It's also interesting to note that Hamilton's position of what is/ought to be acceptable here stems from a perspective heavily influenced by British and, more recently, American culture. (Not to mention the white heterosexual male dominant viewpoint of it.) A lot of mainland European culture, what little contact I have had with it, seems generally much more open about sexuality (and conversely much more conservative regarding violence).

John Wilkins' description of Hamilton as a 'Catholic apologist' seems ever more fitting. What little respect I may have had for his works (outside of his zomg-we-need-to-filter-teh-intertubes-to-protect-teh-childrunz schtick) disappeared the moment I read his replies to your enquiry. (Kudos to you on that, by the way. It's amazing that a Professor of Public Ethics responded like a petulant child.)

"It is now possible to buy capsules filled with 24-carat gold leaf which, when swallowed,
make your excrement sparkle. Created by New York designer Tobias Wong, the gold
pills are promoted as a signifier of excess and a means of “increasing your self-worth” —
although presumably for only as long as the digestion process takes. At $425 each, they
are the ultimate confirmation of the ancient association, often noted by anthropologists,
between gold and excrement."

Talk about taking the most extreme example! That would be just as dishonest as claiming that all arguments for internet censorship are invalid merely because, say, one of its proponents wrote a ridiculous opinion piece mentioning the dangers of horse porn.

"This is the freedom of the market. Rosa Luxemburg, the German revolutionary, once
wrote: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”.
She was right; thinking for ourselves is the ultimate form of liberty. Yet who truly thinks
differently today when our universities have become locked in to the demands of the
market, corporations infiltrate the academy and governments drain funds from the critical
disciplines?"

Hamilton quotes Luxemburg without noting that, as a Marxist, Luxemburg would have rejected any critique of modern society that avoids, as Hamilton does in all his work, the question of oppression by being forced to to work for a wage and having surplus value extracted by a capitalist.

"Post-modern sexual radicals who urge teenage girls to seize power by being sexually
provocative are the new oppressors, because they insist that teenagers behave according
to their own 1960s script. The same people defend the liberating possibilities of
pornography, which is inherently liberating for women because it breaks through the 12
regulation of women’s bodies to show, in the words of one, “the disordered side of the
female body – its orifices and fluids – which are both threatening and exciting”. So
efforts to regulate porn are always “the puritanical repression of healthy sexuality”."

Here Hamilton deliberately confuses one particular type of discourse to which he objects with the entire movement of people who think that porn *can* be liberating (NOT "is inherently liberating").

While discussing this on Twitter yesterday, one user made the point that "many peoplke don't consider before sex", and that "Inner Freedom" and "will you regret it" are valid points. In themselves I agree they are, but my objection is that Hamilton appears to be arguing that if people do consider these things, then casual sex will disappear or at least be minimised. Hamilton rejects the idea that people in full control of their decisions might just decide to have sex – he appears to be arguing that this is automatically damaging, and that therefore people couldn't possibly make those decisions unless they were succumbing to pressure.

Hamilton's final words:

"Today the historic mission is no longer to attack and tear down, but to rebuild a moral
code. In affluent, liberal societies, the task is to understand that freedom cannot be found
in a moral free-for-all, but only in the careful exercise of restraint."

Here Hamilton claims that the only choices are a "moral free-for-all" and "the careful exercise of restraint".

I reject that. The task is to help people to resist all pressure from without and make their own decisions, so they are not guilt-tripped by potential sexual partners OR by busybodying fussbudget ethicists. If we ever get to that stage, we can be almost certain that some people will freely choose to make sexual decisions that Hamilton disapproves of.

Hamilton bases his argument on some highly questionable assertions:

"In practice, we know that youthfulness, drunkenness and emotional distress among women
are sometimes exploited by men to sexual advantage."

True in itself, but it ignores the fact that some men also prey on men and some women also prey on women.

