In another topic the subject of relinquishing the "right" to access pornography was brought up as something that we should do for the betterment of our children and our society.

In that topic we were discussing what civil rights we would be willing to give up and why. I find it hard to believe that those suggesting a willingness to give up access to pornography for the good of society actually used this "right" themselves. But it did bring up an interesting point.

Why do we not ban Pornography out right in America? We all tend to agree that it should not be accessible to children (if you do not agree I would definitely be interested in learning your reasoning behind this), but when it comes to Adults, what benefits do we gain from it for society that warrant not banning access to it entirely?

Now of course, in the new Internet / Global economy, banning access to Pornography would be impossible. What we would actually do is shift jobs and profits from this industry out of the country as there is always going to be a market and we do not have the ability, nor the authority, to regulate other countries.

However, from a more theoretical prospective, if we say for the sake of discussion, that we could ban access to pornography in America completely, what would be the benefits and the liabilities of doing so?


Questions for Debate:

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?

I have done my best not to load the questions or cloud the discussion with my own beliefs on the subject. I would honestly like to know where people stand on the issue and what their reasoning is behind their stance.


I would also like to remind members:

There are Rules on . There is no reason for this discussion of pornography to become pornographic in nature. If you cannot respond to this topic without stooping to such a level them please feel free to exercise your right to not participate.

A discussion like this can be close to the vest for some. This is a very serious issue to some out there. However, these is no reason for anyone to use condescension or belittling comments here. We are all adults, or at least near adults here. I see no reason for snide comments in debate. Lets try to keep this one on an adult level.

Lastly. . This is not a religious topic. One may be responding for the perspective of their own religious beliefs, but proselytizing is over the line. There are a host of sites out there were people can debate religious doctrine. is not one of them. For those seeking to have such discussions you may wish to check out this site.

I am not a member of 's staff. And considering the workload of those poor people I don't know that I would want to be one. So I added these reminders to this post for the sole purpose of trying to keep this topic from adding to the work load of 's fine staff members.

Note: edited to correct some typos ans spelling errors.

Absolutely, positively not! If the whole idea of doing so don't disagree with this on philosophical grounds, then you should at least disagree with it on legal grounds. All 50 State and the National Constitution allows we, the people to be secure in our persons and effects, the internet and our computer included. Criminalizing porn would be a disgraceful overstep of the Federal or even the State government powert. There is not ONE legitimate reason to do it, and it'll never, ever, ever happen.

It's unConstitutional, as I said, porn is free expression, and I am secure enough in my "persons and effects" to legally view porn. This would be completely illegal.

We would have to put the greatest works of art on the planet on the censorship row...And it would be impossible to do so, and impossible to enforce any anti-porn law.

Don't know, don't care. We don't criminalize things in America because someone thinks it would help society, in their incredibly not humble opinion.

CP

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?
I'll start with the last question first. I'm a conservative and I like pornography! Maybe not having any religious trappings helps me in this respect. Further, I don't see this as a viable political football worth using by either major party.
A loss of pornography in America wouldn't lead to a biblical utopia, nor would it lead to a sodom-like downfall. The only effect is that sex would be more repressed and vilified than it already is. I'm sure many religious people would like nothing more than to transform the country in to a Ward and June Cleaver mold, complete with 2.5 children and separate beds. But there may be one thing that I agree with Europeans on, and it's the belief that sex is natural and not to be viewed and repressed nationwide as a sin.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?
There is absolutely no consensus, nor will there ever be, on what constitutes pornography. If the religious right were to gain power and enact this repression, it would start with adult movie houses, bookstores and DVD rentals........but they wouldn't stop there. They would continue until nary a breasts remained uncovered, no sexual interludes remained in a book in public libraries, or a hollywood flick showing a sexual scene.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?
Absolutely not. America was not founded, IMO, to be a womb to tomb nanny state. For people wanting to restrict the slightest hint of flesh or lust, they can move to a commune in mountains. Living in the south, I'm quite tired of legislated morality imposed on quite probably at least half of the population, and most of the other half are probably hypocrites. I can't buy or rent porn at my local Movie Gallery here in Alabama, but I have the internet and mail order if I so desire. As long as the scene, story or art depicts consenting adults, banning these would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, and a violation of the freedoms our nation supposedly stands for.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

I don't think it should be banned at all. First, I don't believe it is the job of the government to be a parent for kids. Why should a ban to "protect the children" have to affect a single, childless male or female or anyone else for that matter? Americans spend about $10 billion a year on adult entertainment, which is as much as they spend attending professional sporting events, buying music or going out to the movies. So obviously it's very popular and I don't see the youth of America in a downward spiral or society on the verge of collapse. And think, do you really want to kill a $10 billion industry? The porn industry/sex has been a driving/innovating factor in the internet. First people to: Push for online credit card payment? Porn. Streamming video? Porn. Getting broadband into every home in America? Porn. AOL was basically a cybersex chat room for it's first few years and would probably be another failed dotcom had it fought the chat rooms.



Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

Probably every single lonely male in America.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?
This reminds me of an old Simpsons episode in which they were going to censure the statue of David.

Two national commissions--the Majority Report of the 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the 1986 unprotected by the First Amendment, a judge or a jury representing a cross section of the community must determine that the material :

· Taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient (sick, morbid , shameful, or lascivious) interest in sex;
· Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner ( i.e. goes beyond contemporary community standards with regards to depictions of sexual content or activity) ; and
· Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political , and scientific value.

cite

In terms of enforcement, I think you would have to use local law enforcement which would basically turn them into soemthing like the Kuwaiti religious police. I'd much rather have them spend time and money getting murders rather than some guy buying porn.


What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?

A loss.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

First off, I don't think it is possible. Even if we could, no we should not.
Prohibition has never worked. Porn would just go underground, and the sexually deprived would end up paying more for it.

Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

Laws limiting access such that minors cannot get at it, and severe penalties for any adult allowing it.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

Whose standards? The majority may not be allowed to overrule the minority "mob" that demands it, but the same mob needs to be responsible enough to keep such things in the privacy of their own homes or clubs.
Great art and anatomy text books? Don't be rediculous! There probably isn't more than a dozen little old ladies in the whole country who are offended by anatomy texts, great works of art, etc. Are you afraid of a few little old ladies? Are they the source of the greatly feared slippery slope?

