Who needs porn when you’ve got MTV

Ted N says:

07:31am | 26/10/10

Right on! Although I am still concerned that religious control freaks with their secretive anti-democratic agendas like Senator Conroy and Tony Abbott are still driving the agenda. (Abbott refuses to provide serious opposition to the plan therefore supports Labor). These neurotic same-same leaders are just trying to hold us backward in some sort   of cultural hangover of Victorian England values ie nudity is bad, censorship, gay marriage, euthansia, going to war cos the empire tells us colonists too etc etc.

Vote for the Sex Party if you want democratic freedom and real action!

Pixalot says:

07:43am | 26/10/10

Well said, Eric. Porn doesn’t do any harm to normal people but moralising pseudo-intellectuals trying to ram their opinion down everyone else’s throats does.

I go to the gym almost every day and I love watching the music channel with all the scantily clad women.

I really like the soccer clip by Gaudino, some other Out of Africa dance song by two guys with weird hair, the clip by September is really hot with those tight blonde chicks in pvc.

Really hot. For normal red-blooded males we like looking at hot women.

The music channel wasn’t working one day last week and it was really boring watching the Simpsons, Sunrise and Today.

Aaron says:

08:02am | 26/10/10

Go to a Brisbane/Sydney Church, Hillsong Brisbane, Hillsong Sydney and Citipointe Brisbane, just some of the biggest ones I have been to, the singers and rockers on stage are dressed sexy, dancing slow, dancing fast. The young pastors wives were the only reason I went to church, they all had bolt ons and shaking them on stage, and then you have all the guys down the front with their hands up, no doubt just trying to get a handful of what they have on display.

Pete says:

08:09am | 26/10/10

Yeah porn is soo 2008. I’m into zumba shoe throwing.

And what about the porn two speed economy? You cityfolk get great quality net porn and tv and the bush gets 56K -ish porn. When it works…

Discrimination. But we can throw things better than youse!

iansand says:

08:13am | 26/10/10

Does anyone else think that Eric’s usual reaction to anything involving a female is not quite normal?  Perhaps he disproves his own thesis.

Barry says:

08:18am | 26/10/10

I can just picture these three standing around in a pub together high fiving each other because one of them managed to grope the female bartender.

Nora Charles says:

08:42am | 26/10/10

Look at all the blue-balled, hair palmed losers here - needing their titillation fix, not only in the privacy of their own homes, but on broadcast TV, in the gyms, in public newsstands.

Obviously you’re not getting any if you need artificial stimulus whereever you go.

None of you had to read this guy’s opinion piece - so if you didn’t like it - don’t look.

Sarah M says:

08:50am | 26/10/10

Haha, here here Island and Barry.

Anyone who has to say red-blooded male to qualify themselves as masculine is a little insecure, I feel. I know a lot of men who don’t find MTV/V portrayals of sex, very sexy. They find intelligence, a sense of humor, taste in music, athletic ability, interests, personality or originality as well as mutual respect sexy. But then maybe they aren’t red-blooded men.

Lea says:

09:03am | 26/10/10

@Eric: noone’s trying to tell you ‘what you can or can’t see’ - go watch it one your own time b/c you’re old enough to enter the websites where porn is freely available. The point is these film clips are shown during daytime, when kids of all ages watch TV. There is nothing more disturbing than watching a 5 year old trying to emulate the bottom-spanking sexy dances they see on TV. Sexualisation is happening way too early b/c of these images.

@Aaron: if you’re turned on by fully clothed (nothing skimpy about it) WORSHIP LEADERS in church, then I couldn’t begin to imagine what these erotic film clips must do for. You have some serious problems mate.

Tim says:

09:27am | 26/10/10

This is what feminism has brought us Eric.
Women are now free to dance around in skimpy clothing and men are free to objectify them.
Ain’t freedom grand.

Kit says:

09:43am | 26/10/10

Oh dear, wowzers of the world unite.
I’m a young woman and believe it or not I find it liberating to be able to watch sexy and scantily clad women canter about on my TV (and yeah, it’s pretty hot too!) but there’s places in the world where women are on the other end of the stick and aren’t allowed to even show their hair lest men go into a raging lust and committ some immoral act in public. I for one would rather be tipping the scale in favour of “too sexy”.
If you’re watching MTV I’m sure you’ve seen the hundred or so indulgent rap film clips where not only women are objectified but the male artists themselves spend majority of the video oiling up their rippling pectorals or laying naked on some fur in a plush mansion bedroom. Guess what? Sex sells. If you don’t want to look like those women then you’re just wanting those women fullstop. At the end of the day it’s not a female or a male issue, we sexually objectify both genders to sell anything from deoderant to music.
But when a man is taking his shirt off to sell shampoo, I guess the feminists aren’t half as offended.

Cath says:

09:47am | 26/10/10

Re “If you don’t like porn, don’t watch it”

You’ve completely missed the point here Eric.  Groups like Collective Shout are highlighting that porn is available everywhere so those who don’t like it, are forced to see it.

Also, porn is corroding our sense of relationship and more…

I was a professional model and very open minded when I married but my husband still had issues with being physically intimate with me cause he was soooo addicted to the alternatives online!

So, I didn’t have to watch porn for it to have a devastating affect on me and my relationship.

Pixalot says:

09:49am | 26/10/10

Nora
Any woman that tries to deride a man by insinuating that he can’t get any and then in the next breath implies that he shouldn’t be allowed his “titilliation fix” is clearly a woman that couldn’t keep a real man satisfied and is contradicting herself.

Sarah M
The only guys that say that are sandal-wearing try-hards that are either lying or gay. Get a clue.

pete says:

09:49am | 26/10/10

@Lea give Eric a break - he is at least partially right.

Feminism was a state licenced movement to trick women into thinking they were getting equality and affirmative action and politically correct consideration - while the entrenched repression continued.

And they fell for it. take your blinkers off and stop lecturing us and moralising.

If corporations want to use kids for commecial purposes.. fine ... everything is for sale somewhere in this global economy. You voted for anything goes global capitalism don’t complain here. It made you rich!

Luce says:

09:52am | 26/10/10

@Eric, well done on missing the point of the article, as usual

L. says:

09:54am | 26/10/10

“@Eric: noone’s trying to tell you ‘what you can or can’t see’ “

Actually “they” are. Everyone from Sen Conroy with his filter (RC is 99% legal to own and view) through to Jim Wallace and the ACL wanting a 100% ban on porn. Then there are those outraged that stores are selling bikini’s to 5 yr old girls and want them removed from the shelves.

Yes, “they” are telling us what we can see, can’t see and purchase…even though most of this stuff is LEGAL to own and view.

RamenDeep says:

10:03am | 26/10/10

Dude you seem gay if you dont like half naked women splashed on the tv screen

Red Blooded men love female nudity the more the better i say!

Luce says:

10:07am | 26/10/10

@Pixalot, the point is not whether men like to / can watch scantily clad women wherever they go. The point is a lot of women, and clearly some men, don’t feel that this constant sexual objectification of woman is necessarily healthy for our society. Do you see anything else OTHER then hot women? As in, women that have personalities, goals and lives just like men? Or do they purely exist for male sexual gratification?

LJ says:

10:07am | 26/10/10

@Lea. why are these 5 year olds watching the film clips that you, as an adult, find too racy? If you dont want a child mimicking these clips then change the channel to something more suitable than MTV. television is not a baby sitter.

RMW says:

10:11am | 26/10/10

You said it yourself Eric, you can get the porn you want on the net. That is the point of we ‘moralising feminists’ - it is not something we think should be pushed in our faces whenever we open our eyes. If you can’t get away from it without living in a social prison then it is no longer a choice. But I guess such a subtle point is lost on the male brain? So get your sexual fantasy out of our faces eh? Keep YOUR choice (not mine) where it belongs- in the private realm and then we moralising feminists can keep OUR opinons out of public debate.

Steph says:

10:15am | 26/10/10

Yes, because Religious nuts actually care what you do, in the wee hours of the morning or not. Get a grip. Just because someone has a religion doesn’t mean they’re screaming bloody murder at you personally for doing things they don’t like. Come to think of it, sounds a lot more like athiesm… “ZOMG religion sould be banned, all those people practicing, I don’t like it”. Sound familiar, yeah?

David says:

10:44am | 26/10/10

For once, I completely agree with Eric.

