The Age covered the story today: 
Put soft porn out of view: experts
Graphic images delay censor report
And also invited readers to vote in a poll: Poll – “Should ‘soft’ pornography be banned from sale in newsagents, milkbars and service stations”
Classification system held in contempt
For more background on the issue see these blog posts here, and here and pieces in Unleashed and On Line Opinion. It is clear Australia’s classification system is being held in contempt. In Senate Estimates hearings in February, Director of the Classification Board, Donald McDonald, informed the committee that he had issued 1000 ‘call-in’ notices for porn distributors to remove magazines and films containing prohibited content – including promoting sex with little girls and rape and incest themes . When asked how many had responded, he replied: “none”.
The problem of lack of compliance and lack of enforcement must be addressed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in its meeting this month.
Sign up to new Facebook page to get porn out of corner stores.
32 Responses
The full letter sent and signed by over 30 child experts can be found here:
http://www.collectiveshout.org/profiles/blogs/to-the-standing-committee-of
there are still alot of way those youngster can get porn so no point of those action
So after 30+ years of these magazines being in newsagents and the like where “they can easily be seen and accessed by children”, all of a sudden we have to get them out of the view of the public? Uh, why exactly? Where is the peer reviewed evidence that children are being harmed by these magazines, especially the R18+ magazines which are pollybagged and have everything but the magazine’s masthead covered. If it was true that children were harmed by the mere display of these magazines in newsagents, then you’d have several generations of disturbed adults, so where are they?
I also question Melinda’s statement that the magazines are “promoting sex with little girls and rape and incest themes”. As these are the same magazines being sold quite legally in shops and newsagents across the US and UK (i.e. teen magazines), I really doubt they would promote rape and sex with children. As for the “1000 ‘call-in’ notices for porn distributors”, these were referred to state and territory police where they not? And what happened? Nothing. Because police really have a lot of more important work to attend to than stopping the sale of some magazine which adults in other countries can buy legally.
This smacks totally of wowserism. The whole plan here is ban all “R18+” rated publications from newsagents and bookstores using “teen” magazines (which have been rated by the OFLC, and are listed in their online database, and sold in Australia since the early 1990’s) and the spectre of child porn. Linking the two together is disgusting really. It’s exploiting the victims of child sexual abuse for the aim of removing a product which has been sold without any problem for more than three decades. There is no peer reviewed research and no real justification for banning these magazines nor restricting them to adult shops (most which don’t even sell any type of magazine anymore).
Matthew W,
There’s so much wrong with your post that I just don’t know where to start. I do know, however, that you’re not accustomed to seeing any perspective even slightly outside of your worldview, so I’m not going to waste 15 minutes of my life on you.
But I really do wonder what motivates someobody to advocate for children to be exposed to more pornography, rather than less.
Are you arguing there’s no peer reviewed research demonstrating the harms done to children by early exposure to pornography? Or do newsagencies and supermarkets have some protective factor that I’m unaware of?
And tell me: are your qualifications in early childhood development, or mental health?
Matthew W,
Look for the evidence, it’s out there.
Any reasonable adult would not take the RISK even if the evidence wasn’t so clear.
How long did it take for cigarettes to be recognised as a cause of cancer (etc)?
and then how long did it take for the advertising to stop?
and still they are in every grocery store, corner shop and petrol station.
AND people still CHOOSE to start smoking… mostly before their brain is fully developed… (21-25 yrs old)
Lina, can you please explain to me how having a magazine which is aimed at and marketed only to adults, which is completely sealed and only shows the magazine’s masthead is detrimental to the mental health of a child? Exactly how is this exposing a child to pornography anyway? The magazine is sealed in plastic. The warnings on the magazines clearly state that they are for adults over the age of 18. The only way a child could be exposed to the contents of this magazine is if they took the plastic off or if you bought the magazines for them. There is no other way they’d be exposed to contents of the magazine. I have never, EVER, seen children reading these magazines in ANY newsagent that I have ever been in.
If you are unable to comprehend this, and your child is being exposed to pornography from these magazines, then it’s clearly your fault as a parent. Your equating the sale of these magazines to adults in newsagents, to young children being exposed to the contents of these magazines, and that is really deceitful. It’s like saying that children are being exposed to smoking because the newsagent sells cigarettes. It’s a nonsense argument. I never said that children should be exposed to pornography. However the fact that the magazines are sold in newsagents or petrol stations does not equate that children are actually exposed to the contents of them.
Again I ask if existence of these magazines in newsagents (not the contents of them, just the covers) disturbed young children, where are the adults who have suffered because of this? There has to be at least two generations worth as these magazines have pretty much been sold the same way since the 1970’s.
AJT, sorry what evidence? Tell me? And you not seriously telling me that adult magazines cause cancer, are you? How can looking at images of a naked women be harmful to anyone?
I cannot tell you how tired I am of being reminded of the second class status of women every time I buy a loaf of bread. I cannot tell you how tired I am of seeing young women deforming themselves in an effort to be attractive to men, whom they perceive as desiring only porn models. I do not want my daughter to have to ask – as, of course, she will one day ask – why girls are naked on the cover of magazines.
Matthew W, the problem is the normalizing of pornography. The association of commerce with sexuality. And the masculinization of sexuality. Perhaps you have never known a man who was distorted by pornography, or perhaps they simply did not confide in you. I have known many. And they do have problems, a lot of problems. Problems with sexual confidence. Problems with sexual intimacy. A number stumbled onto child porn in the course of their nightly porn searches and it nearly ruined their lives. Others became addicted, and needed help. And others still became desensitized to the degree that they were no longer capable of identifying why pornography is antithetical to civilization. They were all ordinary men, superficially successful, some married, some single, a couple gay.
