Paul Vincenti, Mosta
Pornography laws
In their attack on Article 208 of the Criminal Code, the Front Against Censorship has suggested a legal clause which allows for the distribution and production of pornography as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law. It is a well-known documented fact that children are involved in the production of pornography and it is impossible to validate the ages of some of these actors.
The Front's proposals at first glance seem to be praiseworthy but just how exactly can anyone guarantee that a woman is not being used as a prop for sex and that she has not been coerced into the making of a porn movie?
How does one determine whether a woman apparently willingly taking part in consensual acts in a porn movie has not actually been bought from international human traffickers?
And just how is pornography any better for society even if it is a little "cleaner"? Laws are only effective if they can be enforced.
97 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Aug 4th 2010, 16:40
There are a number of compelling statistics that suggest that pornography does have profound social consequences.
For example, of the 1400 child sexual molestation cases in Louisville, Kentucky, between July 1980 and February 1984, adult pornography was connected with each incident and child pornography with the majority of them. Extensive interviews with sex offenders (rapists, incest offenders, and child molesters) have uncovered a sizable percentage of offenders who use pornography to arouse themselves prior to and during their assaults.
Police officers have seen the impact pornography has had on serial murders. In fact, pornography consumption is one of the most common profile characteristics of serial murders and rapists.
MPs, fight pornography with all your might!
Joe Xuereb
Jul 23rd 2010, 12:16
Readers, please excuse the tpyos and other shortcomings for which I make no apologies. I write how I think, seamlessly. And I submit without editing. Nothing convoluted in this one. This one lives with a passion, a vengeance. How people live their lives is their business. I choose to live mine honestly, unafraid of hell-fire since there ain't none.
Yello Brick should, of course, have read 'yellow brick road' - this for those who are not fans of Dorothy.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 11:33
@JoeXuereb
On medical grounds I tend to skip over most of your rambling comments but my eyes caught your allegation that I am a mentor to some Alex. I do not know the gentleman at all but I guess that the irrelevant murdered "impiccato" from a London bridge who escapes your memory could perhaps be a Roberto Calvi.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 23rd 2010, 01:11
3) Incidentally, this curiosity experienced by respectable elderly gentlemen on beaches - I cannot see an elderly married women ogling a twelve-year old boy. Or a homosexual man of any age ogling an eleven-year old boy. I cannot explain it but I just cannot see it. If the man ogled the youngster to the exclusion of any other adult male partner, he would be classified as a paedophile. But paedophilia is not homosexuality. Paedophilis is an entirely different kettle of fish. And, potentially at least, much more prevalent than we like to think. As someone famously said (whether they did or didn't is beside the point), if people were asked about their imagined sexual dalliances and they answered truthfully, one would indeed have his flabbered head blown off into the stratosphere like tante's niece Dorothy astride her, the tante's, gastra'ed aspidistra with Felic, her beloved mongrel (the dog mated with a cat?)dog hanging on for dear life onto her pigtails as they zoomed off to the Yellow Brick.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 23rd 2010, 00:48
2) Thankfully, he does not act upon his fantasies. Most elderly men wouldn't. How do I know these things? Well, MY research has meant me playing the field so there are things I just know, sense. I was saying - some men would act on this prurient curiosity, hopefully not many. Some men, the more pious look at the young girl and start crossing themselves to chase away the 'devil'. That is beside the point. The fact that he 'chased away the devil/temptiation' proves my point. The point being that, potentially, paedophilia is POTENTIALLY much more common than we like to admit. I see human sexuality for what it is, strongly instinctive but to be handled with care. People who won't touch it under any circumstance, they tend to have hobbies that keep their fingers occupied. They tend to be very judgemental. They also tend to believe surveys and statistics that somehow shore up whatever they are about.
Incidentally, this curiosity experienced by respectable elderly gentlemen on beaches - I cannot see an elderly married women ogling a twelve-year old boy.
continued
Joe Xuereb
Jul 22nd 2010, 23:51
2) I cannot recall the name of the murdered man who was found dangling from some London bridge. Drat!! I could verify the case if I knew the name of the 'impiccato' (the hanged man).
Alex, as your mentor Saliba rightly says 'a belief that Christianity shares with other religions................ilemma is whether to ignore them with contempt'. Different religions but one god - therein's the conflict. For instance, by that premise Muslims in Malta could worship in our churches. But no! He who would defend his faith goes on to say:
'http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
There's a contradiction there somewhere.
Re: the'to ignore them with contempt' bit. Ignore them by all means; you know their names (the usual culprits), you know their style and their consistent content., This content can be (without it meaning to be, let's make this clear) threatening. So to ignore and self-censor is advisable. But with contempt?'. Contempt, in the person harbouring it, plays havoc with the digestive system, diminishes the quality of life, the spleen, etc. And in the end it's hardly worth it. I mean, commenters here are merely discussing a subject; they may have different views. But in the end, it is all friendly banter. Really.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 22nd 2010, 23:30
1) @Alex Ellul. I do rather resent being called evil because I openly live a godless life (I was going to say, 'because I openly BELIEVE there ain't no god).
n life I prefer to know. If there are instances where the immediate practicality is to BELIEVE (as in, I believe the flight to Malta leaves at 7.15) - I, automatically, would only say 'I believe' knowing full well that what I believe one instant can be verified in a minute. You're a bright guy, you know what I mean. Irresponsible sexual activity can be catastrophic and has other pitfalls. I did my 'research' by playing the field and reading, naturally. For me, obeying the diktats of an angler turned sage is not an option.
Ellul, talking about evil people who undermine religion, pornography industry, mafia, money-laundering in the same breath is unfair to commenters here. Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the Vatikan that was somehome involved in an Italian 'financier' who was murdered in London a number of years ago. I seem to recall Mafia involvement.
continued
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 22nd 2010, 17:17
@Kevin Cassar
There is a great difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
An atheist concludes that since he is not impressed with the arguments in favour of the existence of God, then God does not exist. According to him an undiscovered rare plant confined to the thick forest of Brazil cannot exist because there is no scientific proof of its existence. Could anything be more stupid?
An agnostic would reason differently. He would say that he does not know if the rare plant exists or not.
It is not true that “EVERYONE on the planet is agnostic about God …”. Millions of believers are satisfied with the evidence at their disposal, for example, the purposeful, organized complexity of the observed universe that cannot be ascribed to pure chance. It postulates the existence of a creator.