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America

Benefit? Hard to say, especially since I am positive that it will never be totally banned. Loss? Larry Flynt types might have to get a real job. We as a nation might become even more uptight about sexuality.

To be clear, I am not against Porn. I am against making it cheap, tawdry, and easy to get, exposing minors to it, inferior products that may harm others, taking financial advantage of those employed in the industry, and especially against my tax dollars having to pay for any consequences, which includes needing law enforcement to regulate it. If the purveyors of porn would act responsibly, we wouldn't need so much regulation. ( I hear porn workers in California are now required to use condoms, too many getting HIV)
The same can be said about alcohol and cigarettes. I don't smoke, never have, but do enjoy an occasional shot of the hard stuff (alcohol, that is).
But there are many who act in less than responsible ways with alcohol, drugs, even tobacco, and if they want to play their own way, they should have to pay their own way.

Not sure what you mean here. I was asking what barriers would prevent us from enacting such a ban. Your answer seems to be an alternative to a ban. An alternative I happen to agree with. If I am mistaken could you elaborate.



I was asking a simple question. Who's standards would we use for such a ban? I used examples to try to illustrate the wide differences of opinion out there in regards to what is inappropriate. For example: Would we ban full nude photography, sculptures, etc, including art in this medium? Would we ban sites that show nudity in an attempt to educate. One of the problems parents who use "net-nanny" like programs have now is that they also ban educational sites that cover anatomy because of the included images. Many out there in America oppose any form of sex education in the classroom. Would this be included in such a ban? Or would we limit it's inclusion to a ban on any imagery used in such a class? All I am asking here, is how would we determine the standard for such a ban.




For the most part, I am not a customer of pornography, nor do I oppose it. I have no issue with it being cheap, easy to get, "tawdry" etc, though I am with you 110% when it comes to not exposing minors to it. We have existing product liability laws when it comes to individual harm, and we also have existing labor laws when it comes to protecting those employed by the industry. I am no expert on either subject, so perhaps these laws need to be reviewed and strengthened. However, these laws and regulations require government funds, agencies and law enforcement to enforce them, just as a ban would, though a ban would obviously increase these costs.

Your last point is excellent IMHO.

I completely agree with this. I have no problem with a tax on pornography similar to a tax on Cigarettes or Alcohol. Such a tax could be used to fund enforcement of regulations in regard to pornography. Pornography is simply another product out there to me. If people mishandle it, by allowing children access to it (remember Dad's stack of Playboys under his bed?) then they should be punished, just as they should be punished if they allow minors access to tobacco products, alcohol or loaded firearms (unsupervised). Now, those who seek to be providers of such materials to minors should be SEVERELY punished. But then we run into the issue of parental rights. Is it wrong for a parent to expose their child to art that includes nudity? Or wrong for them to allow their child to have a small glass of wine at Christmas dinner? That, is a subject that is debateable at best.

In reality, a ban such as this is impossible. What I would like to know is, assuming it was somehow possible, would it be beneficial?

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?
Is Rick Santorum channeling thru OLS here? Shirley Maclaine would be so jealous! Seriously though, we absolutely, positively should not ban access to pornography. To do so would embrace the kind of Orwellian nanny state that would be insufferable to live in. Hellooooo Canada! Hey UltimateJoe, got room?

Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?
This wouldn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. Pornography and obscenity have never successfully been equated to each other and I suspect this effort would meet the same fate.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?
This really gets at the crux of the constitutional issue of why this could never happen. All you have to do is look at the timeline of obscenity cases out there to learn why even obscenity has proven incredibly elusive to define and enforce. The concept of "community standards" would make the technological fiat device introduced in the first question darn near impossible to create. "I don't know porn, but I know it when I see it" just doesn't work as an enforcement mechanism.

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?
There would be no benefit to society whatsoever. This would be due to the fact that any current activities of exploitation, including ones already illegal, would be driven so far underground that they would be even harder to find and prosecute.

The era of prohibition and its younger brother "The War on Drugs", should serve as a handy reference guide to anyone who believes a federal ban on pornography would be even remotely successful, or beneficial to society.

Doc

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

No, we should not ban all access to pornography because we are a fundamentally free society. That doesn't mean we can't limit it. I don't know how it can be technologically limited, but it certainly could be heavily taxed on both ends (producer and consumer). Maybe it could be available only through special subscription. I don't think we have to tolerate the current state of affairs where hard core porn is just a click away to any kid sitting in front of a computer.

Another reason not to ban it entirely is that it does get alot of stuff off the streets and that is a good thing.


Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

Obscenity is not protected speech under the first amendment, so I don't see what the legal impediment would be to heavily regulating hard core porn.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

Why is it that whenever this kind of issue comes up for discussion, so many people throw up their hands and profess to not be able to tell the difference between an anatomy book and hard core porn? I think if we want to regulate hard core porn, we can come up with a way to identify what that means-- so no one is confusing it with an educational website.

Just a thought here. But if we heavily tax it, don't we just limit access to such material to those who can afford it? Sort of discrimination against the impoverished? Not that I disagree with the basic concept. Just curious.

As to the concept that porn being just a click away for any kid. The truth is that the children's parents are between them and that click. Are we to regulate an entire industry simply because some parents ignore this responsibility? Of course, the issue would remain anyway, because we can't regulate the sites that are outside the US.



Interesting point. I have seen those opposed the pornography claim that it causes increased incidents of rape and the like. Is there data available to support the idea that it "gets alot of stuff off the streets"? I would be sincerely interested in looking at that.




Who said anything about obscenity? I was discussing pornography. What is considered porn is not always what is legally considered obscene. For example, many (if not everyone) consider Playboy magazine to be pornography. Some consider it to be obscene. However, the law does not see playboy as obscene and thus it is protected. This topic was created to discuss the idea of banning all pornography, regardless of it's classification as obscene in the eyes of the law.