Many of them were once boys enchanted with their fathers’ issues of Playboy or Hustler, the kinds of magazine visible to all children in convenience stores.
Hmmmm, sealed are they? I distinctly remember going to a local milk bar in the city where I used to work and seeing “barely legal” and other “teen” publications. I don’t remember them being sealed and even if they are, they shouldn’t be sold. Matthew *I* don’t want to see them, let alone my kids seeing them. These publications aren’t supposed to be sold *anywhere.* Depicting women as little girls and eroticising child abuse and incest is not allowed in Australia.
Australia is not short on adult shops. Let them sell the pornography. It’s not that hard to go to an adult shop or get a posted subscription. It’s not like wankers are lacking in choice!
Antonella, don’t really understand the whole “being reminded of the second class status of women every time I buy a loaf of bread” statement. What exactly does that mean? I find it a bit ridiculous to hear people harping on here about this. Seeing as the section I work in, my supervisor is a woman, her supervisor is a woman, the manager is a woman, the section manager is a woman, the divisional manager is a woman and until recently there was only three men in a section of 25 (they’ve actively stated to recruit a few more males, but women still make up 70% of the section), it’s really hard for me to see that women are treated as second class citizens. Sure there are some glass ceilings and I think employers having paid maternity leave would be fantastic, but we’re not living in the Victorian era (though it sounds like a lot of you would like to go back to that era).
Yes, I’d wonder why your daughter would ask “why girls are naked on the cover of magazines” as there are no naked girls on the covers of magazines. Oh, except naturalist magazines. Do you hate nudist magazines too Antonella?
Sorry, “the masculinisation of sexuality”? I’m male, are you saying that there is something wrong with my sexuality? Should I become a woman instead? And “number stumbled onto child porn in the course of their nightly porn searches”, what a load of rot. OK, let’s just pretend that child porn sites actually exist on the open web (which they don’t, this stuff is distributed via peer to peer stuff like Limewire) so just because a male sees a naked child, they’ll become paedophile? What rot. In the early days of the web which was just links and the pre search engine era, I saw a lot of crap by accident, but my likes in terms of sexuality never changed just because I might have seen a woman having sex with a dog or whatever. Most of the time was like “This is weird” and moved on.
Also please, please show where men are getting addicted to porn. Love to see some studies… Oh wait, that’s right, they don’t exist, do they? Well outside the Christian right groups they don’t. And isn’t so odd that only in the last couple of years we’re hearing about “addictions”, yet we’ve had commercial pornography for over 50 years. Funny that. Isn’t odd that even though I keep hearing that this pornography addiction is somewhat of an epidemic, yet the American Psychiatric Association hasn’t even included it for discussion for the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. You know, that this is THE manual that just about every psychologist in the world uses. My god Antonella, it’s like this porn addiction thing doesn’t actually exist and the greater majority of psychologists don’t even recognise it. That can’t be true can it, Antonella?
Kelly, can you please tell me where this mythical “local milk bar in the city” is? Which city, which street? “They shouldn’t be sold”? Sorry, if the magazine has been given an R18+ Category 1 classification by the OFLC, which most of them have and you can check this on the Classification Board’s database, then it can be legally sold. Just because you object to the sale of them doesn’t mean they should be banned. There has to be a good reason why, and no one here has come up with anything but “think of the children! ” and “I don’t like it” arguments. Both are invalid, especially as I have now said over and over again, these are the same magazines being sold in newsagents and the like for over thirty years. So I ask yet again, can any of you please tell what exactly changed now?
Matthew W, you appear to be frothing at the mouth, do you need a towel?
There is growing community concern over these issues, backed up by over 30 child experts. I suggest you take up the issue with the experts. Just because you are ok with porn in the shops doesn’t mean others are ok with it. As previously said, loads of adult shops in Australia, your choice to have a sexual relationship with 2D images will not be lost, however a more equitable environment will be created if people also have the choice *not* to see this crap.
Kelly, you don’t seem to be answering the questions I asked. I will make this rather simple for you;
1. Please name the “local milk bar” or alternatively the street and city where this “local milk bar” is that is selling R18+ Category 1 magazines that are not sealed in plastic.
2. Can you please explain why now, in 2010, we need to remove these magazines as they have been in newsagents and mythical “local milk bars” since the 1970’s?
3. What actual evidence is there that shows the mere presence and display of these magazines (NOT the involuntary viewing of the contents which NOT the issue here) in newsagents and shops is detrimental to the mental or physical health of children? Not “experts say”, some real peer reviewed research please.
4. Other than your own personal objection to these magazines, can you please tell me why a legal product should be restricted further despite the fact there seems to be no evidence whatsoever it is suddenly causing any harm.
Kelly, as you seem to be “playing the man rather than the ball” (i.e. you’re throwing personal insults around rather than trying to justify your stance on the issue), I can only assume you don’t have a leg to stand on here. I’ll say again; this crusade is nothing more than wowserism dressed up as “saving the children” or even the more dumber “I don’t want to be offended by something which have been legally sold and displayed in newsagents for the last 30+ years”. It’s the same as the SA government who restricted the sale of R18+ movies (like “A Clockwork Orange” and “Fight Club”) because a Family First MLA was offended at the covers of the DVD cases. It’s nothing more that restricting products created for and only available to adults in such a way that it becomes unprofitable. It’s banning something by proxy. As an adult I do not wish to have someone treat me like a child. Can you understand why someone would find this crusade absurd and rather condescending to adults who want make their own choices?
