OK by me; I’ve got the bloody flu!!

See youse.

(Let it go Venal, because if you don’t, I’ll be back/I shall return…..((Good ole Termy and Macca)),….and at the mo’ my main focus is sneezing, coughing, and feeling damn sorry for myself ).

……………….when I was ‘in the prime’ as it were,…I had a leather outfit………….God! it was fun!!!!

I didn’t ask what it was (I do know..). I lamented its use as a fallback. Knock! knock!? Are you there Venal??

Ha!! More clichés! ‘Little black book of insults’. ‘Run along darling’.

….and if I were flying somewhere… go outside and play??

Flying somewhere??, or going outside to play??…or OR…, flying somewhere outside to play??

Whaaaaaaat?

I’m still puzzling over the hu-p thing.

Fair go Venal, you really are lousy at this.

PCism is the great blot-imposed by those who get their jollys in telling others what to do-of modern times. I don’t give a rats what you prefer to call it.

Surely you have run through your little black book of insults by now. Run along darling and if you are flying somewhere, go and play outside.

It’s all so difficult and yet; we live in hope!

http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

These issues have way more to do with causing sexually abusive behavior than watching some people getting off in a classroom.

http://www.unnamer.com/

PC: awww gawd!! not that again.

What in the hell did we use to justify attacking others before the “PC” excuse became popular!

What hollow lives we led.

At Lydia stated

1. Masturbation is a strong reinforcer for whatever is you were looking at the the time. Doesn’t matter if it’s a can of fizz, or a puppy dog, or a woman with norks the size of basketballs. It’s a biological fact, it has neuroscientific support I won’t bore you with, because it involves a lot of jargon.

As others have stated

2. Wanking does not guarantee sexual contact with others. Full stop.

However, it does make the person more attracted to whatever they were wanking to at the time.

Lydia calmly pointed out the environmental factors impinging at this point. As a person dealing with eating disorders, she’d be familar with the idea that anxiety can be caused by strict upbringings and this has been floated as a contributing factor to eating disorders.

Well, it also has with pedophilia. But what people need to realise is that it’s not the only other issue. Low empathy, lack of self control, distorted thinking, and heaps of other crap come into it as well. And not always porn.

My conclusion from this is that we do need to be ultra careful about ‘barely legal’ categories and frankly the teddy bears being there is sick and people predisposed to violent behavior will be more likely to take it the wrong way.

But at the end of the day pedophilia IS NOT a sexual orientation. It’s violence against children, bruises or not. It’s about control, it’s about the adult getting a fix, and not always a sexual one. Sex is the means, not the end.

With 1/5 girls being molested (and from what I hear it’s their step dads more than often, not just priests) and 1/9 boys, there is no hard and fast solution.

Censorship will not fix this problem. Lots of things need to change.

Personally, I think my accidental exposure to Post at 9 years was less damaging than my exposure to an article in Girlfriend about a pornographer I read at age 15.

But that’s just me. I didn’t see any vaginas in Post, for one thing.

Someone has to speak out against the PC rubbish which has turned Oz people into submissive copy-cats of the Americans. Our Free to air TV has become un-watchable thanks to PC ism. If you have a problem with this go hu-p yourself.

SBH: I don’t remember having a stoush with you, I remember the piteous comments from the home birthers, but, not from you or ELAN.

Does logic come into your agenda? How the f/uck would I know what you look like; let alone the size of your tits?

‘Last word’! Sweet little digs about ‘children and dictators’! (But of course you are not offended!! Perish the thought. Sheesh).

YOU are a childish dictator!!

We all have views that are variations on a theme. You and I agree about the great JC methinks, and we certainly agree about sadistic Matrons! But it’s the puffed up peacockery (yes I know it’s not a bloody word!), that is so hard to take from you.

I mean truly;-how can YOU take potshots at someone for long posts? And to go to such lengths to try to discredit someone personally? ‘…was because I was looking to see…..’ ??

BUT,but,:………’All will admit that I do not want the last word’.

Well?

Lest you attempt to point out that this is what I am doing, a quick check on my collected works will reveal-or ask anyone who reads the political section and they will either 1) Not know me 2) Have read me but tolerate me 3) disagree with everything I say but somehow there is a common bond throughout our heated comments. All will admit that I do not want the last word.

The only reason I knew you had been printed in a religious publication was because I was looking to see if you had made an intelligent comment in anything under two thousand words, six hundred words, two hundred words? As I was scrolling through Crikey’s comments, it mentioned something about you having written a piece for a religious publication.

Why are you so terrified of appearing in a religious publication? Why are you so unhappy? You have no life to you just deadening, dreary comments about how the world should be run according to you. You could take a leaf out of the book of the religious editor of the Age-one Barry Schwartz. He had been waffling on about God and I wrote to him offering to do his house cleaning and gardening for the rest of my life if he could prove god existed. Did he go into self-justification? Did he get upset with my levity? Did he lecture me for my Godlessness? Not a bit
of it.

