Tag Archives: internet

Pornography; Good For Us?


Reprinted from an article in The Scientist (1st Mar, 2010) and published here as a reaction to the Australian Government’s plan to filter legal adult porn (and political discussion) on the internet.

Pornography.

Most people have seen it, and have a strong opinion about it. Many of those opinions are negative—some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encouraging people to commit rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, they say, it contributes to the degradation of women. It harms the women who are depicted by pornography, and harms those who do not participate but are encouraged to perform the acts depicted in it by men who are acculturated by it. Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal.

Alternatively, others argue that pornography is an expression of fantasies that can actually inhibit sexual activity, and act as a positive displacement for sexual aggression. Pornography offers a readily available means of satisfying sexual arousal (masturbation), they say, which serves as a substitute for dangerous, harmful, and illegal activities.

Some feminists even claim that pornography can empower women by loosening them from the shackles of social prudery and restrictions.

But what do the data say?

Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged “obscene”) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.

It’s not hard to find a study population, given how widespread pornography has become. The United States alone produces 10,000 pornographic movies each year. The Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry–lobbying group, estimates that adult video/DVD sales and rentals amount to at least $4 billion per year. The Internet is a rich source, with 40 million adults regularly visiting porn Web sites, and more than one-quarter of regular users downloading porn at work. And it’s not just men who are interested: Nelsen/Net reports that 9.4 million women in the United States accessed online pornography Web sites in the month of September 2003. According to the conservative media watchdog group Family Safe Media, the porn industry makes more money than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.

No correlation has been found between exposure to porn and negative attitudes towards women.

To examine the effect this widespread use of porn may be having on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured some variable such as changes in attitude or predicted hypothetical behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault. Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation.

Despite the widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, according to national FBI Department of Justice statistics, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the Internet. The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. He showed that for the years from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increasingly became available, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level. Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last 2 decades, and in those countries that allowed for the possession of child pornography, child sex abuse has declined.

Significantly, no community in the United States has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers.

In terms of the use of pornography by sex offenders, the police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than nonrapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated nonrapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing. Richard Green too has reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of “normal” males.

Attitudes towards women .

Studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators—female as well as male—essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes. No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography—by any definition—has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women.

There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography—just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm.

Ultimately, there is no freedom that can’t be and isn’t misused.

This can range from the freedom to bear arms to the freedom to bear children (just look at “Octomom”). But it doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted to prevent the abuses of the few. When people transgress into illegal behavior, there are laws to punish them, and those act as a deterrent. In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal—there’d be more people in prison than out.

Adapted from “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” Int J Law Psychiatry, 32:304–14, 2009.

Milton Diamond is a professor in the department of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology at the University of Hawaii and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.

Et Tu, Conroy


Friends, Aussies, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Internet, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Internet. The noble Conroy
Hath told you Internet was evil to our kids:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Internet answer’d it.

Here, under leave of Conroy and the rest–
For Conroy is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Internet’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Conroy says he was evil to our children;
And Conroy is an honourable man.

He hath brought many ideas home to Australia
Whose knowledge and enterprise did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Internet seem evil?
When that the poor have cried, Internet hath wept:
Evil should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Conroy says he was evil;
And Conroy is an honourable man.

You all did see that on the Internet
We all grew in our knowledge of the world,
And we gained many friendships: was this evil?
Yet Conroy says he was evil;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Conroy spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;

My heart is in the coffin there with Internet,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Goodbye Internet. It Was Good While It Lasted.


Australia has moved closer to a dictatorship than it ever has before.

The internet in Australia will soon become just what the bureaucracy has been wanting since 1995. Controlled, censored and emasculated.

Senator Conroy’s legislation which will soon reach the Parliament includes some wonderfully inventive ideas.

87percentsmThe whole system will be based on an ISP-based filter  which is being touted as 87% effective.

What is the purpose of the filter?
To protect the young from pornography and paedophiles. Nothing there to create a fuss. Unless you live in a childless home. Then you still won’t be able to access any of these sites, even if you are legally an adult. But that is OK, only perverts and deviants want to see pornography. So normal, God-fearing Christian Australians won’t be disadvantaged.

How does the filter work?
It is fed a list of banned sites. The list of sites – managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – is designed to catalogue sites containing child pornography or other criminal content. This will slow broadband surfing to dial-up speeds but that is a small price to pay for Internet Safety.

Who adds sites to the filter list?
The ACMA. Who checks that the sites ARE deserving of being banned? The ACMA.Who checks the ACMA? The ACMA!

But we will know what is banned, of course.
Well, actually, no, we won’t. And the ACMA threatens fines of up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist. Yes, just imagine if you were fined for speeding because the government refused to put up signs showing the speed limits. Hmm, now there is an idea for the revenue hungry bureaucrats!

So we won’t know what sites are on the list but we will be fined for linking to them!

But that is no problem. The list is aimed at pornographic sites.

Do I have bad news for you! The secret list has been leaked to the “Secret Revealers” at Wikileak. That list is truly amazing.  Alongside child porn, bestiality, rape and extreme violence sites, the list also includes a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

Other Australian sites on the list are canteens.com.au (“Tuckshop and Canteen Management Consultants”) and animal carers MaroochyBoardingKennels.com.au.

The dentist, Dr John Golbrani from Samford, west of Brisbane, was furious when contacted to inform him that his site, dentaldistinction.com.au, appeared on the blacklist.

Oh dear, it seems I just set myself up for $44,000 worth of fines when this travesty becomes law!

Those sites can be removed from the list.

Well, those ones can be, but what about all the sites we know nothing about? And do we really want alternative religions, lifestyles and anything else which raises the ire of an unknown group of faceless bureaucrats to be censored? What happens when it turns political and we can no longer criticize the Government of the day?

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for online users’ lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: “The prospect of mandatory nation-wide filtering of this secret list is pretty concerning from a democratic point of view.”

It is already a bit far from just “Protecting the Kids”!

If you are disgusted with this situation

and want to know more about how all this happened,

click on the image below.

Libertus.net: Say No to Net Censorship

Libertus.net: Say No to Net Censorship!

Chinese Internet For Australia


Not only does our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, speak Chinese, it seems he admires their system of Government as well.

Especially the way they control their internet.

My mate from Queensland, Mike, is an IT professional and he, who worked so hard to get rid of the Howard Authoritarianism,  is horrified by what this Labor Government is doing in its own autocratic way.

He has devoted quite some time to studying the proposed ISP level control of unsuitable websites and has not only documented his findings on his blog but he has also addressed public meetings on the subject.

Read what Mike has discovered;

The Minister responsible for the censorship proposal is Senator Stephen Conroy. Mike has a suggestion for all of us who object to censorship by stealth.

phoneconroysm

Just a further suggestion from the archive; Most calls will be palmed off by the receptionist who will either hang up or use some trite platitude and then hang up. I suggest that those of us who have the technical knowhow (I don’t, unfortunately) record their calls. Legally it may be necessary to let the person on the other end of the phone know that the call will be recorded.

Then publish it on your Blog!

I will be writing more on this subject soon but the magic number of words for a blog post is 250 and so I will save the rest for another day.


Digg!