It is a shame this wonderful blog is being hijacked by a mouth piece for the sex/porn industry. Matthew W your comments are aggressive and insensitive (typical male bullying behaviour) and seek to silence the women on this site.
Les, why do you think I would be part of the sex industry? How is leaving a comment on a blog hijacking it? Like Kelly you’re throwing around insults and completely unsubstantiated allegations rather than answering the rather reasonable question; why are we doing this now?
It is a completely reasonable thing to ask, is it not? Is it a fact that adult magazines have been sold in public view in newsagents since at least the early 1970’s? Yes it is. I am 37. I remember adult magazines in newsagents when I was small. I remember Penthouse in the mid 1980’s having much more explicit covers than today with breasts fully exposed on their covers. I remember The Truth, Australian Post and People next to newspapers. Not great deal has changed in the last 30 years, in fact it’s been regulated a lot more and the covers of these magazines are tamer in terms of nudity. So according to Melinda and other people, not only must I be a disturbed adult, my generation is and the couple of generations before and the couple of generations after have all been exposed to the presence of these magazines. Strange, I think I’m OK and the others around me seem fine.
What groups like Kids Free 2B Kid and their kind have done is brought in a discussion amongst Attorney Generals across all states and territories that will force all R18+ publications to be sold in adult shops only. If this legislation goes through only will this generally kill off a lot of the Australian softcore magazine industry (and therefore men will have little choice but to go for the harder, and in my opinion, more misogynistic hardcore material on the web) but novels such as the critically acclaimed “American Psycho”, comics such as “Heavy Metal Magazine” and the euthanasia book “Last Exit” will also probably disappear because porn shops aren’t going to sell these publications are they? They’re all R18+ publications, they’ll be effected.
So I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why we are doing this Les. No one is giving me any answers as to why or any evidence these magazines need to be taken off newsagent shelves now. They’ve been there for over 30 years now. It doesn’t make any sense.
Matthew,
1. No, I’m not going to give you any indication of my whereabouts.
2. Consult the 30 plus experts who signed the recent letter to the censorship working party and the major research papers into the sexualisation of children.
3. Again, consult the research.
4. Not just my own personal objection Matthew, not the point. Children don’t need to be exposed to porn when out and about with their parents.
Matthew your posts are more hysterical each time, rude and aggressive. You clearly have some vested interest in the porn industry.
“As an adult I do not wish to have someone treat me like a child. Can you understand why someone would find this crusade absurd and rather condescending to adults who want make their own choices?”
I don’t want children treated like adults. The difference is Matthew, you still have the choice to view porn if they are only sold in adult shops, children and others have not had a choice for a very long time now. It is absurd and condescending to suggest that adults who want to have a relationship with 2d images are incapable of going to an adult shop.
Kelly said “1. No, I’m not going to give you any indication of my whereabouts.”
Why? They’re breaking the law. You’re not supposed to sell these magazines if they aren’t shrinkwrapped. Or is it because the “local milk bar” never existed in the first place?
Kelly said “2. Consult the 30 plus experts who signed the recent letter to the censorship working party and the major research papers into the sexualisation of children.”
Again, what research? Where is the research? Names of papers, anything. All I’ve seen is a letter. What peer reviewed research has Noni Hazlehurst and Melinda done exactly?
Kelly said “3. Again, consult the research.”
Did it not occur to you that as a consequence of having these magazines for the last 30+ years that seemingly nothing has actually happened? That several generations have grown up with these magazines in newsagents, yet we see no real effects as such.
Kelly said “4. Not just my own personal objection Matthew, not the point. Children don’t need to be exposed to porn when out and about with their parents”
Sorry, “children don’t need to be exposed to porn when out and about with their parents”? Where the hell are you taking them? Porn shops?
Again all I want is an answer; what justification can there possibly be to ban them now? All I can see is there is no real justification, other than uppity adults getting upset. Let’s face it, it was never about the kids was it? This is the same kind nonsense that the Festival of the Light and the Australian Christian Lobby have been going on about for years. Why in hell would you want associate yourselves with those homophobic arses?
By the way I’m a public servant, and have never worked in any part of the sex industry. I really hate censorship for censorships sake, which is clearly what this is. I can only assume that if I said was for gay marrage you’d say I was homosexual. Some of your are really simple minded.
I dunno, I’d take this into account:
http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm
The Media Effects model is contentious, and I agree with the author of that essay that most studies are generally of poor quality or have built in assumptions that are simply not true. Also, the concept of childhood and especially teenagers are relatively modern inventions. I think the whole issue is far more complicated and intricate than many are pretending it is.
Additionally, this brings up a particular ethical question. Censorship is generally agreed to be wrong. Indeed, prohibition and censorship are responsible for some of the darkest periods of human history. (Censorship is almost solely responsible for the long history of disparity between genders, for instance. Women simply weren’t allowed to speak.)
The ethical question is with regards to the science. Suppose there was scientific evidence that showed that children who suffered corporal punishment performed better at school. Would that make it ethical to beat children? Similarly, even if the evidence was absolutely solid (and it isn’t) that exposure to some material was harmful to children, that would still leave the ethical question of whether censorship was the right answer.