Did I have a hissy fit when Elan criticised me? Of course not. Why should I? Only children and dictators carry on like this.

Dare I suggest the name of Barry Schwartz will be remembered long after you have been forgotten.

My patience has been exhausted, by all means trundle another two thousand words at me. But I wont read them; no more than I could hack the collected works of Mao Zedong, or Mein Kamph by Adolf Hitler.

“By your own arguments Japan…should be over-flowing with paedophiles and the child population should be gathering on the beaches trying to escape the debauchery.”

Again, B1, you’re not understanding my argument which I have explained several times. I’m getting tired of having to write a post just to try to get you to understand it. Given that you have actually quoted me verbatim and still misunderstood, I’m not explaining it to you over and over again. It might help you to actually *read* what I have written.

“Nature protects children from adult sexual relations, and it’s pretty good at it - it’s had thousands of years to get it right so I think you should give it some respect.”

I disagree. How about the 13 year old girl who was stoned to death in Saudi Arabia after being gang raped by adult men? Several cross cultural examples would provide evidence to the contrary. You can’t leave it all up to nature, as culture plays a significant role. This is not to say that there is on room for cultural relativism, but surely there are shades of gray here.

“It’s possible I would object to the game if I saw it. My mind is not yet made up on 3D virtual reality porn skirting too close to the real thing - I believe there is some debate on this going on, still no victims though.”

So you agree that there is a possibility for some movement as to where the line is drawn- isn’t this what I am talking about ? Despite lack of ‘hard evidence’ you are considering it *might* need to be censored due to being “too close to the real thing” - how do we determine what is “too close” ? Perhaps we are both disagreeing as to where the line is to be drawn, but some things, despite lacking in ‘hard evidence’ (as we lack the scientific methods to ‘prove’ causality’) may need to be banned and others not.

B1, this is my last post to you.

It’s easy enough to observe other societies where this and far worse material is available looking for trends. By your arguments Japan, where child porn mangas are freely available on street corners I believe, should be over-flowing with paedophiles and the child population should be gathering on the beaches trying to escape the debauchery.

Lydia Jade Turner “Remember I am not saying that everyone who watches this type of porn will morph into a child sex offender, however what I am arguing is that for someone who is already prone to sex offending, shaping their predilections towards children is dangerous.”

You keep saying this and I’ve given my reply: we do not punish the whole population because of a misguided few. Nature protects children from adult sexual relations, and it’s pretty good at it - it’s had thousands of years to get it right so I think you should give it some respect.

B1 please answer my earlier question regarding the Japanese video game that rewarded players for gang raping a mother and her two daughters aged 10 and 12. Should we wait years for “hard science” to prove that this leads to child sex offending? Because you will never get causation, just correlation -too many confounding variables. Interestingly it has been banned. Or do you believe it should be readily accessible for Australians?

It’s simple enough to study those who buy this game if you’re a scientist and want to know whether it incites sexual crime. If the game was a cause for any crimes I assure you we’d hear about it - policeman do question criminals when they arrest them.

No it should not be ‘readily available’ but in principle I have no problem with it because it’s fantasy and victimless - the mother-daughter-rape scenario (although usually the daughter is older) is another common male fantasy which, again, has nothing to do with rape or incest fetishes (I’d be happy to explain it to you, but in general it’s about the I-want-it feedback thing that is pretty universal in all male porn). Many games are extreme. I know Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murder, running people over in cars, drug deals, pimping, the works - a very popular game. I assure you that the Fight the Devil With Jesus games aren’t that popular.

It’s possible I would object to the game if I saw it. My mind is not yet made up on 3D virtual reality porn skirting too close to the real thing - I believe there is some debate on this going on, still no victims though.

PS it’s getting pretty tedious being labelled as part of a wider Christian agenda - I’m not affiliated with any organisation (religious or not). I’m an individual on here, expressing an opinion. Unlike you I’ve actually used my full name.

Oooh, dig dig. If you have a problem with me being anonymous, I have no problem with you having a problem. It makes no difference to me, this is an internet discussion not a court of law.

And I said you ‘think’ like a Christian, not that I thought you had anything to do with them. It was a dig at you and at Christians, which you countered with your own dig - touche!

I really have no idea what you are talking about. “Identical language was used by female fascists last year… homebirthing … if the size fits “…. what ?

I think I have made my position pretty clear. You can continue making accusations, but they are completely unfounded.

For example, you accusing me of having an article published on a religious website that you can’t cite-

I’m not a high profile person. I’ve written a couple of articles on body image & eating disorders. I’m assuming you would not have come across my name before, so if you came on to this website, went googling for me, and found me on some religious website, why wouldn’t you have taken down the organisation’s web address or even just its name?

I have no control over who re-publishes my articles online. But to be honest, I think you are just making this stuff up. I have openly stated that I am not religious. I doubt any right wing religious zealot would state that on public record.

For this reason, I am not going to respond to any further accusations you make. Anyone who is interested in what I have actually stated (rather than getting a misrepresentation by what you have posted here) is free to scroll upwards and access my posts.
****************************************************

Ms Naughty

I think you have raised some really excellent points. I will have a think about them and get back to you on Friday. Thanks.