Why is it that whenever anyone suggests that their are different standards / beliefs for different people in America that reasonable and intelligent people suddenly act like this is an unknown concept? For anyone who participates on Americas Debate I would think that these broad differences would be quite obvious.

I never claimed to be unable to see the difference between an anatomy book and hard core porn. I did mention that some "net-nanny" type programs can't. I was merely suggesting that when considering such a ban we have to determine who's standards of what is pornography we would use. Again, you reference hard core porn, which I assume is another way of saying obscene. This topic however is relates to all things classed as pornography, and is not limited to the legal definition of obscene.

I would be curious to know however, what standards you would suggest we use for such a ban. I realize you do not support such a ban, but I am curious as to what you would call obscene. It is obvious that you do not support the banning of an anatomy text, can I assume you would not support the banning of sex education as well?

There are people in America who are fine with the current standards. I would imagine, this group makes up the majority. Then there are those who feel the current restrictions are too strick, as well as those who feel that what we currently deem as acceptable (Playboy, hustler, etc) are not acceptable. There are those who have no issue with Images of S&M (Sadomasochism) pornography. Then there are others, who see S&M porn as obscene and needing to be restricted, even if that material involved contains no images of sexual intercourse or physical contact (which seems to be roughly the current definition of obscene, legally).

I do not think it is unreasonable to ask what standards we would follow with such a ban when there is such a wide difference of opinion in America as to what is obscene, and even what is pornographic.

(emphasis above mine)

Hayleyanne,

Linguistically you seem to have narrowed your support for regulation to hard core pornography only. Are you lumping all forms of pornography together or simply wishing to create a specific class for ban or regulation? Specifically as it relates to obscenity, I know of no cases classifying all pornography as obscene and thus the class here would in fact have first amendment protection in general. Obscene instances of pornography would forfeit that protection of course, but determining which ones were obscene have proven challenging at best, and irrationally inconsistent at worst.

That's where parents come in Hayleyanne. If you don't want your child to see X, you can have X blocked. It is the job of parents and guardians to, er, guard their children from potentially disturbing things, not the government. The government has no reason to be even thinking about porn these days, they have bigger fish to fry and ones that involve less illegal action [in theory ].

CP

I don't know what the studies all show. Obviously it is an extremely important question. Someone in the legalizing prostitution thread stated that the demand for prostitutes has gone down because alot of the demand is filled through the internet. I have also read that pornography has led to increased violence against women. This is a question that needs to be taken seriously, answered through further studies -- and acted on. If pornography does lead to increased violence against women, it should be banned.




No one is acting as if it is an "unknown concept" OS, that different people may have different standards for any number of things. What I am questioning is the suggestion implicit in your question, that we are unable, as a society, to draw a distinction between an anatomy book and hardcore porn.






True. We have to set some universal standards. Whose standards? Standards we can all agree on. We can start with the legal definition of obscenity and go from there. Obscene expression should not be protected speech, which means it can be regulated. How do we define obscene? As a society we would have to determine that. What I resent is the attitude that we cannot draw any distinctions for fear of banning anatomy books or sex education classes. The definition of obscene can't be left to the extreme elements on either side of this debate.




If we choose to use high taxation to limit the proliferation of pornograghy-- it will affect the producers and the consumers. Result: Producers may not produce as much. What they do produce will only be consumed by the rich. No way around this if we want to use taxation as a tool to limit it. But notice that it discourages not only consumption but production as well.




It takes a village . . . .
And again, let me emphasize, I am talking about regulation here. I am appalled at the idea that pornography is some kind of sacred cow that should go unregulated all in the name of our freedom of speech.




This is the kind of implicit suggestion that drives me nuts. I used the term "hardcore porn" for a reason. What planet is a person living on if they could include "sex education" within the meaning of the term: hardcore porn?

What standards? Ones that the community can agree on. Fairly minimal ones, starting with the legal definition of obscene. Additionally, I would give the benefit of the doubt to freedom of expression so as to assume, if at all possible, that the material at issue appeals to anything other than a "prurient" interest.

AGAIN, I was NOT suggesting this could not be done. I am not sure how to make it more clear for you. However, there are people in America who think Anatomy books are pornographic. They are a minority, but they exist, just as there are people that see no reason to regulate live sex shows on cable TV, again a minority. With this broad difference of opinion in this country it will be quite difficult to build a consensus on what should be subject to such a ban and what should not.



What I resent is the debate tactic of purposely choose to mischaracterize what others say. You can ignore what I actually said and the explanations that followed all you want, but the fact remains, there is NO consensus in America when it comes to what we define as Pornography or obscene.




I find it equally appalling that the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech of others mean less to some then their own moral sensibilities. Especially when they have the power to turn the channel, stay out of the clubs, block the internet site and not buy the magazines.



And I framed this topic around the broader concept of pornography for a reason. And sorry, but there are groups in America who feel that sex education is pornographic. They are a minority, but again, they are an example of how broad the definition of pornography is in this country.



"Ones the community can agree on". Sounds easy enough. Though, as is plainly clear in this topic alone there is a huge variation when it comes to what people in America would call pornographic or obscene. So that community agreement, is difficult at best to achieve.

As a result, we either choose to let things be and expect people who do not wish to see pornography to avoid it, and expect parents to...well....parent. Or we can choose to just go with one group or anothers definition of pornography / obscenity and impose it on the rest of America. Tyranny is a good word for that IMHO.

What you are advocating Hayleyanne is pretty much the same thing as censorship. It isn't the government's responsibility to enforce some sort of special subscription on it.

If people have a desire to block porn from their homes then that means there is a market. Because there is a market some companies have stepped in to fill that demand and create products which do this (e.g. Net Nanny and others).

What your kids do or don't do is your responsibility as a parent. If you don't want them to view porn then buy the products which block it in your home. You can't expect the government to do your job for you.

Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to do this without putting in chinese-style internet blocking. The internet is a worldwide thing. If you ban porn in america then sites will simply start up outside US jurisdiction and stream it into homes across America.