Matthew W many convenience shops do not adhere to the classification code. they sell magazines that are categorised as Refused Classification.
in terms of the cardboard partially covering the covers of these magazines, sorry but kids can still read headlines like “fresh teen sluts” etc
your argument that we have always had commercialisation of porn is a strawman – we have never been bombarded across such a diverse range of mediums (billboards, TV, radio, internet) all reiterating sexualised images and messages – there is a significant difference between sex in the media 40 years ago compared to today
and no, porn addiction is not in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV for mental health professionals, probably because 1) porn addiction is a new field of research; 2) the DSM IV came out in the early 90s; 3) the DSM IV does not use the term “addiction” even once throughout the entire manual – so if you’re looking for the specific phrase “porn addiction” you won’t find it, just as you won’t find “alcohol addiction” – addiction is more of a colloquial word.
the point previous posters have made tho is still valid- that some people (usually men) get so obsessed with porn that it greatly impairs their level of functioning & ability to engage in life as previously
just out of curiousity tho, if you’re not a member of the porn industry, why are you so interested in defending the right to have children exposed to pornography (and yes, even with only the top-half of the R18+ shown I would still call that pornography due to the language and images still exposed by the part that are uncovered) ?
You also claim that if the commercialisation of porn was harmful, we should have at least 2 generations who are seriously negatively affected. Stating there is no peer reviewed evidence sounds very smart, but the reality is that it is impossible to tease apart nature/nurture 100% when studying human behaviour. I encourage you to get in contact with the experts mentioned in Melinda’s blog. That’s if you’re genuinely interested and not just on here for mental masturbation, of course.
Oh yes- in support of a previous poster’s comment – rape and incest are promoted in these magazines (and on the covers- one image I saw had a woman who looked underaged with pigtails and braces and the words “Daddy’s Little Girl” scrawled across the cover) – but of course how could my CHOICE to NOT have my kids have to walk past this possibly matter, your CHOICE to have porn available in the petrol station is obviously the only choice that counts…*barf*
One of the most compelling arguments I have ever heard against the ready availability of softcore porn, and particularly the generalised exposure of children to these magazines, was in an interview that the serial killer Ted Bundy gave the day before he was executed for the rape and murder of some 30 women between the ages of 12 and 26. Bundy is totally clear – while he was fully responsible for his actions, without an addiction to pornography (which began as exposure to softcore magazines in the local shops of his childhood) he would never have committed the crimes that he did. He also says that during his time in prison, without exception, every person he met who had committed violent sexual crimes was “deeply involved in pornography” – that even the FBI note that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that everyone who uses porn will become a serial killer or addicted to porn. But it does seem a significant risk, if there is something even in the childhood exposure to ‘vanilla’ porn which can spark such destruction. Bundy is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but for every one of him there must be hundreds or thousands of men and boys who are affected at least in part by the same impulses that porn awakened in him.Ted Bundy used his last hours on death row to attempt to draw attention to what porn did to him and many of the other men imprisoned alongside him; I think we should listen. Here are some of his last words:
“As we have been talking, there are forces at loose in this country, expecially this kind of violent pornography, where, on one hand, well-meaning people will condemn the behaviour of a Ted Bundy while they’re walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to being Ted Bundys… There are lots of other kids playing in the streets around the country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, because other young people are reading and seeing the kinds of things that are readily available in the media today.”
It’s not hysteria, or (boo-hiss) “censorship”; it’s common sense. Listen to the man. Listen to the experts. Instead of defending porn, how about we start defending the minds of our children against such an insidious poison?
PS full text and video of the interview is readily available if you just google “Ted Bundy James Dobson Interview”
The Ted Bundy story is nice, but it has no basis in fact.
“In Ted Bundy’s case, no serious social scientist or law enforcement officer takes the explanation that ‘pornography made me do it’ seriously. Well before Bundy turned the pages of a sexually explicit magazine or watched an adult video he was exhibiting bizarre behaviour. Dr Dorothy Lewis, who conducted multiple interviews with the killer just after his arrest, reported that Bundy was a highly disturbed child at the age of three. When Bundy was first arrested in 1978, early interviews with police and psychiatrists reveal that the killer referred to popular sexually explicit magazines as ‘normal healthy sexual stimuli’. It was only in the 1980s, when a court refused to certify him insane and to save him from the electric chair, that Bundy became a born-again Christian and reiterated the party line on pornography.”
Wilson, Paul 1995, Dealing with Pornography: the case against censorship, University of New South Wales Press Ltd. (Paul Wilson was a former Research Director at the Australian Institute of Criminology.)
“[Dr Dorothy Lewis] conducted numerous interviews with Ted Bundy and his family. She found that Bundy and his mother, when he was just three years old, had lived with Bundy’s grandfather, an extremely violent man who tortured animals and behaved brutally to family members. The little boy who would become a serial murderer began sticking butcher’s knives into his bed and demonstrating other behaviour that worried some family members enough for them to think he should be removed from the environment. …
Yet Bundy advised in his final interview that killers like himself are ‘normal’ until they encounter pornography. ‘We are your sons, and we are your husbands’, he told Dobson. ‘And we grew up in regular families. And pornography can reach out and snatch a kid out of any house today. And we had a wonderful Christian home…’ ”.
Carol, Avedon 1994, Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship, New Clarion Press, Gloucester.
Bundy’s claim that violent sexual offenders are deeply into pornography also has no basis in fact. Indeed Goldstein & Kant (1973) found that the only solid correlation was a repressive religious upbringing including heavy punishment for viewing pornography. More here: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2009-pornography-acceptance-crime.html
Also, this doesn’t address the essay I linked to above. Here again: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm
While talking about violence rather than pornography, properly done studies have tended to show that violent offenders typically are disinterested, and actually have less access to television and technology in general than their non-violent contemporaries (Hagell & Newburn 1994).
