Why does Kevin Rudd continue to give sanctuary to the X rated, hard core pornographers in Canberra?  It is illegal to sell, hire or display X rated videos/DVDs in any state in Australia.  They are only available from the territories, mainly Canberra in the ACT.

Medicine, Mind and Adolescence in 2000 found pornography plays a determining role in causing sexual deviancy, trouble in intimate personal relationships, sexual assault and rape.  Unlike someone's personal opinion, the scientific results are "clear and consistent" according to the peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The International Journal of Pediatrics (2006), Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (2007), ANNALS of the New York Academy of Sciences(2006), JOURNAL WATCH (2006) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (2006) along with any number of current empirical scientific journals all agree with Dr Claudio Violato from Universita Ambrosiana in Italy, that pornography "has an influence on violence and family functioning."  Even the senior lecturer in psychology at Macquarie University, Prof R Power, says that if visual imagery had no impact on human attitude and behaviour we would not have advertising campaigns.  We all know that's true.

Dr Don Thompson, the director of Forensic Psychology at Monash University in an address to the Victorian Criminal Justice Symposium reported that "pornography is causally related to sexually violent behaviour" and Crown Prosecutor Richard Read, QC, says "there definitely is a very clear link" between pornography and sex crimes. 

The latest OECD figures show that Australia leads the developed world in rape and violent assault.  The Home Office in London, the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the European Union, the Australian Institute of Criminology and even ABC TV have all reported that "Australia leads the developed world in rape".  It is now proven that pornography contributes to this societal dysfunction and indeed even "causes" it.

Concerned Australians would do well to heed the scientific data instead of ill-informed, self styled 'experts' and demand that the Rudd government place the same simple restrictions on X rated porn in Canberra and the Northern Territory as already exists in all of our states.  

Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls
Maurice Chittenden and Matthew Holehouse
 
BOYS exposed to porn are more likely to indulge in casual sex and less likely to form successful relationships when they grow older, according to research carried out in a dozen countries.

The report, Harms of Pornography Exposure Among Children and Young People, also found that young boys who see pornography are more inclined to believe there is nothing wrong with pinning down or sexually harassing a girl.

Michael Flood, who carried out the study at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, said: “There is compelling evidence from around the world that pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities.

“We know it is shaping sexual knowledge. Some people may think that is good. But porn is a very poor sex educator because it shows sex in unrealistic ways and fails to address intimacy, love, connection or romance. Often it is quite callous and hostile in its depictions of women.

“It doesn’t mean that every young person is going out to rape somebody but it does increase the likelihood that will happen.”

Research in the UK suggests that 60% of boys under 16 have been exposed to pornography, accidentally or deliberately. The average age at which they first saw porn has dropped from 15 to 11 in less than a decade. The average amount of time they watch porn on the internet is 90 minutes a week.

John Carr, an adviser to the government and secretary of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety (CHIS), said: “We had a case in west London where a boy in the first year of primary school was bringing pictures to school and was acting them out in the playground during the break. When they did a home visit the dad was downloading it and it was all over the house.

“It is not an argument for banning it but it is an argument to find better ways to make it harder for kids to get hold of it.”

Such is the international spread of porn through the internet that youngsters in Asian and African countries see blonde white women on screen and then regard tourists with the same attributes as sex objects, Flood says.

However, Thaddeus Birchard, a psychotherapist who runs a sex addiction practice in London, said: “We are entering a period of moral panic and this is part of it. Children are not receiving sex education at home. Sexually explicit material on the net can even help educate them.

“The internet is a way of being sexually addicted but it does not cause the addiction. What causes it is the relationship between the child and their parents. Almost always they are maternally deprived.”

Petra Boynton, a psychologist, said: “Children are not necessarily looking at porn for gratification. They are doing so because they are bored and not supervised. Often when children look at more extreme porn it is done for bravado so they can laugh and say how disgusting it is.”

The Archives of General Psychiatry, in Oct of 1999, followed over 1000 gays, lesbians and bisexuals and found that "they were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems" than the general population.

The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology documents some negative health implications associated with homosexuality.  They found that 75% of nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling many for treatment of long-term depression.   

In the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them it is said that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population".