In their overweening pride, atheists insist that nothing exists beyond what they themselves understand and what they accept as proof. They ignore the fact that new discoveries are being made all the time and these new discoveries do not come into existence only after they are discovered and brought to their attention.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 22nd 2010, 19:23
According to your definitions then, I am neither atheist nor agnostic nor theist. Being satisfied with a wild guess because one has no better explenation does not define knowledge. Most people on the planet used to be satisfied with the notion that the sun revolved around the earth, and perhaps, based on the information available at the time, they were justified in believing that. It still did not constitute knowledge though and we all know how that turned out. So I'll stick with the real definition of the words, while you can choose to believe that yours is correct.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 22nd 2010, 21:12
@KevinCassar
I avoid discussing personalities and that includes you. You are entitled to apply my definitions in any way you think fit as long as you do not ascribe your sophistry to me.
Alex Ellul
Jul 22nd 2010, 14:10
cont'd Would they send their own daughters to prostitute themselves in front of cameras for the perverted pleasure of perverted people who would not really care if its child porn or not. The line is so thin.
Read the link provided by Martina Salerno:
She recently interviewed a number of men in prison who had committed rape against children. All were habitual users of child pornography. "What they said to me was they got bored with 'regular' porn and wanted something fresh. They were horrified at the idea of sex with a prepubescent child initially but within six months they had all raped a child."
Kevin Cassar
Jul 22nd 2010, 23:13
I have not read the link by Martina Salerno and don't think I really need to because all the answers gathered in the interviews are circumstantial. She could have asked them also what their favourite colour was and maybe provided us whi share the same favourite colour with a warning that we could turn out to be rapists or paedophiles. A similar census was taken in US prisons where according to the gathered statistics, the vast majority of inmates believed in God. Does that mean that people who believe in God are criminals? I'd say no but your conclusion is up to you.
Joe Fenech
Jul 22nd 2010, 12:26
..and once we used to call them Sex Education videos!
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 22nd 2010, 12:16
@AlexEllul
You may have noticed that there is a small but noisy local pressure group whose main purpose in life seems to be to keep a permanent lookout for topics that could possibly be diverted into an assault on Christian morality that is based on the existence of God - a belief that Christianity shares with other religions. The dilemma is whether to ignore them with contempt or to react to their irrelevant, provocative and mischievous propaganda. I hope this answers your question.
Alex Ellul
Jul 22nd 2010, 14:07
Agreed, but the greatest mistake id to ignore them, because in due time, when the good would have ignored the evil, the latter would have taken hold of society. Evil rules when the good do nothing. Of course, I will be attacked by the cohorts for drawing a line and calling them evil, but inherently that is what porn is and that is what porn producers and their puppet props are. Evil. They are involved directly or indirectly in Mafias, drugs, human trafficking, money laundering, and internet heists on private bank accounts sometimes based on blackmailing.
Should we let these criminals and their puppet props rule the roosts? Never. I will not let my conscience sleep. cont'd
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 22nd 2010, 20:29
I am in full agreement. My own choice is to defend Christ and his Church and therefore I respond strongly and logically even though I know that I will be accused of being a fundamentalist Taliban among other insults. My guiding principle is to acknowledge Christ before men as He expects of me.
Jesmond Mifsud
Jul 22nd 2010, 11:46
People who are disgusted by porn are prudes who were brought up to view sex as wrong and degrading. They probably only view sex as something that should only happen between a married couple and only for the reason of procreation. Wake up y'all! Not everyone is sexually repressed in this world.
If producing porn becomes legal, it would be more easily regulated. Abuse in the adult industry is not as common as this article would like to make you believe. You cannot link it with, for example, prostitution. People in the adult industry have rights as do people working in the office environment. They get paid (quite a lot) regularly, and work in a secure and safe environment, doing something that is normal, natural and enjoyable. Anything other than this is, and should be illegal.
Alex Ellul
Jul 22nd 2010, 13:54
Your mostly,if not totally wrong in your assesment of whoever disgarees with your opinions. You think that legaising the production of porn will better suit society. It,s like saying that it would be better if abortion is legalised because then it would be better regulated. We can also have better regulated bank hold ups, murders, i mean taking other people's lives in a legal way..
Let me tell you what was in the Italian news today: One illuminated judge has proposed that raping a woman or even a child should not be punishable by imprisonment. Of course, the minister of justice was quite hot under the collar and I hope that this judge (is he a child-rapist?) will find a better regulated position, like painting the centre lines of the major highways, or cleaning 34th floor windows without a safety harness. This is what the new (im)morality is giving us.
Jesmond Mifsud
Jul 22nd 2010, 16:53
Alex,
I'm talking about regular porn. Y'know: two ADULTS CONSENTING to having sex in front of a camera. they get paid for doing it, and people have fun watching it. At the end of the day everyone leaves happy. This is not the case with abortion (I don't agree with it), bank hold ups and other crimes which, in some way or other, limit the freedoms of others.
Joe Fenech
Jul 22nd 2010, 09:21
"it is impossible to validate the ages of some of these actors"
Anyhow, child labour is illegal all round the western world in all the domains.
Alex Ellul
Jul 22nd 2010, 14:14
Even drugs, murders, robberies and other evils are illegal in the western world. So where's your logic? But wait a minute, doesn't one need a brain first to produce logic? What being crazy about porn actually does is, actually, drain the brain from most of the grey matter and just leave the S.E.X. cells, occupying the resulting great emptiness between the ears.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 21st 2010, 23:36
@ George Vella. Thank for admiring my guts.
Religious belief is taught us so it's taken in through the intellect and emanates from there,- although with some here it finds its would out of unmentionables - colouring our perceptions (not forgetting we're all born godless apart from the joke that is original sin, what?! what?!). Thank you - but no thanks - for your convoluted definition of a/theism. I don't buy it. Your theism colours your life and my lack of it colours mine. You expect, and are promised, a reward for your efforts. I'll have none of that, thank you. And of course I could go on for hours talking about the absence of what you'd call benefits of theism. I am sure you could talk for hours about the benefits and perks of your steadfast belief in whatever you want to call it. I await an abridged version which should suffice for my purpose.
No thanks to you for demolishing me. You'll have to try harder. Don't forget, you're sparring with a queer, a spitting non-swallowing, one averse to gullibility. Mezzo secolo in London.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 21st 2010, 23:01
@ Saliba, if I say I am an atheist and you say I'm boasting - I have no control over what you think and frankly, it is none of my business.