That’s not to say that this isn’t an issue. I personally don’t want sex shoved in my face everywhere I go either. Having said that, I have never seen a petrol station or newsagent that stocked magazines with title like ‘Teen Sluts’ or showed more on the covers than could be seen in a public swimming pool, or indeed showed the magazines prominently within the store. Perhaps its just the area I live, but this seems like more of an enforcement issue rather than a requirement for comprehensive bans. Like I said above, I think the whole issue is far more complex than many are giving it credit.
Lily, again you are confusing two issues; on is a child being exposed to pornography, the second is the sale of these magazines in newsagents. By just seeing the cover, how exactly is this exposing the child to pornography? They aren’t. How is a picture of a woman in bikini or lingerie pornography? I find it rather hypocritical that teen girl and women’s magazines aren’t subjected to same scrutiny. Every issue of Cleo and Cosmopoloton has some head line about sex. There was a cover shot from Cleo I saw just a couple of months back had a woman hitching her skirt up with “The Sex issue” across the front. I recall reading another Cleo back in the 1990’s that had a rather explicit article about how women could give “perfect head”.
As for “many convenience shops do not adhere to the classification code”, where is the evidence for that? Most go through Gordon and Gotch distributors for magazines. Seeing as the Classification Board are still giving Gordon and Gotch (the biggest distributor of magazines in the country) serial classifications for titles that company is distributing (as of March according to the Board’s database), surely you aren’t suggesting they’re doing something illegal? What gets me here is instead of asking for more law enforcement to stop the sale of magazines which are truly refused classification, you’re asking for a removal of ALL R18+ publications. Why? Most companies aren’t doing the wrong thing. Most adult magazines aren’t teen magazines (the biggest genre is the over 30, over 40 etc “Cougar” type publications). There are a number of R18+ publications which are adult magazines like the novel “American Psycho”, euthanasia books and the like. You’re condemning these publications to extinction because porn shops aren’t going to stock them. I really can’t see why a compromise can’t be made where the entire magazine is covered in black plastic and only the magazine’s titles and date printed on the cover. Is this not acceptable?
Lilly, I’m amused you accused me of creating a strawman and then went on to talk about sexualisation in the mainstream media, which is not what this topic is about. Seriously, you cannot deny these magazines have been in newsagents since the early 1970’s. I remember them very clearly. So can you not understand why I’m rather bemused and question why all of a sudden they have to be taken off the shelves? Nobody seems to be able to sufficiently explain why we have to get rid of them now other than “I don’t like it!” or “somebody think of the children!”. So people weren’t concerned about them (outside of the god botherers) for thirty years, now they are. Why? What has changed?
As for the DSM not including addictions, well DSM-V plans to reintroduce the word addiction. However they do list addictions under Substance-Related Disorders and lo and behold pornography isn’t one. However there has been much discussion that Internet Addiction should be included in the DSM-V. Funny, isn’t it? Porn has been around a whole lot longer than the internet yet, they’re discussing Internet Addiction and make no mention of pornography addiction.
Again, I’m not defending the right to have children exposed to pornography, I’m asking for the status quo to be kept. Seriously you’re not telling me that children have been exposed to pornography for the last thirty plus years and only now we have to do something about it? Something doesn’t seem right there. What I want is less censorship in the country and an end of religious groups to force their minority view on a secular society (the Festival of Light and the Australian Christian Lobby have been pushing for this for years).
Oh Nicole, Ted Bundy huh? Pity that one has been debunked pretty thoroughly; “In Ted Bundy’s case, no serious social scientist or law enforcement officer takes the explanation that ‘pornography made me do it’ seriously. Well before Bundy turned the pages of a sexually explicit magazine or watched an adult video he was exhibiting bizarre behaviour. Dr Dorothy Lewis, who conducted multiple interviews with the killer just after his arrest, reported that Bundy was a highly disturbed child at the age of three. When Bundy was first arrested in 1978, early interviews with police and psychiatrists reveal that the killer referred to popular sexually explicit magazines as ‘normal healthy sexual stimuli’. It was only in the 1980s, when a court refused to certify him insane and to save him from the electric chair, that Bundy became a born-again Christian and reiterated the party line on pornography.”
Source: Dealing with Pornography: The Case Against Censorship, Paul Wilson, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 1995
Matthew – you ask, these magazines have been around and available at the corner store for decades, why only now are people kicking up a stink? Because sometimes it takes a generation or two to really start to see the long term social effects of things like the normalisation of pornography and the gradual creep of sexualisation culture. Experts in child mental health are now starting to be able to draw definitive links to the exposure of children to explicit sexual materials and the abnormal development of their sexuality. Although I must say, it doesn’t take an expert to realise that children should simply be allowed to have a childhood without having to negotiate a world of adult themes. You say that you aren’t arguing that children should be exposed to porn, but in the same breath say that you just want the status quo to be kept – well the current status quo exposes children to porn. And ‘oh won’t somebody think of the children’ – well I hope that those who do fight long and hard for them, because it’s quite clear that you and the majority you claim to represent are more interested in an adult’s ‘right’ to sexually explicit material on tap than you are in the next generation’s right not to be harmed by being exposed to too much too soon.
And as for Ted Bundy, I obviously don’t know the ins and outs of the case as well as you do, but I stand by my comment that his final interview is a highly compelling argument against pornography. The man had less than 24 hours left before his execution, and chose to use his remaining hours to speak out against the one thing he saw as absolutely having fanned the flames within him. He never says ‘porn made me do it’, rather “I’m not blaming pornography… I take full responsibility for all the things that I’ve done… The issue is how this kind of literature contributed”. Surely, as a society, we do well if we attempt to learn from the lessons of human wreckage?