Who says we have to reach a consensus? What about plain old majority agreement? Do you fear that a majority of americans want to ban sex education as pornographic? that a majority of americans think anatomy books are pornographic? I am afraid you are allowing the "extremes" on both sides of this debate to dictate your analysis.

I think my suggestion is reasonable for all parties concerned (adults and children):

Pornography is not banned but subject to heavy regulation;
Pornography is defined (as I stated above) in a very limited fashion, with the benefit of the doubt given in every possible way to freedom of expression and speech, with significant reference to the legal definition of obscenity.



I am not mischaracterizing anything. And why do we need consensus here?




Balance it. Holding obscenity (see definition above) as a sacred cow versus common sense regulation of obscenity in the interests of our community and our children. With the definition I gave you of "obscenity" I don't see any difficulty in arriving at a majority agreement over the kind of expression that can be regulated. And remember, I didn't say banned or made illegal-- I said regulated.




So what? I don't see the relevance of what an extreme minority thinks in this regard.




Where has this huge variation been demonstrated in this thread? I don't see anyone chiming in to say that they think anatomy books and sex education classes are pornographic.



Tyranny of what? The majority of americans???? You don't seem to be hearing my argument.




True, I suspect, if all we are talking about is access. But other means of limiting the information would not be so easy to avoid: TAXATION. The IRS can "recast" a lot of transactions and look through a "sham" corporation doing business ostensibly abroad but funneling the profits back to the States.

I tend to agree. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Didn't former Attorney General Ashcroft spend $8K for a curtain to shield us from Lady Liberty's naked busom? From this action, could we guess that Ashcroft would consider women breast feeding in public pornographic?

I wonder if Gonzales has had that silly drape taken down, yet. If not, he should and it should go to the Smithsonian as an example of government waste.

I also agree with CJ and CP that parents, not the government, should protect their children from what they deem inappropriate. That way, they can follow their own definition without intruding on someone else's rights and without spending yet more tax dollars needed for more important things than yet another moral crusade.

I believe he has taken that drape down BoF (finally). However, your point here is an excellent one and it sort of counters something that hayleyanne typed a few posts back.


I think that based on the actions of Ashcroft, that fear is a legitimate one. Ashcroft, who is part of that group of extremists, managed to spend $8,000 in tax payer money to cover up what any normal American (and every previous administration) would consider art.

This shows that these kind of people can rise to power and if you give them half an opportunity you'll find that their extreme point of view is being forced upon the country. This is also exactly why that neither side can afford to give an inch on any issue, lest the other side take a mile.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all
access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

The only access to pornography should be in a controlled environment, such
as an adult book/video store.

Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers
would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

There are too many people who are addicted to this type of entertainment,
which makes it a huge market, which means it will not go anywhere.

Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove,
or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity?
What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you
recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

The line is drawn at anything that is demeaning to another human being. I just
think if someone can only get excited by watching something so hardcore (as in
violent or other) then he needs to address some deep-seated emotional issues.

What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully
ban all pornography in America?

If all pornography were banned then men would be forced to interact more
with women, both physically and emotionally. Pornography is not beneficial
to society in terms of bringing men and women closer together. While it
may be an adequate outlet for men to fulfill their animalistic sexual fantasies,
it is hardly a beneficial pasttime in a spiritual or social manner.

My general philosophy has been to live and let live. But, in today's social
climate, where sexual deviance is on the rise, I believe we need to step
back and re-evaluate sex as it relates to pornography.

I find this statement quite perplexing as currently their are plenty of legal "demeaning" occupations and material. Obviously, the sex workers who participate in these videos find them honorable enough. So, if the woman who is getting "demeaned" doesn't have a problem with it, and the owner of the pornography is similairy not offended, who else is really getting injured here?

Ever worked as a cashier? I find it pretty demeaning to get yelled at all day by some soccer mom who wants to save thirty cents on penut butter. But, its part of the job. Likewise, getting drooled over by men is part of the job a porn star has to "deal" with.

If your arguing this on more noble grounds, that an innocent third party has to deal with the horrid effects of this material, I say lighten up. Everyone gets stereotyped and objectified at some point or another. To the salespeople at wal mart, I'm probably "just another customer" (I stopped shopping at wal mart). A hospital doctor probably sees me as "just another patient." And, continuing with my theme of similarity, women in pornagraphic material are viewed as "Just a pretty face." An object, just like the finite cash in my wallet or my good health (and more finite cash).

If we get demeaned to mere objects in every category of our lives, why should pornography be any different?

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we could technologically ban all access to pornography in America, should we do so? Why or Why not?

Same as everyone elses answers. No we shouldn't ban all porn.


Outside of the technological issues discussed earlier, what other barriers would keep us from doing this (for example, could it be done constitutionally)?

The Constitutional issue is interesting. Besides the 1st Amendment issue, there is also the issue about the authority of the Federal Government in general. The Federal Government has authority on a few things such as National Defense and printing money. But it is the states that make laws about morality.


Lastly, who's standards would we use for this? Would we have to remove, or at least cover, some of the worlds greatest works of art because of nudity? What about anatomy text books and educational websites? Where would you recommend the line be drawn, and how would we legally enforce that line?

Assuming that it is technologically possible to ban pornography, each local community should define what is obscene and what is not. Every community might vary somewhat on their standards but most people can agree that rape scenes and bestiality is going to produce more harm for a community than plain old vanilla sex.


What do you feel would be the benefit or loss to society if we did successfully ban all pornography in America?

The obvious loss is that over half the men would become angry at losing their porn access. Some people mentioned that the 10 billion dollar porn industry would go somewhere else. My opinion on economic arguments is that I'd like to Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner use their fortunes to bring manufacturing back to America.

Over the long terms, porn addicted men might be forced to pursue real relationships with women and become happier people.

Once again, my work as a relationship counseller gives me a unique look into sexuality and relationships, and addictions, as DP mentioned.

First off- why is it that everyone thinks this is just a "man thing"- how much of the content of the internet is now porn? I heard at one point it was over 70%, with literally MILLIONS of AMATUER women, with no monetary payout VOLUNTARILY putting themselves on the internet doing HARD CORE SEX ACTS. How do you explain women, that are single and not in a relationship, doing hard core sexual acts to themselves, for no monetary gain, taking pictures and movies OF THEMSELVES as exploitive?