The fact is that the majority of the populace love these clips, men and women alike. It sells the music. Wowsers who don’t, obviously just have different tastes in their artistic diet. So let MTV roll on, there’s VH1, MusicMax or Youtube for the easily offended, classical enthusiast and the heavy metal fan, and the rest of the internet for erotic purveyors.

Oh, and if you don’t like the clips being aired in your gym, concentrate on your workout. Who has time to really watch them anyway? Too much iron to pump!

Steve says:

11:06am | 26/10/10

I’m fine with watching porn but I’d rather choose when I do it. Working out when I’m at the gym is not the time for it. Walking through the loungeroom and seeing it when my kids are watching tv on a saturday morning is definately not the time for it. Seeing clips like that late at night on rage is one thing, but when I have to ban my kids from watching video hits on saturday morning because of what comes on then that’s a problem.

John says:

11:48am | 26/10/10

Eric (and others) think they should be able to watch and imagine anything they please, thank you very much.

So I guess they are OK with a bit of pedofilia or bestiality as well, after all it’s a free country they reckon!
If you are that egotistical and self-absorbed that you don’t think you have to take some values and the future of a wider community into account, or you think that the safety of the vulnerable in society is worthless compared to your addiction to titilation, I hope somebody who thinks watching violence all the time does not de-sensitise, gets their fix on your behalf soon.

I know this sounds awfully crass, but that’s the joy of anonimity I guess.

Pixalot says:

12:43pm | 26/10/10

Lea
Personally I don’t really care. I don’t have to. I choose to remain single because single life is better than couplehood. Whether a woman has dreams or goals is of little consequence to me. I assume they would. Just like the guy I walk past in the street - his life is of little concern to me. This is not because of porn or anything, this is just modern society. We no longer have obligations to each other beyond those in the Crimes Act. We are all self-determined individuals with freedom of choice. This is what the feminists fought for. You can’t complain about people exercising their freedoms in a way you don’t approve of.

Pixalot says:

12:45pm | 26/10/10

Last reply was meant for Luce, not Lea

Eric says:

12:57pm | 26/10/10

(1) Music videos are not porn. They may be racy, but only in the damaged minds of sexually repressed wowsers are they pornographic. Most of the music clips I’ve seen are frankly boring, and very different from the real thing.

(2) Yes, you can choose. If the business you’re patronising has something you don’t like on the TV, ask them to change it. If they won’t, go to another business and tell them why. If there’s stuff you don’t like on TV, don’t let your kids watch it. Simple.

(3) The agenda behind this anti-sex moralising is not one of free choice. The people who object to mildly titillating ads in public also want to ban anything they regard as “offensive” in private, and everywhere. Do not be fooled.

(4) The real reason feminists hate porn is because it has the ability to reduce men’s sexual dependence on women. That reduces their power and control over men. Porn is liberating, and we can’t have liberty for the slave gender!

Lynn says:

02:34pm | 26/10/10

Dear Eric,

That would be a nice option, except there are plenty of places where it’s being flung into your face, like at the Gym Steve visits or at our local KFC, to name two examples. They play MTV there and, frankly, we’re not taking the kids there anymore but opt for the drive through after having my 9 year old stare at the screen in utter disbelief, jaw wide open as he’s watching people performing acts on screen that on normal TV wouldn’t be allowed to air before 10.30pm.

So, sure, if you want to watch porn, do it. But I disagree with the rest of us who don’t like it having to be subjected to it just because that’s the way the music industry thinks videos should be made these days.

Sarah says:

08:21pm | 26/10/10

You porn lovers crack me up. you think this does no one any harm, but look around you - the sexualisation of women (and sadly now girls) in our society has lead to so many problems: distorted views of sexuality & the meaning/purpose of sex by men and women that affect relationships (think divorce), increased rates of teenage mothers, girls at age 6 developing eating disorders, sexual predators /paedophiles lurking online, and sexual ads everywhere that you can’t get away from if you try - so i think your agenda is loud and clear, the sex party should be pretty proud of the society we have today. You can get your porn off the net or whatever it is you do - but don’t complain when you f*** up your marriage or your daughter is anorexic, or worse is a mother at age 15!!! Sadly if you cast your eyes away from your porn for one minute you will see a world where young girls (and often boys) are living on the streets, trafficked as child prostitutes for the porn lovers of the third world - they don’t have computers to live out their sick desires - they do it to children…stopthetraffik.org will inform you of just what actually happens around the world - before you defend porn you should realise there’s so much more to this issue that just you and your porn-ridden computer.

Lee says:

09:10pm | 26/10/10

Did a man really write this… Good on you.  I for one have been thinking this for a very long time.  Having lived with a sex addict and seen the damage that can be done by the constant barage of sexually laced advertising, music videos and television I couldn’t agree more.  As for Erics, comments how very irresponsible. 

Community is about setting some sort of standards by which we as humans behave…..there are plenty of examples of overregulation that is ridiculous and that makes us lazy and not take responsibility, I strangely enough what we feed out minds isn’t one of them.  Well spoken to the brave man who is making a stand….as for “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it…I am sure that may work when the gent is in the comfort of his own home, but would be difficult when it is blatantly being played as “entertainment” whilst he is trying to work out.  Grow up Eric and start thinking a little bit more about the consequences of things.

Tom says:

11:37pm | 26/10/10

With all due respect to the moralisers here, if you think MTV is porn, then that says more about how sexually repressed you are than it does about MTV.

Kit says:

12:34pm | 27/10/10

“Eric (and others) think they should be able to watch and imagine anything they please, thank you very much.
So I guess they are OK with a bit of pedofilia or bestiality as well, after all it’s a free country they reckon!
If you are that egotistical and self-absorbed that you don’t think you have to take some values and the future of a wider community into account, or you think that the safety of the vulnerable in society is worthless compared to your addiction to titilation, I hope somebody who thinks watching violence all the time does not de-sensitise, gets their fix on your behalf soon.

I know this sounds awfully crass, but that’s the joy of anonimity I guess. “

Horribly flawed logic John… Beastiality and Pedophilia are illegal acts because (in the terms of the law) they depict non-consentual sex (Yes, that really is why beastiality was made illegal in the states). Your average run of the mill porn is a sexual act performed between two consenting adults… Oh MY, we better not have any of THAT going on!!!
The topic in question is actually the normalising of a sexual image in todays society, whether anyone has a right to view pornographic images in the privacy of their own home is not in question. Everyone will damn well do what they please when it comes to that. In any case, I think you missed that argument completely.
As to the idea you put forward about “values”, let’s discuss that. Exactly what “values” are you campaigning for? You need to make yourself a little clearer in your broad statements about a general concern for the “vunerable in our society”. Are you talking about women being sexualised? Are you talking about children you think might view these images and be impacted negatively?
How is anyone supposed to understand just what you’re making a stand for, when you don’t seem to know yourself?

MD says:

04:36pm | 28/10/10

So Eric - you prefer porn and your own hand over a woman???? that’s interesting, with this full blown hate against all things women related, you manage to turn any article into a rant against feminism, you may need some help.

Now I am not a feminist, I actually enjoy porn as well but if i had to choose between my hand/vibrator or a male I would choose the warm body and a lot of my male friends would prefer to do a woman than use their hand

like i said, you would be one for a shrinks paper, maybe they will treat you for free

Leto says:

12:18pm | 26/10/10

“Steve Kryger has a passion for Jesus, Rachael (his wife), social media and politics - in that order!”

What sort of article would you expect from someone more passionate about Jesus than his own wife! That’s messed up.

Simon says:

09:12am | 26/10/10

These clips which are so over the top are also de-sensitizing.  No one ever seems to be aware of that…read some of the comments on this page for evidence.

Maria C says:

10:48am | 26/10/10

You are spot on, I think Eric was the perfect opening case and point.

In reality, the de-sensitization is a huge issue, we have seen the studies from violent video games, the same is applicable to video clips and porn.

Markus says:

11:48am | 26/10/10

Maria C, you mean those studies that concluded that there was no verifiable link between the number of hours playing video games and an increase in violent behaviour?
I agree, the same IS applicable to video clips and porn.

Eric says:

01:01pm | 26/10/10

If anything, studies have shown a correlation between increased availability of porn and a decrease in sexual assaults.

