example of editorialism masquerading as journalism, which I hate, primarly because there are a *lot* of people out there too fuckin' stupid to notice.
I draw your attention to such phrases as "Porn-site owners have eased the term "adult material" into the lexicon, making even hard-core sexual content seem like harmless entertainment for grown-ups, media reports here said."
Um, yeah, by and large, according to several pretty clean studies on the topic, it is "harmless entertainment", for grownups.
And then we have "According to [some drooling arch-feminist at some Boston college I never heard of], the effect of porn, first honed by ever-more-provocative sex magazines, beginning with the soft porn of Playboy magazine in 1953, is that even young boys are accepting the degradation of women as the norm. In other words, boys are seeing themselves as entitled to use females any way they want."
They are? And this begs the question of whether Playboy degrades women, no? Sure there's porn that degrades women, but Playboy ain't it...
The only real hope at the moment, Dines says, is that as more and more people are agitated by the waves of porn on their Internet screens, porn will again be viewed as harmful, rather than as a victimless crime.
Oh sure, cause Ashcroft has run out of *other* civil rights to deprive us of... If it's a 3 Billion dollar a year business, there are *obviuosly* people who aren't agitated by it.
Well, at least, not in a *bad* way. ;-)