At the end of the day, I think the point is – pornography and other explicit materials, no matter how you feel about their use, are widely regarded in our society as being inappropriate for the use of children and young adults. We don’t put cigarettes or alcohol in their reach, why should porn be there? Porn is not like ciggies and booze in that you don’t need to buy it to take it in – one look at an image or smutty headline is all it takes. Softcore or hardcore, I don’t want to see it, I don’t want my kids to see it, and I’m sick of having it forced down my throat every time I do something as simple as buy a bus ticket at the newsagent . Surely there is a compromise in which those who aren’t allowed to or don’t want to consume porn are not forced to look at it, while still allowing access and availability for those who want it?
Nicole, you say “sometimes it takes a generation or two to really start to see the long term social effects of things like the normalisation of pornography and the gradual creep of sexualisation culture”. Again you’re combining two separate things as one. There are two separate issues here. The sexualisation of culture was not brought about by adult magazines being in newsagents. That’s complete nonsense. I think you’re going to mind that the general mainstream media is to blame. The media, especially women’s magazines and tween and teenage magazines focus on this stuff (see ABC’s Hungry Beast take on the contents of tween magazines), so does the nightly news. Hence the reason why I find it so puzzling that adult magazines are the target. Girls read tween magazines and stuff like Girlfriend. They don’t read Penthouse.
As for “Experts in child mental health are now starting to be able to draw definitive links to the exposure of children to explicit sexual materials and the abnormal development of their sexuality”, again I ask, where is the research, where is the proof? Even the “American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007)” which Melinda loves so much points at everything else like the Pussycat Dolls and in teen magazines such as Seventeen, Glamour, and Mademoiselle, but not adult magazines. Well actually an adult magazine is mentioned once in the document; “For example, eight Olympic athletes were featured in the September 2004 issue of Playboy […]”. However this line is under the subheading of “Sports Media”. Except for this, adult magazines aren’t even mentioned at all in the report.
You say “Although I must say, it doesn’t take an expert to realise that children should simply be allowed to have a childhood without having to negotiate a world of adult themes”, which is really odd. Sorry, but children have to negotiate a world of adult themes EVERYDAY of their life. As a parent the whole point is to prepare them for this, to prepare them to become an adult. You teach them everything about what adults do, including, (gasp!), sex. As a child there was a lot of what you would describe as negative sexual influences in the media that I saw; the page three bikini girl in the Sun newspaper, Daisy Duke in the Dukes of Hazard, Strop’s wife on the Paul Hogan Show, Duran Duran’s Girls on Film video, the Kenny Everett Video Show etc, yet I patterned my relationships on those I saw within my extended family and other adults in my life, mainly my mum and dad. That’s how most kids do. They can determine the difference between fantasy and reality. I remember I could.
You say “the current status quo exposes children to porn”, which is untrue. Seeing a cover of a magazine is not exposing a child to porn. It’s not. That’s complete rubbish. It’s emotive nonsense. Any cover which shown in public has to comply with the Classification Board’s rules. And they comply. End of story. As for the “majority I claim to represent”, I don’t think I said that. Even if one person buys these magazines they should be taken off the shelves. It’s a legal product that has been legal for many decades. There has to be some really compelling evidence to change this. You have provided none. “I’m offended” is not a valid argument.
Sorry Ted Bundy’s final interview is NOT a highly compelling argument against pornography. When people start using a serial killer’s opinion on porn or in fact a serial killer’s opinion on anything to create public policy over the opinions of social scientists and law enforcement officers, then we REALLY need to take a step back and check our sanity.
Nicole said “At the end of the day, I think the point is – pornography and other explicit materials, no matter how you feel about their use, are widely regarded in our society as being inappropriate for the use of children and young adults. We don’t put cigarettes or alcohol in their reach, why should porn be there?”
Right, so everyone agrees that this material is not intended for children, hence the warning labels on magazines and the fact you need to be over 18 to purchase them and the fact they’re sealed in plastic. That’s obvious. Yes, porn is not like cigarettes or alcohol, but first, the magazines aren’t “in their reach”. They’re sealed. Watch your kids in the newsagent so they don’t open them and read them. I’m assuming you don’t buy them for your kids. Please tell me you don’t. Here’s where your argument falls down; they aren’t going to see the contents of the magazine unless you’re incredibly negligent. It’s a parenting issue. My mother did well, I’m sure you’ll do well too.
Nicole said “Porn is not like ciggies and booze in that you don’t need to buy it to take it in – one look at an image or smutty headline is all it takes”
Uh, and then what? They’ll be drunk and full of cancer because they saw the cover of a magazine? What the hell? Do you let them read Dolly and Cleo? “The Sex Issue” “How to Please You Man”. Are these headlines from magazines marketed at young women acceptable?
And as for “Surely there is a compromise in which those who aren’t allowed to or don’t want to consume porn are not forced to look at it, while still allowing access and availability for those who want it?”
As I said before, complete black plastic cover over entire magazine, printed magazine title with issue number/month and year. Done.
Matthew, I give up. You clearly are unable to see those of us who disagree with your point of view as anything but a bunch of sex-hating conservative god-botherers sitting around plotting how to stop everyone else, especially our children, enjoying themselves.
I do wonder, though, what leads you to be so defensive about what you see as the ‘censorship’ of sexually explicit material? You seem awfully passionate in your fight for people to be able to ‘appropriately’ access nudie pictures. Seems a strange thing to be gung-ho about is all…
Nicole, I’m sick of censorship. The government is still gunning to censor the internet, we still don’t have an R18+ rating for games and now this nonsense. I’m sick of being treated like a child. It’s 2010. If at this stage people are still getting upset at over magazines with nude women in them. It’s stupid.
