However the motivation of feminists and Christians are different but aim for the same censorship and bans.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {29167.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 07:00}       
Shaun

Yes I think that is she. The cap seems to be the mayoral hat

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antarafoto.com%2Fperistiwa%2Fv1341387025%2Fpelantikan-walikota-banda-aceh.

It will ne interesting if she replies. I bet she hardly hears a dissenting voice

 Shaun    {29166.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 06:23}       
https://www.facebook.com/hjilliza.saaduddindjamal

Is this the same woman who wants to give gays 100 lashes in public ?

I`ve just told her what I think about her, with apologies if it isn`t the same woman.

It`s completely barbaric.

 Therumbler    {29164.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 13:03}       
The Christian organisations have their own MPs too. Perry for the internet, Fiona Bruce for abortion. CARE for instance pays £3000 a year to a pro-life committee of MPs and Lords.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {29163.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:41}       
Therumbler

I guess the Christian organisations are quietly funded from the US and somehow appear to be a lot larger than they really are. Grass roots feminists aren`t backed and have to make do with low numbers and low resources. However I reckon the feminists win the day when they have a friendly government minister to push ther demands, thinking Harriet Hatemen and Vera Baird

 IanG    {29162.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:30}       
Harvey, I know what you mean but, lets not get sexist about it, porn is not just a sex aid for men. There`s a whole range of pornographic materials out there that appeal to all tastes and sexes - some is even made by women for women as, indeed, some is made by gay people for gay people.

On a more general note, one question that still goes unanswered is: What exactly is so wrong about enjoying sex? And: What is so offensive about the human body and sex?

The anti-porn lobby seem to assume anything to do with sex and nudity is automatically offensive but, I can find no reason or rationale for this point of view. Indeed, there is no reason or rationale behind this point of view. Children show no shame or bashfulness so, one must conclude they are taught to feel shame and that this is deemed `right` - of course that`s something Naturists and porn lovers manage to overcome (or never experience at all) without suffering any ill effects.

Indeed, studies show that anyone can overcome that learned `offended` response to public nudity, and overturn their belief that nudity is `just wrong` - all that`s required to put people`s minds striaght again is a few hours exposure to naked people. One suspects that the same is true for other `pornographic`/`offensive` imagery and that through regular exposure we can all come to accept that sex and nudity are perfectly normal and natural and nothing to get our knikers in a twist about. It is simply a matter of desensitisation, enlightenment and the realisation that something so fundamental to our very being and existence is not `harmful` nor should it be seen as `offensive`.

 Therumbler    {29161.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:05}       
Who else agrees with me that almost all attempts to oppress sexual activity and media in this country appear to stem from Christian organisations? Feminist organisations appear to run a distant second compared to them.

 MichaelG    {29160.   Posted 7-May-2013 Tue 22:52}       
The `Professionally Offended` make their voices heard yet again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321054/Fifth-TV-viewers-offended-violence-sex-screens-past-year.html

 Therumbler    {29159.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 17:14}       
It`s the age old tradition of spinning opinion into fact.

Remember the Manhunt controversy years ago. Every person with an opinion on violent games wanted it banned when it was said to have belonged to the murderer. Then it turned out it belonged to the victim.

In this case it should be noted that the victim also owned the game, yet he`s been described as `polite` in some reports.

 mediasnoops2    {29158.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 15:50}       
The article quotes someone from the Scottish Police Federation as saying video games contributed to this tragic murder. That has been taking as some kind of proof by the Daily Mail that a video game caused this murder. But it is not proof it`s just an opinion.

 Therumbler    {29157.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 12:35}       
In regards to that DM article on the wi-fi filtering did you notice that there was a couple of quotes from a campaigner?

Which campaigner, you say?

I don`t know. Why?

Because they aren`t named.