We already have very strict laws with very good enforcement overall with very harsh penalties, guarunteed to ruin a person's life, when it comes to child porn. In this, America has done very well. We have full time cops posing as teenagers and such on line trolling for scum that prey on children. They are busted daily, and are punished harshly- just like I like it- and HayleyAnne- THIS IS SOMETHING, as a society THERE IS COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON, AND THAT IS ABOUT IT- otherwise, there is no consensus or possibility of consensus about what constitutes "hard core porn"- even the swedish rating system you know "blue, yellow" etc had serious flaws.

Regulating and taxing porn- well, regulating first- impossible, because, as others have pointed out, with the exception of kiddie porn, the stuff moves off shore and out of country. Taxing- this is nearly impossible, once again, taxing the internet, beyond taxing goods sold on the internet (such as toys or something, tangible goods) is nearly impossible, and would probably cost the IRS more money to collect than it would get in the end. Ever got a letter from the IRS, using 33 cent postage, for a 25 cent bill?


Once again, like with prostitution, gambling and drugs- we get into the "eww" factor. I have seen porn be very destructive to some couples, and a god send to others. I know one triad I counselled (yes, living in polygamy, two females and a male) where thier guilt over the use of porn was harming them more than the porn was- once that was dealt with, they had a wonderful time I suppose, writing me and telling me "everything is great" - I used the triad example to illustrate how much we dont' see in our personal day to day lives that go on around us in folks bedrooms- they are totally "in the closet" with this relationship, of course, and perhaps myself and some other close friends of thiers are the only ones that know about it. They have been together many years, over 20 now, and raised children, and all three of them have a HUGE fascination with porn- but I would not say addiction either.

Sexuality is such a human thing, but so agonizingly private and public at the same time- we just don't understand those with different sexuality than ourselves- because it doesn't turn us on and may revolt us- but some poeple pursue that "ewww" practice thier whole lives, with no harm to anyone, except what harm society itself does to that person through thier scorn.

Polygamy and S&M subjects are huge "eeewww" factors for most folks, including myself, don't understand it myself, don't get aroused by it, so there is some "eeewww" here- also, never have, for one minute, understood strip clubs- you don't get to go home with the girls, so what is the point?

But "eeewww" is not something I want to see codified into law- but niether do I want it advertised on public billboards driving down the hiway- I do want the option to screen it from my kids- and that is one regulation I stand by- the ability to be able to screen it from my children. I can limit or remove on-line access for my kids. That is all it takes.

I heard from one "lifestyle" person that "there is a S&M and polygamy scene in every town with more than 50 poeple in it in any place on the planet, how much you see of it is determined by the culture there"- and in my travells, I have to agree. S&M, when practiced by adults, even in extreme versions, is still a type of sexual outlet and "play". The key here is "consenting"- we should always be making sure all are consenting adults- other than that- all bets are off!

There are many negative societal effects associated with pornography:

The role of pornography in undermining some males' internal inhibitions agaisnt acting out the desire to rape.

Objectifying women.

The causative role of pornography in rape.

(Just because you may be able to view pornography responsibly doesn't
mean every man is able to do so.)

Addiction to pornography is like addiction to drugs. It takes more and more
to get the desired effect.



Getting drooled over is the least of their worries. Being a "porn star" is a very
demeaning job. This country is so over-the-top that we have begun glamorizing
it, but the truth is nobody would want it for their child and that says it all.



I'm lightened up. I feel it's harmful to society, and you disagree.




You're comparing apples to oranges. "Pornography de-humanizing women and
men" and "being shunned by a walmart employee" aren't exactly parallels.



It seems to be that the current trend is to say "anything goes" sexually, and those
of us who feel it is detrimental or harmful, to society as a whole, are looked at
like uptight prudes. Sex is something that is very private and personal, and
should occur between two individuals. Now, when it comes to those who need
to find a release of some sort, many turn to pornography. I don't think it's a great
thing, yet I understand that it is what people are turning to. That is why I say we
should eliminate pornography from the internet (as long as we're talking
hypothetically here) and make it available strictly through local
adult "entertainment" locales. It could be better monitored that way, and
those who desire it wouldn't be forced to go without.

Women who do website of hard-core porn (whether they make money or not)
are selling themselves short. It's not something I would want for my daughter
(or son), and I doubt it is something any other parent would want for their child.

Let's not forget, the intended purpose and function of sex is for procreation. We
talk about constitutional rights and so forth. Yet, we do not seem to examine the
harmful effects that sexual addiction and pornography have on a society.

I really don't think you can point to sexual addiction and pornography has a big detriment to society. I'm sure for some men and women it's a problem but it seems in this case the cure is worse than the disease. As I said earlier, porn is a $10 billion dollar industry. That means a lot of people are watching, buying, and renting porn. You would think that if porn was as bad on society as you claim it to be, we'd see a lot more problems. With anything gambling, alcohol, porn you're going to have a group of people who are going to have problems with it but I think it's safe to say that a majority of those who watch porn can do it responsibility.

Sex is for procreation? I don't think that is a very current view of things, and I don't think most people have felt that way about it for quite sometime. One of the outcomes of sex is procreation but if that was how people felt about it then there wouldn't be very much of it going on. It may be another question entirely as to whether some folks like society like that, but the simple fact of the matter is that society is that way and it didn't happen overnight.

Sexual addiction is something that should be dealt with like every other addiction out there, with proper medical treatment. It also requires the person in question to acknowledge there is a problem. We aren't asking the government to step in an control alcoholics, why would this be any different? If this is really a concern for people then they shouldn't be begging the government to pass a law they should start up a non-profit and start running advocacy campaigns.

Sticking with the alcohol comparison, the effect pornography has on society is much the same. Some people are perfectly capable of dealing with pornography and in fact it strengthens their relationship. Others either don't like it or can't handle it. There is a pretty easy solution to that, don't watch it. Again, this isn't some crisis the government needs to get involved in.