Think about it ... for each guy ****ing at home, there’s one less sexually frustrated one walking the streets.

Aaron says:

04:49pm | 26/10/10

@Maria C

Erm, Maria, the studies actually indicate that exposure to violent video games has been DISproven to affect tolerance to violent imagery in dozens of controlled experiments. So yeah, facts and stuff interfering with your opinion there.

The one study did prove a link between violent games and aggressive behaviour, but the levels were the same as from watching a violent TV show or a sporting event such as a football game. In other words visual action = increased testosterone, which wasn’t actually a discovery as it had been well documented all ready.

David says:

07:10am | 26/10/10

Well, as you’re the first person to mention him…

Shaking Head says:

09:19am | 26/10/10

“Occasionally, something wonderful like Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” comes along”
Mass marketing certainly works, doesn’t it. ...good grief

Zeta says:

09:50am | 26/10/10

Kanye West’s 34 minute long ‘Runaway’ clip is a work of art. I’ve watched it 3 times. The guy is a freaking genius what are you talking about. It’s the best hip hop clip since Jay Z’s 99 Problems.

Macca says:

10:25am | 26/10/10

@Shaking Hand, Thriller the VideoClip, not movie.

Ben says:

11:00am | 26/10/10

I’d give Daft Punk clips (namely the full version of Around the world/One More time) a wrap for visually stunning.

Macca says:

12:35pm | 26/10/10

@Ben, both of those Daft Punk examples are just wonderful

Scott says:

03:20pm | 26/10/10

I suspect that Film Clips like those that we had for “Sweet Dreams” by the Eurythmics are too confronting for some.  Maybe they saw machines having sex with humans.  To mention nothing of the cow.

Pixalot says:

07:47am | 26/10/10

I listened to that album this morning when at the gym! Great album and that is a brilliant song

Markus says:

10:27am | 26/10/10

If you know much German, you will find that any Rammstein song would best be defined as ‘rather interesting…’. A video of theirs being strange is probably staying very true to the lyrics

Matt says:

11:55am | 26/10/10

@ Markus

As a one time fan of Rammstein, I can say that the Pu$$y video clip is a LOT more interesting than say ‘Sonne’ or ‘Fuhrer Frei’.

Although a gold injecting Snow White does hold a special place in my heart.

Snake says:

10:08am | 26/10/10

Thanks jojo, it’s refreshing to see women sexually objectify the opposite sex too.

To the OP, if you don’t like the channel, watch another TV. There are usually several playing and it’s not as though you have to look up at that specific one. Failing that, join a different gym. Society shouldn’t have to censor everything to cater to your precious sensitivity.

Does your gym sell dietary supplements? Do they advertise athletic clothing? If yes to either of these, are both done without the use of any models? I find that every gym I’ve been to over the last 6 years has sold both supplements and training gear. They all sold these products with the assistance of photos of rather fit looking models alongside them. Sex sells, get over it.

Smidgeling says:

12:44pm | 26/10/10

Snake- Did someone leave you out of the memo?

Men aren’t allowed to get upset if someone uses a ‘hot’ guy in an ad, even if he is shirtless. You’re not allowed to be affected by the media’s portayal of what a man ‘should’, even though women piss and moan when it’s done to them.

Just like you’re not allowed to complain about being bullied, sexually harassed or discriminated against. That’s not manly.

You have to play up to these ‘horrifying things that degrade women’, while we just need to ‘man up’. We’re still in a bastardised 1950’s culture so while I agree with you, it ain’t gonna happen soon.

ahem says:

03:41pm | 26/10/10

The performers do have a choice - to stand out you need to do either 1 of 2 things:

1.  Come up with a really clever idea that makes you unique.
2.  Break records - if someone is “outrageous” in a bikini, you take your top off.

Option 1 is the harder out of the 2.  You can’t really be Smarter/cleverer than other people if you are born dumb and have no ideas.  It’s also easier to copy.

However to make it in this business, you need to look good.  You don’t need a lot of brains in some cases to make it big (Britney spears).

It’s human nature to blame everyone else but themselves.  Blaming yourself first = you have no self esteem.

The western social structure had made it acceptable to be “explicit” and women groups would say that no one should be in their way of “liberation”.  I am female and I disagree.  Imagine the woman who slaps out their boob in public to feed their baby.  It’s rude and inconsiderate in my opinion but women’s groups think that it’s their right.  I think everything should be in moderation.  Unfortunately the line of what’s acceptable and what’s not is so blurred nowadays.

Az says:

08:40am | 26/10/10

I agree, what is with people these days where crap R&B ‘artist’ who patently cannot sing but disguise the fact by marinating their vocals in auto-tune regularly make the top of the teeny charts ?

To heighten the irony most of them (rappers, R&B artists) spout such self obsessed, misogynistic, boastful garbage dealing with such engaging themes as their personal wealth, awesome pulling power with the ladies and their overweening egos. The irony is that in real life, these sorts of people and their egos would be ridiculed as tossers overcompensating for small packages.

And to some degree I think the OP is onto something. I’m no prude but music is music is music. These days its seems less about the music and more about the video clip and how many titties you can bolster your image with.

Its nauseating to watch the transition of many of the younger pop tarts like Kylie and Miley. These people call themselves artsists but the minute they hit their teens they forget whatever musical integrity they may once have had and let the big music machine take over their modus operandi.

And what we get is a string of moronic tunes about partying and hot boys performed by some starry-eyed teen dressed up like a Grey street hookers simply so she can conform to all the other starrey-eyed teens dressed up like Grey street hookers.

I dunno, maybe I’m getting old as I can remember my old man saying the same things about the music I loved as a kid. But back then the music came first and the image came second.

Rant over.

Miles says:

09:25am | 26/10/10

Spot on Jim and Az.  Commercial music is no longer about ‘music’ - it’s an image that their selling.  Talent doesn’t even come into it…

TheRealDave says:

09:41am | 26/10/10

‘Our’ Kylie has always been a shit singer, her sister had a far better voice. She’s always had gimmicky video’s to cover her lack of actual talent - just as, as mentioned above, the slew of shit, over produced, pre-fab, pop culture singers that have polluted the music industry for the past 20 years or so.

We got rid of Kylie to Pomgolia and got Leo Sayer back in return - fair swap I reckon

The video’s are just another method of hiding any actual musical talent.

Kath Grant says:

08:46am | 26/10/10

‘Sex is not a dirty evil’ That’s just the point Bob H!  Sex is good fun but when it’s shoved in your face constantly it becomes mundane.  Just a quick fix, no connecting with someone you care about.

DG says:

08:58am | 26/10/10

Kath:
Some people are quite happy to have sex as a quick fix that does not require connecting with someone - the ‘quick fix’ of porn and prostitution is a multi-billion dollar industry.

So while a portion of the community may wish to keep sex for an ‘intimate’ experience, increased number of partners, delay in the age of first marriages, the sexual revolution of the 60’s/70 and so forth have move sex from that arena to being fair game. The cause of this change is many fold. However, as people are having and enjoying sex, some are enjoying sex without any need for ‘connection’ - and who are you or I to say that they shouldn’t be permitted to do so or to demand that they do it for the purpose of a ‘connection’ with another person?

Whether for good or for bad, that genie is out of the bottle. I would suggest that it is naïve to suggest that things will ever go back to the way that they were before the sexual revolution.

Bob H says:

09:02am | 26/10/10

@Kath Grant - you don’t need to care about someone to have have sex, you are confusing love.  Sex is fun but does not require any deeper relational excuses.  I have no problem with it being shoved in my face, in fact I find it quite agreeable.

Pixalot says:

09:57am | 26/10/10

Kath Grant
If sex has become mundane for you then you’re doing something wrong. Sex is not mundane for me. I enjoy it. Often.

LizaViviN says:

10:44am | 26/10/10

So true! We have had to start to carefully monitor the Saturday morning Rage experience as our kids are watching this stuff! It is awful to think that young kids think that this might be the norm! Older kids and teenagers are acting out these clips! Is this how we want it to be? Luckily they are clever enough about contraception and STI’s but what is it doing to their heads? The message is: the only way you can achieve popularity is to be a pleasure seeking toy! Totally infantile! Surely the producers of these music videos can come up with something a bit cleverer to sell these songs, or perhaps the songs really are as low-down as the clips themselves!

