Answer from nicknath
One sexual abuse perpetrator would play the kids X videos and then watch the videos—and will you note they are plural?
To illustrate the impact of x-video porn coming out of Canberra, I presented this evidence to a Senate committee examining the impact of x-videos in 2000, as one of the worst that one of the counsellors whom I supervised had encountered:
“One sexual abuse perpetrator would play the kids X videos and then watch the videos—and will you note they are plural?—with them. He tortured the boys, who are aged 10 and 11, into having sex with his wife while he watched the encounters. As he threatened them, he made them use marijuana by blowing marijuana smoke down their throats. He performed bondage on them, threatened to cut out the boys’ genitals if they did not perform sexually with his wife and then he sodomised and molested them himself sexually. It was not only sexual intercourse that he asked the boys to perform; he required them to carry out his kinds of sexual tricks on his wife. He made the children have sex with one another while he watched. And, as I said, he sodomised them. Three girls and two boys in this one family were all sexually abused by one man, and he had intercourse with the girls from eight years and upwards. One of these five children has already sexually abused another child” (available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee
Your misrepresentation of the impact of x-video porn must be challenged.
Sincerely, Spencer Gear, Qld.
# Amanda O'Hara 29.6.07 / 12pm
Bill and others,
While my comments seem to have drawn a remarkable number of lurkers into the forum, I still see very little evidence of a link between X-rated videos and child abuse, which was the thesis of Bill’s article. Spencer’s comments today are an exception, but clearly the Senate Committee was not convinced by his submission, since they did not recommended a ban. I have looked up the report of this Committee, and their comments on that matter were:
“While the Committee was concerned by accounts of the effects of the use of such material, the Committee believes that the restriction of videos would have a minimal effect on such persons. Their behaviour reflects much more serious problems, including a lack of awareness of the consequences of their actions, and apparent indifference to community standards of sexual behaviour and treatment of children.”
I also note that it is already a criminal offence under state law to show X-rated material to children.
It is clear that everyone on this list has a religiously-based “moral issue” with X-rated material, so why not be honest and simply state that as the objection from the outset, instead of hiding behind the “protect the children” mantra?
People commenting here have questioned my morality and have attempted to portray my views as a betrayal of women. However my views are no different from that held by 73% of the population, according to surveys quoted to the Senate Committee, and no different from that of the federal government. To quote again from the Committee report:
“The issue of access to material must necessarily take into account the preferences of some parts of the community, and the legislation seeks to do so: ‘there are not considered sufficient grounds, as a matter of public policy, to deny adults generally the freedom to access non-violent sexually explicit videos if they so wish.’ [quote from Explanatory Memorandum]. Thus the Government has sought to ‘balance conflicting views and to arrive at an acceptable solution