There are market solutions to this as well, protecting people from "obscene" content has turned into quite the cottage industry for both the TV and internet world. If you are concerned about what your kids are watching then you need to be taking responsibility as a parent to control it. Not enough control? Take that up with the companies that provide the services - as a customer they should listen to you if they want to stay in business.

[quote=doomed_planet,Aug 9 2005, 08:18 AM]
[quote=BecomingHuman,Aug 9 2005, 02:30 AM]I

Let's not forget, the intended purpose and function of sex is for procreation. We
talk about constitutional rights and so forth. Yet, we do not seem to examine the
harmful effects that sexual addiction and pornography have on a society.

[/quote]


Huh? How many children do you have? I have two- I believe I have had sex more times than two in my life LOL - I mean really, if sex were only to have children, folks wouldn't be having sex more times than they need just to procreate, right? ESPECIALLY those poeple that believe the statement you made to be true LOL.

I think those poeple that PRACTICE sex only for procreation, as opposed to those of us that PRACTICE sex, for well, sex, are in the minority by a very, very large margin LOL

I just spent 30 minutes thoroughly responding to your posts, and lost it all.
I feel like Sean Connery in the Medicine Man.

Let's try this again.........



I think the fact that it is a multi-million dollar industry points out that
we have a problem with sex here in America. The societal dysfunction revolving
around sex is deep-seated. Men who have been repressed sexually end up
the most problematic, in terms of how they try to deal with their impulses.
Rape, incest, pedophilia are all related to pornography, and pornography is
often times the gateway act that leads to the aforementioned.



The ultimate purpose of sex is procreation. That's not to diminish the value it
has in expressions of love between two consenting adults. Pardon me for
not understanding the necessity in viewing a pornographic gang-bang.



That's right, but perhaps we should take a step back and see what it is we are
accomplishing by allowing carte blanche pornography. Is there no line between
what is harmful and what isn't? Simulation of a rape, for the sake of sexual
gratification? How is that un-harmful? An adult male is the only one viewing
it, after all.




Sexual addiction is a huge problem in America. It is one that people do not
want to address because we are so uptight about sex, overall. That is pehaps
why there is so much compulsive sexual behavior, but regardless, we cannot
just sit by and say anything goes, as long as it's behind closed doors. If
it's not okay for grown men to view adult/child sexual acts, then wouldn't it
be fair to say there are other sexual exploits that should not be allowed?



I have two children, both of which were conceived through the intimate and
loving act that occurs between two indivuals who are committed to each
other.


Procreation is the driving force behind the urge to have sex. It is not an
act to be taken lightly. The reason we have STD's and unwanted
pregnancy is because people have grown to view sex in a very casual way.
And, society has paid very dearly for that.

Pornography has its place in society. I am not saying it doesn't. There are
lines to be drawn, however.

I'm not sure that I buy this DoomedPlanet. That suggests that porn alters the mind which would prompt me to ask for proof of that. That seems as ridiculous to me as saying violent video games turn an angel into Rambo. As I said, I'm going to need proof of that.

It isn't necessary, but not being necessary doesn't mean that it should be illegal or taxed or restricted or whatever.

The government doesn't need to establish lines for us, and from what I can tell, it has no Constitutional authority to do so either, at least not the Federal one.

CP

That is fine if you don't want to watch pornography before sex, during sex or at all - some people do, and probably far more people that you'd think. Just because you don't prefer to watch it, why should you be able to make that choice for other people?


I think you are making an assumption that frankly isn't true - only men watch porn. There are large numbers of women that watch it too, and from personal experience some of them are much more into it than many men I know.


It isn't that people don't want to address it, sexual addiction has the same characteristics as every other kind of addiction - denial is the first hurdle.

I think CruisingRam answered the second part of your question well in a previous post with his "ewww" factor statements. There are plenty of sexual acts that I wouldn't ever consider watching and frankly disgust me, but as long as they are done between consenting adults and nothing illegal is done then I think they should be allowed. It is really simple to just not watch them.

And yes I do think that we shouldn't interfere with what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I don't want the government, the community, or anyone else telling me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my bedroom and I'm sure that you feel the same way. As long as no one is breaking any laws then what goes on is none of my business and it doesn't matter if I personally consider it disgusting or weird.

This is one of the burdens you must accept by living in a country with freedoms like ours. You don't get to tell someone else what to do just the same as they can't tell you what to.

Doomed, you're confusing cause and correlation here.

Lets suppose we take the following statement as true:

Statistics show us most redheads prefer Russert potatoes to Idaho.

Correlation: Yes (maybe.)
Cause: No.

This in no way proves that being a redhead causes someone to prefer russert potatoes. All it does is suggest a relationship between hair-colour and potatoes. Perhaps eating Russert potatoes cause a person's hair to turn red?*

The fact is that you are making a lot of definitive statements, and have not been able to prove or confirm any of them. In fact, a great deal of what you have to say is logically 'problematic.' Lets review:

1. Men who have been repressed sexually end up the most problematic, in terms of how they try to deal with their impulses.

What exactly does pornography have to do with "repressed" sexuality? Can you explain to me how pornography represses someone's sexuality, or creates new sexual behaviour traits through this "repression?" Your suggesting contradicts everything I've come to learn about sexuality; and the basic premise that sexual release (through engaging sexual appetites with pornography) is the opposite of repression

2. Rape, incest, pedophilia are all related to pornography, and pornography is
often times the gateway act that leads to the aforementioned.

While there is some research suggesting that pedophilia-behaviour can be traced to viewing pornography that is pedophiliac in nature; I don't understand the relevance of your argument here. Pornography depicting these acts are illegal, as are the behaviours. Should we start shutting down legitimate radio stations when pirate broadcasters enter a market?

3. Pardon me for not understanding the necessity in viewing a pornographic gang-bang.

It is not necessary for you to understand it. The term "gang-bang" is a political one just as it is a descriptive one, and since there is no illegal depicted (and you haven't bothered to prove a causative link between it and illegal behaviour) what possible reason could you have to restrict out, outside of the fact that you find it distasteful.