I could claim agnosticism instead of atheism. In a sense, that is good enough (to eliminate any equivocation because I really have no time for what I see as your interference) as existence of a god or gods is not proveable any more that their non-existence (although science seems to have the upper hand). That said, the important thing is to push myself that little bit further and live as an atheis and the wonderful implcations of that state of mindt. No sitting on the fence for this queer (now THAT is boasting! with more than a pinch of cheek - ouch!!). Talking about science, I don't give science much thought these days. It's there, it's a bonus, something to leaf through on a whim. For me plausibilities is where it's at.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 17:14
@JoeXuereb
It is you who should be "doing some research" on what atheism means and the difference between atheism and agnosticism. You have been boasting of being an atheist without knowing that atheists deny that God exists and that (wrongfully) science proves conclusively that God does not exist. On the other hand agnostics maintain that they do not admit that the existence of God has been proved to their satisfaction. Spot the difference!
Kevin Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 18:32
Wrong on two counts:
1) It was not Joe Xuereb who made that comment
2) Atheism is lack of belief in a God. Whether you want to accept this is up to you. There is a difference between lack of belief and the claim of non existance. Look it up.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 21:39
@KevinCassar
I confirm that it was actually you who supplied the gratuitous advice to me to do some research about the meaning of atheism when you poked your nose in an exchange of comments between Joe Xuereb and myself. My explanation of the difference between atheism and agnosticism proves that it is not I who needs to look things up.
Alex Ellul
Jul 21st 2010, 22:19
I don't see how and why religion shold come into this discussion, God or no God, being an atheist, agnostic, gnostic, theist or believer, filth remains filth and that is what porn stuff is. Filth. Everyone is free to live his life as he wishes as long as it does not impinge on the will and freedom of others. Some choose to live in the forest and green pastures and some like to frolic in the mud.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 22nd 2010, 07:53
@KevinCassar
I agree that it was you, not Joe Xuereb, who intruded into the exchange between us and who challenged me to "do some research" . You are now repeating that challenge by your "Look it up". I do not need to do any "looking up". I have explained the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism". It is you who fail to differentiate between them.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 22nd 2010, 12:47
I never mentioned agnosticism, mainly because I feel it is a useless term and I shall explain why I think so. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is that an agnostic is someone who does not know (gnosis = knowledge, which in this context refers to knowldge about God/s) while an atheist is one who does not believe. Knowledge demands evidence and demonstrability, and therefore EVERYONE on the planet is agnostic about God, hence the uselessness of the term.
Paquita Sultana
Jul 21st 2010, 17:11
to the Kevins of this commentary.... sure there are women who may enjoy porn - two wrongs don't make a right though, especially if children and hostage/kidnapped women are being used against their will. Anyway your typical male comments don't phase me... minimizing the negative effects on society & relationships of porn is simply arrogant, chauvinistic and pathetic.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 18:37
If you want to take that kind of attitude, it's fine with me. Just know that the feeling is absolutely mutual and your comments and those of people who think like you don't "phase us" one tiny bit. Good luck on your crusade against porn. I'll be the first to congratulate you if you manage to wipe it out.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 19:36
“…especially if children and hostage/kidnapped women are being used against their will.”
I don’t endorse that. Nobody should be forced to do something against his or her own will. And anyone who forces someone into sex work should be charged with kidnapping, assault, and perhaps even rape. Any material resulting from such activities should be confiscated and burned up as nobody has the right to benefit from such crimes. Having said that, I guess you know that every industry has its abuses, and that’s why I believe that every industry should be regulated, including pornography. If you really want to improve the working conditions of sex workers, target the abusers, not the industry itself.
“Anyway your typical male comments don't phase me... minimizing the negative effects on society & relationships of porn is simply arrogant, chauvinistic and pathetic.”
I’m not belittling them. I do acknowledge that pornography has its dark sides. It’s undeniable. But I’m also capable of identifying its positive function and benefits. I do acknowledge your concerns, but since you’re so hysterically repressed, you just can’t help ignoring the other side of the coin.
Alex Ellul
Jul 21st 2010, 22:16
Kevin Saliba: Can you please identify which are porn's dark sides and which are its positive functions and benefits? I need to be enlightened by your great knowledge, knowledge which the modern world has yet to come to know about.
The one thing Imhave been led to believe, braiwashed, is that porn producers occupy the deepest level of the low-down filthy section of the cinematic business. But it seems that I must be wrong.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 03:08
We all know about the negative aspects of pornography. I come from a leftist background, and in my books capitalist exploitation is a no-no, particularly sexploitation, as it involves the violation of intimate physical boundaries and of bodily autonomy. We don’t need to repeat ourselves.
But there’s much to be said about the positive aspects of sex industry, especially now given that sex work and pornography in particular rank among the most exciting emergent fields of inquiry in humanistic academic circles, most notably in gender studies, applied ethics and film studies.
Some of the leading academics who partake in such debates are pro-sex/pro-porn feminists. Their reasons for describing pornography as a potentially beneficial industry for men and women alike might vary, but they all share a consensus that they don’t need any big daddies taking charge of their sexual autonomy by telling them what to do with their own bodies or what they should or shouldn’t view. Such feminists find your attitude patriarchal at best, demeaning at worst. Feminism shouldn't be about disempowering women by blocking the channels through which they can express their sexual personalities, but about empowering them to use their sexual agency as they dim fit.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 03:10
Even the easy access to pornography or to anything that can help women explore their bodies and fantasies should also be considered as a legitimate women’s right. In my view, women who are indifferent to this entitlement are simply limiting their sexual possibilities. I find it ridiculous, for example, that a woman (or a man for that matter) living in this our country doesn’t even enjoy the freedom to purchase a sex toy for his/her own private enjoyment from a legally licensed outlet. Sexuality in this country is totally suppressed – a perfect environment for breeding aggressive male sex freaks and sexually neurotic women. But then again, you can’t ask much from a country which is still debating the introduction of basic civil liberties such as freedom of artistic expression, cohabitation and divorce.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 03:10
If radical feminists are really serious about rectifying the political inequities that characterizes a large amount of the porn available in the sex market, they’d better strive towards enhancing their executive presence and creating their own erotic vocabulary and iconography within the industry itself, as no matter what they say, porn is there to stay.