Ronald says:

08:36am | 26/10/10

You could avoid it. Don’t go to McDonalds.

Liam Tjia says:

08:50am | 26/10/10

@Colleen A nice one perpetuating the epidemic of childhood obesity by supporting corpotyrant McDonald’s- 3/4 of an hour?  Is that how little you care about the children?

iansand says:

09:15am | 26/10/10

Geez Colleen.  The milk bar down the road would be faster and better…

HJM says:

09:42am | 26/10/10

It’s okay for our kids to watch soft porn, but you’re having a go at her for taking her kids for a happy meal?  Get real.

Colleen A says:

12:50pm | 26/10/10

Thanks for that guys. We were on a long drive. My kids are nearly grown up now and unfortunately, music videos are some of their favourite viewing. It’s a real concern.

Corsair says:

08:55am | 26/10/10

Totally agree.

Others have said it and I agree.

Michael Jackson had some amazing film clips. Other artists have too.

You can show passion and love without having to make it into soft core porn.

Sarah M says:

08:57am | 26/10/10

Good point,

This is the issue, surf the net in your own private time and place, that is fine but it is NOT ok for all of society so why should we push it on people, especially those that don’t have the yet developed mental capacity to asses it for what it is.

Ronald says:

09:05am | 26/10/10

Im with Steve, those violent impulses of yours can’t be healthy. Have you considered therapy?

Pixalot says:

10:10am | 26/10/10

I have. That wasn’t the result. The results (numerous occasions) were sexy times had by all.

Nothing wrong with viewing a woman as something to masturbate with. It’s all I’m looking for these days. Thankfully, the women’s rights movement freed us of the repressive shackles of getting married etc

Markus says:

10:37am | 26/10/10

Amazing how many people on here seem to hold the view that the level of sexual attraction to the opposite sex is inversely proportional to the level of respect.
And they accuse others of having unhealthy views on sex…

Eric says:

01:06pm | 26/10/10

Indeed. In my experience, quite a few women are inclined to do the things they show in music videos. But more often, they’re interested in the far more erotic things they *don’t* show in those very mild skits.

DG says:

09:13am | 26/10/10

“They allow themselves to be belittled, demeaned and sexually exploited - apparently that is being ‘liberated’?? Although, how any self respecting female could call that liberating is beyond me??”

Are you suggesting that these people do not know that they are selling themselves? Do you suggest that they are not doing it willingly to get the riches that come with it?

Some people have to make our way with brains, some make it with brawn, some with their time and others with sex appeal. Everyone sells what they have, it is the nature of our society. 

The liberation comes from the fact that they can now make that choice - they can choose to sell themselves however they wish for whatever reward they deem worthy. In that sense they are liberated. No longer is a woman prevented from deciding her own worth, she is free to choose as she will - whether that be as a housewife, a porn star, a doctor, lawyer, garbage collector or whatever she so desires. Each will have different rewards for the individual concerned - welcome to liberation. The freedom to choose.

I think that you are too harsh on these performers. They have found something that they are willing to sell to make the money they want to do the things that they like. Good for them.

Demeaned? Only to your own eyes, and through the filter that you choose to impose on their actions. I would suggest that it is no more demeaning than having to turn up to work and turn a profit for your employer because you need the money to buy shiny new things. My time is valuable to me, but I know that I must sell it to my employer so that I can do the things that I would rather be doing. Is that demeaning? How is it any different?  Both are making the sacrifices that we need to make to get the things that we want in life.

I’m still not sure how it is belittling.

Random!! says:

01:02pm | 26/10/10

@ DG I made no mention of their intentions, as I also believe they are in it for the ‘get rich quick’ scheme and this particular way requires no effort other than taking ur clothes off and thrusting ur body at a camera.

I was merely pointing out that the ‘liberation’ that the previous generations of woman before us fought for, I believe, was for woman to be valued for their contribution to society. The choice to work, the choice to get married, the choice to have children and the list goes on.  I don’t think our Grandmothers and Great Grandmothers were fighting for us to parade around half naked gyrating on anything and everything.

In my opinion, they are not liberated but belittling themselves by the fact that even after ALL the fighting woman went through to get to this point, there are some females out there who have no desire to educate themselves, no desire to better themselves, no desire to strive for the greatest they have the potential to achieve - if that’s not belittling themselves, please feel free to let me know what is!!!

If we lived in an Islamic country whereby the previous generations of Australian woman were walking around covered from head to toe, an exchangable commodity of her father, a posession of her husband and a human with a heartbeat yet no voice - I would 100 per cent agree with you comments - But Australian woman are nowhere near that league - so I must only agree with a small percent!

Demeaned not only through my eyes DG, I think you’ll find there are quite a few people commenting on this page how demeaning it is not only to themselves but to females as whole.

I say this as a young female who will one day have children, that as a mother, I will want to protect and censor my children from the things that I believe will influence them in one way or another. That is my choice - so why is it that my choice has to be cast aside and disregarded for the sake of others choices (ie the females who wish to take their clothes off) which we are over accomodating for and that’s taking main preference in mainstream Australia????

Joolz says:

09:01am | 26/10/10

A friend of mine watches V or MTV all the time and I asked her when she had her baby what she’d put on. She said she’d leave it on the same station.

She’ll have to learn the hard way I suppose.

CRook says:

11:33am | 26/10/10

How can you call it freedom when we’re not free to choose not to see it?

Matt says:

06:52am | 27/10/10

You are free to choose. That’s the point. If you don’t like what you see on MTV (for example) change the channel or put on the radio. My point is that sex is a huge part of what makes humans human. Without it we’d be extinct! Therefore whats the point in trying to suppress it as something dirty that should not be seen or spoken about? If its embraced and conducted in the media/community RESPONSIBLY, then society will lose its problems associated with it…

Paul Horn says:

09:24am | 27/10/10

Matt total bullshit! I was driving behind a bus the other day with a huge picture of an attractive (of course) woman in extremenly short shorts crouched over with her hand against her genitals! She may as well have had nothing on! Idiots that say this is not porn are complete imbeciles. The intent is totally clear leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination.

So where the hell is my right to be free of porn? What do I do Matt drive off the road into someones garden?

A quick trip to the supermarket and I am assaulted by images of naked women and headlines on magazines describing every sexual activity under the sun! So where are my rights to be free of this filth? I don’t want my kids exposed to this madness. I would prefer that they hang on to some semblance of innocence for as long as possible but alas they will know every type of sexual position before they reach the age of ten.

You know the funny thing Matt, sex has been commodified and sexual liberation pushed down our throats from the highest points yet people in Western society are getting less sex than ever. In fact our bithrate is declining mirroring the situation in Western Europe!   

As a young man all this mass sexualisation spewed at me was a fantasy lifestyle I could never indulge in! All it did is lead to frustration and confusion!

Having travelled extensively in Asian countries one of the most striking aspects I found was the refreshing innocence and trust of the local women. They were far more flirtatious and trustful than the aggressive Western woman who pornographies herself and then reacts in anger and disdain towards any male who dares even glance her way.

It’s a sad world! 

Men who find masturbatiing over some pornographic image more meaningful than a real relationship is very sad indeed. In fact they are the victims in reality as they are nothing less than half men that have limited control over their sexuality.

Nicole says:

11:11am | 26/10/10

What? Do you really think these women are dragged at gunpoint to get their gear off? They do it because they want to. Poor women? Phuleezzzz

J.A says:

12:49pm | 26/10/10

Nicole:
A) the primary issue is that porn these days glorifies violence and degradation, have you seen it? The women aren’t enjoying themselves, they aren’t meant to be it, is about living out gratuitously violent pleasure for men. It acts as a mechanism to condone such behavior in society.

B) Not at gun point. A few of them make very good money and become stars. Studies (I will try and find them and post the links), though there aren’t many at this point, have shown that increasingly ‘porn stars’ are women from difficult backgrounds who see it as the only way to get out of their impoverished situation. They are used and turned over in quick succession and are increasingly left with diseases, for instance fecal diseases in their mouths (you will have to figure that one out your self). 

C) Some women are held at gun point, traded and made slaves. See http://www.avaaz.org.

Sam Chowder says:

01:23pm | 26/10/10

@Angela - I think your comment is some sort of watershed, it is the first time I have heard/read someone say:  “Porn ain’t what it used to be”.
May I be the first to congratulate you.