So far not a single person here has provided a scrap of evidence as to why the laws need to be changed in regard to these magazines. The best Melinda can come up with is making out that “teen” adult magazines promote paedophilia which is nonsense, and her evidence such as the headlines “Disobedient daughter XXX DVD’s…Don’t tell mom!” indicate to me she is referring to the advertisements in the back of the magazines, not the actual content or pictorials (according to one of Classification Board reports, one of the magazines that has been rated RC because of advert at the back of the magazine). Of course this could all be solved by tearing out the adverts out which are at the back of the magazine (seeing as they’re US publications Australians can’t use the services anyway). But no, just ban the stuff hey?
So despite the fact the offending teen magazines make up such a small section of the market and the majority of distributors do the right thing, you people won’t compromise or listen to reason. It’s really hard to take any of you seriously. You don’t have solid evidence or any decent reasons as to why we should do this and when people ask why you accuse them of working in the sex industry.
All you care about is trying to shape society to conform to your own set of morals and ideals. You want to drag society down to the level of child. Well sorry, this is not how the world works. I’m not a child. I no longer need to be mothered by someone who thinks they know better. If you think that the display of a magazine in newsagent stops your child enjoying life, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Your priorities are totally messed up.
Oh Dear Matthew W, at it again eh?
Your post is full of minimising statements “they’re just the advertisements.” yes, the advertisements for yet *more* material that eroticise incest.
Strawman arguments Matthew, it’s not just about “nudity.” It’s about women being referred to as “sluts” and “sex toys.” About cosmetically enhanced digitally altered women’s bodies being objectified for men’s pleasure.
you said:
“The best Melinda can come up with is making out that “teen” adult magazines promote paedophilia which is nonsense”
how is this nonsense? A magazine that eroticises having sex with little girls is ok? the women are deliberately made to look young and childlike.
““Disobedient daughter XXX DVD’s…Don’t tell mom!” indicate to me she is referring to the advertisements in the back of the magazines, not the actual content or pictorials (according to one of Classification Board reports, one of the magazines that has been rated RC because of advert at the back of the magazine).”
oh “just” the advertisement in the back of the magazine? Who’d have thought people would get so upset about incest! Problem is not solved by ripping out the advert Matthew, the rest of the magazine is full of references to childhood. Yes, ban the stuff. Kids aren’t “sexy” Matthew.
You keep saying “no solid evidence” what about over 30 child experts Matthew? Psychiatrists, advocates, educators. They have extensive experience in the area of child development and all agree that something needs to be done, but you Matthew are ever so smart and they must *all* be wrong, because you say so right? And the research regarding the sexualisation of children – the American psychological association, the australia institutes report “corporate peadophilia” the UK home office report “sexualisation of young people: review.” All invalid right, and why? Because Matthew W says so.
“All you care about is trying to shape society to conform to your own set of morals and ideals. ”
No Matthew, you want to shape society to conform to *your* own set of morals and beliefs. That could be the only reason why people have to see pornography agains their will. That could be the only reason you are happy for children to continue growing up against a backdrop of “teen sluts,” “sex toys” and “horny asians.”
If the teen magazines make up a “small section of the market” that’s GREAT! Because I would be horrified if they made up a large section of the market. There is no need to keep them, no need to cater to the needs of men who want to ejaculate over an image of a young girl with braces, pigtails and stuffed toys.
You know what Matthew, if you and your friends cannot handle buying porn from an adult shop, then you must be like a child. Here’s a hot tip: get out your phone book and let your fingers do the walking, i’m sure you’ll find an adult shop near you.
It’s incredibly hard to take you seriously when you minimise and validate images that depict incest and peadophilia. When someone tells me that maybe it’s ok to eroticise children – there really is nothing further to talk about.
Grace said ““they’re just the advertisements.” yes, the advertisements for yet *more* material that eroticise incest.”
Even if they were for material “that eroticise incest”, the advertisements are for products and services are not available to buy in Australia.
Grace said “how is this nonsense? A magazine that eroticises having sex with little girls is ok?”
They’re not children, they’re models over 18. Every magazine published in the US where most of these magazines come from holds records available to view by anyone to show proof of the model’s age. The magazines are legal in the US, they’re legal in the UK and the rest of western Europe.
Grace said “Problem is not solved by ripping out the advert Matthew, the rest of the magazine is full of references to childhood”
The Classification Board disagrees with you. Their report on the teen magazine they reviewed said the advertisement was the sole cause for the magazine’s RC classification. One can only assume you think that you think the several hundred “teen” magazines rated by the Classification Board since 1993 shouldn’t be sold even though they have R18+ Category 1 or 2 ratings. It’s a legal product once it’s been classified.
Grace said “You keep saying “no solid evidence” what about over 30 child experts Matthew? Psychiatrists, advocates, educators”.
And where is there research? Published papers, anything? Evidence based policy would be great. I want to see evidence that the display of these magazines (i.e. normal mainstream publications, not the contents of, not teen magazines which the greater majority of newsagents don’t sell) disturbs children. The fact that the magazines have been sold in newsagents since the 1970’s on shelves in public view and that there is no evidence of the adult population being disturbed kind of goes against the whole argument, don’t you think?
Grace said “And the research regarding the sexualisation of children – the American psychological association, […].” All invalid right, and why?”
Because at least that makes no mention of adult magazines (as I clearly pointed out before). Haven’t read the others.
Grace said “No Matthew, you want to shape society to conform to *your* own set of morals and beliefs”
No I’m not. You’re the ones asking for bans on these magazines. I’m not. See the difference here? How the hell am I asking for society to conform to own set of morals and beliefs when I’m not asking to change anything?