Relatively speaking, the graphic representation of female fetishism in standard porn is sorely absent. To their credit, there are several erotic artists, most of them women, who have managed to produce significant amends to this situation, but sadly, the vast majority of people consuming sexual commodities have little time or patience to handle the intricate ambiguities of erotica, and instead they tend to resort to crude representations of sexuality for immediate titillation.
Any efforts to keep consenting adult women from partaking into pornography will only worsen the situation, as there can be no gender equality and a veritable balance of power in the commercialization of sexual exhibitionism without an appropriate female representation in the said industry. I think it was Francis Bacon who wrote that “orgasm is power. He who controls the orgasm, controls the world.”
Kevin Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 03:13
Outlawing pornography will only make it dodgier, thus allowing the same criminals that you despise to tighten their viscous grip on the bodily integrity of millions of men, women and children. Some sex workers are smart enough to start their own businesses in safe and decent environments, but in countries where sex work is illegal they just have to fend on their own while their human rights are vandalized in an underground anarchic bed-lams.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 23rd 2010, 03:15
But perhaps this is the appropriate place to discuss such issues, since commentators of your kind are not open to dialogue. As soon as somebody shakes you off from your comfort zones by challenging your assumptions and prejudices, you resort to hysteria, mockery, insults and what not, so no significant intercourse of ideas can ever take place. Having been subjected to 16 years of erotophobic Cathoholic Catechism, I understand that pornography and Catholic morality make strange bedfellows. I’m well versed enough in Catholic Catechism to comprehend your intolerance towards the idea of people, particularly women, peeping out of their claustrophobic erotic closets by being daringly open and staunchly honest about their sexiness. Catholicism is about suppression, pornography is about transgression; the former denies, restrains and condemns sexual authenticity, the latter, at least in parts, acknowledges it, liberates it and celebrates it.
And just for the record, I’m not some avid consumer of pornography. While several of my intellectual and artistic activities do revolve around the erotic, the vast majority of porn strikes me as aesthetically wanting and sexually naïve. But I also happen to feel the same about Pope Ratzinger, but that’s hardly a reason for arguing against his presence.
Paquita Sultana
Jul 21st 2010, 16:48
@Ms Morgenson
you cannot claim to be a feminist when the fundamental belief of feminists is to oppose pornography. Porn contributes to the male-centered objectification of women and thus to sexism. It's entire presentation eroticizes the domination, humiliation and coercion of women. How feminist of you... you're just here to market your name and movies. Please go do so on an adult website, not here. But please get your head out of the sand and stop fooling yourself into thinking that porn does not exploit women or is designed to make them look INFERIOR to men. You are not as ''free'' as you claim to be my dear. By allowing yourself to ''play act'' as though you are being abused and used by strangers, you are being completely hypocritical to your claim of ''empowerment'.
Lastly, we're talkin about MINORS and women who are being held hostage against their will in porn.... not 'consenting' adults as yourself.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 19:39
"you cannot claim to be a feminist when the fundamental belief of feminists is to oppose pornography."
Not true at all. Some feminists are opposed to pornography, some others are somewhat indifferent to it, others endorse it.
“Porn contributes to the male-centered objectification of women and thus to sexism…”
Humans are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. Saying that pornography objectifies human beings means nothing – objects do not have sexuality, only sentient beings do. No one gets offended if you present a man or a woman as "brains" or as “spirit”. If one had to focus on a person's intellectual abilities to the exclusion of his or her other features, would that pass as debasing? I guess not. So why is it degrading to focus on our sexuality? Have you ever noticed that it’s always our sexual dimension that raises the eyebrows? Can I be blamed then for believing that all this fuss about porn is largely a symptom of a sexually repressed society and an indication of fear of the erotic?
f vincenti
Jul 21st 2010, 16:25
How sad that some of you lack the courage to contribute to a stronger, wiser society. It's attitudes like yours that fuel the porn industry. You directly contribute to the abuse of many women & children all over the world by your comments. Porn focuses on the blatant meaningless sex of strangers who have just met; no emotional bond, no committment or love for each other. It's a fantasy of raw sexual gratification with no care for the person being ''used''. So what most of you are saying is that you are proud to see girls that look old enough to be your niece being taken advantage of? And what you are really saying is that you willingly tune in to scenes of women who may well be there against their will? What message are you really sending out to your friends & family here....I wonder if your opinions would change the next time you click onto a dodgey site & find your 16 year olds face staring back at you. What would you do then to try and control abuse of minors & hostage women?
Megan Morgenson
Jul 21st 2010, 15:59
I'm a feminist and a sex workers rights activist, and I watch porn. I love porn. I think porn has it's place in society, but of course only support consenting actors/actresses as well as consensual adult viewers. I also support a good foundation regarding lifetime comprehensive sex education which allows porn to be viewed for it's intended purpose: entertainment and exploration.
What I find more degrading then whatever position a consenting female may be in while trying to make a living or explore her own sexual fantasies are others not thinking she has the capabilities to make that choice, or even mistake, for herself. It smacks of still needing a "Daddy" to protect us, and that women are not capable of staying out of harms way otherwise. In my opinion, it is a way to perpetuate dis-empowerment of women by supporting the idea we need to be rescued and can't think for ourselves. Allow us to make our own choices, and mistakes, and figure it out for ourselves.
Robert Agius
Jul 21st 2010, 14:22
For those speaking against pornography and who speak about the effects.....
Pornography exists for 1 reason - PROFIT!!! Economy is all about supply and demand (there must be a huge demand). Oh! and hope you do not start to argue about controlled capitalism after especially after the financial crisis. What's your next plan. Ban capitalism?
I came across this comment from a link one of you posted...
'I've always found it odd that prolonged exposure to porn has absolutely no effect on the academic observer in anti-porn studies. This contrasts with average people that are somehow turned into paedophile rapists almost instantly.
Is there some genetic immunity that academic researchers have that we don't know about? It sounds like a good subject for another study.'