Eric says:

02:53pm | 26/10/10

Angela, women and men enjoy all kinds of things.If you don’t understand some of the things you see, that’s your problem.

Don’t like it? Don’t watch it!

Ronald says:

10:11am | 26/10/10

Maybe the girls like watching it, and that’s why they play it. Ever think of that?

Perskaya says:

05:52am | 27/10/10

I agree. Porn and pron influenced media is everywhere, and as I’ve told my boyfriend, the problem is two things: women’s willingness to sell themselves as though they’re nothing more than a body to be used, and men’s willingness to be sold a lie.

And it’s 100% the fault of both willing parties, because if either party stopped, the cycle would all fall apart.

Snake says:

10:48am | 26/10/10

2 and a Half Men is one of the highest rating television shows in the US. In fact it has held that title for a few years running. There is a reason for that, sex sells.

Sexual exploitation exists as long as the female does not willing go along with it. Once she is “into it” then it is no longer exploitation and it becomes a money spinner. In fact, the smart women, exploit males’ weakness for sex and make huge dollars out of it.

I have a stripper friend that clears more than a thousand dollars on a good night, in cash. Admittedly, that life isn’t for everyone but don’t for a second brand the lot as “exploitation” when the women are very willing to make a buck from it.

Just go out for a drive around the city on a Friday/Saturday night. Without a doubt every second corner will be littered with women emulating what they see on these video clips. I guess someone is at their house “exploiting” them to dress like that? No, they dress like that because they want attention. It’s up to parents to ensure that their children don’t end up like that. it is not society’s job to raise your daughter for you. Stop complaining and start parenting.

BK says:

11:04am | 26/10/10

Heaven forbid! Someone has made one program for men. What about all of those TV shows where the women keep their men in line?

DG says:

10:16am | 26/10/10

If you are going to go down that path you have to also acknowledge that the reason god was pissed at Onan had nothing to do with masturbation and everything to do with the fact that god said “Get her knocked up” and, in an act of deviance, he ‘spilled his seed’ so as not to impregnate his brothers wife. Somehow this became a crusade against masturbation.

If we are going to start questioning the origins, consistency and interpretation of Christian beliefs we are going to need a bigger internet

Theta says:

10:16am | 26/10/10

Zeta, the definition of porn like that of unpointed Hebrew words is all about context. For the MTV music videos, you can hardly argue that simulated sex in various states of undress is benign - it’s a form of porn. As someone who obviously knows something about Hebrew, you’d recognise that ‘porn’ comes from the Greek ‘porneia’, which describes acts of sexual immorality. So, yes, on a broad definition, the MTV music videos are porn of sorts, albeit on the much softer side. Nudity on the other hand, might not immediately qualify as porn, but still may be immodest.

Your Hebrew stuff… Yes, yes, you’re the only one who hasn’t made a mistake - you’ve repointed the Hebrew words with the correct vowels. Everyone else in the history of Christianity and Judaism who take the traditional reading have it wrong because they were either the product of puritanism or were really proto-puritans (as anachronistic as that sounds). Of course, you’re right. Utter hogwash.

Evan T says:

10:57am | 26/10/10

Very true. There’s massive challenges facing Christians (and in this context especially Christian guys) who are earnest in living out their faith in society today but to suggest that this isn’t one of them is ludicrous.

In Matthew 5:27-28 we read Jesus’ teaching on lust “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NIV translation).

As a married Christian guy I have made vows to my wife and my God to be faithful to them. I take them seriously. My thought life is my responsibility and I cannot pass the buck of responsibilty onto others (like the people who make the video clips). Having said that we all have moments of weakness and it certainly doesn’t help being bombarded all the time with sexualised media.

Should I turn off my tv if I don’t like what I see? Yep. But that’s treating a symptom. The problem lies in the view that sexualisation of media isn’t wrong. It is. Just because something is culturally acceptable doesn’t make it ok. Good on you Steve for getting the conversation going about this again.

Some of the other comments are a bit naive. Of couse porn is damaging. The industry has been glamorised and I dare say that many people (especially women) get sucked in and spat out damaged people. It must break God’s heart to see and fully know the pain that’s real in many lives.

Zeta says:

11:45am | 26/10/10

@ DG - Anyone who calls themselves a Christian has an obligation to the faith to question the origins, consistency and interpretation of the Bible - because that’s what Jesus did. He pointed at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and pointed out where they’d misinterpreted God’s message. It should be the role of modern Christians to do the same, because the Bible was corrupted again by the selective inclusion of gospels, the declaration of apocrypha, and outright fabrication to suit political circumstances. If everyone did it, we’d already have a bigger internet.

@ Theta - Actually my Greek is even better than my Hebrew - The word you’re looking for is Pornea or Porne, and it’s doesn’t mean that at all - it literally means prostitute. Pornographs were advertisements left on streets and walls in Ancient Greece and Rome to guide potential clients to brothels, the earliest examples we have are in Pompeii, where ‘clean brothel this way’ is carved into an avenue. Although the first ever law outlawing pornography was passed in 1857, the term they used was obscenity, the word pornography didn’t come into common useage until after 1860 when the English started excavating Pompeii and found hundreds of examples of Roman erotic art, which they promptly concealed to perpetuate the myth that Roman civilisation mirrored those English values of modesty and propriety. In return, we got the word pornography, and generation of prudes who mangle the definition.

You’re problem is you’re taking ‘traditional’ to mean somehow ‘right’. Just because a millenia of people based their belief system on a flawed document doesn’t make it right.

@ Evan T - There are a mere handful of references to libidinousness in the entire Bible that modern Christians hang their hat upon to justify their righteous indignation while conveniently ignoring the core themes of the entire document, namely the struggle of faith against tyranny and the protection of innocence from evil. Not the ‘evil of pornography’, but actual evil. Not the tyranny of having to cover your eyes every time you switch channels on your TV, but actual tyrants.

Reading the Bible and saying it’s about stopping porn and racy music videos is like watching Apocalypse Now and saying it’s about surfing. It’s in there, but for about 2 minutes out of 3 hours.

You know what really break’s God’s heart if he has one? That of all the instructions he gave us through his son on how to live good lives and break free of despots, we’re still talking about nude ladies. It’s like if Siskel and Ebert walked up to Francis Ford Coppola and said ‘great movie, loved the surfing’.

St. Michael says:

12:32pm | 26/10/10

Quoting Matthew’s an interesting exercise given that most Biblical scholars seem to regard his contribution as presenting the most confrontational, in-your-face version of Jesus of the four Gospels.  It’s not an image that Mark, Luke, or John tie up with entirely.  Not only from Matthew do you get ‘you’ve committed adultery in your heart’, you also get ‘I have not come to bring peace, but bring a sword’.  That’t the Jesus that Matthew writes.  And the same Jesus of the Gospels is at some pains to ridicule lawyers who winnow out the truth from the Scriptures via microscopically close readings of them.  The more things change, the more they stay the same…

And on a related subject from the Old Testament, King David dances with nothing but a loincloth before the Ark of the Covenant as it’s carried into (or in) its resting place in Jerusalem.  Not only does God not fail to strike him dead with a thunderbolt from on high for this impressive foreshadowing of MTV, David proceeds to berate his wife who criticises him for capering unlike a king.  The text clearly indicates the writer’s approval of David’s actions.

Having said all that, Christians do tend to worry a bit too much about whose convexities are being inserted into whose concavities.  The sexual repression gig is a major source of unnecessary and damaging guilt for a lot of young Christian men, and causes a hell of a lot more damage than it solves.

Theta says:

01:40pm | 26/10/10

Zeta, thanks for proving my point about your Greek (and also your Hebrew). Go back and look at my post. And, no, ‘porneia’ does not mean ‘prostitute’ (‘porn?’ with the ‘eta’ means ‘prostitute’; ‘porneia’ does not), it means any act of sexual immorality. Check your Greek lexicon.

Thankyou for the etymology of ‘pornograph’ (I mean that), but it has little bearing on the current use of the word. As you would well know, context gives the nuance of a word’s meaning, not simply the etymology or semantic range given in lexicons.

And, your point about Genesis is still pure speculation. Are there any examples in the targums or Qumran or any Second Temple Jewish document that back your interpretation? As you’d know, the Masoretes pointed the text on the basis of centuries of Jewish interpretation and traditional renderings of the rabbis. So ‘tradition’ has a lot going for it and requires very good reasons for abandoning it.