 MichaelG    {29156.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 22:56}       
Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo 67,905:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318846/13-year-old-Xbox-player-slashed-friends-throat-knife-row-met-online-playing-ultra-violent-game-Gears-War-3.html

So, the attacker is 13 and he`s already a father? And his parents obviously think the `18` cert on these games is there purely for decoration. Zero responsibility taken for anything as usual nowadays. So here`s a radical concept that could put paid to this once and for all - if a child under 18 is caught playing their own copy of an 18-rated game then fine the parents. If a parent is caught buying an 18-rated game in a shop for their child (and I`ve witnessed this first hand, mother and 11 year old kid take game to counter, shop assistant asks "Are you buying this for your son?", "Yes", "Did you realise it`s an `18` cert game?", "But he wants it!") then fine them. £1,000 ought to be a suitable deterrent. After all, shopkeepers get fined for selling age-restricted games to kids, why should parents escape prosecution for buying them for them or allowing them to play them?

Might put an end to these bullshit headlines too...

 Harvey    {29155.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 16:56}       
IanG [29153]

Great post.

Yes. It`s a sex aid.

For men.

Some women may enjoy it, but predominantly, that`s the case.

The political feminist wants to change the gender power balance, so taking men`s porn away makes perfect sense.

 Therumbler    {29154.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 16:48}       
Modesty hotline launched by London rabbis

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/106984/modesty-hotline-launched-london-rabbis-0

 IanG    {29153.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 08:33}       
DarkAngels/Dave/Harvey, the effects of porn are pretty straightforward. They`re the same as those we experience when having sex and/or masturbating. Sex and masturbation are completely normal and natural activities enjoyed by millions worldwide every minute of every day. Porn is simply a substitute for, or supplement to real sex. It is a sex aid.

I do not see any difference in being turned on by looking at pictures of other people and being turned on by looking at my partner, a mental image of a partner (an ex say) or, even a complete fantasy involving someone you fancy at work. There`s clearly no concern over a partner turning you on, so why should there be any over pictures of other people turniong you on?

Sex is so fundamental to our existence that it cannot possibly harm us in any way, shape, or form barring STIs and complications during pregnancy. Evolution and natural selection cannot produce creatures that are harmed by the sight or sound of their own means of reproduction.

Sexual repression is far more harmful than sexual openness and free expression. How many more paedophile priests and child abusing TV personalities brought up in the golden era of porn-free Britain, will it take to convince people that sexual repression, sexual abstinence and denial of our sexual needs is extremely bad for us?

There is no evidence that porn is harmful for the simple fact that porn is not harmful. It is simply an aid to sex and masturbation, which we all know to be good for us and, indeed, is backed up with clinical studies proving the health benefits of relieving sexual tension physically, mentally and emotionally.

Of course this has all been pretty much accepted as common sense. However, the anti-porn lobby has now climbed on the `objectification` and `degradation` bandwagon. My question to them is: What`s so degrading about using our sexuality to bring pleasure to others? This is after all the crux of ALL relationships (and not just in humans). Many intelligent animals have sex just for pleasure and to strengthen social bonds.

Moreover, the whole crux of the `objectification` argument relies upon a stereotype of `men` that is utterly demeaning and degrading to men. These PC fascists claim to be against stereotyping (at least of women) but, they`re just fine laying into some non-exiestent `knckle dragging Neanderthal` every man that likes porn is characterised as. I am an avid porn fan and I`m absolutely certain I`ve never treated ANY of the women I`ve ever known as anything but fellow human beings. If men were anything like this `objectifier or womem` the rabid PC fanatics claim, then the world would be a very different place indeed. Women would be treated like sex slaves. They would NEVER have been given the vote. Young girls would sent off to learn all the arts of the prostitutes. And women would be publically flogged for dissent.

Males and females are hardwired to seek out each other`s company and indulge each other`s sexual needs. Most of us are absolutely fine with this arrangement. So just what`s going on inside that rabid PC feminist `brain` beats the hell out of me and, I`ve no doubt, most normal right-minded women too. One thing`s for sure, if moms and dads hadn`t been getting together for countless generations before us, none of us would be here today.

