Porn to be wild?

DSTV has mentioned, in passing, that it might consider a pay-per-view porn channel, available as a subscription service in its bouquet. Great idea. There's a market for this material and they'd be offering a popular service to people who enjoy porn, need some help with their sex-lives or just can't get a date.

Not surprisingly, the religious community and Department of Women, Children and the Disabled (I kid you not, there is just such a patronising cabinet department), Victor Matfield and a few Afrikaans singers have raised their voices in condemnation. They want, of course, to decide what you should and should not be allowed to watch in the privacy of your own home. They are the thought police. Let us be clear: Porn is not illegal, owning porn is not illegal and viewing porn is not illegal.

On what basis then do they claim we should oppose this offering? THE CHILDREN. This is always the last bastion of defence for any argument that has been reduced to selective and/or subjective morality. THE CHILDREN must be protected. As I see it, THE CHILDREN can't subscribe to this service anyway, so it's a moot point. The blessed children probably have free internet access courtesy of these same parents and I'm sure their cell-phones are already chock-full of all kinds of filth, but the horror is reserved for a closed-market TV selection.

Your CHILDREN are not DSTV's problem - nor are they the problem of a government department or rugby player (I mean, what if it was Joost making the call?). Your and your children's attitude to sex and sexuality is your private business. I won't tell you how to raise them if you stop interfering with my viewing habits. For peace of mind, turn on the Crime and Investigation channel and let them watch a grisly serial murderer's up-close-and-personal life story. At least that's not blocked...

G