The self-anointed defenders of our Victorian morals, the editors of the Herald Sun, this week sent the police to raid a local company that produced (and also, therefore, probably possessed a commercial quantity of) pornography. Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995, this can be prosecuted:
- s23 – “(4) A person who possesses a commercial quantity of – (a) films classified X 18+; or (b) unclassified films which would, if classified, be classified X 18+; or (c) films that are a mixture of films referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)- with the intention of selling or exhibiting the films is guilty of an offence.” (Penalty: up to approximately $24,000.)
- s24 – “(1) A person must not, for the purpose of gain, make or produce an objectionable film.” (Penalty: also up to $24,000 – or imprisonment for two years.)
An “objectionable film” is defined in s3 of the Act as one that:
(a) describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; or…
(d) is classified RC or X 18+ or would, if classified, be classified RC or X 18+ or has been, or would be, refused approval, as the case requires;
I presume the “reasonable adult” the police have in mind is Senator Fielding.
It’s probably worth having a quick look here at what precisely makes a film X18+ (as opposed to R18+):
That’s it. Not something that is violent, or degrading, or abusive, or anything like that: simply that it depicts “only sexual content”.
And they mean that quite literally – what is prohibited isn’t the sexual theme (that’s still available in R18+) but actually seeing human biology enacting it. In practice, the R18+ films legally sold in Victorian adult shops are simply X18+ films in which the part of the frame below the waist has been cropped to protect adults from seeing other adults’ genitals. BECAUSE THAT WOULD WARP OUR FRAGILE LITTLE MINDS.
Which is why the police must seize all of it they can find.
“We’re very satisfied with the content we’ve secured.”
Still, keeping the community pure and godly and unsullied by FILTH isn’t the only way our moral betters justify this sort of legislation. There’s also the line that they’re saving women from being exploited. Many porn businesses – particularly in countries where they are all by definition criminal organisations – oppress their employees. They tempt them in with sums of money that appear generous but are a fraction of what they’ll take them for, and then, after they’ve sucked them dry (or vice versa), toss them out on the street. And you can’t expect the State to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing – they’re not record companies, for god sake.
Still, while there may be plenty of problems with the porn industry as it exists today, pretty much all of them would be better dealt with by proper regulation. If sex workers are exploited, it is difficult to see how driving the industry underground has helped. A legal and regulated industry would enable them to unionise, effectively demand proper working conditions and fair compensation, and in other ways protect their rights in a way that the present system does not. The argument that criminalising porn somehow protects women is flimsy at best, given the obstacles it puts in the way of such workers having any agency at all in defending their rights. And as a justification for the state censoring any and all depictions of this major area of the human experience, it’s just offensively inadequate.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: in 2009 why are we spending the community’s resources prosecuting people for filming and photographing sex acts?
(We’ll leave the issue of this call being made by the media company that pioneered photographs of topless women in daily newspapers for another time.)
UPDATE: Sen-Det Steven Boskovski’s remark added to the post, as suggested in comments.
UPDATE #2: Paragraph after photograph added.
52 responses so far ↓
SB // 16 June, 2009 at 4:47 pm
At least they had one happy customer: Sen-Det Steven Boskovski said “We’re very satisfied with the content we’ve secured.”
Chade // 16 June, 2009 at 6:19 pm
That quote… if I was drinking something, it would’ve been sprayed all over my monitor…
Jeremy // 16 June, 2009 at 6:26 pm
It is gold.
Returned Man // 16 June, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Grodscorp: pwrned.
Evan // 16 June, 2009 at 7:17 pm
It’s a good thing that in the print edition of the paper the 1/8th page ad for a Sexyland clearance with $1 DVDS!!!! wasn’t on the same page as this article.
It was about three pages over.
Bruce // 16 June, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“We’re very satisfied with the content we’ve secured.”
Oh dear. Someone has to put that caption to a picture, stat.
Jeremy // 16 June, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Good idea, Bruce… done.
Bruce // 16 June, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Nice choice of pic. It makes people that secure supplies of pornography look like ordinary, wholesome people.
Heck, it makes police look like ordinary, wholesome people.