Paquita Sultana
Jul 21st 2010, 13:42
to the men out there 'defending porn'. you defend porn in for your own disgusting reasons. please dont insult women by calling it 'art'. please don't use excuses of making it ok that sometimes underage girls/boys ''star'' in this filthy habit only because unfortunate sweatshops exist around the world (two wrongs dont make a right). And as for any one of you who think that the way those women behave in porn movies is how REAL women behave sexually, you're all very wrong & have had your brains messed up by sickening scenes of sexual dominance & control. Do yourselves, your daughters, your wives, GF's and mothers a favour, grow up, clean up your act and use the internet to do something of value to improve your IQ's rather than temporarily relieve your dwindling libido's. WELL DONE PAUL VINCENTI.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 15:46
Yesterday I have posted a question, but nobody answered. My inquiry was simply a legal question about literature and I had no intention to discuss the benefits and/or harms of pornography, but I think that most commentators here went out of subject.
I shall paste my question again:
"So, in view of the latest amendments to the laws regulating pornography, what would happen if, say, I write and publish an explicit short story about two prebuscent children experimenting with their sexuality, or if I write a piece of prose about the compulsive obsessions of an adult paedophile? Would I be guilty of producing and disseminating paedophilic pornographic material? Bearing in mind these laws, are writers free to explore the aforesaid themes in their works without finding themselves on the wrong side of the law?
Thank you."
Is it only me that thinks that these new amendments will unarguably restrict even further the freedom of artistic expression in the country?
Kevin Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 16:24
Dear Paquita,
The message you wrote is extremely judgemental, for so many reasons - some of which i'll quote here:
1) You're a woman and have absolutely no idea of how men feel or think - you might have formed an opinion based on what you think, but it's irrelevant and extremely unacurate especially when you generalize. It's kinda like me giving a description of pms pains or childbirth experience.
2) Most men can distinguish between fantasy and reality. Just because someone may fantasize about being superman does not mean that he will try to fly off a cliff or stop a speeding bus. Similarly, porn can be a way of fantasizing about things that one would not do in real life.
3) The reference to IQ was your most silly argument. Unless you have an IQ of over 160 and can provide evidence that porn reduces IQ, I suggest you think twice about making such comments.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 16:44
Paquita,
are you aware that even women love porn? Are you aware that there are numerous feminists with remarkably high IQs that are pro-porn?
I guess not.
Even women love porn. Get over it.
Karl Consiglio
Jul 21st 2010, 02:00
@Joe Zammit,
It does not drain our bank accounts, there's many a free site. About draining our energy, most often that's precisely the big idea many want it in the first place, to release the devil you are always warning us about, its much better than keeping him locked up inside you.
Robert Attard
Jul 21st 2010, 00:14
sometimes feminism confuses me: if the woman is dressed up to much its degrading (e.g. burqa) if she is dressed up too little , its also degrading!!
P.S and have you noticed the looks of most militant feminists?
Robert Attard
Jul 21st 2010, 00:04
I see your point but then again you can say the same thing about most chinese products. What garantee do we have that workers have not been exploited or that minors were not involved in the production of such products.
Many countries that legalise pornography require that certain documents are filed to ascertain that everybody was of legal age and has willfully agreed to take part in the film.
My point is that there is a legal way to make sure that exploitation is avoided.
The question we should all ask is whether pornography is really harmful to society.
Most adults have no problem watching people in perfectly natural activities so why should an adult have a problem watching someone having sex? why should it be alright for someone to do it but wrong if he watches others do it??
also keep in mind that studies show that Scandinavia and Japan, where liberal attitudes to pornography go hand in hand, have low rates of sexual crime against women.
P.Cameron
Jul 20th 2010, 22:50
Sory if i sound rather bias or boring, although porn does exist,and also there are many who tell us or preach to us that such material is bad for the soul etc etc., but come on these are the people who actually tend to be the culprits behind closed doors, and this includes just about everyone, let those without sin cast the first stone or something to that effect,, personnally its not my cup of tea but be fair lets not be hypocrites eh? and face the truth.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 20th 2010, 21:20
2) This, together with the contraception pill, meant that women started to play the men's game on an equal footing. And the guys love this, sex-on-tap. This means pleasure-seeking women not making ideal mothers and men who can't commit. Why should they? In London I see it still, young fragile looking women on the highest stilettos (Feminism preferred flat shoes), the shortest skirts, the plungiest neckline, the biggest hoop earrings. And biggest of all, their attitude. They are powerful, no?! And the boys' willies, weak but willing. Welcome to the current generation of tomorrow's mums and dads.
Pornography often centres round fetishism, glorifying it. Wrong! A fetish distorts the basic purpose of the encounter. e.g. Patist likes red-heads and marries one. Problem is, whenever he sees a redhead he goes to pieces. So fetishism needs addressing/'treatment'/counselling at least. Women are afflicted too, naturally. Human sexuality's a very difficult path to tread and shouldn't be rendered more so by red-haired pigtails secured with black satin bows with yellow polka dots. I ain't kiddin' either.
How do I know all this? I'm a homosexual sexual being, vilified. So I made it my business to read up and gain strength. And atheism helps.
George Vella
Jul 21st 2010, 03:13
Mr. Xuereb in your statement further below I sincerely admired you for your guts in admitting that you are an atheist, and I respect your opinion. But please respect mine. The only trouble with you is that you do not even know the real meaning of atheism. May I help you in this matter.
It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — ‘Theism’ in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one god exists.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made.
In common sense, atheists are frequently regarded to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.
The term atheism originated from the Greek ‘atheos’, meaning "without gods", so why the hell do you try to conscience me that my God does not exist. If you are a real atheist why do you waste your time to explain contrary to the teaching of our Mother Catholic Church for which I have an obligation to defend. You a hypocrite and not a true atheist. Do convert now to a real atheist if you claim to be one.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 18:52
@ George Vella
Usain Bolt can run a 100m in less than 10 seconds, so it would be silly for someone to say that a man who can run a 100m in less than 10 seconds does not exist. But would you believe me, without the need for evidence if I said that I could run a 100m in less than 10 seconds? How about if you had evidence that I could run it in 15? That would give you all the proof you need to deny my claim. Think about it and it will answer your question.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 20th 2010, 21:02
1) Thank you Martina Salerno for your link. The contents, however, are only one side of the story.
Andrea Dworkin, physically an incredibly unattractive woman - sorry, not very PC but had to say it - made a life's career of Men hating Women. I was in the midst of the feminist movement in 70s London. Often, it wasn't a pretty sight. See Camille Paglia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia
The saying goes: Women are from Venus, men from Mars. How true! Men are happy when bedding a woman. But between bedding episodes there is obsessive desire for the next session. Until that happens, the anguished male suffers his angst and likes not much the creature causing this. Man's desire, destructive as it is, had to be 'outrageous'. A milder impulse would have killed off the species. Causing pain as collateral damage if you like.