4. If it's not okay for grown men to view adult/child sexual acts, then wouldn't it
be fair to say there are other sexual exploits that should not be allowed?

This is kind of silly. You're making an argument akin to this: It's illegal for me to drive a car over a homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk, so shouldn't it be illegal to drive? Where do you draw the line? Where you personally think it should be? Right now the standard is harm... and not just harm that you perceive without being able to report, prove or verify. When an adult sleeps with a child, that child is suffering harm, which is why material which records such action is as illegal as the act itself. The same goes for rape and incest acts/materials. If nobody is being harmed (which again, you haven't even tried to prove) then there is no reason to make it illegal.

5. The reason we have STD's and unwanted pregnancy is because people have grown to view sex in a very casual way.

Hmm, the last time I checked unwanted pregnancy-rates are down. Lets take a look at a study of teenage pregnancy statistics. According to this research, the rate of teenage pregnancy, births, and abortions all declined between 1986 and 2000. This document shows us that unintended births declined from 54.2/1000 in 1981 to 44.7/1000 in 1994. Further muddying the issue, there is the fact that most other industrialized nations have far lower incidences of the sorts of behaviour you describe, and many of those same countries have much more relaxed/casual views on sexuality, and less restrictive controls on pornography than the U.S. does. Where exactly did you get your "reasoning"?

* Please note that this example is ridiculously hypothetical.

UJ, I appreciate your analogy. However, the point I'm attempting to make
is that viewing hard-core pornography can greatly influence someone, and not
in a positive way. While it may not be illegal to watch a man acting out the
rape of a woman, or something else violent in nature, it is not sending a positive
message to the viewer, that's for sure.

I'm not saying this type of pornography should be altogether banned, I'm
suggesting it should be made available only at non-internet sites, such as
adult stores. Why must access be so widepsread and so easy?

I don't see the restriction of pornography as a violation of someone's rights.
He can still go get his "legal" porn. He'll just have to do so at his local porn
store.



I didn't explain myself adequately. What I meant to say is that there are a lot
of men walking around who feel they cannot express their sexual desires in
the "real world." So, they participate in on-line pornography. What gets them
satisfied becomes more and more hard-core, as they delve futher into
pornography. If you think that's not true, then perhaps we both need to
find some statistics to back up our claim.



IT is more than distasteful, UJ. It is the objectification of women. Anyone
viewing such a scenario is being indoctrinated and desensitized.




That's not what I'm saying. Just because we live in a "free" society doesn't mean
we should accept and/or condone behaviors that are clearly negative and
detrimental to people. If you don't see what is wrong with a porno movie
containing abuse and mistreatment of people, then I don't know what else to say.

If a person is that hard up for drama and thrill-seeking that he has to find it
in a DVD of a man raping a woman (or whatever other negative scenario) then
let him fulfill his fantasy by visiting his local pornography store.

You see, most men are very embarrassed to be seen purchasing such items.
Why is that? If what they are doing isn't in any way harmful they should walk
proudly into their local video store and say, "Please give me your latest DVD of
a gang bang and a video of a woman being raped."


I do not expect you to agree with me. Not everybody sees pornography
as a hindrance to social and spiritual growth. The same way not everyone
views second-hand smoke as a health hazard. To each his own.

There have been a few claims made in this topic linking rape to pornography. As a result, I thought I would try a little research on the subject. It is actually quite hard to research. For one, if you use the word "Rape" in a goggle search, you get links to dozens if not hundreds of rape pornography sites (something that supports what seems to be the commonly held belief here that pornography is more pervasive then ever). Secondly, there are alot of claims made on various site, many by arguably biased sources, that do not bother to use statistics to support their conclusions.

As a result, I went to THE source for crime statistics. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. This information was still difficult to gather as I could not find a breakdown that covered several years in one table. As a result, I went to each individual year's report and compiled the following table myself. Please note, the updated numbers in parentheses are the numbers for that year that were found in the following year's report (as I understand it, each years report is audited, and the corrected numbers are listed in the next years report). Feel free to check each years full report from UCR here.

There are numerous statistics to review: Number of cases resolved, number of victims of forcible rape per 100,000 population, etc, etc. I chose the number of reported incidents of forcible rape because the numbers were the largest. I figured, if I went with the largest numbers I would be least likely to be seen as trying to "load" my statistics, or "cook the books".


Rape Statistics:

Reported Incidents Per the Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports

................................................................................
.............................................Rate Per......................Adjusted Rate Per
Year................. # or reported offenses.................Undated total.................100,000 Inhabitants..........100,000 Inhabitants
1994.............................102,216................................( XX,XXX)...............................39.3..............................(XX.X)
1995...............................97,464................................( 97,470)...............................37.1..............................(37.1)
1996...............................95,769................................( 96,252)...............................36.1..............................(36.3)
1997...............................96,122................................( 96,153)...............................35.9..............................(35.9)..
.......*
1998...............................93,105................................( 93,144)...............................34.4..............................(34.5)
1999...............................89,107................................( 89,411)...............................32.7..............................(32.8)
2000...............................90,106................................( 90,178)...............................32.0..............................(32.0)..
.......*
2001...............................90,491................................( 90,863)...............................31.8..............................(31.8)
2002.............................95,136...............................( 95,235).............................33.0.............................(33.1).....
...**
2003...............................93,433................................( XX,XXX)...............................32.1..............................(XX.X)
2004...........***

(This was the best I could do with creating a table that would Appear properly on Americas Debate. You may need to maximize your browser window to see it correctly)


Notations:

* Denotes a year when the number of reported incidents increased, however the rate per 100,000 decreased.

** Denotes a year when the number of reported incidents increased, AND the rate per 100,000 increased.

*** Full Statistical Report Not Yet Available for 2004.



A few things to consider when looking these numbers:

The per 100,000 rate is based on America's population as I understand it. Since our population increases annually, it is interesting that the total number of reported incidents still decreased each year for 1995 to 1999.