The stuff about excluding other gospels in response to DG - you’ve obviously lifted that straight from the ‘Da Vinci Code’. It’s as preposterous as Dan Brown’s novel, but at least he admits his work is fiction. Do some real historical work on the formation of the NT canon, and then get back to me.

And in response to Evan T - it doesn’t matter how frequently a topic occurs (and you misrepresent its frequency, by the way - but that’s no surprise). What matters is the importance of the topic in its context. So when it does occur, the Biblical writers give it a significance that far outweighs its frequency of occurrence.

All this is a round-a-bout way of saying, Steve has a very good point. There is something decidedly base about the current overly-sexualised culture in the west.

Nicole says:

02:28pm | 26/10/10

I’m backing Zeta to win this one!

Zeta says:

03:03pm | 26/10/10

@ Theta -  You’re referring to the Biblical Greek Lexicon, not Koine Greek, which was spoken by Greeks at the time it was written, the words being borrowed for that purpose by people who actually spoke Hebrew / Arahmaic. The Greeks didn’t equate prostitution with sexual perversion, a prostitute was simply a prostitute - porneta is ‘a prostitute’ and pornea is the ‘act of prostitution’ or more specificaly the carnal act which to the Greeks, was not perverse, but to the 19th Century Englishmen who popularised the word it was. You’re confusing the 19th Century definition of pornography with the 14th century origin of the word fornication, which was Roman, ‘fornix’ as in an archway or entrance - used by Romans to describe the characteristic entries to brothels. Again, the Roman definition is free of moral judgement of the act - prostitutes were a class above slaves, actors and Christians after all.

Once more you see prudish medieval Church leaders dictating the terms of human culture through semantics - it’s wrong. On the one hand they crippled human sexuality for countless generations through equating sex with shame while at the same time turning the Vatican into a brothel, after which they stole the words for their new brand of perversion - it would be ironic were it not so evil.

Their legacy is a 1000 years of Christian dogma that spends more time talking about sex than it does talking about ending poverty or finding justice for the oppressed - how’s that worked out? People still have sex, they still look at porn, and they still masterbate. The Church in comparison has turned into a barely solvent bank with a sideline in child abuse. I think fornication has won that one.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, but selectively choosing gospels did happen, with plenty of evidence for it occuring during the 1st Century - some of the evidence is even in the Bible, like the Epistles of John which specifically deals with him rejecting the work of Sethians and Gnostics.

I work off the assumption that the early Church leaders didn’t intend anything sinister in their rejection, but rather sought to include only those gospels they felt were legitimately written by first hand sources - yet even today we can’t figure out which canonical gospels are forgeries and which are not, how could 3rd Century theologians possibly have been expected to do the same?

And unquestionably, some of those gospels were rejected because they were gnostic in nature. The apocryphal Acts for example, were likely from a 2nd hand source, namely Leucian who traveled with the Apostle John - yet because of their gnostic content were cut even though they represent an account of the lives of the Apostles nearer to the first hand source than the Synoptic gospels do. We know that now because of carbon dating the Nag Hammadi library even if the authorship remains in doubt.

You look at the values those gospels teached in contrast to the selective passages emphasised in medieval Christian literature and imagine how different the world would be - and if we’d still be arguing over porn. 

Steve Kryger does not make a good point. He makes the same point the Church has been making since the middle ages. He just coaches it in the sneering popularism of aspirational evangelicalism that calls on men to challenge ‘sexualisation’ when they should really be challenging the Church itself.

Evan T says:

03:22pm | 26/10/10

@ Zeta - I’m sorry I don’t follow your logic. I’m quoting a passage of scripture which speaks almost directly to the topic being discussed and in response you say that I’m misinterpreting the main theme of the Bible. I’m not talking about the main theme of the Bible but what it has to say on this topic. But since we’re on the subject…

It’s true that Jesus’ teaching wasn’t primarily about sexual sin and it shouldn’t be thought of as any worse than other sin. Jesus primarily taught about how to live correctly in relation to God and each other. Sexual issues are but one facet of how we live our lives. The thing is that Jesus was much more than a great teacher. He came to redeem fallen people back to God which is much more the overarching theme of the Bible. It doesn’t matter if it’s sex, lust, greed, lying or whatever - Jesus came to save sinners of which all of us are in the same boat.

Salvation is but the beginning. God wants the best for His children and that includes how we live once saved. The New Testament letters are a fantastic source for how to live out our Christian lives and reading them you can’t help but see that sexual sin has been and always will be (in this lifetime) a problem. It comes up time and again so I don’t see how you can say we’re being silly for talking about ‘nude girls’.

All I’m trying to say to you is don’t dismiss the struggles that other people have as silly. They are real for that person and lust is a big one for men.

BTW - I’ve just read through John and I have no idea what naked fishing trip you’re referring to.

@ St. Michael - You’re right in that Jesus isn’t as tame as perhaps the stereotype out there portrays Him. He got fired up big time over many issues.

As for

“And the same Jesus of the Gospels is at some pains to ridicule lawyers who winnow out the truth from the Scriptures via microscopically close readings of them.  The more things change, the more they stay the same…”

Well written and it brought a smile to my face but the irony is quite impressive. Jesus ridiculed them for following the letter of the law while ignoring the heart of the law. The passage that I quoted is Jesus Himself explaining what’s at the heart of the law ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

As for the Church getting involved in other people’s business - Christians should be primarily concerned with how other Christians are living. Consider the Great Commission - “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20) Jesus expects His followers to live a certain way once they are Christian, so the focus is not so much on denouncing poor ways of living but on calling people to repentance and faith. The thing is that if you never tell people what sin is then how will they know they need to repent?

Do you not warn your friends who smoke that they’re killing themselves? Would you not cry out to people walking on the train tracks with a train bearing down on them? If your child was addicted to ice and was destroying themselves wouldn’t you act?

As a Christian, speaking out against sin that’s pervading your society isn’t easy. It would be easy to stand by and watch people do as they please but I’d rather stand and win one person back from the brink than to be well liked by everyone.

Evan T says:

04:54pm | 26/10/10

@ Zeta - You’re right but you wield the characaturing brush too broadly. Child abuse is the great shame of the Church. Even one child getting abused is unacceptable, especially by the leadership. Like other tragedies in the past this must not be forgotten lest it happen again. It hurts to have this keep coming up but it’s nothing in comparison to the damage done in the victim’s lives.

“The Church in comparison has turned into a barely solvent bank with a sideline in child abuse.”

I think you are mistaken. Just as the Reformation led to significant changes in the Church, another Reformation is taking place. The Church is putting massive amounts of energy into child protection training, checking people’s pasts, when people come forward with complaints they are taken seriously, and more.

“Their legacy is a 1000 years of Christian dogma that spends more time talking about sex than it does talking about ending poverty or finding justice for the oppressed - how’s that worked out?”

Are you deliberately turning a blind eye to the many, many humanitarian organisations started by Christians, or are you unaware? The amount of aid that goes out from the Church and Christians in general is much more than you seem to think.

Jesus Himself said that people would come amongst us as wolves in sheeps clothing (Matthew 7:15). We must stay on the front foot and never become complacent again.

St. Michael says:

05:46pm | 26/10/10

@ Evan T, Zeta (who probably already knows this bit)

“I work off the assumption that the early Church leaders didn’t intend anything sinister in their rejection, but rather sought to include only those gospels they felt were legitimately written by first hand sources - yet even today we can’t figure out which canonical gospels are forgeries and which are not, how could 3rd Century theologians possibly have been expected to do the same?”

On that, a bibliographical (no pun intended) note: current Biblical scholarship theorises Matthew, Mark and Luke as being written from or at least inspired by an unknown source document nominally called the ‘Q Document” (which has nothing to do with John de Lancie on Star Trek).

The reason being that the narrative is close in each and the topics chosen by the Gospel writers similar, such that it seems all three authors drew from a common source for their writings, though no particular source has been identified which could have been the Q Document.  No current Biblical scholar accepts that any of the Gospels were actually written by the hand of an actual apostle who bore that name—like the Gospel of Thomas (for example) they are said to have been written by an early Christian but then attributed to the apostle that bears their name.