Feminism had its heart in the right place, clamouring for equal considerations for women re: status, earning power, respect from men and so on. Feminists, and many of them had a not so hidden agenda for wanting women on THEIR side, overlooked one thing. And this is the Human's propensity to seek and attain gratification, sexual in particular.
continued
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 21:57
I discovered Paglia some years ago. She’s a dissident feminist of sorts. I find some of her political views as politically incorrect, sometimes verging on objectivism even, and that's hardly my cup of tea. Having said that, her views bold-views on art, gender and sexuality in general are usually spot-on. I find some of her work as brilliant and thought provoking. I was supposed to meet her some time ago, but she had to cancel her trip to Europe because of health reasons. Pity…
In case some people are wondering, there are several feminists that are overtly pro-porn: http://ourpornourselves.org . There also happens to be a considerable number of women who are actively involved in art forms featuring strong sexual content or in pro-sex work activism. Not all feminists buy into this phoney idea that the sex industry is solely an exclusive masculine territory or some monstrous form of patriarchal propaganda.
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 20th 2010, 20:41
@ Mr W Bonello
"... the next thing we will be following France's example and ban the Muslim's women from wearing a veil". I feel that people need to be accurate when making certain statements; France is considering banning the NIQAB and the BURQA which cover all the face except for the eyes (the burqa even covers the eyes with a kind of mesh); other types of women's headwear, like the HIJAB do not fall within the ambit of this proposal. In fact, even Egypt and Syria, two predominantly Muslim nations have issued decrees which prohibit women from wearing attire which covers all the face. Many Muslim scholars do not regard covering all the face except for the eyes as a main tenet of their faith. So I cannot understand why the French proposal has attracted so much controversy, unless there are other hidden agendas.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 18:34
So, in view of the latest amendments to the laws regulating pornography, what would happen if, say, I write and publish an explicit short story about two prebuscent children experimenting with their sexuality, or if I write a piece of prose about the compulsive obsessions of an adult paedophile? Would I be guilty of producing and disseminating paedophilic pornographic material? Bearing in mind these laws, are writers free to explore the aforesaid themes in their works without finding themselves on the wrong side of the law?
Thank you.
martina salerno
Jul 20th 2010, 22:00
Have you even read the article well before commenting on it? How do you know what porn users do in private? Just because you 'interview' them they're not going to tell you what they actually do, how many children they are grooming over the internet. Think of all those priests who had child porn in their possession and who also abused children. It's no coincedence, no matter how much you'd like to deny it.
If this article has not made you realize how dangerous porn has become, then I do not know what will. It's trying to tell you that if a man is led into thinking that child rape is normal, then he's not going to measure the consequences before committing it.
Leave the education thing out of this.I worked in an office full of graduates - main conversation topic : sex. Always talking about it! All of them over 30 years old and it's like they have just discovered that it exists!
If you could be bothered, could you explain to us what makes sperm all over a woman's face and eyes so exciting? Now that men can't beat their wives, they fantasize about demeaning them that way.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 11:13
"Have you even read the article well before commenting on it?"
I did, and shared my perspectives on it. I'm very familiar with feminist literature, especially with feminist views regarding pornography. That anti-porn punditry is not new to me.
I don't think that the rest of your comments are relevant to my question.
"I worked in an office full of graduates - main conversation topic : sex. Always talking about it! All of them over 30 years old and it's like they have just discovered that it exists!"
I find that very telling about human nature and about the consequences of suppressing it. In any case, I find that rather normal, especially seeing that probably these men were still in their sexual prime.
"If you could be bothered, could you explain to us what makes sperm all over a woman's face and eyes so exciting?"
Yes, I do find it exciting, very much so indeed, and I know numerous women who derive pleasure from it. But I don't think that this forum is an appropriate place to discuss my sexual practices or to delve into the psychosexual aspects of bukkake. I don't think it is pertinent to this letter neither.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 12:13
I don't find facials demeaning in any way whatsoever. What I find demeaning is prohibiting women to partake in porn. Such prohibitions prevent women from taking full control of their sexual agency by denying them the power to make their own free choices about how they would like to explore, reveal and celebrate their sexual personas.
From what I can gather, your animosity against porn does not stem from morality, but from a deep-seated fear of the potent power of the sexual impulse.
martina salerno
Jul 21st 2010, 16:00
The graduates I referred to also boasted of how much porn they used. They were all sex-starved. Either because of marital problems or whatever. The more porn they saw the more desperate they became.
They can't stop talking, let alone thinking, about sex not even for decency's sake. It's not just counter-productive but also disrespectful towards colleagues who are made to feel uncomfortable. But apparently you're way too thick to understand that.
My "fear of the potent power of the sexual impulse" is a well-justified one. I can't listen to the BBC Worldservice for a single day without hearing things like: 10,000 women raped by soldiers in warzones last year, homeless children being raped everyday on the South African border, Indian women committing suicide because of the shame they feel at being verbally and physically harassed by men on the streets (the same men who think that a female's worth is all in her virginity). A girl was fondled by a group of men at a festival in England - in broad daylight. They ran after her until she locked herself in a bathroom! Father-daughter incest videos posted on the web. How much more misery can this world take?
Kevin Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 19:51
Curbing pornography would just remove another protective barrier between women and abuse.
The Japanese porn industry is perhaps the most violent, brutal, sadomasochistic and death obsessed of the whole lot, and yet the incidence of rape in Japan is much lower per capita than in the United States, where violence in porn is strictly restricted.
And after all this time, nobody answered my original question yet....
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 18:25
May I thank Martina Salerno for suggesting the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 19:15
She recently interviewed a number of men in prison who had committed rape against children. All were habitual users of child pornography. "What they said to me was they got bored with 'regular' porn and wanted something fresh. They were horrified at the idea of sex with a prepubescent child initially but within six months they had all raped a child."