The U S Centres for Disease Control says "HPV, a collection of more than 70 types of viruses, is almost universal among homosexual men."  At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the American National Institutes for Health, Dr Andrew Gurlich announced that "HPV infects over 90% of HIV-positive gay men and 65% of HIV-negative gay men."

The Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined violence and conflict in lesbian relationships and found that 1/3 had reported incidents of physical abuse by their partner.  The Journal of Social Science Research found that "slightly more than 1/2 of the lesbians reported they had been abused by a female lover/partner".  The Journal of Infectious Diseases even found that "most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men."

Nursing Research  magazine was more exact.  Lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours.  Of the lesbians studied "91% had had abused other drugs such as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food, codependency, sex, and money.  46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."

A study in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals.  They concluded, "... life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men quotes homosexual author Urvashi Vaid who says, "We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural and normal."

Seriously, do gay couples represent a good environment for raising and nurturing children?

My Letter-to-the-Editor published in The Mercury (Hobart) in which I said "Not using condoms does not cause AIDS", created quite a stir. The federal member of parliament wrote to the paper and said "every responsible medical authority" says condoms stop the transmission of the virus. He is wrong (in this case he could be dead wrong!). I hope the paper publishes the following letter from me filled with heaps of data refuting his erroneous assertion.

Sir - Duncan Kerr, Tasmania's Federal Member for Denison, says in the Mercury (31 Mar) that a condom can stop the transmission of the AIDS virus and insists "every responsible medical authority" agrees. (I have mountains of research data with which to refute this statement. A very few follow:)

Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard Centre for Population and Development Studies comments on the massive AIDS rate in Africa and says, "We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV infection rates...".

Green goes on and says, "There is a consistent association shown by our best studies... between greater availability and use of condoms and higher - not lower - HIV-infection rates." (National Review Online, 19 March 2009, Weekend Australian 28-29 March 2009)

An exhaustive review of the impact of condom promotion on actual HIV transmission in the developing world concluded that "condoms have not been responsible for turning around any of the severe African epidemics." This rigorous study was commissioned by the Joint UN Program on HIV-AIDS and conducted by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco, the HIV-AIDS capital of the US. (Studies in Family Planning, March 2004)

University of Miami researcher Dr Margaret Fischl, at the Third International Conference on AIDS discovered "3 out of 18 infected males have infected their mates while using condoms." (a 17% failure rate) The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) confirmed these findings when they reported that "17% of partners using condoms as protection for 18 months became infected with the virus." The Journal of the American Medical Association also says, "Condom use is not significantly associated with protection from infection."

Why is condom use so dangerous?

Social Science Medicine (Vol 36, No. 12, 1993) says "condoms are possibly only 87% effective for preventing pregnancy and 69% effective for reducing the risk of HIV infection." Sexually Transmitted Diseases, July/August 1990, reports "32% of normal intact condoms leaked enough HIV sized particles to cause concern." Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Volume 62, found that "Laboratory tests revealed naturally occurring voids (holes) in latex that are 50 - 500 times larger than HIV." Journal of Testing and Evaluation, September 1990, published the fact that the HIV virus is so small that it passes easily through the condom wall because "there are pores (holes) present that are nearly 100 times the diameter of the virus." University of Texas researcher Dr Susan Weller writing in Social Science Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 12, 1993 points out how porous condoms are and warns that "true permeability rates could be as high as 30 - 97%."

U S Department of Health Task Force says "There is no clinical data supporting the value of condoms in preventing the spread of a range of diseases including; Syphilis, Herpes, Hepatitis B and HIV." St Vincents Bioethics Centre in Melbourne says it is "misleading" to promote safe sex with condoms and even the Australian government, in its pamphlet AIDS a time to care - a time to act says "There is no evidence to show that tests (for condom standards) are suitable for determining the reliability of condoms as a HIV barrier."

Since HIV-AIDS is a viral disease, should Tasmanians listen to the presumably well-meaning - but unfortunately misinformed - or should we listen to medical experts like Dr Bruce Voeller of the Mariposa Foundation who is quoted in the British Medical Journal (even as early as 1984) as saying that the condom cannot be trusted to prevent the transmission of viral diseases contracted by sexual intercourse.

Cordially,

Jack Sonnemann

"Australian pro-family group foresees challenges with new PM" is the headline of the online article, an interview by Allie Martin from OneNewsNow 4/11/2008
Click here to read the interview and subsequent feedback