What's all the fuss about
on the net?
(I've forgotten where I found that quote)
There are huge quantities of evidence suggesting that the availability
of pornography does not lead to an increase in violent and/or sexual
crimes. There is a slightly smaller amount of evidence that it leads
to a DECREASE in the incidence of rape.
There is also a slightly smaller still amount of evidence suggesting
that VIOLENT films lead to an increase in violent sexual crimes.
Which is why in Canada, the ban is on violent and degrading
pornography, rather than on sexually explicit pornography as it is
So I reckon if we're going to have censorship, we should have much
more sex on TV and much less violence. I mean, sex is perfectly
natural and harmless, and prohibited from being shown. Violence is
nasty, unpleasant and illegal, but is pumped into children's brains
eight hours a day. Where's the sense in that?
Let's be honest, pornography is just pictures of people having it off.
Or more precisely, from the male perspective, pornography is pictures of
women who in real life wouldn't so much as give you the time of day,
having it off with men who have bigger dicks than you. Why is this
deemed to be dangerous?
We (in the UK and USA at least) seem to be in the grip of a moral panic
about sex in general and -- particularly on the internet -- about "protecting"
children and young people from images of and information about sex --
especially the 'wrong' sorts of sex (usually defined in terms of who puts
As a result we have record numbers of teenage pregnancies, sexually
transmitted diseases, and gods know how much other misery and
So "... here are some pictures of penises to annoy the censors" (*)
* © Monty Python ("Meaning of Life")