Sarah // 16 June, 2009 at 11:33 pm
It’s Abby Winters- the tamest, most wholesome porn site ever- and I’m not being facetious, we had a subscription once upon a time… FFS, how can they be boasting about having brought down Abby Winters? I bet that’s why they never said what sites ‘G Media’ run- because the average person would probably be very surprised at just how non-seedy that ‘porn’ actually is…
Keri // 16 June, 2009 at 11:50 pm
It’s like thinking taking Digital Playground down would be a victory for “exploitaiton”
Although if the underage thing is true, there may be a case to answer.
Kitty // 17 June, 2009 at 12:08 am
“We’re very satisfied with the content we’ve secured.”
I’d be smiling like that too.
Anyway, just to clarify:
If sex workers are exploited, it is difficult to see how driving the industry underground has helped.
I’m not sure if you’re saying porn stars are sex workers or just using that as an example. Sex workers don’t always do porn, and vice versa. Also sex workers, in particular, have a union in Scarlet Alliance.
they’re saving women from being exploited
… because only women have sex in porn films? There are no men? Oh, please, save us poor wimmins from ourselves! We don’t know how to make decisions on our own! And we certainly don’t like having sex!
I think that deserves a “pshaw!”
Keri // 17 June, 2009 at 12:14 am
“We don’t know how to make decisions on our own! And we certainly don’t like having sex!”
I made exactly this point elsewhere and was told that “I’m only being told what they want me to hear”
“They” is presumably the men behind the porn film in question – exploiting us. Even when intelligent, eloquent women come out and tell you they’re willing, able and enjoy participating in porn or sex work, we can’t possibly be telling the truth. The idea that women are as comfortable with themselves and with sexual expression as men is dismissed as a furphy sold to us by “Them”
And worse still, at least some of the time this line is put to us by “feminists” who believe that any woman who so “degrades” herself must be controlled by a man.
It drives me insane.
Andy B // 17 June, 2009 at 12:20 am
If they take away my Abby Winters, I will go postal.
Bruce // 17 June, 2009 at 12:55 am
And worse still, at least some of the time this line is put to us by “feminists” who believe that any woman who so “degrades” herself must be controlled by a man.
Oh! It’s like that stupid insult “womanizer”, which implies that if a guy’s had a few more than the average number of female partners, that somehow his partners were gullible, exploitable and whatever other patronising pap that makes the sex-starved accuser feel better about themselves.
Incidentally, I have no problem with women having a few partners either, and I’d resent the implication that I was gullible for having a one nighter with such a woman. Nor the implication that it’d be shallow.
Damn the cruel things people will do to each other in the name of sexual jealousy! Grrr…
I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Bruce // 17 June, 2009 at 12:57 am
Nor the implication…
Whoops. Boolean fail.
Jeremy // 17 June, 2009 at 1:06 am
Kitty – I was using “sex workers” as a general descriptor for people in pornography, although obviously there’s another more specific use for the term. I wasn’t saying anything about the overlap. And yes, I’m sure there are men who are exploited by the industry, too. The defenders of criminalisation tend to talk about “protecting women”, which is what I was responding to.
karl // 17 June, 2009 at 9:52 am
These laws aren’t in place for any moral reasons. If it’s legal to own porn, why would it be illegal to make porn?
But think of how these laws help certain overseas business interests…
btw its still illegal to sell X rated videos in Victoria. So any adult shops you see are technically breaking the law.
SB // 17 June, 2009 at 11:48 am
Good to hear the industry is now populated by sensible mature people who make the wise decision to be degraded. The really good thing about the porn industry is the number of junkies involved. Once you see the needle mark in their arm you know that for a few dollars more will get you unprotected anal and some excellent DVDA shots. And if they look a bit strung out, bring out the Labrador.
zoot // 17 June, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Speaking from experience, SB?
Kitty // 17 June, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I was using “sex workers” as a general descriptor for people in pornography, although obviously there’s another more specific use for the term. I wasn’t saying anything about the overlap.
Sorright. Just clarifying for your readers.
And yes, I’m sure there are men who are exploited by the industry, too.
Ah, whoops. That wasn’t directed at you, sorry, but those who seem to think that women are exploited by the act of having sex – as if they aren’t supposed to do it, and men are.
Bruce // 17 June, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Good to hear the industry is now populated by sensible mature people who make the wise decision to be degraded.