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 19:47
I wasn't really impressed with this article. It's the typical Andrea Dworkin whining - the sort of feminist paranoia I tend to despise. I always found it very amusing that it never occurred to her and her followers that her underlying problem wasn't pornography as such, but rather, her over indulgence in food, her unrelenting aversion to the male phallus and her evident lack of sexual appeal. I guess this researcher is no different.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 19:48
Regarding the prison interviews, I really don’t believe that most porn consumers act on their porn viewing habits all that much. God forbid if that was the case! Besides, I really doubt that most porn consumers would indulge in child molestation, unless they were already prone to such fantasies. This is like saying that the vast majority of people who consume cannabis will unavoidably end up switching to narcotics. As far as I know, this has never been proved.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 19:49
I am not saying that no porn consumer has ever felt compelled to indulge in outlandish sexual acts after a prolong period of porn viewing, but I do “interview” men too, and I’ve lost count of the tally of well-educated married men telling me that porn is their only temporary relief from their martial sexual boredom.
Robert Attard
Jul 21st 2010, 00:29
around 60% of men watch porn at some point in time. Can you really imagine how the world would be if what she is saying was really true?
Joe Xuereb
Jul 20th 2010, 18:23
I am an atheist because god created this inescapable - as in affects EVERYONE - method of making sure his population grew. He created us naked and we went about naked. Then the church got wind of this nakedness and, instead of blaming god and be damned, they blamed everything else and clothes on our skins because law. But the procreative method did not go away. And since man became clothed, and dignified, and respectable, and hypocritical, his curiosity to know what his neighbour looks like naked, this healthy curiosity continues to plague his life. Plague not an exaggeration. With devastating effects. But pornography goes some way towards easing this plague, this erosive curiosity, given by god. Seen from this atheistic point, what's wrong with pornography? There is tasteful pornography glorifying the human form (so common in church iconography) and there is pornography I wouldn't touch if you paid me. I am a grown-up, I have used my god-given brain, and I have learned to discern between the wheat and the chaff. Simple really. I'm only exercising the curiosity that god gave me.
Repressing this natural curiosity if the basis for most social ills and neurotic states. Very unhealthy!
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 19:09
go try going naked in alaska, or in the naking sun of thr sahara desert.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 19:55
Pornography may not be art (although it can be in some cases, but that’s another argument), and I don’t believe that it is pinnacle of human creativity neither, but it does serve a function. I’m sure that most would agree that the magnitude of masculine sexual urges have virtually always exceeded the sexual availability of the female population, most notably after the advent of agricultural societies and the industrial revolution. In this regard, the ensuing development of nuclear family based on monogamy was perhaps the last straw on the camel’s back. I’m sure that a sizeable proportion of the masculine population in general would be more prone to rape and other relational disorders if they didn’t relieve their sexual urges through porn or other non-violent means.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 20:15
I’m not exactly a biological determinist, but biologically speaking, man is habitual sperm spilling mammal – nature made him that way, and no religious zealot can rewire him otherwise, get over it. Religious fundamentalists can bash their bibles all they like, but in the end, nature will always have her way with us. I’m convinced that the general suppression of pornography wouldn’t tame the human sexual impulse by one iota. Chances are that men (and women) would end up even more repressed, and I don’t believe that this would be the best scenario for the evolution if the species. History has proved time and again that the sexual repression of the masses has never done any good. As a matter of fact I believe that the activity of sexual suppression is more intrinsically perverted than having consenting adults consuming their natural sexual instincts for mass viewing.
George Vella
Jul 21st 2010, 03:27
Mr. Xuereb said: " and I have learned to discern between the wheat and the chaff. " I say ...even a monkey can do it! Can you discern between the limitations of humans and the Divinity of God ? If you manage to answer me I will proclaim myself an atheist. May God bless you my sincere friend.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 21st 2010, 06:48
"I am an atheist because god created this ......... method of making sure his population grew." (JoeXuereb)
Please make up your mind! What model of an atheist are you when you believe in a god that creates!
Kevin Cassar
Jul 21st 2010, 14:38
@ Dr Francis Saliba
Dr Saliba, you need to do some research on the word Atheist. An atheist does not believe in a God or Gods, and this does not necessarily mean that he claims that no God/Gods exist. Similarly I don't (at the moment) believe in aliens, but claiming they do not exist would be stupid.
Robert Callus
Jul 20th 2010, 17:01
At least 40% of coco imported into the EU and US is made by slaves, mostly children. Slavery and child labor are rampant and behind most things we consume, from coffee to food to carpets. Should we ban food and textiles? Of course not. Target the abusers. Fair Trade is one of the options. Maybe Mr Vincenti and other concerned individuals should join groups like these if they really want to make a difference: http://www.facebook.com/fairtradecertified?v=info&ref=ts#!/pages/i-shop-fair-network-of-ethical-consumers/140957827745?v=info
Find the culprits, report them and boycott them. Not ban the industry all together. Banning pornography will not make any more difference than banning chocolate.
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 18:27
You got it all wrong mate. You are comparing sour oranges with poison.
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 16:51
Ramon Casha:
Nice piece of logic: Now try this: (my apologies for repeating) Porn producers generally 'employ' drug users as actors, who are in it for the quick buck for the next shot. More than this, these 'actors' are more often than not girls caught in the human trafficking trade, who, having been promised heaven on earth type of jobs, like hollywood life-styles etc, end up as sex slaves and porn 'actors'. Some of these 'actors' may even be legally under-age. (They don't show us their birth certificate don't they). Some of these same porn producers would also be in paedophile porn business, since it does not need any effort to go from one type of filth to another.
So, remember, when you download porn, most probably you are contributing to:
The drug trade
Human Trafficking
Paedophilia
Also remember that downloading porn, even connecting to these sites may be dangerous to your bank accounts' health. It is not uncommon for on-line porn buyers to have fdiscovered empty bank accounts the day after.
It's your choice, a free one.
Kevin Saliba
Jul 20th 2010, 20:04
It’s not true no woman enjoys working in the pornographic industry. I do agree that the scores of inhuman practices of sexploitation in the said industry cannot be denied, but the idea that given a choice no woman would opt to be involved in porn strikes me as unfounded.
But then again, I guess that people who were brought up believing that sex is an inherently dishonourable activity just cannot come to terms with the fact that some women do take pleasure from being filmed while they’re at it. And please, spare me from the usual sermons on morality, because I am not passing any moral judgements whatsoever. My arguments are purely biological and psychological.
Mark Mifsud
Jul 20th 2010, 15:33
It would be nice if this man could explain how he can be so sure that the clothes he`s wearing aren't produced through child slavery, bonded labor, or in sweat shops operated by international human traffickers.
I hope this man isn`t suggesting that we should all be running around naked!
