|
Post by smartarse on Apr 12, 2007 16:47:42 GMT 10
well your first question is impossible to answer. in the context of a debate the Aff would say "yes, why not? (for the reasons given in reply #25)" and the neg will say "no" for the reasons you have raised. thats part of the debate. you can't 'prove' it either way.
second. the point of the model as it currently stands is to regulate (not ban) porn, for some of the reasons i have suggested. The model could incorpotate some classification of porn (so the law would be that all porn sites must be on .xxx, but that it is illegal to register certain kinds of hardcore sites on .xxx - thereby banning them) but thats the intention of the 'real world' advocates of .xxx
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 25, 2008 11:45:45 GMT 10
Some of you may have heard about an art exhibition by Bill Henson, containing images of naked children, that was recently raided by police. The images have been seized under child pornography laws, and it's resulted in a lot of people come out both in favour and against the images. The Age has an interesting point-counterpoint style piece in its opinion section: www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/art-not-porn/2008/05/24/1211183187056.htmlwww.theage.com.au/news/opinion/porn-not-art/2008/05/24/1211183187087.htmlThe second is arguing against the images, and has some questionable logic, but both articles raise at least some ideas worth considering. Particularly of note is the question of where you draw the line between art and pornography (former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's edict that "I shall not attempt to define pornography, but I know it when I see it" is called into question somewhat).
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jun 14, 2008 12:55:55 GMT 10
I just finished reading an interesting book called "The Porn Report". It's based on the work of three academics who did a three-year long study into pornography and its use in Australia, aptly titled "Understanding Pornography in Australia Project." The book is written in a very accessible style, and it covers lots of issues and ideas surrounding pornography. The first half of the book looks at the results of the emprical surveys, looking at the demographics of porn users, the types of pornography consumed and what its effects might be. The second half looks at pornography in the light of some contemporary debates - considering the impacts on children, the rise of amateur or DIY porn and the role it plays, as well as feminism (somewhat ironically, the book's cover is black with pink writing on the front - reminiscent of the old "MUDS - Beware the Matriarchy" t-shirts). The study showed that porn users cut accross all demographics - age, religion, politcal persuasion, and even gender, with a small but still significant proportion of women (although apparently only 3 people out of the thousand that responded to the survey identified as mulsims). The book argues that porn has become more mainstream, that it isn't just deviants, and moreover that the types of porn being watched are not voilent or necessarily demeaning, but more banal. There was also an interesting conclusion drawn that whilst "traditional" porn, with the stereotypical blue-eyed-blonde-haired starlets had its following, one of the fastest growing genres, and certainly one of the largest, was that of amateur, or naturalistic porn, suggesting that people don't necessarily watch or even want to watch unrealistic images of people. There's also some interesting discussion of the role that porn plays for amateurs and sexual minorities, or so called "deviants". There's some questions about the way the authors went about their study (for example, the sample for their surveys were self-selecting, and tended to result in a disproportionately high number of people with tertiary degress), but they go to great lengths to point out the limitations of their research. I'm not sure what I think about their survey which purports to show that people who watch porn don't have worse attitudes towards women (interestingly, that same study seemed to show that political persuasion did have an effect - the more right-wing the party you support, the worse your attitudes towards women). However, there was some insightful discussion about the limitations of other studies that claim to show worsening attitudes towards women. Overall I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who's even remotely interested in the subject. You can check out the book's website, www.thepornreportbook.com, and look at the FAQs for a flavour of what the book is like.
|
|