John, by comparison, is in a markedly different style.  Most scholars don’t think it’s based on the Q Document.  Compared to Matthew, Mark and Luke he’s out there, so much so that during the period of the early Church the book of John was initially considered as heretical.

Not that I’m a closet gnostic or anything like that; the Gospel of Thomas is cute for its rather more prosaic view of Jesus, but it’s also pretty banal and doesn’t have the same inspirational kick as the four evangelists; Constantine missed his calling in life, he should’ve been a copy editor   Thomas gets most of its fifteen minutes of fame for alleging Jesus liked to kiss Mary Magdalen.

Theta says:

07:15pm | 26/10/10

@Nicole, you’ve backed someone who doesn’t really know what s/he is on about.

@Zeta, plain wrong. Biblical lexicon is Koine Greek since Biblical Greek IS Koine Greek (that’s what a great many of the C1st Christians spoke and wrote). Get your facts right. You’re starting to look increasingly silly.

Evan T says:

08:40am | 27/10/10

@ St. Michael - I have no idea why you are going on about this to me. It has nothing to do with my comment. But since you bring it up…

Mate, you need to do a refresher of the Intro to New Testament subject that you seem to have already done. Having completed it myself this term I can confidently say that you are wrong about:

“No current Biblical scholar accepts that any of the Gospels were actually written by the hand of an actual apostle who bore that name…”

Firstly if you look at the first few verses in Luke it shows he never claims to be an apostle or disciple but a reporter of eyewitness accounts.

Matthew probably used Mark and Q as sources but then fleshed out what they wrote in his own distinctive way (mainly with the strong link with the OT). Does this mean that he didn’t write his Gospel? No, he wouldn’t have included things that he didn’t believe to be true.

There’s a strong case to be made that Mark has close links with the apostle Peter.

The most scholarly questioning is about the historicity of the Gospel of John. However, recent discoveries at Qumran show that John could be dated very early and fits very well into the theology of first century Israel.

It’s true that we can never (in this lifetime) fully work out how exactly it all happened. Is that a deal breaker for me? No. The evidence still points to the Gospels as being the most reliable sources of information about who Jesus was and what He did.

Gamma says:

10:30pm | 28/10/10

Oh Zeta, you really need to go and actually read a Bible and put things into context, instead of trying to pass off this pseudo-knowledge as intellectual enlightenment. What absolute guff! Context is everything. And a text out of context is just a con.

Jarryd says:

05:09pm | 26/10/10

You just read my mind. It’s making me feel sick at how many people are saying this article is rubbish.

I’m 17, and have never told anyone what I look at. I’m too scared to tell someone. I know it’s a problem.. and it makes me sick inside knowing what I’m doing.. and I can’t stop! I’ve told myself ‘I can handle it, I can quit at any time I want’. I can’t do it. My relationships are falling flat on their face. I have many female friends.. friends that I admire so much because their personalities are just so amazing! Those females, they’re someone daughter.. they’re someone! Porn has ruined how I think about them!

St. Michael says:

12:36pm | 26/10/10

I hereby award you 5 Internets for the citation of Metallica and Satriani.  Megadeth and Slayer are not my personal cup of tea, but you otherwise have excellent taste.

CRook says:

11:42am | 26/10/10

If women have the ‘power’ of face, boobs and butt, then men have the ‘power’ of wallet. Either it’s degrading to both or neither. In real life, if you think that the opposite sex only values your body or your money, it’s probably because you’re only interested in one thing yourself and it isn’t personality.

Jade says:

03:21pm | 28/10/10

Why would you allow your children to watch MTV without viewing it first or listen to the current popular music? Or do you routinely allow your children access to content without vetting it?

I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and my mother did not let me listen to popular music because of the lyrical content. Let alone the clips. She also until I was 16, watched every single movie I wanted to see before I was allowed to watch it, and watched at least 5 episodes of every tv show before I was allowed to view it.

What this did for me, was allowed me to be raised to be a confident young woman whose exposure to the content of music videos and songs came at a time when I was fully cognizant of the meaning of the lyrics and able to make informed choices about the music I listened to. I love dance, trance and house now, including the extremely provocative clips. Because I am an adult, the age group the music is aimed at, I can appreciate the clips and the titilation that comes with them as all part of the fun. I doubt whether my 12 year old self could.

Parents need to take responsibility and stop trying to force the world to be PG rated so they don’t actually have to step up and take responsibility for their children’s viewing and listening habits.

TheRealDave says:

10:56am | 26/10/10

Yes, because we as a society are overrun with a plethora of pregnant 10 year old girls.

Is that you Hetty?

As the father of a 10 year old girl I find the amount of handwringing on my childs behalf nauseating. You don’t need to police what my child can see or does - I, as a decent parent, already do that. So go back to peeking out your curtains and spying on the neighbours.

Steph says:

11:08am | 26/10/10

Aw, Dave, that’s cute. Curtains and all. But you see, while you believe you’re a good parent - and I’m sure you are - other parents don’t have the same diligence as you. Which is, yes, why we’re seeing a rise in young teen pregnancies. If you really, really don’t believe me, take a stroll down the street. You’ll find the most impact on what I’m trying to say round places like shops. And bus stops. And other places where you may just - if you’re not walking blindfolded (please don’t walking into walls hurts), you will see what I’m talking about. So, really, what you’re saying is you agree with me? Maybe?

Eric says:

01:11pm | 26/10/10

Gee Steph, I didn’t know watching sexy video clips could cause pregnancy.

Ya lean more every day.

TheRealDave says:

02:38pm | 26/10/10

Steph, teens have been rooting and getting knocked up for eons. Despite the blue rinse set tut tutting about the ‘loose morals of today’ they were out there groping and banging each other at every opportunity - why the hell do you think they were all getting married within days of hooking up? Can you imagine any sane person getting married a week after meeting someone? The Baby Boomers were out rooting around during the ‘Summer of Love’ in the 60’s into the 70’s and we have never looked back since. This was all pre-mainstream porn, pre-overt sexuality, pre-sexual advertising, pre-nudity in movies and on TV etc

At least nowadays we don’t have the public shame that those young girls went through back then - and thats a great thing….well…except from a few throwback wowsers who like to poke their noses into other peoples bidness.

Steph says:

03:26pm | 26/10/10

Eric: Inorite? Sexy clips and the sexualisation of everyday things (like jeans. Next thing it’ll be toothbrushes. Or even socks. Though beats me how they’re going to show anyone getting sexual gratification out of a sock.) leading to a more openly sexual society coupled with teen pressure to “do what everyone else is doing” CAN lead to pregnancy! Zomg, wowzers, you really DO learn something every day!

Dave, in all fairness, I concede you have a point. (See, people can be reasonable, and we’d like to think we’re not all flapping our gums for no reason). However, the situation you’re talking about really did start in the 50’s - when people opened up to the “LET’S HAVE SEX!!!” idea. And yes, it was dissaproved of in society, and yes, some of it had to do with religion - but that was the society back then. Personally, I don’t think it was all that bad. As a mother who fell pregnant at 19, I’d like to think someone would have bashed me over the head at the notion of falling pregnant so young because hey, when people say “Have a baby and you throw your life away” they really weren’t joking. And I think that perhaps the pre-50’s society knew that and didn’t want the kind of things happening that.. well… happen today. For instance, teen gets pregnant, has a huge responsibility on her hands for the rest of her life, and has to do it on her own. Because let’s face it - you’re not out seeking a life partner when you’re doing the horizontal monster mash. Not as a teenager, at the very least.

St. Michael says:

12:34pm | 26/10/10

I do have to take serious issue with your post, STEJ.  Madonna has not been around for 92 years.  Carbon-dating of her face quite conclusively indicates her first plastic surgery session can be placed in the Neolithic period.

80s kid says:

01:26pm | 26/10/10

Yes, but in the 80s we weren’t shown Girls on Film in neighbourhood restaurants, train stations and gyms.  TV rules ensured it was broadcast late at night when kids were less likely to watch.

Kate says:

06:23pm | 27/10/10

That’s from the Broken video, not the official video for Gave Up. The official video - the one that was released to MTV etc - is a fairly boring clip of the band (plus a cameo by Marilyn Manson) playing the song in a recording studio.
The Broken video was banned from all television screening and is very hard to find. It certainly wouldn’t randomly fall into the hands of some little kid. When I have kids, I’ll be hiding my copy.