It’s not degradation if they are willing, making informed consent and aren’t put in the position of a critical power imbalance with their employer/client/etc. Of course, it’s probably still (most?) often not the case – hence the need for industry regulation, not policies to push things further underground.
SB // 17 June, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Bruce, why not team up with Dr Nitschke and make some snuff movies as he plies his grisly trade. You could offer the relatives extra inheritance if their loved one decides (in a mature and informed manner) to depart this mortal coil in exotic ways. And imagine the ‘pulling’ power of those who are prepared to engage in sex after they are dead. You could then sell the corpse to cannibals and film the feast as well!
I’m a bit cynical about the calls for regulation. Ultimately the idea of buying someone to perform sex acts is per se degrading. Sex is something that shouldn’t be monetised. Before we do anything along the lines of regulation, we should do some studies on the likely impact on mental and physical health implications for the talent.
Kitty // 17 June, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Ultimately the idea of buying someone to perform sex acts is per se degrading.
Why?
rick68 // 17 June, 2009 at 4:43 pm
WHEN a woman talks dirty to a man it’s four dollars and fifty cents per min., mobile extra. WHEN a man talks dirty to a woman—-it’s sexual descrimination!
SB // 17 June, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Kitty, humans aren’t objects to be bought and sold. You could argue that this happens every time we work for money. I would say that there is a dignified way of arranging an employer/employee relationship, as compared to, say, slavery.
I might be so desperate that I agree to become a slave in return for food and lodgings. This would still not be right.
That sex is deeply personal in a way that is different o other aspects of our lives is widely recognised in society. For example there are special rules dealing with sexual conduct at work. There are special rules for sexual crimes, although they could be dealt with under more general rules relating to assault.
The role sex has in most societies is that it is something special between partners, and violation of that special relationship usually leads to pain and grief for at least one of the parties.
I think that to prevent exploitation there should be limits to what people should be able to do to commodify themselves, particularly in the area of sexual activity.
We have had recent examples of young aboriginal kids selling themselves for petrol and tobacco. To a libertarian this might be perfectly proper, but to me it is disgusting. I don’t think it is merely a matter of regulation or somehow ensuring equal bargaining power between the parties. I don’t think that any such system is viable.
Since we have had legalised prostitution, we have also had issues of sex-slavery where desperate prostitutes are imported from poor countries. No doubt they are hoping to get some money to send back to their families or to save for an education. In the end they are exploited and degraded here, and every now and then the police make a token effort on their behalf.
Bruce // 17 June, 2009 at 8:16 pm
You could then sell the corpse to cannibals and film the feast as well!
Your corpse-hyperbole and the (more serious) like is dealt with at some length in the uncut discussion between Singer and Dawkins in The Genius of Charles Darwin. It can be found here if you are genuinely curious. I share Singer\’s opinion on the matter.
It\’s about 42 mins long mind you, but worth every minute.
Before we do anything along the lines of regulation, we should do some studies on the likely impact on mental and physical health implications for the talent.
I wouldn\’t say \”anything\”… The research itself would need some pre-emptive regulation at least in line with predictable ethical conflicts. I\’m not against the idea of research along these lines occuring before the bulk of the regulation, of course.
Ultimately the idea of buying someone to perform sex acts is per se degrading.
You aren\’t \”buying someone\”, you are paying them for a service. They don\’t become property. And the notion of sex being
especially different from other human interactions – such as cooking for another – is magical thinking.
It isn\’t different per se, only in people\’s minds – and if you aren\’t an involved party the value you place on sex isn\’t particularly relevant!
And hypocritical for anyone taking this stance who has paid for sex through marriage.
The assertion that sex is somehow a special case says more about the psychology of the people making the claim – even if it is a popular claim.
Bruce // 17 June, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Since we have had legalised prostitution, we have also had issues of sex-slavery where desperate prostitutes are imported from poor countries.
And such practices occured before legalisation, when they were probably less detectable of course.
Miss P // 17 June, 2009 at 9:18 pm
You should check out a documentary called \’The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality and Relationships\’. It is a documentary made recently on the porn industry.
Facts are that women are exploited in the porn industry at a greater rate than men. Not only as workers but also in the way they are depicted.
I agree that banning porn will do nothing to lift standards in this industry or to provide a more diverse range of pornographic material. I don\’t support the banning personally though I can see some very serious problems for women who work in the industry.
