images like this are not designed to incite hatred, contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule. They are designed to incite lust, or perhaps simple appreciation of physical beauty.

The intended role of many of those images is to sell product: if you think this woman is sexy, perhaps you should go out and buy the product to which she is juxtaposed in the image. Anything else which may happen as a result of the image is beyond that intended role, but no less real or worthy of attention on the part of those with an input into government policy.

There are certain moralistic/religious traditions which inspire people to redefine the feelings you described out of self-preservation. Lust is a sin, therefore if you are experiencing lust then you are sinful. Someone else has done something that make you sinful: there you were, innocently going about your business, when you were made to feel sinful. It must be that other party’s fault, as any admission of sin is an exercise in self-abnegation. Having thus projected, what sort of woman would allow herself to be photographed in that way, she must be a (despicable person, not at all like the virtuous women you know)! All women who parade themselves similarly must also be worthy of contempt.

This line of logic may seem tendentious, but it is no less real for that. The consequences of it are felt daily by numerous people and therefore it becomes a valid matter of public policy. Valid, yes, but not easy.

One reason why legislation on matters sexual is difficult is the notion that what looks like the same act can be one of love or of violence, depending entirely on the context of the situation and the individual characteristics of of those involved. There’s nothing more legally tricky than context.

The other factor that makes it difficult is the notion of the particular against the general. One image, two images, many images will not motivate someone to commit a sexual crime. However, there may be a critical mass that sends certain people over the edge; try going after a member of a critical mass in a court of law and see how far you get.

However, as I’ve said elsewhere: relax, nothing will come of it. Goward comes out with this sort of thing on slow news days and then goes back to writing dull-but-worthy reports on childcare access or women in senior management.

We can look forward to early closing hours for pubs, forced foster care of aboriginal children and the death penalty, quickly followed by a non-partisan revival of the white australia policy (ably assisted by Beazley). Forget about being concerned about reds under the bed, for Ming the Merciless has been revived.

Happily, this allows us to predict the future. The labor party will split along religious lines (thankyou Mr Rudd), the faltering adventure in Iraq will split the Liberal party, and we’ll get a demagogue Labor party prime minister that will set fire to the whole place so we can start again. That’ll be Keating with a triple bypass.