I don’t actually agree with the author about the evils of music videos, but music videos showing any sort of violence - whether it’s stuff like NIN or Cannibal Corpse, or even something as tame as a kid holding up a gun like in Pearl Jam’s ‘Jeremy’ - are never broadcast in prime time. The author’s issue is with kids being exposed to content that parents have little control over, not kids seeking out obscure 90s industrial music videos.

Katie says:

01:39pm | 26/10/10

Well said Catherine!

Steph says:

03:38pm | 26/10/10

Agreed!

I think most people walk around with blindfolds on anyway, looking at some of the comments on the board.

Dave says:

12:16pm | 26/10/10

I love looking at hot bodies too. But I agree with OP. Not because I have a problem with sex or sexuality or sexual imagery (on the contrary I rather enjoy all those things); but because of the complete lack of creativity that’s displayed in the music videos he’s writing about. That, and the fact that soft core porn is meant for adults, not kids. PS, I hardly consider myself a wowser, if this makes a difference.

Jack says:

12:42pm | 26/10/10

“Stop trying to force your value system on everyone else.”??? An inevitable consequence of acquiescing to this moral corrosion is to have a value system forced upon us. A bit hypocritical don’t you think?

No doubt you interact with many ‘religious people’ to have such an informed view. Or is your opinion nothing more than thinly veiled contempt which is shaped by something you once read or heard.

We find common ground on one point: abusing a child is a crime against humanity. There are many problems in society. I think there are very few people who wouldn’t find this one utterly repugnant. Not only that, every church I’ve been to are doing their very best to ensure that children are not exposed to people with such a predilection. So I ask, why then can’t Steve write an article about something other than abuse in the church?

Kal says:

03:06pm | 26/10/10

And therein lies the problem. You’re so hooked on seeing skin, everything else becomes boring. Sad.

iansand says:

03:41pm | 26/10/10

My theory about porn, and I am a bloke with adequate eyesight, is that watching other people do stuff is as boring as batshit. As far as I am concerned sex is a participator sport.

Snake says:

03:35pm | 26/10/10

Josie, I think you would nut out just how big his package is well before you entered a long term relationship? Likewise, he would know just what sort of kinks you are open to in the sack well before you are ready to be wed?

The only time I can imagine lovers being surprised at each others bedroom performances is if they have not at all been physical before marriage. Yet another reason why religion breeds relationships doomed for failure.

As far as the fantasy goes, many couples don’t know what is possible. For them porn is a great educator. Sure some things they end up liking, some they end up hating but if they adventure together and reach a mutual agreement as to what becomes regular, then surely the experience can only strengthen the bonds no?

I think it’s a long jump from fantasy to relationship breaker. Unless of course one half insists the other stop watching!S

Kal says:

03:17pm | 26/10/10

Jack said: ‘Get off the headlines cause we dont want to hear your petty pathethic complaints.’

Why’s that Jack? Because everyone should think the same as you? Maybe Steve doesn’t want to hear your ‘petty pathethic complaints’ about his article?

Look up the word ‘hypocrisy’ mate.

Ashley says:

03:21pm | 26/10/10

Oh really, mate? “you r such a disgrace of a human being”. Calm your stuff, this is an OPINION website. If you actually had any real argument, you wouldn’t be resorting to inferior comments like “u should become a nun” and using that witless verbage of yours to insult appearance rather than any of the content.

Now, onto the actual article. It does seem like a Baby Boomer’s complaint - one fuelled by traditionalist “good old days” notions. Each generation gets “sexier” than the last, remember when Elvis Presley couldn’t even shake his hips on Television because it was too provocative? We all know how dramatically the times have changed since then, and if you didn’t already know that sex sells you’ve been gravely mislead. Young people aren’t interested in seeing music videos of band members in full-clad matching outfits, swaying gently to their beat and tapping their toes - they want to see the generational equivalent to sexy, controversial Elvis shaking his hips!

not Sue says:

10:03am | 27/10/10

@Ashley .Firstly, if you think all Baby Boomers had as an example of sex and music was “gently swaying in time” or Elvis’ hip swivel, I suggest you do some more research into the history of rock music,  LOL!

Also, just because each successive generation likes to push boundaries, does that mean we do not reach a point were all boundaries have been eroded? The excessive sexualisation of vids lately is a marketing ploy and it’s working beautifully, unfortunately. My main objection is the attitude portrayed, as the author points out, that our worth as people is mereley as sexual toys/possessions for one another. It’s sad.

Steph says:

03:35pm | 26/10/10

Yah, I agree. Some people must really like the sound of their own opinions. It makes them feel… smart. Especially if they’re denouncing another opinion. Also sad is that those people - or type of people - are the ones who encourage our society to be going the way it is. Well, hey, they can’t come and complain when their children are palming off their (as in, the childrens) babies to the grandparents (ie the ones so in favour of all this sex everywhere) because they fell pregnant and couldn’t be stuffed with the rest.

Least there’s someone else out there who thinks maybe what the columnist is writing about makes sense. Hifives for that!

Eric says:

05:50pm | 26/10/10

I hope you’re enjoying the sound of your opinion denouncing others’ opinions, Steph!

Sometimes it’s just too easy ...

Perskaya says:

06:46am | 27/10/10

Uh…you do realize that commenting on an article about porn—i.e., having an opinion—isn’t the same as viewing porn…right?

And why is it always about Christians? Why didn’t you also include Muslims, Mormons, JWs, or anyone else, you theophobiac?

Sarah M says:

07:16am | 27/10/10

Agreed Perskaya,

I am an atheist and I agree with this article.
I also don’t care if people have lap dances, because it generally isn’t done in my gym, or on the side walk or at the grocery store. So why should everything else ‘go’ in these places.

DingoJunior says:

09:54am | 28/10/10

Yeah, and organization that opposes groups who “objectify women and sexualise girls” in order to sell products and services is so nut-job (that was sarcasm, in case you missed it).

Matt says:

06:29am | 27/10/10

Really?
Busy this weekend?

Paul Horn says:

09:48am | 27/10/10

Whao! You really are angry over a few “innocent” glances aren’t you. You say you dress conservatively but you get all these leering glances! I can’t understand that. So you don’t accentuate your “assetts” in any way? Short skirts, tight tops etc etc?
If this is such a problem then you should look at wearing tasteful but much looser garments. I can assure it makes all the difference!

I too as a young man had many women making lewd comments about my arms or legs. One female teacher used to just about smother my face with her breasts. A dowdy 50 year old woman doing that to a 17 year old male was not particulary inspiring back then. Be a different story now however.

One issue that gets me Perskaya is women that wear extremely revealing clothing at work and then whinge and complain about being sexually objectified! In fact women who purposely sexualise the work space intimidate men and should be held accountable no differently to men who sexually harass their female counterparts. 

Why is the system structured only in terms of the fenmale experience?

So lighten the f:#% up for Gods sake before you disapear into your own hate filled worm hole.

Jade says:

03:26pm | 28/10/10

Your opinion is twisted, disgusting and completely insulting and degrading to men. To suggest that because a man appreciates your appearance, one day he will be tempted to rape betrays your hidden hatred of men and a disturbingly poor understanding of the reasons for rape and sexual assault. Hint - its not about sex or lust or any of those things. The men who are confident enough to appreciate a woman’s appearance are probably less likely to rape than those who shy away from it.

I pity your boyfriend.

Sarah says:

01:21pm | 27/10/10

good on you Equity, well said. sex addiction and sexual abuse are 2 devastating consequences of people being desensitized - pity the porn loving morons haven’t figured that out yet…like you say it will get worse before it gets better unfort…

Concerned Father says:

10:44am | 28/10/10

Thanks Equity!
I’m over all this soft-porn being shoved in our faces through advertising and music videos (e.g. billboards, tv, gyms, bars, etc), whether we like it or not. I certainly don’t want to watch that stuff, but I often have little choice when it is so ‘everywhere’.

As a father of a beautiful young daughter, I am pretty nervous about the sort of hyper-sexualised culture she’s growing up in.

Oh, and I have had friends that were sexually addicted to internet porn, and the results were not exactly benign.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:26pm | 28/10/10

Hey Anna,

Have you ever thought about investing in a TV with an “off” switch ?

Eric says:

05:18am | 29/10/10

I don’t think that second sentence means what you think it means.