egafd.com

Yeah but tits the sleaziness of it all that turns em on. Thats what makes it so popular. So addictive even. The fact they are sexually excited by sexual images makes them feel guilty so they are in denial of their baser instincts so thy try to express their shame by protesting against it

Thats why this war will always be ongoing

If by 'their' you mean the Guardian, I think it only fair to say that the editorial was amended a few days later, as shown in the link, to emphasise that the wish to ban referred to 'violent and abusive' material (defined how? I wonder) rather than pornography per se. If the comments on the paper's website are anything to go by, then there has seldom been such a derided editorial in all the years I've been reading the paper, and quite rightly too. It was filled with unsubstantiated nonsense and anacdotal guff from beginning to end. I think it may even have been written by Julie Bindel, a notorious anti-porn-in-any-form evangelist and regular contributor of similar stuff over the years. I thought I had accidentally picked up a copy of the Mail.

ObscenityLawyer, I suppose, is very good.

'Also on @BBCRadio4 Moral Maze will be "Eleanor Mills ? Sunday Times campaigning reporter & Reg Bailey ? Chief Exec of the Mothers? Union".'

Jesus! Good luck.

Not a good start on the BBC site
'The statistics on internet porn are eye-popping enough - it's claimed that 36% of internet content is pornography, '



compare with

The bbc can't possibly win with this show which makes you wonder why they've bothered - if they don't give porn a rough ride then the daily mail etc will launch a wave of attacks saying that the bbc will want to show porn next. the mail etc hate the bbc as much as they hate porn.

I'm not sure "baser instincts" is the correct term OEJ, rather "natural instincts".

Their are a number of factors here. Sex in humans has evolved to be pleasurable as well as the driving force, as is found in lower animals, to ensure procreation so the species is continued. Given human brain power and aptitudes compared to other species, we are capable of manipulating the pleasure in differing ways and have become capable of sexual acts without the consequence of procreation.

Since mankind organised itself into groupings there has been a drive to maintain order which has led to hierarchical systems of power. Very early in man's development secular rulers and religious leaders realised that sex was a very powerful element which not only needed to be controlled to ensure genetic strength and to avoid disorder in society, but could be used as a means to control society generally, so rules were laid down about sexual access and to regulate the basic instinct to indulge in sex.

Over millenia the control has waxed and waned but it has always been there and a truism is that many who make the rules for the majority consider they are in the minority that can ignore them.

The so called "moral majority" and their hangers on are basically those who, for one reason and another, believe that some, most or all aspects of human nature need positive, hands on control and their way is the correct way - either by reference to a religious belief or of "order" in society.

Given some of the excesses e.g. child porn, bestiality, violence and various mixtures of these that have been produced, they have a point. Since the days of Mary Whitehouse they have, however, lumped together all sexual depictions and violence as if they are two faces of one coin.

There is certainly a distinction between the illegal or grossly offensive and the harmless depictions of solo sex or intercourse that is generally used for stimulation.

Yet this gets lost in the tide of vituperation from the anti brigade who lump together all depictions, even of the naked body on its own and tastefully posed, with the the more extreme forms of porn and throw in their ideas concerning the debasing of the performers, pressures on partners to perform like porn stars, the effect on children and the effect on potential psychopaths to stir antipathy to porn, or even sexual reference, in the mind of the average citizen.

Before the internet, control was relatively easy. Still and motion pictures and paper books could be traced back to their source and either controlled or destroyed. The internet let the genie out of the bottle.

Whilst it seems to be acceptable to have a measure of violence on TV, in games and films, the depiction of sex is far more regulated and there is the conception that children need to be protected more from seeing anything sexual than they do from violence. This argument can't possibly hold water. Surely there are degrees in both which are beyond acceptability and surely the scale for acceptance of violence should end infinitely lower than that for consensual, pleasurable sex.

There are those who have taken the freedom of the internet to stretch the boundaries beyond acceptability in both genres yet violence seems to have got away relatively lightly in terms of the ire of the so called reformers.

Society has struggled with the balance between acceptable freedom and the controlling hand of censorship.

There is no easy answer to this at any level. The widespread use of digital equipment has moved the production and publishing of the bulk of sexual images from the professional producers into the hands of amateurs.

Whilst the internet can be controlled as in China or some Muslim states, it is far more difficult to control publication by mobile phones and the passing of sim cards, DVDs and memory sticks.

If the industry doesn't want to be driven underground by the "moral majority" it has to come up with a viable, fact based, counter argument and find spokespeople to rebut the other side. It almost certainly will have to accept some form of continuing restriction in terms of content and age access but it, and those who use its products, should not have to accept the basic tenet that all porn is immoral, debasing and corrosive to society.

The article you linked to, Joe, is a fascinating read and goes a long way to rubbishing many of the statistics trotted out by lazy journalists and ant-porn zealots. The sadness is that we may well shortly be saddled with even more restrictive legislation based on highly dubious figures regularly plucked from the sky, and rarely challenged, by such people as Diane Abbot and other members on the show tonight. Much of the evidence such as she uses, comes from PR papers produced for and by companies who manufacture internet filters and not from peer-reviewed studies.

I would encourage you all to read it.

3 negs vs 1 seems a bit 'unbalanced'.