On the question of agency there are women who would no doubt choose the industry because they enjoy the work. However from what I can see most women don\’t make a free choice. There are usually a variety of other factors that leaves them no choice but to agree to work in porn movies etc.
thevoiceofreason // 17 June, 2009 at 9:19 pm
SB your reglion tells you how to think, some others are free to make up their own mind.
Miss P // 17 June, 2009 at 9:24 pm
http://thepriceofpleasure.com/
That\’s the link to the documentary. University libraries should stock it.
Mondo Rock // 17 June, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The really good thing about the porn industry is the number of junkies involved. Once you see the needle mark in their arm you know that for a few dollars more will get you unprotected anal and some excellent DVDA shots.
When you think about it SB – this argument actually bolsters the case for regulation. The same police currently wasting their resources punishing the sale of pornography could instead spend their time stamping out abuse within it.
If you accept that pornography is here to stay, and I think we must, then surely the best way to guard against the type of damage you warn of is to at least try to regulate it?
Any other position is a bit utopian really.
SB // 17 June, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Bruce:
This is an interesting issue. If it is not something especially different then, of course, I have no case.
Now if I inform my wife that I was over at a friends place and we did some cooking together on the barbecue she is going to take that a whole lot better than if I inform her that I had sex with him. I would venture to suggest that most people in that situation would have the same reaction. The reason for this is that sex is special for most of us.
We may not be especially rational about this, but love (which is still occasionally related to sex these days) is an irrational thing. It is a case of socially sanctioned obsessive compulsive behaviour.
Love is the thing that is the subject of so much of our cultural output, that thing that is glorified in song and in scripture, in movies and in melodrama and magazines, it is the thing that people cherish and strive to attain and maintain in their lives. How crazy is that? The thing that makes people most happy is basically irrational. As you say, it may well be magical thinking, but it beats almost everything else.
Sex in the context of love is wonderful. Sex for money probably doesn’t even produce the satisfaction of a good shit. More importantly, having sex for money is likely to affect self esteem, and self respect. It is likely to make the possibility of a stable long term relationship less likely.
Mondo, if there is a porn industry, then it may be better to regulate it, and make the producers responsible for the long-term damage they do.
There are some issue with this. The first is whether there is more damage done having a large regulated industry, or a very much smaller underground operation. The second is that if regulation means reducing the ‘quality’ of the porn, for example by requiring the actors to wear condoms, or limiting the things that actors may do then you end up with an underground industry anyway.
I suppose driving production offshore, which is what substantive regulation is likely to do is probably good for Australian residents but less so for the places where the production is moved to.
Fitzroyalty // 18 June, 2009 at 1:25 am
For the latest on the Abby Winters debacle see http://indolentdandy.net/fitzroyalty/2009/06/18/the-politics-of-porn-comment-from-inside-the-melbourne-adult-content-industry/
Lynda Hopgood // 18 June, 2009 at 11:04 am
SB – yes, sex is special for most of us (or some of us, or few of us – do we have any statistics on that?) but for others it is FUN. Nothing deep and meaningful; nothing life-changing. Just fun.
It’s just another activity, like skydiving or bungee jumping, that gets your hormones pumping.
For those people (and I’m one of them) being told by others that I can’t possibly be that way and still be a healthy, stable, intelligent, well-functioning human being is rather offensive. What’s right for you isn’t always what’s right for other people, and I thought one of the ways our society has evolved over the years is that we have acknowledged that other people’s sexuality (and how they use it) is none of our business – unless it involves animals, children or a lack of informed consent – and our lawmakers should butt out and leave adults to control their own lives.
I have no trouble at all believing there are men and women in both the sex and porn industries who enjoy what they do, just like there are people who enjoy watching what they do.
I do acknowledge that there may be some issues in terms of drugs, dubious consent/coersion and links with organised crime in both industries, but the just strengthens the argument to regulate, IMHO.
SB // 18 June, 2009 at 11:48 am
Lynda, I had no intention of offending you. My point was not that nobody could enjoy casual sex, but rather that the porn industry involves a lot of people doing things that they later have misgivings about. Linda Lovelace wrote about this in her autobiography.
