What's all the fuss about


on the net?

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 here.

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?

(I've forgotten where I found that quote)

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 what where).

As a result we have record numbers of teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and gods know how much other misery and disfunctional behaviour.

So "... here are some pictures of penises to annoy the censors" (*)

* © Monty Python ("Meaning of Life")