 Spiderschwein    {29152.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 04:44}       
@Therumbler

I think you`re onto something with the poverty angle. The old school establishment types, Daily Mail/right nutter groups find the idea that the little people have disposable income to be galling towards them, because it means they`re less reliant on them. The church mob don`t like it because of the whole "blessed are the meek" etc., and the Bollinger Bolsheviks from whom a lot of the PC/left nutter groups emerged don`t like the idea that people have disposable income because they`ll be at risk of somehow betraying their class and/or joining the bourgeoisie or otherwise failing to support them.

At times, they openly brag about how ordinary people having disposable income is bad. Google "affluenza" if you will. But at its root, disposable income means independence, which means less ability to be controlled by the powers that be of whatever stripe through financial means. It`s exploded the "which side are you on" politics of the past and that makes politicians uneasy.

 Therumbler    {29151.   Posted 2-May-2013 Thu 10:47}       
In my opinion there is a Christian element working behind the scenes in both the press and parliament.

Claire Perry`s inquiry was sponsored by a Christian organisation for instance.

We know the Mail is pro-Christian, as demonstrate by the recent headline than said it was an insult for minority faiths and lifestyles to have equality with them in the work place.

Also, I`ve noted that in recent articles on the subject on the Telegraph`s websites that a few tweets that refer to the articles (found at the bottom of the pages) are from members of CARE, and usually they of an alarmist nature or pessimistic. CARE provides staff for MPs, and some MPs don`t even know so.

Additionally, I think there is a definite feeling in the political class that the general public has too much money. Take any issue commonly seen on Melonfarmers or in the media in general, and you could probably describe them in part as people expressing their wealth as they see fit and/or trying to emulate those with wealth. This is particularly so in issues regarding fashion and beauty.

In my opinion, there are probably a few MPs out there who would prefer to see most people poor just so that their `moral character` could be kept in check.

 sergio    {29150.   Posted 2-May-2013 Thu 06:16}       
I reckon there is more to the `porn might be harmfull` narrative. There is some social engineering aspects to it. Compare with the `cars are harmfull` narratives.

 MichaelG    {29149.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 12:29}       
Re: Violence and guns in best-selling video games

...and with STILL nothing after all these years by way of any real evidence that violent video games lead to real life violence, the point of this is what?

Nicely drawn though...

 Harvey    {29148.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 11:22}       
DarkAngel [29144]

First, you need to be clear about your definitions of things such as `porn` and `harm` BEFORE you start collecting data about whether `porn` causes `harm`.

Second, simply looking for correlation isn`t really helpful. Draw a graph of insurance loss to fire damage versus number of fire brigade call-outs and you`ll see a striking correlation. Does this imply calling out the fire brigade results in greater fire damage? Obviously not, but that`s pretty much the `Reading Penthouse causes rape` result you mentioned.

Third, inferences are no better. To say that because we observed X, and later observed Y, that Y must have resulted from X. Complete nonsense, but a favourite of politicians. And that`s pretty much the University of Hawaii`s study of sex crimes in Japan. I`m not even sure whether they looked at whether porn use or porn availability actually changed when the law was eased, or they just assumed it was likely.

A scientific approach would be to create a randomised control trial where groups of subjects would be selected to receive varying `doses` of porn and then studied to measure the occurrence of harm. There must be a control group who think they are being given porn, but actually it`s just a sugar pill. It`s also important that the people measuring the effects don`t know to which group the subjects belong. Then you look to see if the result is statistically significant, then you publish your results. Then someone else tries to replicate the same thing in a different RCT study. Then if you have established a relationship between porn and harm you really need to find out WHY and HOW porn causes harm, otherwise you might just make a decision which has unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {29147.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 07:15}       
Re Daily Mail

I missed this from a couple of weeks ago. The topic is more to do with issues such as pressure for girls to slim but the Daily Mail is taking a good knock from the Guardian. And it`s about the same old female hacks that spout about internet porn and the like.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/04/samantha-brick-thrown-to-wolves