How many of us ever heard of the term "Date Rape" prior to 1994? I am not sure when the concept started to become actively discussed and the media began to regularly advocate that this IS a crime and that victims should report it. However, I am nearly certain that this did happen sometime after 1994.

I think it is reasonable to assume that as our society "matures" fewer and fewer women will let a rape go unreported for fear of social stigma and the like. This is NOT to say that this does not still happen, but it is less likely to happen in 1994-2003 then it was in the previous decades. Just a thought, take it for what it is worth.

It is interesting that 2002 is the only year since 1994 that showed an increase in incidents per 100,000. I could not find any reference to the possible cause of this. I am wondering if it might be a statistical anomaly.



Interestingly, these numbers from the UCR DO NOT include reported rapes where the victim was male.

source: Uniform Crime Reports FAQ


Here is something else that is interesting to consider when judging the relationship between Rape and Pornography:


Source: Rape - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not one mention of pornography on this list. Also on this page can be found a break down of the four classic types of Rapists. No mention of pornography there either.

Note: I realize that Wikipedia is not a perfect source, but there is a HUGE amount of information Available at this link and it is definitely worth reviewing if your are interested in this topic.

Another interesting tidbit from the same site:




Now, I did not find any statistics on the availability of pornography. I am sure they are out there, but it took so much time to compile the above table I did not choose to go on a detailed hunt for these types of statistics. It seemed a waste of time considering that there seems to be a commonly held belief among all of us here (or at least the majority) that pornography is far more Available now then it ever was prior to 1994. I think it is also reasonable to suggest that this material becomes more and more accessible each year.


Consider:

1> The UCR statistics that show an excellent record in regard to reduction of crime in the area of Rape since 1994 (when considered on a per capita basis). And a solid record of reducing or at least minimizing the increase of overall reported incidents in general. Personally, I think the per 100,000 number is more useful because it takes into account our growing population.

2> We all seem to agree with the commonly held belief that pornography is far more Available to the average America today then it was 10 years ago

3> We all seem to similarly agree with the commonly held belief that pornography was certainly more available to the average America in 1994 then it was 10+ years before that.


Based on the above 3 points I simply cannot agree with the position that Pornography is a cause of Rape. Based on the statistics I found, the reverse would seem more likely (as was suggested as a possibility earlier in the topic), though I would NOT make such a claim without further investigation.

At best it would seem that there is no identifiable connection between incidents of Rape in America and the pervasiveness of pornography. As a result, this is NOT a basis to use to determine if we should ban pornography or not IMHO.

Feel free to support arguments that run contrary to this opinion with your own statistics (and links to them).


Edited to add:



Because it is simply impossible to stop it on the grand scale. Banning it in America will have no effect of the availability of this type of pornography on the Internet because the ban will have no effect on countries outside of America. At best, it will drive American Pornography companies overseas.

The only way I can think of to possibly restrict this material TOTALLY is to require all ISPs to screen all web browsing and block all such material. Besides the privacy issue of my ISP watching everything I do online, I do not wish to pay 4, 5, or better times as much as I do now for my internet access so that the ISPs could fund such an operation. A ban of this nature is simply unrealistic.

However, Individuals DO have the ability to restrict access to such materials on their computers. There are a host of access control type programs out there like: Net Nanny, Cyber Sitter, etc, that do an excellent job. There are also "family friendly" search engines like: Family Friendly Search dot com, Surf Safely dot com, etc.

The issue of parents keeping their kids away from inappropriate material on the internet is one of the best examples of the market solving a problem IMO. Of course, the parents have to be willing to make the effort in the first place.


Edited again, this time to add:

It is somewhat interesting (though I doubt there is a real connection) that reported incidents of Rape consistently decreased until the year a Republican "Family-Values" president was elected. Actually, the increases here are more likely do to the declining economy, 911, etc, but I just found it to be amusing.

How would one go about enforcing this? There is absolutely no way that you can restrict internet content (at the source) without imposing some seriously fascist measures along the lines that China has with its access.

Let's say Congress passed a law banning certain types of porn from the internet. So what? The internet is not controlled by the US, it is transnational. Even if the US decided to dedicate resources to closing down sites operating in the United States (which wouldn't be a cheap exercise) those sites could setup in foreign countries in mere hours. Those very same sites would still be accessible in the United States unless as I suggested before they took the fascist approach and started blocking certain parts of the internet like China does.

So now what are they going to do? Try and prosecute in other countries? I imagine they'd get laughed at by almost every nation out there.

My point is that there is no way you can possibly ban something on the internet. Even things that are illegal (e.g. child porn) can be obtained if you know where to look.

If you want to limit access to porn the only way to do that is with market solutions like NetNanny and similar products. That still puts the responsibility on you as an individual and a parent.

Let me preface this by addressing a couple of assumptions that a number of people are bandying about. First, the assumption that using pornography is exclusively a male preoccupation. I've been unable to find stats on female of consumption of pornography in the US - nor on pornography consumption in general - but in terms of internet porn, women make up 20% of the consumers in the EU overall and 28% in the UK. I suspect that in the US these stats might be even higher - though, at the very least they are probably similar: one in every five consumers of internet porn are women.

To speak anecdotally, I've been working in the book department of a major retailer for the past couple of months and can tell you first-hand that the two busiest sections are the "sexuality" shelves (which are frequented as much by women as by men) and the magazine area. The most abused magazines are titles like Maxim, FHM, and Loaded (we don't carry Playboy or Penthouse) - as well as "gay" magazines like Attitude, Genre and Instinct, which, as often as not, I find women perusing. Also, in my last job, I knew four relatively middle class women - one married, two divorced, one engaged - who made almost weekly trips (that I know of) to a local sex emporium to view the wares and usually come home with a video or magazine. (Straight women seem to share this sort of information with gay men.) They are all fairly typical church-going, SUV-driving, soccer mom types - working for Disney.

Second, pornography is not used exclusively by "singles" nor is it used exclusively for masturbation (though, on the internet, this is more likely to be the case). Again, statistics are few and far between (and most studies, it seems, concentrate on single males, reinforcing stereotypes that don't seem to be based on much more than prejudice). However, a Christian web site re