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 16:58
When one loses an argument he falls into the same trap all over again. Comparing sour oranges with salmonella-infested eggs.
Mark Mifsud, just tell me which brands utilise child labour, human trafficking etc and I will make sure to bann them from my life. Then I should know which brands I will keep on my list.
On the other hand, porn is porn is filth whoever produces it. And if you like porn then it's your brain that decides that it is good for you, same as I believe that reading Shakespeare is good for me. Please note that I am referring to porn, not art, which was the starting point of all this.
Mark Mifsud
Jul 20th 2010, 18:55
I think you should re-read the arguments made in the original letter and as you`re at it Article 208 of the criminal code and how its being implemented and enforced. You may even come to the conclusion that even Shakespeare publishers may have something to fear.
Laurence Zerafa
Jul 20th 2010, 13:57
I agree that all possible measures should be taken to minimise and if possible eliminate the abuse of defenceless persons by others for financial gain. Pornography is a big profit making industry and some sectors of this industry would not have qualms about abusing others. The point that Mr. Vincenti is making is that viewers of pornography, especially on-line, can never be certain if persons have been abused to create that content or whether the over 18 years of age disclaimers are true or not.
Mr. Farrugia, no we do not expect the police to watch over you, and monitor what you're watching. The police should step in when and where there is evidence that individuals are being abused as they do in cases of people living off the prostitution of others.
On the other hand decent individuals should be sensible enough to voluntarily avoid being party to incidents where the chances are high that innocent people are being abused by stronger individuals. Would anyone want to be abused by somebody making money off one's weak position?
Joe Zammit
Jul 20th 2010, 11:26
A little (or much) of it every day, pornography becomes an addiction, and this happens especially when one starts thinking pornography does no harm. Here I am not referring to children but to adults, to those who think they are free to do what they want in their room.
Ironically, they do not even derive any pleasure from it because pornography leaves them literally drained. It drains their energy and bank accounts.
As soon as they turn away from the screen, they feel worse. Pornography unconsciously turns them into slaves. It is a very serious problem indeed.
MPs, fight pornography with all your might!
Franco Farrugia
Jul 21st 2010, 09:44
Quote: 'pornography leaves them literally drained. It drains their energy...' Hmmmm... you certainly know something about it, naughty boy!
Ramon Casha
Jul 20th 2010, 11:20
"It is a well-known documented fact that children are involved in the production of pornography"
It is a well-known documented fact that serial killers are Catholics.
See the flaw in these statements? Both are false. While some serial killers are Catholics, and some pornography involves children, only a small fraction of Catholics are serial killers and only a small fraction of pornography involves children.
As for verifying the age of porn actors and actresses, it's perfectly simple really. You can permit the production of porn with the condition that the producers retain records verifying the age of all participants. The US does this already.
Gerry Cowie
Jul 20th 2010, 20:20
Ramon, why do you choose to be blind to the truth?
Sadly, abuse in this world is rife, and it is blatantly obvious from the numerous cases which have been splashed across the media, the paedophiles to in fact use children in pornography. It is a fact!
If you look once again at the quote you yourself took, you will note that nowhere in the quote does the person say that ALL pornography involves children. It just says that pornography involves children.
Please take more care when you are looking to poke fun at the views of other people!
I am glad to read that you do not feel that Catholics are serial killers!
Andrew Azzopardi
Jul 20th 2010, 11:16
The Paul Vincentis and the Carm Mifsud Bonnicis exist all over the world. The difference is that there is more awareness of civil rights and the judiciary has more backbone in other Western countries.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605750.html?hpid=sec-metro
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 20th 2010, 10:50
It is a well-known documented fact that children are involved in the production of clothes in sweatshops
How exactly can anyone guarantee that a child slavery is not being used to produce our clothes?
The solution seems to be to stop buying clothes altogether. After all, laws are only effective if they can be enforced.
Shall we all go naked from tomorrow?
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 17:03
Agreed that we cannot identify which cloths are manufactured rightfully and which are produced through child labour. BUT we know that all porn is produced by the scum of society, abusing of drug addicts, human trafficked girls whose age we do not know and having hidden agendas like attacking your bank account when you are not looking and peadophile porn in the back room reached through a secret door. THEY ARE FILTH PRODUCERS and it hurts my intelligence to see intelligent people apologisng for these filth producers. This isnot art, it is filth. But it is your free choice.
Karl Consiglio
Jul 20th 2010, 10:48
@Paul Vincenti,
But at home on the internet we do have porn, why not use the same logic for that? We just like to pretend that our hands are clean by not having it outside our doors.
Franco Farrugia
Jul 20th 2010, 10:26
So what is this man suggesting? That the Police try stop me from watching porn? Is this man a troglodyte, wanting the Malta Police to become a morality police like in Iran? Does this man expect public displays of punishment, as well? I mean, the opinions we are reading these days, it really disgusts me .... this is supposedly Malta in the 21st century! I simply wonder what EU membership is doing for the country.
Mr.W.Bonello
Jul 20th 2010, 12:43
Someitmes i really wonder if Malta is for real, or are we sure we are living in the 21st century? the mind boggles, and yet we are suppose to be europeans and members of the EU, i got my doubts on double standards in this country, so like most i'm off to a more advanced and a realistic country where one can judge for him or herself between right or rong, in otherwords every one over the legal age is responsible for his or her action as long as they not a hindreances to others, the next thing we will be following Franc'es esample and ban the Muslims women from wearing a veil>>> who knows.
Alex Ellul
Jul 20th 2010, 13:47
The police will not stop you from watching porn on the net, on a book or whatever. It's only you that has to stop yourself, and if you consider that porn producers generally use drug addicts, (sometimes trafficked from one country to another and who could even be under-age), as actors and may even produce pedophile porn on the side, you would then have to, maybe, reconsider your options. The net, like any other scientific thing, is a very beautiful development which can be used and abused by anyone, anywhere. You are your own destiny; now don't waste time reading this comment, go and watch that filth...
martina salerno
Jul 20th 2010, 14:05
Hope this will make you think twice before watching porn again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography
D.Galea
Jul 23rd 2010, 00:07
Ridiculous, What about women who produce and watch porn? Porn is always consequence not a trigger, it was true in the old times and more so nowadays since the feminist revolution, remember pornography was one of the strongest expressions of it which now it's ironic that some may want to discard this fact which is quiet impossible.