Ultimately I agree that in a free society, if people want to participate in the making of pornography they should be allowed to do so, and regulation is probably the best we can do to limit exploitation, although it may not be the panacea that some here seem to think it will be.
That doesn’t mean that I like the whole situation or that I think people won’t be degraded. Personally I do think paid sex is degrading, and society would be better off without it, just as I think similarly about drug use. What I find odd is that some people think that I should not have or express such thoughts.
Mondo Rock // 18 June, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Mondo, if there is a porn industry, then it may be better to regulate it, and make the producers responsible for the long-term damage they do.
I’m not sure your mind is as open as you think it is SB – your comment above implies that pornography is damaging to its participants by definition. If you believe that pornography always damages its participants then I can see why you would take the view that outlawing the industry as a whole might be better than regulating it.
Mind you this would also be a good reason to criminalise cigarettes – which I’m not so sure you would support. Freedom means being allowed to self determine – even where the decisions you make are unintelligent or risky.
Have you considered that regulation of the industry might actually reduce (or even remove) the “damage” element of pornography? If you could be convinced of this would you be more willing to support a regulated porn industry?
SB // 18 June, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Mondo:
During the course of this discussion I have come to the view that I stated above, namely:
How is that not open minded?
JohnE // 18 June, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“humans aren’t objects to be bought and sold”
S “Noam Chomsky” B
THR // 18 June, 2009 at 2:20 pm
SB’s views are rather close to Chomsky’s here. There’s a you tube of Noam talking about these issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE&feature=related
I think people are kidding themselves if they think that sex is the same as sky-diving or bocce. There’s a whole series of codified rule regarding sex that mean, like it or not, that it is entirely unique in the realm of human activity, and can’t really be compared to going to a restaurant or something like that.
SB // 18 June, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Chomsky! That’s harsh.
karl // 18 June, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Now that Abbey Winters is under threat, I might turn on the TV instead and watch some brutal murders on CSI….nothing objectionable there.
Miss P // 18 June, 2009 at 11:00 pm
The meanings that are derived from sex are constructed by society and done so in a manner where they are held up as being normal. Sex = romance = love is simply a construct.
Some people like the sex = romance = love scenario. Some just like the sex = romance. Some just like the sex = don’t call me tomorrow or sex = whatever the hell I want it to. Some just see sex as any other service and are quite happy to offer up their services. Its a diverse world we live in. In other words SB anything to do with sex is made up by society and not everyone feels the same way about these rules or norms that are put in place.
SB the reaction of your wife to the scenario you put forward has nothing to do with the ‘real’ meaning of sex. Our society hold monogamy as sacred and heterosexuality is considered the norm. The reality is that this is not the case. None of these things are normal in the true sense of the word. They may be popular but they are not normal. There are plenty of people who enjoy open relationships, there are people who are gay, lesbian and bi etc etc etc. In short sex is special because you will it to be. But to others it can be something quite impersonal.
As I said earlier pornography should not be banned. However there is a real problem at the moment in the industry in the exploitation of women and in the way that women are depicted in porn. These are serious issues that require addressing.
SB // 18 June, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Miss P:
This statement is simply a construct produced by a dead end form of analysis. In those terms everything is a construct, including the need for people to go about deeming everything else to be constructs. This mode of analysis is, in sexual terms, a total wank!
My free will is not a construct, I am who I choose to be. You may not think I have chosen wisely, but there you have it.
People have been obsessed with sex since time immemorial, since at least prehistoric men crafted the first Venus statues. Sex is a special part of the human condition across a wide variety of cultures. If it wasn’t, we’d all get bored and forget to procreate. Any culture that does not attend to the orderly procreation of children will be replaced by one that is more vigorous, as is happening to Western culture in Eurabia right now.
In fact sex is so special, that when combined with love, it gives us our greatest joy and satisfaction. It can be the foundation of our most intimate relationships and the source of our greatest happiness.
Eating is nice, but the drive to eat is more of a negative drive – we get miserable when we get hungry. Sex is mainly an upside attraction. We are driven to it for the benefits it promises. Women are never so happy as when they have just had a good seeing-to, and the same goes for men, although they usually don’t feel the need to talk about it at length.
Through the combination of sex and love we are seeking the possibility of greatness, the thought that with this other person our world will be perfect and everything else irrelevant. That is why so many people do irrational things for love.
