Getting aroused by watching something and masturbating to it creates a link in your brain that affirms that thing is sexy, but if you have any idea of the consequences of following that thing in the real world (if it is somebody who appears to be a minor) then you would understand the potential damage you could inflict on others and yourself. (I realise some are unable to tell the difference.)

Anyway, isn’t porn about stimulating the imagination? Isn’t it our imagination that gets us off? Isn’t the context that sex is in, and the histories that the parties involved bring to it, as important as physical stimulation? In this sense, porn is valuable, even (and I might get stuff thrown at me for this) if it does excite fantasies that would be extremely damaging to people if they were to be carried out in the real world.

I agree with Ms Naughty that it is bullshit to try to curb thinking about a topic. Everything needs to be thought about. EVERYTHING. Doesn’t a 13 year old kid ask themselves if they would fuck their sister? Isn’t it an important question to be asked and deeply thought about?

Obviously, I don’t favour sexual intentions directed toward children. But this isn’t really what we’re discussing. What we’re discussing is the idea of it, and that should be thought about, just like any other aspect of sexual imagination.

Sexual fantasy is a very strange beast, and one that is probably often shoved under the bed out of sight. (But always within arm’s reach.)

On the other hand, a lot of porn is shit and just plays on our sexual desire to get our dollars.

Anyway, I’ve blogged about this.

It is legal for adults to suck lollipops; they aren’t just for kids. It is legal for adults to wear school girl outfits, indeed this is a fairly popular costume. It is legal for adults to put their hair into piggy-tails. It is legal for an adult to do all three and have sex at the same time – even with a third adult watching. The presence of the camera should be irrelevant.

When it comes to depictions, that is text based stories, cartoons and computer generated images, everything should be permitted. You may be able to argue libel or slander, if the depiction is obviously a representation of a real person, but if no actual person is harmed, I don’t see on what basis fiction can be legitimately banned. (There is a potential future problem here: Computers are rapidly reaching the point where they can generate images that are indistinguishable from reality. A computer generated image of child abuse will be a difficult problem.)

This is why we allow violence depictions in media. While the acts depicted are illegal, it is not illegal to give the impression of violence, nor is it illegal to write or draw about acts of violence.

Anyway, that’s a little beside the point. I too was impressed with how quickly the story went viral. It is a little bit of a pity that indisputable documentation of the bans occurring hasn’t been produced, although the CB’s non-answer is pretty telling. Overall, I think this is a tremendous boon. It is an easy to sell argument against such censorship.

But this is such a difficult topic with so much potential to cause irrational responses, I’d almost rather not get involved in such a discussion. I just know I’ll end up misrepresented. When it comes to drawing a line… well, yes. But where? And by whom? And how do you stop the line from moving once it’s established? While the “appears under 18″ rule seems to be intended to censor content that appeals to pedophiles, it can easily be used against more ethical magazines/films/websites. I’m sure there are models on Abby Winters who are over 18 but who may, thanks to their genetic makeup, look younger. The intention may not be to appeal to “base instincts” but the Classification Board can rule that it’s RC – essentially child porn. I think that’s exactly the situation I’m arguing against.

The line is moving right now. Conservatives are pushing it onward. The mandatory net filter is proof of that. I feel the need to speak up for free speech in the face of that, even if it means I have to put myself on “the wrong side”.

I guess this argument makes me an “extreme libertarian” in some people’s eyes. I’m not sure that I am because part of me says yes, ban the fuckers. But I do believe in the “marketplace of ideas” and I also try and operate on the principle of “where’s the harm?” If an unbiased scientist can offer me real proof of harm, well sure, draw the line, ban away.

While Fiona Patten was blasted in some quarters for bending the truth a bit (well hey, she IS a politician now), it really seems that the Classification board ARE factoring in breast size when making these decisions. One wonders how European and American men cope with stuff like Hustler’s Barely Legal, yet Australian men can’t.

I’m also none too surprised that Julie Gale of Kids Free 2B Kids has popped her head into the debate at Crikey and actually said her little group has been “helping” the Classification Board. Seriously what the hell do pollybagged adult magazines with only the model’s head and the magazine’s masthead showing have to do with children? Truly, people like Julie Gale are the true exploiters of children. They use them to ban stuff they dislike.

I would really hate to see the end of R18+ Category 1 magazines in this country. I do love stuff like Paul Raymond’s titles (Mayfair, Men’s World, Club etc). Just the right amount explicitness I like and no hardcore stuff. Plus a wide range of body and breast types (though I would like some more women like Aria Giovanni) as well as a good selection of colours and nationalities (and lots of brunettes!). Except not enough Asian women! Have to hunt down Hong Kong magazines for that.

The Hustler mags mentioned certainly do have provocative titles like “Barely 18″, and the models are shot with a youth slant. I’m an erotica producer, and (even) I find them questionable. I don’t think it’s clear where the line should be, and from your post, I don’t think you are either?

Presumably you’d agree there DOES have to be a line somewhere, right?