Even in liberal Holland the Government has passed legislation banning images and videos of bestiality. Hoorah, we can sleep now without having to worry about the safety of our Leghorns or Jack Russells.

We live in an imperfect world and do our best. The issue of small breasted women and banning magazines has been a huge issue here on Crikey. The for and against still seem to be undecided but it has been a good discussion.

Let us not forget that the blowing up of people, including many children in Irag, Afghanistan, Palestine and so many other places is far more damaging than the rather obscure and esoteric issue of possible damage about showing images of our bodies, young or old.

http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

You haven’t rained on my parade; I don’t regard an error of my syntax being pointed out to me as an anti-me act. I just don’t happen to like the people who fly into a petulant hissy fit when they are reminded that they too are subject to the rules of moderately free speech and even-handed discourse. They lose so much face by being hysterically rude and hysterically vituperative. Worse, they do their own cause a great disservice.

It seems we both agree that porn use is not necessarily a deciding factor when it comes to sexuality or patterns of thinking. We may differ on whether the use of porn inspires negative actions. The lack of concrete evidence either way means that this is a very murky area and I suspect that we will neither of us be easily convinced either way.

You talk about walking a dangerous line with blurring the line between “childified women” and adults. If for the sake of argument I were to accept that depictions of “childified adults” may incite pedophiles to act on their desires I then need to also accept that:
1. The pedophile will always automatically act on that desire without any conscious decision making on their part.
2. The rights of other adults - the majority of adults, I would suspect - must give way in the face of a very small risk that a pedophile will attempt to commit a crime.

The latter proposition introduces the concept of “acceptable risk” into the argument. Some would argue that there is no acceptable risk, that the rights of adults can easily be sacrificed if it means crime is prevented. Our terrorism and sedition laws showed how easy it is to head down that path.

I am extremely uneasy about any law that legislates against thinking something, that seeks to engage in “pre-crime” policing. And even if I were to accept all your psychological arguments, it just keeps boiling down to that. Trusting that an adult will be able to discern fantasy from reality and then also make a decision not to commit a crime.

This position means I’m actually opposed to the decision that banned the pro-Islamist books like Join The Caravan, even though as an atheist and humanist I am vehemently opposed to Islamist philosophy. The ban means that I, as a thinking adult, cannot read them to educate myself about extreme Islamism. The ban automatically assumes that I will read it and become determined to commit a crime. It’s an extremely paternalistic stance that denies my freedom to think and make an ethical decision for myself.

But I suspect that this is a fundamental divide in this debate. My stance is essentially libertarian. If I were to agree to a line being drawn, I’m aware that it will be based on my own personal opinions as to what I find offensive. So I’d rather base that opinion on the idea of proof of harm.

Perhaps it doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition. I think the risk of crime can be lowered in other ways that do not involve censorship - especially when there’s no proof that censorship prevents crime and when it is conducted on such subjective guidelines as currently exist in Australia.

As I’ve mentioned before, education for children is vital. So is a better outcome for men who have pedophilic tendencies. I’m now reduced to arguing for the leper of 21st century society here, but I do honestly believe that until we find better ways to deal with pedophiles other than hatred, ostracisation and jail, everything else is just window dressing. No, I’m not talking about letting them do what they want. I’m talking about real and effective treatment programs and other more positive methods that allow these people to live their lives without committing a crime. Right now I’m not seeing any moves by government in this direction. Our society infinitely prefers the witch hunt.

This last point is something that puzzles me about Hetty Johnson. She’s been the prime pitchfork-holder in the harrassment of Dennis Ferguson and yet her actions don’t actually achieve any positive outcomes for children. The witch-hunt model of preventing pedophilia involves rejecting these men as utter monsters with no conscience and no chance of redemption. It’s great for ratings on A Current Affair but I don’t think it’s ultimately helpful.

I wish the child protection lobby groups would consider their stance on this. Because I do feel that calls to ban magazines like Barely Legal do buy into that “witch hunt” model. Moral outrage is always good for garnering support but I do wonder if it also undermines the entire exercise.

By the way, Lydia and Julie, what’s your opinion on the prosecution of a second person for possessing sexual cartoon images of The Simpsons? Do you equate that with the magazines we have been discussing? No children were harmed in the creation of those images. They were actually emailed around as a joke. And yet, in an extremely disturbing precendent, our courts have ruled that looking at them is a crime.

Also, let me throw another idea into the mix. I’ve seen adult websites depicting infantilism - adults dressing as babies for sexual pleasure. It’s rather weird but it’s a consensual activity conducted by adults. In theory a pedophile could look at those and get turned on. So what are your thoughts on that kind of porn?

I should also say… I’m re-reading what I’ve written here and thinking sheesh! This is such a thorny topic and there are some who would put negative labels on my for what I’ve just written. But it’s this hesitation that means this discussion doesn’t happen often and I do think it is useful to talk about such topics.