Sex is indeed special.
This at least we can agree upon:
JohnE // 18 June, 2009 at 11:55 pm
The idea that human life is sacred is simply a construct too. All of our laws and mores are constructs. Sometimes they are consistent enough to form a social contract, sometimes they aren’t. I don’t think SB is claiming any sort of universal and intrinsic property of sex. He’s remarking on what is the norm, and I think he’s dead right.
cemil // 20 June, 2009 at 1:05 am
People underestimate how powerful the ‘norms’ are in our society. A large amount of people look at porn (myself included) but I don’t know too many guys who would like an ex-pornstar for a wife (despite what they might say at the pub). Imagine introducing her to people you have known for a long time only to realise they already know her! Also you can basically forget a career in public life if you have engaged in any hardcore stuff earlier in your life (outside of California anyway!)
Double standards? Hypocrites? Yes….but society is still very conservative in these areas. I don’t agree with these views but they exist, and they are very widespread.
Imagine if your son brought home his girlfriend to announce their engagement and you realised that you had seen ‘how’ good a girlfriend she is! These are not abstract concepts, they are rooted in societal norms that may be hypocritical but exist nonetheless. I guess it comes back to whether you care about them or not.
Invig // 23 June, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I think porn should not be banned (prohibition being what it is) but there should be serious education/research of/into the dangers of watching it.
Which I discuss here.
Chasy // 23 June, 2009 at 9:51 pm
There has been, mate. The Porn Report was just one of many.
Invig // 23 June, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Had a quick look, not quite what I am talking about.
But notice how the above debate was not informed by any explicit discussion of the effect of porn on the person.
Think about it.
The desire to reproduce is powerful. Sex is meant to be carried out within a relationship. Yet we are comfortable triggering it willy-nilly for distraction.
Myself, I find porn is highly unsettling, and leads to a sense of emptiness. It is false triggering of powerful emotions, that then become numbed. And require more serious porn next time, leading to stuff like bondage and child porn to get a fix eventually.
I don’t think it turns them into rapists of paedophiles necessarily, but certainly changes the wiring so that one’s own partner is seen differently. In short, I believe (based upon personal experience, friends, and logic) that it is unhealthy, and there should be proper research done, and people should be told about its results in a systematic fashion.
The sex industry is another question entirely, but its effects on the sexuality of the sex workers (based upon personal experience and friends stories) is similar, but worse. A numbing and distorting. Bad bad bad.
People should know all this before they leave become sexually mature. Sexual education used to be occur through coming of age rituals and tribal elders. Now it is left to a couple of periods in science class.
Keri // 24 June, 2009 at 12:54 am
Sex education should never be based on the opinion (based on some strange notion that watching people being sexual is “numbing” and “empty”) and anecdotes of friends of one person.
If a study is to be done – for instance, into the long-ter, mental health of individuals who watch porn and it is found to be harmful in a meaningful way that is detrimental to society, I’ll be first in line to say we should change our access, attitudes and education.
Until that day, my attitude will remain “Each to his own” and bristling at suggestions that watching porn means you’re going to end up watching child porn or equating bondage – a consensual activity undertaken by mature people – with the violation and rape of children.
Seriously – you think bondage is on the same level as child porn?
Invig // 24 June, 2009 at 9:18 am
No, that.s not the point I was making. Nothing wrong with bondage* per se; it’s that watching porn can lead to two possible scenarios:
a) You get bored of it and give it a rest for a while
or,
b) You search for porn that will maintain the levels of stimulation experienced initially (same logic as with junkies chasing their first heroin fix)
Just curious Keri (and this is where anonymity comes in handy) what is your experience of porn? Of friends watching porn? Do you/they consume it regularly and at a ‘consistent dose’, or do the levels wax and wane?
*and I had a friend who liked looking at under-age porn but was definitely not a paedophile. And yes I found it disturbing nonetheless, especially when he showed me. But I found his usage level generally very disturbing, hours a day masturbating is not healthy.
Invig // 24 June, 2009 at 9:28 am
He also liked looking at all kinds of other weird shit. Like Thai lady-men.
Kat // 7 July, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I agree about the difficulty unionising if your industry is underground. I think the worst thing about the story was how little the girls get paid for their efforts. What a rip off. Definitely too young or desperate to know better.