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the pervasiveness of sex is advertisers’ practice of
presenting children in sexually provocative clothing and poses to sell products, a
marketing method sometimes referred to as “corporate paedophilia”. "

Once again true in itself to a degree, but it is deeply dishonest to use the phrase "sometimes referred to" when the phrase corporate paedophilia" is the title of a paper published by *Hamilton's own think-tank*, The Australia Institute. (pdf file)

"[S]ometimes referred to" implies that there is a groundswell of people using that phrase, rather than an attempt to cross-promote one's own think tank.This is like a cricket commentator on Channel Nine saying "some people really like TV shows where farmers attempt to find spouses".

Hamilton rejects the idea that pople might legitimately value sex in and of itself:

"Yet there is something missing because we know that feelings of regret often follow casual sexual
encounters (not to mention paid ones)."

Do we? How do we know that? Define "often", please!

"If, after the event, the young woman’s inner judge rules against her, the disturbance she
feels will be for something she has lost, something she has sacrificed"

"For both men and women, if emotional intimacy is absent metaphysical intimacy
feels hollow, for its special character seems to require care and respect. Perhaps this is why many people are left with a vague feeling that each time they have casual sex they give away a little of themselves, that something sacred is profaned and they are diminished as a result. Casual sex truly is meaningless sex."

How on earth does Hamilton claim to know that? Define "many". These weasel words wouldn't make it past a wikipedia discussion, let alone a serious academic peer-review process, which leads me to seriously question whether the Australian Institute puts academic standards well below the need to make propaganda.

Of course, the Australia Institute has every right to make propaganda in favour of it's viewpoint, but once again we face the issue of Hamilton making propaganda while also claiming expertise as an academic in a publically funded university. Hamilton should be taken to task by Charles Sturt University for including his position there in a footnote on the front page, unless they wish this work's academic standards to be taken of representative of the University.

"Contrary to the arguments of some “pro-sex” feminists, when young women
mimic the boorish behaviour of young men it is still men who set the standard. Raunch
culture debases the dream of liberation."

*Which* pro-sex feminists? Why the scare quotes? Are there differences within pro-sex feminism about self-empowering sexual behaviour?

Hamilton bases his argument on some highly questionable assertions:

"In practice, we know that youthfulness, drunkenness and emotional distress among women
are sometimes exploited by men to sexual advantage."

True in itself, but it ignores the fact that some men also prey on men and some women also prey on women.

"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the pervasiveness of sex is advertisers’ practice of
presenting children in sexually provocative clothing and poses to sell products, a
marketing method sometimes referred to as “corporate paedophilia”. "

Once again true in itself to a degree, but it is deeply dishonest to use the phrase "sometimes referred to" when the phrase . (pdf file)

How on earth does Hamilton claim to know that? Define "many". These weasel words wouldn't make it past a wikipedia discussion, let alone a serious academic peer-review process, which leads me to seriously question whether the Australian Institute puts academic standards well below the need to make propaganda.

Of course, the Australia Institute has every right to make propaganda in favour of it's viewpoint, but once again we face the issue of Hamilton making propaganda while also claiming expertise as an academic in a publically funded university. Hamilton should be taken to task by Charles Sturt University for including his position there in a footnote on the front page, unless they wish this work's academic standards to be taken of representative of the University.

"Contrary to the arguments of some “pro-sex” feminists, when young women
mimic the boorish behaviour of young men it is still men who set the standard. Raunch
culture debases the dream of liberation."

*Which* pro-sex feminists? Why the scare quotes? Are there differences within pro-sex feminism about self-empowering sexual behaviour?

As for taboos, you only need to read authors like Ian McEwan to see how exploration of sexual deviance is an effective way to challenge the reader. The Cement Garden springs to mind as one of his works that goes into the realm of sexual taboos in an extreme way, and although it is a critically acclaimed book, I think the majority of people would be shocked and maybe even disgusted by the subversion of traditional sexual relationships. My point is that we're nowhere near the level of sexual openness that Hamilton seems to be talking about.