Grace said “You know what Matthew, if you and your friends cannot handle buying porn from an adult shop, then you must be like a child”
Right, so as all R18+ publications are going to forced into adult shops (as per the legislation before the Standing Committee of Attorneys General Censorship Ministers to tabled next week), can you please tell me which adult shops will stock acclaimed novels like “American Psycho” and euthanasia books? Do you seriously think book lovers will voluntarily head in porn shops to get a copy of “American Psycho”? Do you think porn shops will actually stock this stuff, let alone magazines? Most adult shops don’t stock magazines anymore, just videos and adult toys.
Grace said “It’s incredibly hard to take you seriously when you minimise and validate images that depict incest and peadophilia.”
Stop confusing the topic. Why should all R18+ publications be forced out of newsagents and bookshops when they aren’t aimed children, aren’t sold to children and don’t contain images of children? You are condemning ALL R18+ publications as pseudo child porn when the great majority aren’t. It’s deceitful. All of the magazines newsagents are classified. Nearly 100% of newsagents use Gordon and Gotch for magazines. Are you suggesting that the company is doing something illegal? If so why does the Classification Board keep giving them Serial Classifications for magazine titles?
“They’re not children, they’re models over 18.”
Read slowly Matthew,…..they are made to look like children. Men who buy these magazines get off on the idea that these are children. The models do not look 18, even if they are. stuffed toys, dummies, references to “daddy.” so they’re legal in other parts of the world? they’re not here Matthew, nor should they be.
“Their report on the teen magazine they reviewed said the advertisement was the sole cause for the magazine’s RC classification.”
We’re talking about more than one magazine Matthew, 1000 call in notices. read the article again.
“And where is there research?”
all around you Matthew, you know how to search for things right?
“no evidence of the adult population being disturbed ”
really? because I see plenty of people putting their hands up to be counted on this issue, on this blog and elsewhere. you just don’t want to acknowledge them. You just claim they’re making it up.
“No I’m not. You’re the ones asking for bans on these magazines. I’m not. See the difference here? How the hell am I asking for society to conform to own set of morals and beliefs when I’m not asking to change anything?”
What ban Matthew? We’re talking about relocating these magazines to adult shops where they belong. Did you look in your yellow pages yet? Changes need to be made to restore an equitable environment. The convenience store is where you pick up bread milk and the latest issue of better homes and gardens, not “britains best boobs” not “desperate for her first time.”
“which adult shops will stock acclaimed novels like “American Psycho” and euthanasia books?”
oh gosh, you know i didn’t think about the impact on my local servo when he can’t stock euthanasia books anymore. what on earth will they do?
“Why should all R18+ publications be forced out of newsagents and bookshops when they aren’t aimed children, aren’t sold to children and don’t contain images of children?”
I think it’s because they “aren’t aimed at children, aren’t (supposed to be) sold to children and….oh Matthew, make no mistake. They contain images of children. If you take a grown woman, subtract any indication of adulthood and replace them with images of childhood, they are then images of children.
A change like this will give you choice and will give me choice.
Which publication do you publish Matthew W?
I find blogging hard enough nevermind with a bully like Matthew W on here.
Grace said “so they’re legal in other parts of the world? they’re not here Matthew, nor should they be.”
Why? Are Australian dumber than Americans the British, the French etc. So you’re esentally saying were a stupid country why has to be censored from our own good because we can’t trusted like a yank, a pom or Frenchman?
Grace said “We’re talking about more than one magazine Matthew, 1000 call in notices. read the article again”
Those magazine haven’t been CLASSIFIED. That’s the point. They’re not RC because the Classification Board hasn’t reviewed them. Not all of them were teen magazines either. One title was “Leg World”.
Grace said “all around you Matthew, you know how to search for things right?”
You and others are making the claims. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. You want we to find your evidence? Uh no, it doesn’t work that way. I want peer reviewed evidence. Anything. Anonymous posts on a blog don’t count. I’ve looked for evidence and peer reviewed papers on the subject. There are none. This should tell you something.
Grace said “What ban Matthew? We’re talking about relocating these magazines to adult shops where they belong” and “oh gosh, you know i didn’t think about the impact on my local servo when he can’t stock euthanasia books anymore”
I’ll explain once more; next week is the Standing Committee of Attorneys General Censorship Ministers. Legislation will discussed that forces ALL R18+ publications into adult shops. It’s likely this will go though at Julie Gale etc have been pushing for this. I’ll repeat again ALL R18+ publications. American Psycho is an R18+ publication. Exit International’s books on euthanasia are R18+ publications. These books are currently legally sold in book stores across Australia like Borders. Do you really think adult shops are going to stock these books? It’s an effective ban. Same with magazines as most adult shops no longer stock them. It’s as good as a ban.
Grace said “They contain images of children. If you take a grown woman, subtract any indication of adulthood and replace them with images of childhood, they are then images of children”.
What rot. A woman is no longer a woman if she dresses like a child? Spare me. If she dresses like a man will she grow a penis? That’s loony tunes stuff.
Grace said “A change like this will give you choice and will give me choice.”
By limiting choice it gives everyone choice? Uh no, it gives you less choice.
Grace said “Which publication do you publish Matthew W?”
None. I have written for JAFWA Magazine (Japanese animation magazine irregularly published by a Western Australian club) and have a blog in which I write about old out of print English adaptations of Japanese animation and live action fantasy films as well as defunct English language magazines who used to cover Japanese animation and live action fantasy films. Fail to see the relevance to this topic though.
Ha! what I find really funny is that Matthew has been told about 3 research papers, but chooses to ignore them.